posted
If I were Emperor, it would be over even faster.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
"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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
The Real Folk Blues
Ex-Member
posted
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 ]
IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
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 ]
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
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?
-------------------- ".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
The Real Folk Blues
Ex-Member
posted
well, if this country stuck to it's own ideals it would not be ruled by the majority.
IP: Logged
posted
Some wise wit once said "The majority is almost always wrong."
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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....
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
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 ]
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
The Real Folk Blues
Ex-Member
posted
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.
IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
