Religious schools

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Do you think it's good to send your kid to a religous schools and would you do it?

I think to many people brainwash there kids and I would never do that to my child.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7521&hilit=University+of+Garotejust in case you want to see

The Public Schools are brainwashing all our children in the beliefs of the state instead of the belief
in God, so my answer is YES I would send my children to a Faith in Christ based school.

The state holds no religious beliefs.

Didn't you know? Evolution is a religion and is also synonymous with atheism, which is also a religion. Also war is peace and freedom is slavery.

[Bottle]

I'm just going to say this one more time because you guys should have learned this in school or on your own. It DOES matter because it separated us. We would still be with England if we hadn't Declared our Independence. This document gives us the right to write the other documents. How is that not important?

It's very important - but it isn't important to the question of law, or rights - because those were not functions it was designed to do.

Seriously, you might as well be arguing that we should stone obstinate children, because that's in the Bible. Sure it's an 'important' document, but it is NOT the law of our land, so it's irrelevant to THIS debate.

As a female who enjoys wearing cotton-poly slacks while watching football on Sundays, can I just say how profoundly glad I am that the Bible is not the basis for my country's system of law?

[Surote]

Didn't you know? Evolution is a religion and is also synonymous with atheism, which is also a religion. Also war is peace and freedom is slavery.

You are really a conspircy thinker aren't you Religion teaches people to kill other religions just cause god said so.

[No Names Left Damn It]

You are really a conspircy thinker aren't you Religion teaches people to kill other religions just cause god said so.

EPIC FAIL.

[Surote]

You are really a conspircy thinker aren't you Religion teaches people to kill other religions just cause god said so.

EPIC FAIL.

Okay what

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Didn't you know? Evolution is a religion and is also synonymous with atheism, which is also a religion. Also war is peace and freedom is slavery.

You are really a conspircy thinker aren't you Religion teaches people to kill other religions just cause god said so.

I don't believe in god, I am obsessed with science, have you not read ANY of my posts? Can you not detect sarcasm? Didn't the little homage to 1984 give it away?

[Surote]

Sorry man just a little tired

[Buffett and Colbert]

Sorry man just a little tired

Apparently.

[Mathematica Numerica]

You can also solve (D^2+1)(cos(x)), where d=1, this makes x= (2n-1)pi/2. Where n is any Real Number. But yeah, yeah, D=i works too, all varies upon the variable/constant D. And I'm not a christian.
Returning to the base issue. Religion should be separate from education, science is science and religion is religion. People have the choice to believe in something that someone created some 5000 years ago. Religion conflicts with science, and proven mathematical and scientific theories, much unlike religion, which is just a hysteria of belief. It is just to assure the human that it was created, and protected by God, and hopefully, will be a motive for performing virtues.
If education included God, Religion, or some sort of external belief, we could simply say that matter didn't exist. This is because in the religion, it always has several contradicting statements, belief that the world has a strangely low finite age, (i.e., 6,000 years), and that he wouldn't of created himself, humans, nor entropy. It just defies logic. We can't have someone believing in someone incorrect- it is simply atrocious.

[Wanderjar]

Do you think it's good to send your kid to a religous schools and would you do it?

I think to many people brainwash there kids and I would never do that to my child.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7521&hilit=University+of+Garotejust in case you want to see

I went to a religious highschool and hated it. My Dad sent me to a private school that he went to (when I lived with my mother the public schools were dreadful to say the least) and got a great education, but the religious indoctrination was terrible. Not to mention that the Chaplain firmly believed that all non-Christians should be killed...heh...

[Lycandom]

Muryavets said: You want me to drop it? I will.

No, I don't want you to drop it. What gave you that idea?

Muryavets said:...no matter how you may feel about this, atheists are Americans, too.

I know. I don't believe that religion separates people, I think people let it get in the way.

Muryavets said: THEY are not the government.

Actually, it is a democracy, so technically the people are the government. But, I see what you are saying.

Muryavets said: You're the one accusing atheism of trying to erase God.

I'm not. You are the one who brought up the whole Communism to Atheism connection. I mentioned nothing about Atheists before. I don't think Atheists try to erase God because God doesn't exist to them, so it would be like trying to erase a blackboard that doesn't have anything written on it.

Seriously, Atheists are...I should say most Atheists aren't trying to erase God. I respectfully disagree with Atheists and I wish them the best. I have nothing against people with those beliefs. No one is trying to erase God, I don't think, but I do question the motives of the people who want those statements removed from the Pledge and the money so much that they take it all the way through courts year after year. There is nothing wrong with standing up for your beliefs, but sometimes I think people take it too far. I'm not saying that this is one of those cases in Washington, but in general sometimes people get a little crazy with the separation of Church and State. They start saying things like, and I've heard this, Republicans shouldn't base their party on what they do because it is religious. Now that's ridiculous. They shouldn't tell them how to run their party. Just join a different party.

Muryavets said: The DoI was not the start or cause of anything. Yes it is eloquent and evocative. Yes it is an excellent expression of the philosophy of the leading revolutionaries. But it was the END of a long process of radicalization that was the cause of the Revolution...

Okay, yes I never said that the Revolutionary War wasn't important. I merely said that the DOL is important, more important than some people want to admit. I agree it is the summary of the philosophy of the revolutionaries. So, how exactly was I wrong when I said that the founding fathers wrote Creator because the rights weren't given to them by a government (like the tyrannical England), but by something that mere man can't remove?

Muryavets said: Also, are you under the impression that when the King of Merrie Olde Englande read the Declaration, he was so moved by it's Godly force that he gave the colonies their independence? Is that how you think it was "the only document that stood in the way of England still owning us"? Then what the hell was that whole Revolution thing for?

No. It was the only DOCUMENT as I said. The Revolution was a war not a document.

Muryavets said: Or maybe you are imagining that it was the DoI that first planted the never-before-existing idea of revolution in the minds of the colonists? Maybe you are not aware that there were years of dissatisfaction, resistance, protest, and complaints against the crown for various offenses, years of political radicalization, years of rabble rousing in the press, years of conspiracy and planning for revolution, BEFORE Jefferson was assigned to write the Declaration and set the revolution in motion.

Nope. Don't forget unreasonable taxes and soldiers living in people's quarters. As you said, Jefferson's document was the summary of these things.

Muryavets said: Oh, so cute. Trying to guilt-trip or scare me into compliance now, are we? And I suppose I'd better eat my peas because there are starving children in China who aren't allowed to have peas.

Nope. No guilt-trip. You're attempting to guilt trip me with the whole "you don't think Communists are people. ohhhhh," No, not working because as I said before, Communism is an idea not a person. And the words on the money and in the Pledge are an idea not a person. You should eat your peas, but not because other people don't, because they're good for you.

Muryavets said:

They don't believe in segregation of church.

A) "Don't"? You do know they are dead, right? The present tense is not appropriate.

You do know that they live on through the country they founded, right? What kind of dumb ass (no offense to anyone who thinks this) thinks the founding fathers are still alive? That would be sad. (After you die, you can still believe the same stuff you believed before you died.)

Muryavets said: B) Here's a handy compendium of quotes from the founders in support of separation of church and state. Enjoy.

Yes, yes very good. Evidence finally. I know about separation of church and state, but I don't see in any of these quotes where it says segregation of church and state? I think a lot of people believe that and not separation. A lot of people as you put rabble rouse and start unnecessary complaints that clog our system and waste our money. Separation not segregation. I'm not saying you do this, just pointing out that your reasons might be pure in intention, but others not so much. (Love the name of the site, by the way. Infidels hah.)

Muryavets said: The DoI is not a legal document and does not dictate the laws of the US. Try to cope.

So hard to cope....ah....can't....must...

Seriously? The DOL should be respected and I respect it. And I can use it as a basis of statements if I wish. It is part of American history and thus serves as a reference for our future. It is a reason why we were able to write the Constitution and it actually is a basis for some of the ideals of the Constitution.

Muryavets said: You claim, utterly without foundation, that the DoI doesn't matter to me because of some nonsense or other you dreamed up about me. I would suggest in counter that the only reason you are focussing on the DoI is that it mentions a Creator and the Constitution does not. And since you are rather tragically trying to insist that religiousness is required in the US government to show respect for the founders, you need anything they wrote that contains even a vaguely religious-sounding reference.

No, but you shouldn't say things like what you said before, the DOL doesn't matter...what was that...a f**k all to law. Nice.
I didn't dream that, look back at your thread. Talk about trying to ignore what you said and backpedaling. Calling the pot black much Mr. Kettle.

Well, I'm not focusing on anything. If you would like to bring the Constitution in fine. And you did, so know we are discussing both. Okay, the Constitution doesn't mention a Creator in specific words, no, but the constitution gives us the rights that were spelled out on the DOL. Seems important to me, but if you want to ignore what the DOL said. I guess I can be fine with that.

Stop it with that load of sh*t please. The government shouldn't have any religious affiliation, but people shouldn't want it to shun religion either. Nope, it isn't important to you to recognize the DOL as a document that can be used in this discussion. It doesn't support what you say, so fine ignore it. I won't ignore what you said as your evidence which is the Constitution. It doesn't say anything about the Creator you are right. I don't need any excuse or grasping of straws to say anything I say. You can halt your little feeble insults and have a discussion for five seconds that would be nice. You should respect the founders no matter what they wrote, even if it was religious.

Muryavets said: And if you think differently, then show me even one law or procedure for running the government that is listed in the DoI.

I don't think that it is "law." It is our symbol of liberty as much as the Statue herself. I never ever said that it was law. I merely told you that it was important. Show me where you can prove that the Declaration didn't have any impact on our breaking away from England? Silly question, don't answer. Because it was important, you said so above. Just as this is important.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

This section in the DOL here gives us Democracy. So, yes, actually, it gave us our type of government.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

This says that we revolt for all of the King's travesties and that we are now Free and Independent (of course, the war made this statement a reality).

Muryavets said: I was raised to believe that you show respect to people you admire by paying attention to the real things they did and why they did them and by not misrepresenting their beliefs and the most important actions of their lives.

I was raised to believe that you don't put down other people's statements in a conversation. You respectfully "teach" them like a wise teacher would on their errors. I was raised to believe that everyone is allowed with their opinion and their own beliefs and no one should force theirs on another. I was raised to believe that no man can take away the rights that we have as human beings. I was raised to believe that you should respect others until they give you a reason not to.

You are the one misrepresenting their beliefs. I can't misrepresent them when I directly quote them. You ignore it, so your not so much misrepresenting as not representing at all. You need to recognize that they wrote that document, that document was important, that document should never be forgotten, that document is inspiration to countries around the world (French Revolution anyone), and that respect to the founders is recognizing that they believed in the ideals of the Declaration as much as they believed in the law of the Constitution.

Bottle said: As a female who enjoys wearing cotton-poly slacks while watching football on Sundays, can I just say how profoundly glad I am that the Bible is not the basis for my country's system of law?

There is no dress code in the Bible. I personally like watching football too. The Bible doesn't...doesn't tell you what to wear. It doesn't say anything about that. It isn't a fashion magazine or a school manual.

Grave said: It's very important - but it isn't important to the question of law, or rights - because those were not functions it was designed to do.

Why can't more people be as respectful as you in a conversation. You recognize that it is important, yet it isn't designed to function as a law. This is the way to do what I was talking about above. Thank you. I agree, it functions as the message of what the colonies believed at the time and a message to the world that we were free from tyranny.



I'm not using it merely because it is the only document that represents my statements. You are only using the Constitution does that mean that you are using it because it is a law that doesn't mention anything about religion? Duh, because when you give evidence in a discussion, you don't use something irrelevant to your side. Now, when someone brings something else up, you don't ignore it, you address it and I did above.
---------------------------

Wanderjar: Not to mention that the Chaplain firmly believed that all non-Christians should be killed...heh...

That's not very Christian-like of him. That guy seriously needs to read the Bible again.

Surote: My children will never be brainwashed by god...

God doesn't brainwash people...even if you believe that all religious schools brainwash children you can't honestly say that it is God doing it. I mean he doesn't come down and teach Math okay. If the school was doing these things it is on the people pretending to represent God and not.

[New Limacon]

And "under God" is a modern political anti-Communist invention. It was not necessary to the stability of the nation for the vast bulk of our history, and it's not necessary now.

The second we remove it, the Reds will rise again. Just you watch.

[Lycandom]

Religion should be separate from education, science is science and religion is religion. People have the choice to believe in something that someone created some 5000 years ago. Religion conflicts with science, and proven mathematical and scientific theories, much unlike religion, which is just a hysteria of belief. It is just to assure the human that it was created, and protected by God, and hopefully, will be a motive for performing virtues.
If education included God, Religion, or some sort of external belief, we could simply say that matter didn't exist. This is because in the religion, it always has several contradicting statements, belief that the world has a strangely low finite age, (i.e., 6,000 years), and that he wouldn't of created himself, humans, nor entropy. It just defies logic. We can't have someone believing in someone incorrect- it is simply atrocious.

Religion doesn't have to conflict with science. There are a lot of scientific elements that don't conflict with religion. You have a pretty warped view of religion, probably from all those loud mouthed people who don't represent everyone. Religion isn't a hysteria of belief as you put it. It does agree with science, you just have to look deeper and understand what it is saying. Some people just don't get it. Science was my favorite class in school and I'm a believer in God.

Religious schools are privately funded and therefore should be allowed because it is a freedom in the U.S. to practice your religion freely. You can do it as a group or alone, but it is a right of yours. I don't believe that the world has a low age like that, what made you think that? Because the book doesn't say everything that happened back then doesn't mean it is wrong. Give me one book in the history of man-kind that contains everything that ever happened in one time period. You can't because there isn't one. The Bible only contains the important elements of what were happening at that time to get the message across. While true that God didn't mention what created him or how he came into being, we only wonder that question because we were created, but He has infinite power and thus the reason why we can't comprehend that.

It is atrocious to have someone what? Believe in something you don't? That's called freedom and if you don't like people not believing in what you believe than move to another country because the Free World doesn't agree with you. Public schools don't teach gospel, they teach public concepts. Religious schools should be and are allowed to teach gospel because you shouldn't go there unless you want to learn it. You are allowed to not believe because we live in a free society as much as I'm allowed to believe. I don't tell you that you believe in atrocious things that make no sense you hysterical fool. No, that's disrespectful and I wouldn't say that to you because you are allowed to believe in what you believe, none of my business.

[Grave_n_idle]

I do question the motives of the people who want those statements removed from the Pledge and the money

You'd be perfectly happy if it said "One nation, under Satan"? You wouldn't want the pledge changed, or the money returned to it's original form?

[Muravyets]

I'm just going to say this one more time because you guys should have learned this in school or on your own. It DOES matter because it separated us. We would still be with England if we hadn't Declared our Independence. This document gives us the right to write the other documents. How is that not important?

It's very important - but it isn't important to the question of law, or rights - because those were not functions it was designed to do.

Seriously, you might as well be arguing that we should stone obstinate children, because that's in the Bible. Sure it's an 'important' document, but it is NOT the law of our land, so it's irrelevant to THIS debate.

As a female who enjoys wearing cotton-poly slacks while watching football on Sundays, can I just say how profoundly glad I am that the Bible is not the basis for my country's system of law?

You should never mix polyester with cotton in one fabric. Polyester is bad for your skin. It doesn't breath. Now, a nice cotton/linen blend...

[Muravyets]

You want me to drop it? I will.

No, I don't want you to drop it. What gave you that idea?

The fact that you asked me if it would kill me to let it go. Most people say that sort of thing when they want someone to stop talking about something.

My children will never be brainwashed by god...

God doesn't brainwash people...even if you believe that all religious schools brainwash children you can't honestly say that it is God doing it. I mean he doesn't come down and teach Math okay. If the school was doing these things it is on the people pretending to represent God and not.

I DID NOT SAY THAT BIT ABOUT "BRAINWASHED BY GOD." DO NOT EVER MIX DIFFERENT POSTERS' POSTS UP TOGETHER LIKE THIS WITHOUT PROPER ATTRIBUTION EVER AGAIN, THANK YOU. IT IS MISLEADING AND CREATES A DAMN STRONG IMPRESSION OF DISHONESTY ON YOUR PART.

I have zero interest in engaging in debate with you until you learn how to do it properly. Fix your quoting.

[Czechomany]

All Religious Schools EVACUATE!

[Divinus Fides]

667. booyaa! Devil!

[Lycandom]

Muravyets: I DID NOT SAY THAT BIT ABOUT "BRAINWASHED BY GOD." DO NOT EVER MIX DIFFERENT POSTERS' POSTS UP TOGETHER LIKE THIS WITHOUT PROPER ATTRIBUTION EVER AGAIN, THANK YOU. IT IS MISLEADING AND CREATES A DAMN STRONG IMPRESSION OF DISHONESTY ON YOUR PART.

I have zero interest in engaging in debate with you until you learn how to do it properly. Fix your quoting. by Muravyets »

I apologize Muravyets. I never intended to misrepresent the quoting. I merely copied all the quotes that I had to answer into my post. I'll go back and fix them if you feel that people will be confused. I do apologize for the misunderstanding. It was not on purpose. I know how to do it properly, I think it is understandable if you have to answer so many quotes that you get a little tired of sourcing all of them. I will source all of yours from now on.

Czechomany's Joke

Muravyets: The fact that you asked me if it would kill me to let it go. Most people say that sort of thing when they want someone to stop talking about something.

I didn't mean this discussion. It was a curiosity question on the side.

by Grave_n_idle
You'd be perfectly happy if it said "One nation, under Satan"? You wouldn't want the pledge changed, or the money returned to it's original form?

First, I doubt I would live in a country that followed the "ideals" of Satan, but if I did assuming I wasn't a Satan follower than I would have a problem with it being on the money yes. I didn't mean that I questioned everyone's motive, it is just that with my experience the most vocal people don't always represent the views of the group. I mean looking at the heat that Christianity gets from the vocal birds, I was merely addressing the vocal ones as being separate from the whole. I question their motives because often times people use missions of others to reach their hidden agenda. That's all. I don't question you or Muravyets motives. Clearly M wants it removed because he thinks that it impinges on his rights.

I still have a concern over how much it would cost to do this. I have some other questions as well. Would the money that says In God We Trust be valuable after the new money is introduced into circulation? As a collectible or accepted to buy things or both? Would it be accepted for people to still say Under God in the Pledge as now they aren't required to say it in a lot of places would that reverse (public schools only)? Since we are talking about religious schools, could religious schools retain that Pledge as their Pledge while public schools changed it?

(I edited the previous post to source all posters, I apologize for any ensuing problems that resulted from the confusion.)

[Grave_n_idle]

First, I doubt I would live in a country that followed the "ideals" of Satan,

Clearly, you're not an American.

but if I did assuming I wasn't a Satan follower than I would have a problem with it being on the money yes.

Right - the same problem people (even Christians) have with an endorsement of Christian religion that cannot be avoided.

I didn't mean that I questioned everyone's motive, it is just that with my experience the most vocal people don't always represent the views of the group. I mean looking at the heat that Christianity gets from the vocal birds, I was merely addressing the vocal ones as being separate from the whole.

I'm very vocal about separation of church and state. I don't believe in mandatory pledges, and I certainly don't beleive that a pledge should invoke one specific diety, if any. Given the historical absence of mention of gods in the pledge, it is ONLY pandering that put a diety reference IN the pledge, anyway.

Would the money that says In God We Trust be valuable after the new money is introduced into circulation? As a collectible or accepted to buy things or both?

Maybe, and probably, for a while. Most money, when the currency changes, has a phasing-out period, where it is effectively replaced in the economy. Whether or not it would be collectible... who can say? If everyone keeps a big pile of them, maybe not - no rarity.

Would it be accepted for people to still say Under God in the Pledge as now they aren't required to say it in a lot of places would that reverse (public schools only)? Since we are talking about religious schools, could religious schools retain that Pledge as their Pledge while public schools changed it?

A revised pledge wouldn't have space for a reference to 'god'. If a group of people WANTED to say it with a space, that would probably be okay with most people. That space would allow people to say 'under god' if they really wanted to. I can't say what religious schools might do - if they admitted students on that specific understanding.. yes, they could probably do that.

[Lycandom]

Clearly, you're not an American.

How so? America isn't founded on the ideals (not the right word) of Satan. America stands for freedom and liberty. Satan stands for temptation and sin. I mean America isn't perfect, no country is, but it is the greatest free country. Yes, American society has some problems like vanity and over-sexing, but we are good at the core and that's what matters.

Grave: Which ideals make us Satanist in America? I certainly am not a Satanist and I am an American.

I'm very vocal about separation of church and state. I don't believe in mandatory pledges, and I certainly don't beleive that a pledge should invoke one specific diety, if any. Given the historical absence of mention of gods in the pledge, it is ONLY pandering that put a diety reference IN the pledge, anyway.

Have you been on TV to talk about this? Those are the people I'm talking about. Most people think if they tune into the news or a televangelist they'll understand everything there is to know about those religious people. Well, that's wrong on both cases. There are no two individuals with the same belief on every single thing. People differ somewhere in one of their belief sets. I agree with separation of Church and State, but I don't agree with segregation of Church and State (you don't either), but some of the vocal people do, that's intolerance. The Pledge of Allegiance is mandatory to invoke pride in America at a young age. I don't see anything wrong with this. You should be loyal to the country that you live in. If you're not then move to the one that you have loyalty to, you'd probably like it better there anyway. I don't think it is pandering as you put it.

There are several versions of the Pledge throughout its creation. The last change was the one that added Under God (Although it is commonly believed that it started in the 1950s, it was actually used before that, only widely used in the 50s).

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands: one nation [Under God added] indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

Is that what you want it to say? Under God was actually added based on things said in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. A couple people following also wanted to place other words in like love before liberty. Other than removing Under God why else don't you support a mandatory Pledge?

According to Rev. Docherty, what has made the United States both unique and strong was her sense of being the nation that Lincoln described: a nation "under God." Docherty took the opportunity to tell a story of a conversation with his children about the Pledge of Allegiance. Docherty was troubled by the fact that it did not include any reference to the deity. Without such reference, Docherty insisted that the Pledge could apply to just about any nation. He felt that the pledge should reflect the American spirit and way of life as defined by Lincoln.

Eisenhower said this:
These words [“under God”] will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded.

It was actually put in to distinguish us from other nations. It wasn't put in the Pledge to offend anyone, but to make the U.S. stand out above the rest giving us Divine favor in a way.

[Grave_n_idle]

America isn't founded on the ideals (not the right word) of Satan. America stands for freedom and liberty.

Freedom and liberty are not Christian values. Jesus said our 'freedom' was to serve one another.

but we are good at the core and that's what matters.

Americans are greedy, motivated by a love of money. They eat too much. They covet. They create graven images. They are idolators before a piece of fabric. They kill. They take from others. They discriminate and they judge. There's barely a Biblical 'crime' we DON'T commit, on average.

We don't take care of each other. We fail to live up to the Beatitudes. We are not good.

The Pledge of Allegiance is mandatory to invoke pride in America at a young age. I don't see anything wrong with this. You should be loyal to the country that you live in.

You realise that swearing alleigance to a flag is idolatry, right?

You shouldn't be loyal to the country that you live in - you should work for it's betterment, and try to reduce the things that are wrong with it - but you do not owe it 'loyalty'.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands: one nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

Better.

Other than removing Under God why else don't you support a mandatory Pledge?

Because you can't FORCE loyalty. Because it's brainwashing.

According to Rev. Docherty, what has made the United States both unique and strong was her sense of being the nation that Lincoln described: a nation "under God." Docherty took the opportunity to tell a story of a conversation with his children about the Pledge of Allegiance. Docherty was troubled by the fact that it did not include any reference to the deity. Without such reference, Docherty insisted that the Pledge could apply to just about any nation. He felt that the pledge should reflect the American spirit and way of life as defined by Lincoln.

Rev Docherty is wrong. 'Under god' is not 'the American spirit' - it might be the spirit of SOME Americans.

Eisenhower said this:
These words [“under God”] will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded.

Eisenhower is wrong, too. Moral principles have nothing to do with god.

It was actually put in to distinguish us from other nations.

No, it was put in to place a division between America and communism.

It wasn't put in the Pledge to offend anyone, but to make the U.S. stand out above the rest giving us Divine favor in a way.

By claiming that god favours us? First - how does that NOT offend... but secondly - making a claim like that is hubris.

[Muravyets]

Muravyets: I DID NOT SAY THAT BIT ABOUT "BRAINWASHED BY GOD." DO NOT EVER MIX DIFFERENT POSTERS' POSTS UP TOGETHER LIKE THIS WITHOUT PROPER ATTRIBUTION EVER AGAIN, THANK YOU. IT IS MISLEADING AND CREATES A DAMN STRONG IMPRESSION OF DISHONESTY ON YOUR PART.

I have zero interest in engaging in debate with you until you learn how to do it properly. Fix your quoting. by Muravyets »

I apologize Muravyets. I never intended to misrepresent the quoting. I merely copied all the quotes that I had to answer into my post. I'll go back and fix them if you feel that people will be confused. I do apologize for the misunderstanding. It was not on purpose. I know how to do it properly, I think it is understandable if you have to answer so many quotes that you get a little tired of sourcing all of them. I will source all of yours from now on.

Very well, then. Now we can proceed. Thank you. I would not have minded if you had merely picked up the other person's post without by-line and had it following my post, but somehow you managed to insert his post into the middle of sections of my post. To avoid that in future:

Use the quote button in all cases. It automatically picks up the FULL content of the post you wish to quote, including the author's by-line.

One problem with it, though, is that it will not automatically edit out nested quotes to fit the built-in limit. To do that manually, you must carefully select and delete the parts you don't want. This is a pain, but easy when you get used to it.

To quote multiple posts, use one of two methods:

1) To quote multiple posts that are close to each other, click the quote button on one post. Then, when you are typing your reply, scroll down to see the window that shows the thread post history. That is an active window. You can scroll down in it to see up to a page and a half of posts. You can click the quote buttons in those posts, and they will automatically be copied into your currently open reply window.

2) To quote multiple posts that don't all appear in the recent thread history, click quote on one post. In the reply window, edit the post as necessary, then copy it. Then go back to the thread. Click quote on the next post you want to reply to. In the reply window, paste the copied text into the window, before or after the text that is already there. Repeat this process as needed.

[Hiddenrun]

I DID NOT SAY THAT BIT ABOUT "BRAINWASHED BY GOD." DO NOT EVER MIX DIFFERENT POSTERS' POSTS UP TOGETHER LIKE THIS WITHOUT PROPER ATTRIBUTION EVER AGAIN, THANK YOU. IT IS MISLEADING AND CREATES A DAMN STRONG IMPRESSION OF DISHONESTY ON YOUR PART.

I have zero interest in engaging in debate with you until you learn how to do it properly. Fix your quoting.

Wow.

That was pure. Entertainment.

Also very, very hot.

Are you single?

[Skirrata]

When are public school system is messed up as it is?

Maybe, if they wanted to, or maybe a non-religious private school.

Most likely I'd homeschool em though.