one nation, under god

[Intense]

You might have a point when you can explain how tyranny of the minority is any better.

I think the difference is that what the minority wants is not in any way tyrannical as they are not asking anyone else to pledge something they don't believe in, whereas the majority are...


Omitting the phrase does not inherently disrespect your belief, but it respects theirs...Adding the phrase inherently disrespected those who don't want to pledge to something they don't believe in.

Why should the majority cave in to the minority?

We should omit the word to respect their beliefs?

Why can't they accept the word and respect our beliefs?

Where is the tolerance?

I think the majority has tolerated the nonsense of the minority for far too long.

It's all bullshit. No One is forcing Anyone to say the Pledge, let alone Under God. Never mind that We were founded on Inalienable Right's, which most of us acknowledge are from God. It's about conformity to their will, no matter how few in number they are.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I'll type slowly so perhaps you can understand.

I don't answer hypotheticals especially ones that are so far from reality.

And yes I called you a coward.

I'll type even slower so perhaps you man up and stop being so scared on an anonymous message board.

If. The. Pledge. Endorsed. The. Non. Existence. Of. A. God. You. Would. Be. Throwing. A. Hissy. Fit.

But, like all blatant hypocrites, they want their way imposed on everyone but cry foul when the same thing is done to them.

I don't have to call you a coward, your fear of answering a hypothetical question on an anonmyous message board is you broadcasting to everyone that you're a coward.

When your opinion of me matters, then I'll worry. But don't hold your breath.

Couldn't care less what your opinion of me is either son, rest assured.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I think the difference is that what the minority wants is not in any way tyrannical as they are not asking anyone else to pledge something they don't believe in, whereas the majority are...


Omitting the phrase does not inherently disrespect your belief, but it respects theirs...Adding the phrase inherently disrespected those who don't want to pledge to something they don't believe in.

Why should the majority cave in to the minority?

We should omit the word to respect their beliefs?

Why can't they accept the word and respect our beliefs?

Where is the tolerance?

I think the majority has tolerated the nonsense of the minority for far too long.

It's all bullshit. No One is forcing Anyone to say the Pledge, let alone Under God. Never mind that We were founded on Inalienable Right's, which most of us acknowledge are from God. It's about conformity to their will, no matter how few in number they are.

The point Del made which bears repeating, imagine a non-believer kid who doesn't believe in god being singled out because he's either sitting or standing and not saying the pledge.

Keeping that kid from being prejudiced against, i.e. minority rights, is more important than making sure we have children in a secular society recite a religious phrase.

Majority, minority, couldn't matter less in a republic which protects everyone's rights.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I'll type even slower so perhaps you man up and stop being so scared on an anonymous message board.

If. The. Pledge. Endorsed. The. Non. Existence. Of. A. God. You. Would. Be. Throwing. A. Hissy. Fit.

But, like all blatant hypocrites, they want their way imposed on everyone but cry foul when the same thing is done to them.

I don't have to call you a coward, your fear of answering a hypothetical question on an anonmyous message board is you broadcasting to everyone that you're a coward.

When your opinion of me matters, then I'll worry. But don't hold your breath.

Couldn't care less what your opinion of me is either son, rest assured.

Sure you do or you wouldn't have gotten your panties in a wad over my calling you a coward.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Why should the majority cave in to the minority?

We should omit the word to respect their beliefs?

Why can't they accept the word and respect our beliefs?

Where is the tolerance?

I think the majority has tolerated the nonsense of the minority for far too long.

It's all bullshit. No One is forcing Anyone to say the Pledge, let alone Under God. Never mind that We were founded on Inalienable Right's, which most of us acknowledge are from God. It's about conformity to their will, no matter how few in number they are.

The point Del made which bears repeating, imagine a non-believer kid who doesn't believe in god being singled out because he's either sitting or standing and not saying the pledge.

Keeping that kid from being prejudiced against, i.e. minority rights, is more important than making sure we have children in a secular society recite a religious phrase.

Majority, minority, couldn't matter less in a republic which protects everyone's rights.

Our society is not secular.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You might have a point when you can explain how tyranny of the minority is any better.

I think the difference is that what the minority wants is not in any way tyrannical as they are not asking anyone else to pledge something they don't believe in, whereas the majority are...


Omitting the phrase does not inherently disrespect your belief, but it respects theirs...Adding the phrase inherently disrespected those who don't want to pledge to something they don't believe in.

Why should the majority cave in to the minority?

We should omit the word to respect their beliefs?

Why can't they accept the word and respect our beliefs?

Where is the tolerance?

I think the majority has tolerated the nonsense of the minority for far too long.

One, it is not a matter of majority.

Two, respect has to go both ways.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's all bullshit. No One is forcing Anyone to say the Pledge, let alone Under God. Never mind that We were founded on Inalienable Right's, which most of us acknowledge are from God. It's about conformity to their will, no matter how few in number they are.

The point Del made which bears repeating, imagine a non-believer kid who doesn't believe in god being singled out because he's either sitting or standing and not saying the pledge.

Keeping that kid from being prejudiced against, i.e. minority rights, is more important than making sure we have children in a secular society recite a religious phrase.

Majority, minority, couldn't matter less in a republic which protects everyone's rights.

Our society is not secular.

Does not matter in the slightest.

Our government is secular.

 

[Dot Com]

Obama will have it removed when he's reelected and we take back the House from Boehner & t-party & co.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm surprised more conservatives dont object to the word 'indivisible' in the Pledge, given that so many of them believe that secession is legal, and in many cases believe that secession might not be a bad thing.

Are you people lying when you pledge allegiance to the principle of this nation's indivisibility?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I think the difference is that what the minority wants is not in any way tyrannical as they are not asking anyone else to pledge something they don't believe in, whereas the majority are...


Omitting the phrase does not inherently disrespect your belief, but it respects theirs...Adding the phrase inherently disrespected those who don't want to pledge to something they don't believe in.

Why should the majority cave in to the minority?

We should omit the word to respect their beliefs?

Why can't they accept the word and respect our beliefs?

Where is the tolerance?

I think the majority has tolerated the nonsense of the minority for far too long.

One, it is not a matter of majority.

Two, respect has to go both ways.

But respect doesn't go both ways. Now does it?

 

[Valerie]

You might have a point when you can explain how tyranny of the minority is any better.

I think the difference is that what the minority wants is not in any way tyrannical as they are not asking anyone else to pledge something they don't believe in, whereas the majority are...


Omitting the phrase does not inherently disrespect your belief, but it respects theirs...Adding the phrase inherently disrespected those who don't want to pledge to something they don't believe in.

Why should the majority cave in to the minority?

We should omit the word to respect their beliefs?

Why can't they accept the word and respect our beliefs?

Where is the tolerance?

I think the majority has tolerated the nonsense of the minority for far too long.

This particular family, (and I'm sure there are others), felt like they could not tolerate the daily requirement for their children to recite the pledge with that phrase.

On the surface their lawsuit seems frivolous, but to them it is a matter of principle. To suggest these parents aren't teaching their children "respect" is silly... I haven't heard that these kids were disrespectful in any way, only that they felt discriminated against.

Since when is standing up for what you believe in a form of disrespect...?




As someone who is Christian and has no problem saying the pledge as is, I can still empathize and understand how others may feel differently and out of respect for them, I would have no problem removing the phrase that discriminates against their beliefs. I really don't understand all this wailing and gnashing of teeth on this issue... Respecting ALL citizens only strengthens our country, and that is what the pledge is supposed to be about, after all...



I see no value in creating an all-encompassing view of the Pledge issue as if all other issues are the same "nonsense"...? Each legal issue and circumstance has it's own intricacies and rational people can see there is no grand conspiracy against religion, it is simply American citizens asserting their rights...One family asking the court to hear their case and reconsider the issue which affects them, as is their right.


The local court will hear this case and we'll see what happens...

The family’s lawyer asked a judge in Middlesex Superior Court on Monday to have the words taken out.

The parents are identified only as John and Jane Doe, with three children, one in high school and two in middle school.

Their attorney told the judge the children are being marginalized and discriminated against, and that reciting the pledge "defines patriotism according to a particular religious belief."

The school district’s attorney said the pledge is constitutional and voluntary.

Superintendent Stephen Mills says the there are no negative consequences for students who choose not to say the pledge.

The judge did not immediately rule.


Acton family sues over ‘’under God’ in pledge - BostonHerald.com

 

[JakeStarkey]

It certainly does not when you make small children ashamed of themselves for thinking differently.

You are an adult. Act like it. Grow up.

Sheesh.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why should the majority cave in to the minority?

We should omit the word to respect their beliefs?

Why can't they accept the word and respect our beliefs?

Where is the tolerance?

I think the majority has tolerated the nonsense of the minority for far too long.

It's all bullshit. No One is forcing Anyone to say the Pledge, let alone Under God. Never mind that We were founded on Inalienable Right's, which most of us acknowledge are from God. It's about conformity to their will, no matter how few in number they are.

The point Del made which bears repeating, imagine a non-believer kid who doesn't believe in god being singled out because he's either sitting or standing and not saying the pledge.

Keeping that kid from being prejudiced against, i.e. minority rights, is more important than making sure we have children in a secular society recite a religious phrase.

Majority, minority, couldn't matter less in a republic which protects everyone's rights.

Except that the phrase is not religious. It requires nobody to believe anything. It does not define who or what "God" is and suggests no doctrine or dogma of any kind. If a child (or anybody else) says I don't believe in God, all any teacher has to say is that at least one or two of the Founders didn't either. But for want of a better expression, they all agreed that unalienable rights are God given; i.e. are not invented and imparted by humankind. This country was founded on the principle that we all are endowed with certain rights that no government and no people may take away from us or deny us. Thus "God" is a historical concept.

There is every bit as much right to use that historical context as there is to choose to not use it. And because it causes no harm and violates nobody's rights, we should not allow a tyranny of a few who choose to be offended by to deny the majority who like it being there from saying it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The point Del made which bears repeating, imagine a non-believer kid who doesn't believe in god being singled out because he's either sitting or standing and not saying the pledge.

Keeping that kid from being prejudiced against, i.e. minority rights, is more important than making sure we have children in a secular society recite a religious phrase.

Majority, minority, couldn't matter less in a republic which protects everyone's rights.

Our society is not secular.

Does not matter in the slightest.

Our government is secular.

Itr does matter when someone says we are a secular socirty when we're not.

Telling falsehoods may not matter to you but it does to me.

I'd argue that our government is not purely secular.

The House opens each session with an opening prayer and has been doing so since 1774.

Yesterday's prayer:

Eternal God, through whom we see what we could be and what we can become, thank You for giving us another day.

In these days, our Nation is faced with pressing issues of conscience, constitutional religious and personal rights, and matters of great political importance.

We thank You that so many Americans have been challenged and have risen to the exercise of their responsibilities as citizens to participate in the great debates of these days.

Grant wisdom, knowledge, and understanding to us all, as well as an extra measure of charity.

Send Your spirit upon the Members of this people's House who walk through this valley under public scrutiny. Give them peace and Solomonic prudence in their deliberations.

And may all that is done this day be for Your greater honor and glory.

Amen.
~~~~~~Reverend Patrick J. Conroy, S.J.~~~~~


Oh and how often do you hear the President invoke God's name?

 

[Dr.Drock]

When your opinion of me matters, then I'll worry. But don't hold your breath.

Couldn't care less what your opinion of me is either son, rest assured.

Sure you do or you wouldn't have gotten your panties in a wad over my calling you a coward.

I understand you need to give yourself credit for your perceived notion that "my panties are in a wad" but i assure that's just your own insecurities coming to light.

 

[Foxfyre]

As for 'respect', there was a time when men and boys were expected to remove their hats when they entered somebody's homes; when men were expected to rise when a woman entered the room, when thank you notes were a social expectation for gifts or kindnesses extended, when please and thank you were required of all children whether they meant it or not, when you asked to be excused when you left the table or a gathering, when you bowed your head during public prayers or the table grace whether you were religious or not, when you did not use foul language in polite company, when you were expected to stand for the National Anthem or when the flag passed by, when there were strict rules for folding, displaying, and caring for the flag, etc. etc. etc.

None of that was presumed to harm children in any way and children raised with such rules generally grew up with a better sense of propriety and order than what we see now, and we had a damn sight more civil and gentle society when all that was the norm.

To expect a child to stand in respect when the Pledge of Allegiance is recited harms the child not in the least. To fail to teach a child a sense of respect, propriety, and order in society to me is tantamount to child abuse.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I think the difference is that what the minority wants is not in any way tyrannical as they are not asking anyone else to pledge something they don't believe in, whereas the majority are...


Omitting the phrase does not inherently disrespect your belief, but it respects theirs...Adding the phrase inherently disrespected those who don't want to pledge to something they don't believe in.

Why should the majority cave in to the minority?

We should omit the word to respect their beliefs?

Why can't they accept the word and respect our beliefs?

Where is the tolerance?

I think the majority has tolerated the nonsense of the minority for far too long.

This particular family, (and I'm sure there are others), felt like they could not tolerate the daily requirement for their children to recite the pledge with that phrase.

On the surface their lawsuit seems frivolous, but to them it is a matter of principle. To suggest these parents aren't teaching their children "respect" is silly... I haven't heard that these kids were disrespectful in any way, only that they felt discriminated against.

Since when is standing up for what you believe in a form of disrespect...?




As someone who is Christian and has no problem saying the pledge as is, I can still empathize and understand how others may feel differently and out of respect for them, I would have no problem removing the phrase that discriminates against their beliefs. I really don't understand all this wailing and gnashing of teeth on this issue... Respecting ALL citizens only strengthens our country, and that is what the pledge is supposed to be about, after all...



I see no value in creating an all-encompassing view of the Pledge issue as if all other issues are the same "nonsense"...? Each legal issue and circumstance has it's own intricacies and rational people can see there is no grand conspiracy against religion, it is simply American citizens asserting their rights...One family asking the court to hear their case and reconsider the issue which affects them, as is their right.


The local court will hear this case and we'll see what happens...

The family’s lawyer asked a judge in Middlesex Superior Court on Monday to have the words taken out.

The parents are identified only as John and Jane Doe, with three children, one in high school and two in middle school.

Their attorney told the judge the children are being marginalized and discriminated against, and that reciting the pledge "defines patriotism according to a particular religious belief."

The school district’s attorney said the pledge is constitutional and voluntary.

Superintendent Stephen Mills says the there are no negative consequences for students who choose not to say the pledge.

The judge did not immediately rule.


Acton family sues over ‘’under God’ in pledge - BostonHerald.com

You have no problem cowtowing to a few folks that have been offended.

I'm glad Jesus didn't think that way.

 

[Dr.Drock]

It's all bullshit. No One is forcing Anyone to say the Pledge, let alone Under God. Never mind that We were founded on Inalienable Right's, which most of us acknowledge are from God. It's about conformity to their will, no matter how few in number they are.

The point Del made which bears repeating, imagine a non-believer kid who doesn't believe in god being singled out because he's either sitting or standing and not saying the pledge.

Keeping that kid from being prejudiced against, i.e. minority rights, is more important than making sure we have children in a secular society recite a religious phrase.

Majority, minority, couldn't matter less in a republic which protects everyone's rights.

Except that the phrase is not religious. It requires nobody to believe anything. It does not define who or what "God" is and suggests no doctrine or dogma of any kind. If a child (or anybody else) says I don't believe in God, all any teacher has to say is that at least one or two of the Founders didn't either. But for want of a better expression, they all agreed that unalienable rights are God given; i.e. are not invented and imparted by humankind. This country was founded on the principle that we all are endowed with certain rights that no government and no people may take away from us or deny us. Thus "God" is a historical concept.

There is every bit as much right to use that historical context as there is to choose to not use it. And because it causes no harm and violates nobody's rights, we should not allow a tyranny of a few who choose to be offended by to deny the majority who like it being there from saying it.

The pledge as it's written is assuming the existence of a god, whatever your definition of a god is.

That's a religious view, a view not everyone has.

If someone likes stating something in school that assumes there's a god, they have all the right in the world to do it on their own time without alienating those who don't assume the existence of a god.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Couldn't care less what your opinion of me is either son, rest assured.

Sure you do or you wouldn't have gotten your panties in a wad over my calling you a coward.

I understand you need to give yourself credit for your perceived notion that "my panties are in a wad" but i assure that's just your own insecurities coming to light.

Deny it all you want.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I wrote that our government is secular. It cannot infringe one's or a people's religous values on others. What the House does with adults is one thing, with adults' consent; but when so-called religious adults try to coerce and make children feel bad for having different religious or non-religious systems, then those adults metaphorically need their asses kicked. That is what the courts are going to do.

This is not an issue of respect or of majority. Only about what is right and constitutional.