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

[Guest]

In many states, contributions to a church are tax-deductible. What's the difference between that and vouchers?I think it comes down to how one interprets the exemption clause.If you interpret it that there should be absolutely no mention of God or a religion in gov't, what are you doing about this "Faith Based Healing" initiative by El Presidente?marco

[Guest]

Yup, exactly.The option is there to not choose to be notified. Much like the option is there to not recite the pledge or to even leave parts out when reciting it. =)marco

[Sonar5 3]

Eric,Please reread what you just wrote:"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."Did you not read my post. In the second sentance, I said:"The teacher was wrong, and if pushed on it, I assure you, it would not have happened again."You must have read right over that one, which kind of diminishes the rest of your post, IMHO. I acknowkledged the teachers fault right up front.As far as 10 year olds not knowing their rights. Yes, it is my responsibility as a parent to know what my kids are up to. And I take that seriously.The 9 year old in this case told her dad who then filed the initial lawsuit, so your theory of kids those ages not knowing what is going on is a bit thin, IMHO. I have two boys, 11 and 7 and I assure you, I know what goes on each day because my wife and I review their homework, grades, and curriculum. As far as your thoughts regarding education on the law. Yes, I agree, everyone can do their part to educate others. I feel that this has been accomplished to a great extent here in this thread. This has had over a 1000 views which means people are being educated on a variety of laws and the history of our Pledge. That is a good thing. Is it not.You theory about teachers and kids is correct. They should be educated. But you know what. Everyone in my state, Illinois is required to pass a competancy test on the Constitution.If people do not choose to do their own research on law, shame on them, as they are listening to others that have propulgated lies to spread their own agenda.I have tried to post links and facts regarding this case, and have responded when untruths have been written.That is why debate is very important.And yes, I agree that there are bad laws. Abortion and the Death Penalty are two that spring up in my mind first.I am hopeful that everyone that read this entire thread has learned something positive from it. I know I have. :-)************************************************One last analogy.You said""Even if the child is aware of the law, would he want to become the focus of bullies by standing out like that?"I say:- If my children go to a public school in the inner city where a great many are recipients of free lunches or breakfasts because of economic situations.- And my sons don't receive that benefit, there is an equal opportunity for my children to be ridiculed and bullied along the same lines. Should my children receive those same free hot lunch tokens so they don't feel out of place. - Example: "Nanananana, we get hot lunches and you don't." That would cause my children to be ridiculed as well. -Kids will be kids, and you know what, the reality of life is that it is not fair. - I would not want to eliminate that program, but can you see the similarities between the child that chooses not to say the pledge and the child that does not receive the hot lunch.I speak from a real life persepective, as I grew up on the receiving end of a hot lunch program in my family. So it is true. *****************************SOLUTIONS*****************************Now, you said that I did not provide any real solutions. Maybe I will write a book and provide some insight as I am leaning towards writing one, and have begun a table of contents for subject manner.But to be fair, I have offered solutions here. I have advised others to research themselves and verify any facts I have stated. I have provided factual information so others can learn about our laws. I can only do so much. I have tried to teach my children the best I know how, and yes, they are aware of their rights and I counsel them when I can.Most of the press in this country has helped in this instance. They have outlined that no one is forced to recite. That is good. But I will repeat this. People and Citizens have to take their own responsibility as Citizens with a serious commitment. If people choose not to research it. That is their right, but again, ignorance is not an excuse for not knowing the law. And yes, that is why people hire attorney's. But you know what, if some of those had read the law before commiting the act, they may not have needed an attorney, do you agree?I know speeding is illegal, and I take a chance because I believe, and the Government concurs thatspeed limits should be within 5mph rounded up to the next increment when a speed study is done.My wife got a ticket near my house for 44 in a 30mph zone. They set up a speed trap on that street within 500 feet of a speed limit sign which is illegal. She plead not guilty, and after requesting through FOIA for a cost of about $4, I proved that the speed was illegal, the sign was illegal, the trap was illegal and violated their own training and the Illinois Compiled Statutes, and I also proved that if the law had been followed and the MUCTD had been adhered to since a speed study was done, the limit would be 45 on that street. I am not an attorney, so when we requested a trial, I ptovided all of my evidence to the city attorney prior to trial. Trial date comes, they call her name, I prepped her, and the case was dismissed.The speed limit was kept at 30, but since then, not one police officer has sat in that section of road running radar since my case.I am also personally responsible for 2 new ordinances in my city regarding homeowners rights moving into a subdivision and what a developer must provide as disclosures. This stemmed form a case our subdivision filed against the developer and the city agreed with us and helped prosecute the case.I also live in the city of Joliet, but not within the boundaries of the Joliet Park District. I am a resident of Joliet, but taxed through the Plainfield Township park district. The city gave 10 million dollars to the Joliet Park District for a water park which would have required me to pay non-resident fees to use the park.I single handedly got the city and Joliet Park district to create a separate Aquatics resident card for every Joliet Resident, since my tax dollars were used to build that park. And now I pay resident rates to use that park once it is opened.Here is a link describing that discount card:http://www.jolietpark.org/nowellpool.htmlSo I do get very involved in issues of common sense and what is right. And I am proud of that.I can only encourage others to do the same, as that is what would improve civilization, people getting involved.You have now learned a little more about me, and I hope that this thread has helped you see a little of where I am coming from.******************************************************** Regards,Joe :-wavehttp://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

[Guest]

Well; if your state is foolish enough to implement a voucher system; the result will be a significant increase in your property taxes to cover the cost of all the funds being drained from the public schools. Public schools are here to stay regardless of how much you have to pay in property taxes. BTW; charitable contributions are deductible with limitations. You must be considering your church a charity if you're deducting your donations. I don't think the IRS would look kindly on that.

[Sonar5 3]

Hi MGD,I am interested to see what your thought are on Illinois Tax Credit program regarding education.Do you feel it is out of line after reading my examples in the other thread?Here is exactly how it works, per the state of illinois:Fact Sheethttp://www.revenue.state.il.us/Individuals/education.htmFAQhttp://www.revenue.state.il.us/Individuals/educationfaq.htmRegards,Joe :-wavehttp://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

[Guest]

My state, AZ, already has a voucher-like system, albeit limited as it's being 'evaluated'. I don't have any kids, so I'm not too sure on the specifics, but my mom is a principal of a Catholic school, so when I go visit my parents, it comes up at Sunday dinner pretty often. If I have to pay more taxes, so be it, but I demand results. Something which many public education systems lack.We also have a tax credit system, which our governor is considering eliminating. Fortunately, she'll be out of office in a few months.I acknowledge that public schools are here to stay. They should stay. They need to stay. My beef is that the taxes I pay are being wasted on them, not in full, but partially. The public schools here have much larger budgets than that of non-public schools, but non-public schools routinely (you can set your clock to it) turn out a higher percentage of better educated students.The people who run the public schools are lucky they don't work in private industry. Why? If they kept up with the outlandish spending and meager results, they'd be fired. That needs to happen.If my local politicians came out and said "hey marco, listen. we admit our public schools are not efficient. we are going to find the problems and get rid of them. we'll find the teachers who shouldn't be teaching and the administrators not being responsible, and fire them. however, the cost of education will rise in the future, so it's going to cost money, but we guarantee our public education will be better", i'd be all for them raising taxes. I may pay more now, but I'll save later.I want more politicians who aren't afraid to say what they think. Whether I agree with them or not isn't what is important to me. I want more politicians like John McCain (and I'm a democrat to boot!) ... I demand them to come to me and say "Look, this initiative is stupid. This is why." I might agree or disagree with the 'why', but at least they put it simply. Tell me how it is. Don't sugar coat it.For example, I'm sure many of you have heard about the fires here in AZ. Governor Hull, cut from the same cloth as many politicians, immediately placed blame on someone other than herself. In her opinion, which she made public, she believed the fires were a result of the "east-coast liberal environmentalists". Oh please! Yes, they all came out here to the ponderosa pine forest with books of matches in hand.The way she should have handled it is like this: "People of Arizona ... we've got this really bad fire in Northern AZ. Could it have been prevented? Yes. The environmentalists made their case very public, but, regardless, I should have told the parks management to set prescribed fires and I'd deal with the backlash from the environmentalists."It's quite simple really. Gov't needs to get a good beating by the "reality-stick" and take a clue from business. Trim the fat. If you don't perform your job as how it's expected, you're fired. Simple. I want my politicians to tell me, when they're running for office "I'll keep it simple. This is what I think, and this is what I want to do. If I don't do as well as I should, I don't want you to re-elect me.". People will eat this up.Imagine you own a business. Are you going to keep paying Joe Slackoff to sit in his chair doing nothing? No. You fire him and hire someone else that can do the job. It's simple.So come on, admit the glaringly obvious. Public schools need to trim the fat. Get back to what teaching is about: teaching; not money and how much of it they get for free from the state. Public schools losing (actually, "not getting") money is the kick in the arse they need to get back on track. They don't deserve my money if they aren't going to use it wisely.That's all I ask. Keep it simple. I grew up in a 'typical' Italian-American immigrant family. My great-grandfather came to America with $12 and 4 oranges in 1916. He worked hard in the coal mines of West Virginia so his children could have a better life. He made sacrafices, why can't I? I pay my taxes (my sacrafice) and keep my end of the deal. Public education needs to keep up with theirs. Trim the fat. Simple. Capite?marco

[Guest]

Well Marco; I disagree with you on the condition of our public schools. Most are doing a great job. That's not to say that some aren't having problems. The key is to fix the one's that are having problems.Sounds like you advocate the fact that some rich dude can now send their kids to some fancy private school on the back of Grandpa and Grandma who are struggling to keep their house. Why does that sound so familar. One of my favorite lines is "Going to church every sunday no more makes a person a good christian than my sleeping in my garage makes me a car".

[Guest]

No, I don't advocate it. As written here earlier today: http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/DCForumID6/554.html#30Reliving history a little, I remember when I was a senior in high school ... another guy on the golf team was a sophomore ... a really great player. He had been offered a scholarship to go to a university on a golf scholarship. He turned it down.When he explained it, it was pretty straightforward. His parents could afford to send him to university, scholarship or not. He declined the scholarship so that some other student, one that, without the scholarship couldn't go to college, could get it.That's how I see the vouchers. If someone can afford it, but uses the vouchers, they need to make those vouchers available to someone who needs them.However, I think the language of the vouchers already states who is eligible and who isn't. If it isn't there, it should be.marco

[Guest]

And you, as an american, are not a representation of every american citizen. Your kids don't have the exact same knowledge as all other american kids do. Your kids may know about the law. Good for them. Not all kids do. Not all parents tell their kids every single one of their rights. If you think they're all like you, then you're quite arrogant. This thread is a drop in the ocean. Yes some people here may have learned some stuff (me the first), but not every single american reads this thread.Your free lunch example shows exactly what I mean. No your kids won't be bullied because they don't get free lunches. Because it's now accepted and widespread. On the other hand, children not reciting the pledge isn't common. Even if they're not forced to, they'll stand out like sore thumbs. It's very possible that the first kids who got free lunches were bullied (and not the other way round by the way. The ones who got free lunches were the ones "different" from the others): "Nananana, you're poor"... etc, to follow your pattern.Your "solutions" show exactly what I meant. You keep hammering at everbody with facts. You tell me about situations when your knowledge of the facts has earned you some credit, achievements... etc. You tell me you provide links to others to get informed. So what ? What does that prove ? You keep relying on facts, which is only good up to a point. You won't get "solutions" out of facts. The solutions were already there since the facts were there too. Just a problem of getting them all together to reach the appropriate conclusion, which I'm sure you do very well.But comes a point, facts need to be questioned. It's no good taking them at face-value. That's how changes are implemented and how the world moves on. This statement may sound shallow but is nevertheless true. If we all relied on existing facts (in this example, laws), we would never evolve. What you need to come up with is ideas, not examples of how knowing the facts proved you right. If you tried to impress me, that sure as hell failed. No point in dwelling on and on about the law in this thread. We're past this now, and everybody has now a great knowledge of the law in this matter. I'm waiting to see if someone is gonna learn a lesson from all that and suggest some way to prevent that from happening again. This is what a discussion is about, not throwing facts at each other. This is like the "gun thread" where I posted an idea related to future possible regulations instead of arguing about current regulations and rights, which didn't get a reply from you, even though you had no trouble flaming me before in that other thread... Anyway, this hasn't happened in this thread yet, and it certainly doesn't look like coming from you. I should count how often you say the word "fact". You may be right in everything you posted, but it makes the debate moves no further than where it was when it went to the Appeal Court. To be blunt, I'm getting tired of seeing quotes from texts of laws with no food for thought behind them to give them substance. If it comes to that, we might as well all go read the law and lock this thread, because it will end on nothing more than there was at the beginning. The more it goes, the more I tend to agree with Elrond and his opinion of you. Shame, because you could make a debate more interesting instead of closing down every avenue of thinking which opens by hammering us with facts. Think about it.PS: I knew you'd pick up on the teacher's fault quote. Yes you did say he/she was wrong. And moved on quickly to write several lines about the kid. You know perfectly well what I meant when I said you didn't think about the teacher's fault. Because you didn't. You threw it in for good measure. Just look at your reply, we're still on about kids, not teachers.__________________________________________________________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

[Sonar5 3]

You said: "And you, as an american, are not a representation of every american citizen."never said I was.You said:"Not all parents tell their kids every single one of their rights."Maybe they should, IMHOYou said:"No your kids won't be bullied because they don't get free lunches."You don't know that for sure, now do you?You said:"Your "solutions" show exactly what I meant. You keep hammering at everbody with facts."Very true, I agree with that statement. And I find nothing wrong with that, for the truth will set you free, IMHO.You said:"What you need to come up with is ideas, not examples of how knowing the facts proved you right."I have many ideas, and have implemented them where it counts. In my community and in my family. That is what is most important to me. I have talked with and even assisted my legislators on a variety of issues. So while I appreciate your opinions, I do not find your analogy of me even remotely correct. If you're ever in my area, I'll buy you a beer and I'll be happy to converse with you on my ideas.You Said:"If you tried to impress me, that sure as hell failed."I was never trying. It should be evident that I never reply in an attempt to impress anyone. I will agree or disagree, no matter who someone is. You see, that is my integrity, and yes, I rely on facts and the truth. The fact that you may not be impressed is irrelevent, IMHO. I could really give a rip whether you are impressed. Honestly.************************************You said:"This is like the "gun thread" where I posted an idea related to future possible regulations instead of arguing about current regulations and rights, which didn't get a reply from you, even though you had no trouble flaming me before in that other thread..."That is because I feel there are enough laws on the books regarding guns, and if the government simply enforced those laws, there would be less crime, IMHO.This was the thread if anyone is interested in what was said, since Eric brought it up again. Keep in mind that in that thread, Eric began IMHO, a purposeful agenda about kids and guns when the topic was about guns in the cockpit. And I stand by the words I wrote in that thread as well.http://ftp.avsim.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboa...orum=DCForumID6I never responded further, since I thought everything was said, but you Eric, must not think so. In fairness, I post the link so everyone can learn from it. Just more facts, Eric, Just more facts....**************************************You said:"You may be right in everything you posted, but it makes the debate moves no further than where it was when it went to the Appeal Court."Nope, I made a mistake, acknowledged it, apologized and moved on. At least I acknowledge my mistakes. And remember, the Supreme Court also thinks it never should have proceeded past the original dismissal, which means it never should have been brought to the appeals court. Don't forget, even Judge Goodwin halted the effect of his own decision potentially admitting to his error. That was also my point. I think suits like these waste the courts time, expense and money. The Constitution was not set up, IMHO, to extinguish every single right afforded me for the benefit of a few. Common sense was written in and needs to be applied. And it will be applied by either the full 9th, or SCOTUS, I promise you that, IMHO.You said:"If it comes to that, we might as well all go read the law and lock this thread, because it will end on nothing more than there was at the beginning."Well, maybe if more people did read the law which is freely available in any public library or on the imternet, or any court house, we would be better off, IMHO.You said:"The more it goes, the more I tend to agree with Elrond and his opinion of you. Shame, because you could make a debate more interesting instead of closing down every avenue of thinking which opens by hammering us with facts. Think about it."Life is not a popularity contest and I am neither here to make friends in this thread or not. It does not matter to me. But I will defend my positions vigorously and I apologize if my style offends you, but you have a choice to respond or skip over the thread. Maybe next time, you should just skip. Like the recitation of the pledge, it is your choice Eric. I will always speak for the truth, regardless of outcome, and If you have read most of my threads, you will see there are quite a few things that I too disagree with when it comes to my Government.You said:"PS: I knew you'd pick up on the teacher's fault quote. Yes you did say he/she was wrong. And moved on quickly to write several lines about the kid. You know perfectly well what I meant when I said you didn't think about the teacher's fault. Because you didn't. You threw it in for good measure. Just look at your reply, we're still on about kids, not teachers."Ahhhh, you see, you just reiterated my point. Just because you should of read your own post before hitting the send button, you place blame on me when I qualified my remarks. I find your response absolutely hypocritical. I acknowledge the Teacher was wrong, and I stated that if pushed, that Teacher most likely would not have put a child in that position.I still maintain, if you see someone breaking the law, it is your responsibility to report it. That child's or his parents ignorance of the law is no excuse. I teach my children what is right, and what is wrong, and I tell them if anything you are being advised to do is wrong, please tell me.Eric, there are many school districts where the pledge is not said. It is not uncommon these days.Happy Saturday, as I went to a baseball game, ate hot dogs, swam with my kids, and hit the batting cage with them. Isn't life great. And now, I am about to cook my favorite recipe, BBQ Ribs on the grill with my secret sauce, which I am always willing to share. :-)Regards,Joe :-wavehttp://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

[Guest]

hehehe. That was pretty good. Sorry, had it mixed up. I remember reading that but thought it was aimed at you instead of authored by your. My mistake. Good line. And good for that guy who gave up a scholarship cause he didn't need it. It reinforces my belief that people are basically good even if they have money.

[Guest]

You don't get it Joe... I never said you were wrong to go on and on about facts. It's always good to know all the facts before discussing anything. I said that you have to go beyond them after all has been said on what the actual facts are. I'm sure you taught everyone here what the texts really say and that's good. But it's done now. We now know. Time for suggestions.You wrote:"I have many ideas, and have implemented them where it counts. In my community and in my family. That is what is most important to me. I have talked with and even assisted my legislators on a variety of issues. So while I appreciate your opinions, I do not find your analogy of me even remotely correct. If you're ever in my area, I'll buy you a beer and I'll be happy to converse with you on my ideas."Joe, I'm not talking about getting rid of a speeding fine or getting a card to go to the pool for a cheaper rate. I'm talking about non-existent laws that affect the whole country. New laws and measures are not created in a court, but discussed in a parliament/congress/senate...etc (depending on the country). Forget going to the courts to defend your rights. That's all very good, but that's not what I'm talking about. See your reply to me saying it makes the debate moves no further. You go back to what the courts/judges said. It still doesn't change anything. Oh and thanks for the beer offer. :)A few things:yes it did sound like you were trying to impress people. Glad you're not.Yes, it would be better if more people read the law. I completely agree. It won't happen though. Hence my point about making it 1) clearer 2) more accessible i.e. less boring that having to read it in a library. I wouldn't find it boring, but I know countless people who sadly find reading boring, even more so when it's not a novel. So the last thing they'll read is the law. Unfortunately.No, my answer about the teacher being at fault is not hypocritical. I'm telling you the way it sounds to me. That you acknowledge the teacher's mistake but essentially blame the kid for not knowing his rights, which is what you've been doing all along in this thread (blaming people's ignorance). So yes it does sound like you threw it in for good measure, while knowing all along you'd side with the teacher. Again, that's how it sounded to me and that's what I said. I did realise what I wrote before I hit the Post button for the first time in this thread. I also disagreed with that, and I explained why I thought a 10 year old kid could hardly be blamed for not standing up to his/her rights. But that's just my opinion...__________________________________________________________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

[Sonar5 3]

Eric,I think we're just about done here. Thanks for the civil discussion. :-)I absolutely did not side with the Teacher. I said she was wrong. But you see, they were both wrong, and I believe they should share equal blame. The Teacher for requiring and the student for not knowing they did not have to. Now think about this, did Asvi tell his parents when he got home. Did his parents inquire after that. If not, why not. I know if I got yelled at for something like that at 10, I most likely would have said something, and I believe based on my kids personalities, they would also tell me about it.I am sorry if you took my words out of the context they are written. You have now learned that I mean exactly what I say. I try to not be ambigous because that leads to many inaccuracies like those shown in this thread.What I side with is individual rights. Any person has a right to say the pledge in any building, public or private.But it does not diminish the responsability of someone, anyone to call that teacher out. Is it another teacher's responsibility, the principal, the police.Well, in most similar cases, these never go to court, because someone does and up explaining the law to the offender.In some cases I have read, the school can implement the saying of the pledge into the school day. That has not changed. When you talk about rights, I'm sorry, but I still disagree with you as I beleive it is my responsability to know my rights and I should not rely on the government to explain them.While it is true, our language has changed since the 1700's when the Constitution was written, I believe those fundamental rights are quite clear.You may disagree with that and I respect your opinion, it won't change mine. We will just have to agree to disagree.And, BTW, you are absolutely correct that there are bad laws, and there is room for change.Regards,Joe :-wave http://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

[Guest]

Hi Bill,I appreciate the argument you bring to light:"Or, putting it another way, how does anyone's "right" to non-theistic belief trump another's "right" to theistic belief?"I don't believe it does. I strongly believe that all religious systems that adhere to established laws and at least the spirit of moral society are equal in rights. I've long had arguments with atheist friends about their own belief system indeed being a religion. It has been my experience that only the most serious atheist who has a true lack of belief in a higher order and power will admit that theirs is indeed a religion in itself. Its those who are anti established religion that usually argue the point to futility. As the dictionary points out, religion is simply "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion". When one has an axe to grind with an established religion or set thereof, for any reason, its that axe that effectively becomes their religion.But the general spirit of this thread really has nothing to do with the above. My stating, "You are advocating forcing your beliefs on someone else - plain and simple" is in response to an argument that "under God" has a State sanctioned right to be professed in a public school. Our nation is thankfully so diverse that it covers all walks of life and religious systems: which include non-theists, polytheism and everything in between.Again, I would fight all I am able to uphold the right of both theists and non-theists to congregate or privately express and affirm their belief systems. It is when the State itself, which is of course the umbrella for *all* peoples and systems of belief in this country, advocates one set of beliefs over any other that I begin to have a problem.Hopefully that clarifies my statement... If it seemed out of context and thus befuddled its intent, then I apologize.Take care,http://members.rogers.com/eelvish/elrondlogo.gifhttp://members.rogers.com/eelvish/flyurl.gif

[Guest]

Hi Joe and Eric and the rest of you fellow avsimmers !phew! I was the weekend away and this thread has really grown! Great!I just want to bring a few more thoughts about my teacher yelling at me back in 1987.I didn't tell my parents when I got home about the teacher yelling at me. It really didn't seem such a big deal to me. The point is I didn't always tell my parents if I got yelled at for example talking in class when you're not supposed to.Now that I am older I can reflect back and realize that when there's a class full of 10 year olds who have just come to the country, each for their various reasons, reciting (I hope I spelled that right) the pledge, I can pretty much say that none of us understood the meaning of the words in it.Everybody just went along and did it. I for one thought it to be just the way of the country. Here in Finland some schools have a morning sing-a-long (not necessarily religious) just to open the dull school day so to speak.My teacher was actually a wonderfull person handling a group of children from all over the world and by the end of the year teaching us to speak english (more or less).When you are an adult some things just seem so different when not viewed by the eyes of a child