The feds should have very little to no say how the school is run. School standards are set by the "state" not the feds. The only thing the feds should have a say in is that "students" need to be able to compete at a certain level upon completion of a grade.

If you are wishing for the Federal Government not to have any strings attached then I would guess you would have no problem just handing over billions of dollars of disaster relief to the Louisiana Governor with no questions ask too. Lee, I didn't say that did I?

Sorry Drmiler, I was not trying to sound snotty there. Just showing how far the Federal Government can go in controlling the Federal Dollars. There are many shades as to how much control the Federal Government can take. My statement was to point out how one person can ask for little strings when it comes to school funds, but request big strings for others. There is no standard across the board to control, but that is why we elect representatives to the Federal Government to decide how many string, right?

In the end, I believe that funding don't matter because not all States have the requirement to say the pledge. After doing some research I found that California does require something patriotic, not specifically the pledge:

The relevant portion of California Education Code 52720 reads:

In every public elementary school each day during the school year at the beginning of the first regularly scheduled class or activity period at which the majority of the pupils of the majority of the pupils of the school normally begin the schoolday, there shall be conducted appropriate patriotic exercises. The giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy the requirements of this section.

While the Nevada State law only requires schools to play the National anthem at sporting events and large school assemblies. While looking back at my own childhood I now remember never saying the pledge here in Nevada (some teachers still did), but only in other States that I had lived.

The only requirement dealing with the pledge is the Federal Law first written in 1942 and changed in 1954. This requirement is only that if your going to say the pledge, then this is how you are go to say it. You can find this info in the text findings of the case here:Link

Also, score one to MM for hosting such an emotional debate that has stayed civil. WOOHOO!

IMO, it is because most of those posting here have been either Moderates or Conservative in their views. It is when both extremes of Liberal and Conservative start in, is when everything goes out the window.

Good thread MM, from me too.

I pledge my heart to the United states of america and to the ideals for which it stand, I shall put no country before america, for we are one nation, indivisable, with liberty and justice for all.

IMO, it is because most of those posting here have been either Moderates or Conservative in their views. It is when both extremes of Liberal and Conservative start in, is when everything goes out the window.

I'll have you know that many around here consider me to be one of those extreme liberals

But I agree--good thread, MM.

wow a double good thread mm.. I am deeply happy. thank you

"What if I decide that my oath to my country needn't state that I think it's indivisible?"

There's nothing in the Constitution that disallows saying "indivisable". There's nothing that says an employee of the government can't promote a political philosophy. You'd need a new amendment to do that. This isn't an arbitrary choosing of two words here, this is two words that were put in a few decades ago for the WRONG reasons, in spite of Constitutional mandates that forbade it.

What the legislators in the 1950's were trying to do was establish an national religious identity to counter Soviet Atheist identity. That was WRONG, just like all the other McCarthyist acts they committed. This isn't some tradition traced back to our founders, this is the same kind of Pat Robertson, bible-as-a-political-tool crap we all throw fits about today.

BUT, just because it is something we did as children it seems 'traditional' and sacrosanct. If we held to things like that for no more reason, we'd own slaves.

I think I was taken incorrectly in my last post, I wasn't saying that the words should be left in, quite the opposite. I was trying to address people saying that I can just omit those two words if I don't believe in them, and if that's the case, what's the point of having a pledge at all.

They should be taken out, as the basic, official pledge should be representative of a national identity, a pledge that all Americans should ascribe to. As it is not with those two words, they should not be part. Sorry if I was a little unclear. What I was getting at, is that it's fine if you want to go above and beyond in claiming your allegiance, but the base level should be broadly representative.

Exactly. Most conservative folks have no problem with opting-in to say, prayer. I don't see why it would be so destructive to opt-in to saying "under God". I have a feeling mr Nedow would probably throw a fit about that, too, but I'm not really "on his side" as much as I agree with him on this one point.

Exactly. Most conservative folks have no problem with opting-in to say, prayer. I don't see why it would be so destructive to opt-in to saying "under God". I have a feeling mr Nedow would probably throw a fit about that, too, but I'm not really "on his side" as much as I agree with him on this one point.

Good statement, same here.

Reply By: BakerStreetPosted: Friday, September 16, 2005Exactly. Most conservative folks have no problem with opting-in to say, prayer. I don't see why it would be so destructive to opt-in to saying "under God". I have a feeling mr Nedow would probably throw a fit about that, too, but I'm not really "on his side" as much as I agree with him on this one point.

nedow would crap his pants if it was taken out (under God) but left as an option should someone choose to utter it.

Reply By: Lee1776Posted: Friday, September 16, 2005Exactly. Most conservative folks have no problem with opting-in to say, prayer. I don't see why it would be so destructive to opt-in to saying "under God". I have a feeling mr Nedow would probably throw a fit about that, too, but I'm not really "on his side" as much as I agree with him on this one point.Good statement, same here.

I do not support nedow nor will I, not even on this point, he is a GODLESS twit that is ramming his view down the poeple of americas throat.

What you can't do is take someone on the state or federal government's payroll and have them affirming religion, which is what this does.

Actually at the present time you can. Just not a federal employee. You do remember that in some "states" saying the pledge is "required" by law?

"You do remember that in some "states" saying the pledge is "required" by law?"

Yep, which would be unconstitutional since it is a state law requiring state employees to affirm the existence of God, which is counter to the Constitution. States can't pass laws which are counter to the federal Constitution.

Whose point are you trying to make?

Yep, which would be unconstitutional since it is a state law requiring state employees to affirm the existence of God, which is counter to the Constitution. States can't pass laws which are counter to the federal Constitution. Whose point are you trying to make?

My own of course. You made a statement: "What you can't do is take someone on the state or federal government's payroll and have them affirming religion, which is what this does." And I'm refuteing part of that statement. I've been spending a lot of time over on findlaw.com and from what I'mm seeing "state" law for the most part is superceding fed law. If it's unconstitutional then how are Pennsylvania and California getting away with it? See in "my" opinion, saying under god to me is affirming no religion. But then that's just me. And as a side note. if this is really what you think about this then why aren't you against the oaths of enlistment or the oath s of office. All of which contain the words "So help me God". I hear no one saying that they're unconstitutional. Yet that is a "federal" employee affirming religion isn't it?

This country wasn't founded by Christians. It was founded by Masons. And even though the person that wrote the declaration of Independence wasn't a mason or a Christian "Thomas Paine", at least he had the good since not to include God in the Pledge of allegence.

God wasn't always in the Pledge, and NOT BEING LIBERAL myself think its the right thing to leave it out.
I have more confidence in the USA and Flag than I have in any GOD.

Just because you lived with that heritage, doesn't mean you gota force it down others throats.
regards
Fox

This country wasn't founded by Christians. It was founded by Masons. And even though the person that wrote the declaration of Independence wasn't a mason or a Christian "Thomas Paine", at least he had the good since not to include God in the Pledge of allegence.

It was not founded by Masons it was founded primarily by Unitarians and Deists. Which for all intents and purposes are Christians.

Well, they were masons, too...

#117 by BakerStreet Saturday, September 17, 2005

they were masons, too...

so did they work with cement or bricks>

HUGE wide eyed look of innocence.

Oh, um yeah.

(ssh... the Illumina... ur.. walls have ears...)

As usual the last to comment. I ask, What if "Under God" was removed from the pledge...are we going to be doomed? will we go to hell for this sin?will our children turn atheists?..................then, Why do we need to stamp it on every metal or piece of paper we can get our hands on? Where is it justified in an oath of Allegiance to the United States? Why must it be repeated again and again...every morning and at every public event?
No. Then how did its removal trample anyone's rights? I think people are pissed just because it was done by a liberal,an atheist, a californian judge...= Anti-Christ. For these people it is a power struggle and Darth Vader just won. Nope, sorry...don't you see other religion states...where the prophet or whoever calls the shots...aren't you appalled when you hear religious doctrine demands that they cut robber's hands and stone women who committed adultery. Religion has no place in politics. I think that its removal is an important validation of the 1st Amendment and the separation of Church and State.