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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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,). 

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,). 

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.