| Welcome to Livonianeighbors.com. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. To ensure your privacy, never use personal information in your screen name or email address ("janedoe@hotmail.com" or "Billysmom" for example). Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Pledge of Allegiance | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 13 2007, 08:52 PM (5,880 Views) | |
| Spanky | Sep 16 2007, 12:50 AM Post #41 |
|
Veteran
|
Now, if you could have left it like that, it would have meant SO much more than all the blah, blah, blah afterward. You always have to get that dig in along with a put-down or some other thing to try make someone look bad. As for 'acceptance', well, in the past year I have been forced to 'accept' more things than I care to mention. The LI, a BOE that is driven by their own agenda.....should I continue? I think not!! It takes a lot for a person to come back and say they were wrong in ANY situation, 'but you don't get that either'. Don't worry, dear rc/jr, 'acceptance' has been fairly pounded into my head by LPS
|
![]() |
|
| Purple Haze | Sep 16 2007, 02:48 PM Post #42 |
|
Veteran
|
55 1/2 as of Friday (and don't feel like anything more than 40) with a 10-year old as of today - top that, Jolly my opinions matter only to me, and they are just that - deal with it or not maybe just cease this particular discussion? there are no rights or wrongs here, just our opinions |
![]() |
|
| sourgrapes | Sep 16 2007, 05:49 PM Post #43 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I would agree with you that there are no rights or wrongs here Purple, just opinions. But why is it that some people can verbally beat up others for disagreeing with an opinion and that's OK, then if someone from the "other side" does it, they get told that they are wrong and that they should stop it. By the Happy Belated Birthday!!
|
![]() |
|
| Spanky | Sep 17 2007, 09:35 AM Post #44 |
|
Veteran
|
I heard something on tv last night that made me think about this thread (sad, but true!!) "It's not what I was saying, but rather how I was saying it". I think that is the whole problem here. I have read enough stuff over the past 1 1/2 years that I disagree with, from 'supporter's' and 'opposers' alike. But it is the way in which it is said that makes me react! I can read something that I disagree with and think in my head 'No way that's true', but not post anything because it was said in a 'matter-of-fact' way, without any of the name-calling and ridiculing remarks that some just LOVE to post. |
![]() |
|
| Purple Haze | Sep 17 2007, 11:07 AM Post #45 |
|
Veteran
|
many thanks, SourGrapes - at my age, I'm tired of the celebrating, just want to make it to the next year :lol: |
![]() |
|
| BoaterDan | Sep 17 2007, 11:13 AM Post #46 |
|
Veteran
|
The irony of your reply is that in order to characterize my statement that way you have to make a generalization of your own. Have you polled every single teacher and know for a fact that every one of them embraces and supports the principles expressed in the pledge? My point was actually meant in support of our teachers. I hear of some pretty wacked-out maniacal things that go on in other districts when it comes to some of these issues. If, in our district, a teacher that feels strongly about burning the flag or the words "under God" being illegal just skips the pledge and doesn't try to spread his/her personal beliefs to a bunch of 2nd graders I'd be happy to take it. |
![]() |
|
| BoaterDan | Sep 17 2007, 11:19 AM Post #47 |
|
Veteran
|
The so-call separation was added much later than the "founding" of the country. It wasn't until 1948 that the supreme court first ruled religious instruction in public schools unconstitutional. Many of the he charters for the earliest public schools expressly say they are being created to provide instruction in Christian principles (among other things). For the most part, I have no problem with the separation and think it's a good thing, but let's not rewrite history. |
![]() |
|
| Vanna White | Sep 17 2007, 12:23 PM Post #48 |
|
Veteran
|
OK... the concept of freedom of religion was there, but the actual term "seperation" came later and still has not be fully implemented. |
![]() |
|
| Micki | Sep 17 2007, 06:36 PM Post #49 |
|
I love teaching.
|
Separation does not mean absence of... |
![]() |
|
| Must Be Psychic | Sep 18 2007, 06:28 PM Post #50 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I cannot resist this one any longer. I don't think anyone is supporting the absence of religion in peoples' lives, but many (myself included) would like to see it separated from official government documents, procedures and dealings, including things that are paid for with our tax dollars (which say "In God We Trust.") People should have the right not to trust in God if they prefer. |
![]() |
|
| Micki | Sep 18 2007, 06:34 PM Post #51 |
|
I love teaching.
|
Thought this was interesting to add to this topic... Student Bible club wins lawsuit, gets equal access By Sue Buck STAFF WRITER U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts has ruled that ALIVE, a Bible club at Farmington High School, must have equal access as all other clubs at the school. The lawsuit resulted when the school district questioned the group's mission statement and was concerned that it wanted to "advance" religion in the school. In May, David Ruhland, assistant superintendent of human resources and legal services, said that while the district attempted to work with this student group, its mission statement presented a purpose that runs contrary to board policies 5175 and 6141.1 and the related procedures. "We remain committed to a resolution that will balance the needs of the students with the district's legal obligations to recognize the separation of church and state," he said. After pursuing the issue for more than nine months, Aaron Grider, a Farmington High School student, contacted the Thomas More Law Center, a national Christian legal advocacy group in Ann Arbor. Attorney Ed White represented ALIVE in the lawsuit. He said the Federal Equal Access Act was passed to prevent the type of discrimination against Bible clubs that he said was taking place at Farmington High School. Judge Roberts ruled that ALIVE can "meet under the same conditions as other noncurricular-related student groups, including use of the SMART period." SMART is also known as the Student Managed Academic Resource Time. ALIVE may advertise its meetings over the public address system, on the school's bulletin boards, be listed as a school group on the school's Web site, be listed in the school's yearbook, use the school's photocopying machines and have announcements broadcast over the school's internal television network. This is the only religious club at the school. Kurt Sieloff, whose son, Jason, an 11th-grader, is a member of the club, was pleased with Roberts' decision. "This is powerful," Sieloff said. "This is a big case." Farmington Schools Supt. Sue Zurvalec said the district is "following the law." Now at issue is the $24,000 in legal fees, which the Thomas More Law Center is trying to recoup from Farmington Public Schools. Zurvalec called the request "outrageous." White said although the case was taken on a pro bono basis, federal court allows these fees to be recouped. Roberts addressed this in her Sept. 5 permanent injunction and said the parties were in negotiation for weeks and reached a consent agreement on the merits. "It became clear at the hearing, however, that attorney fees are the roadblock to a complete resolution of the case," Roberts said. ALIVE has about a dozen members. Farmington High School has recognized several noncurriculum-related student groups, including the Gay Straight Alliance, R.E.A.C.H. (a diversity club), R.H.U.B.A.R.B. (Rockin' High-Schoolers Unite Because Art Reflects Beauty), the Equestrian Club and S.A.D.D. (Students Against Destructive Decisions). sbuck@hometownlife.com | (734) 953-2014 http://www.hometownlife.com/apps/pbcs.dll/.../709160403/1023 |
![]() |
|
| Mrs.M | Sep 18 2007, 06:43 PM Post #52 |
|
Veteran
|
Anytime you want to get rid of those government documents, I'll gladly and thankfully take them off your hands.
I'll even pick them up.
|
| I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be WRONG. | |
![]() |
|
| Micki | Sep 19 2007, 07:44 AM Post #53 |
|
I love teaching.
|
Sincere question: How do you separate without removing? Removing would be absence of. I don't know about you but I don't want my children in a school that refuses to acknowledge God and therefore my children's and families beliefs. True situation: My child was asked to write a report on a famous woman that has impacted society. She chose Mother Teresa. She was told NO. So, I asked what the parameters were. She said famous person that was born in the U.S. So, my daughter chose Elizableth Ann Seton, who opened a school for girls and was also cannonized. She was told No again because it was a religious figure. I asked about it and I was told that she couldn't do it because that teacher did not want religion of any kind in her classroom, yet, she allowed Martin Luther King, who was religious as well. My daughter came home saying that people weren't supposed to believe in God and that religion was bad. I am sure her teacher didn't mean or say that but because she refused to honor my daughters religion/diversity she caused her to feel like an outsider. Here is an excellent resource for parents that feel their children are being discriminated against or need to know what their children's rights are: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/PDF/pa...idereligion.PDF |
![]() |
|
| Must Be Psychic | Sep 19 2007, 01:57 PM Post #54 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't have any problem with a student (on their own) chosing to write a report about a religious leader. There have been many people that are written about in our history books that were in fact connected or deeply involved with a church or a particular religion. One can discuss and write about the wonderful things that Mother Theresa or Martin Luther King Jr. accomplished in their lives without getting into the specific details of their religious beliefs and practices. Religion has been a factor in many wars and still drives many of our current conflicts. The crusades happened. Conflict over religious ideolgy has caused years of conflict in Ireland and the Middle East. These are facts regardless of your personal beliefs. No one can write the religion out of history or current events and no one needs to try. Where the line is crossed is when or if instruction becomes ABOUT a particular religion and religious beliefs or when a particular religion is promoted or espoused by a public school, a public school teacher or any part of our government. Having kids take a pledge under God crosses that line in my opinion, so it does not belong in a public school. I know that others disagree. I do not find the pledge offensive per se, I just think it should be a private matter whether you want to pledge allegiance to a flag, a country or a God. |
![]() |
|
| Major Card Player | Sep 19 2007, 02:35 PM Post #55 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think it is a fine line then, Psychic. Should a public school accept $ for say, student lunches or field trips, since that is promoting the concept of being 'under God'? (The school is endorsing the use of that $$, is it not?) Also, since much of MLK's teaching were about God's will for all people, should we not teach ABOUT him at all? How about Ghandi, Mother Thresa, the conflicts in Ireland, Iraq, etc. You cannot teach ABOUT these events without teaching about the actual religion can you? I know I am splitting hairs, but that is what the separation of church and state is. It's all in the interpretation--that is why it's so frustrating when it comes to things like the pledge, nativity, footbaths at public universities, etc? Don't ya think? |
![]() |
|
| BoaterDan | Sep 19 2007, 02:36 PM Post #56 |
|
Veteran
|
This has remained civil so far, so I'll jump back in.
Just to be clear, the pledge is not to God, but to a flag and the republic it represents, simply acknowledging it exists "under God" (whatever that actually means). This is a somewhat separate issue, but I find it rather ludicruos to expect to live in this country and enjoy its benefits, including the free education at which the issue has arisen, and not be willing to pledge some amount of allegience to that country. The article about Farmington Hills illustrates how this issue has been twisted so far from truth and reality, and why it has become one likely lacking a solution. Many people now just accept that the founders wanted a society free from religion when reality is exactly the opposite. Some districts have recently felt a need to teach their students all about Islam while insisting that allowing a report about Mother Theresa is unconstitutional. The constitution's actual words prohibit the interference with a person's religious expression to exactly the same extent it prohibits the establishment of one, but the PC attitude is to ignore the former. The case law is crystal clear, including supreme court decisions within the last decade, that Farmington Hills was dead wrong - but they still held their ground. Isn't that just bizarre? (For the record, while I believe we could use a good dose of healthy judeo-christian values in our government and culture, I'm open-minded enough to realize the risks of mixing religion and government probably far outweigh the benefits. I really advocate for just the fair practice of both parts of the constitution's wording and not just selective focus on the part that benefits you.) |
![]() |
|
| Must Be Psychic | Sep 19 2007, 04:36 PM Post #57 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't understand how religion relates to lunch or field trips unless someone is mandating that the kids all "say grace." :lol: I'm not sure I really understand your first paragraph. My concern would only be whether tax money is used to support a religion or promote the practice of a religion, which should never happen IMO. Declaring that our nation is "under God" is not appropriate in public school and we should not use tax money to pay teachers to lead children in saying such a pledge (again, it's my opinion.) The individual children, who are not being paid by our tax dollars, should be free to say what they want so long as it is not disrepectful, disruptive or offensive. I was once told by a public school teacher that I will go to hell (those exact words) if I do not accept Jesus as my savior. Totally inappropriate of course! That was her belief and she is free to have it, but she should not have said that to a child. This is an extreme example, I realize, but it did happen. As to teaching about someone like MLK without teaching the religion: I think that can be done and it happens all the time. |
![]() |
|
| Nikki | Sep 19 2007, 04:58 PM Post #58 |
|
Veteran
|
Peace be with you all......and God Bless Tiny Tim.
Or, as Tiny Tim would put it, "God bless us, every one!" |
![]() |
|
| Major Card Player | Sep 19 2007, 05:55 PM Post #59 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sorry Psychic, I mis-spoke. As to the $$ I should have said that using $$ that says 'In God we trust', is IMO no different than asking children to say the pledge. As for the teaching of things like MLK teachings, Iraq & Ireland war history...you stated that kids should not be taught ABOUT religions. Well IMO, you cannot thoroughly teach these concepts w/o teaching ABOUT the religion itself. Either you are then picking and choosing ideas from the whole concept(sort of like connected math :lol: ) or you are teaching only part of the history behind those events. I don't wish to argue which I believe is correct--although I'm sure you can tell which side my beliefs come down on. Just think it's sort of silly to believe that a complete understanding of concepts like WW II can be taught w/o understanding how Judaism fits in!!! You have to teach ABOUT the religion. |
![]() |
|
| BoaterDan | Sep 19 2007, 09:27 PM Post #60 |
|
Veteran
|
Ah, but here's the thing. Isn't it a bit biased and therefore invalid to teach the religious background behind the crusades but not teach the religious background behind MLK's "crusade"? Or to routinely teach the religion behind ancient Greek culture but not that behind the founding of this country? These are all just plain historical facts, are they not? |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Forum · Next Topic » |



.





![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
