Students walk out during Pledge, recite own version - Page 5

DanaC · 11-11-2007, 02:21 PM

Now that's a much better pledge imo.

DanaC · 11-12-2007, 04:10 PM

Quote:

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

Savor this moment.

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

DanaC · 11-12-2007, 04:12 PM

Quote:

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.

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.

xoxoxoBruce · 11-12-2007, 06:28 PM

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.

jinx · 11-12-2007, 06:35 PM

Are you serious Bruce?

xoxoxoBruce · 11-12-2007, 06:47 PM

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

Aliantha · 11-12-2007, 06:51 PM

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?

xoxoxoBruce · 11-12-2007, 06:52 PM

Since you're not an American, it's not a problem is it?

Aliantha · 11-12-2007, 06:58 PM

Not at this point it's not. I disagree with your point here though. I think rkz and others are correct.

xoxoxoBruce · 11-12-2007, 06:59 PM

Of course you do.

Aliantha · 11-12-2007, 07:01 PM

I would feel the same way regardless of who made such a claim Bruce. It's not personal.

xoxoxoBruce · 11-12-2007, 07:02 PM

Of course it's not.

Happy Monkey · 11-13-2007, 09:00 AM

Could you explain how the comma causes "under God" to not modify "one nation"?

queequeger · 11-13-2007, 09:30 AM

Because the sentence, while seemingly ridiculous and based on little supporting argument, is not modified because of the commas, having been placed after the word, that are separators of ideas.

See, the "seemingly ridiculous" doesn't modify the... "sent..." wait.
The "placed after the word" doesn't modify the... "comm..." wait.

And the grammar confusion is also missing the point: the mentioning of a God in the pledge, on the money, in the schoolhouse, might not be the government supporting one religion over another... but it postulates the existence of god, and that there is only one of him. It's not demanding that I pray in school, but dammit it's one step in that direction... why the hell do we need it in there!? The only argument of defense is that it causes no harm. So what? Why is it in there? It wouldn't cause any undue harm to require all school teachers to wear funny hats... but if it pissed people off, why do it?

You Christians and Jews would tell me that it wouldn't make you angry if we changed the pledge and money to say "One nation, under no god" or "In the gods we trust?" You can make every argument you want about it being OK, but if others don't think it is, why don't you just take the bloody thing out!? If it causes no harm either way, just let it be taken out.

...unless you think it helps us live in a more godly nation.

tw · 11-13-2007, 02:13 PM

Would it not just be easier to remove all references to a god that has no place in a secular government? We simply replaced many false idols (godlike men living on Mt Olympus) with a single god. So what has changed? We still have an idol that some worship like others do money. How curious. Everybody get something to worship in the currency ....

Do references to god mean the church can ask for so much money without appearing evil?

11-12-2007, 06:28 PM	#4
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	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. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

11-12-2007, 06:35 PM	#5
jinx Come on, cat. Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: general vicinity of Philadelphia area Posts: 7,013	Are you serious Bruce? __________________ Crying won't help you, praying won't do you no good.

11-12-2007, 06:47 PM	#6
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Would I lie to you.... my oldest and dearest friend... if it didn't involve money or sex. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

11-12-2007, 06:51 PM	#7
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	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? __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

11-12-2007, 06:52 PM	#8
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Since you're not an American, it's not a problem is it? __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

11-11-2007, 02:21 PM	#1
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	Now that's a much better pledge imo.

11-12-2007, 06:58 PM	#9
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	Not at this point it's not. I disagree with your point here though. I think rkz and others are correct. __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

11-12-2007, 06:59 PM	#10
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Of course you do. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

11-12-2007, 07:01 PM	#11
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	I would feel the same way regardless of who made such a claim Bruce. It's not personal. __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

11-12-2007, 07:02 PM	#12
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Of course it's not. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

11-13-2007, 09:00 AM	#13
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	Could you explain how the comma causes "under God" to not modify "one nation"? __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

11-13-2007, 09:30 AM	#14
queequeger Hypercharismatic Telepathical Knight Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The armpit of the Universe... Augusta, GA Posts: 365	Because the sentence, while seemingly ridiculous and based on little supporting argument, is not modified because of the commas, having been placed after the word, that are separators of ideas. See, the "seemingly ridiculous" doesn't modify the... "sent..." wait. The "placed after the word" doesn't modify the... "comm..." wait. And the grammar confusion is also missing the point: the mentioning of a God in the pledge, on the money, in the schoolhouse, might not be the government supporting one religion over another... but it postulates the existence of god, and that there is only one of him. It's not demanding that I pray in school, but dammit it's one step in that direction... why the hell do we need it in there!? The only argument of defense is that it causes no harm. So what? Why is it in there? It wouldn't cause any undue harm to require all school teachers to wear funny hats... but if it pissed people off, why do it? You Christians and Jews would tell me that it wouldn't make you angry if we changed the pledge and money to say "One nation, under no god" or "In the gods we trust?" You can make every argument you want about it being OK, but if others don't think it is, why don't you just take the bloody thing out!? If it causes no harm either way, just let it be taken out. ...unless you think it helps us live in a more godly nation. __________________ Hoocha, hoocha, hoocha... lobster.

11-13-2007, 02:13 PM	#15
tw Read? I only know how to write. Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 11,933	Would it not just be easier to remove all references to a god that has no place in a secular government? We simply replaced many false idols (godlike men living on Mt Olympus) with a single god. So what has changed? We still have an idol that some worship like others do money. How curious. Everybody get something to worship in the currency .... Do references to god mean the church can ask for so much money without appearing evil?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)