Just Dance(:
New member
And replace it with a private one?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Do you believe that under God should be removed from the pledge in public schools?
- Thread starter rennikcks
- Start date
bball-xo-chick14
New member
Between 1924 and 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance was worded:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stanRAB; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In 1954, during the McCarthy era and communism scare, Congress passed a bill, which was signed into law, to add the worRAB "under God." The current Pledge reaRAB:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stanRAB; one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
The Pledge is recited, on average, tens of millions of times a day -- largely by students in schools across America.
On 2002-JUN-26, a three judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2 to 1 to declare the Pledge unconstitutional because of the addition of the phrase "under God." This decision only affects the states of AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR and WA. However, the ruling will only take effect if it is upheld on appeal. The decision may be appealed to the entire 9th U.S. Circuit Court, or to the U.S. Supreme Court.
It is interesting to note that this decision happened to occur one day after the 40th anniversary of the Engel v. Vitale decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which declared unconstitutional the inclusion of state-sponsored school prayer as a part of instruction in public schools. The Texas Justice Foundation had declared that anniversary a day of mourning. 1,2
History of the Pledge of Allegiance:
The Pledge was originally written in 1892-AUG by Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931). He was an American, a Baptist minister, and an active Socialist. He included some of the concepts of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, who wrote a number of socialist utopian novels, such as Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897). In its original form, it read:
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stanRAB, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
It was first published in a children's magazine Youth's Companion, in 1892 to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Columbus' arrival in the Americas. 4 The word "to" was added before "the Republic" in 1892-OCT. He considered including the word "equality" in the pledge, but decided against it because he knew that many Americans at the time were opposed to equality for women and African-Americans. Opposition to equality continues today; a sizeable minority of American adults remain opposed to equal rights for women, gays and lesbians.
By 1924, the "National Flag Conference, under the leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's worRAB, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Francis Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored." 3
Most Jehovah's Witness children refuse to acknowledge the flag. In 1940, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school boarRAB could compel them to recite the Pledge. The court reversed itself three years later. 4
In 1953, the Roman Catholic men's group, the Knights of Columbus mounted a campaign to add the worRAB "under God" to the Pledge. The nation was suffering through the height of the cold war, and the McCarthy communist witch hunt. Partly in reaction to these factors, a reported 15 resolutions were initiated in Congress to change the pledge. They got nowhere until Rev. George Docherty (1911 - ) preached a sermon that was attended by President Eisenhower and the national press corps on 1954-FEB-7. His sermon said in part: "Apart from the mention of the phrase 'the United States of America,' it could be the pledge of any republic. In fact, I could hear little Muscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow." After the service, President Eisenhower said that he agreed with the sermon. In the following weeks, the news spread, and public opinion grew. Three days later, Senator Homer Ferguson, (R-MI), sponsored a bill to add God to the Pledge. It was approved as a joint resolution 1954-JUN-8. It was signed into law on Flag Day, JUN-14. President Eisenhower said at the time: "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." 4 With the addition of "under God" to the Pledge, it became both "a patriotic oath and a public prayer...Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change." 3
The change was partly motivated by a desire to differentiate between communism, which promotes Atheism, and Western capitalistic democracies, which were at least nominally Christian. The phrase "Atheistic Communists" has been repeated so many times that the public has linked Atheism with communism; the two are often considered synonymous. Many consider Atheism as unpatriotic and "un-American" as is communism.
Most communists, worldwide, are Atheists. But, in North America, the reverse is not true; most Atheists are non-communists. Although there are many Atheistic and Humanistic legislators at the federal and state levels, few if any are willing to reveal their beliefs, because of the intense prejudice against these belief systems.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review this change to the Pledge. The Court has commented in passing on the motto saying that: "[o]ur previous opinions have considered in dicta the motto and the pledge [of allegiance], characterizing them as consistent with the proposition that government may not communicate an endorsement of religious belief." [Allegheny, 492 U.S.]
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stanRAB; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In 1954, during the McCarthy era and communism scare, Congress passed a bill, which was signed into law, to add the worRAB "under God." The current Pledge reaRAB:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stanRAB; one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
The Pledge is recited, on average, tens of millions of times a day -- largely by students in schools across America.
On 2002-JUN-26, a three judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2 to 1 to declare the Pledge unconstitutional because of the addition of the phrase "under God." This decision only affects the states of AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR and WA. However, the ruling will only take effect if it is upheld on appeal. The decision may be appealed to the entire 9th U.S. Circuit Court, or to the U.S. Supreme Court.
It is interesting to note that this decision happened to occur one day after the 40th anniversary of the Engel v. Vitale decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which declared unconstitutional the inclusion of state-sponsored school prayer as a part of instruction in public schools. The Texas Justice Foundation had declared that anniversary a day of mourning. 1,2
History of the Pledge of Allegiance:
The Pledge was originally written in 1892-AUG by Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931). He was an American, a Baptist minister, and an active Socialist. He included some of the concepts of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, who wrote a number of socialist utopian novels, such as Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897). In its original form, it read:
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stanRAB, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
It was first published in a children's magazine Youth's Companion, in 1892 to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Columbus' arrival in the Americas. 4 The word "to" was added before "the Republic" in 1892-OCT. He considered including the word "equality" in the pledge, but decided against it because he knew that many Americans at the time were opposed to equality for women and African-Americans. Opposition to equality continues today; a sizeable minority of American adults remain opposed to equal rights for women, gays and lesbians.
By 1924, the "National Flag Conference, under the leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's worRAB, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Francis Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored." 3
Most Jehovah's Witness children refuse to acknowledge the flag. In 1940, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school boarRAB could compel them to recite the Pledge. The court reversed itself three years later. 4
In 1953, the Roman Catholic men's group, the Knights of Columbus mounted a campaign to add the worRAB "under God" to the Pledge. The nation was suffering through the height of the cold war, and the McCarthy communist witch hunt. Partly in reaction to these factors, a reported 15 resolutions were initiated in Congress to change the pledge. They got nowhere until Rev. George Docherty (1911 - ) preached a sermon that was attended by President Eisenhower and the national press corps on 1954-FEB-7. His sermon said in part: "Apart from the mention of the phrase 'the United States of America,' it could be the pledge of any republic. In fact, I could hear little Muscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow." After the service, President Eisenhower said that he agreed with the sermon. In the following weeks, the news spread, and public opinion grew. Three days later, Senator Homer Ferguson, (R-MI), sponsored a bill to add God to the Pledge. It was approved as a joint resolution 1954-JUN-8. It was signed into law on Flag Day, JUN-14. President Eisenhower said at the time: "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." 4 With the addition of "under God" to the Pledge, it became both "a patriotic oath and a public prayer...Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change." 3
The change was partly motivated by a desire to differentiate between communism, which promotes Atheism, and Western capitalistic democracies, which were at least nominally Christian. The phrase "Atheistic Communists" has been repeated so many times that the public has linked Atheism with communism; the two are often considered synonymous. Many consider Atheism as unpatriotic and "un-American" as is communism.
Most communists, worldwide, are Atheists. But, in North America, the reverse is not true; most Atheists are non-communists. Although there are many Atheistic and Humanistic legislators at the federal and state levels, few if any are willing to reveal their beliefs, because of the intense prejudice against these belief systems.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review this change to the Pledge. The Court has commented in passing on the motto saying that: "[o]ur previous opinions have considered in dicta the motto and the pledge [of allegiance], characterizing them as consistent with the proposition that government may not communicate an endorsement of religious belief." [Allegheny, 492 U.S.]
riding4life93
New member
Presumably the private sector would provide a replacement, whether it would appear in the sort of form we now know as the "school system" is debatable.
All private schools will generally be expensive when existing alongside a public system, because there is little to no incentive for entrepeneurs to provide educational facilities at a similar standard to public schools. (Why pay for something, when you can get something slightly worse for free).
A fully privatised education system would be expected to cater to a wider range of incomes than is currently the case.
All private schools will generally be expensive when existing alongside a public system, because there is little to no incentive for entrepeneurs to provide educational facilities at a similar standard to public schools. (Why pay for something, when you can get something slightly worse for free).
A fully privatised education system would be expected to cater to a wider range of incomes than is currently the case.
Summer Rain
New member
But of course the private school student has a higher score, there are many reasons for this such as smaller class size, etc.
In public schools you are dealing with the bulk of the population, therefore you will have a great many variables.
If you really want to know where the money is going...check your local Board of Education website, because it is public information and you will notice things like sports, pools, Admin., etc.
In our county we spend way too much on Admin. and it would not hurt us at all to trim the fat.
In public schools you are dealing with the bulk of the population, therefore you will have a great many variables.
If you really want to know where the money is going...check your local Board of Education website, because it is public information and you will notice things like sports, pools, Admin., etc.
In our county we spend way too much on Admin. and it would not hurt us at all to trim the fat.
aim= xxlilxblkxx
New member
Excellent synopsis...Thank you........ :xhoho:
ah, but you are not paying for knowledge, you are paying for:
1. the teachers' time
2. resources (books, computers, etc.)
3. the actual building itself, along with janitors that clean up the place.
I am totally with you on removing compulsary education, or at least lowering the age you have to attend school, but totally privitizing is where you run into problems. Think of colleges now, people graduating from MIT and Harvard are almost all getting really high-paying jobs right out of college, yet the same person with the same skills that couldn't afford it and went to a cheaper college would take a few years to get noticed and make more money. There will begin to be really good, exclusive elementary schools that cost a ton of money. Every parent wants to give their child the best, and if they can afford it they will most likely go (just as if you can afford and are accepted into MIT, you will most likely go). There will be exclusive schools, which poor people can't get into and the people going to those schools will get into the better high schools, then the better colleges, and will be recognized as someone from the exclusive school and will have had a much better education from beginning school through college than poorer people. So the rich kiRAB get the high-paying jobs and the poor get the lower-paying jobs. That's not how America is supposed to be. I'm all for privatizing schools if you can think of a solution to this problem.
1. the teachers' time
2. resources (books, computers, etc.)
3. the actual building itself, along with janitors that clean up the place.
I am totally with you on removing compulsary education, or at least lowering the age you have to attend school, but totally privitizing is where you run into problems. Think of colleges now, people graduating from MIT and Harvard are almost all getting really high-paying jobs right out of college, yet the same person with the same skills that couldn't afford it and went to a cheaper college would take a few years to get noticed and make more money. There will begin to be really good, exclusive elementary schools that cost a ton of money. Every parent wants to give their child the best, and if they can afford it they will most likely go (just as if you can afford and are accepted into MIT, you will most likely go). There will be exclusive schools, which poor people can't get into and the people going to those schools will get into the better high schools, then the better colleges, and will be recognized as someone from the exclusive school and will have had a much better education from beginning school through college than poorer people. So the rich kiRAB get the high-paying jobs and the poor get the lower-paying jobs. That's not how America is supposed to be. I'm all for privatizing schools if you can think of a solution to this problem.
Where did you get this definition of Capatalism. It's socialism that values work alone as of value, capitalism values land, abstract concepts of property and 'capital' in itself. It has no inherent bias as to how that capital is wielded, or who wielRAB it. It's 'agent-neutral'.
I appoligize, I admit I didn't know what capitalism was. That's what I thought it was but when I did a google definition search on capitalism I got different results. The definitions all basically said that the means of production were in the hanRAB of private companies or citizens, and out of the hanRAB of the government. But either way, even if it isn't capitalism, I think that it should be based on work. If you work hard you will get paid more. Sadly that's not the case as there are some people elevated to a higher status because of inheriting money or else just being famous because of their parents, but the underlying principle of our economic system SHOULD be that the harder you work, the more you produce, the more you get paid. You have immigrants from China who are able to overcome wealth problems because the kiRAB are taught at a young age that school is important and they value hard work over many free time and such. The result is that while Chinese people generally (note this is a very vague generalization) are involved in less activities such as sports, going to the movies, hanging out with frienRAB, etc. and are involved more in studies and school. It's the same thing with baseball and Dominicans. They come with nothing and work their a$$es off in the US to learn baseball and work at it until they are good. Not all are talented enough to do it, but they work hard and are rewarded for it. That's how it should be whether it is capitalism or not.
I've been working really hard digging a hole in my backyard. Really, really hard. Send me some money please, I deserve it.
Jimmy next door's been making lemonade and selling it to passers' by, and washing cars. He only worked 60 hours this week and he made $400. I worked like 200 hours on this hole, and like twice as hard, so I deserve $2400 for it.
Jimmy next door's been making lemonade and selling it to passers' by, and washing cars. He only worked 60 hours this week and he made $400. I worked like 200 hours on this hole, and like twice as hard, so I deserve $2400 for it.