• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Students at Calif college ban Pledge of Allegiance

Little-Acorn

Banned
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
216
Reaction score
5
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And so it begins.

Actually it sounds like they had this one in the works before the Dem takeover of Congress. But we can expect the whackos to come out of the woodwork in all directions more and more now. When the cat's away, the mice will play.

Best news here is, many students are telling the whackos to go ***** themselves, and are sticking with the pledge anyway. I had wondered if any real Americans were left on campuses. Seems that there are.

Interesting quote about halfway down, from the guy who started the ban. Hey Jason, the words "under God" were inserted to help defeat the second part of your ideology (which reviles God), not the first (which doesn't really care). But that's the part most important to you, obviously. Hence your silly reaction. Here's a little hint: Most people have outgrown such childish tantrums, by about age six. When do you expect to catch up?

Things like this actually give me hope. Dems lost their majorities in 1994 when they got more and more extreme, trying to pass universal socialized medicine, exploding government, attacking big businesses, etc. Looks like they haven't learned from that debacle, and are wasting no time getting on track to do it again. Hopefully the Republicans will learn from their own drubbing, better than the Dems apparently did.

BTW, these nuts complain that the Pledge vows "loyalty to the government". It doesn't, of course - it vows loyalty "to the Republic", which means to the country. In the country set up by the Founders, and even as recently as our fathers' time, the govt was only a small, relatively unimportant part of the country. But to these socialists, government is the be-all and end-all of their existence. The country exists only to serve government, in their eyes, and they've been doing their best to make that a reality for the last generation or two.

No wonder they're so messed up.

-------------------------------

http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...0_RTRUKOC_0_US-LIFE-PLEDGE.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

Students at Calif. College ban Pledge of Allegiance

by Dan Whitcomb
Thu Nov 9, 2006 8:42pm ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Student leaders at a California college have touched off a furor by banning the Pledge of Allegiance at their meetings, saying they see no reason to publicly swear loyalty to God and the U.S. government.

The move by Orange Coast College student trustees, the latest clash over patriotism and religion in American schools, has infuriated some of their classmates -- prompting one young woman to loudly recite the pledge in front of the board on Wednesday night in defiance of the rule.

"America is the one thing I'm passionate about and I can't let them take that away from me," 18-year-old political science major Christine Zoldos told Reuters.

"The fact that they have enough power to ban one of the most valued traditions in America is just horrible," Zoldos said, adding she would attend every board meeting to salute the flag.

The move was lead by three recently elected student trustees, who ran for office wearing revolutionary-style berets and said they do not believe in publicly swearing an oath to the American flag and government at their school. One student trustee voted against the measure, which does not apply to other student groups or campus meetings.

The ban follows a 2002 ruling by a federal appeals court in San Francisco that said forcing school children to recite the pledge was unconstitutional because of the phrase "under God." The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the ruling on procedural grounds but left the door open for another challenge.

"That ('under God') part is sort of offensive to me," student trustee Jason Bell, who proposed the ban, told Reuters. "I am an atheist and a socialist, and if you know your history, you know that 'under God' was inserted during the McCarthy era and was directly designed to destroy my ideology."

Bell said the ban largely came about because the trustees didn't want to publicly vow loyalty to the American government before their meetings. "Loyalty ought to be something the government earns through performance, not through reciting a pledge," he said.


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)
 
Loyalty oaths are pretty stupid. So is creating limits on free speech too.
 
I agree with shuamort. Forcing someone to say something and banning someone from saying something both violate one's first amendment rights.
 
I would love to see "under God" taken out of the Pledge. Sorry, but I don't believe in God and my love for this country is not remotely based on that. Why can't I pledge my allegiance without bringing religion into it?
 
aps said:
Why can't I pledge my allegiance without bringing religion into it?
You can and I'm sure you do. What's the problem?
 
aps said:
I would love to see "under God" taken out of the Pledge. Sorry, but I don't believe in God and my love for this country is not remotely based on that. Why can't I pledge my allegiance without bringing religion into it?

The words "under God" are not original to the pledge. They were added during McCarthy's post WWII 'Red Scare' era.

I'm not surpirsed that the 'fundies' have ignored that fact though.
 
Saboteur said:
The words "under God" are not original to the pledge. They were added during McCarthy's post WWII 'Red Scare' era.

I'm not surpirsed that the 'fundies' have ignored that fact though.

Oh, I am fully aware that they were added. Had they been there the entire time the pledge was in existence, I would want them kept there. Really. But the fact that they were NOT there originally is what makes me want them taken out. Sorry, but my allegiance to this country does not remotely rest on God (who doesn't exist).
 
aps said:
Oh, I am fully aware that they were added. Had they been there the entire time the pledge was in existence, I would want them kept there. Really. But the fact that they were NOT there originally is what makes me want them taken out. Sorry, but my allegiance to this country does not remotely rest on God (who doesn't exist).
I have an idea. When reciting the pledge, just don't say "under God."

Problem solved.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
I have an idea. When reciting the pledge, just don't say "under God."

Problem solved.
You mean allow people to choose to say or not say whatever they want?? We can do that in this country??? What a concept!!! Based on the kidiots in the OP, I'd say that we weren't allowed to say anthing that might possibly offend someone. Wow, Freedom of Speech. We need something like that in this country instead of having people in authority telling us what we can and can't say.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
I have an idea. When reciting the pledge, just don't say "under God."

Problem solved.

I know that sounds like an easy solution, but tell me why we should keep words in there that were not written with the pledge? Again, if they were part of the original pledge, I would want them kept there. The pledge was written in 1892. 62 years later, the words "under God" were added. "Under God" has been in the pledge for less years than it was without those words (52 years). Take them out.

Once they're out, you can add the words "under God."

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
 
aps said:
I know that sounds like an easy solution, but tell me why we should keep words in there that were not written with the pledge? Again, if they were part of the original pledge, I would want them kept there. The pledge was written in 1892. 62 years later, the words "under God" were added. "Under God" has been in the pledge for less years than it was without those words (52 years). Take them out.

Once they're out, you can add the words "under God."

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
So if the words are stricken, do you think I'm going to stop saying them? It's moot.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
So if the words are stricken, do you think I'm going to stop saying them? It's moot.

Do you care to address my question about saying words that were not part of the pledge in the first place?
 
aps said:
Do you care to address my question about saying words that were not part of the pledge in the first place?
I understand they were added later. I was raised saying under God. Do you think I'll just cease if the words are ever stricken?
 
CurrentAffairs said:
I understand they were added later. I was raised saying under God. Do you think I'll just cease if the words are ever stricken?

Not at all. I have no problem if you include them.
 
So you people that are against "Under God" in the pledge going to quit spending american currency becasue it has "Under God" on it too........
 
Navy Pride said:
So you people that are against "Under God" in the pledge going to quit spending american currency becasue it has "Under God" on it too........
I use Master Card.

-----------------------------------------------------

Any objections to this are frankly stupid. So they don't want to say the pledge at their meeting, so what? They aren't taking anyone rights. First of all, they aren't the government. This is like saying if they took away the 'right' of audience participation in all discussion they are violating their peoples rights. Hey, maybe I should be able to go to Congress and just start shouting the pledge from the visitors area! Then I would be removed and could shout 'free speech' all the way to the street. But none of you would be up in arms. You are up in arms because you see this as some sort of stupid 'liberal' or 'secular' thing.
 
Aps, I can understand the "Under God" thing, but to completely ban the pledge? C'mon, you can't possibly support that. Banning the pledge violates freedom of speach, the exact same right you are trying to protect. no one said you absolutely HAD to say the pledge, and if you did say the pledge, you didn't have to say the words "Under God". The solution is more simple than you think. And banning the pledge is too radical for my comfort.

Dang! half my post got deleted. oh well, hope this uch makes sense.
 
It shouldn't be required to say the pledge in schools or any public meetings, etc., but they should have it for people who want to say it. The under God part is completely unnecessary, not because it was added later, but because church and state are supposed to be separate. Defenders of this phrase have told me before that it can mean any god, but why is it capitalized (which means it's specific) and what about people who don't believe in a god? I know, you can simply not say "under God", but why should Christians get to have their own section in the pledge when this country was supposedly founded on equality for everyone?

Just to make it clear, I have no problem with the pledge, besides "under God", and I say it myself.
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
So you people that are against "Under God" in the pledge going to quit spending american currency becasue it has "Under God" on it too........

For the record, not only do I say the pledge anytime it's appropriate, but I always use the 'Under God' when I say it. I just don't believe anyone should be forced to do either. Or forced not to.
 
saggyjones said:
It shouldn't be required to say the pledge in schools or any public meetings, etc., but they should have it for people who want to say it. The under God part is completely unnecessary, not because it was added later, but because church and state are supposed to be separate. Defenders of this phrase have told me before that it can mean any god, but why is it capitalized (which means it's specific) and what about people who don't believe in a god? I know, you can simply not say "under God", but why should Christians get to have their own section in the pledge when this country was supposedly founded on equality for everyone?

Just to make it clear, I have no problem with the pledge, besides "under God", and I say it myself.

I'm not Christian, and I'm OK with 'Under God'. Just as the pledge need not be required, theistic terminology need not be required for secular folk who want to say the pledge.

This is all a freedom of speech issue, and I believe it is unconstitutional to either ban or force the pledge.
 
aps said:
Not at all. I have no problem if you include them.
Why not just let them say it and you don't? Then they're the only ones pledging under God, not you. Taking it out altogether isn't a compromise because then there wouldn't be any time for them to say it between words. And the fact it wasn't origionally in there doesn't imply a necessity to change it back. Not like changing things back to the way the Constitution intended anyway. Tradition is what we have today, there's no reason to revert backwards unless it's a practical reason.

The people behind this ban are idiots. If they don't want to pledge allegience to "the government" then they can stand there and ****ing be quiet for 45 seconds.
 
Mr.Clover said:
Aps, I can understand the "Under God" thing, but to completely ban the pledge? C'mon, you can't possibly support that. Banning the pledge violates freedom of speach, the exact same right you are trying to protect. no one said you absolutely HAD to say the pledge, and if you did say the pledge, you didn't have to say the words "Under God". The solution is more simple than you think. And banning the pledge is too radical for my comfort.

Dang! half my post got deleted. oh well, hope this uch makes sense.

Mr. Clover, I must have overlooked that part of the post. I certainly don't support the banning of the pledge entirely. I agree--that's ridiculous.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Why not just let them say it and you don't? Then they're the only ones pledging under God, not you. Taking it out altogether isn't a compromise because then there wouldn't be any time for them to say it between words. And the fact it wasn't origionally in there doesn't imply a necessity to change it back. Not like changing things back to the way the Constitution intended anyway. Tradition is what we have today, there's no reason to revert backwards unless it's a practical reason.

The people behind this ban are idiots. If they don't want to pledge allegience to "the government" then they can stand there and ****ing be quiet for 45 seconds.

I could understand if "under God" was added to the pledge soon after the pledge was created. But it was added after 62 years. Right now, it's been in the pledge for 52 years. So--10 years less than without. Sorry, but I don't consider something that been in there less time than it was without to be "tradition." Maybe for you (and me) who grew up saying it with "under God." Still, it should be taken out.
 
18 year old political science students yelling about democracy and freedom of speech.

lol.

Get a job.

The faculty of a public school banning the pledge would be news. 3 pot smoking jobless tax exempt teenage hippies refusing to say "under god" is not.

Hold on I'm going to declare my 1 bedroom apartment its own sovereign state and see if I can get a local newspaper to write about it.
 
Back
Top Bottom