The Pledge...Ruled Unconstitutional.. - Page 2

DeathsHand · 06-27-2002, 03:15 PM

Oh yeah, I coulda sworn on MSNBC these two guys were debating the whole thing, and I heard that like the whole thing started in California or something because there, the schools are required to make the students recite the pledge every day... or whatever... and y'know some people don't believe in god... or have different religious beliefs or whatever, and the dealy is like... it's unconstitutional to REQUIRE kids to recite it each day... And like in the constitution or whatever it may say that the country was founded under god or blah blah, but kids aren't required to read that part day after day after day...

But who cares? People flipping out "OH WHAT ARE THEY GONNA DO NEXT!? TAKE IN GOD WE TRUST OFF MONEYZ!?"... no..... no they're not...... But requiring some people to say something that says under god blah blah could make some peoples mad... it's like if kids were required to read a passage from the bible each day or something in school... although that would be a bit more direct than just one line of a little pledge thing...

But I don't really care... I don't believe in god, and I didn't care when I said the pledge... but usually the people flipping out and blah blah-ing over how it's crazy and "what are they gonna do next, take in god we trust off the dollar bills?" are people who believe in god, and when you believe in god, it's easy to say how it's stupid, but if you have a strong disbelief in god, I think it'd be pretty easy to see how it's stupid to make your kid say the pledge each day....

*shrugs*

Still I think peoples are flipping out over nothing...

Edit: About the school dealy... what gekko said... he posted it before me

So look at gekko's post... I know some people skip straight to the second page when topics get them, and the last post on the page is sometimes ignored...

gekko · 06-27-2002, 03:41 PM

Maybe you guys should watch more Politically Incorrect. *sniff* I'm gonna miss it

Jason1 · 06-27-2002, 03:47 PM

I pledge of alligence, to the flag, of the United States of America. And to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Havent said that since 5th grade...that is right, isnt it? It seems too short...did I leave something out...oh well...

I think its pretty stupid, you cant deal with our nation being under god, dont live here. Simple as that.

DeathsHand · 06-27-2002, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jason1
I think its pretty stupid, you cant deal with our nation being under god, dont live here. Simple as that.

If you can't deal with the fact that people have different beliefs and opinions in a free country, don't live here...

-apu- · 06-27-2002, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Angrist
There are people who don't want to 'pledge' because of their personal religion. Fortunately we don't have to plegde here in Holland.

or in Canada

DeathsHand · 06-27-2002, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Angrist
There are people who don't want to 'pledge' because of their personal religion. Fortunately we don't have to plegde here in Holland.

Quote:

Originally posted by -apu-
or in Canada

Maybe it's because...

Quote:

posted by Spamcan at the advanceGB forums
School students started with the pledge every morning starting in the 50's as part of the government's propganda campagin to make us all hate comunists.

Those countries never felt the need to do that...

Joeiss · 06-27-2002, 04:33 PM

A pledge? WTF? I didn't even know you Americans had that.

Here in Canada all we gotta do is say the national anthem at school. I hate it when people talk or do not stand during the anthem. It makes me furious.

Jin · 06-27-2002, 04:37 PM

The pledge is not unconstituational. Just forcing someone to recite it is. I think it's fine if they say it in school, or at public events as long as they don't force anyone to say it.

If a person believes that there is no God that's fine, they have the right to, but the thing I don't get is why they feel that they have the need to sway others beliefs as well. If they believe there's no God and no after-life, what good does it do to change others people's beliefs because according to them we'll just not exist after we die.

In my opinion athiests that are trying to ban the "under God" part are just trying to get others to believe that there is no God. If they didn't want to change peoples opinions at all, and strongly believed that there was no God they could easily just ignore those two words and not say them at all.

Remember, no one is forcing them to say these two words, nor is anyone required to say any of the pledge, but for some reason a few athiests feel as though they have the need to convince people that their belief is correct. This is true with all religions, but my question is what good does it do to convince people that there is no God? It's not like they are going to save them from consequences in the after-life. All they're doing is getting others to believe that there is no importance in human life, that once you die you wont exist and that your existence had no meaning, that your one and only purpose was to pass down genes to the next generation. I think it's fine for a person to believe that, but I don't see any reason why they need to convince others to believe in it as well. All those people are doing is making others feel hopeless.

-apu- · 06-27-2002, 04:43 PM

i'm canadian so i'm confused by nature....but is thenational anthem and the pledge the same thing.... please do not laugh at me if that is a stupid question

Jin · 06-27-2002, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by -apu-
i'm canadian so i'm confused by nature....but is thenational anthem and the pledge the same thing.... please do not laugh at me if that is a stupid question

They both serve similar purposes, but you don't sing the pledge. The pledge is more like a few lines that you recite to show your allegience.

The_Dunadan · 06-27-2002, 09:09 PM

whats interesting is that the under god part didn't even used to be in the pledge until later when it was added. now they are wanting it out again

PureEvil · 06-27-2002, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by -apu-
i'm canadian so i'm confused by nature....

The only reason you're confused by nature is because your parents are brother and sister.

Don't blame it on Canada.

UncleNoName · 06-27-2002, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jin
If a person believes that there is no God that's fine, they have the right to, but the thing I don't get is why they feel that they have the need to sway others beliefs as well. If they believe there's no God and no after-life, what good does it do to change others people's beliefs because according to them we'll just not exist after we die.

In my opinion athiests that are trying to ban the "under God" part are just trying to get others to believe that there is no God. If they didn't want to change peoples opinions at all, and strongly believed that there was no God they could easily just ignore those two words and not say them at all.

The man that brought the case to court (Newdow) isn't trying to sway people to atheism, he just doesn't think a nation where peoples of all religions and a nation where church and state are (supposed to be) seperate should be teaching atheist children and children of polytheistic faiths that they live in a "nation under God". How would you feel if you (or your kids) constantly heard that your nation is a nation "under God" if you didn't believe in one or you believed in many gods? He sees his daughter being singled out because she doesn't believe in God, and he wants change for his and other atheist children. The same for polytheistic children.

Look at this from the eyes of others...

BlueFire · 06-27-2002, 09:48 PM

Quote:

posted by Spamcan at the advanceGB forums
School students started with the pledge every morning starting in the 50's as part of the government's propganda campagin to make us all hate comunists.

Ah yes...the good era of McCarthy.

Jin · 06-27-2002, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by UncleNoName

The man that brought the case to court (Newdow) isn't trying to sway people to atheism, he just doesn't think a nation where peoples of all religions and a nation where church and state are (supposed to be) seperate should be teaching atheist children and children of polytheistic faiths that they live in a "nation under God". How would you feel if you (or your kids) constantly heard that your nation is a nation "under God" if you didn't believe in one or you believed in many gods? He sees his daughter being singled out because she doesn't believe in God, and he wants change for his and other atheist children. The same for polytheistic children.

Look at this from the eyes of others...

I understand about the whole seperation of church and state, but it's not like we're forcing people to believe in a certain religion, or even to say that part in the Pledge. If a person really was against it they could just not say it.

The thing that puzzles me is why athiest parents don't want their kids to believe that there is a God. Think about logically, athiests don't believe in a God or in an after-life, right? So what does it matter if their kid believes in God, because after they die they'll just not exist anyway. So what would it matter? On the other hand, if a Christian/Jew/Islam parent saw their kid becoming an athiest they would be concerned that they would go to hell. Remember, I'm not saying that people that believe in a God are right or that athiests are wrong, but there's no reason why an athiest parent should be concerned about this if they really believe that their beliefs are true.