Posted on 06/26/2002 11:25:21 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
Many governments that favored state-sponsored religion have historically sucked too. Read about how the people of early Massachusetts persecuted religious dissenters (whipping, branding, jailing). Read about the massacres and burnings at the stake in Europe during the Reformation.
One of the beauties of America is that it protects the views of minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
What planet are you from?
Must be anarchistic!
But well, to make it short, I don't understand these people either.
I happen to be watching Fox as I type this.
I really, really hope they replay it...the bastard!
While I respect your point of view. I disagree. If it were just about favoring the majority then, assuming the minority care, why dont we just add an amendment to include all other religions?To the Pledge? I doubt you can. There's agnostics, there's atheists, and there are probably people who feel it profanes God's name to use it in a secular manner.
And why bother? It was fine the way it was. Leave the Pledge as it was meant to be, and set aside the moment of silence for students to use as they will.
-Eric
An interesting point... I hope no Left-leaning teachers read it and get some ideas. =^/
Furthermore, this pledge is NOT just a pledge to the flag and to the republic, as you assert, but also, as it currently stands, to an unknown entity that not everyone believes exists, nor does every parent want their children indoctrinated in such a belief.
That is not correct. The pledge is "to the flag", and "to the Republic". The four qualifiers that come after that ("one nation", "under God", "indivisible", and "with Liberty and Justice for all") all describe the Republic, and are not more ideas that are being given an oath of support. One would think that the atheists could simply stand mute for those two words if they believe that this nations is not/cannot be "under God", but we don't live in a society that can rely on mature behavior or decent parental advice from adults, unfortunately. If the pledge is a TOTAL affront to them, let them remove their kids from the public schools just as the religious Right families do due to the influx of non-Christian and anti-Christian ideas.
Your comments are indicative of someone who does not want government to be limited or smaller. Rather, they are indicative of one who would like a big government that promotes his/her own personal beliefs and indoctrinates our children in them. And that is socialist AND anti-American.
This reminds me of a GREAT thread from almost two years ago that discussed the double-edged sword of mandating a pledge to Freedom. It's a fine philosophical line, and an important one.
Maybe Fathers of countries are too busy pledging their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to be bothered overmuch by flags.
Perhaps we should contemplate the fact that more American children know the words to the "Pledge of Allegiance" than know the name of the Father of our Country.
People who are too attached to pledges and flags are very often not enough attached to human liberty. Nor, I might add, to the God named Jesus......
What vouchers do is make ME fund a school that's NOT ACCOUNTABLE to ME (I can't vote for it's school board, etc.).
OK, fine. I'll go with your opinion--IF I can get back every damned cent that my local property taxes, state income taxes, and Federal income taxes contribute toward the public school system. Every single solitary "In God We Trust" penny. Then I can take that money and put it into a school setting that I can control, either homeschooling or a private school.
But as long as I have to fund the government indoctrination system, upon pain of fines or jail time for not paying, then I'm not free to send my child wherever I want them to learn.
}:-)4
Thank you, I stand corrected!
We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the preservation and perpetuation of the same.
}:-)4
Then frickin' substitute your "God". Quit worrying about MY God, unless you want to convert.
Even this is a gross overstatement. The emphasis was in not allowing a church to enforce sectarian edicts. Even those who were Deists would not and did not take the stand that Christianity had no place in government.
Pretty funny for a senator from the half of Virginia that didn't secede. :)
Hey, I'm a Southron, I'm all for putting the "under God" back in and taking the "indivisible" out...but when push comes to shove, we've got to stop these judicial idiots in the 9th Circuit. Even if it means leaving the "indivisible" in there! :)
Now, I'm just going to sit back and watch all the Democrats spin this, watch them allllll be SO horribly disturbed, and watch them all line up behind useless symbolic resolutions to overturn the ruling--which they can't do. And then, they'll keep blocking Bush's judicial nominees so liberal Constitutional "interpretation" can continue unabated!
Don't be fooled, America! Don't watch what they say, watch what they do!
}:-)4
That's an irrational statement. How can I substitute my god in what the teacher says?
thanks
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.