NNN wrote:
I fail to see what the involvement (or lack thereof) of the federal government in matters of marriage has to do with the topic at hand. You refer to denial of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which is utter hogwash. Heck, I enjoy blowing things up....if I'm arrested for detonating explosives and not harming anyone or anything else in the process, is my liberty and pursuit of happiness being denied? The whole notion of "my rights end where the other guy's nose begins" goes out the window since I'm not actually doing any damage.

Look, we can slippery-slope the marriage argument to death here. If we want to go with your offshoot into the realm of "pursuit of happiness", why shouldn't someone....boy, we could go an awful lot of places with this.

I fail to see any similarities between detonating explosives and marriage. Detonating explosives can cause injury (even though you say you aren't harming anyone, the potential is there), marriage in no way can harm anyone physically.

Also, it's not as if the government would be singling you out and not allowing you to detonate explosives. That's the main difference. Homosexuals can't legally get married. Most heterosexuals can. NO ONE can detonate explosives without some sort of license or certification and permits. Race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. have no bearing on who can and can't detonate explosives. They do, however, have an effect on who can get married. Therefore, your example isn't a very good one.

dwccrew wrote:

NNN wrote:
I fail to see what the involvement (or lack thereof) of the federal government in matters of marriage has to do with the topic at hand. You refer to denial of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which is utter hogwash. Heck, I enjoy blowing things up....if I'm arrested for detonating explosives and not harming anyone or anything else in the process, is my liberty and pursuit of happiness being denied? The whole notion of "my rights end where the other guy's nose begins" goes out the window since I'm not actually doing any damage.

Look, we can slippery-slope the marriage argument to death here. If we want to go with your offshoot into the realm of "pursuit of happiness", why shouldn't someone....boy, we could go an awful lot of places with this.

I fail to see any similarities between detonating explosives and marriage. Detonating explosives can cause injury (even though you say you aren't harming anyone, the potential is there), marriage in no way can harm anyone physically.

Unless you get caught cheating, then marriage can hurt you and it uses your spouse as the weapon.

Spousal abuse? Wife/husband beatings? Of course that is after the fact:

the act of getting married is not dangerous. It is what comes afterward.

eersandbeers wrote: I don't think you understand how indoctrination works. It isn't about creating a group of Hitler youth running around. That was the extreme. Its more about ingraining in the minds of people, especially children, a type of nationalism (which is dangerous) that is not to be questioned.nearly every country throughout history has done this to create a population that is loyal to the state. Again, this is history. Yet for some reason people think it is crazy talk that has never happened.


I just find it ironic that after all of the freaking out the right did about our socialist president they have no problem reciting a socialist pledge.


Like I said earlier, the Founding Fathers would not have supported such statism. Saying the pledge does not make one a good American or vice versa.

why is it dangerous that as a whole, we feel united about something? something that every country does like you pointed out, even the ones that mind their own business. and what about some of the oaths or pledges we have today, come from the revolutionary war led by the founding fathers. do you also disagree with the oath new citizens have to taken when they are naturalized?

Glory Days wrote:
why is it dangerous that as a whole, we feel united about something? something that every country does like you pointed out, even the ones that mind their own business. and what about some of the oaths or pledges we have today, come from the revolutionary war led by the founding fathers. do you also disagree with the oath new citizens have to taken when they are naturalized?

I think trying to build "patriotism" by forcing any citizens, especially children, to recite a pledge of allegiance is inherently dangerous. For the people, not the government.

I'd be interested to read the original Oath of Citizenship, but I can't find it anywhere. Even then, it is only an oath you take once. You don't recite it on a daily basis in school.

from the UCIS:

Oath of Allegiance
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation of purpose of evasion; so help me God.”


AS I posted earlier, thge phrase "so help me god" may be omitted as well as the statement of bearing arms if you are a conscientious objector.

dwccrew wrote: I fail to see any similarities between detonating explosives and marriage. Detonating explosives can cause injury (even though you say you aren't harming anyone, the potential is there), marriage in no way can harm anyone physically.

Sure, and the potential was there for white customers to be offended, which was the actual given reason that segregation in public places went on for so long. It wasn't because customers actually were offended, but because they might be.

Also, it's not as if the government would be singling you out and not allowing you to detonate explosives. That's the main difference. Homosexuals can't legally get married. Most heterosexuals can. NO ONE can detonate explosives without some sort of license or certification and permits. Race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. have no bearing on who can and can't detonate explosives. They do, however, have an effect on who can get married. Therefore, your example isn't a very good one.

Right, there's certain requirements that must be met. If I am mentally unstable, I cannot get a permit to possess or detonate explosives. If I am under a certain age or have certain physical handicaps, I cannot get a license to drive a car.

And there are certain requirements that must be met to be defined as a legally binding marriage. Do we complain about the fact that those under 18 need parental consent? Heck, 18 is a pretty arbitrary cutoff for definition of the age of majority...why is it legal to have sex with someone under 18 in most states but not to marry them?

NNN wrote:

dwccrew wrote: I fail to see any similarities between detonating explosives and marriage. Detonating explosives can cause injury (even though you say you aren't harming anyone, the potential is there), marriage in no way can harm anyone physically.

Sure, and the potential was there for white customers to be offended, which was the actual given reason that segregation in public places went on for so long. It wasn't because customers actually were offended, but because they might be.

Also, it's not as if the government would be singling you out and not allowing you to detonate explosives. That's the main difference. Homosexuals can't legally get married. Most heterosexuals can. NO ONE can detonate explosives without some sort of license or certification and permits. Race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. have no bearing on who can and can't detonate explosives. They do, however, have an effect on who can get married. Therefore, your example isn't a very good one.

Right, there's certain requirements that must be met. If I am mentally unstable, I cannot get a permit to possess or detonate explosives. If I am under a certain age or have certain physical handicaps, I cannot get a license to drive a car.

And there are certain requirements that must be met to be defined as a legally binding marriage. Do we complain about the fact that those under 18 need parental consent? Heck, 18 is a pretty arbitrary cutoff for definition of the age of majority...why is it legal to have sex with someone under 18 in most states but not to marry them?

You're really reaching here man. You can not compare a normal functioning gay adult to any of the examples you have given.

cbus4life wrote: I could care less, really.

The not caring enough to have an opinion bothers me more than those who choose not to stand, to me that is the biggest problem in the country today (the just not caring) that's how unqualified candidates get elected and unpopular bills get passed, too many people don't care enough to have an opinion and vote.

0311sdp wrote:

cbus4life wrote: I could care less, really.

The not caring enough to have an opinion bothers me more than those who choose not to stand, to me that is the biggest problem in the country today (the just not caring) that's how unqualified candidates get elected and unpopular bills get passed, too many people don't care enough to have an opinion and vote.

I just don't think patriotism or respect has anything to do with little kids mindlessly standing up every morning reciting a pledge that they don't know anything about.

Spend the time teaching the kids, don't bother with the pseudo-indoctrination BS.

cbus4life wrote:

0311sdp wrote:

cbus4life wrote: I could care less, really.

The not caring enough to have an opinion bothers me more than those who choose not to stand, to me that is the biggest problem in the country today (the just not caring) that's how unqualified candidates get elected and unpopular bills get passed, too many people don't care enough to have an opinion and vote.

I just don't think patriotism or respect has anything to do with little kids mindlessly standing up every morning reciting a pledge that they don't know anything about.

Spend the time teaching the kids, don't bother with the pseudo-indoctrination BS.

That's an opinion, I don't agree but at least that is an opinion. The schools need to teach students the history behind the pledge of allegiance and the Star Spangled Banner then it wouldn't be mindless recitation. To respect those things is to respect the men and women that served and gave us all the right to think and believe any way we choose to.

I have a student who refuses to stand for the pledge. He has family in the military but says he is exercising his right not to stand. I find it bothersome, but not worth arguing with him over. It is his right, but that doesn't mean it doesn't piss me off.

I never have seen a problem with this. They are free to choose what they want to do.

I don't feel they are right in not standing, but I respect their right to sit if they so choose.
For me it comes down to this: If they dont want to stand because they are offended by it, I can respect that. If they dont want it played because they are offended by it, I cant respect that.

If they dont want to stand because they are offended by it, I can respect that. If they dont want it played because they are offended by it, I cant respect that

And here is the cruxt of so many problems that concern the government with not only this issue, but many others.

CenterBHSFan wrote:

If they dont want to stand because they are offended by it, I can respect that. If they dont want it played because they are offended by it, I cant respect that

And here is the cruxt of so many problems that concern the government with not only this issue, but many others.

If said pledge is being endorsed by the government then it is a violation of my rights if I do not want to say it.

I personally wouldn't care enough to make a big deal about it, but that doesn't mean others won't.

eers,

The government doesn't force anybody to say the pledge.
Nobody is fined for not saying the pledge.
Or jailed.
Or exiled from the country.

How does that violate your rights?

CenterBHSFan wrote: eers,

The government doesn't force anybody to say the pledge.
Nobody is fined for not saying the pledge.
Or jailed.
Or exiled from the country.

How does that violate your rights?

The endorsement comes when the pledge is led by the government (i.e. school).

If the students voluntarily stand up and say the pledge with no faculty members leading them then it is fine. As long as kids who want to say other pledges are given equal time.

I understand what you're saying as far as endorsement goes...
I was asking about how it would be a violation (or is a violation) of rights because there is no real consequence of not saying it.

I have a problem if the federal government mandates all schools recite the pledge. Leave it up to the local school district.

eers, The local school district is not the federal government. Trust the local government to do what is best for themselves. Now if the local school district is being coerced by the federal government that is a problem.

It gets annoying. I don't say it, I just stand.

CenterBHSFan wrote: I understand what you're saying as far as endorsement goes...
I was asking about how it would be a violation (or is a violation) of rights because there is no real consequence of not saying it.

It is a violation of the Constitution because it would be government endorsing one religion over another.

If they wouldn't have added the words "Under God" in 1951 this wouldn't even be a big deal.

majorspark wrote: I have a problem if the federal government mandates all schools recite the pledge. Leave it up to the local school district.

eers, The local school district is not the federal government. Trust the local government to do what is best for themselves. Now if the local school district is being coerced by the federal government that is a problem.

The Constitution applies to all levels of government. The 2nd Amendment was specially created to ensure states will never restrict the rights to own a gun.

Like you said though, most local governments police themselves anyways. They'll usually say prayers (I know mine did) until someone complains and most of the time people in the community do not.

I have no problem with that as long as nobody complains. Suing shouldn't happen until multiple attempts to correct the problem and make your concerns known have failed.

eeers wrote
"If they wouldn't have added the words "Under God" in 1951 this wouldn't even be a big deal."


But it is not a big deal. As noted several times in this thread , you can say the pledge of allegiance (to a secular entity...the flag of the United States)
without saying the words "under God".

which specific religion does God represent?

HitsRus wrote: eeers wrote
"If they wouldn't have added the words "Under God" in 1951 this wouldn't even be a big deal."


But it is not a big deal. As noted several times in this thread , you can say the pledge of allegiance (to a secular entity...the flag of the United States)
without saying the words "under God".

That isn't the point though. The point is that the government allowing the school to lead a pledge with the words "under God" is an endorsement of religion.

Glory Days wrote: which specific religion does God represent?

Doesn't matter as one religion (atheism) is having their rights violated by the mention of God.