Guest $iLk Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 Is now unconstitutional in schools. Constitutes a government endorcement of religion. CNN. MSNBC FOXNEWS The 9th "Circus" Court makes a nice decision... Thoughts?
LordDavid Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 What are they going to think of next? What is the next limitation they are going to try to set? Methinks its unconstitutional for them to say this matter is unconstitutional. [ 06-26-2002, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: LordDavid ]
Guest Remo Williams Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Epsilon 5: And what's the problem?you'll know someday. Its just a sign of the times Silk. Its going to get alot worse before it gets better.
Guest Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 quote:Originally posted by LordDavid: What are they going to think of next? What is the next limitation they are going to try to set? Methinks its unconstitutional for them to say this matter is unconstitutional.I agree 100%.
LordDavid Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Remo Williams: Its just a sign of the times Silk. Its going to get alot worse before it gets better. Amen
Epsilon 5 Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Remo Williams: quote:Originally posted by Epsilon 5: And what's the problem?you'll know someday. How so? What does it matter if childrens must tell the pledge or not?
Guest $iLk Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 Children do *NOT* have to recite the pledge if they do not wish. This ruling is simply liberal knee jerk reactionism towards some loony parent in Berkley California or somewheres that thinks it's wrong his child should have to listen to it, and the word "God" is offensive to him. This ruling means that you can *NOT* mention God in schools. Although it is perfectly fine to talk about Allah, Buddah, etc. It's making things unfair for the quote unquote, Normal People, who fit in with culture, in order to make things more acceptable to those who are in the minority. Besides, ruling that one of our oldest traditions is unconstitutional based on what they did, is ludicris.
Guest Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 Actually silk, I applaud that decision.It should be enforced in all 50 states imo. State should not sponsor ANY kind of religion. The word "God" implies a religion. Period. They should also remove the "In God We Trust" parts off the currency as well. But that would cost them lots of money, so it may not happen. As we all know, "In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash" "This ruling means that you can *NOT* mention God in schools. Although it is perfectly fine to talk about Allah, Buddah, etc." Wrong. You can talk about "God" or any other diety you want as long as its for EDUCATIONAL purposes..aka, learn about the religion from a historical and social point of view, not preaching it. "It's making things unfair for the quote unquote, Normal People, who fit in with culture, in order to make things more acceptable to those who are in the minority." Define normal. Define People. Define "fit in with culture". Last time I checked religions were not considered a minority either. However, I do agree the US has a problem with the minorities receiving unfair benefits.. BUT they are receiving them because they LOBBY for it. "El que no llora no mama" we say in spanish.. roughly translates "if you dont cry, you dont suckle (maternal milk)".. get it? "Besides, ruling that one of our oldest traditions is unconstitutional based on what they did, is ludicris." On the contrary, I believe this highlights the strenght of your constitution and the ideals preached by the USA. You do realize that tradition for the sake of tradition leads to monarchy? [ 06-27-2002, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]
Epsilon 5 Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 Nice post Tac, I agree with the very most of it. quote:They should also remove the "In God We Trust" parts off the currency as well. But that would cost them a shitload of moneyNot really. They would just need to change how the new bill are printed.
Steve Schacher Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 quote:The word "God" implies a religion.And therein lies the problem. Mentioning God does not imply a religion, just the concept of religion. The Declaration of Independence says "WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..." The Preamble to the Constitution says "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Endowed by their Creator? Secure the Blessings? This country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs, and the Founding Fathers did not intend that religion be banned from public discourse. In the 1700's, the Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, and Buddhist population was only a few percent of the total -- the Founders were mostly Protestant, Methodist, Quaker, and the like. When they wrote "religion" in what is referred to as "the Establishment clause," they were using language that, at the time, was commonly referring to what we call a "denomination." They were saying that the government would not prefer, say, Protestant over Methodist. They weren't banning religion altogether. References to God do not favor Jesus over Allah, Buddha, or Zeus. The ruling was decided by two out of three judges on a panel, not the entire 9th Circuit Court. Some say that the Supreme Court will overturn, others say that it won't get to the Supreme Court -- that the 9th Circuit will call a special session of the entire court and they will overturn it themselves.
Guest Remo Williams Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 LOL! We better watch out the atheists are going to want scrap the constitution now. Because it was founded on a belief in God by our fore fathers.
Guest Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 the word blessing does not imply religious meaning. Blessing is when something benefits in a very positive way. The other parts do have to be taken into HISTORICAL (not TRADITIONAL) setting. The times in which that document was written have to be taken into account and preserved as part of history. But I see a huge difference between making a kid of non-christian/catholic/protestant/jewish beliefs be forced to either recite OR be forced to listen to the same thing day after day after day in class (plus add peer pressure, etc etc) and it in fact BECOMES preaching... and between a document that was written down hundreds of years ago and is part of your history. How would you feel if I had MCI stop calling you and tell AT&T to call you EVERY morning at your breakfast table to offer you the same exact deal worded in the same exact way, and you cant hang up on them or in any way can you not listen to what they say. Repeat for a whole year.. or more. You think you will eventually buy their service? I'd give you 3 years before you start to "realize" just how GREAT AT&T really is You know what would really be funny? If this idea cought on in my country, our own national anthem would come under fire. Colombia's anthem has in fact, one of its chorus's ending lines say "the whole of humanity... moaning in chains (reference to slavery) will one day comprehend the words of he who died in the cross"... oooh boy, that part would come under scrutiny.. BUT its the anthem, a symbol of the nation itself. It was written years before we even had a constitution, and S. American nations were all fanatically christian (still are) since the Conquistadores stormed the continent. On the other hand, this pledge issue was incorporated in the 20th century, and hundreds of years after your constitution made it clear about the separation of church and state. And a pledge is not a historical document nor a national symbol.
Guest Remo Williams Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 quote:and hundreds of years after your constitution made it clear about the separation of church and state. What the separation of church and state means is the government can't run the church and tell you how to worship and where. It also means that the church can't run the government forcing everyone to worship under one denomination. It does not mean that religion is not allowed in our public establishments. It just can't control and operate them I imagine it is insulting and does get old listening to someone go on and on about their religious beliefs if your a non believer. The same way it is insulting to a believer to listen to and atheist attack religion
Raven Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 About damn time! I have been thinking that this should happen since grade school and I hope that it lasts. quote: Mentioning God does not imply a religion, just the concept of religion. And if I dont believe in any god or any religion in any way shape or form. I clearly remember finding the pledge an insult to my intelligence when I had to recite it (and it isnt really optional, at least it wasnt in my school). quote: Endowed by their Creator? Secure the Blessings? This country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs, and the Founding Fathers did not intend that religion be banned from public discourse. And I care because why? Just because the country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs doesnt mean that modern kids should be subject to such beliefs. quote: LOL! We better watch out the atheists are going to want scrap the constitution now. Because it was founded on a belief in God by our fore fathers. I wish I could remember who it was that said we should write a new constitution every 20 years, that really would be the way to go. As far as the constitution being founded on a belief in god, I would say rather that it was founded by people who believed in god. There is, in all actuality, a considerable difference and too confuse the two would be to be mistaken. quote: You think you will eventually buy their service? I'd give you 3 years before you start to "realize" just how GREAT AT&T really is Are you familiar with the term going postal? The real difference here, though, is that you could buy there service and they would stop regaling you with incessant advertisement. The pledge is different, its ubiquitous, there is no escape Mwa ha ha ha.
Guest Remo Williams Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 quote:About damn time! I have been thinking that this should happen since grade school and I hope that it lasts. It won't a judge with actual knowledge of the constitution will over turn it before you know it. quote:And I care because why? Just because the country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs doesnÔÇÖt mean that modern kids should be subject to such beliefs. If we want them to grow up with any morals it would be wise. Or we could keep those beliefs from them as you suggest and continue the downward spiral this country is going through. where our families are falling apart. Our Kids are out of control and on drugs before they get out of grade school. quote:I wish I could remember who it was that said we should write a new constitution every 20 years, that really would be the way to go. As far as the constitution being founded on a belief in god, I would say rather that it was founded by people who believed in god. There is, in all actuality, a considerable difference and too confuse the two would be to be mistaken. LOL! what ever you want to believe.
Menchise Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 I have no opinion on this issue, but I do have one thing to say about a post. quote:If we want them to grow up with any morals it would be wise. Or we could keep those beliefs from them as you suggest and continue the downward spiral this country is going through. where our families are falling apart. Our Kids are out of control and on drugs before they get out of grade school.Are you suggesting that atheists don't have morals?
Epsilon 5 Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 quote:nd if I donÔÇÖt believe in any god or any religion in any way shape or form. I clearly remember finding the pledge an insult to my intelligence when I had to recite it (and it isnÔÇÖt really optional, at least it wasnÔÇÖt in my school).Anyway I guess you would look stupid if all the class but you would stand up and recite the pledge, huh?
Guest Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, (SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE), INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL San Francisco (SatireWire.com) — A U.S. federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public school is unconstitutional because it contains the phrase "under God," a decision that has infuriated politicians from both parties, and sent the United States on a desperate search for a new sponsor. While the U.S. Justice Department said it plans to appeal the ruling, officials are quietly speaking with several potential sponsors interested in having their brands associated with America, and are already test-marketing the phrases "One nation, under Wal-Mart," "One nation, under Windows XP," and "One nation, but 24,000 Starbucks." Until an agreement is reached, however, the U.S. will advertise by replacing the phrase "One nation, under God," with "One nation, (sponsorship opportunities available)." While the words "under God" were only added to the Pledge by Congress in 1954, God has been the title patron of the United States since its founding in 1776, and the God name adorns everything from U.S. currency to the phrase "So help me God" used to swear in judges and politicians. According to analysts, severing that 226-year relationship without an alternative is a mistake. "Over the years, the U.S. under God has been a great draw for the major players - Einstein, Solzhenitsyn, John Lennon," said government marketing analyst Gil Treacle. "Without God's brand recognition and infinite marketing powers, you risk losing the marquis names to competitors. Then the networks don't renew, the money dries up, the fans revolt, and the next thing you know, you're Argentina." But others defended the decision, saying it was wrong to force religion on anyone. "The phrase 'under God' clearly violates the separation of church and state," said McDonald's CEO Jack Greenberg. "However, there is nothing in the Constitution that separates chicken and state, which is why we're proposing, 'One nation, six chicken McNuggets and a medium Coke, all for $1.99.'" Europeans, meanwhile, seemed to be confused by the uproar. "I don't understand. I always thought it was 'One nation, we are God,'" said British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "Oh my, I've been worshipping them for nothing." Back in America, many questioned whether the United States really needs a patron, and instead suggested the Pledge should include verbiage that simply reflects America. So far, the leading contenders: ┬ñ "One nation, under indictment," ┬ñ "One nation, road under repair," ┬ñ "One nation, sure, but with cheerleaders!" ┬ñ "One nation, under yellow alert, please report any suspicious activity," ┬ñ "One nation, but kinda two if you count Canada." God, in various forms, currently sponsors most nations, with the exception of officially atheist China and Vietnam, and the Netherlands, which hasn't been told yet but is in for a nasty shock tomorrow.
Guest Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 I agree with Menchise on this one, AMAZING!! But the fact of the matter is, lack of god, does NOT mean lack of morals. Congress added that little piece of under god in 1954, pretty simple to just get rid of it, but fact is, if you don't like the under god part, DON'T SAY IT!! This PC crap is getting old. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to NOT be offended, if your offended by something, then go away, don't expect whatever offended you to go away. The majority should not suffer because some minority feels that it is offended. Basically, GET OVER IT!! Go get a life!! The founding fathers NEVER intended a separation of church and state to be taken so literally, they had to have that in there in order for there NOT to be a state sponsored religion as in England and other countries. You are free to worship in any way shape or form you choose, but you do not have the right to be free OF religion. If you are offended by some religion, then don't hang around with people of that religion. If you are offended by someone praying in school, then IGNORE them, if you are offended by someone saying a prayer at a football game, then DON'T GO to the football game. If I offend you, then ignore me, because if you offend me, I am going to tell you, and if you decide that you are not going to stop, then I am going to ignore you. EASY stuff. Can't we all just get along? ROFLMAO!!!
Epsilon 5 Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 quote:"One nation, but 24,000 Starbucks." ROTFLMAO!
Guest Remo Williams Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Menchise: I have no opinion on this issue, but I do have one thing to say about a post. quote:If we want them to grow up with any morals it would be wise. Or we could keep those beliefs from them as you suggest and continue the downward spiral this country is going through. where our families are falling apart. Our Kids are out of control and on drugs before they get out of grade school.Are you suggesting that atheists don't have morals?Sorry it was 4:00 in the morning here when I typed that. I didn't mean to imply that all atheists were without morals. Some have morals also, but the majority do not. All you have to do is look at our society to see that this is true.
Guest Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 Sorry Remo, some of the most moral people I know are Athiests. The great thing about that is, they are moral because they wish to be, not because of some punishment that will be meted out to them after they die. Gotta respect that. I heard on the radio today that Atheism is what killed Millions in the 20th century, I was totally blown away. Sorry, Socialism, Communism, and Fascism killed millions in the 20th century. Atheism has always been a part of those, but it is not the root cause of the actions of those political views. Atheists have the right to not believe in whatever they don't believe in, as long as they do not trample on my rights in the process. As I said earlier, you do NOT have the right to NOT be offended. You don't like it? Well, too bad, grow up and go get a life.
Guest Remo Williams Posted June 27, 2002 Report Posted June 27, 2002 quote:Sorry Remo, some of the most moral people I know are Athiests. As I said some Atheist do have morals. quote: you do NOT have the right to NOT be offended. You don't like it? Well, too bad, grow up and go get a life. Ditto! [ 06-27-2002, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: Remo Williams ]
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now