TELL me about it! I gotta live with these hammerheads!
Quick, somebody throw me a life jacket!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dude, if you can figure out a way to tread water for a couple of hours, there will be some gnarly tubes to ride into Arizona.
Again, I think this is a great example of what's happening in this country. Kids are being indoctrinated in the OPPOSITE direction (you can't tell me that the Pledge of Allegiance isn't designed for political indoctrination). We're teaching children (even college students) that there are no absolutes, everything is relative, no culture or set of values is better than any other, etc. The constant attack on religion is just another example of how principles and value systems are suddenly undesirable.
I think they should get rid of the god part. We should take off the in god we trust bit as well. I never recited the pledge when I was in high school either.
>>The Pledge of Allegiance is Unconstitutional
Absolutely Amazing!
How is this amazing? I personally couldn't agree more with the judges' decision. Religion is for the weak and/or stupid. People who know better are offended by these religious statements, as they should. They shouldn't be forced to go as low as the gullible general population.
<strong> We're teaching children (even college students) that there are no absolutes, everything is relative, no culture or set of values is better than any other, etc. The constant attack on religion is just another example of how principles and value systems are suddenly undesirable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> NO, a combined church and state is undesirable. THAT is what the ruling is about. Those judges could care less about value systems because they were not on the table. Religion exists fine without government. OR are you suggesting that government SHOULD endorse religion? Boy, that would be mighty unconstitutional of you!
<strong>How appropriate such a brain-dead ruling comes down from a California high court. Only in California could such an outrageous abridgement of our rights (the Pledge of Allegiance) be cast into the spotlight and pinned for the shameful collection of words that it is.
:eek:
Fvcking self-righteous, lip-service-paying, bass-akwards sons-a-bithces. It's my earnest hope that all those non-Californians in favor of this kind of language-sanitizing, common-sense-bludgeoning legal abuse ... MOVE to California and kick out the remaining thousand or so people who do not suffer from UV-irradiated, smog-induced brain failure (we have homes for them). That way when California falls into the ocean under the weight of its own stupidity and arrogance, the median IQ in America will jump a dozen points (at least).
Now THAT would be some fun TV to watch. "Ooooo...there's the inventor of "reality TV" from MTV (Maryjane Burn-um-Blotter)...and Whoopi...and the judge who said the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. Wow - they really do turn purple when submerged for long periods of time! Sweet...."
Um, Moogs, like ya and all, but where the hell is the actual substance of this message? I feel like I have cut the fat off a piece of steak only to find nothing but bone.
How exactly is it an "abridgement of our rights? "
<strong>Groverat, I think this is important because it's all over the news, letting people see HOW F*CKING RIDICULOUS things have gotten. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Ridiculous? The decision was rooted in the firm belief that "under God" violated the separation of church and state.
Or do you mean "ridiculous" because the government is finally straying from including a phrase deliberately included to highlight the United State's allowance and pride for religion. By the way, I respect your recognition of the problem of including the phrase. I wonder why you would label the situation as "ridiculous" though.
We can't say the Pledge of Allegience anymore. But, by God, we can cram every other idea, lifestyle or agenda down the throats and minds of every second grader in the country...all in the name of "free speech" of course.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pscates:
[QB]
There's going to come a time when your average fourth grader isn't even aware of the pledge of allegience and how it goes, the tune of the national anthem, who George Washington was, etc.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pscates, there is NOTHING unconstitutional about the National Anthem or George Washington. You are spreading FUD and should stop it.
I do agree though that someday kids may not know George Washington. It's sad, and a result of the same administration that changed the pledge- Eisenhower's. Because we were racing Russia in technology, the US established a math and science initiative that pushed funding for those subjects WELL ABOVE those for the arts, history, and humanities. You can still see the results if you were an accellerated math and science student in high school, like I was. What needs to be done is MORE FUNDING for those areas. We are producing the best technology yet are forgetting about our CULTURE. Sorry about getting off-topic.
Quote:
Originally posted by pscates:
<strong>
BUT, they'll know that some daddies have boyfriends, that revisionist history makes them feel better about themselves and they'll become quite the experts at choosing a favorite brand of condom, just in time for the junior high homecoming dance.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you implying that there is something WRONG about those ideas? By saying "choosing a favorite brand of condums," I assume you mean "learning how to use condums." Back to the original question.
[/QB]
{Disclaimer: I'm just commenting on what you said. It's a vital part of discussion, not a personal attack. Clear?}
i don't have as much problem with "under god" as i do with forcing kids to say the pledge in the first place.
when i had to recite the pledge in high school, i would stand up as a sign of respect to the flag and all those who have fought so we could be there, but i wouldn't recite the pledge.
it just sounds like brainwashing babble to me, but i still hold respect for the country and the flag, just not the pledge
Hmuchison, explain exactly HOW "we're finished as a country." Like groverat said, somewhat mockingly though true, this is "Democracy in action."
Interesting, one of the judges who ruled it is unconstitutional is a Nixon appointee. The second judge was a Carter appointee while the third dissented.
In high school my vice principal forced all students to stand in attention when the pledge of allegiance/ national anthem played. Is that action unconstitutional as well?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.<hr></blockquote>Hmmmmm....I don't see congress making any laws here. Not sure how it's unconstitutional.
And we're not finished as a country because of this, we're finished as a country because of this:
<strong>Hmmmmm....I don't see congress making any laws here. Not sure how it's unconstitutional.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, it provides a wall of separation between church and state. Congress doesn't have to make a law. You have a poor understanding of this but i'm happy to clear it up for you.
I favor the ruling. hmurchinson, we all know what God really means. All the other definitions are merely referential. I favor any subsequent court rulings on this matter as well.
I think atheists, agnostics and non-monotheists are feeling left out.
I always wondered why there was never a problem over 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance due to the 'seperation of church and state'.
As far as I can tell, the pledge was fine before 1954 and 'under God' obviously offends people, so it shouldn't be in the pledge and probably shouldn't have been added in the first place.
I guess we'll see what happens, but I think they made the right call. Of course you're going to get a ton of the overly zealous religious fanatics all over the air waves badmouthing the person who filed the suit, the judges, and whoever supports the decision saying that none of them belong in the country. I heard WBZ radio interview the man this morning and he played some excerpts from his answering machine; one of the messages had a woman screaming, "Get the hell out of my country! Get the hell out of my country you godless piece of **** ! **** you! Get the hell out of my country! We're going to get you!"
It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court and Bush say about the ruling.
[quote]I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America; and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.<hr></blockquote>
It's not like they're saying the whole thing is bad, just what was added in the 50s. So revert it and call it a day. The people that are mad now, especially the ones in government, even admit that it has to do with religion. The citizens that are mad want it in there because they believe in God. If that's the case, the ruling is correct, because according to the Constitution, the government needs to stay out of religion.
[quote]I always wondered why there was never a problem over 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance due to the 'seperation of church and state'.<hr></blockquote>
Because white conservatives bitch harder than a Limp Bizkit/Sinead O'Connor double bill.
I think the reactions here are the answer to that question.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Comments
<strong>
TELL me about it! I gotta live with these hammerheads!
Quick, somebody throw me a life jacket!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dude, if you can figure out a way to tread water for a couple of hours, there will be some gnarly tubes to ride into Arizona.
Again, I think this is a great example of what's happening in this country. Kids are being indoctrinated in the OPPOSITE direction (you can't tell me that the Pledge of Allegiance isn't designed for political indoctrination). We're teaching children (even college students) that there are no absolutes, everything is relative, no culture or set of values is better than any other, etc. The constant attack on religion is just another example of how principles and value systems are suddenly undesirable.
Absolutely Amazing!
How is this amazing? I personally couldn't agree more with the judges' decision. Religion is for the weak and/or stupid. People who know better are offended by these religious statements, as they should. They shouldn't be forced to go as low as the gullible general population.
<strong> We're teaching children (even college students) that there are no absolutes, everything is relative, no culture or set of values is better than any other, etc. The constant attack on religion is just another example of how principles and value systems are suddenly undesirable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> NO, a combined church and state is undesirable. THAT is what the ruling is about. Those judges could care less about value systems because they were not on the table. Religion exists fine without government. OR are you suggesting that government SHOULD endorse religion? Boy, that would be mighty unconstitutional of you!
<strong>How appropriate such a brain-dead ruling comes down from a California high court. Only in California could such an outrageous abridgement of our rights (the Pledge of Allegiance) be cast into the spotlight and pinned for the shameful collection of words that it is.
Fvcking self-righteous, lip-service-paying, bass-akwards sons-a-bithces. It's my earnest hope that all those non-Californians in favor of this kind of language-sanitizing, common-sense-bludgeoning legal abuse ... MOVE to California and kick out the remaining thousand or so people who do not suffer from UV-irradiated, smog-induced brain failure (we have homes for them). That way when California falls into the ocean under the weight of its own stupidity and arrogance, the median IQ in America will jump a dozen points (at least).
Now THAT would be some fun TV to watch. "Ooooo...there's the inventor of "reality TV" from MTV (Maryjane Burn-um-Blotter)...and Whoopi...and the judge who said the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. Wow - they really do turn purple when submerged for long periods of time! Sweet...."
[ 06-26-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Um, Moogs, like ya and all, but where the hell is the actual substance of this message? I feel like I have cut the fat off a piece of steak only to find nothing but bone.
How exactly is it an "abridgement of our rights? "
<strong>Groverat, I think this is important because it's all over the news, letting people see HOW F*CKING RIDICULOUS things have gotten. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Ridiculous? The decision was rooted in the firm belief that "under God" violated the separation of church and state.
Or do you mean "ridiculous" because the government is finally straying from including a phrase deliberately included to highlight the United State's allowance and pride for religion. By the way, I respect your recognition of the problem of including the phrase. I wonder why you would label the situation as "ridiculous" though.
<strong>
We can't say the Pledge of Allegience anymore. But, by God, we can cram every other idea, lifestyle or agenda down the throats and minds of every second grader in the country...all in the name of "free speech" of course.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pscates:
[QB]
There's going to come a time when your average fourth grader isn't even aware of the pledge of allegience and how it goes, the tune of the national anthem, who George Washington was, etc.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pscates, there is NOTHING unconstitutional about the National Anthem or George Washington. You are spreading FUD and should stop it.
I do agree though that someday kids may not know George Washington. It's sad, and a result of the same administration that changed the pledge- Eisenhower's. Because we were racing Russia in technology, the US established a math and science initiative that pushed funding for those subjects WELL ABOVE those for the arts, history, and humanities. You can still see the results if you were an accellerated math and science student in high school, like I was. What needs to be done is MORE FUNDING for those areas. We are producing the best technology yet are forgetting about our CULTURE. Sorry about getting off-topic.
Originally posted by pscates:
<strong>
BUT, they'll know that some daddies have boyfriends, that revisionist history makes them feel better about themselves and they'll become quite the experts at choosing a favorite brand of condom, just in time for the junior high homecoming dance.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you implying that there is something WRONG about those ideas? By saying "choosing a favorite brand of condums," I assume you mean "learning how to use condums." Back to the original question.
[/QB]
{Disclaimer: I'm just commenting on what you said. It's a vital part of discussion, not a personal attack. Clear?}
[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
when i had to recite the pledge in high school, i would stand up as a sign of respect to the flag and all those who have fought so we could be there, but i wouldn't recite the pledge.
it just sounds like brainwashing babble to me, but i still hold respect for the country and the flag, just not the pledge
Interesting, one of the judges who ruled it is unconstitutional is a Nixon appointee. The second judge was a Carter appointee while the third dissented.
[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
In high school my vice principal forced all students to stand in attention when the pledge of allegiance/ national anthem played. Is that action unconstitutional as well?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.<hr></blockquote>Hmmmmm....I don't see congress making any laws here. Not sure how it's unconstitutional.
And we're not finished as a country because of this, we're finished as a country because of this:
<a href="http://www.fear.org/whyfear.html"; target="_blank">Civil Forfeiture</a>
<strong>Hmmmmm....I don't see congress making any laws here. Not sure how it's unconstitutional.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, it provides a wall of separation between church and state. Congress doesn't have to make a law. You have a poor understanding of this but i'm happy to clear it up for you.
I think atheists, agnostics and non-monotheists are feeling left out.
As far as I can tell, the pledge was fine before 1954 and 'under God' obviously offends people, so it shouldn't be in the pledge and probably shouldn't have been added in the first place.
I guess we'll see what happens, but I think they made the right call. Of course you're going to get a ton of the overly zealous religious fanatics all over the air waves badmouthing the person who filed the suit, the judges, and whoever supports the decision saying that none of them belong in the country. I heard WBZ radio interview the man this morning and he played some excerpts from his answering machine; one of the messages had a woman screaming, "Get the hell out of my country! Get the hell out of my country you godless piece of **** ! **** you! Get the hell out of my country! We're going to get you!"
It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court and Bush say about the ruling.
[quote]I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America; and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.<hr></blockquote>
It's not like they're saying the whole thing is bad, just what was added in the 50s. So revert it and call it a day. The people that are mad now, especially the ones in government, even admit that it has to do with religion. The citizens that are mad want it in there because they believe in God. If that's the case, the ruling is correct, because according to the Constitution, the government needs to stay out of religion.
Because white conservatives bitch harder than a Limp Bizkit/Sinead O'Connor double bill.
I think the reactions here are the answer to that question.
This is bad journalism in action, either that or bad readership.
The court ruled the Act that put "under God" in there unconstitutional, not the entire Pledge.
[edit]
Of note:
Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>