U.S. Pledge of Allegiance now illegal....

[Donmo 6]

Here is a link for confirmation about the Knights Of Columbus:http://www.ask.com/main/metaAnswer.asp?t=m...dt=020629031646Don

[Donmo 6]

I think it's a great thread. Why kill something that has such response. It's even being kept at a fairly non-hostile level too. When they do that, you should let them run. Don

[BobP 56]

Well.... check your email. You just got a least three more. One for your post, and two for the responses..... :)BobP :)

[Sonar5 3]

Hi Don,I am not really sure which posts have been removed but I remember yours stating that fact.I had already posted that fact in Post #6 which is here:http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/DCForumID6/547.html#6It is a little odd that yours disappeared as I don't recall anything else being posted in your thread..Your facts were correct, and I am a 4th Degree Member of The Knights of Columbus thereby being very familiar with the origin and history of the words being added.Thanks for posting it.Regards,Joe :-wavehttp://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

[Sonar5 3]

Thank you Marco,I appreciate your post.Regards,Joe :-wavehttp://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

[Sonar5 3]

Hi,You can go into your profile and remove the option to be sent an email. Then you can reactivate it when this thread runs its course.Regards,Joe :-wavehttp://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

[Sonar5 3]

That is just it Gosta,I feel in my heart and backed up by links with evidence that I was correct. You have still yate to provide and evidence supporting any of your positions.Am I supposed to just take your word for everything. I have placed links wherever appropriate so that other can learn and verify on their own what I have said.I have been proven wrong before, and whenever I am wrong, I apologize. It is called integrity and honesty.My concerns with your comments thus prompting my "Tone and Attitude" were a direct reflection on your inability to acknowledge facts.It may have been quite different had you at least done some research.Again, people that know me here may not agree with anything or everything I write, but I always stick with facts in my opinions.If you neither have the time nor the inclination to do proper research, maybe you should not have hit the post message button.It is really as easy as that.You were on-line the entire time during our discussion last night. The links and research I posted were gained by me during the exact time, and I don't have the bonus of using lexis. I use verified Government Sources for the most part.And please remember I did not start this thread, but I will always respond when I encounter inaccuricies about my country, The United States of America.The thread has been kept to a civil discourse, IMHO, without personal attacks. The acts like a duck is not a personal attack, it was a common phrase used in my country and I apologize if you were offended by it.It is meant to say that If a truck is RED, then a Truck is RED. See that analogy. I would be honored to correspond with you in email, and like I said above.Post links backing up your points, and I am still anticipating your thread about My country violating international laws.I will always defend my country when it is attacked, either verbally with inaccuracies, but I don't always agree with everything my country does.I disagree with the Death Penalty as one example. To me, that is murder.Regards,Joe :-wavehttp://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

[Sonar5 3]

Why lock it,I don't beleive it should be locked because you are getting notifications. :-)It is a good debate, there are no personal attacks and this forum is for topics that don't fit in the flightsim forums.While this is a site where free speech is not granted freely, the mods will leave it as long as it does not get out of hand. Which I think it has not.The discussion has been civil, IMHO, and you have the option to not be notified of new messages by way of your profile. You can simply turn it off for now, and reactivate it once this thread has run its course.Regards,Joe :-wavehttp://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

[Guest]

Marco; you don't have to agree with me. It's just fine if you have a different opinion. As to the voucher issue, most all of the monies will be diverted to private religious schools. Take that Cleveland case. Ninety Six percent of the $48 million dollars diverted from the public schools is going to private religious schools. And not a single new student has transferred yet. That $48 million dollars is just to reimburse parents who already have their kids in religious schools. That oughta give you some clues as to where the money is going to end up. Now, why is it going to religious schools. Well, one reason is because religious schools are much more economical than non-religious private schools. Take the Catholic Schools as an example. They're fine schools and very cheap compared to the average non-religious private school. I suspect that's because the church subsidizes them. So state your opinion. I have mine.

[Sonar5 3]

Again,You have failed to see the truth as to how a Cathoilic School is funded. PLease read my own real world example in my voucher thread to understand this.You are correct in that the church donates to the school. Catholic Education is part of being a good Catholic.But guess what, MGD, you failed to mention where the Church gets its money from. They get it from donations to that church by the parishioners that attend that church. So the parishioners are helping that school, not the church, IMHO.Look at our program in Illinois as it applies to my family in this thread, then post a response in that thread, and I wll be happy to answer any questions as to how it works.This is a Parent Pro-Choice issue. Parents can choose to kill their babies by abortion, but they should not be allowed to CHOOSE how their educating their children. That seems a little hypocritical to me for those that share those viewpoints. And I am not saying that you do, either.Read This: It's all true.http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/DCForumID6/554.html#22Regards,Joehttp://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

[Guest]

You're missing the point. Those donations are not tax money. Vouchers are tax money. Twist is around anyway way you wish, it still comes out of the public coffers. That's the problem. I'm growing tired of this debate. I've said my piece and a bit more.

[Guest]

>Yes, that is what asvi said, but it was his responsibility >to know his rights. The teacher was wrong, and if pushed on >it, I assure you, it would not have happened again. But he >chose to comply even though it was not right if he did not >wish to recite it. His Fault for not understanding the law. > Ignorance of a lwaw cannot be used as a defence in my >country.How can you write such a thing ? asvi was 10 years old (!!!). Do you see many 10 year-old kids arguing about their rights ? You put all the blame on him without thinking of the teacher's fault. Instead of saying the teacher was wrong and writing several lines on asvi, try the other way round, that'll be fairer.This whole thread is about semantics on whether one is forced to recite the pledge, but nobody seems to see that this is only the theory and that it's not applied in the day-to-day life. Why ? Because it has become a tradition, because it wouldn't come to the mind of a child to argue about it, because it's not practical... etc. Which kid is gonna refuse to say it when every single other in the classroom says it ? Even if the child is aware of the law, would he want to become the focus of bullies by standing out like that ? What about the reaction of the (admittedly ignorant) teacher and the resulting bad behaviour comments that will surely be written somewhere ?Instead of talking about being forced or not (you're right anyway, Joe, nobody is forced), what about thinking of informing people better, starting with teachers and kids ? People not knowing about their rights has always been a problem, in every country of this world. There's not much point in blaming them for their ignorance, it's much more useful to try and change that. You keep talking about the law without offering any suggestion to solve the problem of the misunderstanding of it. Did it ever occur to you that the law is not perfect and that it may be poorly expressed ? Without changing it, it can still be made clearer, better information can be given... etc (I'm not saying it's not clear about the pledge, i'm generalising to all texts of law).__________________________________________________________EricList of all airlines, aircraft manufacturers and aircraft types recognised by ATC:http://www.geocities.com/eric_2203/orhttp://ftp.avsim.com/library/esearch.php?D...atID=fs2002misc

[Donmo 6]

I was surprised when I first read that. That's cool. This has been an interesting posting. I'm also glad someone else saw my previous post. I may be going nuts, but I ain't crazy! LOL!!!Don

[Guest lawyerpilot]

While I like an intellectual discussion as much as the next guy, perhaps more, I come here for sim related stuff. These little 5 word back and forth posts have run their course. P4 1.8768 ram 80 gig hardriveVisiontek Ti4 4600CH yoke/pedals19" inch monitor-Soundblaster PCI 512Win XPPrivate PilotAOPALawyerPilots Bar AssociationNTSB Bar AssocationFAA Summer Legal Clerk - Northeast Region"Men without dreams are never free, twas thus this way and thus will ever be."

[Guest]

The old adage "we agree to disagree" is a good one, isn't it? =)I think you aren't looking, or conveniently not looking, at the most important step. The *parents* are choosing where to send their children, not the gov't. Like I said, the parents can send their children anywhere with those vouchers. You are convoluting the message. The support from the gov't *stops* at the parents. They could send their children to a school specializing in underwater basket weaving if they wanted. How the parents use the vouchers is up to them, not the gov't, as it should be.Disclaimer: I went to parochial school most of my life.AZ has some of the worst public education available ... from elementary all the way through university level (I work at ASU, and there are but a few programs that are good). The schools have nearly no funding, the teachers are some of the lowest paid in the nation, the dropout rates are *extremely* high, and the grades students earn are very low. In fact, the state can't even pay on the mortgages for a good number of schools this year!I don't have any children, so I'll use my 3 year old nephew as an example, as if he was my kid. When he begins to go to school, why would I send him to a school where I know a good number of teachers are only half-heartedly teaching because they make so little $? Why would I send him to a school that might not be there the next year because the state can't pay it's bills?Then, if I have a means to, why should it be illegal for me to want what's best for my kid? How are vouchers, used by parents to send their children to Catholic or private schools any different than federal scholarships given to students to attend schools such as Notre Dame or Harvard?I'll admit, I haven't done the research, but I think there is a reason parents with vouchers-in-hand are sending their children to private/parochial/charter schools: they simply are better (don't take this as a knock on public schools).My mother is a principal of a Catholic school in rural Arizona. The parish it's associated with serves anywhere from 10k to 25k Roman Catholics (depends if the Snowbirds are here or not). The only way the parish supports her school is that the parish pays the mortgage and month-to-month costs (electricity, phone, gas, etc) and her salary; not the teachers', not the support staff, not even her secretary, just hers. Her highest paid teacher doesn't make $20k/year! Salaries and supplies are paid for by tuition (about $1k/year per student), fund raisers, and the $500 tax credits from the state.Explain to me then, why, when the parents of the children at her school, knowing the teachers don't get paid a lot, knowing they don't have the same resources as public schools, choose to send their children there? They are simply better. 'nuf said.Here's how it boils down for me.1. All parents want to do what's best for the kids. Why should that be illegal?2. The fact that XX% of the $ is going to private religious institutions is irrelevant. The gov't isn't saying "here's some $, you *must* send your child to St. Joseph's".3. I think you, and many others, are just in shock that for once, the gov't is doing something right. In the past, and we all know it, the gov't (state/local/federal) just dumps huge lumps of $$ on a problem, expecting the $$ to solve it. They see how this doesn't work, and have come up with a new way to solve the problem.4. Vouchers are an investment in the future. The gov't pays a little now, but they will be able to reap the rewards later.Case in point re: #3; AZ just lost anywhere from $800 million to $1.5 billion on an alternative fuel initiative. Consumers could get tax refunds if they bought a car, and had a natural gas conversion done. Good in spirit (Phoenix Metro has very poor air), but the law was wrong. What happened? Instead of people buying more fuel efficient cars like Hondas, Kias, Toyotas, etc, they bought SUVs and trucks! People bought $40k Expeditions and got $20k worth of tax credit! That's $800 million that could have gone to building new schools, or, how about this radical-for-AZ thought, pay the teachers more. GASP!marcoPS - To stay on the topic of the thread; being liberal or conservative had nothing to do with the decision of the court. They're just idiots. Blaming things on politics is useless ... all it proves is that no one wants to be responsible for their actions.