Oh California LOL

Now, the Pledge of Allegiance is coming under attack.

Your freedom of speech is being threatened and nobody cares

Yes, I know it’s the daily wire. However, no left leaning outlets are even reporting on this

https://www.dailywire.com/news/42760/ca-college-board-trustees-eliminates-pledge-hank-berrien

Removing a mandatory pledge that says ‘under god’ supports both freedom of speech AND freedom of religion.

Seperation of church and state

So dramatic tho. Under attack, really?

Such snowflake mentality

Posted by LadyNeptune

So dramatic tho. Under attack, really?

Such snowflake mentality

It’s not about that. When they block you from saying something, that’s oppression

Posted by LadyNeptune

Removing a mandatory pledge that says ‘under god’ supports both freedom of speech AND freedom of religion.

What about the people who WANT to say it? What about their rights?

Posted by TheRabbit

Being forced to pledge allegiance to the Church of Scientology = cult

Being forced to pledge allegiance to Kim Jong Un = dictatorship

Being forced to pledge allegiance to the US flag = pAtRiOtIsM

Forget about Bubba and his sister-cousin-wife.

This is a freedom of speech issue

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by LadyNeptune

Removing a mandatory pledge that says ‘under god’ supports both freedom of speech AND freedom of religion.

What about the people who WANT to say it? What about their rights?

click to expand

A MANDATORY pledge has NO PLACE in schools. Period.

Say that shit to your hearts content elsewhere. No one is stopping you.

Posted by LadyNeptune

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by LadyNeptune

Removing a mandatory pledge that says ‘under god’ supports both freedom of speech AND freedom of religion.

What about the people who WANT to say it? What about their rights?

A MANDATORY pledge has NO PLACE in schools. Period.

Say that shit to your hearts content elsewhere. No one is stopping you.

click to expand

What’s offensive about it? Why does it have no place as you say that with some sort of authority. Is the word god now that offensive to Californians?

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Being forced to pledge allegiance to the Church of Scientology = cult

Being forced to pledge allegiance to Kim Jong Un = dictatorship

Being forced to pledge allegiance to the US flag = pAtRiOtIsM

Forget about Bubba and his sister-cousin-wife.

This is a freedom of speech issue

So is the government forcing someone to say something with religious orientation during the course of taxpayer funded government business.

You want to engage in idolatry? Do it on your own time.

click to expand

It’s a pledge.........

Not like it’s scripture from the book of Job.

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by LadyNeptune

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by LadyNeptune

Removing a mandatory pledge that says ‘under god’ supports both freedom of speech AND freedom of religion.

What about the people who WANT to say it? What about their rights?

A MANDATORY pledge has NO PLACE in schools. Period.

Say that shit to your hearts content elsewhere. No one is stopping you.

What’s offensive about it? Why does it have no place as you say that with some sort of authority. Is the word god now that offensive to Californians?

click to expand

Separation of church and state. The fundamental principle this country was founded on.

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Being forced to pledge allegiance to the Church of Scientology = cult

Being forced to pledge allegiance to Kim Jong Un = dictatorship

Being forced to pledge allegiance to the US flag = pAtRiOtIsM

Forget about Bubba and his sister-cousin-wife.

This is a freedom of speech issue

So is the government forcing someone to say something with religious orientation during the course of taxpayer funded government business.

You want to engage in idolatry? Do it on your own time.

click to expand

I thought republicans were all about limited government interfereance ffs.

The hypocrisy tho

Government mandated speech = freedom of speech to the op.

Lawl

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Being forced to pledge allegiance to the Church of Scientology = cult

Being forced to pledge allegiance to Kim Jong Un = dictatorship

Being forced to pledge allegiance to the US flag = pAtRiOtIsM

Forget about Bubba and his sister-cousin-wife.

This is a freedom of speech issue

So is the government forcing someone to say something with religious orientation during the course of taxpayer funded government business.

You want to engage in idolatry? Do it on your own time.

It’s a pledge.........

Not like it’s scripture from the book of Job.

So you're okay with the government mandated speech?

click to expand

I’ve never seen a law mandating everyone say the pledge. Where does it say that you’re breaking a law by not saying it?

Cyclical arguments from op.

I’m out. Have fun guyyyssss

Posted by LadyNeptune

Government mandated speech = freedom of speech to the op.

Lawl

Show me where it’s mandatory. I’ll gladly eat crow if you can show me the law stating it’s illegal to not say it. Last I saw we still have the right to remain silent

Posted by LadyNeptune

Cyclical arguments from op.

I’m out. Have fun guyyyssss

Couldn’t find it?

I’d bow out too if all I had to go on was emotions

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by LadyNeptune

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Being forced to pledge allegiance to the Church of Scientology = cult

Being forced to pledge allegiance to Kim Jong Un = dictatorship

Being forced to pledge allegiance to the US flag = pAtRiOtIsM

Forget about Bubba and his sister-cousin-wife.

This is a freedom of speech issue

So is the government forcing someone to say something with religious orientation during the course of taxpayer funded government business.

You want to engage in idolatry? Do it on your own time.

I thought republicans were all about limited government interfereance ffs.

The hypocrisy tho

Not if it OFFENDS them. Then they want the government to interject.

I mean...the article is clear. The board of trustees at one small, obscure community college wasn't reciting the pledge during meetings. Even though it had no effect on the ability of the trustees to perform their duties, and it in no way prevented the private expression of free speech, one snowflake became offended. By her actions, the trustees just decided to do away with the whole thing.

Now, Daily Wire gets a hold of what is really just a non-story, and Ben Shapiro sees an opportunity to draw some traffic (and hence ad revenue) by throwing out some trigger words, and posts the "article".

I mean, the little yard gnome is stroking his dick with a handful of cash just watching angry white guys clicking this non-story.

click to expand

And I stated that I’m my OP.

Still no evidence of it being mandatory?

Posted by Dianna

No matter what you do or say, someone will be offended. I stopped caring. Just live your life. If someone is offended, it's their problem.

Lol. One offended person changes everything these days

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by LadyNeptune

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Being forced to pledge allegiance to the Church of Scientology = cult

Being forced to pledge allegiance to Kim Jong Un = dictatorship

Being forced to pledge allegiance to the US flag = pAtRiOtIsM

Forget about Bubba and his sister-cousin-wife.

This is a freedom of speech issue

So is the government forcing someone to say something with religious orientation during the course of taxpayer funded government business.

You want to engage in idolatry? Do it on your own time.

I thought republicans were all about limited government interfereance ffs.

The hypocrisy tho

Not if it OFFENDS them. Then they want the government to interject.

I mean...the article is clear. The board of trustees at one small, obscure community college wasn't reciting the pledge during meetings. Even though it had no effect on the ability of the trustees to perform their duties, and it in no way prevented the private expression of free speech, one snowflake became offended. By her actions, the trustees just decided to do away with the whole thing.

Now, Daily Wire gets a hold of what is really just a non-story, and Ben Shapiro sees an opportunity to draw some traffic (and hence ad revenue) by throwing out some trigger words, and posts the "article".

I mean, the little yard gnome is stroking his dick with a handful of cash just watching angry white guys clicking this non-story.

And I stated that I’m my OP.

Still no evidence of it being mandatory?

You realize you're kicking your own soap box out from underneath you, right?

click to expand

Explain.

If it’s not mandatory then you don’t have to say it. If you don’t have to say it how can you possibly be offended enough to complain about it, make people change the rules just to ease the pain of those sensitive ears?

There’s no law stating you have to say it. Now there ARE rules against saying something that never HAD to be said in the first place lol

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by LadyNeptune

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Being forced to pledge allegiance to the Church of Scientology = cult

Being forced to pledge allegiance to Kim Jong Un = dictatorship

Being forced to pledge allegiance to the US flag = pAtRiOtIsM

Forget about Bubba and his sister-cousin-wife.

This is a freedom of speech issue

So is the government forcing someone to say something with religious orientation during the course of taxpayer funded government business.

You want to engage in idolatry? Do it on your own time.

I thought republicans were all about limited government interfereance ffs.

The hypocrisy tho

Not if it OFFENDS them. Then they want the government to interject.

I mean...the article is clear. The board of trustees at one small, obscure community college wasn't reciting the pledge during meetings. Even though it had no effect on the ability of the trustees to perform their duties, and it in no way prevented the private expression of free speech, one snowflake became offended. By her actions, the trustees just decided to do away with the whole thing.

Now, Daily Wire gets a hold of what is really just a non-story, and Ben Shapiro sees an opportunity to draw some traffic (and hence ad revenue) by throwing out some trigger words, and posts the "article".

I mean, the little yard gnome is stroking his dick with a handful of cash just watching angry white guys clicking this non-story.

And I stated that I’m my OP.

Still no evidence of it being mandatory?

You realize you're kicking your own soap box out from underneath you, right?

Explain.

If it’s not mandatory then you don’t have to say it. If you don’t have to say it how can you possibly be offended enough to complain about it, make people change the rules just to ease the pain of those sensitive ears?

There’s no law stating you have to say it. Now there ARE rules against saying something that never HAD to be said in the first place lol

Maybe ask the trustee who complained it WASN'T being recited?

There are no rules stating it can't be said, just that it is not a part of their meetings. They changed the procedures of the meetings. It's irrelevant to their business needs. The trustee is free to recite the pledge on her own time.

click to expand

So it’s ok to say it somewhere else? It’s ok to dictate when and where someone says something?

See where this is going? Dictatorship on a personal level

Posted by seraph

If you’re allowed to decline it (which legally you are) without material or legal repercussion, then it doesn’t have the full weight of meaning you think it has in the first place. It’s a choice. I don’t see the need to defend it, nor do I see the point in being upset about it being there. It’s silly to be made to recite it, but it’s also silly to refuse. It’s one of those things where it’s easier to just get it over with and not take it too seriously, but where I’d burn the place down if they gave you a hard time over it.

What’s most important here is that it’s a violation of your First Amendment rights for the government to make you say things you don’t want to say, just as it’s a violation for the government to prevent you from saying what you do want to say (any arguments for reasonable limits notwithstanding.) Thanks to a 1943 Supreme Court ruling, then, you’re free to opt out as long as you don’t disrupt the show.

I can’t really get excited about the removal of something that is optional to begin with. If you argue that you’re being prevented from reciting the Pledge (why students need to re-pledge every morning is beyond me, but whatever), you’re not. You can (probably) still stand in front of the class and recite it. Wear a top hat and a monocle for greater effect (and effete.)

Don’t worry, the Pledge has been amended and messed with so many times already that removing it wholesale is probably putting the thing out of its misery. In its place I’d suggest a new pledge, suitable for daily morning recital: “I promise to not be a douchebag asshole today, whether at home, at school, at work, or in traffic - especially in traffic, so help me Mr. Rogers.” Good for everyone.

I see what you’re saying. This personally is just hocus pocus BS. It’s the natural progression of the state. Before long, everything will/could be interpreted as offensive.

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by LadyNeptune

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Being forced to pledge allegiance to the Church of Scientology = cult

Being forced to pledge allegiance to Kim Jong Un = dictatorship

Being forced to pledge allegiance to the US flag = pAtRiOtIsM

Forget about Bubba and his sister-cousin-wife.

This is a freedom of speech issue

So is the government forcing someone to say something with religious orientation during the course of taxpayer funded government business.

You want to engage in idolatry? Do it on your own time.

I thought republicans were all about limited government interfereance ffs.

The hypocrisy tho

Not if it OFFENDS them. Then they want the government to interject.

I mean...the article is clear. The board of trustees at one small, obscure community college wasn't reciting the pledge during meetings. Even though it had no effect on the ability of the trustees to perform their duties, and it in no way prevented the private expression of free speech, one snowflake became offended. By her actions, the trustees just decided to do away with the whole thing.

Now, Daily Wire gets a hold of what is really just a non-story, and Ben Shapiro sees an opportunity to draw some traffic (and hence ad revenue) by throwing out some trigger words, and posts the "article".

I mean, the little yard gnome is stroking his dick with a handful of cash just watching angry white guys clicking this non-story.

And I stated that I’m my OP.

Still no evidence of it being mandatory?

You realize you're kicking your own soap box out from underneath you, right?

Explain.

If it’s not mandatory then you don’t have to say it. If you don’t have to say it how can you possibly be offended enough to complain about it, make people change the rules just to ease the pain of those sensitive ears?

There’s no law stating you have to say it. Now there ARE rules against saying something that never HAD to be said in the first place lol

Maybe ask the trustee who complained it WASN'T being recited?

There are no rules stating it can't be said, just that it is not a part of their meetings. They changed the procedures of the meetings. It's irrelevant to their business needs. The trustee is free to recite the pledge on her own time.

So it’s ok to say it somewhere else? It’s ok to dictate when and where someone says something?

See where this is going? Dictatorship on a personal level

Would your employer get mad at you if you just stopped in the middle of working to talk about aliens building the pyramids while on the clock?

click to expand

Now you’re just saying silly shit

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by LadyNeptune

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Being forced to pledge allegiance to the Church of Scientology = cult

Being forced to pledge allegiance to Kim Jong Un = dictatorship

Being forced to pledge allegiance to the US flag = pAtRiOtIsM

Forget about Bubba and his sister-cousin-wife.

This is a freedom of speech issue

So is the government forcing someone to say something with religious orientation during the course of taxpayer funded government business.

You want to engage in idolatry? Do it on your own time.

I thought republicans were all about limited government interfereance ffs.

The hypocrisy tho

Not if it OFFENDS them. Then they want the government to interject.

I mean...the article is clear. The board of trustees at one small, obscure community college wasn't reciting the pledge during meetings. Even though it had no effect on the ability of the trustees to perform their duties, and it in no way prevented the private expression of free speech, one snowflake became offended. By her actions, the trustees just decided to do away with the whole thing.

Now, Daily Wire gets a hold of what is really just a non-story, and Ben Shapiro sees an opportunity to draw some traffic (and hence ad revenue) by throwing out some trigger words, and posts the "article".

I mean, the little yard gnome is stroking his dick with a handful of cash just watching angry white guys clicking this non-story.

And I stated that I’m my OP.

Still no evidence of it being mandatory?

You realize you're kicking your own soap box out from underneath you, right?

Explain.

If it’s not mandatory then you don’t have to say it. If you don’t have to say it how can you possibly be offended enough to complain about it, make people change the rules just to ease the pain of those sensitive ears?

There’s no law stating you have to say it. Now there ARE rules against saying something that never HAD to be said in the first place lol

Maybe ask the trustee who complained it WASN'T being recited?

There are no rules stating it can't be said, just that it is not a part of their meetings. They changed the procedures of the meetings. It's irrelevant to their business needs. The trustee is free to recite the pledge on her own time.

So it’s ok to say it somewhere else? It’s ok to dictate when and where someone says something?

See where this is going? Dictatorship on a personal level

Would your employer get mad at you if you just stopped in the middle of working to talk about aliens building the pyramids while on the clock?

Now you’re just saying silly shit

Would they, though?

click to expand

Like there’s not water cooler chat before a meeting?

Plus, getting into private company policy vs gubmnt

Posted by TheRabbit

Do you think an employer has a reasonable right to regulate free speech of employees while on the clock or on company property?

Not unless they want a lawsuit on their hands

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by LadyNeptune

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Being forced to pledge allegiance to the Church of Scientology = cult

Being forced to pledge allegiance to Kim Jong Un = dictatorship

Being forced to pledge allegiance to the US flag = pAtRiOtIsM

Forget about Bubba and his sister-cousin-wife.

This is a freedom of speech issue

So is the government forcing someone to say something with religious orientation during the course of taxpayer funded government business.

You want to engage in idolatry? Do it on your own time.

I thought republicans were all about limited government interfereance ffs.

The hypocrisy tho

Not if it OFFENDS them. Then they want the government to interject.

I mean...the article is clear. The board of trustees at one small, obscure community college wasn't reciting the pledge during meetings. Even though it had no effect on the ability of the trustees to perform their duties, and it in no way prevented the private expression of free speech, one snowflake became offended. By her actions, the trustees just decided to do away with the whole thing.

Now, Daily Wire gets a hold of what is really just a non-story, and Ben Shapiro sees an opportunity to draw some traffic (and hence ad revenue) by throwing out some trigger words, and posts the "article".

I mean, the little yard gnome is stroking his dick with a handful of cash just watching angry white guys clicking this non-story.

And I stated that I’m my OP.

Still no evidence of it being mandatory?

You realize you're kicking your own soap box out from underneath you, right?

Explain.

If it’s not mandatory then you don’t have to say it. If you don’t have to say it how can you possibly be offended enough to complain about it, make people change the rules just to ease the pain of those sensitive ears?

There’s no law stating you have to say it. Now there ARE rules against saying something that never HAD to be said in the first place lol

Maybe ask the trustee who complained it WASN'T being recited?

There are no rules stating it can't be said, just that it is not a part of their meetings. They changed the procedures of the meetings. It's irrelevant to their business needs. The trustee is free to recite the pledge on her own time.

So it’s ok to say it somewhere else? It’s ok to dictate when and where someone says something?

See where this is going? Dictatorship on a personal level

Would your employer get mad at you if you just stopped in the middle of working to talk about aliens building the pyramids while on the clock?

Now you’re just saying silly shit

Would they, though?

Like there’s not water cooler chat before a meeting?

Plus, getting into private company policy vs gubmnt

Do you believe that an employer has the right to impose reasonable restrictions on employee speech and behavior during working hours or on site?

click to expand

Where you going with this? Are you referring to illegal hate speech?

Stay on topic

Posted by seraph

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by seraph

If you’re allowed to decline it (which legally you are) without material or legal repercussion, then it doesn’t have the full weight of meaning you think it has in the first place. It’s a choice. I don’t see the need to defend it, nor do I see the point in being upset about it being there. It’s silly to be made to recite it, but it’s also silly to refuse. It’s one of those things where it’s easier to just get it over with and not take it too seriously, but where I’d burn the place down if they gave you a hard time over it.

What’s most important here is that it’s a violation of your First Amendment rights for the government to make you say things you don’t want to say, just as it’s a violation for the government to prevent you from saying what you do want to say (any arguments for reasonable limits notwithstanding.) Thanks to a 1943 Supreme Court ruling, then, you’re free to opt out as long as you don’t disrupt the show.

I can’t really get excited about the removal of something that is optional to begin with. If you argue that you’re being prevented from reciting the Pledge (why students need to re-pledge every morning is beyond me, but whatever), you’re not. You can (probably) still stand in front of the class and recite it. Wear a top hat and a monocle for greater effect (and effete.)

Don’t worry, the Pledge has been amended and messed with so many times already that removing it wholesale is probably putting the thing out of its misery. In its place I’d suggest a new pledge, suitable for daily morning recital: “I promise to not be a douchebag asshole today, whether at home, at school, at work, or in traffic - especially in traffic, so help me Mr. Rogers.” Good for everyone.

I see what you’re saying. This personally is just hocus pocus BS. It’s the natural progression of the state. Before long, everything will/could be interpreted as offensive.

Over a beer or two I’d say it’s best to view your national identity as a culmination of birth and tax bracket. Be proud of your country’s values *in practice*, not the rituals that advertise it. It’s easier to not die on this particular hill. The Left specializes in being offended, while the Right specializes in being offensive. Don’t join either side and enjoy life, bud. Just my take, but you’ve got as much right to debate the issue openly as anyone else.

click to expand

The original composer of the Pledge was a republican. It was altered to include “under god” by a democratic socialist. Lmao

I enjoy life every single day.

It is interesting how both left and right interpt constitutional rights and how each side can perverse it to reflect their own agenda.

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by LadyNeptune

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Being forced to pledge allegiance to the Church of Scientology = cult

Being forced to pledge allegiance to Kim Jong Un = dictatorship

Being forced to pledge allegiance to the US flag = pAtRiOtIsM

Forget about Bubba and his sister-cousin-wife.

This is a freedom of speech issue

So is the government forcing someone to say something with religious orientation during the course of taxpayer funded government business.

You want to engage in idolatry? Do it on your own time.

I thought republicans were all about limited government interfereance ffs.

The hypocrisy tho

Not if it OFFENDS them. Then they want the government to interject.

I mean...the article is clear. The board of trustees at one small, obscure community college wasn't reciting the pledge during meetings. Even though it had no effect on the ability of the trustees to perform their duties, and it in no way prevented the private expression of free speech, one snowflake became offended. By her actions, the trustees just decided to do away with the whole thing.

Now, Daily Wire gets a hold of what is really just a non-story, and Ben Shapiro sees an opportunity to draw some traffic (and hence ad revenue) by throwing out some trigger words, and posts the "article".

I mean, the little yard gnome is stroking his dick with a handful of cash just watching angry white guys clicking this non-story.

And I stated that I’m my OP.

Still no evidence of it being mandatory?

You realize you're kicking your own soap box out from underneath you, right?

Explain.

If it’s not mandatory then you don’t have to say it. If you don’t have to say it how can you possibly be offended enough to complain about it, make people change the rules just to ease the pain of those sensitive ears?

There’s no law stating you have to say it. Now there ARE rules against saying something that never HAD to be said in the first place lol

Maybe ask the trustee who complained it WASN'T being recited?

There are no rules stating it can't be said, just that it is not a part of their meetings. They changed the procedures of the meetings. It's irrelevant to their business needs. The trustee is free to recite the pledge on her own time.

So it’s ok to say it somewhere else? It’s ok to dictate when and where someone says something?

See where this is going? Dictatorship on a personal level

Would your employer get mad at you if you just stopped in the middle of working to talk about aliens building the pyramids while on the clock?

Now you’re just saying silly shit

Would they, though?

Like there’s not water cooler chat before a meeting?

Plus, getting into private company policy vs gubmnt

Do you believe that an employer has the right to impose reasonable restrictions on employee speech and behavior during working hours or on site?

Where you going with this? Are you referring to illegal hate speech?

Stay on topic

I am on topic. I'm offering a practical perspective free from emotional interferences.

You referred to "dictatorships" on a personal level.

This is false.

Employers have a reasonable right to regulate free speech of employees while on the clock. It's part of the reason you're compensated. You exchange your freedom to come and go as you please and your ability to say whatever you want, etc. for money. That's your opportunity cost. It's not a "dictatorship". This holds true even for government employees.

If your employer finds no need to recite the pledge during business hours, they are well within their rights to relegate it to an employee's free time with reasonable accommodation. If your employers procedures or their regulations of speech or behavior are not acceptable to you, you're free to find a more accommodating position. If I go to work for a blatantly Christian employer who conducts mandatory prayer sessions on the clock, I have no basis for a complaint. This holds true for a secular government office as well. I can't complain if they don't offer religious displays during working hours.

The trustee is free to leave at any time and find an employer that allows political idolatry on the clock.

click to expand

So, by this logic a system was already in place, common practice and was therefore changed to accommodate one individual.

This would be (for arguments sake) company policy to recite said pledge before work daily (while on company property).

Couldn’t said offended person just exit until said Pledge was conducted?

Posted by Skeleton

"I pledge Allegiance to the flag

of the United States of America

and to the Republic for which it stands,

one nation under God, indivisible,

with Liberty and Justice for all."

As a European reading this.

I agree to be removed that. Sounds like religious propaganda brainwashed with false meaning of freedom. And also to add is it also sounds like war speech

Every country has a Pledge very similar to this one, each swearing to uphold their constitution. It’s nothing new

Posted by Antiochus

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by Skeleton

"I pledge Allegiance to the flag

of the United States of America

and to the Republic for which it stands,

one nation under God, indivisible,

with Liberty and Justice for all."

As a European reading this.

I agree to be removed that. Sounds like religious propaganda brainwashed with false meaning of freedom. And also to add is it also sounds like war speech

Every country has a Pledge very similar to this one, each swearing to uphold their constitution. It’s nothing new

Could a future president swear his oath at the inauguration on the Quran and not the bible or would that be impossible?

click to expand

I have absolutely no idea and frankly don’t care what religion the president is. He can worship Ra for all I care. Just keep the nation growing and working

Posted by HamberderHelper

I do think it should be optional to say the pledge. "one nation under God" was never part of the original pledge, not that the word "God" cannot cover any religion and doesnt necessarily refer to a Christian God. "Seperation of church and state" is often misunderstood; nowhere in the constitution does it say that, it came from a letter to Danbury church written by Thomas Jefferson, it's not a legal document.

As for employers limiting a person's free speech, military and several areas of government employment is limited in speech and the courts will not recognize the employees right to free speech . If a public school is funded by the government, then you may as well expect the government to attempt to indoctrinate. That's the problem with people who always want the government to solve all their problems - the government is going to want a little something in return.

Yep. Say it or not. Just don’t infringe on others rights to say it at their own leisure

This isn't new. It's been going on for years. I recall as a kid in Washington state it was our choice to not say it but we still had to stand. That was in the 70s lol

https://education.findlaw.com/student-rights/school-prayer-and-the-pledge-of-allegiance-background.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/battles-over-patriotism-pledge-of-allegiance-in-schools-span-a-century-102957

Just the first 2 articles when I googled about how long this has been a debate.

Posted by ACsquarepluto

Posted by TheRabbit

Like...if my employer started making daily hot yoga, veganism, and worshipping the Great Gender Fluid Earth Lesbian Uterus Spirit mandatory... I'd quit.

Or ask for a massive raise.

For the right price, I'll consider it.

What do you think of Satanists? I think that's the most taboo "religion", can't even joke about being one around certain people. My employer might lay me off

click to expand

oh I have followers 😈

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by LadyNeptune

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by TheRabbit

Being forced to pledge allegiance to the Church of Scientology = cult

Being forced to pledge allegiance to Kim Jong Un = dictatorship

Being forced to pledge allegiance to the US flag = pAtRiOtIsM

Forget about Bubba and his sister-cousin-wife.

This is a freedom of speech issue

So is the government forcing someone to say something with religious orientation during the course of taxpayer funded government business.

You want to engage in idolatry? Do it on your own time.

I thought republicans were all about limited government interfereance ffs.

The hypocrisy tho

Not if it OFFENDS them. Then they want the government to interject.

I mean...the article is clear. The board of trustees at one small, obscure community college wasn't reciting the pledge during meetings. Even though it had no effect on the ability of the trustees to perform their duties, and it in no way prevented the private expression of free speech, one snowflake became offended. By her actions, the trustees just decided to do away with the whole thing.

Now, Daily Wire gets a hold of what is really just a non-story, and Ben Shapiro sees an opportunity to draw some traffic (and hence ad revenue) by throwing out some trigger words, and posts the "article".

I mean, the little yard gnome is stroking his dick with a handful of cash just watching angry white guys clicking this non-story.

And I stated that I’m my OP.

Still no evidence of it being mandatory?

You realize you're kicking your own soap box out from underneath you, right?

Explain.

If it’s not mandatory then you don’t have to say it. If you don’t have to say it how can you possibly be offended enough to complain about it, make people change the rules just to ease the pain of those sensitive ears?

There’s no law stating you have to say it. Now there ARE rules against saying something that never HAD to be said in the first place lol

Maybe ask the trustee who complained it WASN'T being recited?

There are no rules stating it can't be said, just that it is not a part of their meetings. They changed the procedures of the meetings. It's irrelevant to their business needs. The trustee is free to recite the pledge on her own time.

So it’s ok to say it somewhere else? It’s ok to dictate when and where someone says something?

See where this is going? Dictatorship on a personal level

Would your employer get mad at you if you just stopped in the middle of working to talk about aliens building the pyramids while on the clock?

Now you’re just saying silly shit

Would they, though?

Like there’s not water cooler chat before a meeting?

Plus, getting into private company policy vs gubmnt

Do you believe that an employer has the right to impose reasonable restrictions on employee speech and behavior during working hours or on site?

Where you going with this? Are you referring to illegal hate speech?

Stay on topic

I am on topic. I'm offering a practical perspective free from emotional interferences.

You referred to "dictatorships" on a personal level.

This is false.

Employers have a reasonable right to regulate free speech of employees while on the clock. It's part of the reason you're compensated. You exchange your freedom to come and go as you please and your ability to say whatever you want, etc. for money. That's your opportunity cost. It's not a "dictatorship". This holds true even for government employees.

If your employer finds no need to recite the pledge during business hours, they are well within their rights to relegate it to an employee's free time with reasonable accommodation. If your employers procedures or their regulations of speech or behavior are not acceptable to you, you're free to find a more accommodating position. If I go to work for a blatantly Christian employer who conducts mandatory prayer sessions on the clock, I have no basis for a complaint. This holds true for a secular government office as well. I can't complain if they don't offer religious displays during working hours.

The trustee is free to leave at any time and find an employer that allows political idolatry on the clock.

So, by this logic a system was already in place, common practice and was therefore changed to accommodate one individual.

This would be (for arguments sake) company policy to recite said pledge before work daily (while on company property).

Couldn’t said offended person just exit until said Pledge was conducted?

If it was company policy, then reasonable accommodations should be made since the pledge is except from religious exemptions.

It's easier to just look at whether or not it contributes to the overall business process and eliminate if it doesn't add value.

I have no doubt there is little more than ultra left wing ideological dumbfuckery driving this particular instance of eliminating the pledge. They are still within their rights as an employer, though.

I'd suggest the trustee find a job somewhere other than a left leaning California college.

click to expand

Lol. I quit.

I’m glad you are happy with what’s happening.

Posted by TheRabbit

Posted by Skeleton

Posted by TheRabbit

The only reason this is "news" to Daily Wire is Ben Shapiro's background.

He was bullied all through HS and developed an intense victim complex.

He then decided to attend one a public California university with a reputation of being ultra liberal. When things didn't go his way because, surprise, it's a liberal university, his victim complex only deepened.

This is just another example of his deep-seated emotional problems.

No wonder he build up a skilled argument.

Unfortunately I've seen some like on r/greentext that he's becoming a joke.

He's a smart guy. He's gone from being "the victim" to being to "the victimizer" and getting paid to do it.

click to expand

How’s he a victimizer? He’s 5’ nothing, 100 and nothing lbs and a Jew of all things. I guess words mean everything

Posted by bmoon8

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by seraph

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by seraph

If you’re allowed to decline it (which legally you are) without material or legal repercussion, then it doesn’t have the full weight of meaning you think it has in the first place. It’s a choice. I don’t see the need to defend it, nor do I see the point in being upset about it being there. It’s silly to be made to recite it, but it’s also silly to refuse. It’s one of those things where it’s easier to just get it over with and not take it too seriously, but where I’d burn the place down if they gave you a hard time over it.

What’s most important here is that it’s a violation of your First Amendment rights for the government to make you say things you don’t want to say, just as it’s a violation for the government to prevent you from saying what you do want to say (any arguments for reasonable limits notwithstanding.) Thanks to a 1943 Supreme Court ruling, then, you’re free to opt out as long as you don’t disrupt the show.

I can’t really get excited about the removal of something that is optional to begin with. If you argue that you’re being prevented from reciting the Pledge (why students need to re-pledge every morning is beyond me, but whatever), you’re not. You can (probably) still stand in front of the class and recite it. Wear a top hat and a monocle for greater effect (and effete.)

Don’t worry, the Pledge has been amended and messed with so many times already that removing it wholesale is probably putting the thing out of its misery. In its place I’d suggest a new pledge, suitable for daily morning recital: “I promise to not be a douchebag asshole today, whether at home, at school, at work, or in traffic - especially in traffic, so help me Mr. Rogers.” Good for everyone.

I see what you’re saying. This personally is just hocus pocus BS. It’s the natural progression of the state. Before long, everything will/could be interpreted as offensive.

Over a beer or two I’d say it’s best to view your national identity as a culmination of birth and tax bracket. Be proud of your country’s values *in practice*, not the rituals that advertise it. It’s easier to not die on this particular hill. The Left specializes in being offended, while the Right specializes in being offensive. Don’t join either side and enjoy life, bud. Just my take, but you’ve got as much right to debate the issue openly as anyone else.

The original composer of the Pledge was a republican. It was altered to include “under god” by a democratic socialist. Lmao

I enjoy life every single day.

Can you please post accurate facts?

The original pledge was written by a Christian socialist. "Under God" was added by a Republican.

http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm

click to expand

I posted facts. Francis Bellamy was a Democrat Socialist and he amended the Pledge to add “under god”

Posted by bmoon8

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by bmoon8

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by seraph

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by seraph

If you’re allowed to decline it (which legally you are) without material or legal repercussion, then it doesn’t have the full weight of meaning you think it has in the first place. It’s a choice. I don’t see the need to defend it, nor do I see the point in being upset about it being there. It’s silly to be made to recite it, but it’s also silly to refuse. It’s one of those things where it’s easier to just get it over with and not take it too seriously, but where I’d burn the place down if they gave you a hard time over it.

What’s most important here is that it’s a violation of your First Amendment rights for the government to make you say things you don’t want to say, just as it’s a violation for the government to prevent you from saying what you do want to say (any arguments for reasonable limits notwithstanding.) Thanks to a 1943 Supreme Court ruling, then, you’re free to opt out as long as you don’t disrupt the show.

I can’t really get excited about the removal of something that is optional to begin with. If you argue that you’re being prevented from reciting the Pledge (why students need to re-pledge every morning is beyond me, but whatever), you’re not. You can (probably) still stand in front of the class and recite it. Wear a top hat and a monocle for greater effect (and effete.)

Don’t worry, the Pledge has been amended and messed with so many times already that removing it wholesale is probably putting the thing out of its misery. In its place I’d suggest a new pledge, suitable for daily morning recital: “I promise to not be a douchebag asshole today, whether at home, at school, at work, or in traffic - especially in traffic, so help me Mr. Rogers.” Good for everyone.

I see what you’re saying. This personally is just hocus pocus BS. It’s the natural progression of the state. Before long, everything will/could be interpreted as offensive.

Over a beer or two I’d say it’s best to view your national identity as a culmination of birth and tax bracket. Be proud of your country’s values *in practice*, not the rituals that advertise it. It’s easier to not die on this particular hill. The Left specializes in being offended, while the Right specializes in being offensive. Don’t join either side and enjoy life, bud. Just my take, but you’ve got as much right to debate the issue openly as anyone else.

The original composer of the Pledge was a republican. It was altered to include “under god” by a democratic socialist. Lmao

I enjoy life every single day.

Can you please post accurate facts?

The original pledge was written by a Christian socialist. "Under God" was added by a Republican.

http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm

I posted facts. Francis Bellamy was a Democrat Socialist and he amended the Pledge to add “under god”

No, you didn't.

In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration.

click to expand

The Pledge has been amended 3 times

I would make a serious post but the topic is too ridiculous lol

Doesn't it get exhausting being in constant fear and uproar over imaginary enemies?

I see nothing indicating that anyone would be banned from reciting it on their own.

Schools just won't be forced to force their students to recite it.

Pretty sure that's a move in favour of freedom in my book, but maybe you have some bizarre opposite-world definition of the word.

Posted by dadjokes

I see nothing indicating that anyone would be banned from reciting it on their own.

Schools just won't be forced to force their students to recite it.

Pretty sure that's a move in favour of freedom in my book, but maybe you have some bizarre opposite-world definition of the word.

When you dictate when and where someone does something, it’s oppression. Pretty much the opposite of freedom.

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by dadjokes

I see nothing indicating that anyone would be banned from reciting it on their own.

Schools just won't be forced to force their students to recite it.

Pretty sure that's a move in favour of freedom in my book, but maybe you have some bizarre opposite-world definition of the word.

When you dictate when and where someone does something, it’s oppression. Pretty much the opposite of freedom.

click to expand

Sounds like you're describing *having* the mandatory pledge recital, not the removal of it.

Once again, if a student feels like bleating out the pledge themselves even after the mandatory pledge is removed, they certainly can.

Posted by nanobot

Forcing children to "pledge allegiance" to anything at 5 years old onward, when they don't even know wtf it means, all said in a sea of monotone tiny voices every day is just creepy and brainwashed American idolatry.

Also, one time here in AR my little brother didn't stand for the pledge and he was pulled up by his ear or his shirt by a teacher, forced to say it, and then punished afterward. Unacceptable

I've always thought it verged on brainwashing territory. Disliked having to say it as a kid, cause it didn't mean anything to me. Most of the time I didn't say it or would mumble or make up crap lol

My reasoning is why should it be actually removed? Then rules to remove it?

This is a shitty situation.

Rules to remove is oppression and force to say is oppression

Posted by Black-Mamba

The only devil here is the white devil!

Let’s take em out back and kick the shit outa em

Posted by nanobot

Posted by ItsSupes

My reasoning is why should it be actually removed? Then rules to remove it?

This is a shitty situation.

Rules to remove is oppression and force to say is oppression

How is removing it from schools oppression? The point is, anyone can say it on their own time. They can even choose to say it in the classroom at some point during the day, if they want to. Or lunch, recess, whatever. Just don't make time to force every child to say it over the morning announcements in unison at school

Its just creepy af imo. As a 5 year old, standing up staring at the allocated flag in every room and citing off words that mean nothing to a child. Even as a child myself, I thought... what is this, what am I doing? But in AR, you said it or you got punished. And that is where the oppression lies

click to expand

Because now they’re restricted as to what they can say or do in a public establishment.

Posted by Skeleton

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by nanobot

Posted by ItsSupes

My reasoning is why should it be actually removed? Then rules to remove it?

This is a shitty situation.

Rules to remove is oppression and force to say is oppression

How is removing it from schools oppression? The point is, anyone can say it on their own time. They can even choose to say it in the classroom at some point during the day, if they want to. Or lunch, recess, whatever. Just don't make time to force every child to say it over the morning announcements in unison at school

Its just creepy af imo. As a 5 year old, standing up staring at the allocated flag in every room and citing off words that mean nothing to a child. Even as a child myself, I thought... what is this, what am I doing? But in AR, you said it or you got punished. And that is where the oppression lies

Because now they’re restricted as to what they can say or do in a public establishment.

Actually that's the opposite. They are now free of that plegde aggliance that are for people with their different religious and non-religious. Especially at school.

click to expand

Then they don’t have to participate. Simple

Posted by PostHuman

How would you feel if it was "Allah" instead of "God?" Would you still be behind it?

The word God or Allah doesn’t offend me. Neither religion does. People have a right to worship whatever they want.

What’s your point?

Posted by nanobot

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by Skeleton

Posted by ItsSupes

Posted by nanobot

Posted by ItsSupes

My reasoning is why should it be actually removed? Then rules to remove it?

This is a shitty situation.

Rules to remove is oppression and force to say is oppression

How is removing it from schools oppression? The point is, anyone can say it on their own time. They can even choose to say it in the classroom at some point during the day, if they want to. Or lunch, recess, whatever. Just don't make time to force every child to say it over the morning announcements in unison at school

Its just creepy af imo. As a 5 year old, standing up staring at the allocated flag in every room and citing off words that mean nothing to a child. Even as a child myself, I thought... what is this, what am I doing? But in AR, you said it or you got punished. And that is where the oppression lies

Because now they’re restricted as to what they can say or do in a public establishment.

Actually that's the opposite. They are now free of that plegde aggliance that are for people with their different religious and non-religious. Especially at school.

Then they don’t have to participate. Simple

Idk what it's like now, but when my brother and I were kids, you said it or got punished. And I would be willing to bet, that in many small southern towns, in remains the same. That is true oppression. Much larger, louder, and more significant than what you describe on the opposite end of the argument

click to expand

This isn’t 1980. I understand what you’re saying.

Posted by HamberderHelper

Lol

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/house/427513-key-house-committee-proposes-to-have-so-help-me-god-removed-from-oath% 3famp

It’s coming. People wanna clown but it’s coming