Page 2 of 29 FirstFirst 123456712 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 566
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    That is where I got my post, these boards. You stated "When will that pesky Constitution leave them alone??!!?" I simply asked you to support that statement knowing full well you could not.

    Nope. You asked that the same arguement be re-hashed which was already covered here quite well.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I'm sure you're fully aware of the religious right's attempts to frame rational decisions like this and ones like the courthouse 10 commandments as persecutory to their particualr deist group.
    Yes. I'm well aware of how people's biases effect their view of information.
  3. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Cardio: I direct you to this post.
    The same letter I referenced in my initial post. This is a letter from an individual (albeit very influential) to a religious group. This is where the term of seperation of chuch and state came from.

    This letter supports the stance that no law should be made to establish a religion or prohibit free exercise thereof. So, if anything, a judge that rules that a group (school children) are prohibited from reciting the pledge because of the term under God then that judge is going against the 1st amendment prohibiting free exercise of religion.
  4. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Nope. You asked that the same arguement be re-hashed which was already covered here quite well.
    No, I took your statement ( When will that pesky Constitution leave them alone) to imply the constitution supported seperation of chuch and state. If that is not what you meant, my apology, if that was your intent please cite
  5. #25  
    Is there one person who would argue that without the words "under God" there is no problem in requiring our schools to recite the pledge?
    1. HTC Touch Dual Neon 300, Stock Rom
    2. AT&T Tilt (Refurb) with DK.8 Rom (collecting dust)
  6. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
    #26  
    I don't see why we have to go as far as purging it from school. If you like it, don't stand up, don't pledge, and keep your mouth closed. It's not like the folks around you would beat you up for not participating.
    Last edited by naivete; 09/14/2005 at 04:29 PM.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    The same letter I referenced in my initial post. This is a letter from an individual (albeit very influential) to a religious group. This is where the term of seperation of chuch and state came from.

    This letter supports the stance that no law should be made to establish a religion or prohibit free exercise thereof. So, if anything, a judge that rules that a group (school children) are prohibited from reciting the pledge because of the term under God then that judge is going against the 1st amendment prohibiting free exercise of religion.

    The judge did not rule that children coucld say anuthing. It is a ruling against the schools having the children recite the altered Pledge containing the reference to a deity. A child can say anything religious they want to in a public school as long as it's not disruptive to the educational process.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by MVT
    Is there one person who would argue that without the words "under God" there is no problem in requiring our schools to recite the pledge?

    You would be refering to the original Pledge and yes I think many christians would complain because the very nature of their religion requires them to push it on others.
  9. #29  
    In theory, the children could recite the pledge, if they'd like to.

    As a Christian, I could give a flip. This is a secular pledge to a secular institution. I think its important for citizenship but has nothing to do with religious faith. Take God out of it if you'd like. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

    No fight here.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  10. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    In theory, the children could recite the pledge, if they'd like to.

    As a Christian, I could give a flip. This is a secular pledge to a secular institution. I think its important for citizenship but has nothing to do with religious faith. Take God out of it if you'd like. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

    No fight here.
    Words of Wisdom. Nicely said.
  11. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The judge did not rule that children coucld say anuthing. It is a ruling against the schools having the children recite the altered Pledge containing the reference to a deity. A child can say anything religious they want to in a public school as long as it's not disruptive to the educational process.
    Why should the court get involved in this at all? To be honest I do not even see how this has anything to do with any religion. How does that statement promote one religion over another?
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Can you give us a quick history lesson on where in the constitution it says there will be seperation of church and state?
    Cardio: not to nitpick (actually its a compulsive thing for me ) but are you implying that if the constitution does not specifically enumerate a right then you do not have one? (I only ask because the right to privacy is a right that has been recognized under 'case law' but it is not specifically written in the constitution.)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    You would be refering to the original Pledge and yes I think many christians would complain because the very nature of their religion requires them to push it on others.
    This characterization seems a little strong...how about....'share'?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by naivete
    I don't see why we have to go as far as purging it from school. If you like it, don't stand up, don't pledge, and keep your mouth closed. It's not like the folks around you would beat you up for not participating.
    I think the courts have looked at this argument and have determined that while you and I as adults can be expected to withstand the pressures of our peers, arguably younger children seem to be at least a little more 'impressionable'.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by MVT
    Is there one person who would argue that without the words "under God" there is no problem in requiring our schools to recite the pledge?
    (Only because you asked for a volunteer) It appears that there would not be a seperation of church and state argument so no problem (I can't think of some other way to stop it...maybe its violating your personal autonomy/liberty?)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  16. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Cardio: not to nitpick (actually its a compulsive thing for me ) but are you implying that if the constitution does not specifically enumerate a right then you do not have one? (I only ask because the right to privacy is a right that has been recognized under 'case law' but it is not specifically written in the constitution.)
    What I am trying to get across is many people reference the constitution when they use the statement "seperation of church and state" either directly or by implication as DaT did. That statement is not in the constitution or the bill of rights or the amendments. It was from a letter written by an individual to an organization.
  17. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by MVT
    Is there one person who would argue that without the words "under God" there is no problem in requiring our schools to recite the pledge?
    What about non citizens. Should they be required to pledge allegiance to the flag and to our republic?
  18. santas's Avatar
    Posts
    624 Posts
    Global Posts
    641 Global Posts
    #38  
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MVT
    Is there one person who would argue that without the words "under God" there is no problem in requiring our schools to recite the pledge?

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    (Only because you asked for a volunteer) It appears that there would not be a seperation of church and state argument so no problem (I can't think of some other way to stop it...maybe its violating your personal autonomy/liberty?)
    I'm not a big fan of the pledge. But if the words "under God" were taken out, I'd have much less of an issue with it.
    Less than 400 posts to get my own little treo icon!
  19. #39  
    "My bologna has a first name, it's O-S-C-A-R..."

    I think this has more meaning to most elementary school kids than does the Pledge. Sad to say, but I doubt most kids have a clue what the Pledge is...
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    What I am trying to get across is many people reference the constitution when they use the statement "seperation of church and state" either directly or by implication as DaT did. That statement is not in the constitution or the bill of rights or the amendments. It was from a letter written by an individual to an organization.
    Actually, based on some of DA's other posts, IMO he is probably using that term from *fairly recent court decisions that have tried to draw a line between the establishment clause and the freedom of religion (1st amendment).
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

Page 2 of 29 FirstFirst 123456712 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions