syntax252 Posted February 7, 2005 Posted February 7, 2005 It is not "harmless" peer pressure. I am not saying shelter your children from it. There are many ways for them to experience it in school, believe me. It's simply not right to make citing a religion's god a daily event in school, voluntary or not. Before you were saying that peer pressure either didn't exist, or had little impact, and that it is easily resisted. Now you are saying that it is good. Its' my turn to make a confused face I think it is indeed harmless. Explain how a child would suffer from being inside a classroom and hearing the words "under God" said out loud in the pledge of allegience?
Hellbender Posted February 7, 2005 Posted February 7, 2005 One might ask why should a person who wishes to say "under God" be prevented from doing so? If there is trouble over it, why is that the fault of the religious person? Why is it the the religious person must be the one to make the sacrifice, and not the Athiest? why does it have to be either?
syntax252 Posted February 7, 2005 Posted February 7, 2005 notice the quotation marks when I wrote "voluntary". You don't think it is voluntary?
syntax252 Posted February 7, 2005 Posted February 7, 2005 why does it have to be either? How could it be both?
Hellbender Posted February 7, 2005 Posted February 7, 2005 I think it is indeed harmless. Explain how a child would suffer from being inside a classroom and hearing the words "under God" said out loud in the pledge of allegience? hit "back" on your taskbar. peer pressure, exclusion that kind of thing. Its the fact that the pledge is a schoolwide event that clearly references the christian god. Put yourself in that situation. No one wants to be singled out.
Hellbender Posted February 7, 2005 Posted February 7, 2005 How could it be both? easy. go back to the pre-1954 recitation that omits the word "god". It goes from "one nation" to "indivisible". Everyone is happy. Except for some christians who have to make it known that they accept a god.
syntax252 Posted February 7, 2005 Posted February 7, 2005 hit "back" on your taskbar. peer pressure, exclusion that kind of thing. Its the fact that the pledge is a schoolwide event that clearly references the christian god. Put yourself in that situation. No one wants to be singled out. But no one is singleing out anybody. All that is happening is that religious people who are not opposed to taking the pledge, are saying that the USA is under God. That does not single out anybody. Who, after all, is so sensitive that he can't stand to hear something said that he himself doesn't believe?
syntax252 Posted February 7, 2005 Posted February 7, 2005 easy. go back to the pre-1954 recitation that omits the word "god". It goes from "one nation" to "indivisible". Everyone is happy. Except for some christians who have[/u'] to make it known that they accept a god. That is not both. That is oneway. The Atheist way.
Hellbender Posted February 7, 2005 Posted February 7, 2005 That is not both. That is oneway. The Atheist way. no it is the pre-McCarthy, anti-atheist bigot way.
syntax252 Posted February 7, 2005 Posted February 7, 2005 no it is the pre-McCarthy, anti-atheist bigot way. Not saying "under God" is anti-atheist and bigoted?
Hellbender Posted February 7, 2005 Posted February 7, 2005 But no one is singleing out anybody. All that is happening is that religious people who are not opposed to taking the pledge, are saying that the USA is under God. That does not single out anybody. Who, after all, is so sensitive that he can't stand to hear something said that he himself doesn't believe? it is the fact that it is a daily schoolwide event which features a reference to the christian god, which school funded or school-wide events are supposed to be neutral on. It almost celebrates the false notion that this is a christian nation. I don't believe in god, but I certainly don't want the fact that I am living in a country where the people in charge do, and proper citizens do, touted.
Hellbender Posted February 7, 2005 Posted February 7, 2005 Not saying "under God" is anti-atheist and bigoted? No McCarthyism was bigoted and anti-atheist.
Coral Rhedd Posted February 7, 2005 Posted February 7, 2005 I believe the discussion citing peer pressure and its power to intimidate children is quite valid. Syntax wants to discount it on the grounds that five year olds should get a spine. What is being ignored here is intitutional pressure. Teachers are powerful people in the lives of children. They not only serve as role models but they also have the power to not only punish but to destroy academic careers. A few years ago I was a substitute teacher. I had to observe several days of classes to attain this position. I never heard a single teacher inform her class that the pledge was voluntary. Moreover, had I done such a thing as a substitute teacher I can assure you that I would have been "informed on" by one of the students to their parents who would have called the principle to complain. Even if students can withstand peer pressure in elementary school -- and few of them can, many teachers with "religious angles" would surely treat a child less fairly if he or she refused to say the pledge. Here is an example of a teacher using punitive measures towards a child who disagreed with her: My seven year old daughter was coloring a handout of a frog. She colored the frog red and blue like a South American frog she had seen in the magazine Ranger Rick. The teacher took her coloring away from her and demanded that she color another frog green or brown because "that is the only color frogs are." My daughter told the teacher that frogs could indeed be other colors and that she wanted her picture back. For this infraction, she was seated in a chair with her nose facing the blackboard for three months. I only discovered it when I went to pick my child up from the school instead of the sitter doing this. It was the teacher herself who gave me the three month time frame. She said: "That child don't understand that there are only green or brown frogs and I wanted make it clear she couldn't be allowed to argue with me." I did not call the teacher an spiteful ungrammatical hick but I did go straight to the principal who explained to me that my child needed to learn to conform. This was in a small town that was 95% Mormon. Everyday the Mormon children over 8 were taken out of their classes and moved to an on campus classroom where they were given religious studies by priests. The non-Mormon children were left behind to be tended to by resentful Mormon (I never heard of a gentile teacher holding a teaching position in that school.) teachers who would rather have had an extended coffee break. I was attending college in this town and had a job at this same college. What do you think would have happened to me (a poor single mother), my child and my job if I had demanded that my child be allowed to sit down for the pledge? We don't live in fantasy land. All of us have to live in the real world. I know well the tyranny of the majority. Syntax, you don't seem to be willing to acknowledge that the abuse of power exists.
atinymonkey Posted February 7, 2005 Posted February 7, 2005 I don't care if they are in kindergarden. The learning process begins whenever something occures that requires judgement. If these kids were as helpless as you make them out to be' date=' they wouldn't have their shoes on the right feet. [/quote'] Some of them do not have the shoes on the right feet. I appreciate what your saying, but the truth is children absorb there environment without question or prejudice. You seem to be specking from opinion only, while I'm specking from a family of teachers that live in 3 different countries. You may very well have strong feeling on the subject, but strong feelings alone do not alter reality of protect children from harm. About the peer pressure: If a child is protected from peer pressure' date=' how will he be properly prepared for life? Life is full of people trying to get others to do things some good, some bad. If we value the education of our kids, we should expose our kids to peer pressure, especially pressure as harmless as this is and not shelter them from it.[/quote'] All School systems do expose the children to peer pressure. Please don't assume because you are not aware of the complexities of education, that children are not being taught correctly. You may as well be inferring we ought to teach children all they need to know in a couple of days, then graduate them. Education takes years to teach a child, we cannot fast track aspects of a child's psychology. This is a fairly basic point. If it is voluntary, how could it violate the Constitution? We have covered this, I even quoted the reference that dealt with the issue. It has been ruled as unconstitutional, you know this, and your opinion on the matter does not change what has happened. That is not both. That is oneway. The Atheist way. What's wrong with the Atheist way? It's better than having children indoctrinated by insidious religious undercurrents into a cult, it is not? Or perhaps you would not mind if any old religious cult tried to advertise to 6 year olds? I believe the discussion citing peer pressure and its power to intimidate children is quite valid. Syntax wants to discount it on the grounds that five year olds should get a spine. Thank you, I though I was going to have to get case studies to show the situation! It's a large consideration in all school systems. It's not really vaild to say indoctrination does not happen, and if it did the victims should have just ignored it!
swansont Posted February 7, 2005 Posted February 7, 2005 I don't care if they are in kindergarden. The learning process begins whenever something occures that requires judgement. If these kids were as helpless as you make them out to be' date=' they wouldn't have their shoes on the right feet. ... Of course, and I think that it does that rather nicely, thank you. But so far, it has not been established that a voluntary pledge of allegience, notwithstanding the referrence to "God" is in any way unconstitutional. [/quote'] You misrepresent what I said, and keep changing the argument. I've had my fill of intellectual dishonesty, and will take my leave of you.
swansont Posted February 7, 2005 Posted February 7, 2005 The non-Mormon children were left behind to be tended to by resentful Mormon (I never heard of a gentile teacher holding a teaching position in that school.) teachers who would rather have had an extended coffee break. Mormons? Coffee break? What's wrong with this picture?
syntax252 Posted February 7, 2005 Posted February 7, 2005 it is the fact that it is a daily schoolwide event which features a reference to the christian god, which school funded or school-wide events are supposed to be neutral on. It almost celebrates the false notion that this is a christian nation. I don't believe in god, but I certainly don't want the fact that I am living in a country where the people in charge do, and proper citizens do, touted. Well you better get used to it because so far, the constitution provides for "free exercise" of religion and as long as no one is forced to participate, I don't expect that to change.
syntax252 Posted February 7, 2005 Posted February 7, 2005 You misrepresent what I said, and keep changing the argument. I've had my fill of intellectual dishonesty, and will take my leave of you. I changed your argument?
syntax252 Posted February 7, 2005 Posted February 7, 2005 No McCarthyism was bigoted and anti-atheist. Fo you even know who Senator McCarthy was?
atinymonkey Posted February 7, 2005 Posted February 7, 2005 Fo you even know who Senator McCarthy was? Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity. -- Sen. Joseph McCarthy That underlines the point for you. However, McCarthyism and Senator McCarthy are two different things. Well you better get used to it because so far, the constitution provides for "free exercise" of religion and as long as no one is forced to participate, I don't expect that to change. To be fair, your not really getting the points people are making. The oath is being forced on children. Saying that they can opt out is not going far enough to protect the constitutinal rights. For instance, take the case of MaryKait Durkee: - http://www.ffrf.org/awards/heroine/1998_durkee.php http://www.aclusandiego.org/fallbrookwebpage.htm MaryKait was forced to sue her school to protect her rights. That's really not allowing people to 'opt out' of the pledge.
syntax252 Posted February 7, 2005 Posted February 7, 2005 I believe the discussion citing peer pressure and its power to intimidate children is quite valid. Syntax wants to discount it on the grounds that five year olds should get a spine. What is being ignored here is intitutional pressure. Teachers are powerful people in the lives of children. They not only serve as role models but they also have the power to not only punish but to destroy academic careers. A few years ago I was a substitute teacher. I had to observe several days of classes to attain this position. I never heard a single teacher inform her class that the pledge was voluntary. Moreover' date=' had I done such a thing as a substitute teacher I can assure you that I would have been "informed on" by one of the students to their parents who would have called the principle to complain. Even if students can withstand peer pressure in elementary school -- and few of them can, many teachers with "religious angles" would surely treat a child less fairly if he or she refused to say the pledge. Here is an example of a teacher using punitive measures towards a child who disagreed with her: My seven year old daughter was coloring a handout of a frog. She colored the frog red and blue like a South American frog she had seen in the magazine [i']Ranger Rick[/i]. The teacher took her coloring away from her and demanded that she color another frog green or brown because "that is the only color frogs are." My daughter told the teacher that frogs could indeed be other colors and that she wanted her picture back. For this infraction, she was seated in a chair with her nose facing the blackboard for three months. I only discovered it when I went to pick my child up from the school instead of the sitter doing this. It was the teacher herself who gave me the three month time frame. She said: "That child don't understand that there are only green or brown frogs and I wanted make it clear she couldn't be allowed to argue with me." I did not call the teacher an spiteful ungrammatical hick but I did go straight to the principal who explained to me that my child needed to learn to conform. This was in a small town that was 95% Mormon. Everyday the Mormon children over 8 were taken out of their classes and moved to an on campus classroom where they were given religious studies by priests. The non-Mormon children were left behind to be tended to by resentful Mormon (I never heard of a gentile teacher holding a teaching position in that school.) teachers who would rather have had an extended coffee break. I was attending college in this town and had a job at this same college. What do you think would have happened to me (a poor single mother), my child and my job if I had demanded that my child be allowed to sit down for the pledge? We don't live in fantasy land. All of us have to live in the real world. I know well the tyranny of the majority. Syntax, you don't seem to be willing to acknowledge that the abuse of power exists. Well, first of all, I would say that your daughter displayed the very principals that I have been saying that kids are quite capable of--she resisted something that she considered to be wrong. Secondly, how is it that you were so inaware of this situation where your daughter was diciplined for 3 months and you didn't know about it? Are you going to tell us that the same daughter who stood her ground before her teacher was somehow too intimidated to even tell her dad about it? Third, the problem was with the teacher, not with the color of the frog. According to the logic that you are attempting to promote here, the way to solve the issue would be to outlaw blue frogs in S. America. Is that what you want? forth, teachers are indeed powerful forces in children's lives, but if their parents are paying attention, they should be able to intervene into such nonsense as you discribe before any harm is done. I will not ask why you failed on this occasion, but clearly, you did.
syntax252 Posted February 7, 2005 Posted February 7, 2005 Today we are engaged in a final' date=' all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity.-- Sen. Joseph McCarthy That underlines the point for you. However, McCarthyism and Senator McCarthy are two different things.[/quote'] I think you will find that McCarthy was more of a communist hunter than an atheist hunter.
syntax252 Posted February 7, 2005 Posted February 7, 2005 To be fair' date=' your not really getting the points people are making. The oath [i']is[/i] being forced on children. Saying that they can opt out is not going far enough to protect the constitutinal rights. For instance, take the case of MaryKait Durkee: - That is nonsense on it's face. Just saying that will not make it true, no matter how much you repeat it.
atinymonkey Posted February 7, 2005 Posted February 7, 2005 I think you will find that McCarthy was more of a communist hunter than an atheist hunter. I eat more potato than steak, I'm still not a vegetation. Surely your not saying bigotry is ok so long as you have a larger flaw in your personality? That is nonsense on it's face. Just saying that will not make it true, no matter how much you repeat it. I provided the evidence of the occurrence. Now your just trolling. For the sake of the image of Christianity, please show some decorum or common decency.
syntax252 Posted February 7, 2005 Posted February 7, 2005 Some of them do not have the shoes on the right feet. I appreciate what your saying' date=' but the truth is children absorb there environment without question or prejudice. You seem to be specking from opinion only, while I'm specking from a family of teachers that live in 3 different countries. You may very well have strong feeling on the subject, but strong feelings alone do not alter reality of protect children from harm. All School systems do expose the children to peer pressure. Please don't assume because you are not aware of the complexities of education, that children are not being taught correctly. You may as well be inferring we ought to teach children all they need to know in a couple of days, then graduate them. Education takes years to teach a child, we cannot fast track aspects of a child's psychology. This is a fairly basic point. We have covered this, I even quoted the reference that dealt with the issue. It has been ruled as unconstitutional, you know this, and your opinion on the matter does not change what has happened. What's wrong with the Atheist way? It's better than having children indoctrinated by insidious religious undercurrents into a cult, it is not? Or perhaps you would not mind if any old religious cult tried to advertise to 6 year olds? Thank you, I though I was going to have to get case studies to show the situation! It's a large consideration in all school systems. It's not really vaild to say indoctrination does not happen, and if it did the victims should have just ignored it![/quote'] It all comes down to 2 major points. The pledge is voluntary, and any student who is coerced in any was to recite it has the full backing of the law and of their parents--that is, if their parents are awake. And the words "under God" in the pledge do not rise to the level of "promoting a religion" by the state. When the USSC says that is does, or when the USSC declares the words to be unconstitutional, then it will be unconstitutional, but so far, that has not been the case.
Recommended Posts