Page 18 of 27 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 262

Thread: Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

  1. #171
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,647

    Re: Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

    I'm curious. I don't remember when the Supreme Court struck down the law requiring students to say the pledge at school. For some reason, I think it occurred when I was in high school (late '70's). But I'm not sure. Who remembers?
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  2. #172
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

    Quote Originally Posted by aps View Post
    rivrrat, I just wanted to say that it was a prior thread about this subject matter where you expressed a very similar opinion that you express above that made me think about the whole pledge and it's purpose. As a result of your thoughts, I concluded I would not say it again...ever. I see this as progress for me. Your words had a serious impact on me.
    See, you CAN change people's opinions teh internets!

    I'm glad to hear it.

  3. #173
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,647

    Re: Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

    Nevermind. I found it. It was West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette in 1943...long before I was born.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  4. #174
    User
    Chappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    04-07-15 @ 01:50 AM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,443
    Blog Entries
    26

    Re: Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

    Funny, I don't remember being given an option to say the pledge or not.
    “Real environmentalists live in cities, and they visit what's left of the wilderness as gently and respectfully as possible.” — Donna Moulton, letter to the editor, Tucson Weekly, published on August 23, 2001

  5. #175
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Strangely I have a much bigger issue with indivisible then I have with "under god" based on an argument made by Tucker in another thread. The Nation isn't indivisible, by its very nature under the consitution it is most defintively potentially divisible...
    So do I.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  6. #176
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    And that's absolutely wrong and unconstitutional, and is something that currently schools and teachers get in extreme hot water for doing as evidenced most recently by the teacher punished for doing just that. Wrong doing in the past does not mean that it is standard practice in the present nor that it was the correct practice in the past.
    My niece says she's never been given the choice to say it or not. They are told, by people in authority, to stand and recite the pledge. There is no implication of any choice in the matter.

    The fault was not in the pledge being unconsitituional but with your school being such. Take out your frustration on them rather than this transferance.
    Indeed, which still goes on today. My only issue with the pledge at all is its usage in our public schools. Otherwise, I don't care any more about it than I do any other silly stream of words people choose to say at any given time.

    Completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion about whether "Under god" is constitutionally allowed to be part of the pledge.
    If children are being forced to say it, whether that's an implied requirement or a direct one, then it most certainly is relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Why change our money and our pledge because of a few people have their panties in a bunch?
    No bunch of money required. They obviously felt the need to change it previously because some fools had their panties in a bunch. We should just fix what they broke.

    Most real Christians do not consider the Muslim God and the Christian God to be the same.
    Then they are wrong.

    Why not just leave it as it is and you can can say under Gods,Goddesses or leave it out?
    Why not just remove it and you can add under god, gods, goddesses, whatever?


    Where you around that day? And even if you were do you have any actual memory of having to suddenly say one Nation under God in the pledge of allegiance?
    Whether or not I was there is irrelevant to the discussion or the point I was making.



    Change is not always good,sometimes it is. It merely depends on what that change is.
    Indeed, when they changed it to "under god", it wasn't for the good.

  7. #177
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,967

    Re: Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Vishnu is the Supreme god of a polytheisitic religion. Just like the Judeo-Christian god is a Supreme god in a polytheistic religion (Angels are technically sub-deities, and the trinity in Christianity is clearly polytheistic. Not to mention saints etc.)
    You're taking a large stretch to claim that Judeo-Christian beliefs are a polythesistic religion. A LARGE stretch, one held by a minority of theologins from my understanding or academics not to mention the actual practioners. You're manipulating information for your own well being to make an argument because your argument doesn't work with the generally held version of the religion.

    The only portion of Judeo-Christian beliefs I've ever heard of theologists argue as potentially being polythesistic is Catholics, and even that is a higly contested notion due to the fact that the Trinity is viewed as three seperate being and yet all the same being at the same time.

    Additionally, Vishnu is still a god of a very specific, definite religion. "God", generic "god", is 100% impossible to say "It belongs to [x] religion and [x] religion alone".

    The said, my additional ssue which is the same I'll have with Allah below is this. Even if you're using Vishnu or Allah as a generic term for "god", the fact that it is not common vernacular or the word for "deity" in our language is enough for me to say its not worth it.

    For example, I wouldn't want to change it to "Debajo god" any more than I'd want to change it to "Under Allah" because its purposefully changing something from the common vernacular used by the majority of people in the country for that particular word (under / diety) to something that is still technically the same but is far less common.

    My stance is that if the people who want to keep it are OK with it being changed (not removed, just changed), then it might as well stay as there is no real difference between them and it's not actually worth the effort to change it.
    The problem is that if you don't believe it should be bothered to removed because its more trouble than its worth why would you agree to thinking it needs to be CHANGED when it'd also be more trouble than its worth?

    If I was able to just snap my fingers and boom, it'd instantly be removed I honestly don't know what I'd choose. I'd likely be fifty fifty on it and I've not thought of that hypothetical. if I could snap my fingers and instantly change it to "under godS" plural so it could fit more under it, or "under my diety" or "Under Allah" if "allah" was common vernacular for diety or well, for god in this country. However god is the common vernacular for god for the vast majority of people in this country.

    IF we're going to have that as part of the pledge, and I don't particular have an issue with that, I would think it to be rather idiotic to have it in such a way that it is the common vernacular for the smallest amount of people than the largest.

    If however I was christian and I call my god GOD and the majority of people in this country use the vernacular of "allah" to say "god" or ie "diety" then I'd have absolutely no issue with it being "one nation under Allah", just as I would feel that if the majority of the countries common vernacular was spanish that we'd say "debajo god".

    But if they aren't OK with it being changed, then clearly it is worth the effort to change it or have it removed for the simple fact that they pretend it's not a big deal and non-Judeo Christians should "suck it up, it does not harm" when they themselves disagree with that statement (as the alterations I've described would not, in any way shape or form, harm anyone either)
    Which makes no sense. If you're not okay with it being removed because it doesn't matter much either way and that is just going to take time, resources, and effort then why in the world would you be okay with it being changed when it would ALSO take time, resources, and effort.

    That's like saying that given the choice between going out to eat and staying home and eating I say I could take do either but I'd not have to go anywhere to stay at home and eat so I'll stay at home. Then you tell me "well will you come to my house to eat instead then" and I go "no, that still doesn't change the fact I don't have to go anywhere to eat" and you telling me that that just proves I didn't want to go out to eat because i'm a cheap skate.

    When the reasons I'm saying I would lean more towards keeping it then removing it at this point are equally applicable to CHANGING, why does me being against changing it mean I'm really for keeping it because I'm a bible thumper?

    Look at the statement there, Zyph. If it is far more likely to be controversial, even though it harms no one, to make the alterations I've described, then there is a legitimate case for removal.
    Yes, its ridiculous that it'd be more controversial. Its ridiculous that it's controversial now. Its ridiculous that it'd be controversial if we remove it. If you get my point, its ALWAYS going to be controversial no matter WHAT we do with it. To me, the controversy would be far greater if its changed then it would be if its removed, which would be more controversial then if it stays.

    The greater the controversy the more time, resources, and effort is put into attempting to alter it.

    The whole reason I don't really care to support having it changed is because I don't think its in any way problematic enough to warrant time, resources, and effort to do so.

    If that's my issue, why in the world am I going to support changing it in such a way that will likely generate MORE wasted time, resources, and effort?

    That's idiotic.

    If the controversy of the proposed change would be greater than the current controversy, the it should be removed altogether. This is because:
    Except you ignore the fact that option three, remove it all together, ALSO comes with controversy and in my opinion would be less than changing it but more than keeping it.

    If there is no valid reason for the controversy now, then there is no valid reason for the controversy if changed.
    The controversy being VALID and the controversy happening are two very, very, very different things.

  8. #178
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,967

    Re: Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    My niece says she's never been given the choice to say it or not. They are told, by people in authority, to stand and recite the pledge. There is no implication of any choice in the matter.
    Then I'd suggest to your niece's parents if it bothers them they should contact the school OR to first simply tell their niece not to say it if she doesn't want and then contact the school if she's told she has to.

    Not implicating specifically that there is a choice != FORCED to say it.

    As CC already pointed out:

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Nevermind. I found it. It was West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette in 1943...long before I was born.
    It is unconstitutional to FORCE a child to say the pledge.

    Again, "under god" shouldn't be removed because schools are doing something unconstitutional. If its a case of the schools doing something wrong then the schools need to be cahnged.

  9. #179
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO 81506
    Last Seen
    05-30-11 @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,236

    joke Re: Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

    [QUOTE=Navy Pride;1058613836]One for the good guys!!!!!!! >>

    "The Pledge is constitutional," Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling. "The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded." >>

    Under God should be changed to ... Under the subjective fantasy most people cling to...

    ricksfolly

  10. #180
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,685

    Re: Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

    For the record, I am for benevolent indoctrination. It is a healthy way to develop a national identity in the public schools.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

Page 18 of 27 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •