Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

typoon · Apr 25, 2005, 11:18 AM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...1131-2272r.htm

By Valerie Richardson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

DENVER -- The students in Vincent Pulciani's seventh-grade class were reciting the Pledge of Allegiance this week when they heard the voice over the intercom say something they'd never heard before, at least not during the Pledge.
Instead of "one nation, under God," the voice said, "one nation, under your belief system."
The bewildered students at Everitt Middle School in Wheat Ridge never even got to "indivisible," according to Vincent's mother, Christina Pulciani-Johnson.
"He came home and told me about it after school, and he said, 'I just stood there, Mom. I didn't even know what to do. We all just stood there and didn't even finish it,'" Mrs. Pulciani-Johnson said, quoting her son.
Margo Lucero, the eighth-grade guidance counselor at the school, substituted the phrase "under your belief system" as she led the recitation of the Pledge on Wednesday.
After irate phone calls poured in from parents, Principal Kathleen Norton, who normally leads the Pledge but was out of the building at the time, apologized to students Thursday and sent home letters of apology yesterday.
"The principal called me later. She said she was dumbfounded. She wasn't in the building. She didn't approve it," Mrs. Pulciani-Johnson said.
Meanwhile, Jefferson County School District spokesman Rick Kaufman was engaged in damage control, describing Miss Lucero's decision to rewrite the Pledge as "inappropriate" and stressing that she had acted independently, without consulting the district or other school officials.
Mr. Kaufman said Miss Lucero had been spurred by the date, April 20, the sixth anniversary of the Columbine High School slayings. Both Columbine and Everitt are within the Jefferson County school district.
"The day was the sixth anniversary of Columbine, and she felt she should be all-inclusive, so she replaced the word 'God,'" he said.
Mr. Kaufman refused to say whether Miss Lucero had been disciplined by the district, citing private personnel matters. He did say she was still working at Everitt.
Parents said Miss Lucero had been slated to leave Everitt at the end of the year, and Shelley Pierce, whose daughter is in seventh grade, said it appeared that the counselor was clearing out her office.
Her daughter, Bailey, told her about the incident after school Wednesday. "I was really angry," Mrs. Pierce said.
"Legally, that's our Pledge of Allegiance, and I don't think anyone has the right to change it," she said. "I'm very happy with the way the district has handled it. Nobody's trying to defend it."
Miss Lucero could not be reached for comment.
The episode marks the second time this year the Pledge has made headlines in Colorado. In March, voters in Estes Park recalled a councilman, David Habecker, who refused to stand for the Pledge during town meetings.

Just have to love the Politically correct Wack Jobs. She wanted to be all incluuuusive.

adamk · Apr 25, 2005, 12:04 PM

just return the pledge to it's original state (pre 1945) , drop the religion, and focus on what it is meant to be, allegiance to a nation.

what's wrong with being inclusive anyway? does inclusion make you feel excluded?

zigzag · Apr 25, 2005, 12:08 PM

If the Pledge (which was written by a Socialist) had been left the way it was in the first place, we wouldn't have such stupid controversies:

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

Unfortunately, some people had to be "politically correct" and add the words "under God."

lurkalot · Apr 25, 2005, 12:49 PM

"'I just stood there, Mom. I didn't even know what to do. We all just stood there and didn't even finish it,..."

Lemmings.

dcmacdaddy · Apr 25, 2005, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by typoon

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...1131-2272r.htm

By Valerie Richardson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

SNIP

Just have to love the Politically correct Wack Jobs. She wanted to be all incluuuusive.

They are being politically correct whack jobs by being inclusive?

Do you really want EVERY student in public school in the United States to affirm a belief in the nation as being "under God"? to believe that somehow our nation-hood is/was religiously ordained? Do you really want that? And if so, what do you think of those who don't believe in religion or believe in a religion other than Christianity, should they just be made to suck it up and deal with it?

SVass · Apr 25, 2005, 02:19 PM

What happens if a teacher is a Jehovah's Witness?

Jehovah�s Witnesses are not allowed to salute the flag of any nation, recite the pledge of allegiance, stand for or sing the national anthem, run for public office, vote, or serve in the armed forces.

cpt kangarooski · Apr 25, 2005, 02:35 PM

Frankly, I'd be happier if we abandoned the pledge altogether. I don't care for the idea of asking people -- especially impressionable children -- to pledge to a symbol or a polity. If anything, the country should reaffirm its loyalty and subordination to its people and their ideals.

typoon · Apr 25, 2005, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

They are being politically correct whack jobs by being inclusive?

Do you really want EVERY student in public school in the United States to affirm a belief in the nation as being "under God"? to believe that somehow our nation-hood is/was religiously ordained? Do you really want that? And if so, what do you think of those who don't believe in religion or believe in a religion other than Christianity, should they just be made to suck it up and deal with it?

Yes I think they are politically correct whack jobs for being inclusive in that sense.

Then answer to your second part of the response. Yes I do. Because the words "Under God" Does not just mean Christianity. It means ANY god that you believe in. Those that don't believe in religion I think should either not say that part or just Suck it up. There is a lot of stuff that goes on that people don't like and they just suck it up and deal with it. What's next?
"In Your Belief System We Trust" on dollar bills?

zigzag · Apr 25, 2005, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by typoon

Yes I think they are politically correct whack jobs for being inclusive in that sense.

Then answer to your second part of the response. Yes I do. Because the words "Under God" Does not just mean Christianity. It means ANY god that you believe in. Those that don't believe in religion I think should either not say that part or just Suck it up. There is a lot of stuff that goes on that people don't like and they just suck it up and deal with it. What's next?
"In Your Belief System We Trust" on dollar bills?

So why not return things to the way they were before the religious language was injected, and require those people to "suck it up"? Why do the rest of us have to be the ones to "suck it up"? Why was it OK to be politically correct in 1954 and change the wording to suit the religious, but it's not OK to change the wording now? Who really started the political correctness nonsense?

cpt kangarooski · Apr 25, 2005, 02:56 PM

Typhoon--

Because the words "Under God" Does not just mean Christianity. It means ANY god that you believe in. Those that don't believe in religion I think should either not say that part or just Suck it up. There is a lot of stuff that goes on that people don't like and they just suck it up and deal with it.

How is it any different than if it said 'Under Christ' or even better 'Under Christ and the Roman Catholic Church?' All you're doing is varying the number of people that suffer from the government's 1st Amendment infringement. Right now, the pledge essentially indicates that the government supports monotheism (and in truth, Christianity), and is thus relatively hostile to polytheists and atheists (and in truth, non-Christians) and is trying to evangelize to agnostics.

That is not something that people should have to suck up. The fact that it doesn't offend you -- probably because it's favorable to you -- is irrelevant. The establishment clause protects people of all faiths, including religious minorities. That this kind of abuse is minor compared to the worst sorts of pogroms and inquisitions doesn't change its essential character.

typoon · Apr 25, 2005, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Typhoon--

How is it any different than if it said 'Under Christ' or even better 'Under Christ and the Roman Catholic Church?' All you're doing is varying the number of people that suffer from the government's 1st Amendment infringement. Right now, the pledge essentially indicates that the government supports monotheism (and in truth, Christianity), and is thus relatively hostile to polytheists and atheists (and in truth, non-Christians) and is trying to evangelize to agnostics.

That is not something that people should have to suck up. The fact that it doesn't offend you -- probably because it's favorable to you -- is irrelevant. The establishment clause protects people of all faiths, including religious minorities. That this kind of abuse is minor compared to the worst sorts of pogroms and inquisitions doesn't change its essential character.

To me it's different, "under Christ" or Under Christ and the Roman Catholic Church" mean only ONE "God" or religion. To me (maybe I'm being naive, sensible or whatever) "Under God" could mean Christ, Allah, or whoever else people want to believe in. That term to me is "all inclusive." I don't think it has anything to do with 1st amendment infringement.

Wiskedjak · Apr 25, 2005, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by typoon

To me it's different, "under Christ" or Under Christ and the Roman Catholic Church" mean only ONE "God" or religion. To me (maybe I'm being naive, sensible or whatever) "Under God" could mean Christ, Allah, or whoever else people want to believe in. That term to me is "all inclusive." I don't think it has anything to do with 1st amendment infringement.

I don't think that's the way most Christians see it. "God" means the Christian god. A few days ago I said "Oh my god" in the presence of my very Christian parents. They were quite upset that I would take their god's name in vain. I had to explain to them that I was taking my god's name in vain and that it doesn't mind.

dcmacdaddy · Apr 25, 2005, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by typoon

To me it's different, "under Christ" or Under Christ and the Roman Catholic Church" mean only ONE "God" or religion. To me (maybe I'm being naive, sensible or whatever) "Under God" could mean Christ, Allah, or whoever else people want to believe in. That term to me is "all inclusive." I don't think it has anything to do with 1st amendment infringement.

What IS your objection to having it removed then? The phrase wasn't always there, and then it was. Now, maybe it might go away--not likely, but who knows. Would your allegiance to the United States be any different if it weren't there. Ask your grandparents if they cared about it NOT being there when they were going to school as young children. Do you think they will say, "I always wished the Pledge of Allegiance had a refernece to God in it?"

If you want to be sensible, work to change the phrase to "with blessings from the Creator" or something like that. Every organized religion believs in a Creator (or creative force) not every organized religion believes in God.

adamk · Apr 25, 2005, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by typoon

To me it's different, "under Christ" or Under Christ and the Roman Catholic Church" mean only ONE "God" or religion. To me (maybe I'm being naive, sensible or whatever) "Under God" could mean Christ, Allah, or whoever else people want to believe in. That term to me is "all inclusive." I don't think it has anything to do with 1st amendment infringement.

it's 100% all inclusive as long as you exclude nontheists and polytheists.

cpt kangarooski · Apr 25, 2005, 03:23 PM

You're being naive, then. God in the pledge pretty clearly refers to the Christian God. But it's singular, and it's there, so it cannot possibly be read to include polytheism or atheism. It's not all inclusive. Nor should it matter whether we're talking about a specific religion or a broad swath of them -- it's still the government trying to establish some kind of religious beliefs. That's really intolerable.

As for the 1st A. specifically, take a look at the opinions in the Newdow case that were on the merits; they uniformly came out in saying that it was an establishment of religion. The Supreme Court has temporarily dodged the question, but it'll be back.

Wiskedjak · Apr 25, 2005, 03:26 PM

I don't know what I find more bizarre; that American children are required to recite this pledge every morning, that people feel it's necessary to change such a pledge or that people get so worked up when someone changes it.

What happens if a student refuses to recite the pledge?

cpt kangarooski · Apr 25, 2005, 03:34 PM

Nothing. The Barnette case, IIRC, back in the 40's held that it's unconstitutional to make people say the pledge if they don't want to. Since the 'under God' wasn't in there at the time, it had nothing to do with that, but rather that the government cannot compel people to profess any kind of belief in anything.