KHS Uniform Committee Meeting

[Guest Guest]

You're confused, I'll explain it to you. We are a Christian nation,

Bzzt, wrong. See the Treaty of Tripoli, keeping in mind that under the Constitution, treaties are effectively law:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..." --Treaty of Tripoli

therefore our pledge contains the words "under God". That should be easy to

understand even for an atheist.

Why didn't the original pledge have those words, then, smartass?

The words "under God" will never be removed from the pledge.

Either the words will go, or the pledge will be removed as something that's allowed, for example, to be led by a teacher in public schools. Mark my words.

If you find those words objectionable, that's your

problem, deal with it.

You're the one who's going to have to deal with the fact that the Consitution directly contradicts you.

And FYI, I do consider non-Christians second class citizens. Correction: Ignorant second class citizens.

Move to a theocracy, then. They'd love to have bigots like you there.

Unfortunately for you, the Constitution disagrees with you. Deal with it.

[Guest Guest]

"Our country is in trouble", "in it's decadent stage", "period of national decline". Paul's love of country is obvious,

Yes it is, because he wants to improve the country. Not like an idiot like you, who pretends everything is fine all the time, and makes no effort to improve anything.

[WilliamK]

You're confused, I'll explain it to you. We are a Christian nation, therefore our pledge contains the words "under God". That should be easy to

understand even for an atheist. The words "under God" will never be removed from the pledge. If you find those words objectionable, that's your

problem, deal with it.

You "under God" defenders really need to get your story straight. On the one hand, some of you argue that "under God" doesn't constitute an endorsement of religion or exclude anyone because it doesn't specify which god. Then others among you (presumably, as the same people arguing both points would be profoundly stupid) argue that it belongs there because this is a "Christian nation".

Though wrong about this being a Christian nation, I do have to give the latter group some credit for at least being truthful about the motivation. "Under God" is a government endorsement of religion. And specifically the Christian religion. Does anyone actually believe that the people who voted it into the pledge had in mind to acknowledge any God but the Christian one? If so, were you born yesterday? They may have had the feigned non-specificity in mind as a way to defend what they were doing, but you'd have to be an idiot to believe that "under God" was really intended to refer to Vishnu, Zeus, or Gaia. You'd have to be even more of an idiot to believe that it wasn't intended to marginalize anyone because of their religious beliefs. Given the historical context of the cold war and McCarthyism, it was clearly meant to draw a distinction between the US and the "godless communists", particularly the "godless" part. "Under God" was put in the pledge for the purpose of making a government endorsement of a specific religion and marginalizing atheism, and by extension atheists. It is indefensible against the first amendment other than by pretending it to be something other than what it clearly is.

And FYI, I do consider non-Christians second class citizens.

Of course you do. You're a bigot. And that's what bigots do.

Correction: Ignorant second class citizens.

Are you sure you're not really an atheist trying to make Christians look bad?

[Guest Guest]

You're confused, I'll explain it to you. We are a Christian nation, therefore our pledge contains the words "under God". That should be easy to

understand even for an atheist. The words "under God" will never be removed from the pledge. If you find those words objectionable, that's your

problem, deal with it. And FYI, I do consider non-Christians second class citizens. Correction: Ignorant second class citizens.

We're not a Christian nation, stupid. What part of "the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion" don't you understand?

If we're a Christian nation, how come it's not illegal to disobey the first commandment?

Your unamerican bigotry is disgusting. Here's one part of the pledge you obviously don't pay enough attention to: "liberty and justice for all". Not liberty and justice just for Christians, but for ALL. Your attitude clashes distinctly with the foundations of this country, but it fits in perfectly with the philosophy of Iran. Coincidence? I don't think so.

[Guest Guest]

I agree with you, the word under god should never have been placed in the pledge. The pledge was originally written by a Socialist as a poem for a socialist magazine. Sometime in the 1950's the Christian church petitioned congress to add the words " Under God" to the pledge. However I still stand by my earlier comments. If you don't want to say the words " Under God" then don't say them. Still though stand up and recite the pledge just leave out the words that offend you, now thats fair.There were those I went to school with that were Athiests and they stood for the pledge and left out the words under god but at least they stood and showed respect. By sitting thru the pledge this kid is not only being disrespectful but is showing his contempt for those who sacrificed their lives so that you and I can have this discussion.

So you have your ideas about what should be, and Matthew has his. There is not the slightest evidence that he has contempt for our soldiers, our leaders or anyone else. What he is doing is called dissent. You keep ignoring that point. He has made his reasons clear. You simply choose to ignore what he has said; that is what is disrespectful.

[Guest Paul]

I agree with you, the word under god should never have been placed in the pledge. The pledge was originally written by a Socialist as a poem for a socialist magazine. Sometime in the 1950's the Christian church petitioned congress to add the words " Under God" to the pledge. However I still stand by my earlier comments. If you don't want to say the words " Under God" then don't say them. Still though stand up and recite the pledge just leave out the words that offend you, now thats fair.There were those I went to school with that were Athiests and they stood for the pledge and left out the words under god but at least they stood and showed respect. By sitting thru the pledge this kid is not only being disrespectful but is showing his contempt for those who sacrificed their lives so that you and I can have this discussion.

KHS alumnus: I can see how a country whose people are conditioned to the idea of 100% participation in certain rituals is subject to tyranny. In a country like that, the people are vulnerable, especially in times of national crisis (real or perceived), to electing a leader with a committed core of followers who then equates dissent with disloyalty. In such a country, people's liberties will be eroded and thoughtful discussion of the issues most central to the people's security will be suppressed under the guise of "national security." People will be afraid to speak out in opposition to such a leader for fear of being labeled disloyal, or worse. This is exactly what has happened in the United States since 9/11/01 under George W. Bush. The worst leaders use rituals like pledges and flag salutes to consolidate their power and imbue it with dictatorial features.

By contrast, I can see no damage at all to a country if some citizens sit out patriotic rituals to make a point. This is not disrespectful to our soldiers, dead and living, but profoundly respectful of them - because such dissent preserves the same liberty those soldiers, and others, fought to preserve.

Please tell me, then, KHS alumnus, and I ask most respectfully:

1. How does Matthew's dissent harm our country? I see the harm to our country in your attitude, but I see no harm at all in his dissent. I think you have it exactly backwards. I don't see it, so please tell me.

2. If what I have described above does not describe what has happened in the United States since 9/11/01, including the suppression of news and the unthinking passage of the so-called "Patriot Act," even though virtually no one in Congress had read the bill before they passed it, then how do you explain it? Even if you agree with everything in this legislation, how can you justify the passage of legislation virtually no one had read? What does it tell you that it happened that way?

3. Can you appreciate that while you equate Matthew's dissent with disrespect, others see it differently? Is it possible that there might be another way for you to see it?

4. Why do you completely ignore his justification for sitting out the pledge?

KHS alumnus, you have taken the time to post here. Obviously, this is important to you. It is important to me, too. So please respond to his justification and to these questions, for no intelligent discussion can occur unless the opposing sides engage each other's points.

[KHS81]

KHS alumnus: I can see how a country whose people are conditioned to the idea that 100% participation in certain rituals is subject to tyranny. In a country like that, the people are vulnerable, especially in times of national crisis (real or perceived), to electing a leader with a committed core of followers who then equates dissent with disloyalty. In such a country, people's liberties will be eroded and thoughtful discussion of the issues most central to the people's security will be suppressed under the guise of "national security." People will be afraid to speak out in opposition to such a leader for fear of being labeled disloyal, or worse. This is exactly what has happened in the United States since 9/11/01 under George W. Bush. The worst leaders use rituals like pledges and flag salutes to consolidate their power and imbue it with dictatorial features.

By contrast, I can see no damage at all to a country if some citizens sit out patriotic rituals to make a point. This is not disrespectful to our soldiers, dead and living, but profoundly respectful of them - because such dissent preserves the same liberty those soldiers, and others, fought to preserve.

Please tell me, then, KHS alumnus, and I ask most respectfully:

1. How does Matthew's dissent harm our country? I see the harm to our country in your attitude, but I see no harm at all in his dissent. I think you have it exactly backwards. I don't see it, so please tell me.

2. If what I have described above does not describe what has happened in the United States since 9/11/01, including the suppression of news and the unthinking passage of the so-called "Patriot Act," even though virtually no one in Congress had read the bill before they passed it, then how do you explain it? Even if you agree with everything in this legislation, how can you justify the passage of legislation virtually no one had read? What does it tell you that it happened that way?

3. Can you appreciate that while you equate Matthew's dissent with disrespect, others see it differently? Is it possible that there might be another way for you to see it?

4. Why do you completely ignore his justification for sitting out the pledge?

KHS alumnus, you have taken the time to post here. Obviously, this is important to you. It is important to me, too. So please respond to his justification and to these questions, for no intelligent discussion can occur unless the opposing sides engage each other's points.

As for the Patriot Act I can't explain Congress's rush to pass legislation for national security. Other than the fear of getting attacked again, but lets not put the blame just on Bush. This was a bipartisan effort both democrat and republican.So are you saying that since 9/11 the media has been supressed, what planet are you living on, the media has been nothing more than very active whether it be coverage in Iraq or investigating Washington politicians. By sitting out the pledge your showing that you have no Allegiance to the country. I on the other hand am proud of the USA good or bad we are afterall the GREATEST nation on the planet.Am I brainwashed no I'm not I do this of my own free will. I will stand for the pledge I will place my hand over my heart. At 18 I was proud and honored to sign my selective service card, although i could not serve in the military due to a childhood illness, I would to this day lay my life on the line in defense of this great nation. could the same be said for you

[Guest Guest]

"Our country is in trouble", "in it's decadent stage", "period of national decline". Paul's love of country is obvious, is it any wonder they won't

stand for the pledge.

But we are in trouble.

We used to be a top creditor nation. Now we are the world's biggest debtor nation. As a result, the dollar is in major trouble, to such an extent that many countries don't want to trade in it.

Our manufacturing jobs have gone overseas. We have not come up with an answer. Instead, our politicians only tell us what they think key groups want to hear.

Our students are falling further and further behind in science and math. As a result, and also because labor in many other countries is cheaper, if you want technological advice - about your computer, for example - you're likely to speak with someone in India. Those jobs are going overseas.

Other countries have much higher taxes on gas and oil than we do. As a result, they are not as wasteful as we are. We have talked about energy independence for more than thirty years, but we have done virtually nothing to achieve it. Instead, our answer is to fight wars to make sure the oil keeps flowing. That's not cost effective, not to mention it's immoral.

While other countries are doing what we used to do when our parents and grandparents were sacrificing to build this country, we have turned into a nation of greedy, spoiled consumers who want instant gratification of every desire. Of course that's decadence.

When a person loves his country, he tells the truth, even if it isn't what fools like you want to hear.

[Guest Not KHS81]

KHS alumnus: I can see how a country whose people are conditioned to the idea that 100% participation in certain rituals is subject to tyranny. In a country like that, the people are vulnerable, especially in times of national crisis (real or perceived), to electing a leader with a committed core of followers who then equates dissent with disloyalty. In such a country, people's liberties will be eroded and thoughtful discussion of the issues most central to the people's security will be suppressed under the guise of "national security." People will be afraid to speak out in opposition to such a leader for fear of being labeled disloyal, or worse. This is exactly what has happened in the United States since 9/11/01 under George W. Bush. The worst leaders use rituals like pledges and flag salutes to consolidate their power and imbue it with dictatorial features.

By contrast, I can see no damage at all to a country if some citizens sit out patriotic rituals to make a point. This is not disrespectful to our soldiers, dead and living, but profoundly respectful of them - because such dissent preserves the same liberty those soldiers, and others, fought to preserve.

Please tell me, then, KHS alumnus, and I ask most respectfully:

1. How does Matthew's dissent harm our country? I see the harm to our country in your attitude, but I see no harm at all in his dissent. I think you have it exactly backwards. I don't see it, so please tell me.

2. If what I have described above does not describe what has happened in the United States since 9/11/01, including the suppression of news and the unthinking passage of the so-called "Patriot Act," even though virtually no one in Congress had read the bill before they passed it, then how do you explain it? Even if you agree with everything in this legislation, how can you justify the passage of legislation virtually no one had read? What does it tell you that it happened that way?

3. Can you appreciate that while you equate Matthew's dissent with disrespect, others see it differently? Is it possible that there might be another way for you to see it?

4. Why do you completely ignore his justification for sitting out the pledge?

KHS alumnus, you have taken the time to post here. Obviously, this is important to you. It is important to me, too. So please respond to his justification and to these questions, for no intelligent discussion can occur unless the opposing sides engage each other's points.

With respect -

What does this country owe you, your son or anyone? What do we all owe it?

There are no barriers to leave at it's shores.

I actually agree at times with the basic principles you argue. I am not sold on the Orwellian state you ascribe to through your examples, or at least that I feel you do.

This is not an invite to leave just a response of dissension on a point.

You don't have to agree with everything that this country's current (or past) government leaders do, have done or want to do. Objection, dissent, civil disobedience - great, that's what this country is all about.

But to think you are doing a service, showing respect, to all those Americans who gave or are giving their lives to "preserve" what everyone here is afforded daily, well I must disagree.

With respect to THE pledge, well for me, God plays a big role but the pledge isn't to Him. So leave Him out if you must

I pledge allegiance to my country .... to the country that was formed, by people not of my lineage, nor from the same country of origin as my ancestors. I pledge allegiance to the flag that stands for my country ..... that has flown since it's inception and over my head upon my birth. I pledge allegiance to the people of this country, those past and present, for whom without - it would not be, nor continue to be.

I pledge to give of myself as others have to keep it true to it's foundation - to enable it to stand strong if at all and by doing so ensure that the voice of it's people is allowed to be heard. By all. Everyone of them.

But that's just me.

There has to be a point where differences by all sides are set aside and we acknowledge the common thread that joins us all as Americans. If it has been obscured then it must be uncovered but not by undermining the foundation of our beliefs - by any side.

Celebrating Memorial Day and remembering. Peace.

[Guest Guest]

With respect -

What does this country owe you, your son or anyone? What do we all owe it?

There are no barriers to leave at it's shores.

I actually agree at times with the basic principles you argue. I am not sold on the Orwellian state you ascribe to through your examples, or at least that I feel you do.

This is not an invite to leave just a response of dissension on a point.

You don't have to agree with everything that this country's current (or past) government leaders do, have done or want to do. Objection, dissent, civil disobedience - great, that's what this country is all about.

But to think you are doing a service, showing respect, to all those Americans who gave or are giving their lives to "preserve" what everyone here is afforded daily, well I must disagree.

With respect to THE pledge, well for me, God plays a big role but the pledge isn't to Him. So leave Him out if you must

I pledge allegiance to my country .... to the country that was formed, by people not of my lineage, nor from the same country of origin as my ancestors. I pledge allegiance to the flag that stands for my country ..... that has flown since it's inception and over my head upon my birth. I pledge allegiance to the people of this country, those past and present, for whom without - it would not be, nor continue to be.

I pledge to give of myself as others have to keep it true to it's foundation - to enable it to stand strong if at all and by doing so ensure that the voice of it's people is allowed to be heard. By all. Everyone of them.

But that's just me.

There has to be a point where differences by all sides are set aside and we acknowledge the common thread that joins us all as Americans. If it has been obscured then it must be uncovered but not by undermining the foundation of our beliefs - by any side.

Celebrating Memorial Day and remembering. Peace.

So would you be against returning the pledge to its original, all-enclusive language? It shouldn't be all non-Christians 'leaving him out if they must'; things like the pledge should contain no language the excludes ANY American citizens. Do you disagree?

[Guest Guest]

As for the Patriot Act I can't explain Congress's rush to pass legislation for national security.

Isn't it obvious? The administration took advantage of the confusion to sneak legislation through that would never pass under normal circumstances.

[KHS81]

Isn't it obvious? The administration took advantage of the confusion to sneak legislation through that would never pass under normal circumstances.

I belive the legislation would have passed regardless. I wish there was more time for debate but under the circumstances of the time it may have seemed imperative to pass this immediatly. The average every day American Citizen and even those in other countries have nothing to fear from the Patriot Act. Only those who plan or plot harm to this country's citizens or infrastructure have something to be concerned about. whether they be a domestic or foreign enemy they have something fear and it is only befitting that they be placed in the darkest dankest hole that our government can find should they never see daylight again so be it.

[Guest Guest]

Isn't it obvious? The administration took advantage of the confusion to sneak legislation through that would never pass under normal circumstances.

By "confusion" I meant the chaotic state the country was in shortly after 9/11, just to clarify.

[Guest Guest]

Psst, ending slavery was a liberal 'agenda'. Get it? Liberal? Liberty?

Huh ?

[Guest Patriot]

KHS alumnus: I can see how a country whose people are conditioned to the idea of 100% participation in certain rituals is subject to tyranny. In a country like that, the people are vulnerable, especially in times of national crisis (real or perceived), to electing a leader with a committed core of followers who then equates dissent with disloyalty. In such a country, people's liberties will be eroded and thoughtful discussion of the issues most central to the people's security will be suppressed under the guise of "national security." People will be afraid to speak out in opposition to such a leader for fear of being labeled disloyal, or worse. This is exactly what has happened in the United States since 9/11/01 under George W. Bush. The worst leaders use rituals like pledges and flag salutes to consolidate their power and imbue it with dictatorial features.

By contrast, I can see no damage at all to a country if some citizens sit out patriotic rituals to make a point. This is not disrespectful to our soldiers, dead and living, but profoundly respectful of them - because such dissent preserves the same liberty those soldiers, and others, fought to preserve.

Please tell me, then, KHS alumnus, and I ask most respectfully:

1. How does Matthew's dissent harm our country? I see the harm to our country in your attitude, but I see no harm at all in his dissent. I think you have it exactly backwards. I don't see it, so please tell me.

2. If what I have described above does not describe what has happened in the United States since 9/11/01, including the suppression of news and the unthinking passage of the so-called "Patriot Act," even though virtually no one in Congress had read the bill before they passed it, then how do you explain it? Even if you agree with everything in this legislation, how can you justify the passage of legislation virtually no one had read? What does it tell you that it happened that way?

3. Can you appreciate that while you equate Matthew's dissent with disrespect, others see it differently? Is it possible that there might be another way for you to see it?

4. Why do you completely ignore his justification for sitting out the pledge?

KHS alumnus, you have taken the time to post here. Obviously, this is important to you. It is important to me, too. So please respond to his justification and to these questions, for no intelligent discussion can occur unless the opposing sides engage each other's points.

Paul "can see no damage at all to a country if some citizens sit out patriotic rituals to make a point". Too bad Paul misses the point. The "point"

is showing respect to our nations symbol which many brave Americans died to defend. Paul's leftist agenda of personal gratification does not include

showing respect to our country or our military. He approves of Matthew's dissent glowingly as if it were some noble gesture requiring great courage

and self sacrifice. The only courage and self sacrifice has been by our brave military who made the ultimate sacrifice. Matthew's "point" is nothing

more than a cowardly leftist ploy to gain attention. With daddy's coaching, Matthew is becoming an accomplished leftist.

[Guest Paul]

With respect -

What does this country owe you, your son or anyone? What do we all owe it?

There are no barriers to leave at it's shores.

I actually agree at times with the basic principles you argue. I am not sold on the Orwellian state you ascribe to through your examples, or at least that I feel you do.

This is not an invite to leave just a response of dissension on a point.

You don't have to agree with everything that this country's current (or past) government leaders do, have done or want to do. Objection, dissent, civil disobedience - great, that's what this country is all about.

But to think you are doing a service, showing respect, to all those Americans who gave or are giving their lives to "preserve" what everyone here is afforded daily, well I must disagree.

With respect to THE pledge, well for me, God plays a big role but the pledge isn't to Him. So leave Him out if you must

I pledge allegiance to my country .... to the country that was formed, by people not of my lineage, nor from the same country of origin as my ancestors. I pledge allegiance to the flag that stands for my country ..... that has flown since it's inception and over my head upon my birth. I pledge allegiance to the people of this country, those past and present, for whom without - it would not be, nor continue to be.

I pledge to give of myself as others have to keep it true to it's foundation - to enable it to stand strong if at all and by doing so ensure that the voice of it's people is allowed to be heard. By all. Everyone of them.

But that's just me.

There has to be a point where differences by all sides are set aside and we acknowledge the common thread that joins us all as Americans. If it has been obscured then it must be uncovered but not by undermining the foundation of our beliefs - by any side.

Celebrating Memorial Day and remembering. Peace.

I agree with all of that, but dissent in this form does not undermine the foundation of our beliefs. (If you think it does, please explain how.) On the contrary, it is a reminder that our foundations are not confined to a ritual, but are better expressed in the hard work of citizenship and loyalty to principle.

Any hypocrite can stand and recite a pledge. A true patriot expresses what the pledge ought to mean. When a citizen does that, there is no mistaking his patriotism. That was Matthew's motivation from the beginning, and his point. I think it's a good one.

To me, a pledge or a flag salute has a limited value, especially in a country like ours where national unity and stability are well-established. Placing so much importance on these rituals, as we have seen being done, is exalting form over substance. The proof of this inversion of values is the bitter and sometimes vicious outrage in reaction to Matthew's simple act of dissent, When that happens, the ritual has lost its meaning. You might liken it to a spouse whose mate tells him or her "I love you" every day, then cheats and carouses every night. Don't tell me you love me. Show me. In the same fashion, don't piously put your hand over your heart to show me what a great American you are. Show me what a great American you are by defending freedom and justice, which is what the flag is supposed to stand for.

And don't expect me to stand there with you to tell you that we share common values. If you're not actively defending freedom in your day-to-day political behavior, then we don't share enough common values. Maybe we do to a point, but when you let the ritual take over, you've forgotten the most important aspects of citizenship. That's another way of expressing what Matthew has explained to me, and to others.

The way I see it, Matthew pledges his allegiance through actions, which speak louder than words. His service is in issuing a reminder of what seems to have been forgotten. I say that our founding principles have been forgotten because we see Americans willing to give them up. For example, most of the Bill of Rights couldn't survive if it was put to a popular vote today.

So Matthew stands his ground. Agree with him or not, those are his reasons, and while I appreciate your attempt to discuss this civilly and intelligently (unlike KHS alumnus, who just ignores everything we've said), you're still not addressing Matthew's point. You're assuming that the point at which we set aside our differences is at the point of participating in a pledge or a flag salute. We disagree. We think the point at which our differences are set aside is in our fidelity to Constitutional principles in our actions.

As for an Orwellian vision, it is a warning of things that might be, but might also be avoided. You pays your money and you takes your choice, and the choice is ours. Matthew believes that the preservation of freedom depends on an active and informed citizenry getting involved to preserve our basic ideals. He thinks much of that ethic has been lost or forgotten, and I agree with him. So in a sense, he is fighting for what you say you believe in. The mere fact that he is maknig the point to his fellow citizens does not diminish the integrity of his actions in any way. Again, if you think it does, please explain how.

Also celebrating Memorial Day and remembering, reverently. Peace.

[Guest Paul]

As for the Patriot Act I can't explain Congress's rush to pass legislation for national security. Other than the fear of getting attacked again, but lets not put the blame just on Bush. This was a bipartisan effort both democrat and republican.So are you saying that since 9/11 the media has been supressed, what planet are you living on, the media has been nothing more than very active whether it be coverage in Iraq or investigating Washington politicians. By sitting out the pledge your showing that you have no Allegiance to the country. I on the other hand am proud of the USA good or bad we are afterall the GREATEST nation on the planet.Am I brainwashed no I'm not I do this of my own free will. I will stand for the pledge I will place my hand over my heart. At 18 I was proud and honored to sign my selective service card, although i could not serve in the military due to a childhood illness, I would to this day lay my life on the line in defense of this great nation. could the same be said for you

You started to try to adress my questions, but you didn't do it. You quickly just went back to your bias: the false idea that sitting out a pledge shows a lack of allegiance to our country. Every point we have made explains why that is not true. For example, in the Bible when Jesus dressed down the hypocrites who made a big public display of their "piety," he was making the same point. Adress our points, don't just repeat your conclusion.

As one guest has already observed, the rush to pass the so-called Patriot Act is proof that our elected officials weren't doing their duty. They just went along with it because none of them dared to oppose it - just as you would have people standing for the pledge because they're afraid not to. That may not be your intent, but that will be the result if the attitude you're taking rules the day. Think about it.

In fact, Matthew has laid his life on the line in defense of this great nation. His action is very unpopular, and he knew that. The fact that he's arguing the case against his own fellow citizens coesn't make his act any less courageous. It makes it all the more courageous. Going against the crowd is one of the hardest things a person can ever do.

So he has sacrificed for his country. You just don't see it.

[Guest Paul]

With respect -

What does this country owe you, your son or anyone? What do we all owe it?

There are no barriers to leave at it's shores.

I actually agree at times with the basic principles you argue. I am not sold on the Orwellian state you ascribe to through your examples, or at least that I feel you do.

This is not an invite to leave just a response of dissension on a point.

You don't have to agree with everything that this country's current (or past) government leaders do, have done or want to do. Objection, dissent, civil disobedience - great, that's what this country is all about.

But to think you are doing a service, showing respect, to all those Americans who gave or are giving their lives to "preserve" what everyone here is afforded daily, well I must disagree.

With respect to THE pledge, well for me, God plays a big role but the pledge isn't to Him. So leave Him out if you must

I pledge allegiance to my country .... to the country that was formed, by people not of my lineage, nor from the same country of origin as my ancestors. I pledge allegiance to the flag that stands for my country ..... that has flown since it's inception and over my head upon my birth. I pledge allegiance to the people of this country, those past and present, for whom without - it would not be, nor continue to be.

I pledge to give of myself as others have to keep it true to it's foundation - to enable it to stand strong if at all and by doing so ensure that the voice of it's people is allowed to be heard. By all. Everyone of them.

But that's just me.

There has to be a point where differences by all sides are set aside and we acknowledge the common thread that joins us all as Americans. If it has been obscured then it must be uncovered but not by undermining the foundation of our beliefs - by any side.

Celebrating Memorial Day and remembering. Peace.

By the way, you ask a great question. I'll answer it.

We owe our country the full measure of our devotion.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Isn't it obvious? The administration took advantage of the confusion to sneak legislation through that would never pass under normal circumstances.

You apparently forgot that the defeatocratic congress voted for the Patriot Act. Minor detail.

[Guest Guest]

You apparently forgot that the defeatocratic congress voted for the Patriot Act. Minor detail.

This is bigger than your stupid little partisan politics, child.

[Guest Guest]

Placing so much importance on these rituals, as we have seen being done, is exalting form over substance. The proof of this inversion of values is the bitter and sometimes vicious outrage in reaction to Matthew's simple act of dissent, When that happens, the ritual has lost its meaning. You might liken it to a spouse whose mate tells him or her "I love you" every day, then cheats and carouses every night. Don't tell me you love me. Show me. In the same fashion, don't piously put your hand over your heart to show me what a great American you are. Show me what a great American you are by defending freedom and justice, which is what the flag is supposed to stand for.

Great analogy--that's exactly what's going on here. The 'cheaters' are telling the faithful that they're disloyal because they don't say "I love you" every single day.

[Guest Guest]

Paul "can see no damage at all to a country if some citizens sit out patriotic rituals to make a point". Too bad Paul misses the point. The "point"

is showing respect to our nations symbol which many brave Americans died to defend. Paul's leftist agenda of personal gratification does not include

showing respect to our country or our military.

Do you support the new GI Bill, that President Bush promises to veto?

Or are you a steaming pile of hypocrite?

Let's see if you have the guts to give that question a straight answer, boy.

[Guest Guest]

I belive the legislation would have passed regardless.

You are aware that similar legislation was 'attempted' in the past, but failed every time, right?

[Guest Guest]

I belive the legislation would have passed regardless. I wish there was more time for debate but under the circumstances of the time it may have seemed imperative to pass this immediatly. The average every day American Citizen and even those in other countries have nothing to fear from the Patriot Act. Only those who plan or plot harm to this country's citizens or infrastructure have something to be concerned about. whether they be a domestic or foreign enemy they have something fear and it is only befitting that they be placed in the darkest dankest hole that our government can find should they never see daylight again so be it.

You have far more trust in the honesty and decency of men who have been given extraordinary amounts of power over the lives of others than history and common sense warrants. History proves repeatedly that men who are given such powers almost invariably abuse them. Common sense tells you that decent men would neither seek nor accept such power.

This is a threat to the average citizen, because when a few men are given that much power, they will use it to their own ends, not toward the ends of the people.

Besides, it wasn't so imperative as to justify not evaluating the merits of the legislation through careful deliberation. The only thing that changed from September 10, 2001, to September 12, 2001, was that we were now aware of what was possible. We had the means to prevent 9/11, but Bush spent six weeks sitting on his bony behind in Crawford, Texas, instead of doing his job. Intelligence that would have prevented the attacks under a competent administration was ignored. Via the Patriot Act, we rewarded the most incompetent administration in our history with more power for having completely neglected to do its job. There is no reason why the government cannot protect us using the measures that were in place before 9/11.

[Guest Guest]

Paul "can see no damage at all to a country if some citizens sit out patriotic rituals to make a point". Too bad Paul misses the point. The "point"

is showing respect to our nations symbol which many brave Americans died to defend. Paul's leftist agenda of personal gratification does not include

showing respect to our country or our military. He approves of Matthew's dissent glowingly as if it were some noble gesture requiring great courage

and self sacrifice. The only courage and self sacrifice has been by our brave military who made the ultimate sacrifice. Matthew's "point" is nothing

more than a cowardly leftist ploy to gain attention. With daddy's coaching, Matthew is becoming an accomplished leftist.

So what is the damage if someone sits out the pledge?

You'll never answer the question because there is no answer.

Because there is no damage.

And you're wrong. Facing down your entire community is an act of courage. You try it if you don't think so.

At least he finally got you to call it dissent. Even your skull can be penetrated, apparently. Not that there's necessarily anything inside.