[LandRover]

Originally Posted by Cryosis

lol I wish it had made the news. As it was it was about 6 years ago and I went to a very small school of about 150 in the entire high school. Why not just amend the pledge?

"I pledge alleigence to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic for which is stands, one nation, on this earth, indivisible with Liberty and Justice for all."

This way we say everything that is of importance whether you believe in god or not and unless your a traitor there is no way you can be offended by it. Is there anybody here that does not believe in the planet earth?

Here's the point: .


Here's you:-----------------------------------------------------------------> .

[samsammy23]

I just choose to take things as they are written and not "translate" ie twist the meaning of words to suit my own needs, which is how the left is slowly attempting to destroy our constitution and way of life.

If you took a college class or two, you would realize that the Constitution was written with variances in interpretation in mind. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservatives. Wherever you stand, it (Const.) was meant to be interpreted differently, not just how it is written. Taking a literal meaning of the Constitution would imply that I could have a 55 mm cannon on my front lawn as I "bear arms."

[Vertisce]

Originally Posted by 0IIII0

I don't know about you, but I thought the standing up, every morning and uttering the pledge sucked. Shoot, maybe 2nd graders like it, but by 6th grade, all I wanted to do was sit down. The apathy for the pledge was always apparent in the "tone" of the class...I could often hear the teacher more than the students!

Frankly, I find this whole discussion lame. You are all here arguing about what KIDS should be doing in class, BUT no one here would probably take the time to do it themselves every morning before work.

When was the last time you said the pledge?

How would you feel if your employer said, "We are going to start saying the pledge every morning before work"...It almost makes me laugh thinking about a bunch of construction workers on a job site saying the pledge!

Anyhow, point being, maybe we should encourage our kids to pay attention in history/government class, they might just come away with MORE then some exercising some "ritual" every morning they probably dislike anyhow.

Traitor. I was trained right from the start of Cub Scouts to salute the flag every time I see it. And yes your right it gets old after a while but you do it to show your alleigance to your country.

[LandRover]

Originally Posted by 0IIII0

I don't know about you, but I thought the standing up, every morning and uttering the pledge sucked. Shoot, maybe 2nd graders like it, but by 6th grade, all I wanted to do was sit down. The apathy for the pledge was always apparent in the "tone" of the class...I could often hear the teacher more than the students!

Frankly, I find this whole discussion lame. You are all here arguing about what KIDS should be doing in class, BUT no one here would probably take the time to do it themselves every morning before work.

When was the last time you said the pledge?

How would you feel if your employer said, "We are going to start saying the pledge every morning before work"...It almost makes me laugh thinking about a bunch of construction workers on a job site saying the pledge!

Anyhow, point being, maybe we should encourage our kids to pay attention in history/government class, they might just come away with MORE then some exercising some "ritual" every morning they probably dislike anyhow.

I'm a High School teacher in California. I'll say the pledge in about 10 minutes (with the "under God" line, by the way). My 1st period class isn't crazy about it, of course. What 'cool kid' would be? But it's a world history class, and there is no better way to start studying the world's history than by pledging allegiance to the nation we are a part of. It's been the start of many good discussions.


Plus, how else are we going to brainwash the youth of America into thinking that America is good and God is a part of it? Every other part of society tells them that America sucks and God doesn't exist. Let the brainwashing begin...

[nj666z]

Originally Posted by 0IIII0

Anyhow, point being, maybe we should encourage our kids to pay attention in history/government class, they might just come away with MORE then some exercising some "ritual" every morning they probably dislike anyhow.

Your post is the voice of reason; however, the discussion is generated by those Christians/Catholics/etc that are egocentic and believe the pledge should be said, as is (instead of the original drafting which is constitutional and would replace the unconstitutional version), to once again push their God, which is the only just and correct one, onto others who may disagree to save them and let them see the errs of their way. I've always thoought that this world would be a much better place should the notion of religeon escape man. Religeon has been responsible for more arguments, wars, battles, deaths, then any other category, most combined. It was a precursor to law, but instead of doing something codified, and creating a legal system, they created an almighty intangible power that could somehow see everything and zap you with a lightening bolt from afar should you get out of line or condem you to a burning eternity in hell if you were really bad.

[0IIII0]

Originally Posted by Cryosis

Traitor. I was trained right from the start of Cub Scouts to salute the flag every time I see it. And yes your right it gets old after a while but you do it to show your alleigance to your country.

Yea, I bet some Scout Master trained you...

[RoostrRiz]

I think as a kid it is monotonous because it isn't explained what you were reciting. Maybe children would take more pride in it if they understood it. When they stopped saying the pledge when I was in middle school I really kinda missed it. Guess I am wierd like that.

[0IIII0]

Originally Posted by LandRover

I'm a High School teacher in California. I'll say the pledge in about 10 minutes (with the "under God" line, by the way). My 1st period class isn't crazy about it, of course. What 'cool kid' would be? But it's a world history class, and there is no better way to start studying the world's history than by pledging allegiance to the nation we are a part of. It's been the start of many good discussions.


Plus, how else are we going to brainwash the youth of America into thinking that America is good and God is a part of it? Every other part of society tells them that America sucks and God doesn't exist. Let the brainwashing begin...

I say that world history is the last place I would want to see the pledge. Maybe government/US History, it might be appropriate, for A DAY...for the purpose of discussion...but beyond that...come on...

AS far as brainwashing...

America is NOT always good and right. All your doing is raising a gerneation of arrogant citizens. The beauty of America, is the fact that it is a democracy and we can voice what we feel is wrong or should change. Thats the IDEAL.

The FACT that religions are a part of some governments, that the founders were giuded by christian divine law, is appropriate in a class room. Discussion on the existence of God are NOT appropriate. If they want to know more, tell them to go to college and take a philospohy course. That way THEY CAN MAKE UP THEIR OWN MIND.

I swear, we give no credit to a adolescents ability to discover the world themselves. We seem to want to inculcate them with are beliefs...We create lemmings in this country...Makes me sick.

WHATS WRONG WITH CHALLENGING THE STATUS QUO?

[Vertisce]

Originally Posted by LandRover

Here's the point: .


Here's you:-----------------------------------------------------------------> .

How is my idea off the point? It completely addresses the original issue and resolves it.

[samsammy23]

God doesn't exist.....................................

[wm69]

Originally Posted by samsammy23

If you took a college class or two, you would realize that the Constitution was written with variances in interpretation in mind. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservatives. Wherever you stand, it (Const.) was meant to be interpreted differently, not just how it is written. Taking a literal meaning of the Constitution would imply that I could have a 55 mm cannon on my front lawn as I "bear arms."

I have several degrees and learned more in one year of the real world than in 7 years of college. The fact that a college professor would say that the Constitution is written "with variances and interpretation in mind" does not make a valid point. If that were the case the founding fathers would have quite simply put a "this document is open to variances and interpretation" clause at the bottom. I guess it's just too much for some people to bear to see that the founding fathers wrote what they did and meant EXACTLY what the wrote. People who don't like what they wrote will use the "living document" or "open to interpretation" crap all they want, but it boils down to rewriting the Constitution to reflect their own views and not what was originally and very clearly written.
If you simply had a 55mm cannon in your yard I would have no problem with that. It would not be hurting anything. If you chose to fire that cannon at someone, injuring or killing them, you would be breaking clearly written laws against doing such and would be arrested. Owning the cannon wouldn't cause a problem, using it would.

[0IIII0]

Originally Posted by wm69

I have several degrees and learned more in one year of the real world than in 7 years of college. The fact that a college professor would say that the Constitution is written "with variances and interpretation in mind" does not make a valid point. If that were the case the founding fathers would have quite simply put a "this document is open to variances and interpretation" clause at the bottom. I guess it's just too much for some people to bear to see that the founding fathers wrote what they did and meant EXACTLY what the wrote. People who don't like what they wrote will use the "living document" or "open to interpretation" crap all they want, but it boils down to rewriting the Constitution to reflect their own views and not what was originally and very clearly written.
If you simply had a 55mm cannon in your yard I would have no problem with that. It would not be hurting anything. If you chose to fire that cannon at someone, injuring or killing them, you would be breaking clearly written laws against doing such and would be arrested. Owning the cannon wouldn't cause a problem, using it would.

The problem with your "literalist" view on the Const., is that although you do not see the document as being flexible, the world obviously does change.

The founders reality is not our reality. So given your view, why should we live under their perceived world view?

[scottcha]

Originally Posted by samsammy23

God doesn't exist.....................................

The streets will flow knee deep with the blood of the non-believers. Your rotting corpse will litter the spoiled ground upon which you once walked.



The Constitution is open to interpertation by commie lovin professors who can't accept the truth as it was written.

[Vertisce]

Originally Posted by 0IIII0

The problem with your "literalist" view on the Const., is that although you do not see the document as being flexible, the world obviously does change.

The founders reality is not our reality. So given your view, why should we live under their perceived world view?

Because the did it right the first time. The constitution CAN be amended.

[Difranco]

Originally Posted by samsammy23

I just choose to take things as they are written and not "translate" ie twist the meaning of words to suit my own needs, which is how the left is slowly attempting to destroy our constitution and way of life.

If you took a college class or two, you would realize that the Constitution was written with variances in interpretation in mind. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservatives. Wherever you stand, it (Const.) was meant to be interpreted differently, not just how it is written. Taking a literal meaning of the Constitution would imply that I could have a 55 mm cannon on my front lawn as I "bear arms."

According to United States V. Miller regular people are supposed to have weapons that have a military value. I'd say a 55mm Cannon falls into that category.

No the Constitution was specifically meant to be interpreted as it was written just as any other written contract. Otherwise what is the point of any contract if left open to how the 'interpreter' feels or thinks on any given day? Why would the founders argue over what to add or subtract from the contract if the could just interpret anything they wanted in? Why wouldnt the States ratify it with out a Bill of Rights after it was first presented without these enumerated rights?

What you have said doesn't even make a lick of sense? Words do have meaning.