Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Pledge

Posted By: Observer on 2006-11-15
In Reply to: Pledge...sm - Democrat

Well, there it is in print. You think that is the direction Pelosi wants to go. Please to put her name in a Google search and read all she has had to say up to the elections and tell me again how much she loves conservatives and wants to work with them. In other words, pull the other leg. She could have worked with Republicans for the last 8 years if she really believed that. What she means is, she wants Republicans to come to her side to push forward the most liberal agenda known to man whether that is good for anyone but Nancy Pelosi or not. You don't have to be in control to work with the other side. Why on God's green earth would anyone believe her now? Sigh. Conservatives got tired of Republicans not doing the job too, that is why they are out. Democrats are not in because they are doing a stellar job. They are in because conservatives were sending a message to Republicans and if you will note, it is mostly moderate Democrats who were voted for, not the liberal far left. That is my opinion of the vote this time. I do not see it as an endorsement for Democrats. I see it as a wakeup call for Republicans. P.S. Come back to this board in about 10-12 months and let's talk about what Nancy Pelosi is saying and doing. Her true colors will come out. It already has...supporting John Murtha over a moderate Democrat and wanting to appoint a fella who was impeached as a judge (and who she voted to impeach by the way). Sigh. I do not find her very trustworthy.


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Pledge
I remember back in high school, when we still said the pledge in home room..A friend's brother was killed in Vietnam and she refused to stand for the pledge or say it..The teacher told her to stand and say it, she refused.  She was sent to the principal's office and suspended for not staying the pledge. 
pledge
I say if they don't want to say under God, then just don't say the pledge. Our forefathers designed this pledge and it should STAY THAT WAY!!!!!
PLEDGE AGAIN
I STAND CORRECTED -STILL THINK IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SAY UNDER GOD, THEN JUST DON'T SAY IT! HOW MANY SCHOOLS ACTUALLY SAY THE PLEDGE ANYWAY?
pledge
Under god was put into the pledge only in the 1950s..our forefathers did not create a pledge with under god in it..It should go back the way it was..If someone wants under god, say it to yourself, not in a pledge that is supposed to represent ALL Americans, even those who do not believe in a god.
Pledge...sm
I love #1, but personally don't agree with 8 or 9.

Erase Michael Moore (because that name drives some people wild) and I think this is the direction Pelosi wants to go.
Maybe we all need to say the pledge every once in a while...
to remind ourselves that it is "one country, under God", not one country under whomever happends to be president.

While I have not been a Bush supporter for a long time, this article was really just another slam at Bush, the "wanna-be-facist", and could just as easily be turned around to say Obama, the wanna-be-socialist.

As a country, we are the great experiment, but if we fail, what are we left with?

Maybe we should all say the pledge next time we pass a flag.
Pledge unconstitutional





Federal Judge in Calif. Declares Pledge of Allegiance in Public Schools Unconstitutional








Enlarge

Photo
Kindergartners at Mayfair Elementary recite the Pledge of Allegiance Thursday, June 27, 2002 in Fresno, Calif. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled Wednesday that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in schools is unconstitutional, but one of the two judges who issued the ruling came out with another order that will keep the decision from taking effect, until the full appeals court can reconsider it. (AP Photo/Gary Kazanjian)
09-14-2005 1:43 PM
By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO --  A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday, a decision that could put the divisive issue on track for another round of Supreme Court arguments.


The case was brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words under God was rejected last year by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds.


U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation under God violates school children's right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.


Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.


The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.


Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.


Imagine every morning if the teachers had the children stand up, place their hands over their hearts, and say, 'We are one nation that denies God exists,' Newdow said in an interview with AP Radio after the ruling.


I think that everybody would not be sitting here saying, 'Oh, what harm is that.' They'd be furious. And that's exactly what goes on against atheists. And it shouldn't.


Karlton, ruling in Sacramento, said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts in Sacramento County, where the plaintiffs' children attend.


The order would not extend beyond those districts unless it is affirmed by the 9th Circuit, in which case it could apply to nine western states, or the Supreme Court, which would apply to all states.


The decision sets up another showdown over the pledge in schools, at a time when the makeup of the Supreme Court is in flux.


Wednesday's ruling comes as Supreme Court nominee John Roberts faces day three of his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He would succeed the late William H. Rehnquist as chief justice.


In July, Sandra Day O'Connor announced her plans to retire when a successor is confirmed.


The Becket Fund, a religious rights group that is a party to the case, said it would immediately appeal the case to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the court does not change its precedent, the group would go to the Supreme Court.


It's a way to get this issue to the Supreme Court for a final decision to be made, said fund attorney Jared Leland.


The decisions by Karlton and the 9th Circuit conflict with an August opinion by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. That court upheld a Virginia law requiring public schools lead daily Pledge of Allegiance recitation, which is similar to the requirement in California.


A three-judge panel of that circuit ruled that the pledge is a patriotic exercise, not a religious affirmation similar to a prayer.


Undoubtedly, the pledge contains a religious phrase, and it is demeaning to persons of any faith to assert that the words `under God' contain no religious significance, Judge Karen Williams wrote for the 4th Circuit. The inclusion of those two words, however, does not alter the nature of the pledge as a patriotic activity.


Karlton, appointed to the Sacramento bench in 1979 by President Carter, wrote that the case concerned the ongoing struggle as to the role of religion in the civil life of this nation and added that his opinion will satisfy no one involved in that debate.


Karlton dismissed claims that the 1954 Congressional legislation inserting the words under God was unconstitutional. If his ruling stands, he reasoned that the school children and their parents in the case would not be harmed by the phrase because they would no longer have to recite it at school.


All it has to do is put the pledge as it was before, and say that we are one nation, indivisible, instead of dividing us on religious basis, Newdow said.


Terence Cassidy, a lawyer representing the school districts, said he was reviewing the opinion and was not immediately prepared to comment.


leave out god in the pledge
Why not say the pledge which we have been brain washed to say but leave the two words out?  Let those who want to hook up god with country to say in god to themselves.something I may say our forefathers did not want us to do..to put together state and church..
No one should ever be required to say a pledge to anyone or anything.
Pledges are personal choices. Being forced to recite one is the opposite of freedom.
Every child in every classroom has the right to refuse to pledge.
It should only limit them from saying two words in the pledge
under God which only leaves about about a second of dead air time.  It's really a lot of money spent to try to get a second's worth of it out kind of like spending millions of dollars to remove a mole you don't like. 
god was added to the pledge of allegience
in the 1950s, during the Red scare, it wasn't originally written that way.
I didn't know "under God" was not in the original pledge. sm
And I don't know the circumstance underwhich it was amended, but yeah you make a sound case and I can't help but agree that it should be taken back out and separation of church and state is a good thing.

When you make the case this way it makes sense to me because I have been very neutral about the 10 commandments in government buildings and the pledge being recited in the classes. But, people can spread the Word and fellowship on private time, but this should be off school property, off government property, etc. That would be true separation of church and state.
Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives sm
A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives ...by Michael Moore


To My Conservative Brothers and Sisters,


I know you are dismayed and disheartened at the results of last week's election. You're worried that the country is heading toward a very bad place you don't want it to go. Your 12-year Republican Revolution has ended with so much yet to do, so many promises left unfulfilled. You are in a funk, and I understand.


Well, cheer up, my friends! Do not despair. I have good news for you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress, have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what we plan to do with our newfound power -- and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you.


Thus, here is our Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives:


Dear Conservatives and Republicans,


I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:


1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you unpatriotic simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.


2. We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be different or immoral. Who you marry is none of our business. Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift.


3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you.


4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie.


5. When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that affect you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too.


6. Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we clean up our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let you, too, breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water.


7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you.


8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived.


9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours.


10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your employees -- that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too.


11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs (Blessed are the poor, Blessed are the peacemakers, Love your enemies, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, and Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism -- starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a good example for the rest of the world.


12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition.


I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow Americans -- and for the rest of the world.


Signed,


Michael Moore


Original pledge by forefathers didn't include God. I agree with keeping the original.

http://www.usflag.org/history/pledgeofallegiance.html


The original Pledge of Allegiance


I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands- one nation indivisible-with liberty and justice for all.


On September 8,1892, the Boston based The Youth's Companion magazine published a few words for students to repeat on Columbus Day that year. Written by Francis Bellamy,the circulation manager and native of Rome, New York, and reprinted on thousands of leaflets, was sent out to public schools across the country. On October 12, 1892, the quadricentennial of Columbus' arrival, more than 12 million children recited the Pledge of Allegiance, thus beginning a required school-day ritual.


At the first National Flag Conference in Washington D.C., on June14, 1923, a change was made. For clarity, the words the Flag of the United States replaced my flag. In the following years various other changes were suggested but were never formally adopted.


It was not until 1942 that Congress officially recognized the Pledge of Allegiance. One year later, in June 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite it. In fact,today only half of our fifty states have laws that encourage the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom!


In June of 1954 an amendment was made to add the words under God. Then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower said In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war.