 |
|  |
 |
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999 time: 23:37
|
|
quote: That's grounds for dismissing the teacher but it hardly detracts from the point that legally nothing happens to any student that opts out of uttering the pledge. |
Actually, they have to stand in the hallway from what I hear. But you cannot deny that there is for many many children an atmosphere of coercion to stand and recite the pledge. Coercion created by a state representative and authority figure, a teacher no less, "asking" children to stand and recite the pledge and coercion created by the request being made in front of others - their peers. Just because the current law has failed to recognise the coercion it creates does not mean the coercion doesn't exist.
Now, you say the teacher should be disciplined. Has any student ever been the target of anger or disgust from their teacher for standing and reciting the pledge when instructed? Yet we know or suspect many teachers do believe in the pledge and do react negatively to students who refuse it. So armed with that knowledge, how should students react when asked to stand and recite the pledge? Do you think they better stand and go thru the motions just to avoid the hassle? Should they embrace the hassle based on principle?
quote: In general, courts have ruled that some seemingly religious expressions of government, such as the national motto, “One nation under God,” and the words “In God We Trust” on currency, are in reality “ceremonial deism.” The expressions have been seen as devoid of significant religious meaning because of their rote repetition. |
And deists did not put the words "under God" into the pledge, they didn't even invent the pledge. They helped invent the Constitution and were foremost in making sure we were to be free from a government asking us daily if we still swear allegiance to the state's god(s).
There is a big difference between government recognition of God and government trying to establish religion. Its like the difference between a manger scene on public property and the police "asking" me each day to convert to the state's religion.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Dinodoc - would you be opposed to ceremonially saying "...under Baron Samedi?" He is a legitimate deity (or spirit actually) as recognized by Vodoun. How about under Brahma, we have numerous Americans of Indian ancestry. If you cannot interchange them, and those supporting it would refuse to support it, it doesn't pass the smell test (But THAT'S DIFFERENT). Sadly, the ceremonial deism test is probably going to get past our 100% Judeo-Christian SCOTUS. Do you see any conflict of interest?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001 time: 15:37
|
|
quote: "And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." |
James Madison letter to Edward Livingston, 10th July 1822
Clearly a lot water has passed over the Bush since then...
quote: "When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some."
Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992. |
So if you're a monotheist, hooray for you.
If, on the other hand, you profess no religious belief, or are a polytheist, then too bad, you're on your own.
One nation, under the thumb.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000 time: 00:37
|
|
quote: Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Dinodoc - would you be opposed to ceremonially saying "...under Baron Samedi?" He is a legitimate deity (or spirit actually) as recognized by Vodoun. How about under Brahma, we have numerous Americans of Indian ancestry. If you cannot interchange them, and those supporting it would refuse to support it, it doesn't pass the smell test (But THAT'S DIFFERENT). Sadly, the ceremonial deism test is probably going to get past our 100% Judeo-Christian SCOTUS. Do you see any conflict of interest? |
hmm, baron samedi? lord sabbath, I suppose? interesting.
Wouldnt the parallel be pledging to Jesus Christ, or to Adonai eloheinu, or to God the Father? God in English is used generically, by most. Muslims use it in place of Allah, Hindus use God or godhead IIUC.
I can see where polytheists would have a problem (though couldnt they insert an "s" - one nation under gods?)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000 time: 00:37
|
|
quote: Originally posted by molly bloom
James Madison letter to Edward Livingston, 10th July 1822
Clearly a lot water has passed over the Bush since then...
So if you're a monotheist, hooray for you.
If, on the other hand, you profess no religious belief, or are a polytheist, then too bad, you're on your own.
One nation, under the thumb. |
"The Church of England plans to raise millions of pounds to create an extra 100 secondary schools over the next seven to eight years, as the government prepares to increase its subsidy for church-sponsored schools.
Under its plans to revitalise secondary education in England, the government has promised to cut the amount religious organisations must contribute towards a school's capital costs from 15% to 10%, freeing funds for extra places.
But secular organisations have criticised the move, saying it will lead to a more splintered and fragmented society.
The Church of England currently has 4,540 state primary schools, but just 204 secondaries - with some getting 160 applications for every 100 places. "
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37. Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|