or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › The Cat Lounge › Pledge of Allegiance "Unconstitutional"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pledge of Allegiance "Unconstitutional" - Page 2

post #31 of 63
post #32 of 63
As a public school teacher in an "empowered" (distressed!) district, I agree wholeheartedly with okeefecl. In many cases, the parent do care, but they are immigrants who don't understand the school system, or who had bad experiences themselves, and therefore don't want to participate at any level. Of course, there are those that could give a rat's patoot, too.

If the government wants to invest money in schools, they should see that we have enough supplies to teach with--which is not always the case. I know of art teachers who had to ask other teachers if they could have colored pencils and construction paper! Textbooks that aren't falling apart, or completely outdated, are also important. The actual buildings need to be in good shape, and some air conditioning wouldn't hurt, either.
post #33 of 63
The Senate just voted 99 to 1 to LEAVE the pledge as is! Yay!
post #34 of 63
Now, there's a courageous and unexpected vote — especially as it's meaningless until the judiciary make a final determination. But, hey, it's good posturing!

Regarding the sorry state of many public schools, one need look no farther than the local-yokel school boards. In too many cases they're all so busy pleasing the "less government" zealots in local chambers of commerce that they couldn't care less about the students.

In some cases, such as here at Portland, the local school board is so heavy-handed and secretive that nobody knows what they do with the money. Its legal department stifles all attempts at discovery; and its public-relations department has said "no comment" more often than all the local politicians combined.

post #35 of 63
Well it may be meaningless but I hope it does show some clout on the issue at hand.
post #36 of 63
Hate to inform you, Mr. Cat, but local control of schools is a thing of the past. It's all in the hands of the states and the federal government these days.
post #37 of 63
Thread Starter 
Thanks for posting that, Deb.

Boy, that sheds some light on it, doesn't it. Interesting that his daughter never felt "ostracised" at school, but that was supposedly the whole reason the suit was brought. Wasn't it the "Coercion Test" that they used to validate their ruling? Guess that should be thrown out the window. The little girl never had a problem with it, just Daddy. If he wants to bring a suit because he doesn't like it, fine. That's how the system works. But I think this particular suit should be thrown out based on that interview. It was brought under false pretenses.
post #38 of 63
I so agree. You know, I am not a fan of this ruling, but I wanted to try and see both sides. When I read that interview last night, I was just shaking my head. Makes it sound like a huge publicity stunt.
post #39 of 63
To quote the interview's last paragraph, the father said:

And as soon as I did the research, I realized the law seemed to be on my side and I filed the suit. It's a cool thing to do. Everyone should try it.
end qoute

Everyone should do this because it's cool? This could cost the taxpayers a fortune, the courts will be held from tending to serious issues, citizens are upset, children are confused, and he thinks this is cool? He's an idiot.
post #40 of 63
Amen....pardon the religious reference......This guy's credibility has sunk to zero with me.
post #41 of 63
I would like to comment on what Mr. Cat said about local school boards. What he said does ring some truth. I worked for a school district for 5 years. For those 5 years I worked for the Purchasing Department. I discovered many things about how funds were being spent.

I learned that the district paid for the home security for the districts Superintendent. That every year the Superintendent would host a lavish Christmas party that came out of district funds. Every couple of years the Superintendent would buy new china for the parties, that the district paid for out of funding. Of course these parties were only for the top Administrators in the district and other local "political peoples."

Now, of course there was a budget especially for these purposes but come on! Does the budget need to be that big? Some of that money could have been distributed to other budget funds that were actually for the schools.

Not all funding comes from the federal government and certain federal funding has to be applied for by the districts or they have to qualify. The funding that does come from the government has strict guidelines on how it is to be used. Other than that, the rest comes from local area district taxes.

About a year ago this same district proposed a huge tax increase for area residents. They presented it as providing for a particular project for the schools. Usually the residents vote for these increase, but this time they voted against it becuase they were tired of not seeing the benefits of their tax dollars. Often these "projects" are not carried out the way they were projected to the people.
post #42 of 63
I caught this guy's "act" on MSNBC. He said that he was doing it "for the American people". He cost "the Americna people" a horrendous amount of money. These frivolous lawsuits are expensive. As this heads to the Supreme Court, it will cost the taxpayers even more. Thank you, Dr. Newdow, for spending MY money to pursue YOUR personal agenda!
post #43 of 63
The problem is that out of every current dollar spent on education, about 46¢ comes from the state, and about 10¢ comes from the federal government. Together, that makes up more than half of the spending, which like in any business, gives the government the upper hand of control.

A dime from the federal government doesn't sound like much, but out of that dollar spent on education, up to 75¢ is spent on human resources. So, of the remaining 25¢, 40% is made up of federal money.

Local school boards don't have anywhere near the control they once had.
post #44 of 63
This hasn't got anything to do with the pledge, or the schools, but while at the doctor's office I was listening to the radio, and there is actually a petition pending to have the name of the "Hunchback of Notre Dame" changed to the "Bell Ringer of Notre Dame" Why, you ask? The person filing contends that the term Hunchback pokes fun of people with scoliosis. I have a dear friend who has this terrible affliction and would never make light of what she has gone through and is going through. But this Political Correct stuff is just getting way out of hand.
post #45 of 63
I don't know whether to laugh or cry! What's next? "The Elderly Man and the Sea"?

post #46 of 63
No, "The Senior Citizen and the Sea". Lets get our politically correct terminology right.
post #47 of 63
These school vouchers. Wouldn't they make it instead of a public choice a school's choice? For even if the parents have the vouchers, isn't it the right of a private school to deny access to the student based on what the school sees in the child? Not having kids and not a PTA member I am just curious as to what this is going to do to the public schools as well as to us the taxpayers who will be paying for these vouchers?
post #48 of 63
This has been a very interesting thread to read, and I have enjoyed reading all the good comments. I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said, I am just so sick of people trying to take the mere mention of God out of our schools, off our money, etc etc...but then as soon as something like the Littleton school shootings happens, people say "Oh how could God let this happen!" Well....maybe he just doesn't feel too welcome in schools anymore!!

Just my 2 cents.
post #49 of 63
I guess I'm older than most of the respondents here since I remember saying the old version of the pledge in school - and I also remember never really getting an explanation (except for that "naked individual" story) when "under God" was added. (The connection to the Cold War, and the desire to distinguish the U.S. from the atheistic Soviet Union, was something I learned about only as an adult.) I also never really saw the need for the addition either: the original pledge still seems to me a perfectly fine affirmation of patriotic pride and loyalty - "one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" sums up for me what counts. The U.S. today encompassesof every shade of religious belief, and unbelief. If removing those two words can enable more people to feel comfortable expressing their patriotism, then...why not?
post #50 of 63
Was watching Robin Williams last night on cable and he did some routines on this issue about the Pledge. He said he solved the whole politically correct version by stating:

"One nation under Canada above Mexico...." Made me laugh anyway so I thought I would share the giggle.

He was astounding- 2 hours of stand up and he was drenched at the end of it. What a mind he has!
post #51 of 63
Poor Robin! He's brilliant, but he would receive criticism for intimating that the US is inferior to Canada and superior to Mexico. This is the age of the nit picker! By the way, Robin Williams said his idol is Jonathan Winters who is a total comedic genius-and a bit "off," which he readily admits.
post #52 of 63
Thread Starter 
I thought about posting what he said about the Pledge here, too. Wasn't that just a brilliant show?

I remember seeing him on the Young Comedians Special on HBO years and years ago, before his acting career really took off. Although he is a brilliant actor, and great in the kids movies, it was nice to see him back to his old, off-colored self. I laughed too hard last night!
post #53 of 63
Ooh. I taped the Robin Williams thing the other night, but haven't watched it yet. Thanks for the motivation!
post #54 of 63
This guy is my all-time favorite comedian!

Robin Williams is a really funny guy too, of course. They're both, shall we say, unusual.

post #55 of 63
Face it - they're BOTH nuckin' futs!
post #56 of 63
The little girl's mom was on the O'Reilly Factor last night, she said that they are not atheists, and her daughter does not mind saying the pledge. Talk about nuckin' futs--I think the dad definitely qualifies. What a goofball, he just wanted his 15 minutes, and he used his daughter to get it. Sad.

And Robin Williams is hilarious. He seems to have so much energy when he's performing, he is great with the ad lib stuff, too.
post #57 of 63
Mom: Girl not hurt by saying "under God" in Pledge.

This was on cnn.com tonight

post #58 of 63
Well now that is interesting! Shame on that father for playing with his daughter like that and using her to gain the sympathy vote.
post #59 of 63
The father is a nut. He, flat out, said that he sues the government because "its fun".
post #60 of 63
I guess he's pursuing the right to "pursue happiness," because he did tell us this was a neat, cool thing, that everyone should do it. So, I'm going to spend more time thinking of something I can tie up the courts with, and try to waste more of the government's time and money! I hope I can beat the amount he's wasted...Gee, maybe I'll take him to court for wasting tax money. I'll have to put some thought in this. Since the words "under God" were not part of the Pledge as I learned it, this is not as important to me as the fact that the minority is ruling the majority. I also worry about a country which removes the mention of God from all public places, but legalizes what God says is immoral. (I've gone into particulars before, so I won't bore you with my personal beliefs now.)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Cat Lounge
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › The Cat Lounge › Pledge of Allegiance "Unconstitutional"