The Pledge stays as it is...

[crystalpc]

Federal public schools should not exist in the first place. If they didn't, people would be able to teach their children what they wanted them to learn whether that be Christian, Muslim, Atheism, Buddhism, etc. . . We would not have all these problems, and let's face it. A federal school system is never going to appease everyone. It is ridiculous to even think so. Maybe we should return to our roots and to our Constitution and have the states and people run education, not the federal government.

It was never suppose to be federalized until John Dewey, and the Blankety blank NEA who took union dues from me in this state for years to fund their ungodly agenda.

 

[Rae]

Not so.

Yes, it is.

If there was a disciplinary problem in your school(s), you should have referred them to a principal or administrator.

I did. They didn't do a blasted thing to protect me. They did make me see a social worker, though. None of the kids who abused me had to. I still hate all of them for it.

At any rate, my tax dollars are still going to fund recitations of the Pledge in schools. The recitations are required, IIRC, even if no student has to say them. That's still excessive and unwarranted entanglement of church and state.

 

[Paula]

Federal public schools should not exist in the first place...

They don't. The U.S. does not have a national public school system, with the exception of military academies, such as the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, for example. Each of the 50 states has its own laws regulating education. Although public schools may be partially funded by the federal government, they also draw upon local and state tax dollars as well. Most importantly, each state's educational curriculum is designed and set up by state (and sometimes local) educational boards.

 

[Philosoft]

Right. And the Judicial branch of government is not supposed to make laws. They are supposed to make their rulings based on the Constitution. They have no power to change the Constitution.

Insofar as the Constitution does not speak about specific situations that might arise in trial, the courts have interpretive power, which is forever mistaken for lawmaking.

Not that I see how this is relevant to the Pledge case, mind you.

The central point is the Constitution, which was designed for change, by the people, through the Legislative and Executive branches of government.

Your point escapes me.

So, your rant on judges has no bearing on, nor negates my earlier remarks.

If all you wanted to do was complain about 'activist' judges, why didn't you just say so?

 

[crystalpc]

They don't. The U.S. does not have a national public school system, with the exception of military academies, such as the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, for example. Each of the 50 states has its own laws regulating education. Although public schools may be partially funded by the federal government, they also draw upon local and state tax dollars as well. Most importantly, each state's educational curriculum is designed and set up by state (and sometimes local) educational boards.

Hey I was a forced member of the NEA, don't tell me that we don't have schools run by the Federal Government. Every school district got 2500 per student per semester from the Federal government.. To match local funds. I believe that is closer to 3500 now, if not more.

 

[crazyfingers]

The Constitution is an ever changing document, based on what the people want.

Not until an amendment is passed.

Furthermore, no one's rights are being denied and no one is being oppressed with the words, "Under God" in the pledge.

Thanks for playing.

When public school teachers teach that a monotheistic god exists, that violates my rights as a parent. The government is interfering with my ability to teach what I believe to my children. And the children's rights not to be told by the government what religious point of view to believe are also violated.

I am absolutely convinced that those who want to have "under god" in the pledge simply want it there. They don't care that they are violating the religious freedom of others or violating the constitution. They want it and will violate the rights of others to get it because they want to impose their religion onto others. Period.

 

[Larry]

Insofar as the Constitution does not speak about specific situations that might arise in trial, the courts have interpretive power, which is forever mistaken for lawmaking.

Agreed.

However, interpretation of the Constitution is the limit of the judges. This is where some step over the line. For example, the ruling that the 2000 ballot re-count should cease was, in my opinion, over the line. Wouldn't you agree?

If all you wanted to do was complain about 'activist' judges, why didn't you just say so?

Now there's a leap!

I make one post - ONE - in jest, about political activism in the courts, and you assume that all I want to do is complain about 'activist' judges. Forget about everything else. Forget about all my other remarks, and just assume that.

Tell me, Philosoft. In your world, what color is the sky?

 

[crystalpc]

Not until an amendment is passed.



When public school teachers teach that a monotheistic god exists, that violates my rights as a parent. The government is interfering with my ability to teach what I believe to my children. And the children's rights not to be told by the government what religious point of view to believe are also violated.

I am absolutely convinced that those who want to have "under god" in the pledge simply want it there. They don't care that they are violating the religious freedom of others or violating the constitution. They want it and will violate the rights of others to get it because they want to impose their religion onto others. Period.

Move to China...there wasn't that easy?

 

[Larry]

Not until an amendment is passed.



When public school teachers teach that a monotheistic god exists, that violates my rights as a parent. The government is interfering with my ability to teach what I believe to my children. And the children's rights not to be told by the government what religious point of view to believe are also violated.

I am absolutely convinced that those who want to have "under god" in the pledge simply want it there. They don't care that they are violating the religious freedom of others or violating the constitution. They want it and will violate the rights of others to get it because they want to impose their religion onto others. Period.

You guys are double teaming me. Not fair!!!

What public schools have the teaching of a monotheistic God in their curriculum. I'd like to hear about this. Are there exams to follow? Are the students required to pass this course?

And, just to let you know about me - Whether the wording 'under God' is kept in the Pledge or ommitted, makes no difference to me. It's not as big a deal to me as some think. I just find it fascinating the lengths people will go, (on both sides of the debate), to make their case.

 

[crystalpc]

Larry don't feel bad I got your back..

 

[Larry]

Larry don't feel bad I got your back..

Thanks.

It's all in fun.

 

[burrow_owl]

What public schools have the teaching of a monotheistic God in their curriculum. I'd like to hear about this. Are there exams to follow? Are the students required to pass this course?

I just find it fascinating the lengths people will go, (on both sides of the debate), to make their case.

I have a lot of sympathy for this line of thinking. But, I can also remember being a little kid and ripping on the Jehovah's kids who couldn't say it. And if the pledge isn't such a big deal, why not err on the side of caution? Ditching the pledge - no big whup really, but ditching it would result in fewer crying kids. So all things being equal, why not just eliminate it?

 

[Paula]

Hey I was a forced member of the NEA, don't tell me that we don't have schools run by the Federal Government. Every school district got 2500 per student per semester from the Federal government.. To match local funds. I believe that is closer to 3500 now, if not more.

I don't know in what part of the country or what level you taught, but American public schools are not federally operated, in the strict sense of the word, although many feel there is too much power at the top of the educational pyramid. In the southwest, during the last decade, the trend has been to decentralize public schooling in order to put power back into the hands of the neighborhood school districts. This seems to be working just fine.

I taught high school many years ago on the east coast and my paycheck came from the city. The curriculum I taught came from the local city board and conformed to state Board of Regents standards. But if your beef is about paying NEA dues, I can certainly see why. These days, I wouldn't want to either.

 

[crystalpc]

Michigan..is that part of the country?? I worked for Livonia Public Schools..My pay check never came from the city, that was a seperate government entity from the school systems in MI. Our paychecks came from the Livonia Board of Education. Let me ask did your schools recieve federal matching funds?

 

[Larry]

I have a lot of sympathy for this line of thinking. But, I can also remember being a little kid and ripping on the Jehovah's kids who couldn't say it. And if the pledge isn't such a big deal, why not err on the side of caution? Ditching the pledge - no big whup really, but ditching it would result in fewer crying kids. So all things being equal, why not just eliminate it?

I understand what you say, but my remarks were directed to crazyfingers' statement that "public school teachers teach that a monotheistic god exists".

To me, that's a wild stretch in order to make a point.

 

[Paula]

At any rate, my tax dollars are still going to fund recitations of the Pledge in schools. The recitations are required, IIRC, even if no student has to say them. That's still excessive and unwarranted entanglement of church and state.

As recitation of the Pledge is neither required nor can it be deemed a prayer, there really is no church-state entanglement." Recitation doesn't cost the taxpayers anything, only purchase of the flags which would be there anyway.

 

[Philosoft]

"There is no doubt that respondent is sincere in his atheism and rejection of a belief in God. But the mere fact that he disagrees with this part of the Pledge does not give him a veto power over the decision of the public schools that willing participants should pledge allegiance to the flag in the manner prescribed by Congress." (Chief Justice Rehnquist)

Rehnquist is off in la-la land here. Nowhere in Newdow's case does he claim the mere fact of his personal opposition to "under God" ought to be persuasive. This is basically Rehquist scolding Newdow for daring to stand up for the rights of the atheist minority in the first place.

He continues his abuse:

To give the parent of such a child a sort of "heckler's veto" over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase "under God," is an unwarranted extension of the Establishment Clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance.

"Shut up and sit down, Newdow. You won't be happy until no flag-draped 'Mercans can say the pledge, will you?"

"Michael Newdow's challenge to petitioner school district's policy is a well-intentioned one, but his distaste for the reference to "one Nation under God," however sincere, cannot be the yardstick of our Establishment Clause inquiry." (Justice O'Connor)

Again, this is not the meat of Newdow's case. Newdow does not offer his "distaste" as his primary rationale.

O'Connor characterizes the placement of "under God" rather oddly:

It is unsurprising that a Nation founded by religious refugees and dedicated to religious freedom should find references to divinity in its symbols, songs, mottoes, and oaths.

"Under God" is hardly 'found' in the Pledge as if its historical background was shrouded in mystery. We know exactly when it was added and for what reason. O'Connor claims later to understand these reasons:

It is true that some of the legislators who voted to add the phrase "under God" to the Pledge may have done so in an attempt to attach to it an overtly religious message. SeeH. R. Rep. No. 1693, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 2-3. But their intentions cannot, on their own, decide our inquiry. First of all, those legislators also had permissible secular objectives in mind--they meant, for example, to acknowledge the religious origins of our Nation's belief in the "individuality and the dignity of the human being." Id., at 1.

I'm not buying it, Sandra Day. Tell me about the phrase's primary purpose. Look at the political climate of the time. Look at the recorded words of President Eisenhower. Don't make me do all the work here.

Second--and more critically--the subsequent social and cultural history of the Pledge shows that its original secular character was not transformed by its amendment. In School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203 (1963), we explained that a government may initiate a practice "for the impermissible purpose of supporting religion" but nevertheless "retai[n] the la[w] forthe permissible purpose of furthering overwhelmingly secular ends." Id., at 263-264 (citing McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420 (1961)).

This is just false. Whatever the original "character" of the pledge, it's clear that the author Bellamy, in historical context, wanted people to acknowledge the virtues of a strong centralized government. His intent was that people should pledge allegiance to the republic - a system of government - rather than any nation proper. To say that the subsequent additions to the pledge of "of the United States of America" and "under God" have not changed its "purpose" is to be ignorant of history.

"To be sure, such an affirmation is not a prayer. . . .Through the Pledge policy, the State has not created or maintained any religious establishment, and neither has it granted government authority to an existing religion. The Pledge policy does not expose anyone to the legal coercion associated with an established religion. Further, no other free-exercise rights are at issue. It follows that religious liberty rights are not in question and that the Pledge policy fully comports with the Constitution." (Clarence Thomas)

Thomas is a virtually brainless Scalia-sycophant. That is all I have to say about that.

 

[Paula]

Michigan..is that part of the country?? I worked for Livonia Public Schools..My pay check never came from the city, that was a seperate government entity from the school systems in MI. Our paychecks came from the Livonia Board of Education. Let me ask did your schools recieve federal matching funds?

Interesting you should mention Michigan. A while back, I did hear about a big dispute in some Michigan districts over paying NEA dues, where some teachers took exception for religious reasons and wanted the funds redirected (or something). For reasons I won't go into, I can't say I blame them.

We did receive some federal funding in N.Y., but I can't recall if it was matched, like yours. It's been a long while.

 

[crazyfingers]

You guys are double teaming me. Not fair!!!

What public schools have the teaching of a monotheistic God in their curriculum. I'd like to hear about this. Are there exams to follow? Are the students required to pass this course?

Every morning when the teacher tells the lids to say, "one nation under god". That's when.

And, just to let you know about me - Whether the wording 'under God' is kept in the Pledge or ommitted, makes no difference to me. It's not as big a deal to me as some think. I just find it fascinating the lengths people will go, (on both sides of the debate), to make their case.

It's a very simple case why it should not be there. Simply put, the government shouldn't be teaching kids that a monotheist god exists. The government should have nothing to say on the subject.

 

[crazyfingers]

As recitation of the Pledge is neither required nor can it be deemed a prayer, there really is no church-state entanglement." Recitation doesn't cost the taxpayers anything, only purchase of the flags which would be there anyway.

Dream on.