Archive

students not standing for the pledge, what say you?

  • bman618
    I don't care if someone stands for the pledge in an act of speech but others also have speech and can criticize.

    As for this country's founding, religion played a big part of it. To deny the fact is to deny the founding. But our founders were worried about a state endorsed religion, such as the Church of England, and wrote religious freedom - or for the matter not to practice religion - into the Constitution. But most of our founders believed faith would play an important part in this country and was necessary because morality - a respect for the liberty of others - is needed in a republican system of government.

    If separation of church and state was interupted in 1789 as it is now, I highly doubt one state would have ratified the Constitution. I see non-dominational mentions of a higher being called a god, prayers open to people of all faiths, or the public square being open for displays of all faiths and people as not being unConstitutional. In fact it is very Constitution. What the Founders objected to is a citizen being coerced into a particular religious order by government action, such as requiring everyone to be a Protestant.
  • CenterBHSFan
    bman618 wrote:I don't care if someone stands for the pledge in an act of speech but others also have speech and can criticize.
    As for this country's founding, religion played a big part of it. To deny the fact is to deny the founding. But our founders were worried about a state endorsed religion, such as the Church of England, and wrote religious freedom - or for the matter not to practice religion - into the Constitution. But most of our founders believed faith would play an important part in this country and was necessary because morality - a respect for the liberty of others - is needed in a republican system of government.
    If separation of church and state was interupted in 1789 as it is now, I highly doubt one state would have ratified the Constitution. I see non-dominational mentions of a higher being called a god, prayers open to people of all faiths, or the public square being open for displays of all faiths and people as not being unConstitutional. In fact it is very Constitution. What the Founders objected to is a citizen being coerced into a particular religious order by government action, such as requiring everyone to be a Protestant.
    Preach it!
  • GeneralsIcer89
    bman618 wrote: What the Founders objected to is a citizen being coerced into a particular religious order by government action, such as requiring everyone to be a Protestant.
    Yet we have candidates in each election that want to force what they believe the tenets of their religious order to be into the Constitution. Oh, wait, that wasn't the topic...
  • les_diables_bleus
    Freedom isnt free unless those you disagree with, even vehemently, enjoy the same freedoms we all do.

    Being patriotic isnt just tied into a flag or a pledge; we are much more complex than that and things arent as simple as we would think they are.

    I will never forget back in the 70s when church ministries were really getting aggressive in buying up HUGE blocks of prime TV and radio time. Prior to that time, they pretty much stuck to the middle of the night hours which we cheap or even free. But then Pastors like Dr Jerry Falwell saw the media as a way to get the message out to the masses by the tens and hundreds of thousands by buying up prime time because his Old Time Gospel Hour ministry had the funds to be able to do it.

    This irked TV talk show host Phil Donahue to no end, and he repeatedly had Falwell on his program literally mocking his "conservative values" as not being representative of mainstream America. Of course if that were so the only poll that counted, which was gifts and offerings pouring into the ministry by the millions every week would cease to come in.

    Donahue took particular offense to Falwell's positions on homosexuality and abortion among others, and I will never forget the episode when Donahue, thinking he could trap Falwell asked him, "Suppose another church with doctrines you disagree with wanted to buy air time too. How would you feel about that," to which Falwell replied, "I'd die for their right to do it."

    Falwell understood when you take away one groups rights and freedoms it is just a matter of time before YOUR OWN are taken away.
  • HitsRus
    You are required by law to take an oath to become a naturalized citizen of the United States. The oath contains the words...."so help me god", but makes allowance for those who wish to omit the phrase...as well as the phrase "bear arms". The oath can still be taken omitting these parts or using an alternate phrase.

    The same can be said of the Pledge of Allegiance, which is about allegiance to our country.
    If you love your country...you can say the Pledge without saying "under God"...if you don't...you can sit on your ass.
  • cbus4life
    I love this country and don't think saying the pledge has anything whatsoever to do with it. Pointless, IMO.
  • HitsRus
    I pledge allegiance to the flag,
    Of the United States of America.
    And to the Republic for which it stands,
    One nation (with or without God), indivisible
    with liberty and justice for all.


    What part don't you agree with?.... That what we aspire to, is not completely fulfilled? That it is more important to split hairs over the inclusion of 'God' ( a god that you don't believe in anyway) in an oath or a pledge, than to stand in unity of purpose and aspiration.

    The problem has never been with those willing to die for others right to dissent....it is with those who refuse to simply stand for unity of purpose.
  • unique_67
    From a religious perspective, why would a Christian pledge allegiance to a flag? In my opinion, that is equal to the worship of idols, and goes contrary to the teachings of Christ.

    So, I can see justifiable reasons for a highly devout Christian objecting to pledging allegiance to a flag, being that a flag is an inanimate object and pleging alleginace to said object is the same as pledging allegiance to a statue or some other type of inanimate object.

    Also, by pledging allegiance to the American Flag, one is basically saying that the USA is somehow better than the rest of the world, but according to Christian teaching we are ALL created in the image and likeness of God, and no human being or country is better than another.

    Just something for people to think about. :idea:
  • HitsRus
    Nothing to think about at all. Christians have alliegances to many different countries. Moreover, allegiance to a country is not remotely the same as worship.
  • NNN
    dwccrew wrote: As was stated by BCSbunk, gays are being denied the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If you "just go along with how it is", as you put it, you are accepting of that.

    If people would have just gone along with how it was during slavery, the slaves may have not been freed when they were.

    Now enslaving someone is much worse than denying someone the ability to get married, but they are still being denied.

    Also, if you don't believe someone has the right to get married, why is every heterosexual couple allowed to get married, but when it comes to homosexual couples it is not allowed? They are being discriminated against and denied their right to the pursuit of happiness IMO.
    Every heterosexual couple is not allowed to get married; there are restrictions on it. A man cannot marry a woman who is his sister, mother, first cousin, half-sister, etc. no matter how passionately in love they may be. A man cannot marry a woman if he is still married to another woman. And so on.

    To get back on topic, I always stood for the Pledge and remained silent on "indivisible". I am a secessionist, after all.
  • HitsRus
    "To get back on topic, I always stood for the Pledge and remained silent on "indivisible". I am a secessionist, after all. "


    I don't think that is one of the parts that you can omit, LOL.
  • eersandbeers
    So nobody has a problem with the pledge basically being created as a socialist indoctrination technique for children?
  • dwccrew
    NNN wrote:
    dwccrew wrote: As was stated by BCSbunk, gays are being denied the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If you "just go along with how it is", as you put it, you are accepting of that.

    If people would have just gone along with how it was during slavery, the slaves may have not been freed when they were.

    Now enslaving someone is much worse than denying someone the ability to get married, but they are still being denied.

    Also, if you don't believe someone has the right to get married, why is every heterosexual couple allowed to get married, but when it comes to homosexual couples it is not allowed? They are being discriminated against and denied their right to the pursuit of happiness IMO.
    Every heterosexual couple is not allowed to get married; there are restrictions on it. A man cannot marry a woman who is his sister, mother, first cousin, half-sister, etc. no matter how passionately in love they may be. A man cannot marry a woman if he is still married to another woman. And so on.

    To get back on topic, I always stood for the Pledge and remained silent on "indivisible". I am a secessionist, after all.
    I guess you got me there. :rolleyes:

    However, my point is that NO homosexual couple can get married, while MOST heterosexual couples can.
  • pooter
    I guess the bank not giving me a million is denying my right to the pursuit of happiness...
  • NNN
    dwccrew wrote:
    NNN wrote: Every heterosexual couple is not allowed to get married; there are restrictions on it. A man cannot marry a woman who is his sister, mother, first cousin, half-sister, etc. no matter how passionately in love they may be. A man cannot marry a woman if he is still married to another woman. And so on.

    To get back on topic, I always stood for the Pledge and remained silent on "indivisible". I am a secessionist, after all.
    I guess you got me there. :rolleyes:

    However, my point is that NO homosexual couple can get married, while MOST heterosexual couples can.
    I fail to see what the involvement (or lack thereof) of the federal government in matters of marriage has to do with the topic at hand. You refer to denial of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which is utter hogwash. Heck, I enjoy blowing things up....if I'm arrested for detonating explosives and not harming anyone or anything else in the process, is my liberty and pursuit of happiness being denied? The whole notion of "my rights end where the other guy's nose begins" goes out the window since I'm not actually doing any damage.

    Look, we can slippery-slope the marriage argument to death here. If we want to go with your offshoot into the realm of "pursuit of happiness", why shouldn't someone....boy, we could go an awful lot of places with this.
  • Glory Days
    eersandbeers wrote: So nobody has a problem with the pledge basically being created as a socialist indoctrination technique for children?
    no, because it isnt. now if someone creates the Obama Youth, i might lean that way.
  • believer
    Glory Days wrote:no, because it isnt. now if someone creates the Obama Youth, i might lean that way.
    Yes Mein Fuhrer! :P
  • queencitybuckeye
    eersandbeers wrote: So nobody has a problem with the pledge basically being created as a socialist indoctrination technique for children?
    No, because if I act like a tinfoil-hatted paranoid over knucklehead stuff, people will likely not take me seriously on the important issues.
  • eersandbeers
    queencitybuckeye wrote:
    eersandbeers wrote: So nobody has a problem with the pledge basically being created as a socialist indoctrination technique for children?
    No, because if I act like a tinfoil-hatted paranoid over knucklehead stuff, people will likely not take me seriously on the important issues.

    You definitely didn't use that phrase correctly. It is historical FACT the pledge was created by a socialist for a youth magazine. You can't be "tinfoil-hatted paranoid" if it is a historical fact.
  • RoyalNut
    Glory Days wrote:
    eersandbeers wrote: So nobody has a problem with the pledge basically being created as a socialist indoctrination technique for children?
    no, because it isnt. now if someone creates the Obama Youth, i might lean that way.
    You mean like the "Obama MMM MMM MMM" song?
  • MrTrackMski
    There have been a good number of "intelligent" posts on both sides of the issue. I enjoyed that. Makes one think...and I am all for that.
    There are a few people who posted emotional and stupid thoughts.

    That being said.
    I show my love/respect/etc for this great country and all the "good qualities" that it is supposed to represent. I stand. I salute. I sing. I pledge. I also "do my thing".

    I believe everyone should stand, etc. Notice I said "BELIEVE". I am allowed to believe anything I want. I don't want to see people NOT stand, etc. It bothers me...but I move on. I do wish I could ask those people at THE SHOE why they are disrespectful so I could understand their point. That would take too long, etc.

    So people are "protesting" (in some cases, do not give a dang in others) when they refuse to participate in some form of patriotic respect for this country.

    No one has noticed how I do my patriotic thing and at the same time get my protest in when I stand, sing, pledge, etc. It is there and it is visible. I know what I am doing and "do my thing". I feel happy because I get the best of two worlds 1) my patriotic love of this great place 2) I get my protest in about what I believe is wrong about this country. Two birds with "one hand"!
    Great country: allows for different points of view to be seen and heard. That is the "ideals of the First Amendment"...allowing others to say things about one's government that you don't like.
  • eersandbeers
    Glory Days wrote:
    eersandbeers wrote: So nobody has a problem with the pledge basically being created as a socialist indoctrination technique for children?
    no, because it isnt. now if someone creates the Obama Youth, i might lean that way.

    I don't think you understand how indoctrination works. It isn't about creating a group of Hitler youth running around. That was the extreme. Its more about ingraining in the minds of people, especially children, a type of nationalism (which is dangerous) that is not to be questioned.nearly every country throughout history has done this to create a population that is loyal to the state. Again, this is history. Yet for some reason people think it is crazy talk that has never happened.


    I just find it ironic that after all of the freaking out the right did about our socialist president they have no problem reciting a socialist pledge.


    Like I said earlier, the Founding Fathers would not have supported such statism. Saying the pledge does not make one a good American or vice versa.
  • MrTrackMski
    eersandbeers wrote: So nobody has a problem with the pledge basically being created as a socialist indoctrination technique for children?
    I can understand one questioning the Pledge as an indoctrination technique. No problem with that. I have no reason to question cause it sounds like such a thing.
    That being typed:

    My question is why the label "socialist indoctrination"? Why not Democratic? Why not Monarchist? etc.

    So, why is it a "socialist" technique/method/etc.? Why that label or why any label at all?

    Or are you saying that because in 2009 (IMHO), one might be willing to say that the current climate in this country is one that is moving towards socialism or maybe we are already there?
  • queencitybuckeye
    eersandbeers wrote: You can't be "tinfoil-hatted paranoid" if it is a historical fact.
    Of course you can, as the "knucklehead" clause applies. And make no mistake, this is knucklehead stuff. No one is being brainwashed by saying the words, and the union isn't going to fall apart if someone chooses not to.
  • eersandbeers
    MrTrackMski wrote:
    eersandbeers wrote: So nobody has a problem with the pledge basically being created as a socialist indoctrination technique for children?
    I can understand one questioning the Pledge as an indoctrination technique. No problem with that. I have no reason to question cause it sounds like such a thing.
    That being typed:

    My question is why the label "socialist indoctrination"? Why not Democratic? Why not Monarchist? etc.

    So, why is it a "socialist" technique/method/etc.? Why that label or why any label at all?

    Or are you saying that because in 2009 (IMHO), one might be willing to say that the current climate in this country is one that is moving towards socialism or maybe we are already there?
    I only said socialist because the pledge was created by a socialist. You are correct that this has been adopted by more.than just socialists though.