9 out of 10 Americans agree...
-
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. They don't. But somehow that's not enough. They don't want anyone else to say it either. (Or so it seems)... "Tell me about the god you don't believe in, and I probably wouldn't believe in him either." - Unknown
It a big wierd situation that I don't think I'd be able to appreciate and understand unless I was from the US. BTW... I like your sig :-)
"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 Mullikin wrote: What do you call it when congress added the phrase "under God" in the first place? I call it about as generic as you can get. Nothing specific about it. Don't misundertand me. I do not support the actions of the congress in doing this in the first place. All I'm saying is that the First Amendment was never intended to provide for anything as extreme as the absolute prohibition of even the generic utterence of the word 'God' in the government's official documentation. The Congress had every constitutional authority to amend the POA in the way they did. Furhermore, they did not attempt to establish a law mandating the use of that pledge. Mike Mullikin wrote: You cannot blame a judge for removing what never should have been added in the first place. I do blame him for not adhering to a strict interpretation of the constitution and for ignoring many years of legal precedent for the purpose of protecting one particular religious POV (atheism). Mike Mullikin wrote: This isn't a case of a judge pushing his religious beliefs on the nation Yes it is. Mike Mullikin wrote: but rather a case of a judge declaring that congress' attempts to do so are unconstitutional according to the first amendment. There was clearly nothing unconstitutional about it. We are not threatened by right wing religious extremism, we *are* threatened by left wing judicial activism. *They* are the ones trying to limit public discourse and misusing the constitution as a tool to silence POV's other than their own. :rose: "Humans: The final chapter in the evolution of rats"
-
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
Mike Gaskey wrote: A nationwide recognition that the country was formed on the basis of Judeo-Christian principles(having historical roots in both Judaism and Christianity). Absolutly correct. I find that many do not appreciate the fine difference between being based on those prinicples is not the same as being forced to believe in the religion. The latter is what is not done in this country and is what seperation of church and state really means. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
Stan Shannon wrote: No one is trying to force specific religious views upon anyone else, ... What do you call it when congress added the phrase "under God" in the first place? They (congress) were trying to force their collective belief in a Creator upon a nation. As mentioned before, their reasons at the time were politically motivated. You cannot blame a judge for removing what never should have been added in the first place. This isn't a case of a judge pushing his religious beliefs on the nation, but rather a case of a judge declaring that congress' attempts to do so are unconstitutional according to the first amendment.
Mike Mullikin - People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. Soren Kierkegaard
Mike Mullikin wrote: What do you call it when congress added the phrase "under God" in the first place? See Mike Gaskey's response. It was to make a statement on the principles this nation was founded upon. Not on a religion of the country. Mike Mullikin wrote: They (congress) were trying to force their collective belief in a Creator upon a nation. I disagree here. They were showing a fundamental difference between the principles (as stated above) vs. the humanistic principles communism is founded on. No forcing of religious beliefs was intended (as a whole). Take a look at the heritage many of the founding fathers had. They had been from families that had been forced to follow a religion dictated by a country. What makes the US founding principles unique is most founding fathers were from families that believed in individual relations with their GOD (in what ever form it may be) rather than a forced denominational relation. It was their intent (based on my interpretation of their writings) that they did not want this forced religion to be repeated in this country. They did so by basing the principles of justice on their collective beliefs of an individual relation. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
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
Mike Mullikin wrote: 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. You are correct and that is not good. However there are far more schools in which any attempt by the children to state a belief in GOD is equally crushed with threats not just from a zealous teacher but from the administration with threats of law suites from atheist groups that are trying to force this nations official religion to be atheism. Neither side is correct when attempting to force beliefs. Each individual should be allowed to follow their beliefs. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
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
Thanks for sharing. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
"...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
What it comes down to is that if you want to say 'under god' then you can, and if I don't want to, then I don't have to. The Amuricun Government is not the church of jesus and should not act like it is. If you want to go to church, then go to church, if you want to be proud of your country, then be proud of your country. "Don't stand in the shadow of my hammer" -"Tabula Rasa", Covenant
-
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"
-
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
-
If 9 out of 10 Americans thought we should nuke Afghanistan, would it make it right? Sometimes "mob rule" is not for the best.
Mike Mullikin - People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. Soren Kierkegaard
Mike Mullikin wrote: Sometimes "mob rule" is not for the best When does moving away from "mob rule" also mean moving away from being a democracy? If 9 out of 10 Americans vote for something democratically surely it should be done? If the leaders then denounce the vote and go against the "ruling" of the people, are they they not going against the wishes of their people and against democracy? Are they not moving towards something which Africa is sublime at... e.g. Being a peoples favourite but not actually doing what the people want. i.e. A dictator. Or do I have democracy totally wrong? regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge Brian Delahunty wrote: one of my boys on the inside instead of the outside benjymous wrote: All the male CP inhabitants cross their legs in unison
-
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: should be replaced by "the majority with a clue will decide". Ahem, who decides who has a clue? Who stands up and goes "these people can vote, these people cannot." Oh wait, hasn't that already been tried and err, ended rather badly? Happened in my country, many people died for it (and to end it) and while our country is worse off economically than before, it is better off in spirit (not as in holy ghost, but as in well being, as in feeling good, having a good life spirit.) The problem is that because we are all equal nobody has any right to dictate who has a higher position in life than anyone else. Imagine if you were not chosen as one of the majority with a clue David? Would you abide living in a country where you had no say and had to "listen" to the wiser vote-empowered clued-up people? Knowing you as little as I do, I would say you would not be a happy camper. The only way your idea works is if you are part of the majority with a clue, right? Sounds very dangerous, however wise we may be, there will be the wise who become corrupt and abuse their power. David Wulff wrote: If you are going to brainwash a society, you might as well do so with something that will help make their lives' better I have often thought that the "free" humans in The Matrix have it wrong too. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge Brian Delahunty wrote: one of my boys on the inside instead of the outside benjymous wrote: All the male CP inhabitants cross their legs in unison
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Sometimes "mob rule" is not for the best When does moving away from "mob rule" also mean moving away from being a democracy? If 9 out of 10 Americans vote for something democratically surely it should be done? If the leaders then denounce the vote and go against the "ruling" of the people, are they they not going against the wishes of their people and against democracy? Are they not moving towards something which Africa is sublime at... e.g. Being a peoples favourite but not actually doing what the people want. i.e. A dictator. Or do I have democracy totally wrong? regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge Brian Delahunty wrote: one of my boys on the inside instead of the outside benjymous wrote: All the male CP inhabitants cross their legs in unison
Paul Watson wrote: When does moving away from "mob rule" also mean moving away from being a democracy? The US is not (nor has it ever been) a democracy. It is a representative republic founded on democratic principles. Paul Watson wrote: If 9 out of 10 Americans vote for something democratically surely it should be done The "9 out of 10" statistic is BS. It was a "USA Today" type poll with less than 1000 respondants. Hardly representative of 270 million people. Paul Watson wrote: If the leaders then denounce the vote and go against the "ruling" of the people, are they they not going against the wishes of their people and against democracy? The correct decision needs to be made regardless of what the "mob" wants. If the "mob" is truly serious about it they will elect representatives to change it again later on. In this case, a judge ruled the law unconstitutional and it had nothing to do with the representatives. If the mob is REALLY serious they need to ratify a new constitutional amendment to modify the first amendment. Serious business for a single phrase of an out-dated fealty pledge if you ask me.
Mike Mullikin - People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. Soren Kierkegaard
-
David Wulff wrote: should be replaced by "the majority with a clue will decide". Ahem, who decides who has a clue? Who stands up and goes "these people can vote, these people cannot." Oh wait, hasn't that already been tried and err, ended rather badly? Happened in my country, many people died for it (and to end it) and while our country is worse off economically than before, it is better off in spirit (not as in holy ghost, but as in well being, as in feeling good, having a good life spirit.) The problem is that because we are all equal nobody has any right to dictate who has a higher position in life than anyone else. Imagine if you were not chosen as one of the majority with a clue David? Would you abide living in a country where you had no say and had to "listen" to the wiser vote-empowered clued-up people? Knowing you as little as I do, I would say you would not be a happy camper. The only way your idea works is if you are part of the majority with a clue, right? Sounds very dangerous, however wise we may be, there will be the wise who become corrupt and abuse their power. David Wulff wrote: If you are going to brainwash a society, you might as well do so with something that will help make their lives' better I have often thought that the "free" humans in The Matrix have it wrong too. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge Brian Delahunty wrote: one of my boys on the inside instead of the outside benjymous wrote: All the male CP inhabitants cross their legs in unison
The quote in my signature was supposed to answer most of that... "My opinion is worth more than yours." - Everyone Paul Watson wrote: Ahem, who decides who has a clue? Those who can pass a simple test designed to show that you understand the concept of what it is you are delivering an opinion on. If you fail, you don't get to vote on that issue - simple as that. Paul Watson wrote: Would you abide living in a country where you had no say and had to "listen" to the wiser vote-empowered clued-up people? I have done every year of my life to date - I trust that other people with the clue (and I wont pretend for a moment that I have it) to make their descions based on what they want to get out of it. If they made a really bad choice, the media would easily be able to turn the tide - just look what they did to get Tony and his Cronies elected. Many people have the right to vote; yet I'd bet less than one in one hundred actually realise just what that vote means, and what can be acheived with it. The Sun is the most popular newspaper in the UK by far. I rest my case. Paul Watson wrote: I have often thought that the "free" humans in The Matrix have it wrong too. You have an interesting point thee Paul. Still, as the song states, friendship and love are the most important things in the world. I would give any perception of freedom I have to live in a world free of hate. Not to mention that the "Hey hey are you ready to play" theme tune is a hell of a lot catchier than the POA... :rolleyes: ____________________ David Wulff What's the point in life if you can't point and laugh when someone trips over themselves? "Half the reason people switch away from VB is to find out what actually goes on.. and then like me they find out that they weren't quite as good as they thought - they've been nannied." - Alex on being a programmer. You can contact my solicitors, Lambert & Butler, on +44 0870 742 4471 24 hours (10 till 4 Sunday).
-
What it comes down to is that if you want to say 'under god' then you can, and if I don't want to, then I don't have to. The Amuricun Government is not the church of jesus and should not act like it is. If you want to go to church, then go to church, if you want to be proud of your country, then be proud of your country. "Don't stand in the shadow of my hammer" -"Tabula Rasa", Covenant
I agree. Except for one thing. State-sponsored schools are teaching children that there is no God when they teach that we all evoloved out of sludge purely by accident. I don't think schools should be allowed to push their opinions on my kids. It violates my freedom of religion. "Tell me about the god you don't believe in, and I probably wouldn't believe in him either." - Unknown