[ July 04, 2002, 06:10: Message edited by: DeadCujo ]
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Shouldn't this be in the Flameboard?
Great ruling. No longer will public schools be as active in brainwashing youth.
Posted by DeadCujo (Member # 13) on :
I don't know, am I flaming it? No. Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Man, I barely remember the thing. I stopped saying it in 4th grade, & it wasn't even DONE past 5th. Even back then, I never liked the idea since I didn't think that "God" was so hot, & so I would stand there & merely move my lips in vocal-like motions. I didn't even want to silently mouth the words.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
I still remember it well. We did it every day for the first six yers of school.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Tell me, if you never liked it, are you in favor of removing "In God We Trust" from our currency? BTW, my view is... I don't really care. I mean just because one says it, it does not mean one believes in the existence of god. And if you don't like saying the Pledge of Allegiance, then don't. All you had to do was stand up, stare up at the flag, place your hand over your heart, and just do nothing else. You can say the pledge, but keep out the god part of just lip-sync the whole thing. I really don't think anyone else would have been staring at you or listening closely at you anyway so you would have not been caught.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:are you in favor of removing "In God We Trust" from our currency
Yes. Stop printing it on bills and stop engraving it on coins. Bills get destroyed fairly frequently, anyway, so it won't take long to get them out of the way.
Posted by DeadCujo (Member # 13) on :
I remember getting in trouble at school when I was young for not doing the pledge. I'd not want to and I'd be punished for not doing so. How can the government make religion in public schools illegal, but force religion on everyone in the country through currency? I don't see the point of it all and I never have.
[ June 26, 2002, 18:19: Message edited by: DeadCujo ]
Posted by Obese Penguin (Member # 271) on :
quote:but force religion on everyone in the country through currency?
Yeah don't you hate it when good old Abe starts preaching at you from the front of your fives? or god forbid those long drawn out sermons he gives us when ever we pick a penny up off the floor?
I dont know about you but people dont look down at they're money and have the urge to find religion.
Though I agree that perhaps the "under god" part could be edited out I believe some form of pledge should be said in school. The original pledge created by Francis Bellamy was much more acceptable.
quote: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'
I remember when I was in school we said this version instead which was later followed by the national anthem.
[ June 26, 2002, 18:49: Message edited by: Obese Penguin ]
Posted by The Real Folk Blues (Member # 510) on :
i think that all mention of "god", etc, should be removed from the next revision of each piece of currency and should be removed from any governmental seals, etc. i don't think it would be worth doing a recall of currency, though. just a gradual replacement.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I didn't care, before, and never had a problem with the traditional "under God" and "In God We Trust" phrases. But that was before I stopped having any belief in a god and/or gods.
Therefore, the "In God We Trust" and "One Nation, Under God" phrases are a violation of one's rights to religious freedom... many of our wonderful senators seem to forget that "religious freedom" also includes the right to have no religious beliefs at all!
And of course, there's also an easier example: Hindus and Buddhists, among others. They certainly don't believe in God. Heck, saying "one nation under God" effectively lumps all religions together in a rather insensitive and idiotic way, when the vast majority of religions are based on exclusivity.
This is just the legacy of the ultra-Christian WASP heritage of the old English colonies. I for one am very glad that at least SOME court had the sense to realize that that phrase is an effective endorsement of religion.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Heck, I forget which Roman did that for the catholic religion.... all those centuries ago, but the effect was the same, clump it all together and call it what you want....
This country was founded on religious beliefs, but it has since out grown many of it's founding fathers ideals.
In the end, what does really matter.... Either it doesn't, cause their is no Higher Authority, or it does.... Everyone has a 50/50 chance....
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
I had to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every day in elementary school and junior high school. In high school, it dropped to just two days a week. Elementary school was worse since I was also in the Cub Scouts at the time (but that's a whole nothing story).
As someone who is agnostic, I've never taken offense at having that as part of the Pledge of Allegiance. It doesn't even really bother me that "In God We Trust" is emblazoned on all the currency that seems to get sucked out of my wallet faster than I can put it in there.
I suppose the main reason for me is that, to me, "under God" and "In God We Trust" are just phrases that have no real importance to me. For me, it bothers me as much as saying "one nation, under Grapthar's Hammer." After all, I'm also still quite liberal in my use of "Jesus Christ" and "God damn it!" as profanity.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I saw a debate on a some-what related topic a couple weeks ago, on the TV. they were talking about counterfitting, and how they could make it harder to counterfet US Currency without removing the classical look to it. in Canada here, we have a new 5 and 10 dollar bill, that when you flash it under a black light, the original bill appears. it's pretty cool, and is supposed to make it very hard to countefit money. Anyways, back to the real topic. I'm fairly good in History, and i've been taught that America was founded as a place to worship in the Catholic religion without condemnation in England at the time. So America started out as a catholic community. and you can't change that. But I hardly ever see an american bill, so do whatever the hell floats your boat! Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
This thread has been reported to the Office of Right Thinking.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Indeed. When DT left, I had to shut down the Office of Left Thinking. Perhaps we should switch it back in here? Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
A step in the right direction.
Posted by The Real Folk Blues (Member # 510) on :
quote: Everyone has a 50/50 chance
i think that based on current evidence, there is a considerbly better chance than 50/50 that there is no higher authority.
quote:Elementary school was worse since I was also in the Cub Scouts at the time
heh, i managed to become an Eagle Scout, and i'm an agnostic with pretty heavy atheistic leanings. i never actually prayed along with anyone, yet i got away with it. i must have just had a very liberal scout master (he was a high school science teacher, and i get the impression he was just giving the christian aspects of the boy scouts lip service).
quote:'m fairly good in History, and i've been taught that America was founded as a place to worship in the Catholic religion without condemnation in England at the time. So America started out as a catholic community
not....quite. i could explain it to you, if you have a few hours to read the diatribe. actually, i wrote my junior thesis on the founding of this country (i'm a history major). it is indeed true that a puritan colony was founded on north america in the 17th century, but i would in no way call that the "founding of America"
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:Originally posted by Da_bang80: I'm fairly good in History, and i've been taught that America was founded as a place to worship in the Catholic religion without condemnation in England at the time. So America started out as a catholic community. and you can't change that.
In my less than almighty opinion, you aren't "fairly good in History."
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"House Speaker Dennis Hastert...said...'Of course, we are one nation, under God. The Pledge of Allegiance is a patriotic salute that brings people of all faiths together to share in the American spirit.'" [emphasis added]
This is the point where I need to resist the urge to start stabbing people in the head.
Posted by The Real Folk Blues (Member # 510) on :
quote:In my less than almighty opinion, you aren't "fairly good in History."
heh. that's what i meant with "not...quite", but i was trying to be diplomatic. Posted by The Real Folk Blues (Member # 510) on :
quote:This is the point where I need to resist the urge to start stabbing people in the head.
if you stab that pompous ass Hastert, i'll try to help you post bail (assuming they let you have one). also, it's funny that the "one nation, under god" was actually a cheap shot against the commies, not anything to "bring people together". goddam americans! i'm moving to Canada! wait....aren't a whole bunch of people on Flare from Canada? shit. i'm moving to Mexico!
Posted by DT (Member # 80) on :
The Office of Left Thinking is once again reopened!
Where's Omega on this? I was hoping we'd have a real idiot running around here instead of the surprisingly intelligent and/or humourous discussion. My suggestion is we change it. Instead of "One nation under God" we now say "One nation preserved by Vishnu." I'd love to see all of our Constitutionally illiterate Senators deal with that.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
"Like most people in Hollywood, I worship PAN, the GOAT GOD!!" --Duke Phillips
Posted by Obese Penguin (Member # 271) on :
I really miss The Critic, thank the currency god for Comedy Central reruns.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
You know, DT, we've kinda moved away from personal flames in your all-too-short absence...
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
True, but we've also developed thicker skins.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
The strange thing it, it appears as though even arch nemeses (such as Snay and myself) are agreeing on this topic.
I think that if Snay, Omega, and I were to all agree on the same thing, it would be a very, VERY dangerous thing.
Possibly akin to the Worker, Religious, and Warrior castes of Minbari acting as one.
First "I am Grey" of Two
Posted by Thoughtchopper (Member # 480) on :
A Babylon 5 analogy? Good God.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
What would happen if Robbie, Jeffie, and Stevie were to all agree on the same topic? Personally, I think it'd rain chocolate donuts. With rainbow sprinkles!
Or the end of civilization as we know it.
But I still want rainbow sprinkles!
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:The strange thing it, it appears as though even arch nemeses (such as Snay and myself) are agreeing on this topic.
Well, that's not surprising Rob ... you and I tend to read off the same page when it comes to religion.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...we've kinda moved away from personal flames..."
*raucous laughter*
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: "House Speaker Dennis Hastert...said...'Of course, we are one nation, under God. The Pledge of Allegiance is a patriotic salute that brings people of all faiths together to share in the American spirit.'" [emphasis added]
I'm seriously considering writing a letter to my senators to complain about that resolution they passed. Of course, the ironic thing is that Senator Biden goes to the same church that I went to (and my family still attends).
I don't want to turn this thread into a diatribe over religion, but one of the things that's really turned me off to religion in general is that most believers get so damn self-righteous, that their way is the right way... and the ONLY way. There may be some lip-service to the coexistence of faiths, there's still a strong dominance of traditional support of religion in our government.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Why don't you just change it to: Hey America your so fine, your so fine you blow my mind, Hey America, Hey America
Posted by The Real Folk Blues (Member # 510) on :
well, in the case of a lot of christians, they have to be self righteous in order to convince themselves that they aren't wasting their time. if they acknowledged that other faiths might be valid then they would eventually have to acknowledge that having no faith is valid. soon, they would just sit around bemoaning the fact that they wasted all those sunday mornings praying to stratosphere instead of sleeping.
Posted by Obese Penguin (Member # 271) on :
quote:Why don't you just change it to: Hey America your so fine, your so fine you blow my mind, Hey America, Hey America
Because then Matt Groening would have quite the lawsuit to to place against the government which would then cause the writers of "Hey Mickey Your so Fine" to counter suit
[ June 28, 2002, 11:55: Message edited by: Obese Penguin ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Could someone (if we've got anyone) who actually supports the pledge actually point out it's alleged purpose?
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Tom, the question isn't supporting the pledge or not supporting the pledge. The purpose of it is exactly what its name says it is -- it's a Pledge of Allegiance. It's not required to say, all students can choose to say it or not.
The question comes down to two words: "under God."
Posted by Obese Penguin (Member # 271) on :
I support the pledge. I know for most of the people here it represents some kind of government brain washing and such or somthing elementary school children are "forced to do" but to me it represents a patriotic gesture, somthing that reminds people that this is a nation not just the "place you live".
My viewpoint is that a pledge without the "under god" statement would be fine, infact the original pledge didnt have the "under god" bit. That part was added in the 1950's as the Cold War started heating up.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Snay: I understand. I just don't see how people can get their panties in a knot over the pledge in the first place. As soon as kids are old enough to actually understand what all the words mean (but more importantly, what conceptually pledging allegiance is all about) they're beyond elementary school and as far as I know rarely if ever recite it again.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Tom, some people (mostly either on the right of the political spectrum or Christian fundementalists of various degrees) equate the words "under God" with being a patriotic American.
On another board I post on (a board for LEOs and those interested in the profession - BTW, Charles, they use UBB and it consistently logs people out randomly -- any ideas?), the debate on this has been very heated. You've got a lot of right wing voice on that board, and you've also got a lot of left wing voice (much more left-wing voice then I'd've thought).
Some people make rational debate about it, some don't. Quite a few make it about stuff it isn't -- it's an "attack" on the Pledge, or "the US is a Christian nation, if you don't like it go home you dirty rag-head!" One guy even claimed that all three judges were "anti-American communist homosexuals" (but when I asked why Nixon or Bush would appoint a 'anti-American communist homosexual' he never replied ...). To sum it up, some people just can't be patriotic without (apparently) God.
Most of the pro- "under God" (and, actually, many left-wingers were in support of the words, and quite a few right-wingers supported the decision) crowd had the "well, no one forces you to say the Pledge" attitude. When asked why athiests, agnostics, Muslims, Budhists, or non-Christians couldn't just say the Pledge minus the "under God" bit (and allow Christians to insert it if they so chose), the attitude was almost always a resounding: "tough!"
I've rambled.
[ June 28, 2002, 18:10: Message edited by: Snay ]
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
From what I am told, the pledge is something that was created to honor the people who have died to defend the country. We say it because those who died cannot be here to say it for us, therefore we say it in their honor.
I have no problem in saying it, anyone who is in the military with a little respect for the flag will say it no matter what.
"Under God" is just someone thing added for some reason. My opinion if you don't believe in God or that specific god, don'y say that part.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Why don't we take it out, so it can be legal, and the people who need to proclaim their faith every ten seconds can just add it in while we're taking a breath?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Because that would be sensible.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
What they didn't tell you, Matrix, is that it was written by a socialist Christian who didn't feel the need to mention God.
[ June 29, 2002, 17:24: Message edited by: Snay ]
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Oh, ok. Works for me.
Posted by BWC (Member # 818) on :
I think that Christianity was the basis for this country, and even though In God We Trust is on our currency, it doesn't have to mean Jesus. It could mean Ayatolla (or whoever the Islamic's belive in) or the Sacred Cow Of India or whoever.
As for the pledge, if you don't want to say 'under god', don't. When I was in Workand Station and in a Lutheran church as part of the Apostles Creed, instead of Christian Church it said Catholich Church, and what did I do? Say Christian Church insted of Catholic.
(PS: If there are many mispellings, I just woke up from a nap.)
[ June 30, 2002, 13:16: Message edited by: BWC ]
Posted by Ultra Magnus Pym (Member # 239) on :
Ugh. Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I think you could afford to dispense with the rolling eyes smiley in this case, and let the ugh stand on its own, without any cartoonish barrier between our friend here and the truth, which is that the misspellings are the least objectionable and least wrong things about his post.
Posted by Ultra Magnus Pym (Member # 239) on :
Charles told me to be nicer to people, as such my leaf has risen anew. Although, I'm not so certain he included utter cranial incompetence in addition with english proficiency as those offenses which do not require the pettiness of slander, but, loathe as I am to annoy anyone, I'll take it he did.
So, simply, I say, without the "cartoonish barrier";
Ugh.
He did just get up from a nap, though. So, maybe there's your explanation.
I'll let someone a little more impulsive and hotheaded cry afoul instead.
[ June 30, 2002, 13:32: Message edited by: Ultra Magnus Pym ]
Posted by BWC (Member # 818) on :
Nothing worse than to fall asleep during a Cartoon Planet maraton.
But TV shows are another subject.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Ok, yes, you're absolutely right, nice is good, mean is bad. But...oh, I don't know.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
BWC: Explain to be how the singular "God" could be reasonably construed to apply to a polytheistic religion such as, say, Hinduism.
Posted by BWC (Member # 818) on :
add a 's' on the end. Or whatever what would make it correct
PS: TSN, check your PM's, again.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Add an 's' to what and who?
Posted by Ed / BWC (Member # 818) on :
God
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
And what of religions where there is no God? No Goddess? No Gods or Goddesses? None of the above?
Posted by Ed / BWC (Member # 818) on :
Add an 's' or appropriate, uh, letters, to God. Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Okay, now we have 'singualr God's', which, Cartoon Network or not, makes no sense...
This country was, supposedly, founded on the bible, and for religious freedoms... now, since at the time 'most' people were more God-believing than now, things like E Plurbus Unum would have just passed.... But, with the now 'heathenistic' society we live in people would like to see God aken from every one, since anything religious infringes on 'their' rights....
Times have been changing, and the Christian groups have not been keeping pace, preferring to bury their heads in the sands of time....
Which is what we went over in Sunday School today....
If you don't believe in God, then why does it bother you so much to have the 'In God We Trust' there? When it should be worth as much as the paper it is printed on to you??? Or are you atheists intent on trying to make everyone as you are??
More to follow, but dinner is ready... Typos or not, no nap here.... Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Add an 's' or appropriate, uh, letters, to God.
But what if there IS no GOD?! You'd have to take out 'God', right? And that's what happened!
SO
YAY!
I swear. It's like talking to a brick wall.
[ June 30, 2002, 16:59: Message edited by: Snay ]
Posted by The Real Folk Blues (Member # 510) on :
quote:Add an 's' or appropriate, uh, letters, to God.
so we should add an "s" to the nonexistant gods for religions that don't have gods? sounds like a plan
goverment official: "according to this, mr buddhist, when you say the pledge of allegiace you are referring to ' s' when you say god."
buddhidt: "but my religion has no god! my religion is about individual enlightenment through one's own actions!"
government official: "that doesn't matter, as an idiot has decreed that an 's' be added to the end of everything."
Posted by Ed / BWC (Member # 818) on :
Like Ritten said.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
For the love of God(s), now Omega will agree with me....... Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Don't you mean G(g)od(dess)(es)?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...things like E Plurbus Unum would have just passed..."
I'm not sure I see what this has to do w/ anything. "E pluribus, unum" is simply a reference to the fact that the country is made up of a bunch of different states. It's from back in the day when "United States" was a plural noun.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Well, I got carried away.... It happens here.... now too me... damn you all for making me get carried away....
Okay, so skip that one.... I should have put 'In God We Trust' there....
My point is, for those that have the faith in God, is that this is to be expected.... The attempted removal of God from all aspects of life in the days preceeding the false prophet....
So the happenings that we are seeing are expected, and should not be surprising, as the religious value is lessened by satan's minions...
If it wasn't for the need to keep up with the banter here, especially in topics like this, I doubt that I would have started going to church again... but since I have started I have gotten a decent job that I like, and made several good non-cyber friends.... An ironic twist, I feel....
Posted by Thoughtchopper (Member # 480) on :
My family is composed of a bunch of fundie christians. They had me baptized when I was still an fetus.
So lately, I've been hearing about all this in one viscious tirade after another, and I generally ignore it.
But: I have made up my mind about something--Christians do not understand the mind of an atheist AT ALL.
Or, at least, they don't understand INTELLIGENT atheists.
You see, being an fella that swings between being an atheist and an agnostic (mostly depending on mood) myself, I have to be lumped together with people that actually care about things like this by the God Fearing Right.
I don't CARE whether or not some kid has to say "Under God" in the pledge. Personally, I think the guy who brought this lawsuit up in the first place is a fucking idiot. He ONLY wanted fame, and so he decided to go about it by smashing something that 90% of the people cherish...That's STUPID.
If the kid didn't want to say it, she DIDN'T have to. It's not like some fucker was standing there with a knife to her throat, "You'd better be saying the words, lass, or..."
So because of this nitwit, I have to listen to Mom and Pop mumble about the decline of civilization, and how all the prophecies of John the Revelator are coming home to roost.
"Best watch yourself, Jason. They'll get ya for sure if you don't change yer ways..."
"Who, Dad?"
"Them evil liberal spirits, boy. Them that got your sister, made her a baby killer!"
Fuck, I'd kill that guy myself just for that.
I'm actually glad the ninth circuit court put an hold on the order. No more of this family collusion to get me back to the dark ages.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
On a related note, there's general shit going down in the journalism community because Fox News posted the office phone number of the judge involved onscreen and urged its viewers to call him and pass on their opinion. Given the target audience of Rupert Murdoch's little baby, it's pretty obvious what kind of commentary was being encouraged, and this is now basically being seen within the journalism community as a media outlet encouraging harassment. Of course, Fox News has been seen as a journalistic embarassment by its peers for years, especially since the various incidents with Geraldo. Then again, since everyone who doesn't work for Fox News is a part of the evil liberal journalism conspiracyTM, I guess that's pretty meaningless.
[ June 30, 2002, 22:40: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Maybe they'll post the phone numbers and addresses of people who work in abortion clinics next.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: They had me baptized when I was still an fetus.
This just sounds unpleasent for all concerned.
Posted by Raw Cadet (Member # 725) on :
I believe I have stated before that I am a practicing Roman Catholic (not that I expect anyone to care about, or remember, the religious affiliation of one non-regular (unregular?) Flareite). That said, I am in full agreement with the court's decision.
I just wanted to remind everyone that not all Christians are Bible-thumping, hellfire-and-brimstone-condemning, right-wing whackos who think, contrary to the Founding Father's intent, the United States is a Christian nation and damn it, it's (flag's) pledge is gonna have "God" in it. (Indeed, those kinds of "Christians" generally hate Catholics, per Bob Jones University.)
Posted by Thoughtchopper (Member # 480) on :
quote: This just sounds unpleasent for all concerned.
It was videotaped, if you want to see it.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Ultrasound and a long (and presumably rather uncomfortable) tube with gravity-fed holy water?
Reverend McGuiver?
Posted by Thoughtchopper (Member # 480) on :
It's bizarre, man. There's a priest rubbing my mom's belly with holy water, and mumbling in latin, and a bunch of people I don't recognize standing around watching, with tears in their eyes.
And yet, my mom and dad AREN'T in a cult.
What?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Of course they are. It's just that the big cults get called "religions".
And what will it take to make people realize that this has nothing�absolutely zero�to do w/ "forcing kids to say the pledge". Read this, then maybe you'll figure it out. The plaintiff knows better than some of you, apparently, that the school didn't force his kid to say anything. His problem is that they made her "watch and listen as her state-employed teacher in her state-run school leads her classmates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God". The article explains quite simply how the court determined that it's wrong, and it makes 100% logical sense. Just because some of you don't care, what does that have to do w/ anything? I may not care if the government says it's okay for people to steal all your stuff. After all, it doesn't affect me if it's your stuff. But would my telling you to quit griping make everything okay?
[ July 01, 2002, 01:39: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Well, then, you can learn something new every day....
Posted by The Real Folk Blues (Member # 510) on :
if the government would just give me a license to kill, this whole fiasco would be over real soon.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
If I were Emperor, it would be over even faster.
Posted by Thoughtchopper (Member # 480) on :
quote: His problem is that they made her "watch and listen as her state-employed teacher in her state-run school leads her classmates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God".
You're right. That DOES make sense. But there's a flaw in it, too. MOST people want their kids to say the pledge with "under God" in it. (I'm not one of them, but it is true.)
The majority of people in this country want it left in there. Why does one person get to change it for everybody else? That doesn't make sense.
Things like that should be left at home, not imposed on the entire country.
I'm tired of small idealogical minorites (even one I'm a part of) being allowed to dictate their position on the Majority.
If this is a true country "For the People" then the Majority stands. Atheist kids can be allowed to stand out in the hall during the pledge, so as to not "contaminate" them with ideas of God, if that's some kind of real danger.
I don't think it is. I said the plege everyday at school until the fifth or sixth grade. Didn't bother me.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"The majority of people in this country want it left in there. Why does one person get to change it for everybody else? That doesn't make sense."
If the majority wanted the right to free speech taken away, they couldn't do that, either. Not legally, anyway.
"Things like that should be left at home, not imposed on the entire country."
My thoughts exactly, except that we're talking about opposite things.
Posted by The Real Folk Blues (Member # 510) on :
the united states isn't based on majority rights. it's based on equal rights for everybody. if one persons rights are infringed upon then everybody's rights are being infringed upon, whether they are smart enough to realize it or not. thinking that the country is based on majority rule is a commonly held misconception. if the majority ruled, then blacks would still be having literacy tests. if the majority ruled, gays would have no rights. the minority must be protected from a majority that has no consideration for others. that is what the united states is based upon. that is what sets this country apart from other "republics" and "democracies", even though those in power are bent on ruining everything that the USA stands for.
[ July 01, 2002, 14:10: Message edited by: The Real Folk Blues ]
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Which is what, exactly?
quote:I'm tired of small idealogical minorites (even one I'm a part of) being allowed to dictate their position on the Majority.
Funny, I'm tired of large idealogical majorities being allowed to dictate their position on the Minority (assuming, of course, that atheists are in fact that last group).
[ July 01, 2002, 14:42: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by Thoughtchopper (Member # 480) on :
quote: The decision
The 9th circuit analyzed the law establishing the pledge of allegiance using three legal tests used in establishment cases. (The Lemon test, which has mostly fallen into disfavor but has not been explicitly repudiated, requires government conduct to have a secular purpose, neither advance nor inhibit religion, and must not foster government entanglement with religion. The "coercion test" requires that government conduct not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise. The "endorsement test" requires that government not endorse a religion and "send a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders".). The court ruled that:
The inclusion of the phrase under God in the pledge is an endorsement of religious belief. Reciting the pledge as it is currently codified is to swear allegiance to monotheism. The pledge as currently codified fails the coercion test. The inclusion of the phrase under God was *explicitly* done to promote a religious purpose, and therefore the pledge as currently codified fails the Lemon test. The court concluded that the 1954 act adding "under God" to the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional, and that the school district policy requiring daily recital is as well.
This is the only time in my life i've ever done this, But I'm changing my opinion publicly.
Why? Because although I still don't agree with the Ninth Circuit Court on ALL of it's judgements in this case (particularly with the idea that the phrase "under God" is coercion), I think my opinion has been overly clouded by my fanatic family, and too much listening to them, without thinking things through.
So there, I concede. I'm down in the trenches, outnumbered twenty to one here, all sides covered with bible thumping froth throwers. Cut me some slack.
However, the atheist Newdow SHOULD have picked a better time to do this. Or he SHOULD at least have picked a better target.
We're still dealing with people who want to have Intelligent Design taught in our schools. This, in my opinion, is a battle worth fighting. Having "Under God" removed from the pledge is small fries, compared to that.
And it was "A Hornet's Nest" too. Leave it alone, and it doesn't really hurt anybody. Fuck with it, and you hurt your position by getting brutally stung.
In the months after 9-11 there's a insane amount of Pro-Religion in this country. Has nobody recognized this? And was it SO important to Newdow that he was willing to risk his and his daughters life so that she doesn't have to even LISTEN to the words "Under God"?
They ARE getting a record number of death threats, after all.
I still think he only did this for fame. And I still think he's a fool for it.
My opinion is that this country is NOT ready for pure secularism.
You say this country isn't ruled by the majority? Then why did the Judge put a stay on his own ruling so quickly?
Because the majority would've lynched him otherwise.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:In the months after 9-11 there's a insane amount of Pro-Religion in this country. Has nobody recognized this? And was it SO important to Newdow that he was willing to risk his and his daughters life so that she doesn't have to even LISTEN to the words "Under God"?
All the man did, or rather tried to do, was defend his principles. To some people nothing could be more important.
quote:They ARE getting a record number of death threats, after all.
Yeah, that's the scary part.
quote:I still think he only did this for fame. And I still think he's a fool for it.
He got a little more than the fifteen seconds he bargained for, in any event.
quote:My opinion is that this country is NOT ready for pure secularism.
As is quite evident from the death threats mentioned above.
quote:You say this country isn't ruled by the majority? Then why did the Judge put a stay on his own ruling so quickly?
Because the majority would've lynched him otherwise.
So much for juridical integrity, huh?
Posted by The Real Folk Blues (Member # 510) on :
well, if this country stuck to it's own ideals it would not be ruled by the majority.
Posted by Thoughtchopper (Member # 480) on :
I never said it was a pretty world out there. It isn't.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Some wise wit once said "The majority is almost always wrong."
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Actually, the Mob Rules, but that was a while ago....
Again we get in to the limits, or not, on what type of majority rules we are talking about....
I find nothing bad about letting my road rage go at people that can't drive, so if I kill a few, who cares, the majority can't tell me what to do...
If I want I can can do 120 mph in a 70 mph zone, fuck the majority...
And yet, even though I feel that it is alright to do this, the majority feels it isn't right...
Well, fuck us runnning, we want to eat our God fearing cake and have it too....
Murder/The Death Penalty is wrong, to fucking who?? The moral majority... This has been a popular item here, so, you are telling me that the majority of you are wrong, because the minority feels it is okay to kill a killer.... You'r majorityis unconstitutionally blocking our minorities beliefs, we want to kill the killer....
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: Some wise wit once said "The majority is almost always wrong."
Swedish writer Henrik Ibsen, in "An Enemy of the People."
And probably other people, too, who probably weren't Swedish.
[ July 01, 2002, 16:49: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by The Real Folk Blues (Member # 510) on :
quote:Murder/The Death Penalty is wrong, to fucking who?? The moral majority... This has been a popular item here, so, you are telling me that the majority of you are wrong, because the minority feels it is okay to kill a killer.... You'r majorityis unconstitutionally blocking our minorities beliefs, we want to kill the killer..
actually, in the US the death penalty is supported by the majority, so your example doesn't really apply in this case.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Given the coherence of that last statement, it really wouldn't surprise me to discover that he doesn't know where he is.
It's okay, lie down and try to stay calm. The little purple men will disappear eventually.
[ July 01, 2002, 17:44: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Can 'O Worms, where art thou?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Personally, I prefer Mark Twain's quote "When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to stop and reconsider.".
Posted by The Real Folk Blues (Member # 510) on :
too bad that federal judge made his ruling against a supreme court ruling and without a basis in fact. the federal death penalty will be reinstated soon enough.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Robin Williams has suggested that it be changed to "one country, under Canada". I like this one it has a nice ring to it.
Posted by Thoughtchopper (Member # 480) on :
Yeah, but then you'd get people arguing that, depending on your perspective, the US is no more under Canada than it's over Mexico.
Or something. People love to argue about imaginary things.
Posted by The Real Folk Blues (Member # 510) on :
i know i do.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
After briefly reading over the thread...
Honestly I think it's more dumb for this idiot to make a big deal of such a minor thing. To me seperation of church and state simply refers to a state enforced religion. By putting "In God We Trust" it's not enforcing anyone to believe in God.
It's just a personal opinion of course and I don't expect everyone to agree with it either. I just hate when some people try to force their views and opinions on the general population. Sometimes I think America is too politically correct for it's own good.
I was at some other forum and someone had a pic of this jackass in this sig calling him an "American hero".
I'm not the most religious person, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go to the Supreme Court and whine that currency doesn't reflect my opinion.
I first found out about this on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart who also had to make fun of this guy and what he was trying to do. Saying now the pledge would include corporate sponsers in place of "One Nation, under God..." to "One Nation, under Sprite�" or something along those lines.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:I just hate when some people try to force their views and opinions on the general population.
If you believe what you just said, then you should support the removal of "under God," because it was 'forced' upon the general population when it was artificially (and poorly, from a grammatic standpoint) inserted into the pledge by Congress in 1954 in the FIRST place.
DUH.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I'm not the most religious person, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go to the Supreme Court and whine that currency doesn't reflect my opinion."
I don't want the currency to reflect my opinion. But I don't want it to reflect someone else's opinion, either.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, aside from the opinion "This paper has an agreed upon value and can be exchanged for goods and services."
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Yes, well, okay. But that's the government's opinion. And they make the money, so they can put that on there. However, the government is not allowed to hold an opinion on the existence or nonexistence of any god, much less the trust placed therein by an undefined "we".
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, not so much the government as the people, I think, who, if they are not of an opinion that a dollar is worth something, will switch to using something that they think is, regardless of how many gods we can squeeze onto the currency.
I'm not sure why we're spending our valuable attention dollars on my small joke, though. Or rather, I am, because I am attention wealthy!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I'm not sure why we're spending our valuable attention dollars on my small joke, though."
Because our attention dollars are labelled "In Simon We Trust".
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
That's better than trusting Simon to put it in. You could have your eye out. Or your entire building.
I've also realised that I have no idea what we have on our notes, apart from vaguely important/useful British people like Elgar, Stevenson, and, er, others.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
There are useful British people??? Well, apart from Linda who had me to Berkenshire (sp?) and her friend that joined the RAF.....
Posted by Red BWC (Member # 818) on :
I like Star Trek V!
Anyway, there are a oot of useful British people! Like... um... (a little help here?) ... Ok, you got me there. Dern you! Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
The ones that lost the Colonies Campaign???
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
The one time the bloody frogs and spaniads beat us and we have to put up with you lot gloating about it for the next 200+ years. We beat you in the Second American War anyway Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Wraith, relax man, drink some tea and chill out....
Keep reacting like this and you'll end up with locomotive breathe...
Of course the next thing the Supreme Court will find unConstitutional is the Constitution....
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten:
Keep reacting like this and you'll end up with locomotive breathe...
Er, what?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Assuming he meant "locomotive breath", all I know is that it's a song by Jethro Tull.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
er, mm, correct there TSN....
I was listening to it while typing....
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Ahh.
Who?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: [QB]Wraith, relax man, drink some tea and chill out.... QB]
Actually, I'm drinking tea now. Not Earl Gray though. Just thought you'd like to know. Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
No one with functioning taste buds would drink Earl Grey. The Chinese wouldn't know good tea if it shat in their beds.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Well, if it is dropping doo in bed then it isn't good tea now, is it???
Well, my wife just walked in naked and I have lost my train of though.... about the forum anyway....
bye
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I am sure your wife was thrilled that you told us that.
Posted by Ultra Magnus Pym (Member # 239) on :
Surely as were we.
Posted by Red BWC (Member # 818) on :
Uh, ok.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Your wife walked naked into the room, and you took the ime to type as much into the reply box, and hit the reply button? Why?
And for Liam: Jethro Tull Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
If I jumped up too quickly it looks bad.... better to make her wait a bit...
She didn't mind.... She's used to dealing with me...
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
You should tell your wife not to walk around the house naked. If someone were to throw acid around randomly, it could be a bit dangerous.
Posted by CaptainMike: Director's Edition (Member # 709) on :
yes.. what if the people in the glass house next door choose to throw stones, hm? granted, it would be their mistake i still wouldnt want to deal with the slivers of glass it would cause...
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Shit, it is only a problem when it rains... the cardboard walls and roof fall apart... go to sleep naked and wake of in a parking full of cars... causes quite a stir it does....
cardboard is cheaper than glass... although the expense maybe well worth it...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)