PDA

View Full Version : Big day in the Supreme Court



dolphan39
10-14-2003, 11:28 AM
Supreme Court to Decide Pledge of Allegiance Case (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20031014/ts_nm/court_pledge_dc)


The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) said on Tuesday it would decide whether the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, which millions of American schoolchildren recite every day, amounted to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

and

Internet Porn Law to Be Decided by Supreme Court (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20031014/ts_nm/court_tech_pornography_dc&e=3&ncid=)

damn minors :jk:

Dolfan02
10-14-2003, 02:18 PM
That is real sad. I really feel every day my country is becoming a chaotic, confused, and atheist place of living. I really feel that if we try to slam religion any chance we get because of liberal ideas, in 75 years we will be close to a third-world country. Just think about it? You have to ask yourself what is the progression of certain decisions we make and to what extent will it lead us to?

Its kinda sad too because people have forgotten why the Pilgrims first came to American soil from East mid-England. They did not come here because they were not religious, they came here because they did not want to be told HOW to worship. They were firm believers in God, Christ, and the Bible. Forget this idea of 'separation of Church and State'. They were Protestants, Prebysterians, Puritans, Catholics, and others who were fleeing from persecution and did not want to be whatever religion the King was for. This new breed of people who are predominately lawyers and Congressmen who fear any mention of God or religion are trying to blindly manipulate the lives of others AND the foundation of this country.

KYPhinFan
10-14-2003, 02:32 PM
I agree. This is a sad sad day when our own pledge of allegiance is coming under attack.

If it is ruled unconstitutional and is changed, I will make it a point to say "under God" anyways. I think that's the best way to protest this movement.

Barbarian
10-15-2003, 02:41 AM
It's a sad day when people stop giving a damn about the religious persecution that those pilgrems were running away from that prompted us to put that whole pesky "Seperation of Church and satte" thing in in the first place.

And I have no problem with the pladge, I do have a problem with what congress did to it in the 50's though when they added the "under god" part... yes folks, the origeonal pledge had nada about god in it, it was written by a Priest that fully believed in the seperation of Church and state and never was intended to have those words in there.

Too bad congress violated the 1st amendment back in the 50's and added it anyways.

All that we are doing now is correcting that mistake and returning the pledge to the way it was origionally written, before the Christian community got ahold of it, twisted it, and violated the rest of our rights.

PhinPhan1227
10-15-2003, 12:52 PM
First of all, before I get accused of being an athiest again, let me state my position on the pledge

The attempt to take ALL mention of God out of Government is not only hypocritical, it's also counterproductive. If you REALLY want to see a backlash against religious freedoms, repress ALL religious expression by the majority. Freedom of religion does NOT mean that the majority doesn't have any right to enjoy the fact that they are in the majority. It ONLY means that if you are in the minority, you have the right to practice YOUR religion as you see fit. Want to raise your kids as athiests? Great, they don't have to recite the pledge, or can omit the "under God" phrase. Don't like the 10 Commandments outside a courthouse? Guess what? Our laws WERE heavily influenced by Judeo/Christian values/beliefs. NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say that Religion must be kept seperate from Government. It only says that the Government will not establish one religion, or impede others in their repsective worship. The Pledge as it now stands does neither.

Now, as to your point....this country was founded by the Virginians beofre the Pilgrims. The Virginians were here to make money, and they were equite successful. Take a look at how many of the Framers came from the Middle Atlantic colonies before you talk about who did what. Secondly, the Pilgrims came here in order to practice THEIR religion in THEIR way. THAT is the important point here. This country WAS founded by freedom loving people, and anything that restricts that is counter to our most basic beliefs.



Originally posted by Dolfan02
That is real sad. I really feel every day my country is becoming a chaotic, confused, and atheist place of living. I really feel that if we try to slam religion any chance we get because of liberal ideas, in 75 years we will be close to a third-world country. Just think about it? You have to ask yourself what is the progression of certain decisions we make and to what extent will it lead us to?

Its kinda sad too because people have forgotten why the Pilgrims first came to American soil from East mid-England. They did not come here because they were not religious, they came here because they did not want to be told HOW to worship. They were firm believers in God, Christ, and the Bible. Forget this idea of 'separation of Church and State'. They were Protestants, Prebysterians, Puritans, Catholics, and others who were fleeing from persecution and did not want to be whatever religion the King was for. This new breed of people who are predominately lawyers and Congressmen who fear any mention of God or religion are trying to blindly manipulate the lives of others AND the foundation of this country.

Den54
10-15-2003, 09:13 PM
Stewie
I really enjoy your posts.:D

MOULDSROCKS
10-15-2003, 10:16 PM
I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation under Allah, with Liberty and Justice for all.


:)

Barbarian
10-16-2003, 05:46 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
The attempt to take ALL mention of God out of Government is not only hypocritical, it's also counterproductive. If you REALLY want to see a backlash against religious freedoms, repress ALL religious expression by the majority. Freedom of religion does NOT mean that the majority doesn't have any right to enjoy the fact that they are in the majority.

Nobody is taking away the rights of the majority, they just cannot push their religion on kids that may not follow their religion.

Freedom of religion does NOT mean that the government has the freedom to ram god down the throats of me or my kids.

Kids want to pray at schools, fine let them, they want to say "Under God" in their pledge... go right on ahead, thats their right.

But the teacher have no right to lead the class in prayer, or to prompt the kids to say "Under god" that is where the line must be drawn.

God has NO place in our secular government. Our forefathers set it up that way because they witnessed sceenes of theocratic horror that would make Quinton Terrentino puke.

Nobody is taking any freedoms away from the christians by this legislation. Nada.

Barbarian
10-16-2003, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Don't like the 10 Commandments outside a courthouse? Guess what? Our laws WERE heavily influenced by Judeo/Christian values/beliefs.

Actually they were heavily influanced by laws that were created well before Christianity ever took root in this world, in fact they are most directly drawn from 1700 BC from the Code of Law written by teh Babylonian King Hammurabi. That is what influanced our laws... not christianity... and if you dont believe me, then just look at the words of the founding fathers themselves, the men that actually created such laws.

The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." The treaty was written during the Washington administration, and sent to the Senate during the Adams administration. It was read aloud to the Senate, and each Senator received a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous (the next time was to honor George Washington). There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty. It was reprinted in full in three newspapers - two in Philadelphia, one in New York City. There is no record of public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.


NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say that Religion must be kept seperate from Government. It only says that the Government will not establish one religion, or impede others in their repsective worship. The Pledge as it now stands does neither.

I disagree, Article I of the constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

By a governmental official (AKA: A public school teacher) leading children in the statement of "Under god" they are in fact establishing religion by the government. And thus, violating the basic human rights of those children.


Now, as to your point....this country was founded by the Virginians beofre the Pilgrims. The Virginians were here to make money, and they were equite successful. Take a look at how many of the Framers came from the Middle Atlantic colonies before you talk about who did what. Secondly, the Pilgrims came here in order to practice THEIR religion in THEIR way. THAT is the important point here. This country WAS founded by freedom loving people, and anything that restricts that is counter to our most basic beliefs.

I agree, 100%, and by including "Under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance as the congress did in 1954 (over 50 years after it was written) those right that those Virginians took so sacredly were being stepped on by that congress. Thankfully the courts are willing to stand up and fight for the rights that the Framers of the Constitution held so dear.

PhinPhan1227
10-16-2003, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by Barbarian


Nobody is taking away the rights of the majority, they just cannot push their religion on kids that may not follow their religion.

Freedom of religion does NOT mean that the government has the freedom to ram god down the throats of me or my kids.

Kids want to pray at schools, fine let them, they want to say "Under God" in their pledge... go right on ahead, thats their right.

But the teacher have no right to lead the class in prayer, or to prompt the kids to say "Under god" that is where the line must be drawn.

God has NO place in our secular government. Our forefathers set it up that way because they witnessed sceenes of theocratic horror that would make Quinton Terrentino puke.

Nobody is taking any freedoms away from the christians by this legislation. Nada.


Actually, our forefathers prayed before their meetings, as they still do today. They also had no problem with religious imagery/verbiage on our legal tender. That being said, they DID want to insure that no person had religion forced upon them. But the counter to that is the fact that they never said that the ABSENSE of religion could be forced upon people either. If you choose to believe that there is no spiritual force in the universe, knock yourself out. And when I served in the military I swore an oath to defend your right to those beliefs. But I also firmly believe that a teacher reciting the pledge has little or no influence on the kids in her class. Maybe it raises some questions which that kid can address with his/her parents, but it's certainly not going to turn that kid into a born again Christian. Heck, when I was a kid I didn't recite the pledge for the very reason that it included "under God" because I wasn't sure what my beliefs were. As an adult I've solidified those beliefs, but it's still an ongoing process. My point about suffering a backlash is that if you make an issue of EVERY mention of God in EVERY public venue, you're going to make the majority FEEL oppressed. When the majority sees that a class in Muslim beliefs is being held in a school in California(complete with prayer and religious dogma...taught to elementary school kids) without a peep from the ACLU, but the Supreme Court has to spend it's limited time/effort/budget dealing with two words that 99.99% of the kids who even bother to recite them either ignore or at best have a question about....it's not only annoying, it's frustrating. The bottom line is this...if you don't believe in God in any form, that's certainly your right. And if you choose to raise your kids with the same beliefs, that's your right as well. But are you honestly going to tell me that the Pledge as it now stands is ANY kind of threat to that upbringing? Is your influence over your own kid THAT trivial that you think that two words which aren't in ANY way mandatory are going to hamper that upbringing? Are you so afraid of an honest discussion with your kids that you'd rather avoid the issue? This reminds me of those parents who are afraid of sex ed because they think that if they avoid the issue it'll go away. Honestly, what you should be worried about is that girl who IS a christian who tells your son when he's 16 that she isn't going to give it up to a non-believer...:evil:

PhinPhan1227
10-16-2003, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by Barbarian


Actually they were heavily influanced by laws that were created well before Christianity ever took root in this world, in fact they are most directly drawn from 1700 BC from the Code of Law written by teh Babylonian King Hammurabi. That is what influanced our laws... not christianity... and if you dont believe me, then just look at the words of the founding fathers themselves, the men that actually created such laws.

The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." The treaty was written during the Washington administration, and sent to the Senate during the Adams administration. It was read aloud to the Senate, and each Senator received a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous (the next time was to honor George Washington). There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty. It was reprinted in full in three newspapers - two in Philadelphia, one in New York City. There is no record of public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.



I disagree, Article I of the constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

By a governmental official (AKA: A public school teacher) leading children in the statement of "Under god" they are in fact establishing religion by the government. And thus, violating the basic human rights of those children.



I agree, 100%, and by including "Under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance as the congress did in 1954 (over 50 years after it was written) those right that those Virginians took so sacredly were being stepped on by that congress. Thankfully the courts are willing to stand up and fight for the rights that the Framers of the Constitution held so dear.


Two quick points...first of all the 10 Commandments and the code of Hammurabi are actually somewhat contemporanious(in the grand scheme of things). Bear in mind that despite what Pat Roberts would have you believe, Jesus didn't write those tablets...they predate him by several thousand years. In fact, many of the Persian and Judeo/Christian stories/myths are identical. Read a bit about Gilgamesh and his "flood" and see if it reminds you of anybody. The point being that the "ethical code" on which we have based our ethical mindset HAVE been influenced by religious beliefs. Personally, I'm in favor of seeing the 10 Commandments in our State Capitol buildings...but more for the historical context than the religious context. For that same reason I think that whenever you have the 10 Commandments, you should also have the Code of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta. Quite honestly, I see the same danger in your approach as I do in the approach of that guy who said that God had nothing to do with religion. You're attempting to divorse the present from the past...and whenever you do that, you're removing the framework that allows you to maintian a steady course.

Barbarian
10-16-2003, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



Actually, our forefathers prayed before their meetings, as they still do today. They also had no problem with religious imagery/verbiage on our legal tender.

Actually that imagry on legal tender didn't appear untill well after our forefathers were rotting in their graves, but thats beside the point. And just because they still do have a prayer today before congress doesn't make it right.


That being said, they DID want to insure that no person had religion forced upon them. But the counter to that is the fact that they never said that the ABSENSE of religion could be forced upon people either.

Nobody is forcing an absence of religion on people. You want religion, fine, have a blast... did you not read my post about how kids should be allowed to pray in schools if they want... just teacher led prayer (AKA: the Under God of the new and changed pledge) is wrong and a violation. Nobody is taking away anybodies personal freedoms by getting god out of government, people still have those same religious freedoms, but the government does NOT have the right to force beliefs on anybody... why is that so difficult for christians to understand?

Please address this question as you deftly sidestepped it in your reply. Where are anybodies personal freedoms being infringed upon by removing "under god" from the official pledge?


If you choose to believe that there is no spiritual force in the universe, knock yourself out.

Personally I am a very religious person thank you, and when you look at the people that are mostadamantly for seperation of church and state you will see a great number of Christian religious leaders, like the Reverand Barry Lynn for example a leader for the cause of seperation of church and state.


And when I served in the military I swore an oath to defend your right to those beliefs.

And when I served my 6 years, I swore the same oath to defend yours.


But I also firmly believe that a teacher reciting the pledge has little or no influence on the kids in her class.

Then you obviously don't understand kids much nowadays, I remember beeing uncomfortable saying it when I was little, and I have had a nephew of mine that was raised buddist admit to me that he didn't feel comfortable saying it either.


Maybe it raises some questions which that kid can address with his/her parents, but it's certainly not going to turn that kid into a born again Christian.

Oh, well, then thats okay... it's perfectly fine to stomp on his rights then? :rolleyes:


Heck, when I was a kid I didn't recite the pledge for the very reason that it included "under God" because I wasn't sure what my beliefs were.

And you shouldn't have been exposed to that when you were a kid, we shouldn't have government do our jobs as parent and shove religion down our kids throats. If parents want their children to be led in prayer, then they should get up 5 minutes earlier, skip the stop at the 7-11 and pray with their kids and stop fopping off their responsabilities as a parent on an allready overworked and underpaid schoolsystem whose sole purpose is to teach kids to read, write, and do math, skills that will actually be vital to their ability to operate in the world.


As an adult I've solidified those beliefs, but it's still an ongoing process. My point about suffering a backlash is that if you make an issue of EVERY mention of God in EVERY public venue, you're going to make the majority FEEL oppressed.

They can FEEL whatever they want.. thats why we have laws, those laws are pretty unbending and the majority may FEEL oppressed, but that doesn't mean that they are. Many white men people felt "oppressed" when Blacks and Women were given the right to vote. So should we have just let their outrage and false feelings of "oppression" guide us from doing what is fundimantally right?

Of course not. Sometimes the right thing to do isn't popular... but that doesn't make it the wrong thing to do, and doesn't mean that we shoudln't do it.


When the majority sees that a class in Muslim beliefs is being held in a school in California(complete with prayer and religious dogma...taught to elementary school kids) without a peep from the ACLU,

And what class are you talking about? If they do have such a class, then it's wrong, but i have never heard of any such class, and I keep a hawks eye on Seperation issues and havent heard anything about this... a link to a real news site please.


the bottom line is this...if you don't believe in God in any form, that's certainly your right.[/qutote]

I actually do believe in a god, but I agree, that is somebodies right.

[quote]And if you choose to raise your kids with the same beliefs, that's your right as well. But are you honestly going to tell me that the Pledge as it now stands is ANY kind of threat to that upbringing? Is your influence over your own kid THAT trivial that you think that two words which aren't in ANY way mandatory are going to hamper that upbringing? Are you so afraid of an honest discussion with your kids that you'd rather avoid the issue? This reminds me of those parents who are afraid of sex ed because they think that if they avoid the issue it'll go away. Honestly, what you should be worried about is that girl who IS a christian who tells your son when he's 16 that she isn't going to give it up to a non-believer...:evil:

So if a teacher started a class every day with the term "praise allah, the christians are wrong" then you wondn't have any issue with that.. because abviously it's not going to make your kid turn into the next American Taliban...

Wrong is wrong, regardless of the effect, a line MUST be drwan somewhere, and if you allow "under god" in the offical pledge, then you step onto a slippery slope and allow a dangerous precidence to be set. It never stops when that precident is set, things grow, ever hear the term, give an inch and they'll take a foot? Well, truer words have never been spoken, and if we give this inch, then they take a foot, then two feet, and slowly the walls get broken down and before you know it, the first amendment is nothing more than words on an old peice of paper.

But, hey, it's okay to break the law of the land if they only do it a little bit though, right? :rolleyes:

Barbarian
10-16-2003, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



Two quick points...first of all the 10 Commandments and the code of Hammurabi are actually somewhat contemporanious(in the grand scheme of things). Bear in mind that despite what Pat Roberts would have you believe, Jesus didn't write those tablets...they predate him by several thousand years. In fact, many of the Persian and Judeo/Christian stories/myths are identical. Read a bit about Gilgamesh and his "flood" and see if it reminds you of anybody. The point being that the "ethical code" on which we have based our ethical mindset HAVE been influenced by religious beliefs. Personally, I'm in favor of seeing the 10 Commandments in our State Capitol buildings...but more for the historical context than the religious context. For that same reason I think that whenever you have the 10 Commandments, you should also have the Code of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta. Quite honestly, I see the same danger in your approach as I do in the approach of that guy who said that God had nothing to do with religion. You're attempting to divorse the present from the past...and whenever you do that, you're removing the framework that allows you to maintian a steady course.

And you completely ignored the whole point that I put up there with the treaty of tripoli....

I'm not trying to divorce us from the past... were trying to get back to it.

The forefathers themselves stated very clearly that America wasn't founded on christian beliefs, and back then people had no problem with that, and things were pretty hunky dory.

Then in the 50's we had the threat of the "Godless Commies" and suddenly the christian movement to combine the church and state was on... we are trying to get back to the way things were back then, not trying to get away from it. People that are trying to shove god into our government where he (or she) doesn't belong... those people are trying to divorce us from our past and removing the framework that allowed us to maintain a steady course for well over 150 years.

Miamian
10-16-2003, 09:46 PM
Barbarian, I've been meaning to tell you should really consider changing your user name, you show way too much sensitivity. You made most of the points I would have had I logged on earlier but there are a couple of things I should add.


But the counter to that is the fact that they never said that the ABSENSE of religion could be forced upon people either. So what you're saying is that if we don't prompt anyone to mention a state-supported belief system, then it's the absence of religion. That's nonsense. No one is suggesting that we prevent anyone from practicing religion. You're confusing neutrality with one of the tenets of Communism.


But I also firmly believe that a teacher reciting the pledge has little or no influence on the kids in her class. You've got to be joking. A teacher does not influence her or could be his class? Haven't you ever heard that young children tend to be impressionable? Why bother to be called a teacher? Furthermore, just because it didn't influence you doesn't mean it can't influence others. Maybe you had some other countervailing influence that most other kids would not have.


When the majority sees that a class in Muslim beliefs is being held in a school in California(complete with prayer and religious dogma...taught to elementary school kids) without a peep from the ACLU Are you citing a specific case? Was this a public or private school? If it's a public school then I would have a problem with it as well; but, a private, parochial school can teach and profess whatever it wants, being it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or even hypothetically, Devil-worship. What this would address are public schools, using public tax dollars.


But are you honestly going to tell me that the Pledge as it now stands is ANY kind of threat to that upbringing? Yes, I am. Maybe you may not realize this, perhaps you've never experienced religious prejudice in your life. I have, on a number of occasions. It stems from people, who are so comfortable enough in their positions as members of the majority, that they know that they can practice intolerance of others with impunity. In this case, it's because we don't worship G-d in the same way; and even though the Pledge, as it exists, does not affect me personally, it's not a far cry for it to affect someone else.

Barbarian
10-16-2003, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by Miamian
Barbarian, I've been meaning to tell you should really consider changing your user name, you show way too much sensitivity.

I thought about it... but then I would have to sew the new name in all my underwear, and thats just a pain in the arse. ;)

PhinPhan1227
10-17-2003, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by Barbarian


And you completely ignored the whole point that I put up there with the treaty of tripoli....

I'm not trying to divorce us from the past... were trying to get back to it.

The forefathers themselves stated very clearly that America wasn't founded on christian beliefs, and back then people had no problem with that, and things were pretty hunky dory.

Then in the 50's we had the threat of the "Godless Commies" and suddenly the christian movement to combine the church and state was on... we are trying to get back to the way things were back then, not trying to get away from it. People that are trying to shove god into our government where he (or she) doesn't belong... those people are trying to divorce us from our past and removing the framework that allowed us to maintain a steady course for well over 150 years.

Sorry if I wasn't more clear. No, our government is not based on CHRISTIAN beliefs. But it is strongly grounded in Judeo/Christian beliefs. If the Oath stated "One Nation Under Christ" I'd be the first person to protest that line. Please bear in mind that I'm the person who was accussed of being an athiest in another thread since even to me I'm starting to sound like a religious zealot in this thread. Again, my bottom line here is that this is an innocuous line in an innocuous pledge, that once again, I personally feel has little or no influence on kids. It certainly shouldn't have sufficient influence on any kid that it impacts his or her upbringing, other than by possibly creating some healthy discussion between parent and child. Again, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that we are protected from being annoyed. If the Pledge as it now stands annoys you, instruct your child not to say it. A person has the right to live in America even if they hate it, and yet their child would still have to listen to the Pledge if "Under God" was taken out. Are that persons rights being trampled by the Oath itself? Here's another question...when the President mentions God in various nationally televised speeches, you don't think that has more of an impact than a rote Pledge droned out in the early morning? Is the next step to deny the President HIS rights? And we can tell Congress next that they are forbiden to pray if they so choose because that act will go out over C-Span? Again, our rights are upheld because those rights are supported by the majority. If you doubt that, imagine for a moment the havoc which 9 right wing conservative Justices could wreak on our civil rights if supported by a right wing Congress and President. All I'm saying is that all this effort to expunge EVERY trace of religion from Government is not only counter-productive, I also must still maintain that it's hypocritcal, since even the earliest Congresses were started with a prayer. Acknowledging that fact does NOT prevent anyone from freely practicing THEIR religion. Oh, and the example I used came from a public school in California(what a shock). If I get the chance tomorrow I'll try and find you a link.

Barbarian
10-18-2003, 04:58 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Again, my bottom line here is that this is an innocuous line in an innocuous pledge, that once again, I personally feel has little or no influence on kids. It certainly shouldn't have sufficient influence on any kid that it impacts his or her upbringing, other than by possibly creating some healthy discussion between parent and child.

(okay... lets assume for the moment that it isn't causing any harm... something I'd debate, but it's irrelivent to this case)

Just because it isn't cusing real harm, doesn't mean that it doesn't set precidence to allow things that can cause harm though. It all goes back to the "Give an inch and they will take a foot" philosophy.

The "Christian Right" has tried time and time again to push and force itself into the government and violate the first amendment, if we give them this, then all we are doing is encouraging them to push harder to force their religion on the rest of us. Look at how they fall back to currancy every time this argument gets going, they allmost allways say "look at our currency, it says 'in god we trust' on there, how is this any different?"

We gave them the inch on the currency, then they took another and changing the pledge after 50+ years of the pledge being perfectly fine without the words "under god" in it. And since then it has been one long constant struggle as laws are passed based purely on religious beliefs.

The line needs to be drawn, if we continue to give them that inch, they will keep fighting for the foot. And sadly, someday... they might win, and every one of us thats not 100% in line with their views are in a whole helluva lot of trouble.


Again, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that we are protected from being annoyed. If the Pledge as it now stands annoys you, instruct your child not to say it.

It's not a matter of annoyance, it's a matter of religious freedom and following the law of the land, the constitution itself.


A person has the right to live in America even if they hate it, and yet their child would still have to listen to the Pledge if "Under God" was taken out. Are that persons rights being trampled by the Oath itself?

I don't see how this example has anything to do with religious freedom, or religion at all?


Here's another question...when the President mentions God in various nationally televised speeches, you don't think that has more of an impact than a rote Pledge droned out in the early morning? Is the next step to deny the President HIS rights?

The president isn't instructing little children to say the pledge. I wish that the president wouldn't talk about god during his addresses, but he's got his rights to say what he wants, just as long as it's an address and not something in the law itself.


And we can tell Congress next that they are forbiden to pray if they so choose because that act will go out over C-Span?

Again, they have their rights and if senator wants to pray, he is perfectly able to, however, I would say that a led prayer at the beginning of a session of congress does in fact violate the first amendment, they can pray all they want, but theres a time and place for everything, and on the floor of the senate is neither the time nor the place... oh, and your playing straw man debate here. (Straw Man is when you twist and distort what somebody is actually saying, and then make an argument against your distortions to "prove" the first person wrong... and that is exactly what your doing here... I would appreciate if you actully kept the debate on subject and didn't resort to such cheap and transperant tricks)


Again, our rights are upheld because those rights are supported by the majority. If you doubt that, imagine for a moment the havoc which 9 right wing conservative Justices could wreak on our civil rights if supported by a right wing Congress and President. All I'm saying is that all this effort to expunge EVERY trace of religion from Government is not only counter-productive, I also must still maintain that it's hypocritcal, since even the earliest Congresses were started with a prayer.

You still fail to point out any hypocrasy... perhapse you think the word means somethign that it doesn't mean, because my points have been extreamly consistant and have not shown any hypocrasy whatsoever. Hypocrasy would be if I was saying that there could be no Christian doctrin in the Government, but that there should be Pagan doctrin allowed... that would be hypocrasy. And as for what 9 right wing conservative Justices would do.. well, first thing is they would put "Under god" back into the pledge, to hell with our religious rights.



Acknowledging that fact does NOT prevent anyone from freely practicing THEIR religion. Oh, and the example I used came from a public school in California(what a shock). If I get the chance tomorrow I'll try and find you a link.

Just as removing the words "under god" from the pledge does NOT prevent anyone from freely prcticing THEIR religion.

I searched and searched for any trace of what you were refering to, and called a friend of mine that is a teacher in Antioch CA, and she has no idea what your refering to and I couldn't find anything on the internet on it either.

PhinPhan1227
10-20-2003, 09:52 AM
I wasn't saying that YOU were being a hypocrite...I'm saying the argument itself is hypocritical. Our Congress has started every session since the first one with a prayer. Religion itself has been a part of our country since day one. It's hypocrtical to pretend that it hasn't been. Further, it's a distortion of the Constitution to state that religion has no place whatsoever IN governement. The Law states that Congress shall take no steps to establish A religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Could you tell me which religion "God" refers to? Could you also tell me how someone is prohibited from freely exercising THIER religious freedoms by the inclusion of that phrase? You're accusing me of using Straw Man(I minored in logic, so in future you can leave out the definitions), while you're basing your argument on Slippery Slope. Yes, the Religious Right will try to take a mile if you give them an inch. So will the Liberal Left. In fact, I believe that we're seeing the Left do that very thing. Personally I'm afraid of BOTH sides. But rather than suffering through the pendulum swings of LEft to Right and back again, I'd prefer a little rational thought. If you allow the Left free reign you're going to have the kind of backlash that started with Reagan. And eventually you'll have a swing back which is equally unhealthy. Again, it comes down to the fact that the Constitution does NOT protect people from being annoyed. You have to show some harm. Again I use the example of someone who disagrees with the Government and wants to work to legally overthrow it. The Constitution allows a person to do that very thing. Don't you think that person is offended by his child having to listen to the Pledge? But that person can't actually point to any HARM that's being done by it. To me, this whole argument holds the risk of becoming a "Chicken Little" scenario. When people freak out about something petty, where no actual harm is involved, it detracts from those times when actual harm DOES take place. If PETA tries to deal with REAL cases of animal cruelty, how many people listen to them after their rants about ridiculous issues? I see the same thing happening here. How about dealing with the fact that our government taxes it's citizens WAY beyond anything that our Founding Fathers would have permited? How is that in ANY way in line with the tenets of the Constitution? But rather than dealing with that, the Supreme Court has to deal with the words "under God". You want to draw a line? Fine...here's the line..."Show me a bruise". It's a simple enough standard to use. If you can show that a person is being restrained in any way from the free practice of their religion(which we do all the time by the way...just ask a Rastafarian), or that the Congress is acting in any way to establish A religion, than that act is illegal. Other than that...there are BIGGER things to worry about.

Oh...and you must not have searched very hard for that story. I just typed in "California, Muslim, and Class" on Google and found several links to the story. I'm not thrilled with the source on this one, but it's the facts that I'm concerned with, not their spin.

Story Link (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6/27/165113.shtml)

Miamian
10-20-2003, 11:02 PM
You seem to be ignoring my posts. But no matter, I'll post anyway.



Religion itself has been a part of our country since day one. I don't think anyone denies that. The founding fathers had the right to express themselves spiritually in any way they so chose. It just so happened that they were all Christian. If one of them had been a Buddhist, who knows how he or they would have prayed.

Could you tell me which religion "G-d" refers to? You're showing your bias. Has it occurred to you that the concept of G-d may not apply to all religions?

But that person can't actually point to any HARM that's being done by it. To me, this whole argument holds the risk of becoming a "Chicken Little" scenario. When people freak out about something petty, where no actual harm is involved, it detracts from those times when actual harm DOES take place. This is the same exact attitude from your previous quote. How would you know how it feels? Have you ever been treated with religious prejudice? I have.

If PETA tries to deal with REAL cases of animal cruelty, how many people listen to them after their rants about ridiculous issues? Your showing your bias and subjectivity again. Maybe it's trivial to you; to many others it may not be. Furthermore, your bias may be rooted in your own Judeo-Christian values of man being given dominion over the other denizens of the earth.

I see the same thing happening here. How about dealing with the fact that our government taxes it's citizens WAY beyond anything that our Founding Fathers would have permited? How is that in ANY way in line with the tenets of the Constitution? Please indicate where, in the Constitution, tax hikes are prohibited.

If you can show that a person is being restrained in any way from the free practice of their religion(which we do all the time by the way...just ask a Rastafarian), or that the Congress is acting in any way to establish A religion, than that act is illegal. You're distorting the wording. The First Amendment prohibits "create NO law respecting the establishment of religion." There is no question of degree here. "NO law" does not mean just a few are okay, it means NO LAW.

As for your California case, you distorted that also because it was just role-playing, but I can accept how it would be a violation of the First Amendment. It could have been taught as literature in a humanities class without the role playing. Just like requiring the Pledge with the Divine reference, it may have a negative impact on some of the children.

PhinPhan1227
10-21-2003, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by Miamian
You seem to be ignoring my posts. But no matter, I'll post anyway.


I don't think anyone denies that. The founding fathers had the right to express themselves spiritually in any way they so chose. It just so happened that they were all Christian. If one of them had been a Buddhist, who knows how he or they would have prayed.
You're showing your bias. Has it occurred to you that the concept of G-d may not apply to all religions?
This is the same exact attitude from your previous quote. How would you know how it feels? Have you ever been treated with religious prejudice? I have.
Your showing your bias and subjectivity again. Maybe it's trivial to you; to many others it may not be. Furthermore, your bias may be rooted in your own Judeo-Christian values of man being given dominion over the other denizens of the earth.
Please indicate where, in the Constitution, tax hikes are prohibited.
You're distorting the wording. The First Amendment prohibits "create NO law respecting the establishment of religion." There is no question of degree here. "NO law" does not mean just a few are okay, it means NO LAW.

As for your California case, you distorted that also because it was just role-playing, but I can accept how it would be a violation of the First Amendment. It could have been taught as literature in a humanities class without the role playing. Just like requiring the Pledge with the Divine reference, it may have a negative impact on some of the children.

Not ignoring your posts...I just don't have time to respond to every post here. In a nutshell however.....

1)By definition religion...

"Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. "

...involves a "god" of one sort or another. The only exception would be athiests who, again by definition, do not believe in any form of god and therefore do not hold any religion.

2)"God" therefore can and does refer to ANY God. I find it hysterical when people bring up the "ok, why not say 'one nation under Allah". Guess what...recite the Oath in Farsi and it IS 'one nation under Allah". That IS the word for God, just in another language. Guess what? Say the Pledge in spanish and suddenly "god" is "dios". What a shock!!

3)The Founders CHOSE to pray before official meetings of Congress. They didn't do it outside the building, they didn't do it informaly. They did it to START the process, and they even BLESSED the process. ALL that I'm saying is that it's ridiculous not to ACKNOWLEDGE that fact. It's a distortion of history to try and pretend that religion has had no place in our history, and I despise revisionist history just to avoid offending anyones sensibilities.

4)Once again, show me a bruise. If a person is being harmed by the Oath, describe the harm. If a person is being restricted from practicing their religion, tell me how. The law requires that if you are going to declare that something is harmful, you must be able to SHOW the harm. Even a BS personal injury lawsuit will have someone in a neck brace even if it's a total fabrication. So show me the neck brace.

5)Now who's distorting? The law specifically states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion". That's all it says. "One nation under God" does NOT establish a religion. It doesn't establish ANY religion. In point of fact, since every religion HAS a God, it seems pretty clear that ANY person of ANY religion should be perfectly happy with that. Again, the only persons who wouldn't be are athiests. And if you're an athiest, what EXACTLY are you being coerced into, or prevented from, doing? You're not having YOUR religion denied to you, because you have no religion to practice. And you're not being forced to accept God because you don't HAVE to say the Oath. Even if you DID feel compelled due to peer pressure, you don't BELIEVE in God anyway, so why does this bother you? HOW are you being oppressed?

You keep asking me if I've ever been descriminated against because of my religion. Over my lifetime I've gone from being an athiest, to acknowledging my Jewish background(relatively briefly), to embracing my own little form of Christianity. My question to you is...who is being descriminated against HERE? Again...and I'm going to keep asking this until you give me an answer...where is the bruise? WHO'S religion is being denied to them? WHO is being forced to act in a way that is harmful? If this phrase is so dastardly as to require the time, and resources of the Supreme Court, who had to move something else off their docket to deal with this, PLEASE tell me that you can enumerate SOME harm?

Miamian
10-21-2003, 08:48 PM
I'd like to know where you got the definition of religion, because it's not accurate discounting vernacular interpretations. The very first day in my religion class in college, the professor asked us to write a definition of religion. Of course, some wrote things similar to your definition about belief in a god or gods and supernatural control over the workings of the universe. This was also the first definition that he dispelled as inaccurate in that religions do not necessarily incorporate (a) god(s). Eventually a religious studies student gave the correct interpretation: that it is a belief system which attempts to answer ultimate questions, such as who I am, where I'm going and what is my destiny. That's why atheism is a religion. It's answer is that we live in a finite existence, the workings of the universe are all random occurence, and that when we die we go into the oblivion.

Therefore, any reference to any god shows favoritism to a particular belief system and is unconstitutional.


The Founders CHOSE to pray before official meetings of Congress. They didn't do it outside the building, they didn't do it informaly. They did it to START the process, and they even BLESSED the process. ALL that I'm saying is that it's ridiculous not to ACKNOWLEDGE that fact. It's a distortion of history to try and pretend that religion has had no place in our history, and I despise revisionist history just to avoid offending anyones sensibilities. Were there any Buddhist, Hindus, Muslims, even any Jews among the founding fathers? Perhaps if there were they would have conducted themselves differently. They weren't breaking the law by praying because they weren't proposing any laws prescribing prayer.

Have you ever heard of "tyrrany of the majority?" It's common for people to show their intolerance towards others based on differences. Religion is no different. You want a bruise? There are plenty of documented cases of people beaten up because they were of a particular religion, they were different. How does this relate to the Pledge? Jews and Christians worship differently. For many Christians there is no division between the members of the Holy Trinity. Since Jews accept only a third of the Trinity, many Christians interpret them as not believing in G-d. That was told to me personally on a few occasions. Including the phrase under question cements their interpretation that their's is the only right way.


Now who's distorting? The law specifically states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". That's all it says. "One nation under God" does NOT establish a religion. It doesn't establish ANY religion. In point of fact, since every religion HAS a God, it seems pretty clear that ANY person of ANY religion should be perfectly happy with that. Again, the only persons who wouldn't be are athiests. And if you're an athiest, what EXACTLY are you being coerced into, or prevented from, doing? You're not having YOUR religion denied to you, because you have no religion to practice. And you're not being forced to accept God because you don't HAVE to say the Oath. Even if you DID feel compelled due to peer pressure, you don't BELIEVE in God anyway, so why does this bother you? HOW are you being oppressed? Once again, religion, by definition, does not automatically subsume the belief in any supernatural being. You're also looking at this solely from the perspective of a grown adult. Children are impressionable and easily influenced. Peer pressure can have a tremendous effect on them and it's in schools where the Pledge is recited most often. Even in high school, this can be an issue. I once had a teacher who REQURED us to stand for the pledge. What if I chose not to do so. I could have been labeled a trouble maker and that could have had an effect on college review.


You keep asking me if I've ever been descriminated against because of my religion. Over my lifetime I've gone from being an athiest, to acknowledging my Jewish background(relatively briefly), to embracing my own little form of Christianity. My question to you is...who is being descriminated against HERE? Again...and I'm going to keep asking this until you give me an answer...where is the bruise? WHO'S religion is being denied to them? WHO is being forced to act in a way that is harmful? If this phrase is so dastardly as to require the time, and resources of the Supreme Court, who had to move something else off their docket to deal with this, PLEASE tell me that you can enumerate SOME harm? The first half of this part of your post is redundant and I just answered it above. As for the second part, just because the issue is of little importance to you, doesn't mean it's not significant to anyone else. In a republicanistic democracy we have to depend on our elected and appointed officials to make decisions for us, so if you have a problem with that, there's really not much that can be done since Supreme Court justices are appointed for life or until they decide to retire.

PhinPhan1227
10-22-2003, 08:51 AM
Mr Webster provided that definition(see link below). Athiesm is a "belief system"...but that label applies to just about everything you do in your daily life. Quantum Mechanics is a "belief system" in that it is based as much on faith as it is on any kind of tangible proof...does that also make it a religion?(Actually, in many ways it does...but that's a different conversation. Either way, since Mr Webster and every other dictionary I've ever read defines religion as a term inferring a "belief system" which includes a diety of some sort, that's the definition I'm going with. If your professor wants to go a different way with it, that's his call in his class...in the real world however..."religion" includes a diety. Now, once again..."god" does not define ANY one religion. If the founding fathers HAD been Muslims, Budhists, Jews or Hindu's...they would STILL be included under the umbrella of "god". The phrase itself STILL doesn't exclude them. Now, as to the "tyranny of the majority"...you've still failed to show me an injury. How long has that phrase been in use in the Pledge? It's been almost half a Century, and what has been the result? We're more open, diverse, inclusive, and tolerant of other beliefs(ok, 9/11 was a setback, but that's hardly the Pledges fault), than at any other point in our history. Show me a period in the history of the United States when individuals of other religious backgrounds have been more accepted. The Slippery Slope argument that BArbarian fears has had almost 50 years to manifest, and yet the result has been the exact opposite. And if you think that removing "under god" from the Pledge is going to prevent little kids from being cruel little animals to each other, I can only conclude that not only do you not have kids...you've also forgotten what it's like to BE a kid. Lastly...the teacher that said you HAD to recite the Pledge should have been fired. Oh...one more thing....since I haven't seen one yet....show me a bruise.


Definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion)

Miamian
10-22-2003, 10:33 PM
The definition may be vernacular. A professor in the field is more likely to be accurate, hence the word profess. Look that word up. You also cut off the most important element of the definition, the answer to ultimate questions. Furthermore, you're shooting from the hip in your premise that all religions include a deity. Contrary to popular belief, Buddhists do not worship Buddha, he's regarded as the first to achieve enlightenment and ascend to Nirvana. And who would be the deity in Animism or Jainism?

If you don't think that people getting beaten up because they don't share the belief system of the majority constitutes a bruise, then you're in denial and there's nothing I can say more about it. Barbarian's usage of the slippery slope is accurate because someone who may not believe in G-d should not have to be cajoled into doing so.

No I don't have kids, but to answer you're question, yes I know full well that they can be cruel little monsters to each other, because I was the one that was habitually picked on. I'm reliving some very painful memories from then as I speak. So why give them another excuse to pick on those who seem weaker?

PhinPhan1227
10-23-2003, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Miamian
The definition may be vernacular. A professor in the field is more likely to be accurate, hence the word profess. Look that word up. You also cut off the most important element of the definition, the answer to ultimate questions. Furthermore, you're shooting from the hip in your premise that all religions include a deity. Contrary to popular belief, Buddhists do not worship Buddha, he's regarded as the first to achieve enlightenment and ascend to Nirvana. And who would be the deity in Animism or Jainism?

If you don't think that people getting beaten up because they don't share the belief system of the majority constitutes a bruise, then you're in denial and there's nothing I can say more about it. Barbarian's usage of the slippery slope is accurate because someone who may not believe in G-d should not have to be cajoled into doing so.

No I don't have kids, but to answer you're question, yes I know full well that they can be cruel little monsters to each other, because I was the one that was habitually picked on. I'm reliving some very painful memories from then as I speak. So why give them another excuse to pick on those who seem weaker?

So the Pledge is the cause of people being beaten up because they have different beliefs? The Pledge is the reason kids pick on each other? Good Lord!! The world must have been an idylic place before those two evil words were added to the Pledge. People must have been much more tolerant of differences than they are today. There must have been much more diversity in American culture. There must have been much greater protection of those differences. Oh..wait....that's NOT the case? So then, when you talk about the damage being caused by this phrase...you're talking about things that MIGHT happen? You're talking about the "slippery slope" that this phrase will tumble us all down? My question to that is, how shallow is that slope if...after 50 years...the trend has been to MORE inclusiveness...MORE freedom...and MORE diversity? Lastly...before you claim "vernacular", perhaps you should look up THAT definition? Vernacular means that the meaning you are using is the common meaning as oppossed to the more literary meaning. If you want to claim that "religion" in the vernacular of YOUR class is used to include ALL belief systems...feel free. But the term "religion" in the AMERICAN vernacular includes a superior being of some sort. Heck...ask a Budhist if he's bothered by the phrase. By the very nature of enlightenment, I very highly doubt if he or she would give a rats rear end about something so insanely trivial. Oh, and one last thing...."Profess" means to make a claim.

"pro·fess ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-fs, pr-)
v. pro·fessed, pro·fess·ing, pro·fess·es
v. tr.
To affirm openly; declare or claim: “a physics major [who] professes to be a stickler when it comes to data” (Gina Maranto).
To make a pretense of; pretend: “top officials who were deeply involved with the arms sales but later professed ignorance of them” (David Johnston). "

By it's very nature and usage it implies a claim which is unsupported by fact. If the basis for your beliefs/opinions is the result of your "professor", than you're basing those beliefs on the personal bias and whim of that same professor. At that point, I'd say you aren't even standing on ground as solid as your average religious zealot.

Miamian
10-23-2003, 08:04 PM
The Pledge in and of itself is not the cause of people being beaten up. It's simply another example of how the majority imposes itself on everyone and its tyranny sometimes manifests itself in that type of violence. Removing the symbols of its power, such as in the pledge, helps to state that we are a pluralistic democracy. Violence like this has already gone beyond might happening, it has.

Besides, what's to stop it there? Why not really put its stamp on our culture and inscribe it on all the public buildings since it does no harm.

Yes, vernacular means the common, ordinary usage of a word and since the Constitution is a legal document meant to last through the Country's history, it's unlikely that the founding fathers would have chosen wording that had the potential to change over time, as the vernacular does. And furthermore, I included the example of Buddhism to point out that most people accept it as a legitimate religion even though it does not profess (I'll get to that in a moment) any god. Therefore, it does not fit your narrow definition.

One of the definitions for professor in Webster's New Twentieth Century Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition is the following:
"to practice one's profession, to hold oneself out as proficient in; as to profess medicine."

And, if you doubt that professor's credentials, then you should have read the post more carefully. The definition that was offered was from a religious studies major, the professor confirmed the accuracy of the definition. He came to the class with the definition. I don't know where you went to college, but at FSU, where I was a student, departments tended to be staffed by more than one member of the faculty. So that student had learned it from other professors. So are presuming to be more knowledgeable than an entire faculty in their own profession? Sorry, I find that a bit arrogant.

Finally, just to underscore that professor's credentials he accepted a position in religious studies with the faculty at Notre Dame, arguably the most prestigious and therefore probably most selective religious college in the country. I was fortunate to have a class with him before he left.

PhinPhan1227
10-23-2003, 09:45 PM
Strictly for background, I graduated from UCONN with a degree in history. Now going back to your points...again...

"The Pledge in and of itself is not the cause of people being beaten up. It's simply another example of how the majority imposes itself on everyone and its tyranny sometimes manifests itself in that type of violence. Removing the symbols of its power, such as in the pledge, helps to state that we are a pluralistic democracy. Violence like this has already gone beyond might happening, it has."

1)The majority has the right to impose itself on the minority...that's what a Democracy is. Heck, one of the first acts of this nation was to ignore the wishes of 1/3rd of th REST of the nation and declare it's independance from England. Now, what it doesn't have the right to do is violate the basic human rights of the minority. So long as it doesn't violate those rights however, it has the right to do whatever it pleases. Now, one of those rights is the freedom of religion. If the majority tried to infringe on that right, it would be in violation of the basic concepts of America. That's why you have to show a wound. You HAVE to show how this phrase SPECIFICALLY causes harm.

"Besides, what's to stop it there? Why not really put its stamp on our culture and inscribe it on all the public buildings since it does no harm."

2)Once again...hasn't happened in almost half a century...for an imimant threat it sure is taking its time here.

"Yes, vernacular means the common, ordinary usage of a word and since the Constitution is a legal document meant to last through the Country's history, it's unlikely that the founding fathers would have chosen wording that had the potential to change over time, as the vernacular does. "

3)Actually, the term religion as I defined it is also the definition that was in common use in the 18th century. There wasn't a lot of concern for Budhism, Animism, or even for that matter Athiesm. The average American was aware of 4-5 different froms of Protestantism, Catholosism, and Judaism. If they were well educated, they might have been aware of Islam. As for them not chosing wording which would change...that's why they made the Constitution a living, breathing thing which is capable OF changing. If they hadn't, slavery would still be a viable economic option.

"One of the definitions for professor in Webster's New Twentieth Century Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition is the following:
"to practice one's profession, to hold oneself out as proficient in; as to profess medicine.""

4)Lol...thanks for proving my point. "To hold oneself out as proficient in". That does NOT mean that the person actually IS proficient in that subject...merely that THEY feel they are proficient. Quite honestly, your Prof may have been a theological genius. But since we're discussing the real world, the only applicable definition of religion is that which is in use by the general populace. The definitions used in the ivory towers of academia aren't germaine.


I won't bother with the rest since as I said...it isn't really germaine. I will however ask once again...WHO is being harmed TODAY by the current phrasing of the oath, and HOW are they being harmed?

Miamian
10-25-2003, 04:06 PM
That's why you have to show a wound. You HAVE to show how this phrase SPECIFICALLY causes harm. Already done that. If my justification isn't good enough for you, so be it.


Once again...hasn't happened in almost half a century...for an imimant threat it sure is taking its time here. Same as above.


The average American was aware of 4-5 different froms of Protestantism, Catholosism, and Judaism. If they were well educated, they might have been aware of Islam. The average American didn't frame the Constitution, the framers did and my impression of them is that they were rather intelligent men. It's also reasonable to assume that they framed the Constitution with the realization that all Americans were going to be attorneys and a court system with attorneys and judges would be needed to intrepret the Constitution.


As for them not chosing wording which would change...that's why they made the Constitution a living, breathing thing which is capable OF changing. Perhaps I wasn't clear, my fault. Yes the Constitution is a living, document subject to change, but specific words must transcend time or they become meaningless. Pick up any of Shakespeare's plays as an example. Notice how he used the word "pregnant." That doesn't apply to today.


Lol...thanks for proving my point. "To hold oneself out as proficient in". Well, I see by your interpretation, to contrast Webster's, the typical doctor who professes medicine isn't really knowledgeable in medicine.


But since we're discussing the real world, the only applicable definition of religion is that which is in use by the general populace. The definitions used in the ivory towers of academia aren't germaine. Oh really? Funny, how I've never heard the vernacular application of the word "speech" apply to visual art or media. But wait, hasn't the Supreme Court made rulings on these issues, invoking the Free SPEECH clause? I guess all those Supreme Court Justices were wrong. You were the actual one who was right.:rolleyes:


WHO is being harmed TODAY by the current phrasing of the oath, and HOW are they being harmed? As I've said, I replied to this already, if you're just going to scoff at what I say outright, isn't worth repeating.

PhinPhan1227
10-27-2003, 09:46 AM
Ok...lets bottom line this discussion because everything else really is just crap. Enumerate for me exactly who is being harmed by this clause. Break it down for me please, because I just don't see it. Explain to me how individuals in America are being prevented from practicing their religious beliefs because of a voluntary oath. If you can show me true harm I'll be happy to agree with you that the Pledge should be changed.





Originally posted by Miamian
Already done that. If my justification isn't good enough for you, so be it.

Same as above.

The average American didn't frame the Constitution, the framers did and my impression of them is that they were rather intelligent men. It's also reasonable to assume that they framed the Constitution with the realization that all Americans were going to be attorneys and a court system with attorneys and judges would be needed to intrepret the Constitution.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, my fault. Yes the Constitution is a living, document subject to change, but specific words must transcend time or they become meaningless. Pick up any of Shakespeare's plays as an example. Notice how he used the word "pregnant." That doesn't apply to today.

Well, I see by your interpretation, to contrast Webster's, the typical doctor who professes medicine isn't really knowledgeable in medicine.

Oh really? Funny, how I've never heard the vernacular application of the word "speech" apply to visual art or media. But wait, hasn't the Supreme Court made rulings on these issues, invoking the Free SPEECH clause? I guess all those Supreme Court Justices were wrong. You were the actual one who was right.:rolleyes:

As I've said, I replied to this already, if you're just going to scoff at what I say outright, isn't worth repeating.

Miamian
10-28-2003, 08:41 PM
I would be repeating myself, so I suggest you review the earlier posts.

PhinPhan1227
10-29-2003, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by Miamian
I would be repeating myself, so I suggest you review the earlier posts.

I have...and I've failed to find a single person whom you have shown to be injured or impaired in any way shape or form. Heck, throw me a bone...repeat yourself. We can leave all the other crap aside, and you can just point out the individuals who are being directly harmed by the oath. In one fell swoop you can completely change my opinion.

Miamian
10-29-2003, 11:13 PM
As I said, I would be repeating myself. If you can't see harm when people are beaten up because they believe differently or are cajoled and pressured into ascribing to the mainstream, then there's not much more to say.

PhinPhan1227
10-30-2003, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by Miamian
As I said, I would be repeating myself. If you can't see harm when people are beaten up because they believe differently or are cajoled and pressured into ascribing to the mainstream, then there's not much more to say.

So people are being beaten up because of the Pledge as it's now stated? And people are being pressured to become religious because of the Pledge? Ok, if these things are true, than that would in fact be harm. Can you cite any examples or proof for these assertions? After you cite those examples, could you answer me this question...are we currently more, or less accepting of religious minorities than we were 50 years ago? Do we have more, or less diverse representation now or 50 years ago? Does a person who is a non-christian have more, or less opportunity to succeed now, or 50 years ago? If people are being beaten up and pressured by the Pledge as it now stands, than why are we living in a society that is so much more accepting, diverse, and open than we were 50 years ago when the Pledge in it's current form was adopted? How do you qualify your statement?

Miamian
10-31-2003, 01:44 AM
You're missing the point. The pledge as is represents an affirmation that the mainstream perspective is the only right one. No, I don't think that we're more accepting than we were fifty years ago, because hate crimes occur with alarming frequency.

PhinPhan1227
10-31-2003, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Miamian
You're missing the point. The pledge as is represents an affirmation that the mainstream perspective is the only right one. No, I don't think that we're more accepting than we were fifty years ago, because hate crimes occur with alarming frequency.

Lol...I'm going to hazard a guess that you're no older than early 20's. The very fact that we have a word for "hate crimes" proves that we're more accepting.

50 years ago you had black men lynched in the south on a weekly basis.
50 years ago you didn't have an elected official above Mayor(and then only Catholics in screamingly Catholic cities) who wasn't a Protestant.
50 years ago was only a few years after we turned away a boat load of Jewish refugees fleeing the Hollocaust because the US was still screamingly anti-Semitic.
50 years ago a woman who wanted to pursue a career outside of the home was considered "mannish".
50 years ago a citizens career, freedom, and even life could be taken away if someone made even a baseless accusation that they were "un-American".
50 years ago "Athiest" and "Devil worshiper" were considered synonimous by the vast majority of Americans.
50 years ago black people and white people were still segregated

If you have ANY doubt that America is a more open, permissive, accepting, and integrated society than it was 50 years ago...talk to someone who is in their 60's-70's. Take a trip to a retirement home and ask someone who's Jewish what it was like in 1953. Ask a black man who was a teenager in 1953 what would have happened if he asked out a white girl. Now, once you've had a little wake-up call about the society you live in NOW, versus the fantasy world you seem to be living in, you can address the fact that in a Democracy, the majority view IS the right view...so long as it doesn't DIRECTLY impinge on the rights of the minority. Democracy is NOT rule by committee. Everyone does NOT have to be happy. That's not in the Constitution, and it's just not possible. The "tyranny of the majority" IS only restricted by the basic civil rights of the minority...but once again...go back and read the Constitution...you won't find a line that says that the minority is protected from being annoyed. It just isn't there. Go and get an education on where we are now versus were we were when the Pledge adopted it's current form. And then come back and tell me once again who is being harmed.

Miamian
10-31-2003, 10:14 PM
This is ridiculous. We're going to go back and forth with this ad nauseam. If it makes you feel bigger or better to say that you're right, then by all means go ahead and do so.

BTW, I'm 37.

PhinPhan1227
10-31-2003, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by Miamian
This is ridiculous. We're going to go back and forth with this ad nauseam. If it makes you feel bigger or better to say that you're right, then by all means go ahead and do so.

BTW, I'm 37.


If you're 37 than what possible excuse could you have for being naive enough to think that ANY minority in America was better off 50 years ago than they were today? What possible excuse could you have for having that little education in what this country was like 50 years ago? You think "under God" is dangerous? How about being completely ignorant of what this country and its minorities have suffered through? Tell you what.... rather than regurgitating what your religion proff lectured...why don't you take a trip down to a retirement home and sit down for an hour or two with an elderly black or Jewish person. Let them give you an education on what 1953 was like. Ask them if they feel more or less free and accepted. Then come back and tell me about the murderous oppression that the Pledge in its current form is going to visit on America. Back and forth? Please...that implies that you've given me something of substance which I could respond to.