Pledge! Now!

[alanschu]

Well, there's still topics in Way Off-Topic, they just aren't on-topic for the other categories!

 

Besides...this is the "Way Off Topic" forum. Not the "Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay Off Topic" forum

[Nartwak]

[Calax]

I think the reason the teachers are a little antsy about saying the pledge is becasue they are children of the fifties. Also you have to remember the same thing happens at sports games. and in locker rooms before sports games and you are looked down upon if you don't join in. I was lucky I lived in sacremento, after I moved to EDH my teachers seemed to stop caring and I found my self wondering why I wasn't saying the pledge every morning.

[taks]

children of the 50s should be retiring soon... fortunately, perhaps.

 

a kafuffle alan?

 

taks

[~Di]

how come I don't remember any dicussions about it before hand?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

does the term "bandwagon" come to mind?

 

ooh, lookey, somebody is raising hell about something that will make conservatives (er, religious conservatives) squirm! let's all get on board.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hmm, that's a bit dismissive and condescending, don't you think?

 

I can only speak for myself, since I wouldn't presume the motivation of others, but I've been annoyed by the political insertion of the words "Under God" and the "In God We Trust" addition to our currency for more years than many forum goers here have been alive. Is it to annoy republicans? Well, no, because I AM a republican and have been one since I first registered to vote (which doesn't mean that the republican party hasn't changed enough to make me question my membership, but that's another issue.) Is it because I was raised as a dyed-in-the-wool atheist? Well, no, because I was raised a Southern Baptist, thunked and dunked.

 

I am, however, firmly in the separation of church and state camp, and to me the deliberate insertion of religion dogma into the governmental arena is a step down a very slippery and very dangerous slope. It has nothing to do with bandwagons, as anyone who has seen my opinions on this topic over the years can confirm.

 

It's very easy to say that children don't have to say the pledge, or don't have to participate in a school-led prayer, but realistically they will be outcasts if they don't conform. They will feel different, and be treated differently by their classmates, and even their teachers. I'm very much an advocate of keeping religion of all type out of our schools and out of our government. To me, that's a viable belief system, not a bandwagon.

[Judge Hades]

~Di, I you.

 

[~Di]

Di, do you really contend that the Republic is more in danger of falling from the attitude of fringe Christians more than folks who advocate outright treason?  You immediately jump to the conclussion that fundamentalist of any religion drive a culture towards bloodshed?

 

No, I don't recall contending such a thing, or jumping to any such conclusion. If you had quoted the part of my post that made you believe that, I'd be in a better position to clarify my meaning, and correct your inaccurate presumption.

 

...But in the United States, the population has had, at different times, greater and lesser religious fervor.  It obviously isn't something so simple as the lesson you learned from your studies of history.  My lesson is that, should the government fall into chaos because the population is treasonous, fringe groups are far more likely to gain power.

 

A treasonous population? Hmm. As in various political rebellions in, say, historical China, France, Russia and... dare I mention... the USA as well? Is that what you mean by "treasonous population"? Because one man's "treason" is, of course, another man's "populace rebellion." I do agree, however, that fringe groups which gain power can be incredibly dangerous... even religious fringe groups, as we can see not only via history, but in our current world as well. Radicals are dangerous. Religious radicals are dangerous too, and throughout history have been responsible for enormous misery and bloodshed. It's a fact. *shrug*

 

Furthermore, you say it's intolerant for me to make an observation you don't like.  If we're to go down that path, then I contend that you're intolerant of Christian fundamentalists.  Let's not go down that path.  I made a statement in good faith.  I did not accuse you of pushing a hidden agenda.

 

You did not make an "observation." You issued an insulting and dismissive opinion of those who did not believe as you did. You said: "But folks who act like Chicken Little in regards to Christian fundamentalists are either sadly mistaken or pushing more than one agenda simultaneously." Now if you are going to mock me (and others), comparing our concerns to "Chicken Little", etc., you shouldn't be surprised or indignant when we respond accordingly.

 

In other words, if you fling a snowball into a crowd you cannot expect that someone will not throw one back at you simply because you insist you weren't aiming at anyone in particular!

 

I'll probably continue to disagree with you regarding Christian fundamentalists....

 

As is your right!

 

That's probably because, even though they tend to be a bit borish, they tend not to advocate violence.  Only the most fring of Christian fundamentalist advocate violence.

 

Only the radical fringe of most groups advocate violence. And yet somehow they tend the be the ones most likely to seize and misuse power. Therefore, I shall continue to consider radical Christians, like radical Jews and Muslims and radicals of every religious/non-religious ilk, to be an extreme danger to my country and to the world as a whole. You, however, may disagree and worry about treason with my blessing.

[Cantousent]

I hear a lot about students who are ridiculed for not saying the pledge. What about places and classrooms where children are ridiculed for saying the pledge? I don't know who all's been a teacher in this thread, but I can tell you that kids will make fun of other kids no matter what. If a child simply skips the words "under God," I doubt most kids will notice. What about places where the pledge is simply a joke? Places none of the students say the pledge? Where kids simply stand and talk and joke during the pledge? Do you think a child who says the pledge might be the target of scorn?

 

Calax is definitely against the phrase "under God" and yet he made the following observation. "I was lucky I lived in sacremento, after I moved to EDH my teachers seemed to stop caring and I found my self wondering why I wasn't saying the pledge every morning."

 

Really, what's the deal with the issue?

 

Some folks suggest that the very idea of a pledge is bad. It is, according to some, nationalistic.

 

Some folks suggest, at least from what I can tell, that the pledge is perfectly fine, but the words "under God" cause undue hardship.

 

Some folks suggest that the pledge is fine, but that it is a mockery in the way it is recited in schools today, where the problem isn't that the children are forced to recite the pledge but that they are free to talk during the pledge, make fun of it, and don't understand it in the first place.

 

Finally, some folks suggest that the pledge is fine and that it is perfectly legimate for schools to have a policy of recitation as is.

 

Have I missed anyone?

 

...And I hope that I don't have to point out how much longer every post would be if we had to include every exception set for every statement. I would have thought that the words, "even atheists" would, logically, mean that other groups were involved in the argument. Right? I mean, had I said "atheists are not caused hardship," I could understand the confusion. As it stands, I have clearly understood from the very begining that some non-atheists are against the phrase "under God."

[Cantousent]

Di, do you really contend that the Republic is more in danger of falling from the attitude of fringe Christians more than folks who advocate outright treason?  You immediately jump to the conclussion that fundamentalist of any religion drive a culture towards bloodshed?

 

No, I don't recall contending such a thing, or jumping to any such conclusion. If you had quoted the part of my post that made you believe that, I'd be in a better position to clarify my meaning, and correct your inaccurate presumption.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wrote:

 

We worry about the phrase "under God" while there are folks suggesting that outright treason is good indicator of a healthy democracy?  Of all the dangers that face our country, Christian fundamentalist is pretty damned low on the list.

 

You responded:

Low on your list, perhaps.  Not so low on mine.  Besides, I imagine a decade or so back moderate Muslims were saying the same thing about their more radical, fundamentalist brethern.  Singing a different tune now, I suspect. 

 

To me history has proven that radical, fundamentalist religion has resulted in more wars, more bloodshed, more human atrocity than anything else.  So fundamentalism, along with the intolerance and hatred it breeds, is pretty high on my personal danger-list.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood your comments. You responded to a statement in which I compared the all powerful "Christian fundamentalists" with outright treason. It seems, at a glance that you place these Cfs as more damaging to our Democracy, but I'll let you clarify the matter for me.

[~Di]

~Di, I    you. 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Aww, how sweet! *smooch* Thank you.

[Judge Hades]

Well, that was a better response than thought I would get. (w00t)

[Cantousent]

I will now note that I continue to think that many of you, and by "many of you," I mean a group of people of which you are a member, are acting like Chicken Little. Should that be the cause of your ire, then I'll have to accept your anger.

 

I woud like to clarify one thing, however. I didn't belittle the argument that radicals are a problem. In fact, extreme Christian radicals are, because of their radical stance, treasonous. The most deadly terrorist attack on American soil prior to the Twin Towers was commited by US citizens, was it not?

 

Now, I do contend that those dread Cfs are not a dire threat to our country. I don't put all Cfs in the Radical Christian category. Do you? I won't presume. I'll simply let you clarify.

[Child of Flame]

I still want to know what books Di writes. ^_^

[~Di]

Di, do you really contend that the Republic is more in danger of falling from the attitude of fringe Christians more than folks who advocate outright treason?  You immediately jump to the conclussion that fundamentalist of any religion drive a culture towards bloodshed?

 

No, I don't recall contending such a thing, or jumping to any such conclusion. If you had quoted the part of my post that made you believe that, I'd be in a better position to clarify my meaning, and correct your inaccurate presumption.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wrote:

 

We worry about the phrase "under God" while there are folks suggesting that outright treason is good indicator of a healthy democracy?  Of all the dangers that face our country, Christian fundamentalist is pretty damned low on the list.

 

You responded:

Low on your list, perhaps.  Not so low on mine.  Besides, I imagine a decade or so back moderate Muslims were saying the same thing about their more radical, fundamentalist brethern.  Singing a different tune now, I suspect. 

 

To me history has proven that radical, fundamentalist religion has resulted in more wars, more bloodshed, more human atrocity than anything else.  So fundamentalism, along with the intolerance and hatred it breeds, is pretty high on my personal danger-list.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood your comments. You responded to a statement in which I compared the all powerful "Christian fundamentalists" with outright treason. It seems, at a glance that you place these Cfs as more damaging to our Democracy, but I'll let you clarify the matter for me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I didn't see your statement as comparing Christian fundamentalists with outright treason. You simply said that some folks were suggesting that treason was the sign of a healthy democracy (which I didn't respond to, because I hadn't seen the suggestion and really had no comment upon it), then you added what appeared to be a totally separate comment that Christian fundamentalism was low on your list of concerns.

 

These did not appear to me to be directly-linked comparisons, so I responded only to your second statement, by saying that it was not low on my list, and explained why I felt that way. How you could leapfrog that into the presumption that I "contend that the Republic is more in danger of falling from the attitude of fringe Christians more than folks who advocate outright treason" and "immediately jump to the conclussion that fundamentalist of any religion drive a culture towards bloodshed" is quite frankly beyond me.

 

Needless to say, neither of us correctly interpreted the posts of the other.

[Cantousent]

Fair enough. I'll let you get in the last response and then let the matter rest between us. After all, I don't want a vendetta over this issue. :D

 

...And it's nice to have you posting. This is your chance to hit me with my guard down, Di. hahaha

[Commissar]

I will now note that I continue to think that many of you, and by "many of you," I mean a group of people of which you are a member, are acting like Chicken Little.  Should that be the cause of your ire, then I'll have to accept your anger.

 

I woud like to clarify one thing, however.  I didn't belittle the argument that radicals are a problem.  In fact, extreme Christian radicals are, because of their radical stance, treasonous.  The most deadly terrorist attack on American soil prior to the Twin Towers was commited by US citizens, was it not?

 

Now, I do contend that those dread Cfs are not a dire threat to our country.  I don't put all Cfs in the Radical Christian category.  Do you?  I won't presume.  I'll simply let you clarify.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't really know who you're arguing at, so I'm basically going to ignore most of what you just said. I also don't know what you consider to be a radical Christian; are the guys who come up to me and hand me a pamphlet on the virtues of living a Christian life while I'm picking up a six-pack at the supermarket radicals? According to the definition, they're probably not. I still find them highly annoying.

 

Now, with that said, you still haven't given me one good reason why "under God" can't be removed from the Pledge. I'd have no problem with allowing people to voice their own personal beliefs by inserting it, but by the same token, you shouldn't have a problem with Satanists or Dr. Pepper worshippers doing the same. And yes, I consider those points of view to all be equally wacky.

[Cantousent]

You're a relatively smart fellow, Commissar. I'll let you read the previous few posts and make a guess.

 

No, I don't think someone standing outside the grocery handing flyers to folks is radical. Annoying? Sure. Radical? No. Someone you can reasonably fear advocating killing you because you didn't take his flyer? Get a grip, man.

[~Di]

I will now note that I continue to think that many of you, and by "many of you," I mean a group of people of which you are a member, are acting like Chicken Little.  Should that be the cause of your ire, then I'll have to accept your anger.

 

Fine. However, if you are going to disrespect and insult folks, don't go getting all huffy when they respond in kind!

 

I woud like to clarify one thing, however.  I didn't belittle the argument that radicals are a problem.  In fact, extreme Christian radicals are, because of their radical stance, treasonous.  The most deadly terrorist attack on American soil prior to the Twin Towers was commited by US citizens, was it not?

 

Umm, yes. A good Christian boy, if memory serves. *grin* What is your point, sir?

 

Now, I do contend that those dread Cfs are not a dire threat to our country.  I don't put all Cfs in the Radical Christian category.  Do you?  I won't presume.  I'll simply let you clarify.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I suppose "radical fringe" is in the eye of the beholder. I think that many, if not most, of the Christian fundamentalists views are radical, and dangerous to things I hold dear. Take Pat Robertson, for example... yes, he's a nut, but he's no more of a nut than the vast majority of his fundamentalist preacher peers, IMHO... he certainly advocates radical views and violence toward others. And he has an audience of millions, if not tens of millions. So yes, I believe Pat Robertson and his millions of Christian fundamentalist fans are radical and dangerous. I believe that fervently and do not apologize for that belief.

 

So there.

 

 

Edit: Oops, sorry... I was typing and didn't see that you wished the discussion to end. I'll not post on this topic again, then.

[Commissar]

You're a relatively smart fellow, Commissar.  I'll let you read the previous few posts and make a guess.

 

No, I don't think someone standing outside the grocery handing flyers to folks is radical.  Annoying?  Sure.  Radical?  No.  Someone you can reasonably fear advocating killing you because you didn't take his flyer?  Get a grip, man.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Happy to. First of all, though, I'm going to need you to explain why radicals have any bearing in this conversation. They don't, as far as I can tell. Once again, I'm discussing the Pledge of Allegiance here. There's no good reason "under God" should remain in the pledge, and plenty of reasons to take it out. Your arguments for it, up to this point, have essentially been, "Shut up, it's not a big deal," and "Well, 95% of the country believes in God, so the 5% can go suck lemons."

 

And please, please say "Chicken Little" again. It'll mean I get to drink.

[~Di]

I still want to know what books Di writes. ^_^

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

LOL, it's a secret! Anyway, my last book was published in 2002, and I've kinda-sorta retired. I just play games now. Hehe.

 

Where in NorCal are you? We're neighbors!

[Cantousent]

Chicken Little. I always aim to please.

 

I think my arguments amount to more than what you've suggested. I wasn't the first person to cite radicals. I'm glad to let folks decide what they wish regarding my arguments.

 

...And, because I like you, Chicken Little, Chicken Little, Chicken Little.

 

BTW: This post was adressed to Commissar. :D

[Child of Flame]

I still want to know what books Di writes. ^_^

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

LOL, it's a secret! Anyway, my last book was published in 2002, and I've kinda-sorta retired. I just play games now. Hehe.

 

Where in NorCal are you? We're neighbors!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

...I'm Eru.

 

I live down the road from you.

[~Di]

...I'm Eru. 

 

I live down the road from you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ahhhh.... too much nick-changing around here, lol. I'm blonde, and easily confused.

[Child of Flame]

I still want to know what books you wrote.

 

Until I have a definitive answer, I am going to surmise it's some awful dreck like biographies, or those romance novels in the supermarket.

 

Also, now that I know of your religion I am going to have to ponder which church you go to, or even if it could be the one I go to.

[taks]

Hmm, that's a bit dismissive and condescending, don't you think? 

given the furor in the media over the topic with both the left and the right foaming at the mouth, no, i don't think it's dismissive nor condescending. as i noted, mr. newdow originally filed a claim on behalf of a daughter that does not agree with him. he was not even her legal guardian at the time (not sure about now). it was a cause, and like-minded folks hopped onto his cause bandwagon to make a political statement.

 

this little item has been the fuel for more discussion than even abortion recently, and it amounts to a hill of beans in the end. at least with abortion the fight is over a life, not two words in an optional recital. no, it's not dismissive, saying this movement is a bandwagon is right on target.

 

I can only speak for myself, since I wouldn't presume the motivation of others, but I've been annoyed by the political insertion of the words "Under God" and the "In God We Trust" addition to our currency for more years than many forum goers here have been alive.

uh, you're not presuming motive... but you presume the insertion of the phrases was political? keep in mind, the country was quite different (religiously) when these phrases were inserted. it was hardly an issue (some griped) so political motivations were not nearly as prevalent as they are today for removal.

 

taks