If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NewsMax)   Student leaders at a California college have banned the Pledge of Allegiance at their meetings, saying they see no reason to publicly swear loyalty to God and the U.S. government   (newsmax.com) divider line 642
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

7153 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Nov 2006 at 8:00 AM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



642 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-11-10 08:49:17 AM
Actually, what I meant to say was, OMFG! Those California Libs are stealing our children's minds, and poisoning the wells, and eating sushi, and sleeping with our white wimmin!!!! (Black, Yellow, and Brown ones too, I suspect.)
 
2006-11-10 08:49:49 AM
ShotgunLobotomy

There sure are alot of traitorous liberal commie douchebags in california.

Yep, it's full of enemas of the State.

/sorry
//not really
 
2006-11-10 08:50:02 AM
Finnley Wren: All that I have suggested is that interpreted morality - call it "natural law" if ya like - is the very basis of our laws.

who decides what's natural? as far as science is concerned homosexuality is natural.
 
2006-11-10 08:51:30 AM
Finnley Wren: It's just easier to enforce it across the board, I suppose.

But walking across a truly empty street IS immoral, right?
 
2006-11-10 08:51:56 AM
I refuse to read NewsMax articles as they tend to lower ones intelligence. Plus they are just idiots....
 
2006-11-10 08:52:04 AM
Drasancas: It's still ludicrous to assert that j-walking is immoral, and god will send you to hell for it.

I never suggested that, and am certainly no expert on the genesis or continued implementation of jaywalking statutes.

Jaywalking was an example that somebody else gave, and I suggested that the law was in place because our society values human life and does not wish to see people killed. Valuing human life is a moral precept.
 
2006-11-10 08:53:13 AM
MWeather: But walking across a truly empty street IS immoral, right?

If there is a law against it, and the jaywalker is aware that he is breaking the law, then I'm gonna say yes.

/flame on!
 
2006-11-10 08:53:19 AM
Under God not originally included, the Republic either as I recall, and equality was meant to be included, the Pledge itself is defiant of what America means.

However, the wording of the "ban" is actually wording over the original rule essentially forcing someone to begin the meeting with it, and inevitably forcing others to do so. What you have here is a ban because if one person plans to, they will disturb the proceedings, and they are in agreement that they will not be forced to, if enough people want to, they can do it however, it does not stop you from doing so, it only applies to being an asshole and shouting in the middle of the meetings.

And basic law exists from equality, not natural order or morality. It is an understanding of boundaries everyone and everything comes to possess, whether painfully, vicariously, or through understanding. When morality becomes concerned inside of justice then you move from safeguarding rights to specifically infringing upon them without good reason, and the only good reason is against those who do not permit others to continue with their own.
 
2006-11-10 08:53:36 AM
Finnley Wren

MWeather: But it's illegal to jaywalk across an empty street as well.

It's just easier to enforce it across the board, I suppose.

An "empty street" is too open to interpretation or abuse by a nabbed jaywalker, particularly a busy city street.


The other possibility, of course, is that these laws exist to keep society running smoothly.

Jwalking can disrupt traffic and create hazzards.
Speeding causes people to lose control easier, creating hazards.

If you've ever sat and watched a busy intersection, it doesn't take long to appreciate how the system works. So many cars whizzing by each other, with virtually no accidents, because everyone's following the same set of rules.

To say that banning j-walking is a matter of morality makes about as much sense as saying that an engineer's decision on whether to use one technique over another, in streamlining the efficiency of a car versus cost (finding the proper balance), is a matter of morality.
 
2006-11-10 08:54:09 AM
OMGZORS!!! IT'S TEH GAY AGENDA!!! SAN FRAN LIBERALISM IS SPREADING ACROSS THE NATION!11!1!!1 CALL TEH CULTURE WARRIORS!!!1!1!!1
 
2006-11-10 08:55:18 AM
Wah! A group of students don't want to recite the pledge at their meetings. We're being oppressed!

Crybabies.
 
2006-11-10 08:56:19 AM
The Icelander: GAY AGENDA

6:00 am Gym
8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)
9:00 am Hair appointment
10:00 am Shopping
12:00 PM Brunch

2:00 PM
1) Assume complete control of the U.S. Federal, State and Local Governments as well as all other national governments,
2) Recruit all straight youngsters to our debauched lifestyle,
3) Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages,
4) Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents of Colombian and Jamaican drug cartels,
5) Establish planetary chain of homo breeding gulags where over-medicated imprisoned straight women are turned into artificially impregnated baby factories to produce prepubescent love slaves for our devotedly pederastic gay leadership,
6) bulldoze all houses of worship, and
7) Secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media for the exclusive use of child pornographers.

2:30 PM Get forty winks of beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles from stress of world conquest
4:00 PM Cocktails
6:00 PM Light Dinner (soup, salad, with Chardonnay)
8:00 PM Theater
11:00 PM Bed (du jour)"
 
2006-11-10 08:56:35 AM
Drasancas:

The other possibility, of course, is that these laws exist to keep society running smoothly.

Jwalking can disrupt traffic and create hazzards.


Hazard to what? Human life.

Speeding causes people to lose control easier, creating hazards.

Hazard to what? Human life.

If you've ever sat and watched a busy intersection, it doesn't take long to appreciate how the system works. So many cars whizzing by each other, with virtually no accidents, because everyone's following the same set of rules.

Amen. Nobody gets killed.

To say that banning j-walking is a matter of morality makes about as much sense as saying that an engineer's decision on whether to use one technique over another, in streamlining the efficiency of a car versus cost (finding the proper balance), is a matter of morality.

I'm just sayin that laws against jaywalking are by definition moral because they are there to protect human life. That's all.
 
2006-11-10 08:57:14 AM
Finnley Wren

Jaywalking was an example that somebody else gave, and I suggested that the law was in place because our society values human life and does not wish to see people killed. Valuing human life is a moral precept.

Well I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.
That particular example I think we'd have to ask the people who originally came up with the idea, what they were thinking.
 
2006-11-10 08:57:21 AM
Any of you bastards gonna jaywalk in MY city, you damn well better be screaming "UNDER GOD!!" while you do it. This is America after all.
 
2006-11-10 08:57:44 AM
Tatsuma, you're a sensible and stand up guy, but I think you're a little off your A-game here. The group at the college, as far as I can tell, did exactly what you are advocating: they voted to stop forcing people to recite it at their meetings. There are many other articles on this subject other than this one, and having read quite a few, this is the only one I've seen calling it a ban. Every other article simply says that they have removed it from their meeting agenda. After the ban, one student recited the pledge to the rest of the group without being thrown out, so I'd take that as saying that students can recite it on their own if they wish.
 
2006-11-10 08:57:53 AM
Jwalking is immoral in the context that it attempts to knowingly do something with the intention to in some manner, physically, emotional, economically, etc., hinder someone else. If you are running across the street trying to dodge traffic, there is not a problem, but you should not so that others do nto get the idea, and I would rather you get a ticket, that is the legality of the situation is what could have happened if someone did not see you or you darted out. The morality would come into context if, despite the fact that there are crosswalks, you do not want to use them, and decide that traffic better simply halt for you with a disregard for the safety of cdrivers or others on the sidewalk.

But again, if you're just running across the road, no crosswalk that you can see, think you can make it, then you're jwalking, but you're far from immoral, you're in a rush, or believe you are, and don't think a car will come close to hitting you. But you're an asshole if you think a car won't hit you cause it should stop.
 
2006-11-10 08:58:05 AM
"I've had friends and family die defending those words."

IDEAS not words...Remember they fought for the right to live FREE not to have thing like pledges forced upon them...
 
2006-11-10 08:58:23 AM
a group of students want to recite the pledge....how dare they force it on the rest of the students would be the cry if it was the other way. kid that says he is socialist fits the model perfectly...get into a position of power and then dictate what others cannot do
 
2006-11-10 08:58:39 AM
I'm just sayin that laws against jaywalking are by definition moral because they are there to protect human life. That's all.

And that's where we disagree.

To me, that'd be inconsistent with the countless other examples in society we could place laws on.
 
2006-11-10 08:58:44 AM
JAYWALKING THREAD!
 
2006-11-10 08:59:03 AM
Drasancas: It's still ludicrous to assert that j-walking is immoral, and god will send you to hell for it.

More ludicrous than saying that eating shellfish is immoral? Eating meat on Fridays? Failing to mutilate your child's genitalia? I wouldn't be surprised if I read in the bible how jaywalking is an abomination, it's just as logical as the rest.
 
2006-11-10 08:59:50 AM
Facism and Extremeism! It's okay when WE do it!
 
2006-11-10 09:00:04 AM
Drasancas: And that's where we disagree.

Without being disagreeable. Thanks for that!
 
2006-11-10 09:00:21 AM
Finnley Wren If there is a law against it, and the jaywalker is aware that he is breaking the law, then I'm gonna say yes.

Woah! Authoritarian much?

1. The road is empty nobody is at risk
2. Should I not be allowed to risk my own life?
 
2006-11-10 09:00:59 AM
[HERO] tag?
 
2006-11-10 09:02:55 AM
Gothnet:

Woah! Authoritarian much?

You're not the first, Goth.

1. The road is empty nobody is at risk
2. Should I not be allowed to risk my own life?


There is no such thing as an "empty road." The cars are there somewhere! Sometimes even without headlights.

In terms of you being allowed to risk your own life, our society values you, Goth, and we would prefer that you didn't.
 
2006-11-10 09:03:09 AM
atlanto_ufo they did not stop any students from reciting a pledge, and one actually did in protest and nothing happened. This is removed from the meeting agenda and from a rule forcing them to say the pledge before a meeting, that is all.

I do not care about the pledge specifically, my concern is that everyone cries oppression when an overstep gets removed. This is not oppression, nor is it oppressive realistically to say people need to say the pledge. All this does is turn around the fact that you do not have to. Telling children they do not have to, or can say it without Under God, removing a monument in a courthouse ot the ten commandments, etc., those should not have happened, and as long as it is not a major issue, such as restriking every coin and printing new bills, then I do not have a concern. If one guy with a small lift can get the monument out, then do not complain, display it at your house, and don't have taxpayers buying them.
 
2006-11-10 09:04:10 AM
atlanta_ufo

Read the Fukking Article retard. It was democratically decided to remove the pledge from meetings.

This is not one person forcing it. This is not one group of students forcing all others to never say the pledge. This is ONE group removing the pledge from THEIR OWN agenda by DEMOCRATIC decision.
 
2006-11-10 09:05:19 AM
timmy_the_tooth: who decides what's natural? as far as science is concerned homosexuality is natural.

My own belief is that human beings are born with a certain innate sense of morality.

And remember, morality and religion are not one and the same, so religious screeds against homosexuality are not in play here.
 
2006-11-10 09:06:47 AM
Tatsuma: Asswipes. Don't want to say it? Don't say it! It's no skin off of anyone's nose.

But by making it all the way down that road and completely banning it shows you're exactly like the assholes that want to force people to say it

Congratulation, jackasses.


The last I checked, nobody was forced to go to this meeting. When a private group meets, and attendence isn't mandated by regulation or law, I don't give a damn what they want to make mandatory or ban.

If they want to make it mandatory that you give praise to Cthulhu before each meeting, that's fine with me.

I think it's a dumb thing to do, but there's no violation of anyone's rights.
 
2006-11-10 09:06:50 AM
img169.imageshack.us
 
2006-11-10 09:07:12 AM
Gothnet

True. But you seem to forget that somebody died.
 
2006-11-10 09:07:15 AM
It's been said before by others, but I'll repeat it:

They didn't ban the pledge, they chose not to have it at their meetings. NewMax is spinning the story by using the term "ban."
 
2006-11-10 09:07:25 AM
When I was in school and had to stand and say it every day [along with prayers; stupid Catholic school] the whole thing annoyed me. The spectacle, the "everyone stand and speak at the same time" all of it. It seemed wrong. I hated it -- dreaded it -- and I didn't even know why.

A lot of who I am today comes from things I can piece together now. Catholic school made me into someone who wants to be different -- because I had to dress the same as everyone else, in uniform, and I hated it. It made me never want to be told what to do. It made me turn my back entirely on religion, which I have determined is fake. School was, for me, largely, an attempt to make everyone the same. Believe the same, talk the same, dress the same... and I actively rejected it all.

I went to wrestling last week, and they played the national anthem before, requesting people to stand for it. I think I was the only one who didn't; they all had their hands over their hearts, staring at a piece of cloth with stars and stripes on it, as if it were somehow, something more. It's just a piece of cloth. It's just a flag. It's not even like I was trying to make a statement, I was just... not interested in that feeling I had when I was in school. Not interested in being part of a herd, doing something because I am "supposed" to.

Anyway, there may have been a point, but I think I forgot it. Viva cough syrup with coediene.
 
2006-11-10 09:07:27 AM
Drasancas
The other possibility, of course, is that these laws exist to keep society running smoothly.

Jwalking can disrupt traffic and create hazzards.
Speeding causes people to lose control easier, creating hazards.


But J-walking on an empty street DOESN'T disrupt traffic because there's no traffic to disrupt. Speeding on an empty, straight freeway also does not endanger society. People get in trouble for doing these things merely because they are against the law, not because there is any threat to society. Law does not allow for circumstances on the ground to dictate what is and is not safe, it just comes down at an arbitrary point.
 
2006-11-10 09:07:32 AM
Finnley Wren: MWeather: But walking across a truly empty street IS immoral, right?

If there is a law against it, and the jaywalker is aware that he is breaking the law, then I'm gonna say yes.

/flame on!


put them to death!!!! they are breaking the moral code.

/all laws are enforced at the end of a gun.
 
2006-11-10 09:07:39 AM
platypusjones:

Clap, clap!
 
2006-11-10 09:08:15 AM
Sheesh.... next thing you know, them dirty liberals will be trying to ban Christmas.......

*ducks and covers*
 
2006-11-10 09:08:16 AM
Finnley Wren

I value me too, but I don't think anyone else should get to choose if I put myself at risk, as long as I'm informed.
I probably shouldn't bother arguing, my own moral code is, ahem, flexible to say the least. My only real moral is not to harm or seek to control others where possible.

Jaywalking doesn't even really register on my moral-decision-o-meter.
 
2006-11-10 09:09:41 AM
I never felt the need to say the pledge in school. I already am loyal to this country, the notion of them expecting me to re-affirm my loyalty to the country every single day was quite frankly insulting, and was kinda Commie, IMHO.

So, I just stood and didn't sya anything. Seems like the best course of action.
 
2006-11-10 09:09:48 AM
FalconWolfKnight: The pledge isn't that hard for a non-christian, I don't get it, just omit god, or substitute your own. One nation, under Thor, kinda has a nice ring to it.



"...one nation, under Eris, with liberty and justice for all"


hey... not bad
 
2006-11-10 09:09:51 AM
Finnley Wren: How about judges that do the same thing, like gay marriage for instance? I don't mind at all that they marry, but it's kinda the same thing, ain't it?

Please cite an example of judges forcing two men or two women to marry.
 
2006-11-10 09:10:14 AM
Gothnet: Jaywalking doesn't even really register on my moral-decision-o-meter.

Agreed, Goth. Someone was trying to put my "all law is interpreted morality" to the test with the most ridiculous law they could think of. If I do say so myself, the theory stands up pretty well.
 
2006-11-10 09:10:19 AM
This is SO farkING DUMB!

How many of you at work start your office meetings with the Pledge? The time for grade-school brainwashing is over. If it's so farking important, say it to yourself.

Grow the fark up.
 
2006-11-10 09:10:33 AM
2006-11-10 09:07:39 AM Finnley Wren

;)
 
2006-11-10 09:11:07 AM
I don't think subby knows what the menaing of "ban" means.
 
2006-11-10 09:11:52 AM
Sunny Ray

Wha? Who died? Which of my posts were you replying to?

/head asplode
 
2006-11-10 09:12:36 AM
SchlingFo: Please cite an example of judges forcing two men or two women to marry.

My comment was a response to Tatsuma's desire to not legislate morality. I asked him whether or not he thought that judges were kinda doing the same thing and used gay marriage as an example. That is all.
 
2006-11-10 09:12:47 AM
Liberals. Preaching tolerance and respect for everyone...unless you disagree with them.

/or are a Muslim. As much as they grandstand against Christians, they cowar when it comes to equally regulating Islam.
 
Displayed 50 of 642 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report