"UNDER GOD....

[nonny]

I heard the other day in government class that is has almost reached the surpremem court that "under god" is unconstuitional in the pledge. I was shocked. We disscussed this matter in class and I said it was good becuase like most of us know the orginally pledge didn't have "under god" they added it in 1950, and most poeple didn't care one way or another saying that is was stupid to take it out "With about 94% of our country religous it is agaisnt majority rule and way to PC to take it out" said my teacher, I agree with PCness sucking. But I say that if we do have seperation of church and state that shouldn't be there!!!!!

After that my teacher brought up money and how it says "trust in god" and if that should be taken out to, personally i think yes and no. It would cost to much money to change it all and futile. The pledge requires no fincaincing to change.

IN on state they changed it to "under my belief system" a while ago and i brought that up and every one thought it was tacky and took away all meaning.....wait a second I htought the pledge had no menaing in the first place??? So you don't care if it stays the same but if it changes then it sadden and infurates you?? I just don't get people sometimes. I think it should be restored to the orginally and be done with it.

What do you think? (and i think more than 6% of america is atheist....and know like 30-40 poeple just at my school that aren't religous..at all. Of course 90 or so % of my school is morman...god save me ^.^ kidding)

[Griffey]

Meh. On one hand, it's good to see that the religious freaks don't have total control over everything (yet). On the other hand...it just seems trivial. People have way better things to worry about than saying "under God" when they say the pledge. If people don't like it, it isn't terribly difficult to leave out "under God" or stay silent during the pledge.

I really think we ought to focus on where church and state are REALLY getting too involved with each other, rather than pick on the pledge...which is a ridiculous convention that should be ignored anyway...

[solidsquid]

"Under God" was a calculated insertion to dehumanize the Soviets during the Cold War, lots of proponents of that insertion forget that.

[The Reservoir Dog]

I agree with Griffey that the government should focus on more important issues where the separation of church and state has been breached. It is a good starting point though to focus on the more important issues. With the current dickhead that is in the office I will take a victory where I can get one.

[vertigo]

IN one state they changed it to "under my belief system" a while ago and i brought that up and every one thought it was tacky and took away all meaning.....wait a second I htought the pledge had no menaing in the first place???

Don't be fooled. You must look behind what they are saying. Are they arguing from conclusions or from premises?

A very good example is the abortion argumentors. They use pictures of aborted foeti to sway people to their side, but then oppose a morning-after pill, saying it is tantamount to abortion. The warning bells should be ringing loud and clear. The pictures of foeti are just a decoy, if they oppose abortion even one day after the act it is dishonest to argue with those pictures. They should come out and present the correct argument, the one against even morning-after pills.

Well, why don't they? They are scared that not many people will agree with that argument. They choose to use much easier arguments, like the foeti pictures, which are entirely besides the point they should be making. And when they use these easier arguments, we might be fooled to thinking they have a valid point. The truth is we have misunderstood their point all along.

They are arguing from ABORTION IS BAD! and are just cooking up the best arguments they can to suit the situation. They aren't arguing from premises, such as when life forms should be accorded rights, the interest of the mother, etc.

The same is happening with the pledge. They aren't arguing from premises, such as what the pledge is for, they are arguing from UNDER GOD IS GOOD!. They will cook up whatever argument they feel works to defend it, but don't be fooled that you can attack the premises, you can't.

That's why one moment they'll say it's petty to change the pledge, because most don't care, but then show obvious care when alternatives are suggested.

Concerning political correctness, I present a joke:

Non-PC: You have two cows.
PC: You are associated with (the concept of "ownership" is a symbol of the phallocentric, war mongering, intolerant past) two differently-aged (but no less valuable to society) bovines of non-specified gender.

[The Reservoir Dog]

vertigo said:

The same is happening with the pledge. They aren't arguing from premises, such as what the pledge is for, they are arguing from UNDER GOD IS GOOD!. They will cook up whatever argument they feel works to defend it, but don't be fooled that you can attack the premises, you can't.

But you can that is why the separation of church and state exists, so one can discredit direct infringements such as this phrase. One can attack the premises with this, however unfortunately under our current administration the separation of church and state is about as useful as nipples on a man, but I digress.

[vertigo]

But you can that is why the separation of church and state exists

I think it exists to check ourselves (those who are principled), as a yardstick. There will always be dissent, and neither a good argument nor good intentions will end it.

This is precisely why democracy doesn't work. The principled are the minority.

[The Reservoir Dog]

True the only reason it doesn't work is because most people only want it to be enforced when it suits their purposes. As for democracy not working I'm glad I'm not the only person who realizes this. Thank you.

[darklight]

I personally stay silent during the pledge, but I don't think it should be in it.

[solidsquid]

I think there was recently a court thing about a kid sitting during the pledge. These people need to remember that their precious "freedom and liberty" they scream about endlessly, applies even to things and people they don't like. They also fail to realize the difference between patriotism and nationalism.

[solidsquid]

And indeed I was right, here's the story:

Standing Up for the Right to Sit Down

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/30/AR2005113002010_pf.html

St. Mary's Freshman Takes On His Teachers Over the Pledge of Allegiance

By Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 1, 2005; B03

Standing 5 feet tall in checkered Vans, 14-year-old Theodore Pugh is an unimposing First Amendment warrior.

But the freshman at Leonardtown High School in St. Mary's County, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland and his principal, yesterday taught his teachers a lesson in free speech and reinforced his right to abstain from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at school.

Theodore became upset this year when, he said, a friend in his homeroom was "reprimanded" by the teacher for remaining seated during the pledge. The teacher, according to Theodore, said that she had a brother in the military in the Middle East and that it was disrespectful to his sacrifice not to stand.

"I thought, 'We have to research this,' " said Theodore, an honor roll student.

Without telling his principal, Theodore -- with help from his father -- wrote to several First Amendment organizations, including the ACLU of Maryland, to find out what rights students have. As it happened, the ACLU was already on the case. At least four students in three public school systems -- St. Mary's, Baltimore and Prince George's counties -- had reported being forced to either stand or say the pledge although they wanted to abstain, said ACLU of Maryland lawyer Richard Griffiths.

"It was a succession of all of these pledge things from around the state that made us stop and say maybe we should try to get everybody on the same page about what the law says," Griffiths said. So the ACLU contacted school system superintendents in every county in Maryland, as well as the state Department of Education.

After receiving a letter from the ACLU, Leonardtown High School Principal Scott Smith said he wanted to make sure the rules were clear to teachers.

"We cannot require a student to stand during the pledge. We cannot require a student to leave the room during the pledge," he told his staff during a meeting yesterday, adding that students must remain "respectfully silent" during the pledge.

Staff members lobbed several questions at Smith:

"Why can we not respectfully ask them to leave the room?"

What if the sitting starts to "spread to other kids and create a rebellion?"

"Can we tell them how we feel?"

Smith replied that students would feel singled out if told to leave the room, that he felt the novelty of sitting during the pledge would probably wear off, and that it's not the job of teachers to proselytize to students.

Disputes over the pledge periodically surface in school systems across the country. A U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that a Pennsylvania law requiring schools to notify parents if students abstain from the pledge was unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard a case last year brought by a California atheist who objected to his daughter's saying the pledge because it contained the words "under God." The Supreme Court didn't address the constitutionality of the issue but ruled that the man lacked legal standing to file suit on his daughter's behalf because he didn't have full custody of the child.

Claudette Smith of Essex, Md., said her two children in the Baltimore County school system have been told they have to either stand or recite the pledge. Her daughter, an 11th-grader at Chesapeake High School, was told by three separate teachers that she was being disrespectful by remaining seated during the pledge.

"I just think that the schools and their staffs, as well as their students, should be educated in the fact that they don't have to stand . . . if they don't want to, and it's really nobody's business why," Smith said.

For Theodore Pugh, not saying the Pledge of Allegiance was less a political statement and more an expression of rights, he said.

And besides upholding his classmates' rights, his pledge protest worked well for him, too.

"My friends were very impressed with me," he said.