Page 1 of 6
The pledge
Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 9:59 pm
by Potter
Ok, in my world history class we are discussing the current situation with the Pledge of allegiance being unconstitutional by mixing church and state. "one nation, under god" I personally am agnostic, and even so Iwould never pledge shit to this country, so I for one dont say it. Today in gym, I did not pledge and got in trouble. I find this to be bullshit. What do you guys think? do you think its right that we should be made to say the pledge and that its unconstitutional to say one nation under god?
I think the pledge should not include the words "under god". Even though this country was based on christian beliefs, Its main idea was freedom of religion ad getting in trouble for not saying under god is far from it.
Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 10:04 pm
by seveneleven
well Potter... just to say for spite... its not a law to state the pledge in public school.... #1 reason...it places pressure that there is a possible higher being, AKA God, the pledge originally
did not contain the words "Under God" until the mid 50s(pretty sure) also take note to what the Senate is lookin at to pass as a bill, then try and get the president to make a law.....
Code: Select all
NEW FEDERAL HATE BILL MEANS FUNERAL OF FREE SPEECH
__________________________________
On Sept. 14, the US House of Representatives passed, 223-199, the ominous federal “anti-hate” bill, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005. It was inserted as AMDT.2662 into the Children’s Safety Act. If approved unaltered by the senate judiciary, this legislation is ready for the President to sign into law.
Here is a summary of what the bill would make law:
__________________________________
Although AMDT.2662 ostensibly empowers the government to assist states in prosecution of violent hate crimes, its actual effect will be much more far-reaching. AMDT.2662 will lead to enforcement of the working definitions of “hate” and “hate crimes” which are enforced by the many “anti-hate” bureaucracies in countries throughout the western industrialized world. In such countries, it is now a “hate crime” to criticize members of federally protected groups such as Jews and homosexuals. Utilizing such definitions, “hate crime” indictments have been made or are currently being pursued by Canada, England, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Australia and New Zealand. AMDT.2662 builds a foundation for a “hate crimes” bureaucracy in America, also ending free speech.
__________________________________
Here are some of the specially protected groups which AMDT.2662 defends:
__________________________________
Homosexuals. Any public criticism of homosexuals will soon be considered a hate crime, just as it was for 11 Christians under the Pennsylvania hate crime law on Oct. 10, 2004. These Christians were arrested as “hate criminals” for preaching during a huge “gay pride” rally and faced 47 years in prison and $80,000 fines each.
__________________________________
Women. A woman who claims her boyfriend used a sexist word against her and raped her the last time they had sex, can press charges for a “hate crime” of rape. Punishment will triple the usual penalty, about 30 years in prison.
__________________________________
Jews. Already the Dept. of Global Anti-semitism, being established in the US State Dept., makes it “anti-semitic” to express “strong anti-Israel sentiment” against Israel or its leaders. It also says upholding the New Testament charge that Jews killed Christ is “anti-semitic.” Under “anti-hate” laws in Canada and Europe, such statements are “hate crimes” punishable by harsh fines and imprisonment.
AMDT.2662 will hasten such anti-Christianity in America as well.
__________________________________
ENDING FREE SPEECH RADIO
If this amendment is approved, FCC restrictions will soon descend on American talk show hosts, with lists of banned topics. Hosts will be fined or imprisoned and stations will lose their broadcast licenses, just as in Canada, if they violate these restrictions.
__________________________________
In Canada in Aug. 2004, “CHOI FM,” Quebec City’s most popular talk show station, was dissolved by the Canadian government. Its 33 employees were put out of work. Its offense? One of its talk show hosts criticized African dictators whose children were educated in Canadian universities.
This was considered a “hate crime” against blacks.
__________________________________
If AMDT.2662 is passed, exactly the same will soon happen to broadcasters who stray from the new “politically correct” FCC guidelines. AMDT.2662 will also invite pedophiles, witches, warlocks, Satanists and even “sinners” to acquire special federal protection from those who criticize them, including pastors. In England especially, Satanists and witches are included under Britain’s new, stiffer “anti-hate” law.
__________________________________
If passed, AMDT.2662 will provide immediate special FBI, Justice Dept. and local police assistance to protected groups that claim to have been offended. As the nation saw last October in Philadelphia, on the slightest evidence of bias, police will descend on Christians, pastors, talk show hosts and station managers, indicting them with trumped-up “hate crime” charges and exorbitant penalties.
__________________________________
FEDERAL TAKEOVER OF LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT .
The sovereign rights of states to enforce the law as they see fit has posed a huge barrier to establishment of a federal “anti-hate” bureaucracy.
__________________________________
Until now, the government has had to prove that such abuses as jury tampering, voter fraud, slavery, or crimes involving interstate commerce existed in states before they could meddle in state law enforcement. AMDT.2662 would legitimize as law several devious strategies to break down all barriers to federal intrusion.
__________________________________
AMDT.2662 asserts that if a violent bias crime within a state in any way affects interstate commerce, the federal government has the right to invade state law enforcement. This means that if a homosexual has been called a “faggot” and threatened to have his butt kicked by a gas station attendant, and as a result does not patronize that gas station whose products have come from across the state line, the federal government can intervene. Or if the homosexual buys a Greyhound ticket (vehicle of interstate commerce) to resettle in San Fransisco as a result of such threatened “violence,” the federal government has a green light to take over state hate crime law enforcement in that state.
__________________________________
AMDT.2662 asserts that bias in states is a “relic” of slavery. This bill contends that the presence of bias-motivated violent crime within a state is proof that slavery still exists in that state. This provides the same justification for intervention that the federal government had in putting down slavery during the Civil War!
__________________________________
Under AMDT.2662, the government can take over local law enforcement if:
States do not have “anti-hate” laws. Sec. B (b)(2A)
__________________________________
States are not enforcing state and federal hate laws as zealously as the federal government wishes. Sec. B (b)(2A)
States do not produce the kind of verdicts in hate crimes trials that the federal government wants. Sec. B (b)(2D)
VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION
AMDT.2662 flatly violates the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits government from favoring any particular group.
__________________________________
AMDT.2662 will give hate crimes bureaucrats control of the federal anti-hate agenda. Very quickly, via enabling legislation and judicial precedent, any pretext of respect for the rights of Christians or dissenters will dissolve, as has happened under anti-hate laws in Canada, and under Pennsylvania’s ADL hate law in Philadelphia on Oct 10.
__________________________________
All criticism of protected groups via politically incorrect terms, such as “homosexual” or “sodomite,” will become a hate crime, just as it is under British hate law. A huge number of legal precedents will continuously widen hate law jurisdiction. Courts will quickly clog with federal indictments. Staggering backups of unresolved cases will make the federal hate law, like Roe vs. Wade, virtually impossible to repeal.
__________________________________
Canada provides a telescope to American legislators, warning them of the legal confusion and financial exhaustion which comes to those who run afoul of hate crimes bureaucracies. Members of the senate judiciary committee are in a position now to insist that our time-tested legal system be allowed to continue to do what it has done so well for centuries: punish all crime, including “hate crime,” according to physical evidence--- not according to the vagaries of “bias motivation.”
[/i]
Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 10:05 pm
by Potter
I know its not a law, I said that when I got in trouble. My teacher said it wa disobeying school rules.
Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 10:07 pm
by seveneleven
They cannot do that.....what did he say you were in trouble for?
Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 10:08 pm
by Potter
For not participating and Disobaying schools rules. Yes I know its bs, but its america, and carmel nonetheless
Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 10:14 pm
by hascoolnickname
That's grade A bullshit, you shouldn't get in trouble
Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 10:27 pm
by classic candy
A: If that law gets passed, fuck it, I'm moving elsewhere..
B: We say the pledge in third period.. my third period teacher used to try to make me stand for it, and recite it.. she even made me recite it in front of the class once, for not reciting it as a group.. here's what I did
"I pledge allegiance, to the constitution, of the United States of America, and for which it stands, to protect injustices, and my rights, as a free citizen, from biggotry, and persecution, from you."
Then I quietly took my seat, and haven't had to stand since.. because I refuse to pledge allegiance to a stupid piece of fabric, under some higher power (keeping in mind that it says god, instead of our lord jesus christ, also keeping in mind that the Jewish and Muslim words Yahweh and Allah, respectively, mean god..)... when I don't believe in any such higher power..
The end?
Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 10:38 pm
by sam
ok the reason, at least mine is this:
the one nation under god part SHOULDN'T even be in it as it was not in the original form. the fucking people that "support" it have the audacity to just say "oh well you can just not say the "under god" part and it'll be ok for you alright? no, that's not alright. just because you like the updated version to support your stupid beliefs does not mean you can ignore others.
if it is goin to be said, at least correct your own fucking abortions that you create.
Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:34 pm
by Fagulous
hoeshit, public schools still say the pledge?
I haven't had to say the pledge since second grade.
Also if you feel like being arguemenitive with your teachers ask for a handbook of the school rules and have them point out where the school rules are, if there is such a rule, you can go on a tangent about church and state.

Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 12:25 am
by ShammerS
It doesn't make sense, I'm aware.
But I've taken the same sense that I have on just about everything that doesn't really directly affect me: apathy.
Just stand there so you don't have to deal with it; throwing a shitfit makes you look like a moron and causes unnecessary argument over something that was as simple as balls-ing up to standing there and saying something you don't agree with.
I say alot of things I don't agree with, but I'd rather say them and not face any reprocussions than not say them and get in trouble for it later.
My goal in life is to be happy; thus all decisions will revolve around that. The decision to say the pledge, which has argumentative statements in it, is my choice since it is generally accepted and retold throughout the U.S.
I'd like to be successful here, and being a whiny doushbag isn't really a one-way ticket. Good grades and outgoingness are, though. =)
Summary in short: life sucks sometimes, just do what you can. :-p
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:16 am
by Fagulous
ShammerS wrote:It doesn't make sense, I'm aware.
But I've taken the same sense that I have on just about everything that doesn't really directly affect me: apathy.
Just stand there so you don't have to deal with it; throwing a shitfit makes you look like a moron and causes unnecessary argument over something that was as simple as balls-ing up to standing there and saying something you don't agree with.
I say alot of things I don't agree with, but I'd rather say them and not face any reprocussions than not say them and get in trouble for it later.
My goal in life is to be happy; thus all decisions will revolve around that. The decision to say the pledge, which has argumentative statements in it, is my choice since it is generally accepted and retold throughout the U.S.
I'd like to be successful here, and being a whiny doushbag isn't really a one-way ticket. Good grades and outgoingness are, though. =)
Summary in short: life sucks sometimes, just do what you can. :-p
What fantasy world are you living in? Dude whiney doucebags almost always get promoted.
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 2:12 am
by CgSquall
at my school it's optional to say the pledge of allegiance, but they ask for the 10 second period of silence afterwards to still be maintained out of respect for the dead and all of those people fighting everywhere and all that.
But yes, after a lawsuit from an athiest parent in California about the school forcing his child to say the pledge of allegience, which included the words 'under god' they made it so nobody HAS to say the pledge of allegiance in school. So technically, you don't have to say it, and if they say anything about it, you can say it's against the law to make you say it, and if they try to punish you about it, and send you to the office, tell the principal or whomever the same thing, against the law to make you say it, if they do anything about it, take it up with your local news team or whatever.
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 7:45 am
by Original Sin
Whether it's a 'school rule' or not is irrelivent. Public schoosl cannot go against federal/state laws, plain and simple. They try, and 90% of the time they get away with it, because people don't stand up and say anything. Once they learn that students know they're rights, and they start getting slapped with lawsuits every other week, they'll start to change their ways, or go bankrupt and be siezed by the feds.
As far as that bill goes...Jesus fucking christ. That law offends me, so...I'm gonna fine the federal government! Does it say anything in there about hate crimes against humanity in general...cuz I think this one qualifies.
Don't they realize that by giving special favors to select groups so they don't get 'offended,' they're discriminating against everyone else? It's pretty fuckin obvious, yet somehow, shit like this still gets passed! Who the FUCK is voting these people into office, and why in the hell haven't they eaten a bullet yet?
By the people, for the people...yeah, bullshit. Unless you're black, or jewish apparently, then you get whatever the hell you want. Don't get me wrong, I don't have any hate for racial groups...what I DO hate is how the government uses reverse discrimination as 'justice.'
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:58 am
by malictus
Not to sidetracks things too much, but I'd take that 'New Federal Hate Bill Means Funeral of Free Speech' essay quoted above with a grain of salt. It was written from a very pro-Christian, conservative standpoint (it's on a thousand conservative pro-Christian websites right now), and contains a lot of speculation, or in some cases downright misinformation.
Not that I'm a big fan of 'hate crime' legislation, though; I think if you kill someone it's pretty obvious you hate them

Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:42 am
by Mosh_Mosh_Revolution
ShammerS wrote:It doesn't make sense, I'm aware.
But I've taken the same sense that I have on just about everything that doesn't really directly affect me: apathy.
Just stand there so you don't have to deal with it; throwing a shitfit makes you look like a moron and causes unnecessary argument over something that was as simple as balls-ing up to standing there and saying something you don't agree with.
I say alot of things I don't agree with, but I'd rather say them and not face any reprocussions than not say them and get in trouble for it later.
My goal in life is to be happy; thus all decisions will revolve around that. The decision to say the pledge, which has argumentative statements in it, is my choice since it is generally accepted and retold throughout the U.S.
I'd like to be successful here, and being a whiny doushbag isn't really a one-way ticket. Good grades and outgoingness are, though. =)
Summary in short: life sucks sometimes, just do what you can. :-p
I’m sorry to all of you out there that want to “take a stand against he man” or whatever bullshit you’re pushing, but ShammerS is right.
What does it really matter to you if people say the pledge the way it is or not? Even if we took “under God” out, people would STILL throw a bitch fit because they don’t support the country (which is complete and utter bullshit. I don’t care if you can’t support the leaders, but if you can’t stand living here, then get the fuck out, amirite?) or don’t believe in justice for everybody, or they don’t agree with having the word “indivisible.” People will make anything disagreeable if they can get off causing a big stink over it.
Sitting during the pledge isn’t a crime. But the least the sitters can do is stop being smartasses about what they’re doing. Just my opinion, but if you don’t want to say the pledge, use the time as a moment of silence, as they do in CgSquall’s school. At least at that point you’ll have some sort of respect about you.
Sitting during the pledge isn’t going to hurt you. They can’t dock your grades because you’re not participating in an optional ritual. But do you think that remaining seated during an act of respect toward your fellow man and your country will help you out? No, it won’t.
While we’re at dumping the pledge, why don’t we scrap the national anthem, too? That would probably do the country a lot of good, don't you think? Heaven forbid that the star should spangle, or the banner yet wave over this land of the free, home of the brave. Silly thing to have, really, a song that can boost morale and leave a grown man with tears in his eyes. Anyone wanna go tag the White House? [/sarcasm]