Students walk out during Pledge, recite own version

[xoxoxoBruce]

Since you're not an American, it's not a problem is it?

[Aliantha]

Not at this point it's not. I disagree with your point here though. I think rkz and others are correct.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Of course you do.

[Aliantha]

I would feel the same way regardless of who made such a claim Bruce. It's not personal.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Of course it's not.

[Happy Monkey]

Could you explain how the comma causes "under God" to not modify "one nation"?

[queequeger]

Because the sentence, while seemingly ridiculous and based on little supporting argument, is not modified because of the commas, having been placed after the word, that are separators of ideas.

See, the "seemingly ridiculous" doesn't modify the... "sent..." wait.
The "placed after the word" doesn't modify the... "comm..." wait.

And the grammar confusion is also missing the point: the mentioning of a God in the pledge, on the money, in the schoolhouse, might not be the government supporting one religion over another... but it postulates the existence of god, and that there is only one of him. It's not demanding that I pray in school, but dammit it's one step in that direction... why the hell do we need it in there!? The only argument of defense is that it causes no harm. So what? Why is it in there? It wouldn't cause any undue harm to require all school teachers to wear funny hats... but if it pissed people off, why do it?

You Christians and Jews would tell me that it wouldn't make you angry if we changed the pledge and money to say "One nation, under no god" or "In the gods we trust?" You can make every argument you want about it being OK, but if others don't think it is, why don't you just take the bloody thing out!? If it causes no harm either way, just let it be taken out.

...unless you think it helps us live in a more godly nation.

[tw]

Would it not just be easier to remove all references to a god that has no place in a secular government? We simply replaced many false idols (godlike men living on Mt Olympus) with a single god. So what has changed? We still have an idol that some worship like others do money. How curious. Everybody get something to worship in the currency ....

Do references to god mean the church can ask for so much money without appearing evil?

Originally Posted by queequeger

Because the sentence, while seemingly ridiculous and based on little supporting argument, is not modified because of the commas, having been placed after the word, that are separators of ideas.

See, the "seemingly ridiculous" doesn't modify the... "sent..." wait.
The "placed after the word" doesn't modify the... "comm..." wait.

And the grammar confusion is also missing the point: the mentioning of a God in the pledge, on the money, in the schoolhouse, might not be the government supporting one religion over another... but it postulates the existence of god, and that there is only one of him. It's not demanding that I pray in school, but dammit it's one step in that direction... why the hell do we need it in there!? The only argument of defense is that it causes no harm. So what? Why is it in there? It wouldn't cause any undue harm to require all school teachers to wear funny hats... but if it pissed people off, why do it?

You Christians and Jews would tell me that it wouldn't make you angry if we changed the pledge and money to say "One nation, under no god" or "In the gods we trust?" You can make every argument you want about it being OK, but if others don't think it is, why don't you just take the bloody thing out!? If it causes no harm either way, just let it be taken out.

...unless you think it helps us live in a more godly nation.

Those who were and are most strongly opposed to this and all breeches of the division of church and state are religious people.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State is run by religious leaders and those who originally fought the Knights of Columbus about god on money and in the pledge the hardest were those who felt that their god had no place on money. They remembered that the only thing that brought JC to blows was mixing money and the church.
The intelligent ones.

[lookout123]

The intelligent ones.

that's right, cuz if they disagree with you they is stoopid. right?

Not me, the facts, separation of church and state is a fact of the foundation of our nation and protects both the church as well as the state.
If one cannot see that after the facts are presented, yes they do lack intelligence, clearly.
It has nothing to do with me.
You, stalker, are the one with the problem with me.
What a pathetic little ad hominem attack, please try harder next time, this one did not even give me a chuckle. You are usually good for a solid laugh.

[lookout123]

sorry, i missed the attack part of my post. i was simply pointing out your tendency to make your point, generally in a well articulated manner, but then, as usual, you spoil it with your last line. is any issue really so cut and dry that anyone who comes to a different conclusion than you must be... unintelligent?
such rigid thinking is dangerous. it limits your ability to consider another possibility which limits your ability to learn.

but nice comeback anyway. you've at least got those down.

I don't see anything "rigid" in recognizing the inherent logic in the separation of church and state.
If you had stated that you did not like that one line because you felt it lead you to think I was making a singular statement, of course it was just your interpretation, then it would not have been ad hominem.
That is not what you did by any stretch of the imagination.

[lookout123]

are you so fucking dense that you really don't get it? i didn't address the presentation of your argument. I pointed out your need to strike first and point out that anyone who disagrees with your conclusion is obviously unintelligent.

my point: no matter the topic around here, you respond with "blahblahblah... and to disagree proves you are unintelligent." That is rigid thinking inconsistent with growing and learning.

instead of dealing with my statement you drag out your usual snappy comebacks.
"stalker...ad hominem..." insert ridiculous picture... *submit reply*
learn a new trick.

Stop stalking me from thread to thread and guess what I'll stop calling you?
I could care less if you believe me, like the way I discuss topics, etc.
You are a stalker and a troll and don't even deserve my attention, any more than that is gravy as far as I am concerned. You are beneath me.
If I state a point is illogical/unintelligent, clearly show me that I am wrong with facts/a logical argument for the opposing view without your personal attacks and I will tell you I was wrong.
It is as simple as that.