or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Oh we're finished as a Country
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Oh we're finished as a Country - Page 4

post #121 of 167
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>To anybody claiming the usage of God in these examples is ambiguous, don't kid yourself.

As for the school vouchers thing, I don't think this is the same because these are vouchers toward any private school, not religious schools in particular. You get a voucher to pursue an education where you want, and if you want to exercise your religious freedom, you can.

An Ann Coulter may be okay looking for a rabid right-wing she-monster, but I find here pretty wormlike during interviews, avoiding questions posing inane questions. She was on Hardball Debate last night vs. and even more rabid liberal she-monster...the whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth.</strong><hr></blockquote>

95% of vouchers are used for religious schooling. Have a nice day.
post #122 of 167
sjpsu, if it was 100%, it wouldn't matter either, as long as voucher system was designed with any private school in mind.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #123 of 167
All I saw on Hardball was Barnicle and the opposing lady running their yaps pretty much nonstop.

Just as James Carville got finished doing 30 minutes ago during Coulter's appearance on "Crossfire".

He'd ask a question, she go to answer it, he'd insert a little smart-ass comment or otherwise try to tweak/subtly insult her, etc. and because she wasn't there live in the studio and was appearing via satellite from L.A., there was probably a bit of a delay on her end because he "interviewing style" caused her to have to stop and check to see if he was through asking a question and could she proceed.

This happened throughout the interview, because CARVILLE and the way HE conducted himself.

Funny that she had no problems when Tucker Carlson asked her a question. And, contrary to what you're probably thinking, he wasn't sucking up either. He asked her some probing questions and called her on a few things. But he'd ask his question, then shut his mouth and let her answer, without tacking on a bunch of snide comments at the very end.

Unlike James Carville.

I honestly didn't think I could find a more annoying, ill-mannered and smart-ass host of a show than Paul Begala. I think today, I just did.

I don't know how Mary Matalin comes home to that guy every night.

post #124 of 167
Isn't she deaf?

If so, that would really help.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #125 of 167
[quote]Originally posted by pscates:
<strong>
"you know, slavery wasn't THAT bad...".
</strong><hr></blockquote>

How could you SAY that! Just kidding. That's the kind of quotes we get around here sometimes, though.

Anyhow:
Appealing to the "majority rule" thing won't work here -- it's flawed logically. EVEN IF the majority of folks in this nation espoused Christian values (and they might SURVEY like that, but they don't ACT like that), there's no reason to subject everyone in the country to the will of the majority. That won't work.

We can, however, appeal to tradition and patriotism. The founding principles of this country were based on The Book -- whether it was the KJV or the Torah or the Koran. The idea of "under God" is entirely relevant throughout the history of the US. But we can't enforce our beliefs on others, because that would be culturally insensitive.

The real problem with this issue is that people want to fight stuff like this (the guy that brought the court case). The fact that he WANTS to fight it is the trouble. Perhaps the extensive public scrutiny of the 9th Circus Court will help prevent this kind of crap in the future. Perhaps. Maybe some judge will say "no, we don't need to review this at this time -- there are far more important issues before this court for the next decade or so." This is where judicial discretion comes in, and that IS Constitutional. That role stresses the importance of the appointment process.

If you're pissed about this, or the lack of confirmation hearings for new judges, please write your Congressional delegation and tell them about it. Senators can be reached from

<a href="http://www.senate.gov" target="_blank">http://www.senate.gov</a>

Feel free to write to the Hon. Senate Majority Leader, too, since he represents YOUR interests by virtue of his position.

CongressCritters can be reached via

<a href="http://www.congress.gov" target="_blank">http://www.congress.gov</a>

Whether you despise the ruling or you're all for it, please write to Congress and TELL THEM SO.
Never had ONE lesson.
Reply
Never had ONE lesson.
Reply
post #126 of 167
[quote]Originally posted by pscates:
<strong>All I saw on Hardball was Barnicle and the opposing lady running their yaps pretty much nonstop.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Once again, she had EVERY opportunity to speak without interuption. She simply wouldn't because she had nothing to say! I mean Barnicle initially confronted her with a key part of her book and she herself spoke against the statement. What is she promoting again? Oh yeah, her book? Sorry Ann, this isn't the self-congratulatory FOX News Channel Book Review Club. She was supposed to defend it and when confronted she shied away.

SOMEONE FIND A TRANSCRIPT OF LAST NIGHT'S SHOW. I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO LOOK,

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
post #127 of 167
Well, I'd start with MSNBC, perhaps? Or whatever the hell network that show is on. They all run together after awhile...

Would a written transcript accurately convey the number of interruptions and talking over that goes on?

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
post #128 of 167
Yeah, that lady and Barnicle were worse than Ann Coulter, especially as a double-team. How many times did we hear "Oh come on, Ann." I was just waiting for them to pat her on the head, but alas, it was a remote interview.

Or when Ann asked if they would have a left-wing author on the show with a commentary from a right-wing persona. it was funny when he admitted that would never happen. Of course she posed that question in an effort to ignore a question he posed himself. It was as if they weren't even talking to her.

The other lady alone was worse than both Ann Coulter and Mike Barnicle combined.

Off topic:
Is it me or is Ann Coulter's voice getting lower and lower pitched? Come to think of it...she does seem to have a bit of an adam's apple.

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #129 of 167
Thank you, Eugene. I KNEW I couldn't have been the only person who saw the interview the way it was. It was an obnoxious two-person tag team on Coulter. Smarmy, smirking, fake-smiling, sing-songy voices, etc. So annoying.

If you're going to be an obnoxious, ill-mannered cretin, then DO IT. Don't cloak it in big idiotic fake smiles and patronizing, lilting speech. I HATE that, from anyone. But especially that idiot from The Nation.

She WAS awful to listen to.

She's been putting up with this crap on every show lately.

And she was TOTALLY right when she asked if Al Franken or (forgot the other person...a well-known, left-leaning writer/celebrity) came on with a book ragging on the conservative right, would "Hardball" employ an Ann Coulter or someone of her leanings to be there for "balance".

That was actually a good question, because I'm quite certain they wouldn't. As a matter of fact, it DID strike me as odd that Coulter was appearing to hawk her book, and she ends up having to go toe-to-toe with this loudmouth chick from The Nation, and could barely plug her book because she was fending off these two other people.

I'd bet my left kidney that if "Hardball" brought Al Franken, Michael Moore or anyone like that on to hawk their latest book, there wouldn't be anyone else in the segment except the author and the host.

Coulter was right on when she asked that. You could tell she was just getting exasperated.

And who wouldn't? I know I would...
post #130 of 167
[quote]Originally posted by finboy:
<strong>
Maybe some judge will say "no, we don't need to review this at this time -- there are far more important issues before this court for the next decade or so." This is where judicial discretion comes in, and that IS Constitutional. That role stresses the importance of the appointment process.

.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Unfortunately, you don't know thing one about what you are writing about. The jurisdiction of the federal courts of appeals is NON DISCRETIONARY. I have already posted this above. this goes for the court of appeals as well as the district courts. So, when he lost in federal district court, he had an appeal, AS OF RIGHT, to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. So, the judges that were assigned to the panel could not duck the case as you suggest even if they had wanted to. They decided the case on the merits as it came to them.
The only federal court that hears discretionary appeals is the Supreme Court which operates almost solely on Writs of Certiorari (unless the case is within its original jurisdiction, which is exceedingly rare).
I'm guessing you've never read a case written by the 9th Cir, but only news reports about them. The 9th Cir is the largest ct of appeal covering lots of states and having some 27 judges. Not only that but it has the highest volume of cases of any circuit in the land. There's bound to be a few outliers in there, but this case is not one of them. BTW, 2 of the most often mentioned future SCT judges (of the conservative variety) are currently on the 9th Circuit. Justice Kennedy is an alum of the 9th Circuit. "Circus" indeed.

BTW, I'm all for writing your Congress persons, but since this is a constitutional issue, it won't do a bit of good. Congress can't pass a law to overturn a constitutional ruling. The amendment process is the only way. Of course, the ruling is non-binding (I should say, binding only in the 9th Cir, but its not even binding in the 9th cir now: the case has been stayed pending decision on motions) until the Sup. Ct. passes on the question.
Thoth
You can fly?!?
No. Jump good.
Reply
You can fly?!?
No. Jump good.
Reply
post #131 of 167
Um, excuse me, but Ann's question happens all the time on FOX News Channel. Just recently, the author of Goodbye, Good Men was allowed to plug his book without defense or criticism on BIll O'Reilly's show. And as far the "Oh come on Ann" quote: SHE EVADED EVERY QUESTION WHEN ASKED, made false statements, and acted like a baby when simply asked to defend a statement from the book. I mean she wrote the damn thing. All she had to do was recite her evidence for the statement.

BUT I think the larger problem was that she HAD NO EVIDENCE. I mean she called liberals anti-patriotic and Barnicle simply asked whether or not she thought Sen. John Kerry was anti-patriotic. The show is called HARDBALL for god's sake. The questions are SUPPOSED to be straight-forward. Jesus. You don;t come on and expect to Pscate your way to book plugging.
post #132 of 167
[quote]Originally posted by sjpsu:
<strong>You don;t come on and expect to Pscate your way to book plugging.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Is it better to go with the Hobson's choice or not? I don't know. All three of them looked bad, but in the end it was 2 on 1. It could have been 1 on 1. Everybody knows FOX News is right-wing, but sheesh that lady was yacking about CNN and CNBC and MSNBC being right-wing too.

At least relative to the American public this is not true. Relative to Europe? I dunno, right-wing hardliners seem to be getting pretty popular all of a sudden there too.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #133 of 167
[quote] Everybody knows FOX News is right-wing, but sheesh that lady was yacking about CNN and CNBC and MSNBC being right-wing too.<hr></blockquote>

With the way they are reporting this PoA case none of them look liberal (*hint* because none of them are).

FOX News!? Right-wing!? NO! They're fair and objective! They report, I decide, damnit!
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #134 of 167
^I can't decide whether you're joking or not. (Fox News is majorly conservative)
post #135 of 167
Yes, that last post is making fun of those who say that the media is liberal and FoxNews is unbiased.

The media isn't liberal, folks.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #136 of 167
Groverat:

[quote]The act mandates the official text of the pledge. It is not an unofficial saying with no concrete way to say it.<hr></blockquote>

The official text of the pledge...OK. What happens if every public school in the nation recites a different version (the pre-Ike version even)? Are they suddenly going to lose funding? Students punished? Teachers fired? Where's the consequence for not reciting / using the official version?

[quote]The PoA is used in more than schools. It's used in the military and correct me if I'm wrong, citizens-to-be must pledge before they are made citizens<hr></blockquote>

And what would happen if, when the would-be citizen, in a room with 30 other people reciting in unison, just casually left out the words "under God" - would their citizenship be renounced?

Military I don't know about, but I think you're correct about the citizens-to-be part in terms of them having to recite it. I think the military types have to take a different oath all together....

[quote]The recitation has been challenged and it is not required of students. Now the actual text is being challenged because the actual text can be challenged.<hr></blockquote>

Since when did the separation of Church and State become more about semantics than about what the State actually demands or promotes of its citizenry? So we have a collection of words that establishes an orthodoxy (or at least the perception of one)...where has the government (federal, state or city) mandated its use? Better still, where has the government said "you cannot use any other version of this text?"

Regardless of whether Congress helped Ike to reword the thing, there is absolutely no real consequence (that anyone has shown me) for NOT using is, or using a different version without the words "under God." That being the case, I don't see how anyone can claim this is a form of government-mandated religion. Clearly the governments have left it up to the citizens as to whether or not they should use it and which version.

No consequences for NOT using the words "Under God" = no state-mandated religion in this context.

I'm going to stop railing on the guy who brought this suit because it's pretty mucha no-brainer that he could've handled this in a more pragmatic way / he was looking for his 15 minutes worth and got it...but my points above stand. Especially the last one IMO.
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #137 of 167
[quote]The official text of the pledge...OK. What happens if every public school in the nation recites a different version (the pre-Ike version even)? Are they suddenly going to lose funding? Students punished? Teachers fired? Where's the consequence for not reciting / using the official version?<hr></blockquote>

I don't know what would happen and I don't see why it matters.

[quote]And what would happen if, when the would-be citizen, in a room with 30 other people reciting in unison, just casually left out the words "under God" - would their citizenship be renounced?<hr></blockquote>

I don't know.
I don't even know if they are required to say it, I'm fairly sure they are.

Again, I don't see how it matters.

FORCED RECITATION IS NOT THE ISSUE.

[quote]Since when did the separation of Church and State become more about semantics than about what the State actually demands or promotes of its citizenry?<hr></blockquote>

Because those things are all the same thing.

The state says:
To pledge allegiance to your nation you say the following words:
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


It doesn't matter if they threaten to shoot you if you don't say "under God" or if they just don't do anything if you don't say "under God". It doesn't matter. It's of no consequence. FORCED RECITATION IS NOT THE ISSUE.

What the State (here represented by white Christian men) wants to promote is all well and good until their mandates (and Congress' mandate, since Congress passed through an act the official text of the PoA) conflict with the constitution.

This conflicts with the constitution. So sorry, but it does.

[quote]So we have a collection of words that establishes an orthodoxy (or at least the perception of one)...where has the government (federal, state or city) mandated its use? Better still, where has the government said "you cannot use any other version of this text?"<hr></blockquote>

Say it with me...
Forced recitation is not the issue.

[quote]Regardless of whether Congress helped Ike to reword the thing, there is absolutely no real consequence (that anyone has shown me) for NOT using is, or using a different version without the words "under God."<hr></blockquote>

Congress passed an act (a motion of law) in 1954. That act is subject to court review for constitutionality.

The issue is the wording of the official text when read against the establishment clause.

What is the issue not?
That's right, forced recitation.

[quote]That being the case, I don't see how anyone can claim this is a form of government-mandated religion.<hr></blockquote>

Because the government included subjugation to the Christian God in the official law mandating the official text of the Pledge of Allegiance.

[quote]Clearly the governments have left it up to the citizens as to whether or not they should use it and which version.<hr></blockquote>

No, they haven't.
If that were the case there would be no official version. There is an official version and the lack of shootings as a result of non-compliance means absolutely nothing in their establishment.

[quote]No consequences for NOT using the words "Under God" = no state-mandated religion in this context.<hr></blockquote>

For the umpteenth time... this is not about forced recitation.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #138 of 167
So what you're saying is...this is probably not about forced recitation?

I heard you the first few times - really - but no one has given me anything to indicate anyone's constitutional rights have been abridged, abused or otherwise neglected. For example, forced recitation - that would be an abridgement of someone's constitutional rights.



Let's spin this another way: how did Ike's making the "under God" version of the PoA "official" take away an atheist's right to not believe in God? How does it hinder an agnostic from questioning whether or not there is a God? Was anyone - of any religious persuasion - less able to: worship or not worship, preach or not preach, debate or not debate (in public or otherwise) before this ruling came down?

Show me the good this ruling did. Show me how it enhanced someone's liberty or did away with someone's oppression. In the end I assume this is all about liberty and being able to live one's life as they see fit - right? Show me how this ruling improved anyone's ability to do just that.

ONCE AGAIN, nothing really has changed except that the majority now has less right to express their patriotism / allegiance (whatever you'd like to call it) in public schools than they did before. Bravo! Nothing has been added, but something certainly has been taken away.

By the way, I should state for the record that I am less interested in kids reciting the PoA than I am in them actually being good citizens. I'll take the kid who sleeps through the PoA but volunteers some of his time to charitable causes, actually learns (rather than memorizes) what's in his Civics book, etc - every time - over the kid who recites the PoA without fail but sleeps through Civics class and spends his time in front of a PS2 console at home....

...in fact if a school previously decided to spend PoA / home-room time on political debate instead, I'd be all for it. But I'm not all for some jagoff ruining a pledge that [meant something] to lot of people - just because he knew the political climate of the day would yield the result he wanted (no more pledge). Next they're going to tell us that all versions of the PoA are "unconstitutional" because it "demands" that we "pledge" ourselves to the government (by extension of course), which is indicative of a tyrannical state...so it should clearly be banned in all its forms from all public institutions.



[ 06-28-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #139 of 167
[quote]Originally posted by Thoth2:
<strong>
Yeah. Its called 1781 drafting style. Most of the Nouns in the Constitution are capitalized.
Thoth</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not sure what beer's point is but it wouldn't have anything to do with this. The phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #140 of 167
*bashes self in face with large mallet*


*repeatedly*

All right, smartass!


[quote]I heard you the first few times - really - but no one has given me anything to indicate anyone's constitutional rights have been abridged, abused or otherwise neglected.<hr></blockquote>

No one citizen's constitutional rights HAVE to be abriged...mmk?

Let's look at the amendment again:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...

If you and I form a club and one of the rules is:
"No member of the club can masturbate on odd Tuesdays" and you do masturbate on an odd Tuesday you haven't abridged my rights at all, but you've broken the rules; in this case, the constitution. (this analogy doesn't work for the PoA argument, just for the concept of a law being unconstitutional in and of itself)

[quote]how did Ike's making the "under God" version of the PoA "official" take away an atheist's right to not believe in God?<hr></blockquote>

See above.

[quote]How does it hinder an agnostic from questioning whether or not there is a God?<hr></blockquote>

See above.

[quote]Was anyone - of any religious persuasion - less able to: worship or not worship, preach or not preach, debate or not debate (in public or otherwise) before this ruling came down?<hr></blockquote>

No, but that's not the issue.

[quote]Show me the good this ruling did. Show me how it enhanced someone's liberty or did away with someone's oppression. In the end I assume this is all about liberty and being able to live one's life as they see fit - right? Show me how this ruling improved anyone's ability to do just that.<hr></blockquote>

There were no such requirements for the ruling.

A good thing that came of it:
An unconstitutional act of Congress was struck down.

[quote]ONCE AGAIN, nothing really has changed except that the majority now has less right to express their patriotism / allegiance (whatever you'd like to call it) in public schools than they did before. Bravo! Nothing has been added, but something certainly has been taken away.<hr></blockquote>

How?
The Pledge of Allegiance can still be said all day long, you can say "under God" if you want, even. Teach your kids and grandkids for generation that the Godless commie athiests took "under God" out of the official version and have them say "under God" when they say the PoA.

No one's rights were infringed upon with this ruling. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[quote]But I'm not all for some jagoff ruining a pledge that [meant something] to lot of people - just because he knew the political climate of the day would yield the result he wanted (no more pledge).<hr></blockquote>

I think adding "under God" in 1954 ruined the PoA. It was aimed solely at national pride but they had to add their pro-Christian stuff in there to validate their own ideas. Gotta reinforce the white man's faith in himself.

[quote]Next they're going to tell us that all versions of the PoA are "unconstitutional" because it "demands" that we "pledge" ourselves to the government (by extension of course), which is indicative of a tyrannical state...so it should clearly be banned in all its forms from all public institutions.<hr></blockquote>

Actually, the PoA is a direct pledge to the flag (symbol of the nation). I don't think there's anything unconstitutional about the government saying "be subject to me" because we are subject to the gov't.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #141 of 167
[quote]I don't think there's anything unconstitutional about the government saying "be subject to me" because we are subject to the gov't.<hr></blockquote>


"And to the Republic, for which it stands...."


I'm tellin' ya, this clause is next on the lobotomy-left hit-list. I mean, we can't very well have the government imply that we must blindly support it because Ike's officially sanctioned PoA says so! It's tyranny I say!


Can I get a little context and an "amen" my brothas and sistas? That's all I'm askin'; we all know this isn't about the man keeping us down. Is it so hard to understand that Ike wasn't trying to cram religion down anyone's throat, but merely reflecting a belief held by the vast majority of Americans at that time? Modern-day anachronism anyone?

Did I further mention it drives me nuts when people take something that is fundamentally good or which has constructive meaning, and shits all over it as if it were nothing but gutter-speak? "I'm offended by it, therefore it's bad." THAT is where this "constitutional crusader" in Cally is coming from...ask Scates - he'll tell ya. He has to live who those hammerheads, by God!

Dr. Pepper anyone? [Garth Brooks is heard singing]Be you, do what you do....[/end cheesy jingle]

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #142 of 167
Repost here.
____________

Holy fvck.

'God' has a place in government, always has. The contention/tradition/principle of American secular government is a separation of CHURCH and STATE. GOD is NOT a CHURCH; DOES NOT REPRESENT ONE CHURCH exclusively at the expense of others, or even any CHURCHES at all. 'GOD' as far as concerns it's appearance in STATELY AFFAIRS, is a PHILOSOPHICAL idea. It may be rooted in Christian tradition, but I'm pretty sure you don't swear to Jesus?

There is no provision in the constitution for the seperation of THEISM and STATE. Which is what these deranged **** disturber atheists want. THEISM and RELIGION (CHURCH) are NOT the same.

Point your over-paid circuit court judges to this post and be done with it. Atheists lose, and Religion stays where it's always been -- in Church, not in the pledge of allegiance, and not on your currency.

Don't needlessly confuse things.
_________________

Anything else is just petty bickering between attention seeking twits from both sides.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #143 of 167
to pledge an oath that directly relates the your political allegiance to teh government of the united states.... escept it isn't just a state its a state that is "under God" means that you are pledging to a state defined by its relation to God. But that clearly means that the idea of a state expressed in this way is not seperate from religion

That's the point, believe what God you will, it won't change the fact that a pledge to a nation under God is a pledge to a religious idea of the state.

And, that is clearly against the constitutional seperation of the two: nothing is being eroded here, no values are lost in fact it will be a benefit and like freedom to bear arms is to some, it might be hard to bear but it is the constitution . . . so get over it and stop posing like pious pretenders to the throne of god almighty.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #144 of 167
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

Theism, not religion, eh? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

Sorry, man, but they really are the same. Theism is a religious belief system. Not a strict one, of course, but a belief in a creator god, which is a religion.

That is some seriously weak semantic flexing.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #145 of 167
This is not a First Amendment issue. Or at least it shouldn't be. That won't prevent it from being treated as if it were one though.

When the framers wrote and ratified the Constitution they were innoculating their new republic from the religious strife they'd left behind in Europe. They didn't want religious wars to be fought here or people being burned at the stake or losing their heads or tortured on the rack. That's the sort of thing they were guarding against. They weren't afraid lest someone say something about God in their presence. If you tried to make the kind of argument about the First Amendment that's been made with respect to this case, they would have looked at you like you have three heads.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #146 of 167
[quote]Originally hollered by Matsu:

'God' has a place in government, always has. The contention/tradition/principle of American secular government is a separation of CHURCH and STATE. GOD is NOT a CHURCH; DOES NOT REPRESENT ONE CHURCH exclusively at the expense of others, or even any CHURCHES at all. 'GOD' as far as concerns it's appearance in STATELY AFFAIRS, is a PHILOSOPHICAL idea. It may be rooted in Christian tradition, but I'm pretty sure you don't swear to Jesus? <hr></blockquote>

"God" however, is a singular noun.

As the framers of the Constitution intended, and asserted through the Bill of Rights, the rights of the individual outweigh the rights of the masses. This is evident in the works on which they drew: Locke, most prominently. If the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, one simply has Benthamite utilitarianism, which is no way to construct a just civilization. This can be logically extended to the point where, as the framers correctly stipulated, the rights of the individual outweigh the rights of the many.

The issue of pledging to a nation which exists under this singular noun, becomes an infringement of rights on those who, for instance, are polytheistic, animist, and most obviously atheistic. That is a tort, and one for which the individual, living in the "State of Nature" (on which the rights are based), should rightly have redress.

"God," as a singular noun, does, as you correctly assert, represent a certain belief structure, however, it is a belief structure to which all humans need not subscribe.

[quote] There is no provision in the constitution for the seperation of THEISM and STATE. Which is what these deranged **** disturber atheists want. THEISM and RELIGION (CHURCH) are NOT the same. <hr></blockquote>

Deranged? Disturber? Those are the people who founded this country. It will be a much sadder day for America when those who seem out of line, and those who disturb the complacency of a conservative society by asserting their rights as citizens and individuals are silenced. Rosa Parks comes to mind here. Those who find solace in monotheistic belief structures are not having their rights infringed upon by the loss of those 2 words. Their allegiance to their god transcends nationality, one would hope. Those who attempt to find their way in the world as honest humans being forced to pledge their allegiance to something in which they do not believe are.

[quote] Point your over-paid circuit court judges to this post and be done with it. Atheists lose, and Religion stays where it's always been -- in Church, not in the pledge of allegiance, and not on your currency. Don't needlessly confuse things. \tAnything else is just petty bickering between attention seeking twits from both sides. <hr></blockquote>

It is easy to call this petty when you are not the one whose rights are being infringed upon. It was equally easy for whites not to object to the policy of blacks giving up their seats. The tyranny of the majority is a terrifying thought, and one against which we, as citizens, must constantly be vigilant (cf: John Stuart Mill: "On Liberty.").

Liberty is not a right. It is a state of being as the framers argued, a state of being which this country was founded to foster and protect. America is not a place: it is an Idea, based on that state of being. That our Liberty is increasingly being infringed upon is the most perilous threat to our nation. A terrorist action, a country invading us, or a stock market crash is nothing compared to the damage we are allowing to be done to ourselves as individuals as our inalienable rights evaporate.

Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Hope Springs Eternal,
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Reply
Hope Springs Eternal,
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Reply
post #147 of 167
[quote]Originally posted by Mandricard:
<strong>
Those are the people who founded this country.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yep. Religious nuts with guns.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #148 of 167
[quote]They weren't afraid lest someone say something about God in their presence.<hr></blockquote>

How does that idea relate to this case?

No one is restricting anyone's ability to say anything they want.

[quote]If you tried to make the kind of argument about the First Amendment that's been made with respect to this case, they would have looked at you like you have three heads.<hr></blockquote>

Wow, that's a pretty bold statement.
Did you read their diaries?

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #149 of 167
[quote]Originally posted by Moogs:
<strong>

ONCE AGAIN, nothing really has changed except that the majority now has less right to express their patriotism / allegiance (whatever you'd like to call it) in public schools than they did before. Bravo! Nothing has been added, but something certainly has been taken away.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

What happened was the rights of the majority infringed upon the rights of the small but obviously vocal minority. How? Through the pledge's minor endorsement of monotheism. Now, you can complain that the majority has "less right to express patriotism" since the pledge was ruled unconstitutional, but to do so would be blind to the fact that it infringed upon minority rights.

[quote]Originally posted by Moogs:
<strong>
By the way, I should state for the record that I am less interested in kids reciting the PoA than I am in them actually being good citizens. I'll take the kid who sleeps through the PoA but volunteers some of his time to charitable causes, actually learns (rather than memorizes) what's in his Civics book, etc - every time - over the kid who recites the PoA without fail but sleeps through Civics class and spends his time in front of a PS2 console at home....
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I hear you. It's tremendously important for our culture that we educate our children in community volunteerism and history.
post #150 of 167
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
How does that idea relate to this case? </strong><hr></blockquote>

That's what this case is all about. The guy who brought the suit didn't want his daughter to have to hear the other students recite the pledge with the phrase "under God" in it. She was in no way compelled to say the phrase herself. She didn't have to recite any of the pledge if she didn't want to. Nobody has to. That's been the law since 1943.

[ 06-29-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #151 of 167
[quote]Originally posted by spaceman_spiff:
<strong>This is not a First Amendment issue. Or at least it shouldn't be. That won't prevent it from being treated as if it were one though.

When the framers wrote and ratified the Constitution they were innoculating their new republic from the religious strife they'd left behind in Europe. They didn't want religious wars to be fought here or people being burned at the stake or losing their heads or tortured on the rack. That's the sort of thing they were guarding against. They weren't afraid lest someone say something about God in their presence. If you tried to make the kind of argument about the First Amendment that's been made with respect to this case, they would have looked at you like you have three heads.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The constitution was established to be modular enough to deal with unknown problems of the future. This issue is one of them.
post #152 of 167
[quote]Originally posted by sjpsu:
<strong>
The constitution was established to be modular enough to deal with unknown problems of the future. This issue is one of them.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yep. That's why they provided for a process by which it could be amended. That's not what has happened here.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #153 of 167
Eh. I agree but I meant the scope of the amendments can handle future issues.
post #154 of 167
[quote]Originally posted by sjpsu:

<strong>Eh. I agree but I meant the scope of the amendments can handle future issues.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Basically, what you are saying is that the framers expected the Constitution to be re-interpreted in ways they could not foresee. Which is a way of conceding the point that this ruling is not in keeping with the meaning of the First Amendment as the framers understood it.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #155 of 167
[quote]Originally posted by spaceman_spiff:
<strong>

Basically, what you are saying is that the framers expected the Constitution to be re-interpreted in ways they could not foresee. Which is a way of conceding the point that this ruling is not in keeping with the meaning of the First Amendment as the framers understood it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't have enough knowledge of the Constitution to argue this. Respectfully bowing out of this particular matter.
post #156 of 167
Weak Semantic flexing?

Not at all.

This just shows the typical anti-religious paranoia. Talk of God is NOT religious. I can talk about god all day, believe that there is a god (which the vast majority of people do) and yet not suscribe to ANY religion.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #157 of 167
Spiff:

[quote]That's what this case is all about. The guy who brought the suit didn't want his daughter to have to hear the other students recite the pledge with the phrase "under God" in it.<hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

Look, the guy brought the case because he knew that the act adding "under God" was unconstitutional.

His motives in bringing the case to the forefront are unconsequential when looking over the ruling.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

How does this not apply?

[quote]She was in no way compelled to say the phrase herself. She didn't have to recite any of the pledge if she didn't want to. Nobody has to. That's been the law since 1943.<hr></blockquote>

THE ISSUE IS NOT FORCED RECITATION.

[quote]Basically, what you are saying is that the framers expected the Constitution to be re- interpreted in ways they could not foresee. Which is a way of conceding the point that this ruling is not in keeping with the meaning of the First Amendment as the framers understood it.<hr></blockquote>

The first part of the first amendment isn't just about keeping one religion from ruling the land. If it was, it would say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion".

The framers didn't just pick random words. These amendments were hotly debated and carefully considered. Every word of the constitution is there for a reason.

For you to say "they would think this is ridiculous" is laughable, just a complete joke. There is nothing about this ruling that exceeds the establishment clause, it's clear cut.


Matsu:

[quote]This just shows the typical anti-religious paranoia. Talk of God is NOT religious. I can talk about god all day, believe that there is a god (which the vast majority of people do) and yet not suscribe to ANY religion.<hr></blockquote>

If talk of God is not religious, what is it?

And even if you're talking about Agnostic or Theistic belief systems you're still talking about belief systems.

The pledge of allegiance, as it stands with "under God", has the speaker subjecting himself to God, which IS a religious statement.

Whether or not you "can" believe in God without ascribing to a "religion" makes NO DIFFERENCE.

Look at the PoA, look at the 1st amendment, look at the 1954 act that put "under God" into the PoA. It's clear cut.

[ 06-29-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #158 of 167
[quote] Look at the PoA, look at the 1st amendment, look at the 1954 act that put "under God" into the PoA. It's clear cut. <hr></blockquote>

its really that clear cut.

and besides, to make the posers feel better:
If you are religious in any way then you should see it as a good thing to not have the word indicating your diety cheappened by making it universally applicable to all speific religions AND then part of a rote recitation.

you shouldn't want the name of your God to be so trivialized, so worldy and indisciminate:
Pearls before swine
render onto Ceasar...
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #159 of 167
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:

<strong>For you to say "they would think this is ridiculous" is laughable, just a complete joke. There is nothing about this ruling that exceeds the establishment clause, it's clear cut.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It can just as easily be argued that any ruling against using phrase "under God" while reciting the Pledge is a free-speech violation. Or a violation of the free expression clause. Read the whole Constitution not just the parts that make you feel good.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #160 of 167
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
and besides, to make the posers feel better...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Why are you becoming so ill-mannered lately, pfflam? In another thread you complained about you fanatic anti-regulation mobsters. Tone it down.

I dont have any problem with the rest of what you wrote after the nonsense you wrote about this being clear cut. (It isnt.) But you undermine your arguments with the name-calling.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Oh we're finished as a Country