Unilaterally Changing the Pledge

[Annie]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050422-111131-2272r.htm

Altered Pledge of Allegiance stuns students

By Valerie Richardson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

DENVER -- The students in Vincent Pulciani's seventh-grade class were reciting the Pledge of Allegiance this week when they heard the voice over the intercom say something they'd never heard before, at least not during the Pledge.

Instead of "one nation, under God," the voice said, "one nation, under your belief system."

The bewildered students at Everitt Middle School in Wheat Ridge never even got to "indivisible," according to Vincent's mother, Christina Pulciani-Johnson.

"He came home and told me about it after school, and he said, 'I just stood there, Mom. I didn't even know what to do. We all just stood there and didn't even finish it,'" Mrs. Pulciani-Johnson said, quoting her son.

Margo Lucero, the eighth-grade guidance counselor at the school, substituted the phrase "under your belief system" as she led the recitation of the Pledge on Wednesday.

After irate phone calls poured in from parents, Principal Kathleen Norton, who normally leads the Pledge but was out of the building at the time, apologized to students Thursday and sent home letters of apology yesterday.

"The principal called me later. She said she was dumbfounded. She wasn't in the building. She didn't approve it," Mrs. Pulciani-Johnson said.

Meanwhile, Jefferson County School District spokesman Rick Kaufman was engaged in damage control, describing Miss Lucero's decision to rewrite the Pledge as "inappropriate" and stressing that she had acted independently, without consulting the district or other school officials.

Mr. Kaufman said Miss Lucero had been spurred by the date, April 20, the sixth anniversary of the Columbine High School slayings. Both Columbine and Everitt are within the Jefferson County school district.

"The day was the sixth anniversary of Columbine, and she felt she should be all-inclusive, so she replaced the word 'God,'" he said.

Mr. Kaufman refused to say whether Miss Lucero had been disciplined by the district, citing private personnel matters. He did say she was still working at Everitt.

Parents said Miss Lucero had been slated to leave Everitt at the end of the year, and Shelley Pierce, whose daughter is in seventh grade, said it appeared that the counselor was clearing out her office.

Her daughter, Bailey, told her about the incident after school Wednesday. "I was really angry," Mrs. Pierce said.

"Legally, that's our Pledge of Allegiance, and I don't think anyone has the right to change it," she said. "I'm very happy with the way the district has handled it. Nobody's trying to defend it."

Miss Lucero could not be reached for comment.

The episode marks the second time this year the Pledge has made headlines in Colorado. In March, voters in Estes Park recalled a councilman, David Habecker, who refused to stand for the Pledge during town meetings.

 

[Shattered]

Changing it is dead wrong, and I agree she should be reprimanded. She had no right..

But.. why would it make news if someone at a town meeting refuses to stand for it? That should be his personal right...

 

[dilloduck]

Changing it is dead wrong, and I agree she should be reprimanded. She had no right..

But.. why would it make news if someone at a town meeting refuses to stand for it? That should be his personal right...

apparently the voters who live there didn't think that way

 

[freeandfun1]

Changing it is dead wrong, and I agree she should be reprimanded. She had no right..

But.. why would it make news if someone at a town meeting refuses to stand for it? That should be his personal right...

Because he is a councilman and councilmen make a pledge to the people of the city and in most cases, to upholding the laws of the United States. If he can't stand during the pledge of allegiance, then what should make one think he will uphold his pledge to the citizens of his town?

 

[Shattered]

apparently the voters who live there didn't think that way

That doesn't change the fact that it's his personal right to decide whether or not to take part in it. *shrug*

 

[Shattered]

Because he is a councilman and councilmen make a pledge to the people of the city and in most cases, to upholding the laws of the United States. If he can't stand during the pledge of allegiance, then what should make one think he will uphold his pledge to the citizens of his town?

...to upholding the laws of the United States, yes. Taking part in the Pledge is not a law, and in no way affects his ability to properly do his job.

 

[freeandfun1]

...to upholding the laws of the United States, yes. Taking part in the Pledge is not a law, and in no way affects his ability to properly do his job.

But it shows a lack of respect for the very institution he is to uphold the laws of. how can you enforce or support the laws of a country you do not respect?

I know he is (or was) just a lowly city councilman, but doing what he did, in my opinion, does not set a good example. Especially when done by a person in a position of authority.

 

[Shattered]

But it shows a lack of respect for the very institution he is to uphold the laws of. how can you enforce or support the laws of a country you do not respect?

I know he is (or was) just a lowly city councilman, but doing what he did, in my opinion, does not set a good example. Especially when done by a person in a position of authority.

So standing is a requirement to show that you support your country? I wonder how I ever made it through school. I didn't take part in it, but sat there quietly while everyone else did. I have the utmost respect for the country I live in. I just don't hold the same religious views. Big deal.

He was hired to do a job. He got that job, so we can only assume his qualifications are exemplary. You can not hire or fire someone based on religious belief, so why would it be such a big deal after the fact?

 

[freeandfun1]

So standing is a requirement to show that you support your country? I wonder how I ever made it through school. I didn't take part in it, but sat there quietly while everyone else did. I have the utmost respect for the country I live in. I just don't hold the same religious views. Big deal.

He was hired to do a job. He got that job, so we can only assume his qualifications are exemplary. You can not hire or fire someone based on religious belief, so why would it be such a big deal after the fact?

How assinine. First off, he doesn't have to say the "under God" part. If he doesn't want to say that part, then set the example by not saying it. The pledge is not a religious act. It is a pledge of allegiance to the United States. How you or anybody else turns that into a religious pledge, I have NO clue.

And so what if you don't believe in God. For all I care, just consider yourself god when it comes to that portion of the pledge or, as I said, just skip over it.

 

[Shattered]

How assinine. First off, he doesn't have to say the "under God" part. If he doesn't want to say that part, then set the example by not saying it. The pledge is not a religious act. It is a pledge of allegiance to the United States. How you or anybody else turns that into a religious pledge, I have NO clue.

And so what if you don't believe in God. For all I care, just consider yourself god when it comes to that portion of the pledge or, as I said, just skip over it.

So, you're saying that he wouldn't get the same exact reaction if he promptly closed his mouth when it got to the "Under God" part? I think he would. How is sitting down any less offensive than skipping over it? It's not a religious act, but it does have a religious statement in it.

As I said, I don't believe it should be changed, but I don't believe choosing not to take part in it should be cause for termination (if he was), or should even be newsworthy.

 

[freeandfun1]

So, you're saying that he wouldn't get the same exact reaction if he promptly closed his mouth when it got to the "Under God" part? I think he would. How is sitting down any less offensive than skipping over it? It's not a religious act, but it does have a religious statement in it.

As I said, I don't believe it should be changed, but I don't believe choosing not to take part in it should be cause for termination (if he was), or should even be newsworthy.

How is anybody going to know if he skips over it? He was obviously trying to make a spectacle of himself. He got what he deserved - recalled! God bless the citizens of Estes Park!

 

[Shattered]

How is anybody going to know if he skips over it? He was obviously trying to make a spectacle of himself. He got what he deserved - recalled! God bless the citizens of Estes Park!

Easy.. Staring at him, rather than the flag - just like they were.

...or, there's a possibility that someone is just overreacting to something that really shouldn't matter. Actions speak louder than words. If he was doing his job to the best of his ability, then let something you might find mildly offensive go... That whole 'take the good with the bad' and 'tolerance' thing..

Not everyone can be as perfect, I guess.

 

[dilloduck]

Easy.. Staring at him, rather than the flag - just like they were.

...or, there's a possibility that someone is just overreacting to something that really shouldn't matter. Actions speak louder than words. If he was doing his job to the best of his ability, then let something you might find mildly offensive go... That whole 'take the good with the bad' and 'tolerance' thing..

Not everyone can be as perfect, I guess.

no--but a group of voters certainly chose who they want working for them

 

[Shattered]

no--but a group of voters certainly chose who they want working for them

Maybe they should have thought of that before he was given the position. Perhaps that should be on the job application, since it seems to be a requirement.

 

[dilloduck]

Maybe they should have thought of that before he was given the position. Perhaps that should be on the job application, since it seems to be a requirement.

These were all local people who probably actually know the guy---Who knows exactly why they chose to vote against him after the vote was called for??? He may have just turned into a shit head .

 

[dmp]

I can't help but remember the biblical tower of Babel...In man's quest for technology, they drew further and further from God. It's interesting that among those most educated we find those most afraid/despising/intolerant of the idea of God. It's as if our society - becoming closer and closer to God via technology (cloning, to say the very least) is once again contructing a tower. I wonder how God will deal with us this time?

 

[Shattered]

These were all local people who probably actually know the guy---Who knows exactly why they chose to vote against him after the vote was called for??? He may have just turned into a shit head .

Taking the weasily way out isn't really any better, if that's the case.. Just say "Hey, you turned into a shithead. We don't want you representing us anymore."

 

[dilloduck]

Taking the weasily way out isn't really any better, if that's the case.. Just say "Hey, you turned into a shithead. We don't want you representing us anymore."

I don't think you can just tell someone to get the hell out----it requires a legal procedure. Your just pickin on religious folk again and you have no idea WHY so many people wanted him gone.

 

[Shattered]

I don't think you can just tell someone to get the hell out----it requires a legal procedure. Your just pickin on religious folk again and you have no idea WHY so many people wanted him gone.

Well, gee.. The excuse they gave was "he didn't stand". *rolls eyes*

Yeah.. I can see where that would be picking on religious folks.

Get a grip.

 

[Shattered]

Every time you use that stupid "picking on religious folks" bs excuse for you not agreeing with what I'm saying, I go back to ignoring you.

So.. tata.