I don’t want to start a war, but something weird seems to be going on in the world today. I was just reading where the ruled the US pledge of allegience unconstitutional because it say’s “…one nation under god…”. Although I admit that there is diversity, and not all people must believe the same, why does the minority have so much power in a society that is supposed to be governed by majority rules?
Look at the NAACP, it is getting quite rediculous. It is easier now days for a single colored male with a lower GPA to get into college than and white male with a higher GPA. What about that guy who is trying ot make deodorant and collogne/perfume illegal in public? Or the one trying to make it illegal to have a pet in public unless it is shaved?
Things seem a little backwards!!!
Is it just me, or does anyone else think it is getting a little rediculous ?
ridiculous to say the least. I can see it now:
The year, 2020. The time, kindergarten:
I led the pidgeons to the flag of my government and to the empire for which we stand. one nation, under “Our Leader” with Candy and Pop for all.
amen
oops. no ‘amen’, that’s religious
It’s not as much that it violates the seperation of church and states, as it is “what’s the point?” Like the NAACP wanting to have the Confederate flag removed from a monument of the Civil War… what good does it do to take things so literally. Nothing will ever be perfect, and all that these groups running around nit-picking does is cause trouble for everyone.
The confederate flag is there as a piece of history, not a sign of slavery. The phrase “one nation under god” is in the pledge, because that’s what this country was founded on. Just because a certain precentage of people don’t feel that way now, they are just doing it because they can. If people would’ve done stuff like this a few hundred years ago, they would’ve probably been stoned.
I really like this saying that is on the Art of Noise CD I bought:
“Debussy understood, that a work of art, or an effort to create beauty, was always regarded by some people…as a personal attack.” -Spoken by John Hurt for the Art of Noise on “The Seduction of Claude Debussy”
This is true, no matter what there is or you do, someone will have a problem with it.
there was a movement
covering this issue several years ago
where the judge decided to allow
those who did not wish to pledge allegience,
such as jehovah’s witnesses, atheists, etc,
to abstain if they so chose.
i thought that was fair and ethical.
america is rapidly turning her back on the one to whom
her forefathers turned for freedom.
america was built upon a belief in god by those
who sought religious freedom, that’s where lie our roots.
if you cut away at the root of tree it’s going to whither,
it’s going to die.
soon, i would not doubt, “in god we trust”
will be removed from american currency…
Yea but all you people that thinks it belongs in their because it always was:
In 1954 that under god part was added to the pledge of allegience by congress
Yes rogerm3d, and that wasn’t that long ago. But the point is, it goes both ways. The people in this society whom believe what sayings like these stand for, also have to see and hear a bunch of stuff in which they don’t believe. There is balance out there, however, a few people are trying to tip in one way. They say that having “in God we trust” on the money or the saying in the pledge violates them, but there is stuff that violates the other side also, but can do nothing about.
Religion is not being forced upon anyone, no more than negativities in society is forced upon it. But there is a balance, and it must remain or we will only have more trouble. What I really despise though, is people like Jesse Jackson, whom stand for (or claim so) a cause, then profit majorly from it, while in the midst doing nothign for what they stand for, but the opposite.
Ok, you have more sense than I gave you credit for Good CD!
[/quote]
Thanks! I know about the CD, I was so glad to finially find some music that had some creativity and intelligence to it. It’s much more atistic than any of this stuff you hear on the radio today. I’m thinking about getting the Portis Head NYC live album also.
hmm… it seems to me that the atheists have already forced upon our children the THEORY of evolution. I brought a Bible to elementry school one day and I was forced by my teacher to put it away. Now we don’t even have the FREEDOM to say God’s name in schools.
Hmm. Full disclosure: I am a Christian. I also believe quite firmly in the rule of law.
The “What’s the point?” comment is well taken. There is no real point here. No one is going to be swayed one way or another by having these few words in the non-mandatory Pledge of Allegiance. However, one of things that makes this country great is that when one of us sees something wrong, we try to fix it. Of course, one could argue that that’s what makes us “fucked up”. I tend toward the first interpretation.
The inclusion of the phrase in the Pledge really does equate to the federal government taking a stand on the issue of God. Actually, I believe that it was President Eisenhower who signed the order to insert that little phrase into the Pledge, with his stated reason being so that millions of school children would routinely state their trust in God. Well, I don’t know about you, but I can do that without a Presidential directive. And I think the pledge reads just fine as originally written, “One nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
Eisenhower DID overstep the bounds of the Constitution. BTW, we are not letting the minority run the show, per se. The Constitution is running the show. If the majority is on the wrong side of the Constitution and the minority points it out and asks for a correction, then I would say things are functioning exactly as they are supposed to.
We NEED stuff like this. Debates like this. They’re what keep up thinking and striving for a better system. None of us should ever be content.
In time the world will change and we will no longer live here, but the earth will not care. Our lifespan is nothing compared to those that came before us.
That is a good point about evolution. I’m not sure about Eisenhower’s intentions exactly when he did that. But it is hard to debate an issue such as this, because it is based on two entirely sepearte pools of data. First off, atheists and evolutionsists, base their views off of facts or lack of. Where’s christians, or people of a religion or faith, base their views off more of a traditional standpoint. So you end up nit-picking over facts and laws, and tradition. Which naturally these to subjects don’t mix well and you end up with people feeling personally attacked in any situation.
acasto: Yea I agree with you on that one. Arguments like this serve little or no purpose.
They only serve to put one of the sides back on top.
Then a few moments later the scales are tipped back by someother argument.
No one ever gets the upper hand, or gets really anything out of it.
My 4 line rant about this. 8)
Well, you are only in elementary school, so your lack of understanding of the subject can be forgiven. I am assuming you are more a product of the dogma that has been crammed down your throat all your life than someone who has honestly thought seriously about the subject. There is, however, an ocean of difference between a theory based on accumulated evidence and open to critisism, and a belief system that rejects any chalange to its authority. If you cannot see the difference between the two, then there is no basis for a rational discussion on the subject.
No, it’s not getting rediculous. In fact, it’s working exactly as it’s supposed to work. Contrary to what you might think, the US is not governed by “tyranny of the majority”. It is a constitutional republic in which every citizen, regardless of how they might fit into one or more minority classes, is guaranteed the same, concurrent rights. Some policies admittedly push the envelope (like reverse descrimination), but overall, the idea is that the will of the majority cannot usurp the rights of the minority.
With respect to the Pledge, how many people who are bitching about today’s decision are aware of the history of this issue? How many of them could tell you that the words “under god” were added in 1954, and endorsed by then President Eisenhower? I believe it was at this same time, the words “In God We Trust” were added to the back of paper currency. His specific intent was to remind us of our relationship to the almighty (god), which in my mind is a direct violation of a constitution that expressly forbids the establishment of religion by the state.
All of this took place during the height of the “commie scare” - it was a reactionary measure to something that was beyond the immediate control of the country’s leadership, much like the terrorist dilemma we face today. When an elementary school kid stands and recites the pledge, how likely is is that they can even begin to understand its implications? They can’t. And because they can’t, they can’t make any rational judgement as to whether or not the the ideals represented by the flag deserve to stand on their own merits. Herein lies the difference between patriotism and indoctrination. But the religious issue itself is one that at some point, needed to be addressed. The only thing today’s decision brought us was a return to the original (more constitutional) version of the pledge, and nothing more.
Bob_dog, why don’t you read overextruded’s post, then your own. A child repeating the pledge does not understand the implications of the meaning of it. Well, neither do they the theory of evolution. It is a complex scientifc THEORY in which even the best scientists in the world can not completely prove. Yet explaing this to 6th graders in one chapter in a low rate biology book should answer all their questions?
Teaching evolution in school, at an age where they don’t understand the meaning of that is imposing a theory onto them that we can’t even say is true or not also. I know your gonna say that 14 and 15 years age isn’t that young, but people of any age, that is not versed in the ways of advanced biology and chemistry, can’t fully understand the implication and possibilites proposed by the theory of evolution. Thus your presenting a theory, in which you assume to be true, and expect them to take it as fact!
Overextruded, we have been talking about the history all throughout this thread. We are aware. As for the system working correctly, sure it is working, if someones rights were being intruded. What most people who think this is a good decision can’t answer, is, what does it hurt? What about violence and language on television? What about other religions that is actively demonstrated publicly around the nation?
There is many factor in the world today that hurt children far more than the words “one nation under god” do, yet no one is doing anything about them. However this makes the top story. I suggest the system is not working, it is taking the taxpayers money to solve a problems that isn’t a problem, and not solving problems that are.
Since when is it wrong to stand up for your rights? The US was founded on the principle of religious freedom, any thing that infringes that or any other right (they are rights not privliges that can be revoked) should be fought. There are far to many people that think that their way is how all should live and think and that their view is in the majority, there is no such thing as a majority in the US, just a balancing (scales swaying back and forth) of many different view points, some where around 300,000,000 of them. “…one nation under god…” ok which god? Your god? My god? Allah, or the father son and the holy ghost, Christ? Which god? Just because you think it’s right doesn’t mean it should be forced on those that dissagree, it’s there right to point out the infringement of their rights.
Good CD!
