RE: Orange Coast College Banned Pledge of Allegience

RE: Orange Coast College Banned Pledge of Allegience (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

thompsonx -> RE: Orange Coast College Banned Pledge of Allegience (11/10/2006 7:40:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey ok given it is only the student council. why not just take it off the agenda. why create a ban which begs punishment in some form. and it still doesn't address the fact that it is constitutionally protected speech. so if they punish someone for reciting it and say anything to them or chastise them in any way, aren't they violating the constitution? KenDckey: I don't know how many members the student council has now...when I went to school there almost 40 years ago I think there were either 4 or 6 members. There was only one dissenting vote. Why they chose to vote to ban it as opposed to removing it from the agenda I do not know, if in fact that is what happened. The Reuters article could have been mistaken. I will be in that area in a couple of weeks and I will stop bye and ask for the particulars. Who knows maybe what they did was vote to suspend it from the agenda and the reporter just shortened it to banned...but I will find out for sure just exactly what the protocol is. Perhaps it could be the exuberance of youth exercising their first foray into politics( we are talking about 17 and 18 year olds here) that perhaps they chose to ban as opposed to remove from the agenda. No matter what the protocol they used it only affects perhaps six people unless they have increased the size of the student council in the past 40 odd years. As for the constitutionality of it ...slavery is constitutionaly prohibited but here we engage in it voluntarily. The student council volutarily chose to restrict their own constitutionally protected free speach thompson

ZenrageTheKeeper -> RE: Orange Coast College Banned Pledge of Allegience (11/10/2006 7:53:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: ZenrageTheKeeper There are certain pieces of speech that are banned in society. You can't threaten people with violence. You can't threaten the President's life. You can't yell "fire" in a theater. A little less dramatic: You can't reveal certain company secrets outside the company. Or from the other side of the communication... You can't let minors in to see R and X rated movies and you can't show X rated movies on public television. Its not what gets communicated, its the level of social responsibility involved in allowing the free exchange of that specific communication. In this case, the communication being the phrase "Under God" which may not be directly unconstitutional, since the pledge is by no means mandatory, becomes unconstitutional when it is used in government funded activities - like schools and universities. In this case, the ban is perfectly legit. I can agree that if they take it off the agenda, thus making it non-mandatory, is absolutely correct. What bothers me is that they banned it. Banning, because it mentions God, is tatramount to banning any mention of any diaty (sp) of any religion practiced by anyone (isn't that a violation of freedom of religion practices?) and by specifically banning the pledge of allegiance isn't that a violation of freedom of political speech? Not at all. The same part of the Constitution that says no law can be made to deny people's freedom of religion also says the government can not be in support of any one faith over another. As it is written currently, the pledge is an oath to both America and the Christian faith. To define the pledge as something Americans must recite in order to show loyalty to America is unconstitutional. It is not unconstitutional to require all people to be spiritual equals before the government or in society. It is no more a violation of the freedom of religion to ban the pledge of allegiance than it is to charge those radical muslims who would commit honor killings on American soil with murder. A personal desire to practice part of his or her individual religious faith has no social or legal precedence over those who do not share that faith - no matter how many others may share that faith with the former individual. To condone the action within the forum is to punish those that do not share the religious philosophy of the one who committed the action. btw, is tatramount your new word of the day?

Lordandmaster -> RE: Orange Coast College Banned Pledge of Allegience (11/10/2006 7:56:31 PM)
Well, your logic escapes me there. Anyway, no judge would agree with you. quote: ORIGINAL: ZenrageTheKeeper It is no more a violation of the freedom of religion to ban the pledge of allegiance than it is to charge those radical muslims who would commit honor killings on American soil with murder.

ZenrageTheKeeper -> RE: Orange Coast College Banned Pledge of Allegience (11/10/2006 8:04:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Well, your logic escapes me there. Anyway, no judge would agree with you. quote: ORIGINAL: ZenrageTheKeeper It is no more a violation of the freedom of religion to ban the pledge of allegiance than it is to charge those radical muslims who would commit honor killings on American soil with murder. Any judge who respects the law, the Constitution and knows the difference between commiting an action because is was neccesary and because "your invisible boogeyman told you to" would indeed agree with me. They are both actions that are defined as religious in nature that specifically violate the rights of others not to be part of or witness to these events in Constitutionally protected forums. As such, the ban of the pledge of allegiance remains legit.

thompsonx -> RE: Orange Coast College Banned Pledge of Allegience (11/10/2006 8:13:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ZenrageTheKeeper quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: ZenrageTheKeeper There are certain pieces of speech that are banned in society. You can't threaten people with violence. You can't threaten the President's life. You can't yell "fire" in a theater. A little less dramatic: You can't reveal certain company secrets outside the company. Or from the other side of the communication... You can't let minors in to see R and X rated movies and you can't show X rated movies on public television. Its not what gets communicated, its the level of social responsibility involved in allowing the free exchange of that specific communication. In this case, the communication being the phrase "Under God" which may not be directly unconstitutional, since the pledge is by no means mandatory, becomes unconstitutional when it is used in government funded activities - like schools and universities. In this case, the ban is perfectly legit. I can agree that if they take it off the agenda, thus making it non-mandatory, is absolutely correct. What bothers me is that they banned it. Banning, because it mentions God, is tatramount to banning any mention of any diaty (sp) of any religion practiced by anyone (isn't that a violation of freedom of religion practices?) and by specifically banning the pledge of allegiance isn't that a violation of freedom of political speech? Not at all. The same part of the Constitution that says no law can be made to deny people's freedom of religion also says the government can not be in support of any one faith over another. As it is written currently, the pledge is an oath to both America and the Christian faith. To define the pledge as something Americans must recite in order to show loyalty to America is unconstitutional. It is not unconstitutional to require all people to be spiritual equals before the government or in society. It is no more a violation of the freedom of religion to ban the pledge of allegiance than it is to charge those radical muslims who would commit honor killings on American soil with murder. A personal desire to practice part of his or her individual religious faith has no social or legal precedence over those who do not share that faith - no matter how many others may share that faith with the former individual. To condone the action within the forum is to punish those that do not share the religious philosophy of the one who committed the action. btw, is tatramount your new word of the day? ZenrageThe Keepeer: So what you are saying is that if I am a religious fundamentalist and I stone my wife to death for adultry I cannot escape prosecution for murder on the grounds that my acts are constitutionally protected because I was following biblical instructions. Dang[;)] thompson

KenDckey -> RE: Orange Coast College Banned Pledge of Allegience (11/11/2006 1:14:32 AM)
I think he is also saying that God Must be Christian. He forgot that there are other religions that use the word God (Jews, Muslins, etc,).

thompsonx -> RE: Orange Coast College Banned Pledge of Allegience (11/11/2006 6:16:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I think he is also saying that God Must be Christian. He forgot that there are other religions that use the word God (Jews, Muslins, etc,). KenDckey; How much luck do you think Joe McCarthy and his gang of congressional thugs would have had getting "under jehova or under allah" put into the pledge of allegience. I think there is plenty of evidence to indicate that the mindless sycophants who signed that into law were clearly of the belief that god is a christian. The thrust of this thread is about a christian god being insinuated into the pledge of allegience. I think we are all aware that many use the word god to describe diety ...but here we are discussing the pledege of allegience and the christian god to which it refers. thompson

ZenrageTheKeeper -> RE: Orange Coast College Banned Pledge of Allegience (11/11/2006 6:18:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I think he is also saying that God Must be Christian. He forgot that there are other religions that use the word God (Jews, Muslins, etc,). First of all, Jews use G_d or Yahweh. Second, Muslims pray to Allah which is the arabic word for "the god" - so they use the term as a reference to Allah. Third, ALL of these monotheisms stem from the same origins. Christian, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, Protestant.. same product, different brand name. Thompson, try reading it again. Pay close attention to the second paragraph. It is no more a violation of the freedom of religion to ban the pledge of allegiance than it is to charge those radical muslims who would commit honor killings on American soil with murder. A personal desire to practice part of his or her individual religious faith has no social or legal precedence over those who do not share that faith - no matter how many others may share that faith with the former individual.

thompsonx -> RE: Orange Coast College Banned Pledge of Allegience (11/11/2006 6:40:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ZenrageTheKeeper quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I think he is also saying that God Must be Christian. He forgot that there are other religions that use the word God (Jews, Muslins, etc,). First of all, Jews use G_d or Yahweh. Second, Muslims pray to Allah which is the arabic word for "the god" - so they use the term as a reference to Allah. Third, ALL of these monotheisms stem from the same origins. Christian, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, Protestant.. same product, different brand name. Thompson, try reading it again. Pay close attention to the second paragraph. It is no more a violation of the freedom of religion to ban the pledge of allegiance than it is to charge those radical muslims who would commit honor killings on American soil with murder. A personal desire to practice part of his or her individual religious faith has no social or legal precedence over those who do not share that faith - no matter how many others may share that faith with the former individual. ZenrageTheKeeper: I agree with you completely on this...why would think otherwise? thompson

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875