|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468 |
Here's part of the Wikkipedia article on the Pledge of Allegance, and the criticisms/Law suits and challenges to the Pledge. It also gives the various versions of the Pledge used in the the Country since it was certified by Congress as the "Flag Pledge." I think this may answer the questions as to why the Pledge is seldom, if ever, repeated in schools anymore...
Criticism of requiring or promoting the pledge
Main article: Pledge of Allegiance criticism
Government requiring or promoting of the Pledge has drawn criticism and legal challenges on several grounds. Prominent legal challenges have been based on the contention that state-sponsored requiring or promoting of the Pledge is unconstitutional because it violates one or both of the religion clauses in the First Amendment. Religious proponents have pointed to the phrase "under God" in the pledge as proof that religion is a required part of American life. For example, President George H. W. Bush has stated that atheists are not "citizens" or "patriots" because "[t]his is one nation under God." (American Atheist News Journal, Robert I. Sherman)
Central to challenges in the 1940s were Jehovah's Witnesses, a group whose beliefs preclude swearing loyalty to any power lesser than God, and who objected to policies in public schools requiring students to recite the Pledge. They objected on the grounds that their rights to freedom of religion as guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment were being violated by such requirements.
Other objections have been raised since the addition of the phrase "under God" to the Pledge in 1954. Many critics, including some atheists, agnostics and polytheists, contend that a government requiring or promoting this phrase violates protections against establishment of religion guaranteed in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
In a 2002 case brought by atheist Michael Newdow, whose daughter was being taught the Pledge in school, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the phrase "under God" an unconstitutional endorsement of monotheism when the Pledge was promoted in public school. In 2004, the Supreme Court heard Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, an appeal of the ruling, and rejected Newdow's claim on the grounds that he was not the custodial parent, and therefore lacked standing, thus avoiding ruling on the merits of whether the phrase was constitutional in a school-sponsored recitation.
In 2004, linguist Geoffrey Nunberg criticized the addition of "under God" for a different reason. The original supporters of the addition thought that they were simply quoting Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. However, Nunberg said that to Lincoln and his contemporaries, "under God" meant "God willing" and they would have found its use in the Pledge of Allegiance grammatically incorrect.[1][2]
A bill — H.R. 2389 — was introduced in Congress in 2005 which, if enacted into law, would've stripped the Supreme Court and most federal courts of the power to consider any legal challenges to government requiring or promoting of the Pledge of Allegiance. H.R. 2389 was passed by the House of Representatives in July 2006, but failed due to the Senate's not taking it up. Even if a similar bill is enacted, its practical effect may not be clear: proponents of the bill have argued that it is a valid exercise of Congress's power to regulate the jurisdiction of the federal courts under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, but opponents question whether Congress has the authority to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing claims based on the Bill of Rights (since amendments postdate the original text of the Constitution and may thus implicitly limit the scope of Article III, Section 2).
In 2006, in the Florida case Frazier v. Alexandre, No. 05-81142 (S.D. Fla. May 31, 2006) "A federal district court in Florida has ruled that a 1942 state law requiring students to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, even though the law allows students to opt out, because they can only do so with written parental permission and are still required to stand during the recitation. Cameron Frazier, a student at Boynton Beach High School, was removed from algebra class after he refused to follow his teacher's instructions to recite the Pledge or stand during recitation." This means that people can not be forced to participate in any way, not even forced to stand, and there is no parental consent necessary.[1]
[edit] Official Versions
Versions of the Pledge: (changes between versions are shown in bold italics; for reason of the changes, please see the History section)
1892:
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
1892 to 1923:
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
1923 to 1954:
"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."
1954 to Present:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
The Cleveland Browns - WE KNOW QUARTERBACKS ( Look at how many we've had ... )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
It was change din 1954 to read "under God"?
Wow, I always thought it was in the 90's because I learned it as "indivisible" and thats how we said it all through my school days.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468 |
Quote:
It was change din 1954 to read "under God"?
Wow, I always thought it was in the 90's because I learned it as "indivisible" and thats how we said it all through my school days.
If you learned it in school, the older version was probably taught to avoid any problems/Lawsuits.... Just a guess...
The Cleveland Browns - WE KNOW QUARTERBACKS ( Look at how many we've had ... )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365 |
Quote:
True.... with a separation of Church and State. That means that no religion has a status with the State.
Bull chit (parden my french )  It means that nobody will be forced to believe in the same things that most people in this country believe.
Quote:
Not being forced is still being singled out, if you refuse to do it. Peer pressure, and administrative admonishment are in the same category as forcing.
Once again Io say bullchit. The administration of o PUBLIC school should never admonish somebody for having a different opion, and if a child or adult bends to peer presure (which they will have for their entire life) then their faith is not very strong.
Quote:
We are also discussing Freedom from Persecution. Setting aside individuals, forcing them to non-participate for religious reasons, is persecution.
and forcing people to not believe in their beliefs is also persecution. (or at least to teach them that their beliefs should not be discussed)
Quote:
We all pay to support our public places. We should all be welcome there. That's why public places should be neutral with regards to religion....
But they should not be nutral to BELIEFS.
Quote:
As I asked, if Christians were in the minority, and Muslims, Buddhist or Hindus were the majority of the population, would you want to be forced to say their prayers, and do thing in the manner that they do?
Once again, tell me once where they were ever FORCED???
Quote:
Would you want to be singled out as a Christian in a Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu society, bringing about any "conforming" pressure non-participation would entail? Or would you prefer Religion be neutral in public places.
It makes no difference to me or my children (yes I ask them this question today) We are christians and no matter what anybody else says or does, it does not change our opinion in the least.
Quote:
Our society is supposed to be an all welcoming, encompassing society. One in which all people are free, regardless of Race, Creed, or National Origins. Freedom from Oppression is part of that welcoming society....
Our society was based on being christian, and if anybody wants to believe otherwise than they are more than free to do so. Our society was not based on christians shouting our mouths and bowing down to what others believe.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
just chiming in,...  read the whole thread,....  been a schoolteacher,....  and coach; it was a blast,.... but,...the politics of political correctness, up to and including allowing students to sit (defending their First Amendment rights) while the rest of us Pledged to honor America, led to my despondent resignation from teaching as a second career. No one is defending the rights of those who WANT to say the Pledge. This is what's wrong with the whole picture. I asked, and was denied permission, to dismiss the turds in my class who we all knew would do this, at Pledge time. Answer,....?? No, they have the "right" to sit and offend the rest of us. Where, or when, is my/our right, in this case, to NOT be offended ever protected ?? Imus lost his job for "offensive" language. So did Howard Cosell. But when you sit in a classroom, protected by an administration that does not want the teacher to cause waves, it is OK to offend ALL of America ??? If this had been my kid, he would be leading the entire school, every day, until his throat was hoarse.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468 |
We are talking about children. Children being raised the way their parents want them raised. If you want your kids to pray at school.... send them to a school where they can pray. Otherwise, in public schools, should not have prayer due to....
Amendment I to the US Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
No one is being forced... Hmmm... the class is told to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and the class prayer.... and one, or two children do not obey. The teacher says nothing, but other kids do. The kids tease, even fight on the playground because two of the children did not stand for the prayer. Fights, teasing, the next day the two children stand and recite.... de facto forcing to conform.... School boards are responsible for the children, and their safety.... Any question why more boards don't try to do the Pledge or say Prayers...
No one is forcing a majority to not believe their beliefs in public. They are only being told not to have a school sponsored prayer meeting before class. Big difference... Children can discuss their beliefs... just not in schools... and they should be told why.... Their government is based on Freedom of Religion. No one is forced to believe what the majority believes, so no one is allowed to practice religion on public property.... Public property belongs to every tax payer.... not just the Christian ones.
The government is not allowed to persecute anyone, due to their religion... and a public school is a governmental entity.....
No one is asking any Christian to shut their mouth. Sing out all you want at home, on the playground, at Church. Praise the Lord, when you pick up your paycheck and pay your bills, but show Christian Compassion, and tolerance to others who may not believe as you do, for there may come a day when you may want that compassion returned to you.
You say it makes no difference to you, no matter what anyone else says or does. Let me tell you what I believe.... I believe that the founders of our country were Christian Gentlemen, and wrote the Constitution based on Christian principles. Principles we all tend to forget from time to time.
"Judge not, lest ye be judged...."
"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you...."
As I said in an earlier post. I think the majority would become more compassionate and understanding, if they could experience the role of the minority from time to time....
The Cleveland Browns - WE KNOW QUARTERBACKS ( Look at how many we've had ... )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
Notice the second part of your boldened statement, please.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Quote:
No one is defending the rights of those who WANT to say the Pledge.
And there you have it in a nutshell...these weak kneed politicians, school adminstrators and some teachers are bowing to the pressure of the minority.. Rather than saying,,, let's put it to a vote on the next ballot.
All those in favor of saying the lords prayer,,,,,Say Aye.. Those opposed, say Nay.
All those in favor of saying the pledge in School,,,say Aye,,those opposed say Nay..
It's really that simple.. But it won't happen. The minority (and I do believe there are fewer people that don't want the pledge that those that do) don't want it to go to a vote,,,, that would lose. At least I believe they would lose.
And if they lost, believe me, they would fight on (which is thier right to do). If they can get enough people to change thier minds for the vote next time, more power to them.. And if that happened, then I'd shut up about it.
But me, I'm completely fed up with Weak people buckling under to small special interest groups... SICK of it!
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
No one is forcing a majority to not believe their beliefs in public. They are only being told not to have a school sponsored prayer meeting before class. Big difference... Children can discuss their beliefs... just not in schools... and they should be told why.... Their government is based on Freedom of Religion. No one is forced to believe what the majority believes, so no one is allowed to practice religion on public property.... Public property belongs to every tax payer.... not just the Christian ones.
Halfback, if you want I can have my 11-year-old call you and explain the law to you, because HE understands it.
Quote:
Children can discuss their beliefs... just not in schools... and they should be told why....
Children can discuss their beliefs wherever they see fit, in school, at lunch, on the playground, before and after class, even DURING class if it's part of a class discussion... As long as their discussion is not disrupting class or school activities, they can pray and talk about Jesus all over the school if they want to with whomever wants to listen.
Quote:
Their government is based on Freedom of Religion. No one is forced to believe what the majority believes,
Yes it is, but that has NOTHING to do with what you said after.....
Quote:
so no one is allowed to practice religion on public property....
I can pray all over the Washington Monument if I want, I can pray in the White House, I can pray in the halls of Congress, I can pray in the public schools, during graduation and before and after football games.... I can pray out loud so other people can hear me if I want to...... Senator Hatch can meet Senator Kennedy's in the hall of the US Senate right this very minute and tell him all about the difference Jesus has made in his life... and there is NOTHING anybody can do about it.. except walk away.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
But me, I'm completely fed up with Weak people buckling under to small special interest groups... SICK of it!
Those who can't get what they want in a vote simply go to court... if you can't convince the masses you're right.. you stand a better chance with a small panel of judges... especially if you pick the right court...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468 |
Quote:
Quote:
so no one is allowed to practice religion on public property....
I can pray all over the Washington Monument if I want, I can pray in the White House, I can pray in the halls of Congress, I can pray in the public schools, during graduation and before and after football games.... I can pray out loud so other people can hear me if I want to...... Senator Hatch can meet Senator Kennedy's in the hall of the US Senate right this very minute and tell him all about the difference Jesus has made in his life... and there is NOTHING anybody can do about it.. except walk away.
I misphrased that... 
The government is not allowed to conduct religious ceremonies/services on public property.... and mandatory prayer in public schools, being led by a teacher, who is paid with public funds, is something the Government/School Board can not do.... A volunteer minister can not be invited in to take the place of the teacher, because the invitation would imply an approval of a religion. Organized, School sponsored Prayer to a higher power is not allowed in public schools.
I attended both public and private parochial schools. I have no problems with prayer prior to class... (especially on a test day... ), but I have experienced prejudice, due to religion. I have seen it's UGLY Consequences. To say the least, IT IS NOT FUN.... and SHOULD NOT BE SPONSORED AND TOLERATED in an institution paid for with public funds. The problem is not with the prayer.... The problem is the fact that it is a GOVERNMENT ORGANIZED and SPONSORED prayer, in a location that is paid for with public funds.
You can pray all across the Mall, all you want. NO PROBLEM. If the Government sponsors, or pays for a prayer meeting on the Mall.... BIG PROBLEM....
The Cleveland Browns - WE KNOW QUARTERBACKS ( Look at how many we've had ... )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
he minority (and I do believe there are fewer people that don't want the pledge that those that do)
I think people who explicitly want the pledge is the minority, as is those who vehemenently don't want it. The majority is people who really don't care.
I could care less if the pledge is around or not. When I was in school I never said it, not as a 'statement' or 'rebellion', but because I didn't believe in it. I got in trouble for that. I don't think today's kids would. That's good enough for me. They may feel weird, ostracized, left out, etc., but that's a part of life. I could care less on this issue, but I'd like to point out that I think it's all a crock. Everyone wants to cite 'freedom of religious expression' and all that, but if any one of these people had a Muslim teacher who asked the kids to get on rugs and point to Mecca with him, they'd all go nuts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
It was change din 1954 to read "under God"?
Wow, I always thought it was in the 90's because I learned it as "indivisible" and thats how we said it all through my school days.
If you learned it in school, the older version was probably taught to avoid any problems/Lawsuits.... Just a guess...
Maybe, but I highly doubt that lawsuits were an issue when I was in school. They still paddled us if we got out of line, teachers used red ink, we played kickball, dodgeball and tag at recess, and they were allowed to keep me afterschool for misbehavior.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
The 'under God' thing - I believe - was added by Eisenhower as a percieved snub to communism.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468 |
Actually, the Knights of Columbus, started the Campaign for "under God," because they felt that the Pedge needed a reference to the Diety....
excerpt from Wikkipedia... Pledge of Allegiance...
The Knights of Columbus in New York City felt that the pledge was incomplete without any reference to a deity. Appealing to the authority of Abraham Lincoln, the Knights felt that the words "under God" which were from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address were most appropriate to add to the Pledge. In New York City on April 22, 1951, the Board of Directors of the Knights of Columbus adopted a resolution to amend their recitation of Pledge of Allegiance at the opening of each of the meetings of the 800 Fourth Degree Assemblies of the Knights of Columbus by addition of the words "under God" after the words "one nation." In the following two years, the idea spread throughout Knights of Columbus organizations nationwide. On August 21, 1952, the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus at its annual meeting adopted a resolution urging that the change be made universal and copies of this resolution were sent to the President, the Vice President (as Presiding Officer of the Senate) and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The National Fraternal Congress meeting in Boston on September 24, 1952, adopted a similar resolution upon the recommendation of its President, Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart. Several State Fraternal Congresses acted likewise almost immediately thereafter. This campaign led to several official attempts to prompt Congress to adopt the Knights of Columbus’ policy for the entire nation. These attempts failed.
The 50 Stars are the 50 states of The United States of America and the Strips. The Red strips - Hardiness and valor the blue means Purity
Addition of the words "under God"
Though the Knights of Columbus tried, they were unsuccessful in their attempts to persuade the United States government to amend the pledge. Bills were introduced as early as 1953, when Representative Louis C. Rabaut of Michigan sponsored a resolution at the suggestion of a correspondent. It was a Presbyterian minister who made the difference in 1954 by preaching a sermon about Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. The minister was George MacPherson Docherty, a native of Scotland who was called to succeed Peter Marshall as pastor of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church near the White House, where, in 1863, the same year as the address, Lincoln attended and even rented a pew. After Lincoln’s death, the pew that he rented became something of a national monument. It became customary for later United States presidents to attend services at the church and sit in the Lincoln pew on the Sunday closest to Lincoln’s birthday (February 12) each year.
George MacPherson Docherty by Fred LangAs Lincoln Sunday (February 7, 1954) approached, Rev. Docherty knew not only that President Dwight Eisenhower was to be in attendance, but that it was more than just an annual ritual for him; while President, Eisenhower had been baptized a Presbyterian. Docherty's sermon focused on the Gettysburg Address, drawing its title from the address, "A New Birth of Freedom."
Docherty’s message began with a comparison of the United States to ancient Sparta. Docherty noted that a traveler to ancient Sparta was amazed by the fact that the Spartans’ national might was not to be found in their walls, their shields, or their weapons, but in their spirit. Likewise, said Docherty, the might of the United States should not be thought of as emanating from their newly developed Atomic weapons, but in their spirit, the "American way of life". In the remainder of the sermon Docherty sought to define as succinctly as possible the essence of the American spirit and way of life. To do so, Docherty appealed to those two words in Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. According to Docherty, what has made the United States both unique and strong was her sense of being the nation that Lincoln described: a nation "under God." Docherty took the opportunity to tell a story of a conversation with his children about the Pledge of Allegiance. Docherty was troubled by the fact that it did not include any reference to the deity. Without such reference, Docherty insisted that the Pledge could apply to just about any nation. He felt that the pledge should reflect the American spirit and way of life as defined by Lincoln.
The original supporters of "under God," thought they were quoting Lincoln (I placed this in an earlier post), but linguist have stated that in Lincoln's time, "under God," was meant as "God willing," a very different meaning than what the phrase means today....
The Cleveland Browns - WE KNOW QUARTERBACKS ( Look at how many we've had ... )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365 |
Quote:
Amendment I to the US Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Try answering this question for me bud.
If the Constitution didn't allow prayer in schools, why did they pray in school at the time it was written and for many, many, many years after???
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468 |
Quote:
Quote:
Amendment I to the US Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Try answering this question for me bud.
If the Constitution didn't allow prayer in schools, why did they pray in school at the time it was written and for many, many, many years after???
Actually, since you brought it up.....
There is no mention in the US Constitution about public education. As a matter of fact, the US Supreme Court has ruled there is no right to an education in the United States....
Education has been covered by the states, under the Constitutional clause of.... any powers not provided to the Federal Government by the Constitution, are reserved to the individual states....
The Northwest Ordinance of 1785, provided the foundation for funding public education in the United States, but until the 1840s almost all schools were privately funded....
There you go bud....
The Constitution went into effect in 1789, but true public education didn't start until the 1840s. more than 50 years later.... in most cases, local school boards took over the private schools, and in many cases those boards continued the practices of private schools....
As immigration picked up in the late 1800s, the Federal Government increased it's role in education. As the Federal Government got involved, Federal regulations became involved, and the classroom became much like driving your car. Lawsuits, required seatbelts, pollution control and mandatory insurance....
Isn't progress (Federal Money) wonderful ? 
The Cleveland Browns - WE KNOW QUARTERBACKS ( Look at how many we've had ... )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
Actually, since you brought it up.....
There is no mention in the US Constitution about public education. As a matter of fact, the US Supreme Court has ruled there is no right to an education in the United States....
Education has been covered by the states, under the Constitutional clause of.... any powers not provided to the Federal Government by the Constitution, are reserved to the individual states....
The Northwest Ordinance of 1785, provided the foundation for funding public education in the United States, but until the 1840s almost all schools were privately funded....
There you go bud....
The Constitution went into effect in 1789, but true public education didn't start until the 1840s. more than 50 years later.... in most cases, local school boards took over the private schools, and in many cases those boards continued the practices of private schools....
As immigration picked up in the late 1800s, the Federal Government increased it's role in education. As the Federal Government got involved, Federal regulations became involved, and the classroom became much like driving your car. Lawsuits, required seatbelts, pollution control and mandatory insurance....
Isn't progress (Federal Money) wonderful ?
So, if public education isn't covered in the constitution, if it's a "state" thing, why do people ask to prohibit the ..."...under God....." thing in the pledge, and they do it under the plause of "unconstitutional" due to the seperation of church and state? (note: seperation of church and state - not: elimination of church because of state"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468 |
Quote:
Quote:
Actually, since you brought it up.....
There is no mention in the US Constitution about public education. As a matter of fact, the US Supreme Court has ruled there is no right to an education in the United States....
Education has been covered by the states, under the Constitutional clause of.... any powers not provided to the Federal Government by the Constitution, are reserved to the individual states....
The Northwest Ordinance of 1785, provided the foundation for funding public education in the United States, but until the 1840s almost all schools were privately funded....
There you go bud....
The Constitution went into effect in 1789, but true public education didn't start until the 1840s. more than 50 years later.... in most cases, local school boards took over the private schools, and in many cases those boards continued the practices of private schools....
As immigration picked up in the late 1800s, the Federal Government increased it's role in education. As the Federal Government got involved, Federal regulations became involved, and the classroom became much like driving your car. Lawsuits, required seatbelts, pollution control and mandatory insurance....
Isn't progress (Federal Money) wonderful ?
So, if public education isn't covered in the constitution, if it's a "state" thing, why do people ask to prohibit the ..."...under God....." thing in the pledge, and they do it under the plause of "unconstitutional" due to the seperation of church and state? (note: seperation of church and state - not: elimination of church because of state"?
Most suits started in state courts, but some started in Federal Court due to First Ammendment issues and/or Civil rights violations. Sometimes the suits passed all the way through state courts, to the State Supreme Court, then were appealed to the US Supreme Court.......
The First Ammendment is the Church/State, Freedom of Speach, Free Exercise of Religion, Freedom of the Press, Right to Peacably Assemble, and Right to Petition the Government Ammendment...
State Constitutions, as well as State and local laws can not violate any clause of the US Constitution.... So, even though public education is controlled locally, and certified by the local states, any regulation they put forward can not violate the US Constitution....
The Cleveland Browns - WE KNOW QUARTERBACKS ( Look at how many we've had ... )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Thanks for the explanation. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365 |
Quote:
The Northwest Ordinance of 1785, provided the foundation for funding public education in the United States, but until the 1840s almost all schools were privately funded....
So like I said schools had prayers for years, and years, and years with no problem. If our founding fathers would have wanted to keep it out of schools, either they, or their friends or family would have spoken up in the late 1700's or early 1800's, hell even the early to mid 1900's.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468 |
Quote:
Quote:
The Northwest Ordinance of 1785, provided the foundation for funding public education in the United States, but until the 1840s almost all schools were privately funded....
So like I said schools had prayers for years, and years, and years with no problem. If our founding fathers would have wanted to keep it out of schools, either they, or their friends or family would have spoken up in the late 1700's or early 1800's, hell even the early to mid 1900's.
Our "Founding Fathers" didn't even provide for public education in the Constitution, much less for prayers in public schools. They did, however, "speak up," and say....
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
We are not talking about private schools..... The founders of our Country, attended PRIVATE SCHOOLS. Prayers are OK in PRIVATE SCHOOLS, because parents are paying for their children to be taught in the specified manner, that manner includes the Pledge and Prayer.
Evidently, by your reasoning, ALL AMERICANS must attend PRIVATE SCHOOLS, because the founding fathers attended PRIVATE SCHOOLS. Not to mention the fact that, the Constitution also provided for SLAVERY, and was interpreted to include the rights of MEN, but not the rights of WOMEN..... It took Constitutional Ammendments to remove slavery, and allow women the Right to Vote.... but because the founding fathers did not provide for those circumstances, by your reasoning, those provisions should not exist....
The Founding Fathers did, however, provide for a Supreme Court, whose primary purpose is to interpret the Constitution, and to make sure that laws and practices of government, comply with it's framework..... 
The Cleveland Browns - WE KNOW QUARTERBACKS ( Look at how many we've had ... )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Kids are not allowed to pray in school, so much for the Constitution.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468 |
The children can exercise, or practice their religion all they want... The kids can "love their neighbors as themselves." They can believe in Jehovah, Jesus, Buddha, Vishnu, Brahma, Odin or Hercules, as they choose. They can can turn the other cheek. They can even have their own religious discussions on the playground.
BUT..... The Schools can not lead, pay for, conduct prayer meetings, conduct religious services, organize, or discuss religion. Do you want your kids religious education handled by someone outside your own Church? In public schools, you don't know who the teacher is, or what their religious background is.
Or would you rather pay the expense to break each class, K thru 12, down to Baptist, Presbyterian, Catholics, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Reformed Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Methodist, Buddhists, Wiccans, Church of Christ, Agnostics, Atheists and any other religions that might reside in the school district....
Rather than give each child, a religious qualified teacher, of their faith, and pay for each individual teacher, class and classroom for each and every religious possibility in a school, as would have to be done to avoid leaving any child behind.... religiously...... No religious training is provided.... This includes not leading a school prayer, and not reciting the Pledge of Allegiance....
The Cleveland Browns - WE KNOW QUARTERBACKS ( Look at how many we've had ... )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
The Schools can not lead, pay for, conduct prayer meetings, conduct religious services, organize, or discuss religion.
You went one word too far halfback... schools can lead discussions on religion, they can discuss it from a historical perspective, they can even discuss it from a modern comparative standpoint... teachers can also moderate student lead discussions on religion....what they can't do is give the appearance of preferring one over the other.. it is this fear that no matter what a teacher says, that it will be construed as preferential, that keeps them from doing it... which, if you want my humble opinion, is sad. If you truely want kids to learn and understand other religions, where is that going to happen? It's not going to happen in church, the church is obviously going to teach the kids that their teachings are the right ones.. it's not going to happen in most homes for the same reason, the kids are going to be taught that the religious preferences of the parents are the right ones... it's not going to happen among other kids, because they are going to be discussing football and Pokemon, not religion.... so in the end, it doesn't happen.... so kids get NO unbiased explanation of what other religions believe...... because the schools are afraid they'll get sued.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
But then we get back to the whole pledge thing, which your the one saying is tied to religion by the "under God" line. What would happen if a student walked into class and immediately knelt next to their desk and began praying. I would almost bet all heck would break loose, the teacher would tell them to stop, some jerkoff would go home and tell mom what happened, mom would call 1-800-ask-gary and start a lawsuit, the student would be suspended until the matter is sorted out. Sounds like religious persecution.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
But then we get back to the whole pledge thing, which your the one saying is tied to religion by the "under God" line.
What would happen if a student walked into class and immediately knelt next to their desk and began praying. I would almost bet all heck would break loose, the teacher would tell them to stop, some jerkoff would go home and tell mom what happened, mom would call 1-800-ask-gary and start a lawsuit, the student would be suspended until the matter is sorted out.
Sounds like religious persecution.
That sounds a little disingenuous, and not at all true. I know students who took breaks to pray during school, it was never a big deal.
~Lyuokdea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
That sounds a little disingenuous, and not at all true. I know students who took breaks to pray during school, it was never a big deal.
Not really. I can find you a dozen instances in under half an hour where kids were stopped from freely exercising their right to practice religion in the public schools because.. A. The teachers and administration don't really know what the rules say and B. They are freakin' scared to death of getting sued.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Two dozen instances doesn't really make a trend. Has it happened? Certainly. Is it likely to happen? not at all.
~Lyuokdea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
You will note that I said "in less than half an hour"... there are entire law firms which devote quite a bit of time to defending kids rights in schools... the right to have Jesus on your bookcover, the right to say grace before you eat, the right to wear religious jewelry, the right to NOT participate in overtly religous things (of course this pretty much is directed at California's recent embrace of the Muslim religion)...
My point is, it happens a heck of a lot more than you think it does... but my question is, how often does it have to happen to be important? I mean if one kid in Massachusetts has to do something which offends him, it ends up at the Supreme Court... so HOW MANY times does a Christian kid have to have his/her rights violated before it's significant?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468 |
What you say is true DC... Schools can discuss religion in a historical context, such as the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther, Henry VIII and the Anglican Church, even the English Civil War. I don't think that a history course can be taught without a discussion of Religion, and the effects on civilization. When you get into Philosophy and what each Church believes, is where you run into trouble. I don't think there is ANYONE who can teach religion, and religious differences in an unbiased manner. A Catholic can not legitimately teach Baptist beliefs in an unbiased way, much as a Baptist can't teach Muslim beliefs in an unbiased manner. Thing isn't a good way to prevent religious prejudices when you have people trying to discuss another's religion, even intellectually. When you compare religions, someone is always going to ask which belief is superior. Sooner or later, someone will get offended when his beliefs are called to question, or a parent will get upset because they feel a belief is presented in an unfair manner. Examples: Try having a Jehovah's Witness and a Catholic discuss the intercession of the Saints.... or a Baptist and a Lutheran discussing immersion vs. the use of a Baptismal font... Teachers are human. Errors can be made. Philosophical biases come through. If anybody truly wants to know about another religion, they should investigate it on their own. It is more than likely the only way to discover what you truly want to know....
The Cleveland Browns - WE KNOW QUARTERBACKS ( Look at how many we've had ... )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
I would deny that it is the type of major trend you are claiming. If you want to go through and find dozens of instances, go ahead, but that's probably a waste of time.
~Lyuodea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365 |
Quote:
We are not talking about private schools..... The founders of our Country, attended PRIVATE SCHOOLS. Prayers are OK in PRIVATE SCHOOLS, because parents are paying for their children to be taught in the specified manner
Sorry, but I don't have time to look anything up here at work, but just when do you say schools went from private to public?
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
I would deny that it is the type of major trend you are claiming. If you want to go through and find dozens of instances, go ahead, but that's probably a waste of time.
~Lyuodea
And yet if there are a few dozen instances of kids or families claiming "get christianity out of here" it holds more sway with you?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
I would deny that it is the type of major trend you are claiming. If you want to go through and find dozens of instances, go ahead, but that's probably a waste of time.
~Lyuodea
And yet if there are a few dozen instances of kids or families claiming "get christianity out of here" it holds more sway with you?
Which is exactly my point.. if 10% of the kids want to not say the pledge and 7% of kids who want to openly and legally practice Christianity are denied that right... why is one more significant than the other.. (Keep in mind, I just made those numbers up, I have no idea what the actual percentages are... )
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468 |
Quote:
Quote:
We are not talking about private schools..... The founders of our Country, attended PRIVATE SCHOOLS. Prayers are OK in PRIVATE SCHOOLS, because parents are paying for their children to be taught in the specified manner
Sorry, but I don't have time to look anything up here at work, but just when do you say schools went from private to public?
According to Wikkipedia.... in the 1840s... Here's the article....
United States public schools
Main article: Education in the United States
In the United States, all powers which are not assigned to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution are reserved to the people or individual states. Since the federal Constitution does not mention education, and the U.S. Supreme Court has held conclusively there is no federal Constitutional right to an education, public education has always been under the general control of the individual states. The steadily expanding role of the federal government in public education since the late nineteenth century has recently become a subject of heated debate, as many states (and more than a few Senators and members of Congress) perceive the U.S. Government to be overstepping its constitutional bounds.
The systemic breadth required to implement statewide public education is such that most states employ a three-tiered model of decentralisation that parallels the general decentralisation model of state/county/township. To wit, there is usually a state superintendent of schools, who shuttles back and forth between the state department of education, the state board of education, and the state government itself. Statewide education policies are then regionally decentralised to intermediate school districts, or their equivalents by other names. These are invariably associated with counties, or with groups of counties; but the boundaries are not necessarily the same as the county boundaries. The intermediate school district is constituted of however many local school districts are assigned to its jurisdiction.
In most states, these county and regional "intermediate" school districts and controlling boards merely implement state education policy at the local level, and provide a channel through which the local districts communicate upward to the state board of education, state superintendent, and department of education.
Local school districts are managed by local school boards, which own and operate the public primary and secondary schools within their boundaries. They typically have no authority over private or parochial (religiously-affiliated) schools, or over home-schooling. Michigan and Iowa, however, limit home schooling to the parents of the children, and require the parents to be certified teachers. In California, where - as in most states - the licensing of teachers is limited to the public schools, teachers are not "certified"; they are "credentialed."
History
Main article: History of education in the United States
The first American public school was authorized on January 2,1643 by the Town of Dedham in the Massachusetts Bay Colony — nearly 150 years before the establishment of the United States.
The Regents of the University of the State of New York, established on 1 May 1784, was the first accrediting agency in the United States. It was a collective of both public and private schools, as well as libraries, museums, etc. It is afiliated with the New York State Department of Education.
After the Revolution, the U.S. began to stress importance on education, focusing on elementary (K-8th grade) education. Schools were publicly supplied, but not free. Until the 1830s, public mass education remained a social issue that still required reform. Education reformers such as Horace Mann, helped jump start the common school movement. In 1837, Mann became the first Secretary of the Board of Education for Massachusetts. Mann was at the forefront in promoting the institution of common schools. His influence on education in Massachusetts soon spread to the U.S. as a whole. By 1870, all states provided free elementary schooling.
The Land Ordinance of 1785 established a mechanism for funding public education in the United States. Until at least the 1840s, however, most schools continued to be privately owned and operated.
The Cleveland Browns - WE KNOW QUARTERBACKS ( Look at how many we've had ... )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365 |
Thanks Half. Interesting stuff
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 97
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 97 |
Quote:
Your not pledging to the flag itself, but what the flag represents.
Jehova's Witnesses probably pray to a cross don't they or some other symbol of God?
Witnesses dont pray to crosses or any other objects and pleding allegiance to a flag, country, or even what they represent would be something Witnesses wouldnt do as well.
Quote:
If the Jehovah's Witnesses could say... "I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, one Nation, Indivisable, with liberty and justice for all..." There would be no problem...
Not true at all. Its not the "under God" part its the whole pledging allegiance to something/someone other Jehovah God or Jesus. Thats the issue for Witnesses.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468 |
I'm curious as to how a Jehovah's Witness would take take a citizenship oath, join the armed forces or take a government job? Can they swear to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution? This is interesting. I don't know myself, that's why I'm asking....
The Cleveland Browns - WE KNOW QUARTERBACKS ( Look at how many we've had ... )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 97
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 97 |
Witnesses probably wouldnt take a citizen oath. They wont pledge their allegiance to anything country or government. They wont pledge to defend the country etc. It's possible that citizenship would be denied in those situations. (Im sure there are some who may choose to lie their way through the process just to attain citizenship though.)
As far as taking government jobs, it would probably depend on what the job entailed form a philosophical standpoint and duties.
Most 99.9% of Witnesses would refuse to join the armed forces (even if ordered/commanded/drafted), so add a couple of ".9's" on to that percentage for those that would voluntarily join the army.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Patriotic School Routines-Question
for Teachers and others
|
|
![[Linked Image from i3.photobucket.com]](http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/lazeone11/ClevelandTowerCityjayem-1.jpg)