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  
•       •       •

7161 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Nov 2006 at 8:00 AM (7 years ago)   |  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 09:13:30 AM  
Gothnet [TotalFark]
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.


I agree with you. I don't want anyone to "protect" me; I will live as I will and take my own risks, as I weigh them. I'd say I share the same morals as you do; those I'm pretty firm on. I also live by a basic code whereupon I treat others as I want to be treated -- which largely means I ignore/avoid most people, as that is what I want from most people.

Jaywalking doesn't even really register on my moral-decision-o-meter.
How could it? It's walking across a street in a way that is convenient for you. I can't imagine having a moment's dilemma about it, unless it was "hmmm, this road seems unsafe, maybe I shouldn't cross it here." And even that isn't a moral dilemma, so much as an issue of self-preservation.
 
2006-11-10 09:13:52 AM  
It is the Legislative Branch that is banning gay marriage, not the Judicial.
 
2006-11-10 09:15:24 AM  
Finnley Wren: 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.

Well, in this country, we have a history of legislating morality. Pretty much any law that isn't a matter of property, money, or physical harm to others is a legislation of morality.

Most laws dealing with morality force people to behave or act in a certain way.

I think the judge example is a bad one because it's not forcing anyone to behave in a certain way. It's just expanding people's individual freedoms.

But, your explanation explains your point a lot better, and I do agree with your overall point.
 
2006-11-10 09:15:43 AM  
Gothnet

This one:

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 09:15:49 AM  
Um... yeah. You aren't pledging allegiance to the government. The pledge was designed specifically so that you would not pledge allegiance to a governing body, rather to the country itself. I think if you live here, you should pledge allegiance to the country and its people.

"I pledge allegiance to the FLAG of the United States of America, and TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS"

At no point are you pledging to a governing body. you are pledging to the nation. If you don't believe that you should pledge to the nation that GIVES YOU THE RIGHT NOT TO PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE, frankly you should get the hell out of my country. No one forces you to Pledge your Allegiance to any person, and that is rare in any country.
 
2006-11-10 09:16:03 AM  
Finnley Wren

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.


I don't see how that legislates morality, allowing people to marry, if they wish. A decision in favor of gay marriage affects nobody but those who decide to marry a partner of the same sex [or someday will.] And since their "morals" already allow for homosexuality, well, what morality has the court legislated?

People who do not have homosexual leanings can continue with their non-gay, non-gay-married lives, and those who are homosexual have equal rights and protections.

I fail to see your point.
 
2006-11-10 09:16:30 AM  
Laws either for or against actions that harm NOBODY are governmentally socialistic. Discuss.
 
2006-11-10 09:16:59 AM  
Finnley Wren: 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.

only if you use simplistic reducticism. which you did. anything can be reduced, but then you lose a lot of meaning.
 
2006-11-10 09:16:59 AM  
serpent_sky

Yes it does sound like we live by similar codes :)
Being left to go about my business is what I want from people most the time as well.

I was trying to think of a good way to put the fact that I found it difficult to even think about jaywalking in a moral context. I think you summed it up quite well.
 
2006-11-10 09:17:47 AM  
KerwoodDerby:
Oh, wait, this is Newsmax. *yawn*
never mind...

Idiot often? Also on Reuters, which should more than satisfy your libtard prejudices.

Idiots confuse the message with the messenger. You need to wake up and observe reality.
 
2006-11-10 09:17:53 AM  
I don't recall ever swear allegiance to the government. I swore allegiance to my country and my Republic, but that isn't anywhere near the same.

-- Richard Zeien
 
2006-11-10 09:18:24 AM  
SchlingFo:

Well, in this country, we have a history of legislating morality. Pretty much any law that isn't a matter of property, money, or physical harm to others is a legislation of morality.

And my belief is that ALL law is our societies interpretation of morality. I wasn't discussing our failed attempts at enforcing a religious morality on people.

Most laws dealing with morality force people to behave or act in a certain way.

All laws force people to behave or act in a certain way.

I think the judge example is a bad one because it's not forcing anyone to behave in a certain way. It's just expanding people's individual freedoms.

I agree, Schling, and wish I had not started the discussion with such a hot button issue.

But, your explanation explains your point a lot better, and I do agree with your overall point.

Appreciate that.
 
2006-11-10 09:18:30 AM  
Newsmax.....bleh.


If these kids choose not to say it, so what? I'm not big on pledges, myself. Good for them.

Some of you simpletons need to get a grip.
 
2006-11-10 09:19:05 AM  
Nemo's Brother Liberals. Preaching tolerance and respect for everyone...unless you disagree with them.

Conservatives. Don't even bother to preach tolerance in the first place.

What's a "liberal" by your definition anyway? Or do you not have one? In which case who were you hoping to address with that comment?
 
2006-11-10 09:19:39 AM  
Nemo's Brother: It is the Legislative Branch that is banning gay marriage, not the Judicial.

Actually, the judicial branch makes law, as well.

It's called non-statutory law. So, they can ban gay marriage by precedent.
 
2006-11-10 09:20:14 AM  
SchlingFo: I think it's a dumb thing to do, but there's no violation of anyone's rights.

Quote me where I said this was a violation of anyone's rights.

Are you just busy baiting me nowadays?
 
2006-11-10 09:20:14 AM  
A quick perusal of Google News has many versions of this story. The Reuters version uses the word "ban", but it looks like all the rest say "dropped". Looks to me that they didn't ban it, they just removed it from the agenda.
 
2006-11-10 09:20:56 AM  
www.ushmm.org
 
2006-11-10 09:21:08 AM  
Masterblaster1138 the problem is the creation of the Pledge was bound to devotion to the government. They tip the scales towards socialism in its description but, realistically, that is what it speaks of, living here speaks far better of allegiance to a nation than saying a pledge.

As well, this is the same discussion many always have, nothing gives me the right, the nation does not, soldiers do not, a deity does not, the constitution itself is worth toilet paper if everyone knew what the hell equality was, and it gives nothing to you.

If you cannot understand this then please, stay in my country and learn the meaning of freedom, not the ideal of being comfortable, which is what many possess.
 
2006-11-10 09:21:12 AM  
Why are we even discussing what happened at a community college?

/eww
//go buy another hatchback
 
2006-11-10 09:21:27 AM  
timmy_the_tooth:

only if you use simplistic reducticism. which you did.

Gonna take your word for that, timmy. Musta been absent that day.

anything can be reduced, but then you lose a lot of meaning.

Or a whole new world can open up. See Antony van Leeuwenhoek. I wasn't absent that day.
 
2006-11-10 09:21:44 AM  
This far into a newsmax thread and no one has posted a picture of the floor humping guy? You guys are slipping.



/Learn forbidden attraction secrets the liberal media doesn't want you to know about
 
2006-11-10 09:22:04 AM  
The pledge is one of the things I'll simply never understand about you guys.

It's a farking creepy little fascist gesture. It's patriotic in the same way that those North Korean goosestepping parades are patriotic. Having everyone salute the flag and pledge allegiance to the government? Yeah that's democracy for you.

How about you change it so the only people who have to do it are your representatives in congress, and they pledge allegiance to the constitution and the people, instead?
 
2006-11-10 09:22:10 AM  
Sorry, but I'm from a military family. I've had friends and family die defending those words. I'm not with "the Right" on many things, but this is just plain ignorant.

I piss on those words, am I gonna have to kill some more?

I'm sorry, was that callous? I have a little trouble containing the contempt for someone who places submission to a government before their family. Perhaps you meant to say they died protecting you from the kind of people who murder those who refuse loyalty oaths.
 
2006-11-10 09:22:20 AM  
Code_Archeologist: Way to give three misanthropes a spot light newsmax. They removed the pledge from their meeting (which is not binding to anything else on the campus). And rather than ignoring their hollow gesture for what it was... you use it as a straw man to float the right-wing propoganda meme: "The Liberals are going to ban patriotism".

Another idiot who confuses the message and the messenger.

Will Reuters work as a politically safe source?

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2006- 11-10T021338Z_01_N09494500_RTRUKOC_0_US-LIFE-PLEDGE.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
 
2006-11-10 09:25:16 AM  
bookman do note that if Fox said something, I'll disbelieve it, akin to if the Daily Show simply says something, I'll disbelieve it. Until I get multiple sources, nothing is specifically believable, the source for their news may be false, the information may be corrupt, I may interpret it wrong. However, Newsmax is a terrible source, and if we do not see that it was linked from Reuters (notice I never jumped on the Newsmax attack) then we have to call suspect immediately on the word ban, others we can say that we should investigate, rather than Shenanigans.
 
2006-11-10 09:25:21 AM  
Finnley Wren: I agree, Schling, and wish I had not started the discussion with such a hot button issue.

No worries, dude. They're generally just the ones that pop into your mind first.

Appreciate that.

No problem :)
 
2006-11-10 09:25:21 AM  
Bell said the ban largely came about because the trustees didn't want to publicly vow loyalty to the American government before their meetings. "Loyalty ought to be something the government earns through performance, not through reciting a pledge," he said.

In otherwords, they just didn't wanna say it so they said "We're not saying it." Other people can say it.
 
2006-11-10 09:26:27 AM  
Lance Uppercut: /Learn forbidden attraction secrets the liberal media doesn't want you to know about

I'm going to have to ask you to come with me, Sir. As you can see, I am authorized to take you into custody.


img46.imageshack.us
 
2006-11-10 09:27:24 AM  
www.wickedsunshine.com
 
2006-11-10 09:27:30 AM  
sweet. i studied there way back when. The coast community college district is pretty farking nice. Golden West College, Orange Coast's less snobby cousin is awesome. Prof Lynch's international trade program FTW, and NAFTA.
 
2006-11-10 09:27:45 AM  
portland.indymedia.org
 
2006-11-10 09:27:58 AM  
Franky17: "When newsmax starts making writing clearly and making sense, wake me up."

And your sentence above does?

LOL! You, also, are an idiot.

BTW, article is also on Reuters.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2006- 11-10T021338Z_01_N09494500_RTRUKOC_0_US-LIFE-PLEDGE.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
 
2006-11-10 09:29:07 AM  
Finnley Wren: See Antony van Leeuwenhoek.

ha ha, touché

I was thinking culturally

but then I suppose you could culture something if you reduce it down far enough.
 
2006-11-10 09:29:25 AM  
I'm an atheist, but I just don't get this. A lot of people really are truly religious and patriotic, and they're usually not bad people. I've got no problem with humoring their beliefs, both with the pledge generally and the "under God" part. Just don't make it mandatory, let those who want to recite it recite it, and 30 seconds of tolerance won't hurt the others. Personally, I would probably recite it, but leave out the "under God" bit.

A lot of people on the right *and* the left need to learn that there is a category between forbidden and mandatory.
 
2006-11-10 09:30:26 AM  
Tatsuma: Quote me where I said this was a violation of anyone's rights.

No, you didn't say that. But, it seemed like that's where you were heading with the talk about people being banned from praying or saying the pledge.

If you're just saying that it's a dumb thing to do, but don't really care about them doing it, then I agree with you :)
 
2006-11-10 09:30:51 AM  
You should show your loyalty to God at church. In terms of Patriotism, you can show that with those ribbon stickers stuck to your minivan. No need for Redundancy.
 
2006-11-10 09:31:05 AM  
Plus, it's not a loyalty oath to the *government*, it's a loyalty oath to the *nation*. That's another elusive disctinction they should learn.
 
2006-11-10 09:31:18 AM  
besides, i doubt they banned it, likely they just cancelled the rule that says the pledge must be said at every meeting. which makes perfetc sense, why force people to say the pledge just so they can get on with the track & field budget?
 
2006-11-10 09:31:28 AM  
"Loyalty ought to be something the government earns through performance, not through reciting a pledge,"

Darn tootin...
 
2006-11-10 09:36:20 AM  
SusanIvanova: Plus, it's not a loyalty oath to the *government*, it's a loyalty oath to the *nation*. That's another elusive disctinction they should learn.

Could you explain the distinction between a republic and a government? I would think that if a person meant 'nation' they would say 'nation' or perhaps 'country,' not state a form of government.
 
2006-11-10 09:38:15 AM  
I'd be all for saying the pledge if we could just update it somehow. It's outdated and insulting in its current version. We could really use a pledge that reflects the current state of the country a little better.

"I pledge obedience to the flag of the United States of America and to the corporations for which it stands, one divided nation under FSM, with habeas corpus and justice for some."

/nationalism makes me sick
 
2006-11-10 09:38:29 AM  
It is one thing to make the pledge optional and quite another to ban it.
It make me wonder to what country do these people feel aligned? If they have no allegiance with the USA why do they feel it is proper or moral for them to enjoy the benefits and protections provided to them by the USA?
If they don't like the government and feel they are striving to change it then they would still have commitment and allegiance. "Loyalty ought to be something the government earns through performance, not through reciting a pledge," In my view loyalty to a government "of the people and by the people" requires people to be involved even to the extent that they want to make radical changes. How can they even expect to make changes or have anyone else consider these changes if they have no loyalty or commitment in the first place?

Be committed, loyal and strive to make the USA more palatable or find a place that agrees with your views.

Forcing people not to be able to say the pledge is far worse than forcing anyone to say it who doesn't want to IMO. Those who want to say it have a passion for the USA, those that don't want to say it have no passion at all for the USA (by their own admission) so you aren't taking anything away from them by making it optional.
 
2006-11-10 09:38:45 AM  
I am thinking a California tag is way over due. These people have no clue.
 
2006-11-10 09:38:52 AM  
Sorry folks but the Pledge is a requirement of citizenship and if you dont like get the FARK out of the country.

Our fore-fathers believed in freedom but would hang you for treason or being a traitor. Refusing this oath is paramount to being a traitor.

Either you are with the USA or you are against...there is no...im in the USA but i hate the USA and all it stands for.
 
2006-11-10 09:39:08 AM  
Meh, we did this at OCC's sister college, Saddleback college over 10 years ago. SLACKERS.

Of course, we then had the VFW coming to every single one of our meetings, and I soon realized that the pledge meant more than life to some folks.. and I eventually came to truly understand its meaning, even though I didnt believe in God at the time.

Hopefully, these idiots will learn the same leason.
 
2006-11-10 09:39:10 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."

Wow, it's funny to see what sets Tatsuma off. He'll get all defensive if Israel happens to fart and anybody says "that's smelly," but if a group of college students decides to make a symbolic gesture, look out! Tatsuma is all over that shiat!
 
2006-11-10 09:39:34 AM  
I will NOT pledge allegiance to anyone. I shouldn't have to wast my time waiting for you to prey to some mythological being either. Wanna pledge and prey.... fine but do it on your time not mine.

Time is money and my time is mine to spend, not yours.
 
2006-11-10 09:39:45 AM  
I officially don't pledge any allegiance to ay flag, and renounce any pledges made when I was a child as they were dun under duress of detention...
 
2006-11-10 09:40:00 AM  
has anyone pointed out that the college in question happens to be in one of the most staunchly republican parts of california Orange County?
 
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 archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report