9 out of 10 Americans agree...
-
kevnar wrote: 9 out of 10 Americans agree... Isn't the figure something like 3 out of 10 Americans believe they have been abducted by aliens, and 8 out fo 10 Americans believe Jerry Springer's show is real? People are stupid, it is the minority that actually have a clue - in all cases. If you listen to the majority then without exception you will have one hell of a mess at the end of it. The rule that says "the majority will decide" should be replaced by "the majority with a clue will decide". Everyone is in everything for themselves - don't kid yourself otherwise. Every good intention reaps a benefit to the individual. Note this has nothing to do you the POA at all - my stand on thatis that the whole damned thing should be done away with and replaced with Best Friends Forever by the Tweenies. No I am *not* joking. If you are going to brainwash a society, you might as well do so with something that will help make their lives' better. ____________________ David Wulff "My opinion is worth more than yours." - Everyone.
David Wulff wrote: Note this has nothing to do you the POA at all - my stand on thatis that the whole damned thing should be done away with and replaced with Best Friends Forever by the Tweenies. No I am *not* joking. If you are going to brainwash a society, you might as well do so with something that will help make their lives' better. Horray, I thought that I was the only twenty-something year old that watched the Tweenies. :D Simon I need your clothes, your boots, and your copy of VS.NET. Sonork ID 100.10024 In these plagued streets of pity, you can buy anything - for $200, anyone can conceive a god on video
-
"...under God..." should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance. But that doesn't stop the minority from getting their own way. It's not the majority who rule, it's those most politcally active. "Tell me about the god you don't believe in, and I probably wouldn't believe in him either." - Unknown
9 out of 10 people are sheep. Border Collies have the best job security in the world. Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
-
9 out of 10 people are sheep. Border Collies have the best job security in the world. Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
Christopher Duncan wrote: Border Collies have the best job security in the world. I had a Border Collie once. Best supervisor I ever worked for... I Drowned Schroedinger's Stupid Cat!
-
"...under God..." should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance. But that doesn't stop the minority from getting their own way. It's not the majority who rule, it's those most politcally active. "Tell me about the god you don't believe in, and I probably wouldn't believe in him either." - Unknown
kevnar wrote: 9 out of 10 Americans agree..."...under God..." should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance. A nationwide recognition that the country was formed on the basis of Judeo-Christian principles(having historical roots in both Judaism and Christianity). The poll means that 9 out of 10 polled are proud to publically acknowledge that fact. kevnar wrote: But that doesn't stop the minority from getting their own way. Quite the contrary, it is obvious they are not getting their way. This was a decision by an activist judge, the decision has already been stayed and will obviously be over turned. The judge is attempting to make law, not intrepret current law. Creating law is not a function of a judge in the United States. kevnar wrote: It's not the majority who rule, it's those most politcally active. Always the case, especially in our form of government. It is left to fools like this judge and disasters like 9-11 to wake the American public. In good times we tend to ignore entirely too much of what goes on around us, leaving governance and leadership to the average or the more vocal. Mike
-
Tom Archer wrote: Sadly, you're right :( What, you've only just realised? I am always right. ____________________ David Wulff "My opinion is worth more than yours." - Everyone.
David Wulff wrote: I am always right. You are.. shit. I only found that out now.
"When a friend hurts us, we should write it down in the sand, where the winds of forgiveness get in charge of erasing it away, and when something great happens, we should engrave it in the stone of the memory of the heart, where no wind can erase it" Nish on life [methinks] "It's The Soapbox; topics are optional" Shog 9
-
"...under God..." should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance. But that doesn't stop the minority from getting their own way. It's not the majority who rule, it's those most politcally active. "Tell me about the god you don't believe in, and I probably wouldn't believe in him either." - Unknown
OK. I'm not a US citizen. But I don't see why people who don't believe in God should have to say the words "...under God... " in a pledge. Please don't bite my head off for this. There are probably things here that I'm not fully ofay with.
"When a friend hurts us, we should write it down in the sand, where the winds of forgiveness get in charge of erasing it away, and when something great happens, we should engrave it in the stone of the memory of the heart, where no wind can erase it" Nish on life [methinks] "It's The Soapbox; topics are optional" Shog 9
-
So if 1 out of 10 Americans thinks they should bomb Afghanistan, that is ok? Cheers, Tom Archer Author - Inside C#, Visual C++.NET Bible
Tom Archer wrote: So if 1 out of 10 Americans thinks they should bomb Afghanistan, that is ok? Not at all, my point was that the best decision needs to be made not necassarily the most popular one.
Mike Mullikin - People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. Soren Kierkegaard
-
OK. I'm not a US citizen. But I don't see why people who don't believe in God should have to say the words "...under God... " in a pledge. Please don't bite my head off for this. There are probably things here that I'm not fully ofay with.
"When a friend hurts us, we should write it down in the sand, where the winds of forgiveness get in charge of erasing it away, and when something great happens, we should engrave it in the stone of the memory of the heart, where no wind can erase it" Nish on life [methinks] "It's The Soapbox; topics are optional" Shog 9
They don't have to say anything at all! The court ruling says we're not allowed to say it!!! I wish I had the court's email address; I'd send them a copy of the Constitution, as none of them appear to have read it. I Drowned Schroedinger's Stupid Cat!
-
OK. I'm not a US citizen. But I don't see why people who don't believe in God should have to say the words "...under God... " in a pledge. Please don't bite my head off for this. There are probably things here that I'm not fully ofay with.
"When a friend hurts us, we should write it down in the sand, where the winds of forgiveness get in charge of erasing it away, and when something great happens, we should engrave it in the stone of the memory of the heart, where no wind can erase it" Nish on life [methinks] "It's The Soapbox; topics are optional" Shog 9
Brian Delahunty wrote: But I don't see why people who don't believe in God should have to say the words "...under God... " in a pledge. I've asked this very question in a few of the recent past threads on the subject and haven't gotten an honest answer yet. If it ["under God"]was added in the 50's for political reasons and isn't representative of all Americans why is everybody whining over it? It certainly doesn't stop anybody from praying or practicing their religion. Sheesh!!
Mike Mullikin - People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. Soren Kierkegaard
-
They don't have to say anything at all! The court ruling says we're not allowed to say it!!! I wish I had the court's email address; I'd send them a copy of the Constitution, as none of them appear to have read it. I Drowned Schroedinger's Stupid Cat!
I also don't get why the words "under God" mean so much to people... Is it more tradition then religious?? [I don't really understand the whole thing]
"When a friend hurts us, we should write it down in the sand, where the winds of forgiveness get in charge of erasing it away, and when something great happens, we should engrave it in the stone of the memory of the heart, where no wind can erase it" Nish on life [methinks] "It's The Soapbox; topics are optional" Shog 9
-
They don't have to say anything at all! The court ruling says we're not allowed to say it!!! I wish I had the court's email address; I'd send them a copy of the Constitution, as none of them appear to have read it. I Drowned Schroedinger's Stupid Cat!
I'm curious, why is it so important for anyone to say "under God" when refering to the US??? If school children are expected to recite the POA, why is it important to anybody that it include a reference to God??
Mike Mullikin - People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. Soren Kierkegaard
-
Brian Delahunty wrote: But I don't see why people who don't believe in God should have to say the words "...under God... " in a pledge. I've asked this very question in a few of the recent past threads on the subject and haven't gotten an honest answer yet. If it ["under God"]was added in the 50's for political reasons and isn't representative of all Americans why is everybody whining over it? It certainly doesn't stop anybody from praying or practicing their religion. Sheesh!!
Mike Mullikin - People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. Soren Kierkegaard
Mike Mullikin wrote: isn't representative of all Americans why is everybody whining over it? Yep. It don't make much sense to me. But I'm from little 'oul Ireland, so I don't know all that much about US affairs.
"When a friend hurts us, we should write it down in the sand, where the winds of forgiveness get in charge of erasing it away, and when something great happens, we should engrave it in the stone of the memory of the heart, where no wind can erase it" Nish on life [methinks] "It's The Soapbox; topics are optional" Shog 9
-
OK. I'm not a US citizen. But I don't see why people who don't believe in God should have to say the words "...under God... " in a pledge. Please don't bite my head off for this. There are probably things here that I'm not fully ofay with.
"When a friend hurts us, we should write it down in the sand, where the winds of forgiveness get in charge of erasing it away, and when something great happens, we should engrave it in the stone of the memory of the heart, where no wind can erase it" Nish on life [methinks] "It's The Soapbox; topics are optional" Shog 9
Brian Delahunty wrote: OK. I'm not a US citizen. But I don't see why people who don't believe in God should have to say the words "...under God... " in a pledge. Individuals who do not believe do not have to say the words. As a matter of fact, you are not forced to to recite the pledge, you are free to stand mute if you so choose. But that does not mean inclusion of the words should be struck from the language of the pledge nor that inclusion of the words are unconstitutional. You'll find opinions that say it is unconstitutional because the Constitution calls for a separation of church and state. The meaning of the separation is to ensure that we in the USA are not forced to adopt a state religion (ala Eastern Orthodox in Russia, where for example, Baptist Churches have to operate under ground) or be governed as a theocracy (as in Iran). Hope that helps. Mike
-
Brian Delahunty wrote: But I don't see why people who don't believe in God should have to say the words "...under God... " in a pledge. I've asked this very question in a few of the recent past threads on the subject and haven't gotten an honest answer yet. If it ["under God"]was added in the 50's for political reasons and isn't representative of all Americans why is everybody whining over it? It certainly doesn't stop anybody from praying or practicing their religion. Sheesh!!
Mike Mullikin - People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. Soren Kierkegaard
Mike Mullikin wrote: I've asked this very question in a few of the recent past threads on the subject and haven't gotten an honest answer yet. Come on, Mike. The outrage concerns the arrogant abuse of federal judicial power. You are telling me that you are comfortable with a non-elected member of the federal judiciary exercising the power to set aside a decision made by our elected representatives? Why the heck do we even bother having elected representatives? Why don't we just let the judges rule us and forget all this democracy nonsense. I don't really give a rats ass whether the pledge has "...under god..." in it or not. I am not a deeply religious person and basically think that religion *should* be kept out of school for the most part. But I firmly believe that the decision to include or not-include religion as an aspect of education should be left entirely up to the free born citizens who send their children to those schools. The first amendment was written specifically to ensure that such decision making authority would rest in the hands of the people and not in the hands of the federal government. In affect this judges interpretation of the constitution makes the first amendment null and void. It establishes a state based religion that no one may ever challange. "Humans: The final chapter in the evolution of rats"
-
Brian Delahunty wrote: OK. I'm not a US citizen. But I don't see why people who don't believe in God should have to say the words "...under God... " in a pledge. Individuals who do not believe do not have to say the words. As a matter of fact, you are not forced to to recite the pledge, you are free to stand mute if you so choose. But that does not mean inclusion of the words should be struck from the language of the pledge nor that inclusion of the words are unconstitutional. You'll find opinions that say it is unconstitutional because the Constitution calls for a separation of church and state. The meaning of the separation is to ensure that we in the USA are not forced to adopt a state religion (ala Eastern Orthodox in Russia, where for example, Baptist Churches have to operate under ground) or be governed as a theocracy (as in Iran). Hope that helps. Mike
Mike Gaskey wrote: Hope that helps. OK. What is the plegde actually about... or can you give me a link to the pledge?
"When a friend hurts us, we should write it down in the sand, where the winds of forgiveness get in charge of erasing it away, and when something great happens, we should engrave it in the stone of the memory of the heart, where no wind can erase it" Nish on life [methinks] "It's The Soapbox; topics are optional" Shog 9
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: Hope that helps. OK. What is the plegde actually about... or can you give me a link to the pledge?
"When a friend hurts us, we should write it down in the sand, where the winds of forgiveness get in charge of erasing it away, and when something great happens, we should engrave it in the stone of the memory of the heart, where no wind can erase it" Nish on life [methinks] "It's The Soapbox; topics are optional" Shog 9
Brian Delahunty wrote: What is the plegde actually about... or can you give me a link to the pledge? Here is a link to a famous version of the pledge, one that is articulated by the comedian Red Skeleton. This is an older version, one that predates the inclusion of the words now causing the concerns: http://fightbackusa.tripod.com/redskelton.doc This is a more current version. http://www.redshift.com/~kapsalis/pledge.html Here is a verion with the Red Skeleton explanation and a brief discussion of the additional words. http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg\_id=006Rjb Mike
-
Brian Delahunty wrote: What is the plegde actually about... or can you give me a link to the pledge? Here is a link to a famous version of the pledge, one that is articulated by the comedian Red Skeleton. This is an older version, one that predates the inclusion of the words now causing the concerns: http://fightbackusa.tripod.com/redskelton.doc This is a more current version. http://www.redshift.com/~kapsalis/pledge.html Here is a verion with the Red Skeleton explanation and a brief discussion of the additional words. http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg\_id=006Rjb Mike
Ok. Thanks.
"When a friend hurts us, we should write it down in the sand, where the winds of forgiveness get in charge of erasing it away, and when something great happens, we should engrave it in the stone of the memory of the heart, where no wind can erase it" Nish on life [methinks] "It's The Soapbox; topics are optional" Shog 9
-
9 out of 10 people are sheep. Border Collies have the best job security in the world. Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
Much better put than my attempt. :) ____________________ David Wulff "My opinion is worth more than yours." - Everyone.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: I've asked this very question in a few of the recent past threads on the subject and haven't gotten an honest answer yet. Come on, Mike. The outrage concerns the arrogant abuse of federal judicial power. You are telling me that you are comfortable with a non-elected member of the federal judiciary exercising the power to set aside a decision made by our elected representatives? Why the heck do we even bother having elected representatives? Why don't we just let the judges rule us and forget all this democracy nonsense. I don't really give a rats ass whether the pledge has "...under god..." in it or not. I am not a deeply religious person and basically think that religion *should* be kept out of school for the most part. But I firmly believe that the decision to include or not-include religion as an aspect of education should be left entirely up to the free born citizens who send their children to those schools. The first amendment was written specifically to ensure that such decision making authority would rest in the hands of the people and not in the hands of the federal government. In affect this judges interpretation of the constitution makes the first amendment null and void. It establishes a state based religion that no one may ever challange. "Humans: The final chapter in the evolution of rats"
Stan Shannon wrote: The outrage concerns the arrogant abuse of federal judicial power. Most of the complaints I've heard are about the inclusion/exclusion of the phrase not judicial abuse. Stan Shannon wrote: You are telling me that you are comfortable with a non-elected member of the federal judiciary exercising the power to set aside a decision made by our elected representatives? Why the heck do we even bother having elected representatives? Why don't we just let the judges rule us and forget all this democracy nonsense. This is hogwash and you know it. Judges make these kinds of decisions all the time. It is specifically left to the judicial branch of our government to make sure that laws passed by congress are constitutional. It is one of the most important of our governmental checks and balances. Stan Shannon wrote: The first amendment was written specifically to ensure that such decision making authority would rest in the hands of the people and not in the hands of the federal government. In affect this judges interpretation of the constitution makes the first amendment null and void. It establishes a state based religion that no one may ever challange. "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." Sorry but I'm just not seeing anything about judges here. In fact, I see a statement that specifically says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". In the 50's when McCarthyism was running rampant and the "under God" phrase was added to the POA, I'd say that was an indirect violation of the first amendment. No?
Mike Mullikin - People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. Soren Kierkegaard
-
Brian Delahunty wrote: OK. I'm not a US citizen. But I don't see why people who don't believe in God should have to say the words "...under God... " in a pledge. Individuals who do not believe do not have to say the words. As a matter of fact, you are not forced to to recite the pledge, you are free to stand mute if you so choose. But that does not mean inclusion of the words should be struck from the language of the pledge nor that inclusion of the words are unconstitutional. You'll find opinions that say it is unconstitutional because the Constitution calls for a separation of church and state. The meaning of the separation is to ensure that we in the USA are not forced to adopt a state religion (ala Eastern Orthodox in Russia, where for example, Baptist Churches have to operate under ground) or be governed as a theocracy (as in Iran). Hope that helps. Mike
Mike Gaskey wrote: Individuals who do not believe do not have to say the words. As a matter of fact, you are not forced to to recite the pledge, you are free to stand mute if you so choose. Come now, there are still schools in this country where 6 year olds (scared to death of their teachers) are forced to recite the POA. No mumbling, no silence allowed!! A 6 year old should not have to stand up for their rights against religious zealot school administrations. Can you give me a single reason why the phrase "under God" should be included in a federal fealty pledge?
Mike Mullikin - People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. Soren Kierkegaard