KHS Teacher Controversy

[Strife767]

A. V. Blom, on Dec 27 2006, 08:23 PM, wrote:

Without the use of anything even resembling reading comprehension.

And you can do more than baldly assert it?

Because it is.

You're familiar with the fallacy of circular reasoning, other than via the exercise of same?

Let it be known that I nearly fell out of my chair laughing at this.

The fundies are the reigning KINGS of circular logic. One need look no further than the assertion that "the bible is the word of god because it says it is" to realize that.

[Bryan]

Let it be known that I nearly fell out of my chair laughing at this.

The fundies are the reigning KINGS of circular logic. One need look no further than the assertion that "the bible is the word of god because it says it is" to realize that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, man, I am so embarrassed.

I didn't realize that since x number of "fundies" have used circular reasoning that therefore I shouldn't say anything about it when, for example, A. V. Blom produces an argument that fits the form.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Strife, for your invaluable observation.

[Guest Guest]

When you accused me of lying, you provided inaccurate information,

What inaccurate information? This is the piece of information I've been quoting:

Since Paskiewicz is not Congress (AFAICT, anyway), it does not appear that he broke the First Amendment.

It's a verbatim quote. Nothing inaccurate about it. Or are you going to tell me now you didn't write it? I wouldn't be surprised given your behavior so far.

You're not fooling anyone. When someone writes "Since Paskiewicz is not Congress (AFAICT, anyway), it does not appear that he broke the First Amendment." like you did, the only reason anyone would write such a sentence is that he thinks the First Amendment doesn't apply to non-Congress entities. That is obvious to any reasonable person.

I corrected your mistake by citing a Supreme Court ruling that applied First Amendment to an non-Congress entity, thereby rendering your "Since Paskiewicz is not Congress (AFAICT, anyway), it does not appear that he broke the First Amendment." argument invalid.

At this point, any reasonable person in your position would just admit that he was wrong and move on. Yet for some bizarre reasons you decided to lie and claimed that you have "never, ever" taken your previous position on First Amendment. Why? I do not know.

To make it worse, you decided to turn around and accuse me of creating a straw man when I corrected your mistaken position on First Amendment, which you now deny you've ever hold. I suppose this is your own little attempt to divert attention from your mistake. Nice try.

Yes, this is truly pathetic.

And now your skeptical allies are groaning because you've made them look bad (not personally, but as a group).

Don't worry. The only ones groaning are your fundie buddies because you've shown the world your lack of rationality is only surpassed by your lack of integrity.

[Guest Paul]

This is a short reply since this particular "Guest" is a waste of time.

Demonstration below.

"Engel v. Vitale concerned the enactment of a state law mandating the reading of a prayer composed by state officials. The law was held unconstitutional (and could only be found so according to the First Amendment in light of the Fourteenth Amendment). The teacher in this case is not a law that may be found unconstitutional."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...616entry39616

Check the time stamp, along with the author (as I had suggested you might do in an earlier post).

Your arguments are too pathetic for me to justify wasting time on them.

The quotation above demonstrates rather unequivocally my proper understanding of the expansion of the First Amendment via the Fourteenth Amendment to governments (not individuals) in advance of any conversation with a "Guest" other than Paul LaClair.

When you accused me of lying, you provided inaccurate information, and given that I informed you of the manner in which you could verify the truth of what I said--and you ignored it--you accomplished the moral equivalent of lying when you repeated your false accusation.

Guest:  "Christofundies love to fixate on the wording "Congress". In their fantasy world any non-Congress governmental entity can do whatever they want regarding religions as long as they're not passing laws."

Bryan:  "Well, if you knew me better (such as by reading some of my other posts), you'd realize that isn't what I believe (it might involve ignoring Strife's inaccurate posts as to that)."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ic=2898&st=600#

But you, "Guest," just ignored that.

And now your skeptical allies are groaning because you've made them look bad (not personally, but as a group).

Way to go, champ.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan, with all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. No one schooled in the law denies that a public school teacher is bound by the establishment clause. I'm just curious: Do you have any legal training?

[Guest Guest]

Here is the link to the New York Times' editorial on the story, December 31, 2006, New Jersey section.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/31/opinion/...yregionopinions

[Bryan]

Bryan, with all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. No one schooled in the law denies that a public school teacher is bound by the establishment clause.

Your statement is equivocal, Paul. Could you be specific? Are you talking about something in the material you quoted, or no?

I'm just curious: Do you have any legal training?

You are curious, aren't you?

[Strife767]

Bryan, with all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. No one schooled in the law denies that a public school teacher is bound by the establishment clause.

Finally, thank you!

I'm just curious: Do you have any legal training?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest Guest]

Bryan, with all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. No one schooled in the law denies that a public school teacher is bound by the establishment clause. I'm just curious: Do you have any legal training?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The answer is obvious.

Anyone who wrote

"Since Paskiewicz is not Congress (AFAICT, anyway), it does not appear that he broke the First Amendment."

obviously know nothing about the laws.

[Guest Paul]

Your statement is equivocal, Paul.  Could you be specific?  Are you talking about something in the material you quoted, or no?

You are curious, aren't you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is no need to be specific, Bryan. A public school teacher is bound by the establishment clause. That is an accurate statement of the law independent of context.

[Guest Guest]

Let it be known that I nearly fell out of my chair laughing at this.

The fundies are the reigning KINGS of circular logic. One need look no further than the assertion that "the bible is the word of god because it says it is" to realize that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Strife - this comment is idiotic. You are being a detriment to our cause. How about acknowledging the point Bryan is trying to make, and then adding something constructive and/or of value that explains to him why he is wrong in this instance (instead of some non sequitor that is neither contructive nor terribly creative). If you can't step it up and be meaningful, please leave the arguments to Paul, Matthew and/or Blom.

[Bryan]

There is no need to be specific, Bryan. A public school teacher is bound by the establishment clause. That is an accurate statement of the law independent of context.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In that case, it isn't clear where we disagree and it looks like you probably interpreted my comments out of context.

[Guest Perplexed]

The other night I sat in front of my television and watched the ceromony at the Capitol for the arrival of President Ford's casket. This took place in a government building, it was a government ceremony, with government staff participating. The ceremony opened with a prayer that started out "Almighty God...............................". The pray was then followed up by a chorus singing "God Bless America".

I'm not a church going person but I must say it gave me goose bumps and I was damn proud for Mr. Ford and his family, everyone that was participating in the ceromony, our country and even for myself. It brought back a part of my life that in one way seems so long ago and yet feels like yesterday. It brought back the inocence when life was alot simpler (Didn't know that then). It brought me back to sitting in front of the television as a young boy, watching the JFK funeral with my parents, since gone and dearly missed. It made me think how we got from where we were back in the 70's when Ford was President and how we got to where we are now.

MY POINT:

Well, I guess it's called progress but to tell you the truth I think we're going backwards. I wish I could offer that same inocence to my own children but I'm afraid it's gone.

MY OBSERVATION:

Reading alot of these posts over the last few weeks, there seems to be alot of angry people who are not happy with themselves and their lives. Did this teacher screw up? By the law, yes. But he didn't do anything immoral. These are his beliefs and he is of high moral character and totally dedicated to his beliefs. He should be disciplined apropriately within the guilde lines of the law and the BOE.

Those of you out there that are unhappy with yourselves should move on and get lives. This issue has gotten more attention then the teacher or the priest that molested little children over the past 20 years.

The world would be a much better place with more religious people and less lawyers!

[Guest Paul]

The other night I sat in front of my television and watched the ceromony at the Capitol for the arrival of President Ford's casket.  This took place in a government building, it was a government ceremony, with government staff participating.  The ceremony opened with a prayer that started out "Almighty God...............................".  The pray was then followed up by a chorus singing "God Bless America". 

I'm not a church going person but I must say it gave me goose bumps and I was damn proud for Mr. Ford and his family, everyone that was participating in the ceromony, our country and even for myself.  It brought back a part of my life that in one way seems so long ago and yet feels like yesterday.  It brought back the inocence when life was alot simpler (Didn't know that then).  It brought  me back to sitting in front of the television as a young boy, watching the JFK funeral with my parents, since gone and dearly missed.  It made me think how we got from where we were back in the 70's when Ford was President and how we got to where we are now.

MY POINT:

Well, I guess it's called progress but to tell you the truth I think we're going backwards.  I wish I could offer that same inocence to my own children but I'm afraid it's gone. 

MY OBSERVATION:

Reading alot of these posts over the last  few weeks, there seems to be alot of angry people who are not happy with themselves and their lives.  Did this teacher screw up? By the law, yes. But he didn't do anything immoral.  These are his beliefs and he is of high moral character and totally dedicated to his beliefs. He should be disciplined apropriately within the guilde lines of the law and the BOE.

Those of you out there that are unhappy with yourselves should move on and get lives.  This issue has gotten more attention then the teacher or the priest that molested little children over the past 20 years. 

The world would  be a much better place with more religious people and less lawyers! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just because a person doesn't believe in your conception of God doesn't mean he isn't religious.

Just because a person is upset about gross violations of the law, abysmal teaching and abuses of authority doesn't mean that person is characteristically angry.

I consider lying and attempting to blame a student he knew to be telling the truth highly immoral, and certainly unethical.

[Strife767]

Strife - this comment is idiotic.  You are being a detriment to our cause.  How about acknowledging the point Bryan is trying to make, and then adding something constructive and/or of value that explains to him why he is wrong in this instance (instead of some non sequitor that is neither contructive nor terribly creative).

Because I'm not involved in that conversation at all, and I was just making a personal side comment that is completely unrelated to the actual 'arguments.' The irony just made me laugh, that's all.

Believe me--when I'm actually involving myself in the argument, you'll notice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Bryan]

Three strikes rule in effect for A. V. Blom.

Otherwise he’ll waste too much time.

The topic was a supposed justification of judging that Paszkiewicz proselytized, so I’ll sift for that stuff even after Blom whiffs.

And you can do more than baldly assert it?

So far I have.

Blum is exhibiting a bit of chronological confusion, here. My response is written as I read his message, so he has not provided evidence as of my writing. His attempt at arguing the point was to post fairly large individual snippets of the 9-14 transcripts as self-evident proof that Paszkiewicz was proselytizing. Outside corner on this one, though. I’m not going to call strikes on the edges of the plate.

You're familiar with the fallacy of circular reasoning, other than via the exercise of same?

Yes, I am, and this is clearly NOT a case of circular reasoning, since the whole argument is not dependent upon this. The logical progression is not:

He proselytized ---> because he proselytized

It is:

He proselytized ---> Because of the following reasons (cue the rest of post).

No mention was made as of then that evidence would follow, so the conclusion is creatively embellished given what Blum had written so far.

Again, substituting insult for dealing with the issues (still no argument).  Boring.

Style over substance fallacy, Bryan, AND a Strawman. Arguments have been given. Don't blame me if I respond to insults with insults.

Here, Blom attempts to identify a fallacy and fumbles badly.

The charge is the lack of substance; that which replaces the substance (insult) is irrelevant. As noted above, as of this point in the message Blum has no substance beyond his conclusion and a set of insults.

He also blows it by suggesting that there is a strawman fallacy present. What could the straw man possibly be? Clearly, the insults cannot be the argument all by themselves unless we credit Blum with the fallacy of ad homimen, and at this point of the post Blum hasn’t provided anything else except for his conclusion (buttressed by the reason—and I quote—“Because it is”) and a handful of insults.

What would you write if you didn't have insults to lean on?

There wouldn't be much left.

And yet another Style over Substance fallacy.

Incorrect again, since no conclusion about the argument is recommended on the basis of the lack of argument other than the fact that the argument is not apparent.

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argum...e_substance.htm

It is not a fallacy to state a simple fact.

I don’t care if people insult me. Where insult fails to accompany a real argument, however, it constitutes an ad hominem fallacy, and the commission of fallacies is a legitimate (inductive) consideration in weighing the strength of an argument. I leave that judgment to the reader, however, rather than pointing the reader in that direction (present explanation excepted).

I’m also not going to call a strike for the same mistake twice consecutively. Still only one strike on Blom.

You're getting repetitive. See above.

I'm talking specifically about the tired old 'you can't prove there is no God!' argument that runs so rampant among fundies like yourself.

And you base your assessment on what evidence?  None?  Nothing you're able to express in print, anyway?

Perhaps you should have read the rest of my post, then.

And perhaps Blom should have referenced what he intended to post later on as a corrective to his earlier classroom transcript quote-a-thon.

Your insults will henceforth be clipped (unless you come up with something creative, which I would preserve out of respect) since they do not contribute anything significant to the discussion.

Neither did yours. It did not stop you...don't start crying once someone flames back.

Again, I don’t care if my opponent insults me. It’s up to him if he wants to concede the rhetorical edge like that to me.

It’s interesting that Blom feels that I insulted him, however. The reader is invited to examine the posts leading to the current exchange and compare the tone.

#603:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...=40225&st=600

#610:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...=40225&st=600

No strike called for mere bizarre judgment of insulting language, however.

His faith, as he clearly stated at the beginning of the text you quoted.

His faith-based assumption, in that case, was that something tends to come from something. You don't subscribe to that faith?

If he uses the example of God to illustrate something coming from something rather than something coming from nothing in the context of cosmology, therefore he is trying to get others to accept his religious faith?

He is trying to convince others that God created it.

That’s all assertion thus far (but I’ll be looking for the support to follow!).

Simply by stating it takes 'more faith' to believe 'something came from nothing' than that it was 'created by God', he clearly argues that a belie[f] in a creator requires less faith (and is therefore more credible) than no belief in a creator.

Should he have said or implied that both are equally likely? How is a teacher supposed to address cosmology at all without favoring one idea over another?

I’ll grant the point that this is a form of proselytizing if it is granted that recommending vacuum fluctuations from nothing as the origin of the universe also counts as proselytizing.

Can we start firing tenured university professors yet?

From there, it logically follows that he is attempting to convince them a creator exists.

(10 quote tags looks like the cap; later quotations of Blom in bold black)

You’d grant the converse argument, and fight just as hard for university professors to be fired for recommending nothing to something?

(Big Bang student survey)

http://aer.noao.edu/cgi-bin/article.pl?id=26

“The Universe may have simply been a random fluctuation out of nothing!”

http://cse.ssl.berkeley.edu/bmendez/ay10/2...otes/lec21.html

“Zero volume implies that it is “nothing.”

>a whole universe was created from “nothing” and

>the universe had a beginning out of that “nothing.”

http://cobweb.ecn.purdue.edu/~tatjanaj/NUC...cture1_2006.pdf

(page 14)

An infinite foam of inflated bubble universes, isolated from one another, all created from nothing? The math can be worked out. I find the story compelling.

http://www.physics.arizona.edu/physics/new...millennium.html

“The Accelerating Cosmos: "Dark Energy" in the Beginning and Now

or A Universe from Nothing: The standard Big Bang theory is very successful at explaining many observed aspects of the Universe.”

http://www.rhodes.edu/physics/NonDeptItems...nemeeting03.htm

“The Big Bang Hypothesis is an extraordinary concept. The origin of the Universe -- from nothing to everything.”

http://www.wooster.edu/geology/geo200W/geo200.html

“Many physicists have speculated that theoretical developments will eventually lead to a

"theory of everything" (TOE) in which all the basic principles of physics will be shown to follow

from a minimal set of assumptions, perhaps just statements of self-consistency. In that case, as

Einstein suggested, there may have been nothing for God to do.”

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Found/08Void.pdf

Unconstitutional speech if uttered at a public institution?

Keep to the parallel. It would read like this:

Teacher: I never said that my assumption isn't based on faith.

Remember I confessed that at the beginning. My point is it takes more

faith that something came from something, than a vacuum fluctuation created something out of nothing. You understand?

You completely disregarded my reply.

The reply was evasive; my reply was designed to steer back toward the specific issue. What’s the scientific evidence for creation of universes based on vacuum fluctuation and why is it more attractive than believing something came from something?

Evasion is not egregious enough to warrant a strike, at least in this instance.

Is it a religious belief to suppose that the universe was created out of nothing by a vacuum fluctuation? Why or why not?

If it has the science to back it up, no. If not, yes.

Now he’s pushing it.

If science backs up something coming from something over something coming from nothing (as in one being more likely than the other), is what Paszkiewicz said okay? Or does he need to check with the High Priests of Science to get their okay first?

Cosmology is a relevant classroom topic.

Not in a history class. Your red herring is noted.

A red herring, as a fallacy anyway, is an attempt to steer the discussion off-course to avoid a particular issue. Pointing out the lesser variety of red herring (temporary digression) is pointless, so Blom probably supposes that mentioning that Cosmology is a relevant classroom topic is a fallacious diversion. That supposition is false. I offered three consecutive paragraphs, and summed up in the third, beginning with “My point here is …”

Strike two.

There are only a handful of basic models, including varieties of steady-state hypothesis, spontaneous generation from nothing, or generation from a timeless something (either intelligent or unintelligent).

Only one of which makes sense given the current model.

Not that Blom would specify which one …

My point here is that any discussion of cosmological models where one model is favored by the instructor amounts to proselytizing if you stretch the idea of religion that far.

Except that only one of these (Big Bang) has any actual evidence to back it up without violating Occams Razor. The simple fact of the Red Shift of the universe shows that, some time ago, the universe was compressed in a single point.

So, we seem to have the proposition that proselytizing is okay if there is evidence in support.

There’s no support for something coming from something?

Religious beliefs are taught ubiquitously at that level, and applying church/state separation at that level is an inappropriate gag on discussion and inquiry.

There are proper places for discussion and inquiry of scientific topics. The classroom is not one of them. Especially when it is not the proper classroom to begin with. Big Bang is not a 'religious belief'. It follows logically from what we know (Doppler shift), and Occam's Razor (barring anything extraneous to observations).

Given the supposed propensity of science not to hold its theories too dear—always willing to revise them in the face of new evidence—why isn’t it a religious belief? Because it is supported so well that it is certain? Because it is not held as a firm belief (but firm enough to exclude the competition)?

Explain the paradox.

Let's suppose that I teach that the big bang theory rests on creating the universe from Nothing, and that this flavor of the theory is the most likely explanation for the existence of the universe.

Am I proselytizing? Why or why not?

No, if the theory is scientifically sound (Big Bang is). You would not be proselytizing because you would be teaching science.

So, it’s okay to teach wrong beliefs in the classroom if science says it’s okay? Steady-state theory until it goes out of vogue, followed by the Big Bang, followed by whatever science (maybe science should be capitalized?) says is the new orthodoxy after that?

And regardless of how wrong science is, the beliefs are not religious?

Interesting.

How about before Planck time?

Before Planck time? The very statement is nonsensical. Planck time, as the word is commonly used, is only the word used for the smallest possible amount of time (specifically, the time it takes for a photon to travel the distance of a single Planck length.

Scientists seem to make decent enough sense out of the term.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askas...sics/PHY137.HTM

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhRvD..28..756P

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/question...lerotation.html

http://www.physics.fsu.edu/courses/Spring0...2/Cosmology.pdf

I suppose I should let them know that Blom disapproves.

Really, though, this just looks like Blom's method of dodging the question.

I’ll refrain from calling strike three on that one.

By taking the argument that lack of intelligence is no bar to ornate complexity, I should be able to provide a stunningly elegant proof even if I were completely lacking in intelligence.

And this is relevant, how?

If you include insults in your message, Blom, don’t whine if I take a shot at one of your insults. It’s at least as relevant as any of your insults.

Your response makes no sense at all.

I hear this from the person who, when called on explaining his views in terms of complexity, responds by not at all using probability.

And that’s relevant how?

(a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe)

Funny, I have that definition, as well. Except that, when reading the full source, it states:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Pumpkin pie is good, especially with whipped topping.

(therefore pumpkin pie without whipped topping isn’t good?)

Blom is not the first skeptic to stumble this way over “especially,” so I won’t call the third strike just yet.

It looks as though he doesn’t like the basic definition.

However, to be more complete, a good definition can also be found in the American Heritage Dictionary, which is the one I'm using:

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

So Scientology isn’t a religion by that definition …

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-scie...-home-headlines

A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

So we can indoctrinate school children in Confucianism, deityless Taoism and Buddhism, Scientology … any others you can think of?

Atheism? Can we indoctrinate children in atheism?

Myself, I’m leaning toward creating a new sect of Christianity that doesn’t worship God or recognize him as creator, but just accepts Jesus and his ethical teachings in order to experience eternal life.

That’s okay with you, given your definition of religion, yes? And we could teach it in school?

Does teaching science in class predispose students to having certain beliefs about the cause and nature of the universe?

Certain beliefs, yes. Which should not be confused with religion.

… the definition of religion that you do not like notwithstanding, I see.

That’s strike three, but I want to see what he comes up with next.

This is a belief in the same way mathematics predisposes you to believing the derivative of X^2 is equal to 2X.

Faith requires a definition for purposes of this discussion. I'll let you recommend one.

In this case, it meant the same thing as 'religion'.

Blum’s preferred definition works against him in this case. By trying to carve out some protected room around Naturalism, he opens the door for a host of religions and seemingly enables Paszkiewicz to offer the idea of a creator so long as he doesn’t encourage outright worship of the creator (belief and worship).

Three strikes, so now I’ll sift what’s left to see if he tried to deal with the issue (arguing—with reason--that Paskiewicz proselytized).

I was not arguing that, since Paskiewicz believes in dinosaurs on Noah's ark, he should be disregarded. I was arguing that Paskiewicz, in said specific argument, was proselytizing. To pre-empt any sophistry on your part, I noted that, over the whole conversation, he was clearly arguing in favor of Abrahamic faith.

His purpose in answering the student’s question was primarily to get the students to accept his view, or to accept that it was his opinion?

So does reading the Declaration of Independence, what with the concept of unalienable rights relating directly to a purpose for the universe.

Which in no sense addresses my argument. Another Red Herring.

Apparently Blom is not familiar with reductio ad absurdum. But at least he can use “red herring” indiscriminately.

Why would having science to back it up make a difference?

Because science actually IS taught in high school? And as such, is part of a required curriculum?

Religion is part of history and is taught in high school. That’s where most kids learn about Zeus.

This next comment does not immediately concern the issue of proselytizing, but it’s too hilarious to pass up.

You should also note that the ONLY presupposition you need for science is the existence of the outside universe.

If you had to choose between a belief in an external reality and trust in sense-data, which would you pick?

Can you really do science without the latter?

belief that is not based on proof

It's really past time for your definition of religion. You seem to define it (following your statement above) as beliefs that have no scientific backing.

Something inherently linked to the term 'faith', but otherwise completely accurate, yes.

What scientific backing is there for ethical/moral beliefs?

Game over until Blom figures out a solution to the pickle he’s placed himself in.

[Guest Skepticus]

So I suppose we will continue to ignore the question...

Do I realy need to spell out the relevance and implications of this question?:

What if the teacher was prostelysing X? (where X is a non-Christian worldview)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest Dingo Dave]

So I suppose we will continue to ignore the question...

Do I realy need to spell out the relevance and implications of this question?:

What if the teacher was prostelysing X? (where X is a non-Christian worldview)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The silence has been deafening......... (crickets chirping)

[Guest spinetingler]

The " Pledge "

as you call it, is an oath, and it is every Americans duty to stand when taking an oath of allegiance.       

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We as Americans are not required to take any oaths of allegiance.

[Guest Guest]

We as Americans are not required to take any oaths of allegiance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, there should be no need to take general oaths of allegiance from a brave and free people. Why would an oath be needed?

Do some have such a low opinion of others they feel loyalty needs to be gotten through oaths or is it a carryover from medieval times?

Do anyone really believe scoundrels will obey their oaths?

But in some cases they are required -military enlistment and officers oaths.

[Guest Guest]

Yes it the right, but it's wrong, I stand for evrything this country is about, you must be one of those Canada people, who instead of protecting and serving our country you decided it was "Your Right " not to be an American. The " Pledge "

as you call it, is an oath, and it is every Americans duty to stand when taking an oath of allegiance.       

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That was the rule in the former but not missed communist Soviet Union. Also in Hitler's Germany.

But this is America.

Its un-American to require everyone to stand for the pledge. Google Jehovah's Witnesses and Pledge of Allegiance. Also the Anabaptists (Amish and Mennonites) don't do pledges.

Are they all disloyal and not doing their duty?

[Guest K]

We as Americans are not required to take any oaths of allegiance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right; if we're born here, we are citizens, no oaths required. (And yet we require that those seeking to become U.S. citizens take an oath!) I do agree that the Pledge of Allegiance shouldn't be uttered in vain repetition. However, it's sad that so many of those who enjoy the benefits of being an American don't show respect for the American flag or those who chose to recite the Pledge. To not say the Pledge is a personal choice and I can respect Matt's choice not to say it, I do not condone his lack of respect though! Perhaps his classmates and school staff that have been subjected to his rude and insulting behavior regarding their beliefs should expect an apology from him?

[Bryan]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The silence has been deafening......... (crickets chirping)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fiddlesticks.

My answer still doesn't count, apparently.

[Strife767]

To not say the Pledge is a personal choice and I can respect Matt's choice not to say it,  I do not condone his lack of respect though!

Lack of respect for who?

Perhaps his classmates and school staff that have been subjected to his rude and insulting behavior regarding their beliefs should expect an apology from him?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I haven't heard of Matthew acting in a "rude and insulting" way toward anyone else's beliefs. What behavior are you referring to? Be specific.

[Guest Paul]

You're right; if we're born here, we are citizens, no oaths required.  (And yet we require that those seeking to become U.S. citizens take an oath!)  I do agree that  the Pledge of Allegiance shouldn't be uttered in vain repetition.  However, it's sad that so many of those who enjoy the benefits of being an American don't show respect for the American flag or those who chose to recite the Pledge.  To not say the Pledge is a personal choice and I can respect Matt's choice not to say it,  I do not condone his lack of respect though!  Perhaps his classmates and school staff that have been subjected to his rude and insulting behavior regarding their beliefs should expect an apology from him?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In other words, it's an important freedom, which no one should ever use. How utterly typical of people who think they value principles, except when it comes time to apply them.

[Guest Dingo Dave]

(Skepticus @ Jan 4 2007, 11:25 AM)

So I suppose we will continue to ignore the question...

Do I realy need to spell out the relevance and implications of this question?:

What if the teacher was prostelysing X? (where X is a non-Christian worldview)

Fiddlesticks.

My answer still doesn't count, apparently.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Apparently not. If Skepticus is still asking, then he can't have found your answer to be very convincing can he?

Just out of interest, what was your answer?