One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
I was too civil with a recent thread. Do you agree or disagree that refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance is un-Patriotic
Page <prev 2 of 5 next> last>>
Mar 14, 2019 03:21:43   #
Common_Sense_Matters
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
I could go either way... But nothing is preventing the student (or anyone else for that matter) from skipping over that part...

Pledging allegiance to one's Nation should never be an issue...

Also... If one does not believe in God then uttering the words becomes merely symbolic...


Not for one that believes in integrity, that words have meanings and the fact that one should not "pretend" to believe in a deity that one does not believe in.

Reply
Mar 14, 2019 03:22:55   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
Not for one that believes in integrity, that words have meanings and the fact that one should not "pretend" to believe in a deity that one does not believe in.


As I said... Skip over the words...

Reply
Mar 14, 2019 03:26:38   #
Common_Sense_Matters
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
As I said... Skip over the words...


And suffer the repercussions when others take notice that you stop at one point then start back in every time the pledge is recited... I have seen how these things can go, it is a very uncomfortable situation. In my opinion, it was never a necessary addition, the pledge was fine before.

Reply
 
 
Mar 14, 2019 03:36:03   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
And suffer the repercussions when others take notice that you stop at one point then start back in every time the pledge is recited... I have seen how these things can go, it is a very uncomfortable situation. In my opinion, it was never a necessary addition, the pledge was fine before.


The pledge has changed...
I (personally) feel that it is less of an issue to simply stand...

Although.... On a previous thread I vigorously defended an individual's right to refuse to stand...

What one should do, and what one has the right to do, should never be conflated..
I am simply expressing my personal opinion on this thread..

Reply
Mar 14, 2019 07:42:04   #
Rose42
 
The Critical Critic wrote:
Should we also remove these phrases from the Declaration of Independence?

...”Laws of Nature and of Nature's God “...

....”endowed by their Creator”...

...”appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world”...

...”protection of Divine Providence”...


It is in that spirit the words were added to the pledge. As society becomes ever more secular there is more objection to it. That is no coincidence nor is it a coincidence our nation is more amoral.

I don’t think it should be mandatory to recite it. You can’t force people to love their country.

Reply
Mar 14, 2019 08:55:10   #
Kevyn
 
rumitoid wrote:
I will make it one-sided. It naturally invites comments.

One of the enduring traditions in public education is the recitation of the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance before the start of class, often while standing with one hand on the heart. But given both the protections of individuals and restraints on the government (public schools are government entities) required by the First Amendment to the Constitution, do students or school staff have to participate in the Pledge? And can students be reprimanded or retaliated against for refusing (sitting or "taking a knee"), in protest or for other personal reasons? The short answer is "no," but there's a long history of jurisprudence leading to that conclusion.

In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), the Supreme Court ruled that requiring the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The case grew out of West Virginia's passage of legislation requiring the pledge and f**g-saluting. Lawmakers had intended them to be part of instruction on civics, history, and the Constitution, and they defined noncompliance as insubordination that was punishable by expulsion from school. Parents of expelled students were also subject to fines. After Jehovah's Witnesses students were expelled, their parents brought suit contending that the law infringed upon their religious beliefs, which they said required them not to engage in these secular practices.
I will make it one-sided. It naturally invites com... (show quote)


Certain religious denominations such as Jahovas Witnesses preclude practitioners from things like the pledge, to force them to do so would violate their 1st amendment rights. The court made he proper decision. To me it shows a lack of respect for our nation and values to force your version of patriotism or patriotic behavior on others.

Reply
Mar 14, 2019 10:35:43   #
The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
The phrase "under god" was not initially in the pledge of allegiance, it was added AFTER it was initially written so removing it isn't really altering the original is it?

The words, “"the F**g of the United States of America", - wasn’t part of the original pledge either, if you believe we should go back to the original form, then we should remove these also, no? And what about the “Bellamy salute”? That was part of the f**g code originally, should we return to that also?
The original pledge was intended to have the ability of being adopted by any country.
Quote:
While ideally, to keep in the spirit of the first amendment, those lines in the Declaration of Independence should not have been written with those references,

“To keep in the spirit of the first amendment”...

I’m not following. How would you keep in the spirit of an amendment that was written after the Declaration?
Quote:
I do not agree with altering such an important historical document, it would devalue it in my opinion, so no, we shouldn't alter it but I am all for reverting the pledge to it's original form.

Doing so would lose the connection with the United States, and connection to God. The Declaration makes it painfully obvious the Founders believed the new nation would be a God fearing nation, founded on the principles of Judeo-Christianity, and natural law.

But I understand your unwritten message about separation of church and state, I just disagree with your idea of the concept.

Reply
 
 
Mar 14, 2019 10:43:35   #
The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island
 
Rose42 wrote:
It is in that spirit the words were added to the pledge. As society becomes ever more secular there is more objection to it. That is no coincidence nor is it a coincidence our nation is more amoral.

I don’t think it should be mandatory to recite it. You can’t force people to love their country.

I couldn’t agree with you more, Rose. Forcing an individual to do something/anything is antithetical to our founding. However, we should demand respect be given.

Reply
Mar 14, 2019 13:38:54   #
Common_Sense_Matters
 
The Critical Critic wrote:
Doing so would lose the connection with the United States, and connection to God. The Declaration makes it painfully obvious the Founders believed the new nation would be a God fearing nation, founded on the principles of Judeo-Christianity, and natural law.

But I understand your unwritten message about separation of church and state, I just disagree with your idea of the concept.


It was indeed written AFTER the Declaration, but it's principles preceded the declaration. We don't for a moment believe that we wanted to declare independence just to form a similar government ourselves do we? We wanted freedoms and for the freedom of religion to be added in the very first amendment speaks volumes.

Reply
Mar 14, 2019 14:14:31   #
Rose42
 
The Critical Critic wrote:
I couldn’t agree with you more, Rose. Forcing an individual to do something/anything is antithetical to our founding. However, we should demand respect be given.


I agree respect should be given. Never before have liberals wanted so badly to take God out of everything. It never used to be that way. Maybe I should say the left because today's left really isn't liberal anymore.

Whereas it never used to be a big deal for children to say the Pledge of Allegiance now it is. The question is why. Its sure not because people are more enlightened, far from it. I know the why and I expect you do too.

Reply
Mar 14, 2019 18:22:06   #
rumitoid
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Why should one be required to pledge Allegiance to one's country?

Seriously....

Should one enjoy the benefits of one's country without the wilingness to uphold the laws and values of one's country?

Whether the pledge should be made daily can be debated... Once a year on national day is enough in my mind... But individuals like Jehovah Witnesses should not be allowed to v**e (most don't to my knowledge) or partake in any government entitlements...


Refusing to say or Stand for the Pledge, like a number students in our schools, is not an unwillingness to uphold the laws and values of America. It has nothing to that with that far stretched inference. How many days in the year do you, if married, renew your vows to your wife? Does not doing so mean you will break those vows?

Reply
 
 
Mar 14, 2019 18:24:21   #
rumitoid
 
EmilyD wrote:
We don't pledge allegiance to our country...we pledge allegiance to our f**g.

We Pledge allegiance, to the f**g, of the Untied States of America. And to the republic, for witch it stands, one nation under God. Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.


The f**g is just the symbol of our country, meaning it a representation of our country; it is just clothe and not our nation.

Reply
Mar 14, 2019 18:32:21   #
rumitoid
 
The Critical Critic wrote:
Should we also remove these phrases from the Declaration of Independence?

...”Laws of Nature and of Nature's God “...

....”endowed by their Creator”...

...”appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world”...

...”protection of Divine Providence”...


Does the Declaration of Independence demand we Pledge our allegiance to what it says. It also says the "all men are equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights." Was this true when we declared our independence?

Christians want to claim we are a Christian nation, but only proclaiming Christ as Lord and Savoir, and not a generic god, would make us so. So perhaps "under God" can be taken in such a generic way, as to mean wh**ever one finds as their supreme guide to life and values?

I don't know if you noticed but I created a thread about the Pledge that was neutral, giving both sides to the argument without comment or editorializing, and no one responded. It did not fan the flames of partisanship or offer something to h**e. No one was interested. Thus I felt the need to stir the pot a bit with this thread, rile up a debate.

Reply
Mar 14, 2019 18:38:52   #
rumitoid
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
I could go either way... But nothing is preventing the student (or anyone else for that matter) from skipping over that part...

Pledging allegiance to one's Nation should never be an issue...

Also... If one does not believe in God then uttering the words becomes merely symbolic...


"Also... If one does not believe in God then uttering the words becomes merely symbolic...": no, it becomes hypocritical or worse.

Reply
Mar 14, 2019 18:40:48   #
rumitoid
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
As I said... Skip over the words...


Or remove the words. As now written, the Pledge is predicated on "under God."

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 5 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.