I won’t honor Mexican flag, Texas teen says

[freeatlast]

This is what is happening in our Texas schools because of liberal agenda.
http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2011/11/i-wont-honor-mexican-flag-texas-teen-says/

 

[Ruiz]

This is what is happening in our Texas schools because of liberal agenda.
http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2011/11/i-wont-honor-mexican-flag-texas-teen-says/

I wouldn't call this a liberal lesson, but a lesson in poor teaching. This lesson evokes three major elements that Christians should consider:

1. What does it mean to be liberal/conservative.
2. What is the role of saying any pledge
3. What is the role of understanding the civics of another country.


I disagree with the assessment that this is a liberal agenda. Political liberalism is not cultural studies or even saying the pledge to another country but a philosophical framework that is rooted in a modernistic worldview. Does one have to embrace modernism to teach this lesson? No!

The next question is whether it is ever right to evoke the pledge. Early Baptists had difficulty in pledging any allegiance to anyone other than to God. When listening to the report, someone questioned whether it was right for an "American" to say the pledge to another country, because we are Americans. Several Baptist groups evoked the same mentality about a Christian pledging allegiance to the state, when we are citizens of a greater kingdom. I think we can say that any pledge above God is immoral, but it is not immoral to say a pledge to another country.

While the teacher overstepped her bounds in how she taught the lesson, reciting the pledge of a country is not evil nor liberal. We should encourage our students to learn about other countries and their civics. There are clear civics and cultural lessons that can be learned by this lesson. Teachers should not avoid talking about cultural element for fear of offending a few hyper-american-exceptionalists.

Finally, the solution offered by the representative is more big government. Instead of letting the local board handle the issue, he has proposed a more top down approach to their education instead of letting local school boards make their own decisions. I find it ironic that Republicans who argue against big government offer big government solutions to local problems.

This was not liberalism in full force, rather this may demonstrate the hyper-American centric worldview of many conservatives. Many conservatives believe liberals are anti-American while liberals believe that conservatives are arrogant-American. I think there is truth in both sides. Conservatives need to realize that we are just another Nation under a mighty God. Liberals should realize that we are a nation who has accomplished some great things. Yes, we are both evil and have done good. Because we are both evil and good, we should be much more humble lest we use our good attributes to eventually do greater evil.

 

[freeatlast]

I wouldn't call this a liberal lesson, but a lesson in poor teaching. This lesson evokes three major elements that Christians should consider:

1. What does it mean to be liberal/conservative.
2. What is the role of saying any pledge
3. What is the role of understanding the civics of another country.


I disagree with the assessment that this is a liberal agenda. Political liberalism is not cultural studies or even saying the pledge to another country but a philosophical framework that is rooted in a modernistic worldview. Does one have to embrace modernism to teach this lesson? No!

The next question is whether it is ever right to evoke the pledge. Early Baptists had difficulty in pledging any allegiance to anyone other than to God. When listening to the report, someone questioned whether it was right for an "American" to say the pledge to another country, because we are Americans. Several Baptist groups evoked the same mentality about a Christian pledging allegiance to the state, when we are citizens of a greater kingdom. I think we can say that any pledge above God is immoral, but it is not immoral to say a pledge to another country.

While the teacher overstepped her bounds in how she taught the lesson, reciting the pledge of a country is not evil nor liberal. We should encourage our students to learn about other countries and their civics. There are clear civics and cultural lessons that can be learned by this lesson. Teachers should not avoid talking about cultural element for fear of offending a few hyper-american-exceptionalists.

Finally, the solution offered by the representative is more big government. Instead of letting the local board handle the issue, he has proposed a more top down approach to their education instead of letting local school boards make their own decisions. I find it ironic that Republicans who argue against big government offer big government solutions to local problems.

This was not liberalism in full force, rather this may demonstrate the hyper-American centric worldview of many conservatives. Many conservatives believe liberals are anti-American while liberals believe that conservatives are arrogant-American. I think there is truth in both sides. Conservatives need to realize that we are just another Nation under a mighty God. Liberals should realize that we are a nation who has accomplished some great things. Yes, we are both evil and have done good. Because we are both evil and good, we should be much more humble lest we use our good attributes to eventually do greater evil.

Eloquent words do not make it any less liberal. From my standpoint every one of them that took that pledge is a traitor. While I do not personally take the pledge to our flag based on my Chriatian principles I certainly would not say a pledge of another country even if for a civic lesson if I did take pledges. We are seeing our nation piece by piece dismantled by liberal agenda with the push or world wide nationalism. This young woman is a real hero instead of many who are claimed to be.

 

[billwald]

No different than US students who refuse to say the US "pledge." It's a free country and she was not punished for it.

 

[targus]

From my standpoint every one of them that took that pledge is a traitor.

So if they are traitors - should they be executed as such?

 

[Ruiz]

Eloquent words do not make it any less liberal. From my standpoint every one of them that took that pledge is a traitor. While I do not personally take the pledge to our flag based on my Chriatian principles I certainly would not say a pledge of another country even if for a civic lesson if I did take pledges. We are seeing our nation piece by piece dismantled by liberal agenda with the push or world wide nationalism. This young woman is a real hero instead of many who are claimed to be.

You have failed to show how this is liberal and why this is wrong.

This woman has the right to not say a pledge. I will fight for her right to not say it. However, this is not liberal and I would welcome a discussion on what makes this liberal and treasonous. I made my point, but you have not shown forth your rationale for such name calling.

 

[freeatlast]

So if they are traitors - should they be executed as such?

No the level at which they betrayed their country is not that severe. However they should be marked out and never allowed to serve in the military or any other level of government and I would include anyone who is a Muslim.

 

[mandym]

Saying the pledge for a different country does nothing to facilitate learning of their culture. It appears to be part of the open borders agenda. It is a liberal move without doubt.

 

[preacher4truth]

Eloquent words do not make it any less liberal. From my standpoint every one of them that took that pledge is a traitor. While I do not personally take the pledge to our flag based on my Chriatian principles I certainly would not say a pledge of another country even if for a civic lesson if I did take pledges. We are seeing our nation piece by piece dismantled by liberal agenda with the push or world wide nationalism. This young woman is a real hero instead of many who are claimed to be.

:thumbsup: You're correct. I am amazed at such like that think because they've made a wordy statement with big words, that *voila* said statement must then be truth!

Well said!

 

[preacher4truth]

Saying the pledge for a different country does nothing to facilitate learning of their culture. It appears to be part of the open borders agenda. It is a liberal move without doubt.

Exactly. The liberals want to erase all history about this country they don't agree with.

 

[preacher4truth]

You have failed to show how this is liberal and why this is wrong.

This woman has the right to not say a pledge. I will fight for her right to not say it. However, this is not liberal and I would welcome a discussion on what makes this liberal and treasonous. I made my point, but you have not shown forth your rationale for such name calling.

Ruiz, seriously, you need to relax. Post after post after post of yours on several threads accuses others of personal attacks and name-calling when there is none. Put an end to it already, it's prattle.

 

[Ruiz]

Ruiz, seriously, you need to relax. Post after post after post of yours on several threads accuses others of personal attacks and name-calling when there is none. Put an end to it already, it's prattle.

Preacher,

First, this is an attack when the person calls this an action of "liberalism." This is clearly name calling. Secondly, in another thread someone compared Romney to Hitler. I stand by my statement. In another thread someone said I was embracing Presbyterianism for saying reformed theology is more than Soteriology. I called this thread out because this is not liberalism and I made my case for why it was not liberalism. I called the hitler comment out because it is caustic. Finally, I called the Presbyterian comment out because it is ignorant. All three called people names, I call them out and ask two of the three to rationally make their argument instead of merely name-calling. Is there something wrong with that? Can we not ask someone to rationally support their "name-calling."

 

[preacher4truth]

Preacher,

First, this is an attack when the person calls this an action of "liberalism." This is clearly name calling. Secondly, in another thread someone compared Romney to Hitler. I stand by that statement. In another thread someone said I was embracing Presbyterianism for saying reformed theology is more than Soteriology and believe that is consistent. I called this thread out because this is not liberalism and I made my case. I called the hitler comment out because it is caustic. Finally, I called the Presbyterian comment out because it is ignorant. All three called people names, I call them out and ask two of the three to rationally make their argument instead of name-calling. Is there something wrong with that?

Yes, I see the pattern. Do you? Yes, I hope so.

You've accused me of a personal attack, when there was none. I addressed that and you disappeared. You've just shown how you've done so on several other threads (accused others of name-calling and personal attacks.) It is becoming a pattern with you. Perhaps it is you Ruiz, no?

Friend to friend, you need to get some thick skin. I don't see any name calling in the threads you refer to. This has become a pattern with you, calling others out for name-calling, claiming personal attacks, that simply are not taking place.

Another thing, one could see your comment on "presby" using the word "ignorant" in your addressing another as name-calling. In fact, I see this as a greater example of name-calling than within any other thread you've claimed it to have happened.

 

[freeatlast]

Preacher,

First, this is an attack when the person calls this an action of "liberalism." This is clearly name calling. Secondly, in another thread someone compared Romney to Hitler. I stand by my statement. In another thread someone said I was embracing Presbyterianism for saying reformed theology is more than Soteriology. I called this thread out because this is not liberalism and I made my case for why it was not liberalism. I called the hitler comment out because it is caustic. Finally, I called the Presbyterian comment out because it is ignorant. All three called people names, I call them out and ask two of the three to rationally make their argument instead of merely name-calling. Is there something wrong with that? Can we not ask someone to rationally support their "name-calling."

Liberalism is many time seen as an attitude to compromise or take a wishy washy approach. That may not be the dictionary definition, but it is how it is seen by some. In this case my guess is that those involved had no real patriotism in them and so they did what came natural, do something liberal.
It would be no different if there was a class on different religions and a group of Christians did a pledge to satan or some cult even if they did not mean it. In my opinion saying these people are liberal is a complement because in my opinion they are traitors.

 

[Ruiz]

Yes, I see the pattern. Do you? Yes, I hope so.

You've accused me of a personal attack, when there was none. I addressed that and you disappeared. You've just shown how you've done so on several other threads (accused others of name-calling and personal attacks.) It is becoming a pattern with you. Perhaps it is you Ruiz, no?

Friend to friend, you need to get some thick skin. I don't see any name calling in the threads you refer to. This has become a pattern with you, calling others out for name-calling, claiming personal attacks, that simply are not taking place.

Another thing, one could see your comment on "presby" using the word "ignorant" in your addressing another as name-calling. In fact, I see this as a greater example of name-calling than within any other thread you've claimed it to have happened.

I could cite your presonal attacks and have called them out.

Yet, let me take these three issues. First, my use of the word ignorant. This is a legitimate word that was used after someone stated:

i was the one that was argueing for calvinism being the 'stricter" view, of it just referring primarily to the DoG, of Sotierology proper...
Ruiz was bringing into the discussion idea that a "real cal" would be accepting all aspects/tenants of it, which I don't see any other aspects to it to believe in!

The last phrase is in contention. If the person does not see something, but there are other philosophical points, then they are ignorant. I am ignorant of computer programming languages or something else. The proper term is used to denote that this is an ignorant position because there are more philosophical points to contend with. I offered to supply this person with more points. In my everyday conversation, I use the word ignorant to refer to my lack of knowledge all the time. While the word can be used in a derogitory manner, I was using the term in the pure definition of the term.

Secondly, I noted the clear attacks that are being done. Don't you agree that comparing someone to Hitler is a personal attack? This is not a rhetorical question, but a legitimate question.

Do you not agree that calling something liberal can be an attack. I agree it may not be if the person meets the definition, but it can be an attack if used outside of the definitional boundaries, which I contend is being done.

Do you agree that labelling something "Presbyterian" when there is no evidence is calling something names.

In two of the three cases I asked for definitional clarification. The final one was out of order and should have been banned from this board.

 

[mandym]

I could cite your presonal attacks and have called them out.

Yet, let me take these three issues. First, my use of the word ignorant. This is a legitimate word that was used after someone stated:



The last phrase is in contention. If the person does not see something, but there are other philosophical points, then they are ignorant. I am ignorant of computer programming languages or something else. The proper term is used to denote that this is an ignorant position because there are more philosophical points to contend with. I offered to supply this person with more points. In my everyday conversation, I use the word ignorant to refer to my lack of knowledge all the time. While the word can be used in a derogitory manner, I was using the term in the pure definition of the term.

Secondly, I noted the clear attacks that are being done. Don't you agree that comparing someone to Hitler is a personal attack? This is not a rhetorical question, but a legitimate question.

Do you not agree that calling something liberal can be an attack. I agree it may not be if the person meets the definition, but it can be an attack if used outside of the definitional boundaries, which I contend is being done.

Do you agree that labelling something "Presbyterian" when there is no evidence is calling something names.

In two of the three cases I asked for definitional clarification. The final one was out of order and should have been banned from this board.

It doesn't matter how correct the use of the word is. It bears an negative connotation that gives the appearance of a demeaning attack. The same thing can be said differently so as not to allow this perception about your words. It is not just about what you say but how you say it as well.

 

[targus]

No the level at which they betrayed their country is not that severe. However they should be marked out and never allowed to serve in the military or any other level of government and I would include anyone who is a Muslim.

So you would exclude American citizens who follow the Muslim religion from their constitutional right to run for office?

You would violate the constitution and discriminate against Muslims based on their religious beliefs?

What law are Mulsims breaking?

 

[Ruiz]

It doesn't matter how correct the use of the word is. It bears an negative connotation that gives the appearance of a demeaning attack. The same thing can be said differently so as not to allow this perception about your words. It is not just about what you say but how you say it as well.

I have never had an issue in using the word especially when you can back up the statement. When I used the word, I backed up my conclusion by citing the Analogy of Faith. I think this is clearly an example of where I showed that there is more outside of the realm of knowledge being demonstrated.

 

[mandym]

I have never had an issue in using the word especially when you can back up the statement. When I used the word, I backed up my conclusion by citing the Analogy of Faith. I think this is clearly an example of where I showed that there is more outside of the realm of knowledge being demonstrated.

It appears you did not read my post. It doesn't matter that you can back up your conclusions. It doesn't matter that you are right. You may have said the right thing the wrong way. The word ignorant is offensive and belittling. Say the same thing in a kinder way.

 

[freeatlast]

So you would exclude American citizens who follow the Muslim religion from their constitutional right to run for office?

You would violate the constitution and discriminate against Muslims based on their religious beliefs?

What law are Mulsims breaking?

Not as long as the law stands. However I would seek a law to keep them from serving in the government. If you really understood what the Muslim faith teaches my guess you would also or at least I would hope you would. They are followers of an evil murderous religion that seeks to take over the world. They are commanded in their Koran to kill every Christian and Jew, every infidel. They are told they can lie to promote those religious beliefs and they do.
The guy who murdered those 13 people at the military base took an oath to uphold the laws of this country and later stated his religious obligations stood above that oath and then he murdered 13 people on that base. So yes I would support a law against them being in the military or holding any local, state, or federal governmental position. Yes I would discriminate against them if that is what someone wants to call it.