the pledge of allegance, uncontutional?

[jn.loudnotes]

Hit refresh, I've got one more.

Protestant, Catholic, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist. . .

I don't care what the country traditionally has been - I don't understand why it has to be anything at all.

[*DAMN Hazard]

Freedom of religon means u can practice whatever religon u want whenever u want rite? so these people are saying that by saying "under god" its violating there religon, but if they do take "under god" out of the pledge of allegiance wouldnt it be violating the other peoples religion by prohibiting them from saying "under god" in school. to me this sounds that because every1 is trying to be polititcally correct someone always loses. if im wrong tell me.

[Brain]

First of all, I hate it when we write posts at the same time...because I doubt Brain read mine.

...Brain, what rights of yours are being infringed upon?

first of all, yep, that's what happened

second,he is imposing his political(religious acually) view on me, therefore he is infringing on my right to my own political(religious) view, and if i wanted to i'm shure i could find a revelant passge in the constution to quote (or at least find some semi rellevant passage and fudge it)

[jn.loudnotes]

Yeah, you're wrong.

You have a right to practice religion in school, but you don't have a right to make everyone practice your religion.  You have private religious schools available to you for that purpose.

You can still say the plege of allegiance in school, however.  The court decision just makes it illegal to force everyone to say it, at least as long as it includes the mention of God.  It's a shame the decision won't stand because people are accustomed to saying it as a group.  It's a beautiful thing.  But I could see how it wouldn't be for people who disagree with its wording.

[jn.loudnotes]

Damn...another post made while I was posting.

Brain, read my response to Fire Hazard.  You still retain every right to say the pledge, to pledge your allegiance to God, etc.

However, you have no right to make everyone be a part of a group pledge to God.  Stopping that does not infringe on your rights.  You have lost NOTHING.

[*DAMN Hazard]

Yeah, you're wrong.

You have a right to practice religion in school, but you don't have a right to make everyone practice your religion. ?You have private religious schools available to you for that purpose.

You can still say the plege of allegiance in school, however. ?The court decision just makes it illegal to force everyone to say it, at least as long as it includes the mention of God. ?It's a shame the decision won't stand because people are accustomed to saying it as a group. ?It's a beautiful thing. ?But I could see how it wouldn't be for people who disagree with its wording.

thats now what i meant. i meant that its stopping the other people from practicing there religon. its not forcing it because is it mandatory in your school to not skip those two words?

[jn.loudnotes]

No but you have to listen to everyone else say them. ?You are unfairly isolating little children for having religious beliefs. ?It just doesn't seem necessary, and certainly not proper.

I just think that as long as the pledge contains a reference to God, it doesn't belong in public school. ?Period.

[Bondo]

Brain, no you won't find separation of church and state in the constitiution, but you won't find innocent until proven guilty there either. ?Both are things that have become solidified political-legal mandates through the Supreme Court. ?So unless you want the burden of proof to start to fall on the defendant, don't think religion should be accepted as being supported by the government. ?Each person is free to their religion and to independantly tell others of their religion. ?The problem comes when the goverment is telling others of one set of religions.

I'm wholly christian but like loud, I don't buy the boundries, I think all religions are just God's different ways of communicating in the way that reaches them in order to get them to act morally. ?This of course goes haywire (suicide bombers, generally bad people) but I'd say it works. ?I don't believe that Christians will go to heaven but Jews won't because they don't believe that Jesus was our savior. ?And another thing, I don't take the Bible word for word as mandate from God like many people do. ?It is a book written by humans and like humans is flawed. ?I'm sure people could find something in the bible saying homosexuality is wrong, but I think there is no moral error in it, I'm just guessing one of the influencial leaders didn't like it so he wanted it to look like the word of God in the future.

Also, I was expecting at least one person to counter my claim that what is considered statutory rape (consentual sex with a minor) should be legal. ?I can always answer from the Bible and point out that Mary was only 13-14 and was married to Joseph who was late 20s or early 30s. ?At least we should look at other civilized countries and see that we have the oldest general age of consent and that it should be lowered to 14-15 (a point at which on average kids are into or through with puberty).

[*DAMN Hazard]

No but you have to listen to everyone else say them. ?You are unfairly isolating little children for having religious beliefs. ?It just doesn't seem necessary, and certainly not proper.

I just think that as long as the pledge contains a reference to God, it doesn't belong in public school. ?Period.

isolating little children? yes we lock them in the closet and make them say hail marys and listen to church music. by saying "under god" are we imposing our religon on other people? no. most little children say the words in the pledge without understanding them. if someone is worried about there child learning the wrong religon and their child getting messed up, what is wrong with them?if your that worried about that put them in a private school or help them better understand there religous preference.

[jn.loudnotes]

And assuming the children do know what they are saying, and are made to feel uncomfortable by it?

I suppose you're saying that as long as they can't understand it, they shouldn't object to it.  Yeah that's pretty smart.  And the next time you go raise a ruckus about teaching evolution in schools, realize that most of the little Christian kids won't understand it anyway, so they can't be hurt by it.

[Bondo]

Not to mention that it isn't impossible too believe in evolution and creation by combining the two and saying that God created the ability for beings to evolve.

[*DAMN Hazard]

im not saying its good that they dont understand it. im saying that its not messing up little children. the pledge has been around for a long time. when the caught Charles Manson or OJ did they say the pledge made them do it?

[Brain]

Damn...another post made while I was posting.

Brain, read my response to Fire Hazard. ?You still retain every right to say the pledge, to pledge your allegiance to God, etc.

However, you have no right to make everyone be a part of a group pledge to God. ?Stopping that does not infringe on your rights. ?You have lost NOTHING.

i may not have lost anything, however if this ruling is not struck down, then we have taken one more step towards a blank slate society. america is a society that DOES have religious traditions, that WAS founded on religious ideals.

this link provides a clearer view as to what was running through the heads of our founding fathers(section 16 is the section of particular intrest here)
http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/bill_of_rights/virginia_declaration_of_rights.html
the more we white wash our government of the religious ideals that it was founded upon the more boral decay will occur, for where do the majority get their morals if not from a higher power than thamselves?

[jn.loudnotes]

Answer to Hazard:

Were either of them atheists?

I don't see your point. ?Are you really saying that people shouldn't be uncomfortable in group recitations of the pledge in its current form?

Wouldn't you be offended if you had to say

"one nation, under Allah, etc."

or if you had to keep silent while everyone else said that? ?Think about that, please.


Answer to Brain (I'm having to modify posts now)


I get my moral guidance from family and from my core beliefs. ?To state that government cannot act idealistically without the influence of God is narrow-minded. ?And that influence would not be altogether removed - it is still present outside of the public institutions. ?Morals do not come from government, they are applied to government.

[Bondo]

Brain, religion is only a factor in one of the major moral principles.  All the rest don't depend on religion so don't tell me religion is needed for morality.

First there is Utilitarians, which means anything that maximizes general happiness is moral.  It has some problems but has good concepts as well.

Then there are the Kantians, which go by the golden rule saying it is immoral to do something if you wouldn't want it to be done if you were in the others involved in the action's shoes.  It also focuses on not treating people mearly as a means to an end.

In the theory I like the best, Thomas Hobbes' Contractarian (the one that was largely used by our founding fathers), a state (the government) has the duty of only intervining in our lives as an arbitor between its citizens.  Therefore, if neither side of a deal has a complaint, the goverment can't make a claim that anything was done wrong.  If one side does have a complaint, then the goverment steps in to deal with it through the legal system.  The essence then is that if nobody affected by something finds it wrong and thus doesn't complain, it is moral.

[jn.blackhand]

loud, i didn't think i needed to use sarcasm brackets. oh well.

though I was being facetious, I will say that the only people who actually view those two words as an issue aren't the type of people that i want living in our country. there's MUCH bigger problems domestically and internationally and to focus on two words is ridiculous.

[jn.loudnotes]

Still, your sarcasm can still be applied vice versa.  I should have known better than to read your response as serious, however.  I was a little carried away.  Nevertheless...what scares me is that some people are not sarcastic when they say things like that.

[Jeb]

Believe in what you want, its a personal thing, not something that should influence government. There are alot of judeo christian themes in governement, like "under god", "in god we trust" on our money, and swearing someone into office with their hand on a bible. How is that separation of church and state? I see the ruling as a step forward, not some gay Political correctness thing.

[Brain]

Answer to Brain (I'm having to modify posts now)


I get my moral guidance from family and from my core beliefs. ?To state that government cannot act idealistically without the influence of God is narrow-minded. ?And that influence would not be altogether removed - it is still present outside of the public institutions. ?Morals do not come from government, they are applied to government.

sorry, but i baited you into this one,
where did the morals come from ORIGIALLY(dont have time to use bold)
i hilghy doubt that og, all of a suden thot that being nice to thog was morally right one day

[Bondo]

Brain, morality came out of people rationally being selfish.  They want to be as greedy as possible but they understand that that is what everyone else thinks as well, so they understand that if everyone else was nice but they were mean, they would be best off, and if they were nice but others were mean they would be screwed.  Also, if everyone was mean, things would just suck.  So nearly everyone comes to the conclusion that they need to have restrictions to their actions in order for them to be happy because they know that everyone else isn't going to be nice if they are mean.  Therefore in their own self interest they restrict their actions and everyone is better off.  This is how morality started Brain, not religion.