<strong>More reasons? They're already referring to us as Jewo-Christian crusaders. Why? Give you a hint, because the extreme Islamic fundamentalists know this will stir up more hate than referring to us as godless infidels.
<strong>I was in cub scouts through elementary school and had to recite the plege of allegience every day at the meetings. I am not religous and never cared about saying "god." It never mattered to me. I still don't mind it and I don't think it ever will. I also don't look at my money in anger.</strong><hr></blockquote>Saying "I'm not offended" is just a way of diminishing what really is a deep constitutional and social issue. It's not about being "offended;" it's about the underlying principle. It's simply apathy to say "it doesn't bother me, so therefore it's fine."
Can you imagine if all our social issues were resolved in that way? People don't give a damn about any political/constitutional issues, so politicians could do whatever they wanted - everyone would just say "that's OK, it doesn't bother me." Oh yeah, that's what's happening now anyway.
Although the pledge doesn't exactly have any earth-shattering consequences in itself, it's hard to argue that the underlying issue of church & state is unimportant.
"I was concerned that the American public would be led to believe that my daughter is an atheist or that she has been harmed by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, including the words 'one nation under God,"' Sandra Banning said in a statement. "We are practicing Christians and are active in our church."
I'll bet these people are getting harrassed like crazy about this.
I doubt it. People that REALLY know the daughter and mother should already know what their beliefs are, right? I mean, if they're in the church and are practicing Christians, their friends, family and fellow congregation members should know that this whole thing was less about the daughter than the father.
If that's so, what's to harrass about?
Their friends, family and congregation are going to know the mom and daughter better than the news or any of us.
Now, the DAD...he's probably dealing with some bullshit...
First reason I think that: They came on CNN or whatever to say that they were good Christians.
Second reason: There's precedent, the people who made the big move in getting prayer out of school were harrassed so much they had to move to a different state and (correct me if I'm wrong) change their names.
Factor that in with how absolutely outraged people were at the 9th's decision and I think it makes sense.
So YOUR wild-ass theories, "what ifs" and scenarios make impeccable sense and are grounded in reasoned logic? And mine are fevered paranoid, overwrought rantings of an oppressed, angry white male?
Are those the rules? Is that how it's going to go? I'm always wrong, you're always right?
You've got book learning and meticulous source-citing on your side, and I've got common sense and experience on mine?
Just making sure, so I know how to proceed and play the game!
'rat, my brother, you'd argue with a headlight if you thought there was any adventure in it.
You're TOTALLY in the wrong field, and are wasting your time with this journalism stuff. Get thee to a law school...you're missing your true calling! Without a doubt, the most contrarian, argumentative mother****er I've EVER know (I mean that in a nice way, of course).
Shit, you could probably get the Devil himself off a shoplifting rap!
"Your honor, my client's red skin and forked tail has made him a victim of society's prejudices! When he was nabbed by security with the 47 Husker Du CDs, he was merely attempting to decide which ones to purchase. It was NOT shoplifting. My client was also beaten by police outside Tower Records, immediately following the arrest. I want to submit this videotape as defense exhibit 733. It says right here in the Texas penal code, Section 43, article 4.11.b that..."
Think about it. You'd get to wear a cool suit and probably drive a pretty snazzy car!
[quote]So YOUR wild-ass theories, "what ifs" and scenarios make impeccable sense and are grounded in reasoned logic? And mine are fevered paranoid, overwrought rantings of an oppressed, angry white male?<hr></blockquote>
My theory has precedent and a little evidence.
[quote]Are those the rules? Is that how it's going to go? I'm always wrong, you're always right?<hr></blockquote>
Am I the one who said he was always right... or was that you?
[quote]You've got book learning and meticulous source-citing on your side, and I've got common sense and experience on mine?<hr></blockquote>
Hey hey hey, no need to get personal here.
[quote]Without a doubt, the most contrarian, argumentative mother****er I've EVER know (I mean that in a nice way, of course).<hr></blockquote>
It takes two to tango, sexy.
[quote]"Your honor, my client's red skin and forked tail has made him a victim of society's prejudices! When he was nabbed by security with the 47 Husker Du CDs, he was merely attempting to decide which ones to purchase. It was NOT shoplifting. My client was also beaten by police outside Tower Records, immediately following the arrest. I want to submit this videotape as defense exhibit 733. It says right here in the Texas penal code, Section 43, article 4.11.b that..."<hr></blockquote>
There wasn't nearly enough rhyming and not nearly enough big (read: fabricated) words in that. You aren't a real lawyer if you don't sound like Jackie Childs.
I was just thinking about stuff like this. It made me think that if we take out "under god" from the pledge, and "in god we trust" from our coins, that this gives terrorists more "reasons" to attack us. Not only, in their eyes, will we be evil, but we will be godless too. Not a good combination.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. As long as we don't believe in their god, we are screwed either way. Stop using jesus as an excuse to be a narrow-minded, bigoted asshole.
No. As long as we don't believe in their god, we are screwed either way. Stop using jesus as an excuse to be a narrow-minded, bigoted asshole.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sounds like an unfortunate family situation which is sad, but doesn't change the merits of the case.
As an eight year old I'm sure she wouldn't object to eating candy all day or being taught that UFOs or psychics are real. But her father certainly has the right to object to such things.
Also, I think it's pretty firmly established that parents have the right to raise their kids according their religious beliefs (provided the don't entail beatings, mutalation, or psychological torture). I can't remember if "Christian Scientists" are allowed to deny blood transfusions for their dying kids or not, but I believe that crosses the line.
Comments
<strong>More reasons? They're already referring to us as Jewo-Christian crusaders. Why? Give you a hint, because the extreme Islamic fundamentalists know this will stir up more hate than referring to us as godless infidels.
[ 07-13-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, you're probably right
<strong>I was in cub scouts through elementary school and had to recite the plege of allegience every day at the meetings. I am not religous and never cared about saying "god." It never mattered to me. I still don't mind it and I don't think it ever will. I also don't look at my money in anger.</strong><hr></blockquote>Saying "I'm not offended" is just a way of diminishing what really is a deep constitutional and social issue. It's not about being "offended;" it's about the underlying principle. It's simply apathy to say "it doesn't bother me, so therefore it's fine."
Can you imagine if all our social issues were resolved in that way? People don't give a damn about any political/constitutional issues, so politicians could do whatever they wanted - everyone would just say "that's OK, it doesn't bother me." Oh yeah, that's what's happening now anyway.
Although the pledge doesn't exactly have any earth-shattering consequences in itself, it's hard to argue that the underlying issue of church & state is unimportant.
"I was concerned that the American public would be led to believe that my daughter is an atheist or that she has been harmed by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, including the words 'one nation under God,"' Sandra Banning said in a statement. "We are practicing Christians and are active in our church."
I'll bet these people are getting harrassed like crazy about this.
Very sad, very very sad.
If that's so, what's to harrass about?
Their friends, family and congregation are going to know the mom and daughter better than the news or any of us.
Now, the DAD...he's probably dealing with some bullshit...
First reason I think that: They came on CNN or whatever to say that they were good Christians.
Second reason: There's precedent, the people who made the big move in getting prayer out of school were harrassed so much they had to move to a different state and (correct me if I'm wrong) change their names.
Factor that in with how absolutely outraged people were at the 9th's decision and I think it makes sense.
Are those the rules? Is that how it's going to go? I'm always wrong, you're always right?
You've got book learning and meticulous source-citing on your side, and I've got common sense and experience on mine?
Just making sure, so I know how to proceed and play the game!
Woo-hoo!
'rat, my brother, you'd argue with a headlight if you thought there was any adventure in it.
You're TOTALLY in the wrong field, and are wasting your time with this journalism stuff. Get thee to a law school...you're missing your true calling! Without a doubt, the most contrarian, argumentative mother****er I've EVER know (I mean that in a nice way, of course).
Shit, you could probably get the Devil himself off a shoplifting rap!
"Your honor, my client's red skin and forked tail has made him a victim of society's prejudices! When he was nabbed by security with the 47 Husker Du CDs, he was merely attempting to decide which ones to purchase. It was NOT shoplifting. My client was also beaten by police outside Tower Records, immediately following the arrest. I want to submit this videotape as defense exhibit 733. It says right here in the Texas penal code, Section 43, article 4.11.b that..."
Think about it. You'd get to wear a cool suit and probably drive a pretty snazzy car!
My theory has precedent and a little evidence.
[quote]Are those the rules? Is that how it's going to go? I'm always wrong, you're always right?<hr></blockquote>
Am I the one who said he was always right... or was that you?
[quote]You've got book learning and meticulous source-citing on your side, and I've got common sense and experience on mine?<hr></blockquote>
Hey hey hey, no need to get personal here.
[quote]Without a doubt, the most contrarian, argumentative mother****er I've EVER know (I mean that in a nice way, of course).<hr></blockquote>
It takes two to tango, sexy.
[quote]"Your honor, my client's red skin and forked tail has made him a victim of society's prejudices! When he was nabbed by security with the 47 Husker Du CDs, he was merely attempting to decide which ones to purchase. It was NOT shoplifting. My client was also beaten by police outside Tower Records, immediately following the arrest. I want to submit this videotape as defense exhibit 733. It says right here in the Texas penal code, Section 43, article 4.11.b that..."<hr></blockquote>
There wasn't nearly enough rhyming and not nearly enough big (read: fabricated) words in that. You aren't a real lawyer if you don't sound like Jackie Childs.
<strong>
I was just thinking about stuff like this. It made me think that if we take out "under god" from the pledge, and "in god we trust" from our coins, that this gives terrorists more "reasons" to attack us. Not only, in their eyes, will we be evil, but we will be godless too. Not a good combination.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. As long as we don't believe in their god, we are screwed either way. Stop using jesus as an excuse to be a narrow-minded, bigoted asshole.
<strong>
No. As long as we don't believe in their god, we are screwed either way. Stop using jesus as an excuse to be a narrow-minded, bigoted asshole.</strong><hr></blockquote>
same god. as for the rest of it, LOL
<strong>
same god.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not according to the whacks that want us dead.
As an eight year old I'm sure she wouldn't object to eating candy all day or being taught that UFOs or psychics are real. But her father certainly has the right to object to such things.
Also, I think it's pretty firmly established that parents have the right to raise their kids according their religious beliefs (provided the don't entail beatings, mutalation, or psychological torture). I can't remember if "Christian Scientists" are allowed to deny blood transfusions for their dying kids or not, but I believe that crosses the line.
[ 07-13-2002: Message edited by: Nordstrodamus ]</p>