Of course, I respect your right to voice it. I never said otherwise.
I also agree that children don't have the same rights as adults, of course. They are still in the process of learning the right from the wrong. But it seems to me in a practice where every child is expected to say the pledge to the flag, if a parent protests and says that he doesn't want his child to say it (as it seems he has the right to do, according to Bakerstreet), the child is placed in a situation of exclusion where he will feel put aside, simply because his parent doesn't agree with something.

When I was a kid, we had catholic class. But the parent at the beginning of the year, had the right to write a note saying that he didn't want his child to attend that class. In such cases, the child in question spent the class time in the library - basically as a reject. I didn't believe in God, actually, I wasn't even sure what God was - something like Santa I figured. Anyway, I begged my parents NOT to write that note, because I didn't was to be rejected because of it, although it was the most boring class on earth. Anyway, the bottom line is, although I and my parents didn't believe in something, I still had to opt in because the situation kind of made it hard to reject it.  A few years later, things changed, instead of going to the library, kids who didn't want catholic class, had another class instead, called "morals" - which was basically the exact same class except with the words "God", "Jesus" and all of those things purged out. The result was much better, and there ended being more kids in those classes than in religion class.

Duality kind of odd how it shows it's at times ugly head...[

quote]Children, although they must retain the right to be PROTECTED by the law should not claim the same rights that adults should.

I mean it is so evil to have video games up to the age of 18 at that specific moment in time that they are not 18 anymore and are considered an adult where they kill without thought and at that moment to think they are equipped to go kill and die in the name of what *WE* call just, of course that is as long as it is others children for the most part.


sheesh... Why teach life is so important, and fight so hard to create a life where the violence is limited and then stand so fast on how well they understand what they got themselves into when they go and die or kill for OUR THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS?

Better yet why don't we decide how many should die before we go to war to solve the issue and just shoot them in a hole they dug with Media swarming around and everyone one in tears claiming how just it was they gave their life to fulfill our desired goals?

screw Bush and Screw Clinton, if we wanted to do anything positive about Iraq we would not have sold and gave them WMD's to being with and we would not have supported them to fight a war with Iran we did not want to spend American lives on...

ok lets look at the definition of terrorisum without applying anything else but the facts..

anyone care to play that game?

if you do, understand we will have to look at the history of your nation, including the USA which wil prove out why they can not come up with a global legal definition of what terrorisum is. They can apply what is accepted at the moment, but only un to the point that they fall over the line and assume that position then things change...

go figure

No problem with the 'under God' part.

I don't think they will take it or they will end up over turning it.

It is not that big a deal.


The real question is why are they being made to say the pledge anyway. Its just a tradition and somehow it ended up in the courts.

The point is, I think, that this country (USA) was founded on princibles surrounding God, and God was used as a connerstone of our constitution and a bases for our country.

Take God out of this country and we will not stand for long.

Kona,

You might want to read the words of the founding fathers. While they were believers (for the most part, and in a number of different ways), they correctly argued that faith in, and reverence for, God, must be considered as separate from the duties of running the government of a country.

One does not need to be a believer, nor does one need to be indoctrinated by facile bits of propaganda to be a proper citizen of the United States (or any other country). Nor are either of the above required to fufill the needs of patriotism and support for the principles of one's country. It can often be more patriotic to oppose our leaders than to support them. My own personal patriotism is expressed as support for the founding principles of our country, not for any particular viewpoint of the time.

While I agree, in basic principle, with the sentiment of the pledge, whether one speaks it or not has little bearing on that persons' value as a citizen or patriot.

Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731). -- James Madison (Annals of Congress, 1789) "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." -- (Treaty of Tripoli) "For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it." ". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." -- Thomas Jefferson (stating that the Common Law does not directly inherit from Christianity). "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." -- Thomas Jefferson (letter to Danbury Baptists) "We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions ... shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power ... we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society." -- John Adams ...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, ‘Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,’ which was rejected ‘By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination -- Thomas Jefferson “Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.” -- James Madison

the founding fathers adopted "The Star Spangled Banner" as our national anthem - all 3 stanzas. Most people can't sing the second and third, and many americans now don't even know that they exist. the third states simply
"and this be our motto "In God Is Our Trust"". i believe in separation of church and state, but i'm sick to death of politically correct historical revisionists who continually try to rewrite history such as it was in order to degodify it and render it more secularly palatable. >

Star Spangled Banner: written in 1814. Adopted as National Anthem in 1931.

Oh say can you see my-y-eyes if you can then my hair's to short.....

#52 by Bangkokboy - 11/5/2003 2:34:52 AM the founding fathers adopted "The Star Spangled Banner" as our national anthem - all 3 stanzas. Most people can't sing the second and third, and many americans now don't even know that they exist. the third states simply "and this be our motto "In God Is Our Trust"".

Hehe...you must have missed my earlier post about that

When I was in school (which was over 13 years ago) the pledge was not something that you *had* to say, but you had the choice to say it.  What is so wrong with reaffirming your belief in your nation on a daily basis?

It just seems that people forget the promises they make.  They forget simple things- like the vows they take when they get married.  Why is it so hard to believe that a little reaffirmation now and then is not a bad thing?  The pledge is not about God.  It's not about the government.  It's pledging your allegiance to your nation.  Why is that a bad thing?  What's so wrong with pride and faith in your country?

If they want to remove "God", they can just go back to the original pledge.  It means the same thing, but is less politically fueled.  (It's funny that the "God" part was added due to "politics" in the first place.)

By the way, iirc, the "In God We Trust" motto on money comes from that verse in the Star Spangled Banner.

Duality kind of odd how it shows it's at times ugly head...[

quote]Children, although they must retain the right to be PROTECTED by the law should not claim the same rights that adults should.

Gee IPlural
I wan't aware that I was talking about video games or 'doing' politicians
I thought I was talking about patriotism and children's right to choose under and with their parents' guidance.
Possibly if these things were discussed on a more local level within the committees and forums provided by the educational institutions and parents were active in them, it wouldn't have to go to the high courts to be decided. I also regret the fact that the public isn't being given a chance to vote directly on the issue.

I don't mind if you disagree with me but your personal insults are beneath you. I'm not on this board to convince anyone of anything. I may or may not be swayed to change my position given the input from the obviously diverse and intelligent crowd we have here. I'm open to change if I'm convinced that my views are in error or founded on a deficit of information. In this instance I haven't been convinced that it's an issue that needs to waste tax dollars and valuable time. There are more critical issues that I believe need to take precident in our courts.

Karma, there is nothing wrong with that, I guess, although it's not something I would do personaly.
But I think it's something that should be done spontaneously and with honesty. Not "scheduled". It's when it's organised and put on the agenda that it starts smelling like propaganda and brain washing.  Besides such a pledge doesn't need to be done aloud. What would prevent a kid who UNDERSTANDS its meaning, to do his own pledge before he starts the day?

#58 by paxx - 11/5/2003 9:15:01 AM Karma, there is nothing wrong with that, I guess, although it's not something I would do personaly. But I think it's something that should be done spontaneously and with honesty. Not "scheduled". It's when it's organised and put on the agenda that it starts smelling like propaganda and brain washing. Besides such a pledge doesn't need to be done aloud. What would prevent a kid who UNDERSTANDS its meaning, to do his own pledge before he starts the day?

The problem is, how many people have a flag handy at all times to pledge to?  The "scheduled" time is the block of time reserved before class that allows the student to participate if they want to. 

I would also say that this time should be allowed for any silent prayers or thoughts that the students wants instead of the pledge.  But, if you quit having that time slot, then when will the student have the chance?

Of course, I also have a huge nautical style flag pole in my yard that flies an American flag, the Michigan state flag, and a flag of choice- so I might have a different view point on a lot of this than others will   it's just the way I am. 

I don't mean nothing bad by saying this buttttt the Flag and the Pledge all this kind of stuff always makes me feel uneasy or something, cuz when ppl begin to rise up such symbols or whatever you want to call it, it just seems to divide ppl up more and start trouble...