I think Redy was only referring to that one man as "a cranky biased little man" not christians in general, I don't see where she generalized... did I miss something?

i don't see anything cranky and biased in that speech.

Oh I do agree that the speech was biased:

the supreme court ruled against prayer in school. If he didn't like that I believe he would be free to express that opinion. But that's not all he did. No one there mocked christians or religion, yet he felt moved to insult gays by calling them a "perversion", he mocks environmentalists, those who believe in freedom of choice, safe sex education, and more.

I would call his unporvoked, public derision of all these groups biased and cranky. I would also say that they are unprofessional an not a good example for children.

I refer you back to these parts of his speech:

"As I understand the law at this time, I can use this public facility to approve of sexual perversion and call it "an alternate lifestyle," and if someone is offended, that's OK.

I can use it to condone sexual promiscuity, by dispensing condoms and calling it, "safe sex." If someone is offended, that's OK.

I can even use this public facility to present the merits of killing an unborn baby as a "viable means of birth control." If someone is offended, n o problem...

I can designate a school day as "Earth Day" and involve students in activities to worship religiously and praise the goddess "Mother Earth" and call it "ecology." "

Christians are persecuted because they can't impose their beliefs on others. Get it straight.

u see this is the beauty of this country we don't need to agree with each other.
I respect you opinion, but I don't agree with you at all.
================================================================
As I understand the law at this time, I can use this public facility to approve of sexual perversion and call it "an alternate lifestyle," and if someone is offended, that's OK.

This is fine, but if I respect alternative lifestyles, the less i expect from them is to respect me.
================================================================
can even use this public facility to present the merits of killing an unborn baby as a "viable means of birth control." If someone is offended, n o problem...

In this one I will have to stand firm, this one i can't waive, a little babies life can be gambled for any reason whatsoever. This is the only thing I'm not flexible, for me it's the worse kind of murder, there must be some mitigating circumstances, but it's never justifiable. (I won't argue this one, this is my sole opinion)
================================================================
In this speech the only thing I see, it's a man who feels that his natural right to believe in God is being alienated by the governement.
================================================================
BTW, the first amendment as pretty much the whole constitution was constructed in a vague manner, so the government can modified anytime it's for its own convenience. For instance, the alien and sedition acts of 1798.

How is the government interfering with one's right to believe in anything? Ridiculous.

By the way, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is pretty straightfoward.

Britty, I like the 'simple' version in your last post a lot better.

Britty, Trader- I agree I like the original version much better:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Sadly, although the man who wrote the original pledge was a minister, his granddaughter felt he would have been very distressed that his pledge was altered to add "god" as he was a strong proponent of seperation of church and state. He was not alive to comment by that time.

"Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.

What follows is Bellamy's own account of some of the thoughts that went through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge:

It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...

The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?

Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all..."

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

I GOT IT !!!


Britty,

Just an aside, you had me scratching my head with this comment:
"... Voileazur - At least I wasn't being shy :) ..."


I just got it!!! An invitation I made to you from another thread a few days ago!!!

:)
:)

Voileazur,

I knew you would!! (what took so long? :):) )

I believe someone at face value until I find proof otherwise, and I seek out the truth where possible, although I have a life, I'm not about to get obsessed over things I cannot change.

Sometimes it is the things that are not said implicitly that are important.

well i am posting this and then i gotta go

i am sure i will get some negative reaction

most here know how i feel about organized religion

to stop anyone for proclaiming there beliefs

for any reason is the beginning of the ban

on the proclamation of everyones thoughts

just because someone asks you to participate

does not make it mandatory

sure i may not want to participate in a public prayer

but who am i to infringe on those that do

if the establishment that permits this happen

then thats cool i have the option to NOT GO THERE

and if i do go i have the option TO NOT PARTICIPATE

yes it seems easy to say but govt money

is supporting this

but let me ask you this

where did the money come from to build the street corner

that you can stand on and get on your soap box

where do you pay the RENT on your property you think you own

if you do not pay it you lose it to the same govt

that says you cant perform religious ritual where govt

is supporting with funds

how far of a stretch is it to say the govt really owns everything because if you do not pay them

they take it so is it not conceivable that all is theirs

so as we chip away little chunks of liberties

soon the banging of the chisel will create faults

in the very core of these liberties

and soon there will be a collapse of all the liberties

is this really something we should let happen

because we do not want to hear someone pray

or see the 10 commandments in a public building

maybe just maybe we should be responsible enough

to teach or children what they need to know

rather than try to protect them from what others are saying

after all if you live in a sterile environment then

go out into the world how much easier is it to

get infected by a bug that you have had no contact with

but hey

what do i know

our founding fathers are turning over in their grave......This country was found by men who believed in God.....and if you want to either say pledge to your God or whatever God.....It should not be taken out....And if you are wiccan then leave it out....simple

Johnj asks:
“”How is the government interfering with one's right to believe in anything? Ridiculous.

By the way, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is pretty straightforward””

Anytime the government ‘implies’ that this Republic is, wholly, based on the belief in a deity of any kind they are limiting ‘everyones’ right to believe ‘anything’ of their choosing. And thereby, disrespecting the law of this land.


Feralcat writes:
“”our founding fathers are turning over in their grave......This country was found by men who believed in God.....and if you want to either say pledge to your God or whatever God.....It should not be taken out....And if you are wiccan then leave it out....simple””

First of all, let me direct to previous replies in this thread that addressed exactly how the Pledge came about. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with our founding fathers.

Second let me enlighten you as to the VALUE of the Constitution. I will further suggest that you take a bit of time to read how our FOREFATHERS determined the best form of government for this country, by reading the Federalist papers. In there you will discover that 'their' intent was that government, OUR GOVERNMENT was to deny, within it’s codes and laws any judgment that could come to bear against one based on any religious concept. Theirs was a mission to PURPOSELY omit any belief system from our laws that could reflect bias and discrimination onto society or onto any individual.

The TRUTH of our Constitution, is that it was specifically dedicated to provide, freedom , liberty, justice and equality to EVEN THE LEAST OF US. Those who say the majority rules must understand that what the majority ALWAYS wants is not ALWAYS in the best interest of ALL people or the best way to create a civil society. This was understood by those who created the Constitution. It was understood that the minority would sometimes have to rule. It was understood that this was the only way that a Constitution, a government, could serve ALL THE PEOPLE.

With the great respect you seem to have for our founding fathers, I suggest YOU leave the word “under God” out of that(the pledge) which presumes to unite a society, regardless of their beliefs.

Having said that, johnj, let me point out that no matter how “straightforward” you view a law, if the law is not adhered to, it is just words. There are many examples of this law coming into conflict with what’s really happening. You may not feel the affect, because it just happens to coincide with your personal beliefs, but that is not a good enough reason to be blinded; not in this country.

Adj says:
“”just because someone asks you to participate
does not make it mandatory””

Let me repeat what anoasis has stated so well:
“”But IMO it is not so easy for children to "respectfully refuse" to do something an authority figure (e.g. principal) asks them to do. They are taught to obey their principal. So when he asks them to pray to Jesus, to me I find it coersive.””

For further remarks in this vein, see my next post.

Adj, also says:
""maybe just maybe we should be responsible enough
to teach or children what they need to know
rather than try to protect them from what others are saying””

Our schools have a set curriculum, designed to enlighten their minds by teaching them to read and write, to communicate effectively, to broaden their horizons with the sciences that have opened the doors to so many possibilities.

Because School is mandatory in this country, it MUST be based on the premise of what holds this society together. We must be able to send our children into an environment in which they can respect and depend on the authority figures that are in control when their main custodians can’t be.

Every child should feel comfortable reaching out to those in authority, especially when we have no choice in whose control we must leave our children. We command respect by our actions, how much respect did this man destroy and how much internal conflict did he present with his sarcastic, ridiculing, biased, and opinionated, and inappropriately based speech?

TLW – wrote: “i don't see anything cranky and biased in that speech”

Then I can only suggest, your read again and ask yourself – does this man feel oppressed? Does he feel that his ‘opinions’ and beliefs are above the law? This address was written with a great deal of sarcasm. He even, purposely, left out the very words and labels to which he made reference. This kind of sarcasm draws people into it, like they are privy to some inside joke.

But he did not obscure the message, the message was pure distain for the freedoms and liberties and equality that this country is suppose to provide for everyone, and not just those who believe as he does.

What made the message intolerable is that he abused his position and took advantage of a public format he would not otherwise have had. And in that forum, that he selfishly declared his own, he addressed the kids.

These are kids who are forced ‘by law’ to attend school, and may have no other choice of schooling. Those Kids, NOW, know where they stand in the eyes of this man that they have been taught to view as authority. For the remainder of their school years, under the authority of this man, how many of those kids will be able to maintain the respect his status is supposed to command?

What’s more; what has he taught these kids about authority as a whole? And worse, how are those kids, who don’t fit under his ideal of personhood, going to feel about themselves, knowing how authority views them?

I find it disconcerting that anyone would feel moved to republish such a speech. But given the circumstances all I can think is:
How very, very, sad that any individual could possibly read this speech and NOT consider the WHO, WHAT, WHERE & WHEN, of the circumstances in which it was given.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic ,for which it stands, ONE NATION, INDIVISIBLE, WITH JUSTICE AND LIBERTY FOR ALL.

The responsibility we take for our freedom of speech includes knowing when and how that freedom should be used and understanding that it CAN be abused.

anoasis - You're a gem in the midst of pebbles.

Adj, also says:
""maybe just maybe we should be responsible enough
to teach or children what they need to know
rather than try to protect them from what others are saying””

Our schools have a set curriculum, designed to enlighten their minds by teaching them to read and write, to communicate effectively, to broaden their horizons with the sciences that have opened the doors to so many possibilities.

-------------------

you know how i feel about organized religion

Our schools have a set curriculum---

last i heard sporting events are not part of that set c
urriculum

you are a wise person red

why is it that you only picked those two lines to respond to

to control one thing because it is not to your liking

leads to also controlling the things which you want down the
road

b4 long you will not be able to do anything cause someone will be offended

glad i am near the end of my time on this planet

Maybe because it's still a public ground?
Still founded on tax money?
It doesn't matter what it is used for,
the principal is still the principal,
and he shouldn't make light of it, because he is still payed with public money.

the street corner side walk is also

funded by public money

did you even read my other post

if anything funded w/public money can be dictated

then b4 long free speech will be a thing of the past