Students walk out during Pledge, recite own version
 

The newspaper articles:
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_7016257
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_7016263
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_7015611

Hope it catches on and it returns to how the man who wrote it intended and not the nut-jobs during the 50's raped it to be.

Fascinating. Thanks for that rk. That's one in the eye for the pessimists who think younguns are apathetic.

High school students have never been shy about following causes... or tilting at windmills.

I never recited the pledge while I was in school. I remember wishing someone would call me on it so I could make a stand, but no one seemed to give a rat's ass.

piss off rkzenrage

you don't want to say it? fine. sit down and shut up.

**I** like it.

Are you gonna boycott dollars cause it says Under God on them too?

I think i only said it once the whole time i was in the states.. the day we caught saddam. I got yelled at to say it a few times, so i mouthed the words a couple times. I was usually forced to stand up, but whenever i could i just stayed seated.

I cross it out.
& I say the pledge, the real one.

How about coins? Do you prefer to scratch it off with a nailfile, or daub a little J.B.Weld over it?

I love the idea of making an amendment to any money that crosses my palms. I wonder what the odds are on getting one of them back? Trouble is, it disappears before I'd even have time to check...

Not being a militant atheist, I wouldn't have a real problem with the pledge - heck it's just words (my brother and I spoke all the responses in Mass the other week, just because we knew it would make our parents happy). But it does seem wrong that the mention of God is a recent insertion - shame YouTube wasn't around then for people to complain about Godly values taking over...

I often mention that little bit of ignorance to my congressmen. Though my Dremel would work just fine on a slow day.

I've heard that replacing "under god" with "underdog" satifies a quiet need for rebelliion while not ruffling too many feathers. Of course, as an alien, I'm not allowed to say it, but I don't half get some dirty looks when we're at swim meets in hicksville and they insist on this pageantry.

I think the whole idea's silly, myself. But I agree with Bruce's summary of this situation.

One nation, under Canada

I larfs:rolleyes:

stalkystalkystalk :lol:

For all of those Anti God folks, I'd hate to have you continue to be offended handling money with a reference to God on it...so just withdraw all of your funds, grab your coin jars, piggy banks, etc., and ship them to me. I'll be glad to take them off of your hands. :p

Again, we just mark the god off of it.

I wonder if republicans in this country can legally cross out the Queen's face...

Good question.

Probably not, simply because the Queen is legally the Head of State and after all whether you agree with the monarchy or not, there are no doubts that she exists!

Well, don't get the wrong idea--defacing currency is most definitely illegal in the US, it's just not really prosecuted very eagerly.

Nope, we have done our homework, defacing has a specific definition and crossing out that lil pathetic sentence does not fit it.

Oh I don't think so.

You guys have Darwin on your money!? *envy*

A small ball file will wipe god off of your coins in a swipe or two, BTW.

Ooh - I might have met my ideal man.
Older, public school, techy, atheist and has tenners to waste :)

When theists bitch about me marking on the money...

The AU, largest separation of church and state org is run by church leaders, the strongest opposition to the motto change and it being put on money both times were church leaders, the only thing Christ says in the Bible three times is:
The only time he gets angry enough to become violent is when bankers/money is mixed with the church.
The separation of church and state safeguards the church more than the state and having your god on money does not sully it in your opinion? Something used to buy booze, whores, gamble, etc, doesn't your god deserve better?

It's very simple, people. Get a thin marker pen. Squeeze in an L between the O and the D.

What a ridiculous dumptruck load of bollocks sauteed in codswallop. "[u]nder God" in the Pledge is as old or older than I am. Of course, never having become an unbeliever, I don't grow a problem with it.

This seems another fundamental on which BigV and I can be found in agreement.

Lead paint was used in cribs for a long time too.

I remember when it was added. The teachers stumbled over it for months, while we kids adjusted in a day or so.

Interesting, but yeah -- I've done just that stumbling over variant texts of the Nicene Creed. A good friend of ours from church, who's a gay clergyman's life partner and doesn't mind me mentioning it, has some radical notions about gender-inclusive language in re the Holy Spirit, Who with the Father and the Son... it could be a real nuisance reciting the Creed along with him. It's less trouble keeping the ancient and modern versions of the Lord's Prayer in order. But only less, not none.

How is that relevant?

Just out of curiosity, are you using this as a rebuttal to his argument by saying that just because something has been a certain way for a long time doesn't make it right?

Or are you attempting to explain a possible cause for his line of reasoning by implying that UG at some point in his life used a lead painted crib as a chew toy.:D It would explain so much.

Nah, just that being rather right of center, I'm more enlightened than the pigheaded, echidna-hearted Left. Admittedly, I'm rather setting the effect before the cause.

They hate that, and they hate having it shown them. Generally, too, the dumber they are the harder Left they hew. But the stupid really don't have an opinion that counts with the enlightened, now do they? Yet they insist they should, and get patronized for their regrettable presumptions. It's never good; it's always somewhere in the gamut running from dumb to contemptible.

Monkey, in that it's quite old enough to have its tradition -- it is not merely the speech of the arriviste.

So? The version without it is older.

And not recited in schools alongside the newer, for the newer superseded it. All in all, I just can't get bothered about including "under God." If anything, it adds a little something.

And I'm not going to go there to any stuff about "but, prayer in schools" -- I'm keeping in mind that as long as there are pop quizzes and tough tests... you know the rest.:cool:

I am saying "it has been this way for a long time" is always an inane/faulty/red herring argument with absolutely no substance.
Almost as much as "millions of people believe/feel it" is... not quite, that one is just stupid, but close.

"tradition" yeah, we sure loved McCarthy and all want to be just like him and his Knights of Columbus sycophants, LOL!
That is the only tradition it shows.

It is unfortunate that Senator McCarthy was not only a flawed man, but was suffering from a brain tumor. Unfortunate because he damaged the beautiful cause of anticommunism for so long after his death.

And whattaya know: Ann Coulter undertook to rehabilitate McCarthy to history -- and there are no adequate rebuttals made, either. Some hemipygian tries, but nothing adequate to rebut. Whether you're going to agree with her thesis or not, it's still worth reading. Was this devil to those inadequately equipped to defeat international Communism so very black as they painted him? This is a question open minds will look into, and closed minds will immediately try to shout down, thus demonstrating the inferiority of their thinking and the grotesque immaturity required to remain leftist.

Go ahead, leftist asswipes! Show your inferiority to the enlightened! Remind us why we aren't you!

The inane hysteria of the ebil of the pinkos in the US and what was done to American freedoms and their wiping their ass with the Constitution was wrong on all fronts.
Of course we are living in those times again with a president and cabinet that has no respect for the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the beliefs of the Republican Party.
Placing religion wherever they could fit it in, in complete ignorance of the wisdom of separation of church and state was, and is still wrong and ignorant. Both for the state and for the church.
Anyone who wishes to bring attention to that fact is doing a good thing.
I have read a great deal, from both sides, yes Communism was a threat and I have concluded the US did more harm than good when it comes to the spread of it.

McCarthy was nothing more than a propagandist possibly almost as good as Goebels. They both used lies and manipulations of the truth to promote their own adgenda. I can't believe you'd be silly enough to fall for it UG.

Thing is, I used to believe the more leftward accounts of what he was doing. Now I'm not quite so sure of their veracity, precisely because somebody's been raising fresh questions. Seems it's about time, too.

And Jews are just Christians that need "perfecting".

Well, a Jew wouldn't believe that. A Christian might believe that.

For me, monotheism of whatever brandname is really enough.

A Zen Atheist's opinion of this would seem a touch remote, no? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suppose there's something in Zen that's important to you.

She is out of touch with social reality and probably does not understand the way others react to her just like McCarthy, of course she would relate to him.

Zenrage is a pun. But, yes I have studied it for a long time.

Theists have always been the strongest champions of the separation of church and state... the sane ones. McCarthy and the leadership of the Knights do not fall into that catagory... perhaps sane but not intelligent, same outcome.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...can0004hx3.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...ollarwide1.jpg

I dunno; you can't be both a polarizing figure and way out of touch. She can, however, disagree with your entire circle of friends. This is not the same as out of touch with anything.

I've never accepted "In God We Trust" as a federal endorsement of anything. If it says anything of governmental significance at all -- and I doubt it -- it is that the government is not chiefly staffed by doctrinaire, devout atheists. People, in short, who aren't unwilling to pray now and again. The conscience clauses of the First Amendment apply just as strongly to government staffers and officialdom as they do to the private citizen -- and they flatly do not enjoin an official to say or believe anything one way or another of the supernal. Who needs to cultivate good ethics more than an official? And what are the mechanisms for doing so? You can use religion, or a sense of fair dealing, or minute regulation -- probably some other things that don't come to mind just now.

I don't despise you for your little quirk -- I just don't share it at all.

I feel the same way about any theist... I becomes more, much more when they use it to replace the motto to a religious statement from the one this nation was built upon out of fanaticism, changing the pledge so one must pledge to a deity as well as the nation (the pastor writer of the pledge was against it as well), and placing it upon our money and national seal.
All of this goes well beyond a difference of opinion.
The complete separation of church and state in all things is a founding belief of this nation and it was thrown out the window by fear mongers in the fifties lead by McCarthy and the nuts of the Knights of Columbus.
We, all of us, theists included, need to repair that damage.

The sentence speaks of to the nation for which it stands, not to God. Can't stretch "under" into "to." Nor does officialdom at any level start the day on a recitation of the Pledge. Neither they nor the military, who are if anything more strongly committed to their nation.

That's true. We are pledging allegiance to the flag, and to the republic, while recognizing that the republic is not necessarily the highest power or priority in the individuals life.

"Under god" specifically states that the US is beneath a god that is being validated by the pledge.
A state you are pledging to that is under something indicates fidelity to that "superior" imaginary being.
There is no point in it being there, it was not in the pledge as written, is against the wishes of the fonding fathers ideal for the formation of this nation and is a reminder of a shameful time in our nation's history.
It has been past time to return to the true national motto and remove these vestiges of paranoia from money, the pledge and all aspects of the state.

While I disagree with their childish version of the pledge, I respect their protest.

We don't have Constitutional rights. Our rights don't come from the Constitution or from government. We are born with our rights and the Constitution was written to put a leash on government in protection of those rights.

While I agree that diversity is one of our greatest strengths, I don't pledge allegiance to diversity. All nations are part of this planet so that part is irrelevant. I wouldn't mind using the phrase "one SOVEREIGN nation..." and lastly adding the word "choice" is also wrong because freedom already includes the freedom of choice so it's repetitive at best.

If it were up to me, I'd return the pledge to the way it was before the McCarthy witch hunts...

If I altered it at all, I'd change the word "flag" to "people" and add the word "sovereign" before the word "nation". For grammatical reasons, I'd also change the word "it" to "they" and the word "stands" to "stand".

The completed product would be...

I pledge allegiance to the people of the United States of America, and to the republic for which they stand; one sovereign nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Now that's a much better pledge imo.

Not even close.

Let the record show that Dana and Radar have actually agreed on something.

Savor this moment.

I think it is a good pledge too. I always think it's silly to pledge allegiance to a flag. Australia has an occasional fit of debating whether to remove the Union Jack from our flag. How could we do this if we had pledged allegiance to the flag?


Furthermore, I agree with RK about the Under God clause. Bruce's claim that about it "recognizing that the republic is not necessarily the highest power or priority in the individuals life." doesn't cut it with me.
"One nation under God..." explicitly entails that there is a God who is "above" the nation. There's no "not necessarily" about it.

(WTF? Who am I agreeing with all of a sudden? : Checks for alien brain control device : )

*chuckles* oh now....Radar and I have agreed on many things....just rather less vehemently than we disagree :P

That argument makes sense to me. I cannot see how the phrase "one nation under God" can mean anything other than that the nation exists under God. I understand that the emphasis of it is on the "one nation" part of that, but it is integral to that statement that God is above and over the nation.

No, it's not... one nation under God. It's... one nation, under God. See that comma? That's a separation of Church and State.

Are you serious Bruce? :eek:

Would I lie to you.... my oldest and dearest friend... if it didn't involve money or sex.

I have to say that I wouldn't pledge allegience to a country/place/anything if the phrase 'under god' were included, regardless of commas.

Why mention god if there's no significance?