9 out of 10 Americans agree...
-
"...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
-
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
Because the majority of Americans are incredibly stupid. It was the biggest shock, when i moved to America.The whole freakin place is like a colony of kids constantly looking for some sort of protect(economic,political,military). They'd worship anything that seems like it could bring that protection. They don't like the slittest bit of disconfort. They think "under god" helped them win the cold war(it was inserted during that time), so it will help them also win the so called war on terrorism. NO INSULTS PLEASE!!!!!!:):):)
-
Because the majority of Americans are incredibly stupid. It was the biggest shock, when i moved to America.The whole freakin place is like a colony of kids constantly looking for some sort of protect(economic,political,military). They'd worship anything that seems like it could bring that protection. They don't like the slittest bit of disconfort. They think "under god" helped them win the cold war(it was inserted during that time), so it will help them also win the so called war on terrorism. NO INSULTS PLEASE!!!!!!:):):)
Edd wrote: Because the majority of Americans are incredibly stupid I haven't met enough Americans to form an opinion yet. Edd wrote: when i moved to America Whwere you originally from?
"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
kevnar wrote: It's not the majority who rule, it's those most politcally active. exactly. but, the Christian Right isn't the minority that's winning, this time. for once. and it's about fuckin time. -c
Garbage collection, making life better - for weenies!
Image Processing - now with extra cess.
-
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
beats the hell out of me. -c
Garbage collection, making life better - for weenies!
Image Processing - now with extra cess.
-
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
Mike Mullikin wrote: Most of the complaints I've heard are about the inclusion/exclusion of the phrase not judicial abuse. That's because the media always tries to make any traditional interpretation of the constitution appear to be based upon religious zealotry. No one is trying to force specific religious views upon anyone else, but this judge is using his power and position to force his personal secular world view upon us all. Mike Mullikin wrote: 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. Precisely. That is why this judge's actions were so vile. He is essentially saying that every important American document since the declaration of independence is unconstitutional. It would be unconstitutional to require a child to recite the Gettysburg Address: ". . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. . . and that government of the people. . .by the people. . .for the people. . . shall not perish from the earth." Our money is unconstitutional: "In God we trust" He has singlehandedly made a large segment of our culture "unconstitutional". Do you believe that judges have the power to create laws and constitutionality on a whim? Where is the balance in that? If that is all the constitution means than there is no point in having one. Judges are given life long appointments because they are expected to adher to sound legal principles, includeing precedent and original intent. Of course their job is to ensure that congress operates within its constitutioal limits. But we should expect them to operate within those same parameters. Mike Mullikin wrote: 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? I'm not sure I understand your point here. Show me the federal law which states that a school system must force children to say the POA. About half the states have laws which "encourage" reciting the POA, but there is no federal law mandating it. So how has the first amendment been violated? As I said, the first amendment was