Borillar
|
posted on June 26, 2002 10:10:26 PM new
Dup. post
[ edited by Borillar on Jun 26, 2002 10:19 PM ]
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on June 26, 2002 10:24:27 PM new
I'm too sleepy to comprehend much Borillar, but have a safe trip! 
|
REAMOND
|
posted on June 27, 2002 01:04:53 AM new
The Declaration of Independence has no force of law, while the Constitution does, and the Constitution doesn't mention the existence of God, but only religion.
For all of you who want your govt and religion intermingled, try saying Allah instead of god when you say the pledge, and see what happens.
The reference to god should be off the money, there shouldn't be prayers to open our govt assemblies, and the Supreme Court shouldn't be asking god to save them and the US when the court convenes.
Worship your gods in peace, but keep them out of govt as it will neither appease your gods nor improve the govt. Too many theists do not realize the real danger to their beliefs by co-opting their religion with the govt. While you may feel a tinge of satisfaction when the govt establishes your religion, you need only to look at history to see what will happen to you and your religion should your religion fall out of favor with the govt. The solution ? Keep religion out of govt and govt out of religion. That what our Constitution demands.
|
gravid
|
posted on June 27, 2002 03:22:46 AM new
All these self righteous smug people have never been on the other end of the stick. When we moved from Ohio to North Carolina in the late 50's I suddenly found myself in a class room where the teacher insisted in leading us in prayer every day. Each student would add a comment to the prayer and at the end the teacher added her comment and then she would say amen and we were all expected to say amen in agreement. I was only 12 but I refused saying that the things the kids prayed for were stupid and profane and I had no wish to worship with them. They said little suck up prayers about the teacher and prayed to their dead pets in heaven. I was taken out in the hall and beaten with what looked like a cricket bat until I was a purple mess. They could have beat me dead in the name of Jesus cause I was a stubborn kid. I called on Jesus myself to visit their own love on them which just infuriated them. When I went home black and blue my mother paid a visit on the teacher and calmly explained that the huge black revolver she pulled out and jammed under her nose would be used to visit her at home and wipe out everyone in her house man, woman and child down to the pets if she ever laid a finger on me again. She had faith in the truth of it. Good thing or dear Moma would have removed them from the earth like vermin and their god would have done them zip. Dad was ex- special forces let go on a mental, but Mom - She was the scary one and a better shot too. Walking down the beach you could throw a soda can in the air and yell pull! and she would draw and hit it 4 or 5 times before it came back down. It would be a shredded twisted piece of steel that didn't even have a cylindrical shape visible anymore.
[ edited by gravid on Jun 27, 2002 04:35 AM ]
|
Helenjw
|
posted on June 27, 2002 07:27:09 AM new
(the teacher) "She had faith in the truth of it."
That's one case of 'faith' that probably saved her a little disfigurement. LOL!
|
clarksville
|
posted on June 27, 2002 08:20:32 AM new
It really churned my gut when I watched in horror our government employees (Congressmen) grandstanding in front of the Senate building and on the floor of the House and the Senate, calling the judge (and in some cases they referred to the two judges) names: stupid and dumb. Jerry Falwell called the judges dumb & dumber. They are doing this in the name of God. What an embarrassment.
|
gravid
|
posted on June 27, 2002 08:25:15 AM new
You have to try to keep a sense of humor about it.
They will grandstand about being under God and then go back in and boff their intern and take a big hit off a lobbyist there to buy some favor without a bit of a problem of conscience.
|
gravid
|
posted on June 27, 2002 08:36:15 AM new
"In dissent, Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez chided Goodwin's decision, which was joined by
Judge Stephen Reinhardt.
"My reading … suggests that upon Newdow's theory of our Constitution, accepted by my
colleagues today, we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs
in many public settings," Fernandez wrote. "'God Bless America' and 'America the Beautiful' will
be gone for sure, and while use of the first and second stanzas of the Star Spangled Banner
[sic] will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third."
Do you notice that this does not try AT ALL to refute the logic or the legal basis of the ruling? It just states that it will make him do things he is unhappy and uncomfortable doing. - Isn't that a shame that he is the one feeling uncomfortable and out of place instead of a school child?
I imaigine it made all the slave holders upset and uncomfortable to hear they were wrong to own human beings - even though the custom and the culture was for them to do so.
Being customary and what you want to do has nothing to do with being right.
Make no mistake - they will come back and overturn this ruling - but on the basis of it being unpopular not wrong.
[ edited by gravid on Jun 27, 2002 08:37 AM ]
|
clarksville
|
posted on June 27, 2002 08:39:41 AM new
I don't see any humor in it.
|
NearTheSea
|
posted on June 27, 2002 08:49:53 AM new
Correct me if I am wrong, but in the Constitution, the Seperation of Church and State, was originally written to protect Religion from the State (or rather gov't)????
With that said, the gov't put Under God in the pledge, plus numerous other things, In God We Trust, the 'patriotic' songs etc.
[email protected]
|
snowyegret
|
posted on June 27, 2002 08:50:22 AM new
Religion should be a private matter, as our nation's population encompasses many beliefs. Until this nation becomes a theocracy, religion has no business in government.
I hope it goes.
You have the right to an informed opinion
-Harlan Ellison
|
Helenjw
|
posted on June 27, 2002 09:16:03 AM new
I just wish that we could see this kind of attack on Ashcroft's decisions to shred the constitution of the United States of America.
What a bunch of narrow minded moralistic hypocrites.
'Under God' should be removed and replaced with 'rid of the evil doer'.
And we all know the evil doer.
[ edited by Helenjw on Jun 27, 2002 09:26 AM ]
|
gravid
|
posted on June 27, 2002 10:19:28 AM new
|
clarksville
|
posted on June 27, 2002 10:25:58 AM new
Actually, the US Constitution doesn't specify "seperation of church and state." Some interpreters of the document, who forms the laws, have expressed opinions that the "seperation of church and state" were in the minds of the writers of the original US Constitution. Therefore, they based their opinions on that.
They draw from the historical content of the time the document was written. Only about a century before, some puritans were escaping from religious persecution from a state sponsored religion. The colonies won the Revolutionary War with the ruling King of England.
|
REAMOND
|
posted on June 27, 2002 10:29:19 AM new
NeartheSea- The separation doctrine was actually to protect the people from a govt established religion.
Many of the colonies had mandatory laws regarding religion, including mandatory attendance, mandatory tithing, mandatory "no work" on Sunday, and the outlawing of some sects. Many people were litterally "run out" of regions due to their religious beliefs. Most of the colonies were religious despotic fiefdoms.
The framers of the Constitution were well aware of these religious problems in the colonies and were well aware of the problems it caused in Europe and that co-opting the govt with religion was an impediment to a free people. The colonies were more than happy to accept the Federal govt being without religion because the colonies all had their favorite religious sect and did not want to risk a winner take all scenario as to which religion the Federal govt might adopt.
The wiser theists who know the history of religious strife fully support the the strict adherence to the separation doctrine. While the fanatics want religious ritual mixed with govt operations, this short sighted attitude flys in the face of the dangers to their religion and the danger to a free people by this intermingling.
If you really support the free exercise of religion, you'll also fully and strictly support the separation doctrine.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on June 27, 2002 10:29:34 AM new
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I was having trouble understanding the sudden and overwhelming attention that this problem with the Pledge of Allegiance is presenting. I think that it's possibly a stalling tactic being used to provide time for The Bush Administration to figure out what to do about Israel and Palestine. After all, he wants to get on with his other wars....Iraq, for example.
Can you really believe that so many people are being whipped into a frenzy to get on the bandwagen about the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance?
I really can't get excited about it.
|
gravid
|
posted on June 27, 2002 10:34:07 AM new
I really doubt that the Bush administration moved this fellow to start this action at law some time ago knowing they would need a distraction from the middle east. They didn't know what they would need a month ago.
Anytime you tell people that the customs of their village are not natural law they get all upset.
|
auroranorth
|
posted on June 27, 2002 10:45:18 AM new
A symptom,
one more example of the fact that this nation now stands for nothing.
before you all have a gonad fit. I guess I should have said that the people running this nation stand for nothing in comon with the average citizen.
If I ask you what America is or means I'm going to get many different answers.
Wasn't always like this.
Listen carefully now and tell me is that gunfire or thunder ?
|
clarksville
|
posted on June 27, 2002 10:55:43 AM new
Helen, you do have a point of it being "wag the dog" situation, but I think that it is more of the God "experts" getting all worked up because they know better and more than peeps like us.
|
Julesy
|
posted on June 27, 2002 11:00:01 AM new
The guy that started this whole thing, went to court because his first grader was being subjected to saying the Pledge, and he didn't want her saying One Nation Under God.
That's incorrect.
He went to court because his daughter had to listen to the pledge everyday, not because she had to say it. He considers it preaching and didn't want his daughter subjected to it anymore.
|
gravid
|
posted on June 27, 2002 11:02:23 AM new
auroranorth - There were always people who had a different vision. But like the song said "Everybody knew their place.- Those were the days.
Yup - If you were white male and protestant you had freedom of speech. Otherwise it was don't say anything that might bother us.
I guess it's up to you what you hear as much as the other guy.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on June 27, 2002 11:03:51 AM new
LOL! Clarksville
Although the suit was filed earlier, it doesn't explain the Presidential envolvement or the special Senate Rules comm. consideration and expedited hearings etc.
Ashcroft's messing around with the constitution doesn't receive that much attention.
Latest news...
Newdow also said that he and his family had been threatened because of the lawsuit and that the threats were "personal and scary."
"I could be dead tomorrow," Mr. Newdow said.
[ edited by Helenjw on Jun 27, 2002 11:04 AM ]
|
gravid
|
posted on June 27, 2002 11:22:38 AM new
I am not an unbeliever like him, but I completely understand how he feels all the other kids standing being led by the authority figure of the teacher shouts - you don't belong here - you are not one of us. If you can't swear allegence in the name of God you're are not really American.
Perhaps it is just dishonest to make these non-Christians think they can become full members of the society with FULL citizenship.
If they understand they will have to stand outside the group and shed their dignity while full citizens enjoy the comradere of Christian fellowship they will refrain from seeking citizenship. I'm sure that would delite many that want a monolithic solidarity. After all you can't really TRUST these people that don't believe like you can you? No matter how you have to act in public (usually) they are not equal are they? Not in your heart. They are heathens and darkies.
|
gravid
|
posted on June 27, 2002 11:28:54 AM new
Yup - wouldn't surprise me if somebody assaults him for acting like he is just as good as them. Uppity!! As I said - been there - been beat myself for not sucking up to the Baptist school marm. Self righteous people are often ready to act as the "arm' of the almighty. It really upsets them if you shoot straighter. How could God allow that?
|
Helenjw
|
posted on June 27, 2002 11:29:52 AM new
Seriously, Gravid
I agree with you. I can't count the times that I have bowed my head and quoted words that I don't believe just to be nice.
The words under God should be removed asap.
Helen
|
rawbunzel
|
posted on June 27, 2002 11:36:19 AM new
Gravid, I like your peanuts cartoon. I can't tell you how many times I have found myself saying "Amen" at the end of the pledge of allegiance.
Yesterday on CNN they were doing on the street interviews and one "christian" woman said that if you don't want to say "under God" you should just leave the country. She was really angry. I wonder why it is that if you do not believe like the RR that is running this country you are always told you should leave? Not believing in God does not equate with not believing in the USA.
"Under God" does not belong in the pledge of allegiance to the USA. We are not pledging allegiance to God.
|
gravid
|
posted on June 27, 2002 11:40:32 AM new
Are you sure?
Just looking at CNN they quoted Bush as saying "we derive our rights from God"
He said the judges need to understand that.
From the horses mouth.
Helenjw - Really sorry you were intimidated like that. I just had crazy parents who taught me to say no to just about anything.
Believe me the schools were NOT ready for that. Many a time I refused to do homework that was mindless repetition. Or even worse pointed out when the text books were wrong - or lying.
[ edited by gravid on Jun 27, 2002 11:53 AM ]
|
NearTheSea
|
posted on June 27, 2002 11:43:56 AM new
Your right Julesy, I didn't copy his quote.
He did say he didn't want her to be subjected to the phrase 'under God' (and thats not a direct quote )
[email protected]
|
pclady
|
posted on June 27, 2002 12:02:42 PM new
And now, boys and girls, let me hear you recite the Pledge of Allegiance:<BR>
<BR>
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. <BR>
<BR>
Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance: Under God. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer, and that would be eliminated from schools, too? <BR>
<BR>
Red Skelton
http://www.usflag.org/skeltons.pledge.html
pclady
|
rawbunzel
|
posted on June 27, 2002 12:08:11 PM new
I always liked Red but he wasn't always right you know. He was a comedian.
Does anyone know how ~ when they added the words in 1953~ people felt about it then? Was there an uproar or just acceptance?
|
