Texas pledge of allegiance

[VicMan]

I also notice that KingwoodUnderground needs a moderator to moderate the content: http://www.kingwoodunderground.com/topic.j...opicId=11070259

I love it when people start launching personal attacks. Then that means that I win the debate and they lose.

When someone starts a post as:

"VicBOY is not from anywhere near our area - because he is (or was) a student in Houston ISD (Lamar High School, I believe), he feels like he is an expert in all things "school". He also advocates the take over of Kingwood schools by Houston ISD! He is trying to stir this same pot over at kw.com.

violates separation of church and state - you keep stating this, but nowhere in our founding documents can you find separation of church and state. And that would be at a federal level anyway - this is a State issue. "

Why he or she is surprised to find "rude" PMs is beyond me...

"Let me tell you about "strict construction" and "loose construction."

It will be a cold day in August when I will let you tell me anything.

And by the way, your rude PMs are not going to get you anywhere, either. "

By the way, I frankly told this person that personal attacks are not going to get him anywhere, and that if he wants my respect, he will have to give me respect. I see that he doesn't want to do that.

[Gary]

the pledge alone is ridiculous let alone one intertwined with religion.

I can't believe you just said that! Unfortunately it looks like more and more people feel as you do, and that's damn sad. Personally I'd rather keep GOD in my country (or state), and deal with gum chewing and an occassional pregnancy, but that's probably just me.

Sometimes Liberalism blows my mind.

[VicMan]

I have been told that one of the terms under which Texas joined the Union was that we could elect to split into five states. Is that true? If so, doesn't that make us divisible?

This IS true.

Snopes talks about it here: http://www.snopes.com/history/american/texas.asp

This explains the debate about whether to split Texas.

[gwilson]

"The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over non-religion."

I take that to mean that just because one religion is the religion of majority, it should not be favored over another.

If Pastafarians were the religion of majority, would you object to them saying "One state under the flying spaghetti monster's noodly appendage"?

If you read the text you pasted, you'd know that isn't the case. Putting "Under God" in the pledge is NOT the establishment of a national religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

As you can PLAINLY see, it says NOTHING about preferences, even if this were showing a preference.

[westguy]

First, the separation of church and state is not constitutionally guaranteed.

The debate pretty much ended when Jefferson wrote that the First Amendment was intended to build a wall of separation between church and state. So many people are in denial about that one.

[jmancuso]

I can't believe you just said that! Unfortunately it looks like more and more people feel as you do, and that's damn sad. Personally I'd rather keep GOD in my country (or state), and deal with gum chewing and an occassional pregnancy, but that's probably just me.

Sometimes Liberalism blows my mind.

why is it sad? do we need to recite some outdated nationalist loyalty oath every morning to be proud of our country. as for GOD, that's what churches are meant for, not the classroom.

Putting "Under God" in the pledge is NOT the establishment of a national religion

it recognizes abrahamic religion at the expense of the non-religious, hindus, buddhists and native-american belief systems.

[gwilson]

The debate pretty much ended when Jefferson wrote that the First Amendment was intended to build a wall of separation between church and state. So many people are in denial about that one.

You need to read the constitution. It's easy. I posted the first amendment above.

it recognizes abrahamic religion at the expense of the non-religious, hindus, buddhists and native-american belief systems.

The Constitution says nothing about recognizing a religion. Read it. not someones analysis of it, but the amendment itself.

[jmancuso]

what is there about preference of one religion over another that you're not getting? using god in the pledge is preferring a certain god over others.

what if we put "one nation under shiva" in the pledge? people downplaying the separation of church and state would have a fit.

[gwilson]

what is there about preference of one religion over another that you're not getting? using god in the pledge is preferring a certain god over others.

what if we put "one nation under shiva" in the pledge? people downplaying the separation of church and state would have a fit.

Show me where, in the constitution, it says preference of one religion over another and I'll grant you your point. But like most people who want to see anything resembling Christianity or religion/faith in general removed from anything remotely involved with government, you are applying your INTERPRETATION rather than the ACTUAL TEXT.

[RedScare]

Show me where, in the constitution, it says preference of one religion over another and I'll grant you your point. But like most people who want to see anything resembling Christianity or religion/faith in general removed from anything remotely involved with government, you are applying your INTERPRETATION rather than the ACTUAL TEXT.

So, you are saying that the word "god" is not establishing religion by government? Are you saying "God" is superfluous, as used in the pledges and on our money, rendering the word "God" meaningless when used in pledges and on our money?

I'm down with that....and the Supreme Court agrees.

[gwilson]

So, you are saying that the word "god" is not establishing religion by government? Are you saying "God" is superfluous, as used in the pledges and on our money, rendering the word "God" meaningless when used in pledges and on our money?

I'm down with that....and the Supreme Court agrees.

The presence and acceptance of the word God is not an establishment of a national religion or even the preference of one over another. The term "God" is not unique to christians, abrahamic religions. It applies to any religion that actually worships a God. The author of the bill means her personal God, if a Muslim child says the pledge, it would mean Allah, so on, so forth.

The establishment clause has been bastardized and misconstrued by anti-theists and more importantly anti-christians to remove any reference of God from anything governmental. If this was the intention of the founding fathers, they would have been specific (like they were with everything else) that they don't even want religion referenced.

And it wouldn't render the word meaningless at all.

[RedScare]

Actually, appellate courts have said exactly that, because to use your explanation would be an endorsement of religion. The courts have said that "under God" and "In God We Trust", which replaced the FAR better national motto, "E Pluribus Unum", were purely secular phrases, with no religious intent. In saying so, the courts clearly stated that the phrases, when placed in pledges and on currency lose all real religious meaning, becoming mere jingoistic phrases, which would appear to be the exact opposite of what the authors intended.

One would think it would be plainly obvious to anyone that when religion is forced upon another by vote of Congress or legislature, that it cheapens the faith of those who truly are religious. To think that by forcing school children, atheists, agnostics and Buddhists to pledge allegiance to your god, it somehow places your god in higher esteem flies in the face of all logic. But then, logic and religion have never been a comfortable mix anyway.

As polls of the rising numbers of atheists and agnostics show repeatedly, Ms. Riddle's victory is becoming an increasingly hollow one.

[jmancuso]

Show me where, in the constitution, it says preference of one religion over another and I'll grant you your point.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

just as it does not specifically mention preference of one religion over another, it does not mention that it only applied in the context of a state religion either (like the CoE).

But like most people who want to see anything resembling Christianity or religion/faith in general removed from anything remotely involved with government, you are applying your INTERPRETATION rather than the ACTUAL TEXT.

the treaty of tripoli (mentioned above); jefferson's separation of church and state speech as well as establishment clause in the first amendment pretty much sums up the founding fathers' attitude regarding the issue of church and state. as would most moderate christians. no one is impeding on your right to practice christianity but it does not belong in the classroom, courtroom or congress.

[Gary]

The debate pretty much ended when Jefferson wrote that the First Amendment was intended to build a wall of separation between church and state. So many people are in denial about that one.

Where are the words "separation of church and state" found in the constitution? These words are found in an obscure letter written by Thomas Jefferson that he penned explaining how the church and religion was to be protected like a house using a wall from the state. These same words today are twisted and revised to be the default for every leftist rational to separate religion from every corner of public life. Using one phrase out of one obscure founding father

[gwilson]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

just as it does not specifically mention preference of one religion over another, it does not mention that it only applied in the context of a state religion either (like the CoE).

the treaty of tripoli (mentioned above); jefferson's separation of church and state speech as well as establishment clause in the first amendment pretty much sums up the founding fathers' attitude regarding the issue of church and state. as would most moderate christians. no one is impeding on your right to practice christianity but it does not belong in the classroom, courtroom or congress.

Holy crap, way to misquote the constitution.

There is a COMMA after religion, just FYI. The purpose of this is to not establish a national religion. Under God does not denote the establishment of a national religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Personally, I don't really see a need to have it in the pledge, but the arguments for why it shouldn't be there are flawed.

[Jax]

If you read the text you pasted, you'd know that isn't the case. Putting "Under God" in the pledge is NOT the establishment of a national religion.

As you can PLAINLY see, it says NOTHING about preferences, even if this were showing a preference.

You missed the part in the above quote about "the preference of one religion over another, or religion over non-religion".

[jmancuso]

Holy crap, way to misquote the constitution.

There is a COMMA after religion, just FYI. The purpose of this is to not establish a national religion. Under God does not denote the establishment of a national religion.

misquote? i don't think so. i didn't include or prohibiting the free exercise thereof becuase it had no bearing on whether religion was sanctioned by the government or not.

[Parrothead]

gwilson, your posts in this thread are 100% correct. It is refreshing to see someone who understands the Constitution as it was intended at the time it was written; not how it is interpreted (er, twisted) for life today.

I, for one, was always proud to say the Pledge of Allegiance in school. To me, it was about being proud of my country. I feel that pride today, whether I am singing the National Anthem on the 4th of July, or "Deep in the Heart of Texas" at an Astros game.

[Jax]

If gwilson's interpretation is the only correct one, then why does the supreme court have a problem with it?

I'm proud to be American too, but that has absolutely nothing to do with my issue with the "under god" pledge. I'd be more okay with "under the god of your choice" though.

You can be proud without a silly pledge, you know. Anything I am forced to do feels artificial. I know many don't agree with me on that, but I want people out there to know that just because I have a problem with the pledge doesn't mean I'm not proud to be American.

[Poppahop]

My wife is English, and she thinks all pledges are silly at best, dangerous indoctrination at worst. I think she's right. On the other hand, she's an atheist and yet she had no problem with praying and singing hymns in school. (Most schools in England are affiliated with the Church of England.) I agree with her about the pledges but disagree about the prayers and hymns. If you want your kids to pray in school, send them to a religious school.

Also, I was talking to a woman from the ex-Soviet Union a while back, and she said they used to pledge allegiance to Lenin every morning at school. Pledges of allegiance seem to be more in line with Communism than freedom when you think about it.

[Captain Impossible]

...she thinks all pledges are silly at best, dangerous indoctrination at worst.

What do you think the American public school system is there for? If you want there to be real education, the public schools usually aren't the best place to find it.

[KinkaidAlum]

If gwilson's interpretation is the only correct one, then why does the supreme court have a problem with it?

I'm proud to be American too, but that has absolutely nothing to do with my issue with the "under god" pledge. I'd be more okay with "under the god of your choice" though.

You can be proud without a silly pledge, you know. Anything I am forced to do feels artificial. I know many don't agree with me on that, but I want people out there to know that just because I have a problem with the pledge doesn't mean I'm not proud to be American.

Jax,

Don't be silly. Pride in Country can only be found in people with American Flag shirts made by child labor in Indonesia, yellow ribbon magnetic decals most likely made in China adorned on their German cars, and TIVO set to Blue Collar TV.

All other folks are just East Coast Liberal Elites that ain't got no pride in their country and no understanding of our true history!

gwilson, your posts in this thread are 100% correct. It is refreshing to see someone who understands the Constitution as it was intended at the time it was written; not how it is interpreted (er, twisted) for life today.

I, for one, was always proud to say the Pledge of Allegiance in school. To me, it was about being proud of my country. I feel that pride today, whether I am singing the National Anthem on the 4th of July, or "Deep in the Heart of Texas" at an Astros game.

Parrothead is a time traveler with the ability to decipher context from hundreds of years ago.

Of course, if she had these powers at that time, she'd be called a witch and the folks she is now defending would burn her.

[Guest Marty]

Jax,

Don't be silly. Pride in Country can only be found in people with American Flag shirts made by child labor in Indonesia, yellow ribbon magnetic decals most likely made in China adorned on their German cars, and TIVO set to Blue Collar TV.

All other folks are just East Coast Liberal Elites that ain't got no pride in their country and no understanding of our true history!

Parrothead is a time traveler with the ability to decipher context from hundreds of years ago.

Of course, if she had these powers at that time, she'd be called a witch and the folks she is now defending would burn her.

Answer his question without the American hating logic.

[jmancuso]

Answer his question without the American hating logic.

how is that america hating?

[Gary]

My wife is English, and she thinks all pledges are silly at best, dangerous indoctrination at worst. I think she's right. On the other hand, she's an atheist and yet she had no problem with praying and singing hymns in school. (Most schools in England are affiliated with the Church of England.) I agree with her about the pledges but disagree about the prayers and hymns. If you want your kids to pray in school, send them to a religious school.

Also, I was talking to a woman from the ex-Soviet Union a while back, and she said they used to pledge allegiance to Lenin every morning at school. Pledges of allegiance seem to be more in line with Communism than freedom when you think about it.

You have got to be kidding.

If gwilson's interpretation is the only correct one, then why does the supreme court have a problem with it?

I'm proud to be American too, but that has absolutely nothing to do with my issue with the "under god" pledge. I'd be more okay with "under the god of your choice" though.

You can be proud without a silly pledge, you know. Anything I am forced to do feels artificial. I know many don't agree with me on that, but I want people out there to know that just because I have a problem with the pledge doesn't mean I'm not proud to be American.

Jax, you seem like a nice guy, but your conclusion shows your age and lack of understanding of what made this country great.

I am simply in awe at the anti pledge attitude of some of you, and quite frankly it scares the hell out of me.

[Jax]

So tell me what made this country great? Freedom?

Simply saying I lack an understanding of what made this country great means nothing without explaining yourself.

Being forced to do something doesn't equate to freedom. Freedom is saying you love your country out of your own free will. When something becomes mandatory, it makes something a lot less meaningful. Just my opinion. And don't bring up the age thing. I know a lot of older people who agree with me. I think it may have more to do with education or political leanings than age.

[Gary]

The Constitution says nothing about recognizing a religion. Read it. not someones analysis of it, but the amendment itself.

'

Your right. Our founders wanted nothing to do with God in regards to building or sustaining their government. NOT! If you care to look at the way things were truly intended before they got twisted and distorted, then please read below.

John Adams:

[Jax]

How about we just agree to disagree? I think our difference may not come from age or political leanings or education, but religion.

[Gary]

Simply saying I lack an understanding of what made this country great means nothing without explaining yourself.

Ok, I'll explain further.

This country was founded on Christianity and today many people distort this fact. It has nothing to do with forcing anyone to do anything, rather it has everything to do with what made this country great, and what the founders absolutely intended.

Another example.

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."

How about we just agree to disagree? I think our difference may not come from age or political leanings or education, but religion.

Religion is not the issue. The issue is trying to bring back the initial intentions of our fathers, which as I've said repeatedly is what made our country great. To look at the current problems with our kids today versus that of kids before prayer was taken out of schools, makes this issue obvious for those that are truly unbiased and care to look at facts.

Have you no comment on the founders quotes that I provided? They are directly related to this thread.

[Jax]

Some random quotes from religious founding fathers doesn't convince me that it was their intention to inject religion into the classrooms of public school. By the way you forgot to quote Jefferson.

And I don't get how the 4th of july is "indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior".

P.S. I disagree that life was better before prayer was taken out of schools. What about slavery?