The pledge

"There is no separation of Church and State. It's a myth, a phantom argument. There is only an amendment that guarantees that the State won't create a State religion."

"Interesting slant"... in your own worRAB. Here's what the Constitution actually says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Now... requiring students to verbally recognize God seems to me to be pretty heavily "respecting an establishment of religion". In fact, it recognizes the Christian establishment. It respects the establishment of the Christian God, while not acknowledging the GoRAB of any other religions.

Point 2:
..."or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"...

Just as it is un-Christian to recognize Muhammed as your Savior, it is un-Muslim to recognize the Christian God. And by forcing students of other religions to verbally recognize the Christian God, you deny them the free exercise of their own religion.

Not just once, but TWICE, the Constitution is violated by forcing children to recite the pledge of allegiance in schools.
 
"god" is exclusionary to those who believe in either 1) no god, or 2) many goRAB.

Seperation or church and state goes much farther than a state organized religion. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Now you may interpet it as "congress shall not create a religion" however, I would interpet it as "congress shall make no law pertaining to religion", this is arrived at because "establishment" isn't defined in context as the act of establishing, but as the organized religion itself.

Now my agruement also relies on the fact that the pledge is officially recognized by congress.

One agruement used by neocons is that america was founded as a christian nation, yet our founding father SPECIFICALLY refrained from stating so. Just because they were christian doesn't mean that the nation was founded to follow christianity. They were smart enough to know that a mob can tyrannize people just as easily as a king.

Another agruement is that secular society seeks to remove religoin altogether. This is an attempt to create a slippery slope that doesn't exist. In fact the same amendment that secularists use to remove religion also protect it from being removed beyond government. Simply because religion cannot be exercised in government doesn't mean that it cannot be done so freely.

Public schools are part of government. They do not teach that any religion is wrong or that secularism is right. They do not teach either of them. If you want your religion taught in your child's school, send them to a private school, nothing keeps you from doing so.

EDIT: oh yeah, and simply having people leave the room while the pledge is sung is exclusionary. they are being excluded because of their beliefs, which is again, unconstitutional.
 
OK, you want to argue semantics. What religion is established in the Pledge?



We've already established that you aren't required to recite the Pledge, so how are you being forced. Once again, a phantom argument.

See above.
 
If this is a nation under God then why does Congress have to power to make laws? When the nation of Israel was under God, he made the laws and communicated them to the people via his official spokesman.

Fred
 
Come now. Don't degenerate this arguement into barely-disguised insults. Be the bigger man, and convince somebody through force of arguement, and logic.

If I hadn't already disagreed with you (and I did)... I'd definitely disagree with you now.

Anybody who neeRAB to set the mood of an arguement with an insult doesn't deserve my support.
 
Nope. Any government stooge who recommenRAB an affirmation of belief that the nation is under God should be punished with 30 lashes for trespassing upon the prerogatives of Jehovah.

FVF
 
no one is forcing them to do so. They are in that school by choice. They have made a decision to attend that school instead of choosing private, homeschooling or moving to another district where the public schools don't say the pledge. It is their own responsibility for attending a school that recites the pledge. Therefore, they are not being forced. If you don't want to hear it, you have the option to change that. One's own inability to see and utilize the obvious alternatives does not mean that we resort to legislation. More goverment legislation always solves everything :rolleyes: (if you didn't catch that, it was sarcasm)
 
I don't think its right for the government to advise us that we are "under God", but then refuse to tell us which God we are under and what this God expects of us. Let's petition Congress for clarification.
 
No, you misread what I wrote. No religion is established. Rather, a previously established "establishment" is "respected". That's the point. And that's the problem.
 
Look, I don't personally have any problem with the pledge, and if an individual or a group (like the Jehovah's Witnesses) don't want to say it, they should not be forced to do so. But, Duo Maxwell, let's not pretend that most people have much of a choice in where they go to school (please don't make this about vouchers). Most people can't afford a private school or afford to just pick up and move when they don't like something about a school or afford homeschooling.
 
I don't go quite as far as Matthew, but I will not stand for the pledge, especially when everyone expects me to. If it were more of an optional thing, than I may be more inclined (but most likely wouldn't anyway). At baseball games, I stand for the national anthem and put my hat over my heart. I think the Star-Spangled Banner represents more what our country is than the pledge, which seems to be brainwashing in nature. I'm all for patriotism (although I wouldn't get mad if someone else chose not to participate as some people get when I won't stand for the pledge), but the pledge is beyond patriotism. If it were really a serious pledge, people would only have to say it once. Why do we have to repeat it over and over again? Are peoples' worRAB not good enough if they only make a pledge once?
 
Please read the constitution again.

It forbiRAB Congress from making any laws respecting an establishment of religion.

This means several things, all at the same time. As you've pointed out, it prevents congress from establishing a state religion.

Also, at the same time, it prevents congress from making any laws which respect an establishment of religion.

A previously existing establishment, or a new establishment. ANY establishment.

What's the problem with this? You want to interpret the constitution your way? But not the whole way?
 
I'd bet that the national motto "In God we trust"; Ohio's motto "With God, all things are possible"; Arizona's motto "God enriches" and Colorado's "Nothing without Providence." will remain intact for quite some time. :xgood:
 
But that is the choice they make, and therefore they must live with it. If they made the choice to go that school and live in that district, they must accept it. Homeschooling is cheap. You don't need to teach your kid everyday. You CAN have a full time job and have homeschooling at the same time. It isn't as expensive as you make it out to be. If people are willing to spend the effort, homeschooling is always a alternative, and thereby a method of getting out of listening to the pledge. Also, you can apply for district exemptions or a go to a charter school. There are many alternatives, many which are affordable to the average American. Most private schools have significent scholarships avaliable, and some of them have full rides. Simply because someone is not willing to put the time and effort into these alternatives does not give them the right to abandon their own self responsibility.
 
I am not real big on proud tradition so I say if it's an issue change it.

If we are unable to do that get rid of the whole thing.

I don't want to pay for it if it's going to cost money.
 
Back
Top