close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Phacopsrana, Next Time Read!!

Discussion in 'The Powder Keg' started by Stewart, Jun 29, 2002.

  1. For some reason I could not reply under the original post about the pledge of allegiance so I had to start a new post. My first question is why in the world are you replying to me about a response I sent to Lenny? Had you taken the time to read my post you would see by the way that it started that it was intended for him.

    But now that you have me on the topic of reading and understanding let me continue. I read several of your posts and this time you did put the correct president, Eisenhower not FDR. From the articles I read it was not necessarily an endorsement of only the christian faith but recognition of the almighty.

    Reference my right to run up and down the streets reciting the pledge, I invite you to get your reading glasses and read the article again. If the court decision is upheld childern in 9 western states would no longer be allowed to recite the Pledge of Allegience in school.

    As far as spliting hairs on the actual name I am not even going to get into the religous discussion in depth other than to say read the bible.

    So please, the next time before you assume, take the time to read.
     
  2. SPOCAHP ANAR

    SPOCAHP ANAR G&G Enthusiast

    The president escaped my mind that is why i used the (?) after his name I got it right after I went back to read the article again, ya see funny thing is I cant start posting and then open up another window to cite my sources it all has to come from my cluttered mind.

    This will not keep kids from saying it if they want. If I want to say the pledge in class I can I will and it is my right. It is referring to the fact that they will not be reciting the pledge as a part of normal daily class routine. The government will not, cannot keep anyone from expressing any religious opinion. If they do then they will be in court. Besides if this is really the issue that the pledge can't be recited, then take the word god out, happy now?

    Still the ruling is just and should stand. if you , and anyone else who does not agree with this ruling please ask yourself why did it take the congress 50+ years to add Under God to the pledge? It was a bill backed by religious groups and signed by the president. The almighty is a loose term and sanctions no one religion, but it does exclude a few. GOD is strictly a Christian term which is why it was put in in the 50's.

    Look I am sick and tired of having schmucks like this guy sticking it to me everywhere he can, but he does have some grounds here as much as I hate to agree with him.

    If I misread your post I am sorry, Stewart. I think that Jesse closed the post down after 5 pages. I do tend to skim as I read as my attention span is short so sometimes I do get only parts of a point but this rarely happens much. I will try to do better when reading yours, and others posts.
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2002

  3. It's strange that our laws are based on the 10 commandments, but it took 50 years to acknowledge God all mighty in the pledge. Or maybe that's the way it should have been all along. I am not referring to anyone on this thread, but I think we are getting what we deserve for turning our face away from God as a nation.
    Gentlemen we are a handfull compared to the country as a whole. And this makes me sad.
     
  4. NRAJOE

    NRAJOE YOU TALKIN' TO ME!? Forum Contributor

    And now as the liberals do not abide by the 10 commandments they are doing their best to remove GOD from everything they can. They will truly be sorry on judgement day.
     
  5. And you know Joe --thats a shame.
     
  6. Phacopsrana, there are just several things about Newdow's argument and the whole superior court ruling that really bother me. I don't know how old Newdow is but let's say he is in his 30's, Ike added "under God" during the 50's. So while it took 50 years for the phrase to be added, it also took 50 years for someone to all of a sudden have a problem with it.

    I grew up in school saying the Pledge of Allegience every morning. You are right that the government can't stop individuals from saying it. But why, with all of the problems in our schools today would we not want our kids to recite it as a whole and to understand it's meaning. As I pointed out earlier, this ruling would stop kids in 9 western states from reciting it, because one guy doesn't want his daughter to have to say, "under God". She will spend money that says "In God we trust" but to say "under God" leads to a court case.

    If he wants his daughter to be excused when the Pledge is said then fine. But did anyone ask the parents of those kids in those 9 states if they had a problem with their kids not saying the Pledge in class anymore? This is what I meant about don't infringe on my rights. I guess we will have to see where this one goes, but it seems like Congress, the President, and a large number of Americans don't care much for this decision.

    I am sorry that I sounded heated earlier but I had some responses laid out for Lenny and was very surprised to see a response which appeared as though you were taking offense when I had not directed these points to you. Then when I couldn't post a reply , that really got me going.
     
  7. SPOCAHP ANAR

    SPOCAHP ANAR G&G Enthusiast

    I know what ya mean I said it in school and I also had a second grade teacher talk to us about GOD. But that was in the 70's and in the heart of Baptist country. I don't have a problem with saying it, but it does serve as a tool for indoctrination of governmental allegiance, as well as religous beliefs, one in which I am not to fond of my child being force fed to follow blindly.... guess which one, and its not god.
     
  8. Eric

    Eric G&G Newbie

    673
    0
    USA
    I grew up saying 'grace' as a class before lunch, a morning prayer over the loud speaker, and of course, the pledge of allegience. Systematically those things have been taken out and I must say our culture has taken a turn for the worse. Picture a school in the fifties, what problems did they have? Compare those to a school in NYC or how about in the PRK, in LA now. Did we have the Columbines, the massive amount of youths being killed in gang violence...how about the drug problem? Bring them up right and they will live right. Children are very impressionable, quit teaching them that everything that is 'right' is wrong!!!!!!!!
     
  9. SPOCAHP ANAR

    SPOCAHP ANAR G&G Enthusiast

    Good point but I believe that there are other factors involved also, not to say that the one's you listed don't have any influence as I believe they do.
     
  10. IF the ruling stands, I disagree with Pha's assertion that children will not be prohibited from reciting the pledge.

    It depends on how you define prohibited. When you are intimidated my other students, teachers and perhaps other parents then that suppression is a prohibition. And, that IS going to happen.

    Now, if you talk law, then I agree.

    But when one is suppressed then, in my book, they are prohibited.

    As far as Ike getting Congressional backing in the 50's to put God in the pledge I see it as Ike's, and Congress', attempts to unite a nation in the lull and minor depression five years following a major war.

    At the time, to them, and apparently the nation, it was their feeling that a united belief symbolizing hope was needed.
     
  11. Klaus

    Klaus G&G Newbie

    Children will certainly be prohibited from saying the pledge. That was the whole point of the lawsuit. It was VOLUNTARY but the court ruled that it violated the "establishment clause" as redefined by a series of liberal precedent rulings. In other words, the court did not care what the Constitution actually says, only how previous liberal judges "interpreted" it.
     
  12. Stopper

    Stopper G&G Newbie

    I like the pledge, not to proud of the decision, good thing there are vacancies on that bench!

    I think it is a pledge to unite the "people", give them something to feel good about. That your not alone you have a nation behind you and with you.

    Now I am a vet, so I am meaning "people" when I say nation not gumminit, because I have been there done that!

    I think the pledge is a **** good thing for us all.

    Just my .02!
     
  13. Well hopefully this athiest's lawsuit will mean termination of the idiot judge who kissed his rear.
     
  14. Eric

    Eric G&G Newbie

    673
    0
    USA
    This entire episode is starting to really upset me. Guess what guys, we are the greatest country on the planet...I wonder why, EVERYTHING that makes this country special is being eroded away by liberal thinkers that believe the entire population of the world should be on an even plane.
     
  15. SPOCAHP ANAR

    SPOCAHP ANAR G&G Enthusiast

    Dale I certainly agree with you about suppression equals prohibition. There are many ways an authoritative figure such as a teacher can exert influence on a child be it good or bad, constitutional or not. First of all the pledge as it stands before this ruling was found that it could not be enforced by officials by making children recite it due to religious freedom. Secondly it usually is not the children who have problems with issues like these due to the fact that they are so impressionable at these ages, but the parents who tend to argue these points when they conflict with their own views. I don't know why Congress and the president felt the need to add these words to the pledge after so many years except as to make some inference to religion. (no I am not trying to open this topic up again)

    It does look like this will be overturned, and more importantly it will hurt liberal democrats and that IS a good thing!
     
  16. Even plane -- reminds me of communism.
     
  17. Stopper

    Stopper G&G Newbie

    Yes sir Old Fossil you are correct sir - if it hurts the liberal dems it is a good thang!
     
  18. I guess our fore fathers forgot to tell us to read the fine print. In other words read between the lines. Is there anyone who questions the integrety of those men. Just because every word wasn't spelled out in black and white. So what if God was added later. It's quite clear it was meant to be from the get go. Look at the whole picture not just the Pledge of Alligence. Anyone with religious beliefs believes in God--So what's the problem-- unless you are anti American. Even satanists believe in God--but not in the supreme since. Athiests--purely your do it your self folks.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2002