• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Laws? We don't need to follow no stinking laws!!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,064
0
0
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Son, go sit in the corner and shut the fuck up now because this is pathetic.
Just a cursory skim of P&N lately leads me to believe you suffer from PTSD or something. Go home. Seek help. Get better.
Uh, he's right, though. So your dick-headed assertion that there's something wrong with him is unfounded.

*ASS*
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: chucky2
Why can't these kids stand during the pledge and just not recite it if they don't want to?

Is it so meaningful to them not to stand in the school people died to provide them that it's worth the slap in the face to the living that have layed it on the line so they can sit on their wannabe 'what I want to do overrides anything else mentality' @sses and think they're relevent in any way???
People died so that we don't have to pledge allegiance to a state, and don't have to stand while that is done. That's called individual liberty.
They don't have to say a F'ing word. Not one. They do however have to stand. I know, it's very hard to stand, especially at such a young and feeble age... :roll:

If I was in Iran/China/N.Korea and they stood and receited whatever national pledge/song/whatever, even then I wouldn't have the complete lack of tact to not stand out of respect for being a guest in their midst.

Students and Parents need to start getting a F'ing clue that they don't own the schools, teachers, or adminstrations...and as such, don't set the rules: They are guests and should be acting accordingly.
The parents (taxpayers) are not the guests, they are the owners of the schools. Schools and teachers should act accordingly, and in full compliance with the law of the land.
No, they are not owners of the schools, nor do they set the rules or the laws. The school Administrators set the rules operating under the the laws of the land. If the laws of the land say the school Administration has the power to require students to stand during the pledge, but they don't have to repeat it, then that's the F'ing rule! If you as a parent don't like it, to F'ing bad!!!. If it means that much that your lazy disrespectful kid has to stand, let alone mumble something, then yank him/her out and either home school them or put them in a private school were you might have more of a say so. Until then, STFU because you, nor your precious kid, are in charge.

These kids shouldn't have been given a one day suspension however...that was wrong. They should have been given a 1 month work/study and been assigned to the VA hospital. Maybe they'd appreciate the vets a little more than F it, I'll sit on my @ss because I'm more important than anything else around me.

Un F'ing Believable.

Chuck
Un F'ing Believable indeed.
I am sure these veterans would be delighted to learn that they sacrificed so that the government can force students to stand in acknowledgment of allegiance to the state and a deity that they may not even believe in.
I'm sure they'd all be scratching their heads wondering why the students who they sacrificed so much for have so little respect so as to not even rise from their seat during the pledge. F pledging allegiance...these kids don't even have the common decency for a 'tip of the hat' effort.

Chuck
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,441
21,363
136
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: chucky2
Why can't these kids stand during the pledge and just not recite it if they don't want to?

Is it so meaningful to them not to stand in the school people died to provide them that it's worth the slap in the face to the living that have layed it on the line so they can sit on their wannabe 'what I want to do overrides anything else mentality' @sses and think they're relevent in any way???
People died so that we don't have to pledge allegiance to a state, and don't have to stand while that is done. That's called individual liberty.
They don't have to say a F'ing word. Not one. They do however have to stand. I know, it's very hard to stand, especially at such a young and feeble age... :roll:

If I was in Iran/China/N.Korea and they stood and receited whatever national pledge/song/whatever, even then I wouldn't have the complete lack of tact to not stand out of respect for being a guest in their midst.

Students and Parents need to start getting a F'ing clue that they don't own the schools, teachers, or adminstrations...and as such, don't set the rules: They are guests and should be acting accordingly.
The parents (taxpayers) are not the guests, they are the owners of the schools. Schools and teachers should act accordingly, and in full compliance with the law of the land.
No, they are not owners of the schools, nor do they set the rules or the laws. The school Administrators set the rules operating under the the laws of the land. If the laws of the land say the school Administration has the power to require students to stand during the pledge, but they don't have to repeat it, then that's the F'ing rule! If you as a parent don't like it, to F'ing bad!!!. If it means that much that your lazy disrespectful kid has to stand, let alone mumble something, then yank him/her out and either home school them or put them in a private school were you might have more of a say so. Until then, STFU because you, nor your precious kid, are in charge.

These kids shouldn't have been given a one day suspension however...that was wrong. They should have been given a 1 month work/study and been assigned to the VA hospital. Maybe they'd appreciate the vets a little more than F it, I'll sit on my @ss because I'm more important than anything else around me.

Un F'ing Believable.

Chuck
Un F'ing Believable indeed.
I am sure these veterans would be delighted to learn that they sacrificed so that the government can force students to stand in acknowledgment of allegiance to the state and a deity that they may not even believe in.
I'm sure they'd all be scratching their heads wondering why the students who they sacrificed so much for have so little respect so as to not even rise from their seat during the pledge. F pledging allegiance...these kids don't even have the common decency for a 'tip of the hat' effort.

Chuck
Why is it not okay for the government to compel speech out of students, but it is okay for them to compel them to stand during it? Why should they be required to show respect to a symbol or the recitation that they don't agree with? Amazing that people would do something so un-American by forcing people to make useless gestures towards the American flag.

I've got an idea, lets ask the supreme court what they think: Here's a famous quote from Justice Jackson on forcing students to say the pledge.

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us."
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
Originally posted by: lupi
They can tell you what clothes to wear, when to be silent, telling them to stand doesn't seem that far from their allowed powers.
The difference is that standing during the pledge can be construed as tacit agreement with the pledge or a least respect for what it says. If students don't agree with all or part of the Pledge's content, then forcing those students to stand is essentially putting words in their mouths.

Imagine if you were forced to stand silently while the Nazi oath were recited; would you really think that wasn't a big deal?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,853
4,799
126
Plus, student sitting down is not interfering with others right to stand up and recite the pledge and it is a waste of that student's school time to make him take a stand for something he doesn't believe in. Standing for allegiance to the state and acknowledgment of God should not be forced upon students in a free country.
 

Rio Rebel

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,195
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Plus, student sitting down is not interfering with others right to stand up and recite the pledge and it is a waste of that student's school time to make him take a stand for something he doesn't believe in. Standing for allegiance to the state and acknowledgment of God should not be forced upon students in a free country.
Agreed.

Forcing a student to stand for the pledge is forcing political speech, in my view. Refusing to stand for the pledge does not impede anyone else from participating.

In my mind, this is like forcing students to bow their heads and be silent while someone prays. Just because you're not forcing the student to say the words doesn't mean you are allowing them to opt out of participating.
 

Xonoahbin

Senior member
Aug 16, 2005
883
0
71
I'm a high school student (well, graduating soon) and I do not say the pledge of allegiance. In fact, I say an alternative one. Why? Because one day I sat down and tried to recite the pledge without everybody else there too.. and it wasn't nearly as easy. That's because it's ingrained into memory.. sort of like being brainwashed. It's pointless to say the pledge, particularly if you disagree with its connotations. Instead, "I pledge allegiance not to this flag nor the United States of America, but to a country so dedicated to giving justice, liberty and fairness to not one, but all of humanity." If the US does that, great. If it doesn't, I'm not arbitrarily pledging allegiance to it.
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,795
350
126
When we did the Pledge in high school home room, I'd say it, but skipped ever voicing the god bullshit.

But frankly, the Pledge shouldn't even be recited in school. Or, it could be recited, but absolutely no rules should be mandated for it. It's far from necessary, and is remnants of a commie-fearing time. I don't have any issue with the Pledge of Allegiance, but the entirety of its message I do. Of course, nobody in government likes undoing what has been done, as it creates a message of failure. I'd love to see 'Under God' removed, as I wholly agree it violates the law of Separation of Church and State. But it was added during a time of total fear of commies and, since they were generally atheist, it was deemed a good idea to include the line 'Under God' to try and weed out possible commies. But bah, that time has come and went, and religious freedom needs to be truly religious freedom.
Hell, I'm down with completely removing religion from everything government, and hell, life in general. But that's another argument for another time. :p

+
 

Kerouactivist

Diamond Member
Jul 12, 2001
4,655
0
76
i hope the ACLU nails these tards...totally moronic...we would probably be better off if they just removed the pledge entirely...why? Because it's fucking fascist statist bullshit that offends the tradition of liberty in this country...
 

FuzzyBee

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2000
5,172
1
76
Originally posted by: Xonoahbin
I'one day I sat down and tried to recite the pledge without everybody else there too.. and it wasn't nearly as easy. That's because it's ingrained into memory.. sort of like being brainwashed.
You do realize that these two sentences don't make sense together, right? If it were brainwashed into you, it wouldn;t be hard to say.
 
May 16, 2000
13,529
0
0
Originally posted by: thraashman
I refused to stand for the pledge in a class senior year. I never stood, but for some reason this day it was said during a different period so I had a different teacher. He told me to stand, I said no. He told me it's a sign of respect and that I had to, I said I wouldn't. He asked why, I said that because I'm an atheist and the pledge comments on "one nation, under god" that it offends me. It disrespects my religion by indicating that I'm not a member of this nation because I hold myself to be under no god. And if the pledge would not respect me I would not respect it and would remain seated.

He kicked me out of the class. When he came out a minute later I said that if I was ever in his classroom for the pledge that I'd gladly leave before it started so that I could be sitting down in the hallway rather than stand for a pledge that clearly shows a disrespect for my beliefs.
I went through much the same thing myself, but I just left out the 'under god' and said the pledge as it was before they changed it due to the red scare. I got called on it finally and it turned into a HUGE big deal. The schools compromise was that they'd rather I not take part in it at all rather than leave out 'under god', so I was excused from saying it from then on. I got my ass kicked on the playground and after school for a solid three years because of that whole thing.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,542
260
126
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: thraashman
I refused to stand for the pledge in a class senior year. I never stood, but for some reason this day it was said during a different period so I had a different teacher. He told me to stand, I said no. He told me it's a sign of respect and that I had to, I said I wouldn't. He asked why, I said that because I'm an atheist and the pledge comments on "one nation, under god" that it offends me. It disrespects my religion by indicating that I'm not a member of this nation because I hold myself to be under no god. And if the pledge would not respect me I would not respect it and would remain seated.

He kicked me out of the class. When he came out a minute later I said that if I was ever in his classroom for the pledge that I'd gladly leave before it started so that I could be sitting down in the hallway rather than stand for a pledge that clearly shows a disrespect for my beliefs.
I went through much the same thing myself, but I just left out the 'under god' and said the pledge as it was before they changed it due to the red scare. I got called on it finally and it turned into a HUGE big deal. The schools compromise was that they'd rather I not take part in it at all rather than leave out 'under god', so I was excused from saying it from then on. I got my ass kicked on the playground and after school for a solid three years because of that whole thing.
Sounds like all around good solutions.
 
May 16, 2000
13,529
0
0
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: thraashman
I refused to stand for the pledge in a class senior year. I never stood, but for some reason this day it was said during a different period so I had a different teacher. He told me to stand, I said no. He told me it's a sign of respect and that I had to, I said I wouldn't. He asked why, I said that because I'm an atheist and the pledge comments on "one nation, under god" that it offends me. It disrespects my religion by indicating that I'm not a member of this nation because I hold myself to be under no god. And if the pledge would not respect me I would not respect it and would remain seated.

He kicked me out of the class. When he came out a minute later I said that if I was ever in his classroom for the pledge that I'd gladly leave before it started so that I could be sitting down in the hallway rather than stand for a pledge that clearly shows a disrespect for my beliefs.
I went through much the same thing myself, but I just left out the 'under god' and said the pledge as it was before they changed it due to the red scare. I got called on it finally and it turned into a HUGE big deal. The schools compromise was that they'd rather I not take part in it at all rather than leave out 'under god', so I was excused from saying it from then on. I got my ass kicked on the playground and after school for a solid three years because of that whole thing.
Sounds like all around good solutions.
Creating a situation that results in years of abuse, torment, and ostricization rather than respecting an individuals rights and beliefs (especially when they are based on extensive historic support) is a 'good solution'?
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Hats off to you PrinceofWands, for sticking to your guns despite the consequences.

I do the same thing myself (leave out under God)...it has no business being in the pledge unless it was there to start with....and even then it shouldn't be in there.

Chuck
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,630
181
106
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: thraashman
I refused to stand for the pledge in a class senior year. I never stood, but for some reason this day it was said during a different period so I had a different teacher. He told me to stand, I said no. He told me it's a sign of respect and that I had to, I said I wouldn't. He asked why, I said that because I'm an atheist and the pledge comments on "one nation, under god" that it offends me. It disrespects my religion by indicating that I'm not a member of this nation because I hold myself to be under no god. And if the pledge would not respect me I would not respect it and would remain seated.

He kicked me out of the class. When he came out a minute later I said that if I was ever in his classroom for the pledge that I'd gladly leave before it started so that I could be sitting down in the hallway rather than stand for a pledge that clearly shows a disrespect for my beliefs.
I went through much the same thing myself, but I just left out the 'under god' and said the pledge as it was before they changed it due to the red scare. I got called on it finally and it turned into a HUGE big deal. The schools compromise was that they'd rather I not take part in it at all rather than leave out 'under god', so I was excused from saying it from then on. I got my ass kicked on the playground and after school for a solid three years because of that whole thing.
Sounds like all around good solutions.
I see, you mouth the pledge and never take it to heart. Although why you are so worked up over a "jingle" invented by a manufacturer to improve flag sales, I will never understand.:confused:

 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,542
260
126
I hate to break this to all you know it alls, but this precious separation of church and state that you continue to try and suckle from does not mean an abolishment of any religion or religious derivatives. What it does mean is you are free to pledge to whatever faction you decide and the government isn't taking out church taxes from our income. You want to act like an imbecile trying to prove a non-existent point, particularly in a setting like the public school system, then enjoy what you sow.
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,327
620
126
just out of curiousity, does anyone here know if there are customs/traditions in schools of other countries similar to the Pledge of Allegience here in the US?

if there are, what happens if students don't participate? are they suspended or expelled? are foreign students expected to participate?
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,795
350
126
Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Originally posted by: Xonoahbin
I'one day I sat down and tried to recite the pledge without everybody else there too.. and it wasn't nearly as easy. That's because it's ingrained into memory.. sort of like being brainwashed.
You do realize that these two sentences don't make sense together, right? If it were brainwashed into you, it wouldn;t be hard to say.
it actually makes sense to me, because, well not with the Pledge of Allegiance, but in other scenarios, I'm the same way. It's kind of a situational brainwash... if you're in the proper situation, your brain quickly remembers what you're trying to do. I'm the same way with cadence lyrics. I can remember them when I'm not leading the song, but when I'm leading, my mind is blank. lol I hate that situational memory. Gotta reprogram my brain.

+
 
May 16, 2000
13,529
0
0
Originally posted by: lupi
I hate to break this to all you know it alls, but this precious separation of church and state that you continue to try and suckle from does not mean an abolishment of any religion or religious derivatives. What it does mean is you are free to pledge to whatever faction you decide and the government isn't taking out church taxes from our income. You want to act like an imbecile trying to prove a non-existent point, particularly in a setting like the public school system, then enjoy what you sow.
No one asked for it. However, we do demand that no government agency endorses or in any way promotes either a particular religion, or religion in general...which is the exact meaning and intent of separation. When a group of zealots plays upon the fears of the public and their elected officials to alter something which is about as sacred as a secular thing can be (ie the pledge of allegiance) you can believe I'm gonna get worked up over it.

The inclusion of 'under god' in the pledge is not only an unnecessary alteration to the original pledge (written by a pastor lets remember), it's an affront to our system of government and democracy in general. It REQUIRES a public pledging to religion in a government facility by underage, impressionable persons. Moreover it's gotten to the point that refusal to participate in said oath results in punitive actions...if not by the government and their actors (ie school faculty), then by the public around that individual (such as in my case).

It's doubly important for me who, as a future teacher, may be faced with hardship over this issue. Fortunately there is some protection for a government employee who comes into conflict on this point. Specifically Article VII of the Constitution:

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States"

If only such protections existed for the common man as exist for government officials...oh wait, there is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Seems pretty clear to me...the government cannot force or coerce ANYTHING relating to religion. Schools are government agencies, and schools are allowed to create rules which garner the force of law in application. Therefore schools MUST be prohibited from: a) requiring ANYTHING having to do with religion, and b) taking actions due to part (a) that endangers the safety or guaranteed freedoms of all individuals. In other words you can't require someone to say 'under god' in any public pledge and you cannot in any way single out or call attention to someones choice to demand that right due to the very likely chance of negative repercussions upon that individual.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,542
260
126
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Well said Prince. :beer:
Nicelt said or not does not change that his initial thesis is incorrect leading to a failed result.
 

Rio Rebel

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,195
0
0
Originally posted by: lupi
I hate to break this to all you know it alls, but this precious separation of church and state that you continue to try and suckle from does not mean an abolishment of any religion or religious derivatives. What it does mean is you are free to pledge to whatever faction you decide and the government isn't taking out church taxes from our income. You want to act like an imbecile trying to prove a non-existent point, particularly in a setting like the public school system, then enjoy what you sow.
Funny.

Sorry, Mr. Know It All, but freedom of religion is not the relevant point. It's freedom of speech, particularly political speech, that's the issue here. Take "Under God" out of the pledge and you have the same discussion.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,650
0
0
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Well said Prince. :beer:
Nicelt said or not does not change that his initial thesis is incorrect leading to a failed result.
And where specifically is he wrong?

Is he wrong in his summation that the Constitution explicitly grants a separation of church & state? No.

Is he wrong in his summation that there is to be no religious litmus tests for public service and/or employment? No.

Please help me see where you are coming from and why you believe him (and myself because I agree 100% with him) to be wrong.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,542
260
126
He's wrong in that he's taking the modern revisionist view of those clauses instead of the classical academic views. You want the revisionist version to become the foundation for the interpretation, then there is a simple solution. Have it changed. The process for that already exist.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,650
0
0
Originally posted by: lupi
He's wrong in that he's taking the modern revisionist view of those clauses instead of the classical academic views. You want the revisionist version to become the foundation for the interpretation, then there is a simple solution. Have it changed. The process for that already exist.
Okay....you are going to have to explain the "classical academic" view to me.

I can only go by the primary architect of the document that we are debating to interpret the true "classical" intent:

"All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution"
This was in the Virgina constitution which was/is seen as the precursor to the U.S. Constitution (both written by Jefferson). Here he clearly states that you have the right to practice whatever religion you would like but you cannot and should not be forced to practice at all if you so choose.

From a 1776 speech given by Jefferson that reiterates the point above:

I may grow rich by an art I am compelled to follow; I may recover health by medicines I am compelled to take against my own judgment; but I cannot be saved by a worship I disbelieve and abhor.
I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another. (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799.
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression. (Thomas Jefferson, "First Inaugural Address," March 4, 1801
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. (Thomas Jefferson, as President, in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802
It behoves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803
Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority. But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises, which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant, too, that this recommendation is to carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription, perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed? I do not believe it is in the best interests of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies, that the General Government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times of these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the Constitution has deposited it. (Thomas Jefferson, just before the end of his second term, in a letter to Samuel Miller--a Presbyterian minister--on January 23, 1808
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS