27-06-2002 21:53									#241
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by MrFun To some extent, the ONE God part of the pledge fits well, because all denominations of Judahism, Christianity, and Islam believe in the same God.

There are many more denominations than those three, and there are people without any.

quote: Extreme liberals give moderate liberals like me, a bad name and bad rep.

quote: I say, if you are not compelled to say the pledge, then let it be -- no law can constitutionally force people to not say something that they wish to say.

There is a difference between reciting the Pledge independently and having a public school employee lead everyone in a mass declaration of the pledge.

quote: Hell, we allow white supremacist groups to express their beliefs.

What? I guarantee you that White Supremacist doctrine is not allowed in public schools.

quote: Anyway, that is my four cents.

More like $.001.

	27-06-2002 21:55									#242
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove I've seen those New York maps of the United States. You're barely aware of the rest of the country.

There's life west of the Hudson?!

Considering I've only lived 3 years in NYC, and much of the rest of that time was in areas where one would expect full-blown, chest-thumping patriotism, I will still assert any singing of any other than the 1st stanza is extremely rare.

	27-06-2002 22:09									#243
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Guynemer It is state establishment of religion--you bet your ass it's unconstitutional to have government employees lead children in reciting it! And, simply from a practical standpoint, how likely to do think it is that this could EVER be changed through the legislature in this ****ing country, where (according to Time) over half the population thinks that Revelations will come true? Any politican who stood up for what is right in this issue would have his or her ass bounced out of Washington so fast it would make your head spin. Do you really think 99 Senators think "under God" belongs in the Pledge? HELL no. I'd bet you that, deep down inside, half or more of them knows that it doesn't belong there. But if they said that, they wouldn't get reelected. If we can't count on our elected officials to do what is right, all he have left is the courts.

so you think that elected officials are very different in their beleifs and wishs then the popullace they represent??

Jon Miller

	27-06-2002 22:19									#244
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Considering I've only lived 3 years in NYC, and much of the rest of that time was in areas where one would expect full-blown, chest-thumping patriotism, I will still assert any singing of any other than the 1st stanza is extremely rare.

Not in my experience.

	27-06-2002 22:26									#245
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove (1) Why does 'regularity" matter? If the teacher had required the little girl to get down on her knees and pray for her eternal soul even once would have been enough I'm certain.

One is history.
One is a mantra, which many schools force students to say over and over again until its words and meaning are second nature to them.

It's actually a form of propaganda but since the Pledge delivers a "positive" message it's considered okay.

quote: (2) By now the 1950s is history.

But so is yesterday.

quote: (3) Canada actually pays the Catholic church to perform a governmental service, and it does so with predjudice against schools run by other churches which do not receive such funding.

It does?
I didn't think the Catholic Church got anything for the Catholic Schools.
There are two school boards for each region (usually), a Catholic and a Protestant (the Protestant has zero religion where I live, and is called 'Public' now). They're not actually part of the churches, they're just a different schoolboard with religious beliefs.

	27-06-2002 22:45									#246
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Asher It does? I didn't think the Catholic Church got anything for the Catholic Schools. There are two school boards for each region (usually), a Catholic and a Protestant (the Protestant has zero religion where I live, and is called 'Public' now). They're not actually part of the churches, they're just a different schoolboard with religious beliefs.

Well, what exactly is the relationship between the Catholic church and the Catholic school system? Do they pay church officials to oversee the schools? In what way is this "Protestant" board Protestant? If it has no affiliation with any denomination, has a completely secular board and a completely secular curricullum than I fail to see how it is a "Protestant" system, unless it is designated as such simply because it is not "Catholic". If it was at one time actually Protestant than I'd have to ask how it came to be secularized.

	27-06-2002 22:48									#247
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

It has to do with very ancient agreements when Canada was formed. It's very stupid, IMO, but that's how it is.

Quebec wouldn't join unless we guaranteed a nationwide Catholic system, and the rest of the nation was predominantly Protestant. Over time, the local Protestant schoolboard changed to just being Public, and there is zero religion in it. The Catholic system remains Catholic.

I don't think there's any relation between the Catholic Church and the school system, other than they share the same religion.

	27-06-2002 23:16									#248
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove What do you mean "not in all versions"? Shinto was the official state religion of Japan. The very basis of the religion was the deity of the emporer!

Shinto was practiced outside of Japan, IIRC...

Now I'm getting out of my depth. I'm not much of a relifgious scholar when it comes to Eastern practices, but IIRC there are straight ancestor-worship versions of Shinto where the Emperor doesn't enter into it...

	27-06-2002 23:24									#249
	Got spare money?

In Quebec, as I've stated before, the lines are now drawn linguistically instead of religiously.

The schools themselves have nothing to do with the religions they're supposed to belong to; they're just, as Asher says, remnants of a forgotten past.

"Catholic" school board schools don't teach the Catechism etc. (at least not here). "Protestant" school board schools don't teach about Martin Luther. They're just names by now...

It's not the Catholic Church that runs Catholic schools, BTW; the last time that happened was in the early 1960s. Now they're run like any other public school board. There are Muslims and Hindus etc. all attending "Catholic" or "Protestant" schools, and their religious beliefs aren't being trampled on...

	27-06-2002 23:36									#250
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

The worst thing of all about this decision is that it will be overturned ...IT's about time.

Something I noticed on 1 dollar bills:
At one place it says "Novem Ordo Seclorum" (i dont have one right now so i might be wrong), which I'm pretty sure in latin means "New Secular Order". How ironic that just an inch or so away it says "In God we trust"

	28-06-2002 00:39									#251
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller so you think that elected officials are very different in their beleifs and wishs then the popullace they represent?? Jon Miller

Very different? No. But I think they understand the Constitution better than the populace they represent, and they understand when something is in conflict with it.

You know, on second thought, despite most Americans wanting "under God" in the Pledge, I'm quite sure that many--perhaps even most--of them understand that it doesn't belong there. They want it there anyway, because people like having their religions validated.

Honestly, I'd get a perverse sort of glee if the Pledge said "one nation, godless," sticking it to all the people who held a different religious belief. But I understand that should not be the case. I wish the religious conservatives could see that.

	28-06-2002 01:15									#252
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: No matter what people say monotheism isn't a religion, it is simply a type of religion. There is nothing about establishment of types of religion in there.

What about Christianity? Or Islam? Are those "types" of religions also? Is the government supporting those ok, but the government supporting the RCC or Sunni doctrine wrong?

BTW, by supporting monotheism, the gov't supports all monotheistic faiths, so it indeed makes those state endorsed religions.

quote: It merely says we cannot establish a religion. Saying nothing about endorsement or even giving money

What do you consider establishing a state religion, if not using public money to endorse it or giving churches that support it money?

Do you consider England's current relationship with the Anglican church unconstitutional (edit: if we were in their situation)?

	28-06-2002 01:16									#253
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Honestly, I'd get a perverse sort of glee if the Pledge said "one nation, godless,"

Or "One nation, under the Almighty Dollar"?

	28-06-2002 01:23									#254
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Incidentally, the pledge was originally created by a pinko.

Originally the author had "with equality, liberty, and justice for all." but he dumped the equality bit because he didn't want to piss off the school administration people (he was a teacher).

Kinda ironic given rightist support for the pledge.

	28-06-2002 01:28									#255
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Well since they added the god bit in in 1954 to thwart the goodless commies, isn't it 'bout time to take it out?

Just throw the entire thing away, reminds me of Berlin, 1930's anyway.

-FMK.

	28-06-2002 01:41									#256
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Imran

I repeat, as someone else already has:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion [...]"

Do you really interpret this as "Congress shall make no law respecting establishing a religion [...]"?

Becuase if you do, you are wrong.

An establishment of religion means church, cult, mosque, or any other religious organization, or any faith or belief that a citizen might have.

So, to help you understand the concept, try reading this sentance, which is a very similar thing, but not identical becuase it is more specific:

Congress shall make no law respecting religious faith or beliefs.

Thus, including the phrase "under God", which implies a belief in a God, is unconstitutional. I agree that many factors of the origional Constitution and ceremonies of government have mentions of God in them, but that is becuase at the time of this countries founding, it was inconcievable that someone would have a religious belief that stated "There is no God". Now there are lots of people who do, and all governmental ceremonies should reflect this.

Thus removing "In God we Trust" from money should be done immediately. And so and so forth.


All I can say is It's about time someone got their head out of their ass and got the Pledge removed from Public Schools!

Unfortunately, the current Supreme Court, lead by that idiot Rhenquist, who is renouned for ridiculous and terrible decisions, is likely to overturn it.

And the idiots in Congress and the White House are totally out of line with their comments. Well, maybe not, but it does go to show their lack of open mindedness. However, that's their perogative, just like it's mine to be close minded about Rhenquist and other conservatives.

	28-06-2002 01:47									#257
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

From FoxNews:

Judge Blocks His Own Ruling on Pledge of Allegiance

SAN FRANCISCO — Just one day after he stunned the nation by declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, a federal appeals court judge on Thursday blocked his own ruling from being enforced.

Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, who authored the 2-1 opinion that the phrase "under God" crossed the line between church and state, stayed his decision — preventing it from taking effect until the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decides whether it wants to alter course.

The appeals court can rehear the case with the same three judges, or it can go to a full 11-judge panel. The court has often overturned controversial three-judge opinions. Goodwin's latest action has no immediate impact, since the ruling already was on hold by court rules for 45 days to allow for any court challenges.

Vikram Amar, a Hastings College of the Law scholar who closely follows the appeals court, said the latest ruling means that, for now, Wednesday's opinion finding the pledge unconstitutional "has no legal force or effect."

"They're acknowledging the likelihood that the whole 9th Circuit may take a look at this," Amar said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

	28-06-2002 02:19									#258
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Chicken!

	28-06-2002 02:28									#259
	Put an end to popups!

Sorry to hear that. However, it probably would be better if it were the ruling of the whole 9th Circuit Court, and not just 3 judges.

	28-06-2002 02:30									#260
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Hey, America is a Christian-&-Judaist country, despite what any constitution says. It's sad... but I guess we have to get used to that tragic fact.

	28-06-2002 02:32									#261
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: BTW, by supporting monotheism, the gov't supports all monotheistic faiths, so it indeed makes those state endorsed religions.

Support and establishment are two different things Ramo. I thought you'd know that.

quote: What do you consider establishing a state religion, if not using public money to endorse it or giving churches that support it money?

Establishing a state religion is to make a church the state's official religion. Giving churches money doesn't not establish it as the state religion. In that case, the government is a wierd mix of religion, since it gives Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc faiths money for faith based charity work (such as prision). Since the beginning of the country, churches were tax exempt (ie, giving them money). Neither of these have led to a 'state religion', therefore no establishment (and I dare you to find any respected legal scholar say tax breaks to churchs, mosques, etc is establishing religion).

quote: repeat, as someone else already has: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion [...]" Do you really interpret this as "Congress shall make no law respecting establishing a religion [...]"? Becuase if you do, you are wrong.

How am I wrong? Establishment means to set up or create. Congress has not set up or created a church, or even made one the official religion.

quote: So, to help you understand the concept, try reading this sentance, which is a very similar thing, but not identical becuase it is more specific: Congress shall make no law respecting religious faith or beliefs.

How is that even CLOSE to correct since establishment DOES NOT mean faith or belief. Establishment means to set up or create.

To establish a religion you have to make it a state religion of the state.

Learn the definition of words before you shoot your mouth off.

Oh, and if you try to use one of the definitions of establish that says 'cause to be recognized and accepted', no religion by saying "under God" is accepted as the religion of the United States.

In short: Learn the Damned Constitiution and what words mean before you shoot your mouth off

See, I can use bold big black letters too .

	28-06-2002 02:33									#262
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by ranskaldan Hey, America is a Christian-&-Judaist country, despite what any constitution says. It's sad... but I guess we have to get used to that tragic fact.

No, in America if you do not like something, you try to change it. Beautiful I think.

-FMK.

	28-06-2002 02:35									#263
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Field Marshal Klesh No, in America if you do not like something, you try to change it. Beautiful I think. -FMK.

Well, good luck in changing it, with the entire government, congress, supreme court, and 90% of the population against you.

Tyranny of the majority, I say!

	28-06-2002 02:46									#264
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

The bolding that was directed at you was merely to draw the eye. I'm glad you can use it too.

See, you are trying to say the sentance should read:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment [of religion]

The correct phrase is:

Congress shall make no law respecting [an establishment of religion]

I am saying, the noun is establishment of religion. Establishment is a noun.

You are tyring to say, incorrectly that make .... establishment is the verb of the sentance.

After typing all that, I will now leave it in place and go visit websters online dictionary and see if I made a fool of myself.

The complete entry:
Main Entry: es·tab·lish·ment
Pronunciation: is-'ta-blish-m&nt
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : something established : as a : a settled arrangement; especially : a code of laws b : ESTABLISHED CHURCH c : a permanent civil or military organization d : a place of business or residence with its furnishings and staff e : a public or private institution
2 : an established order of society: as a often capitalized : a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class (as of a nation) b often capitalized : a controlling group
3 a : the act of establishing b : the state of being established

I see that you could possibly, if you wished to use number three, argue your point. I however, will continue to argue that it is number 2 (or possibly 1). Thus, it's pointless for us to argue our sides. Oh well. Go on your merry way then, and I'll do the same.

	28-06-2002 02:53									#265
	Support Apolyton

quote: Support and establishment are two different things Ramo. I thought you'd know that.

It's an irrelevent semantics distinction.

Again, if we had the same relationship with, say, the the Southern Baptists that the UK currently has with the Anglicans, would that suddenly become unconstitutional?

quote: Giving churches money doesn't not establish it as the state religion.

Sure it does. It makes the religion an appendage of the state. That's the definition of having a state religion.

A religion doesn't become a state religion by the government simply saying that it's the state religion. That's totally absurd!

What do you consider the criteria for a religion being a state religion besides Congress declaring it so?

quote: In that case, the government is a wierd mix of religion, since it gives Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc faiths money for faith based charity work (such as prision).

Which it is.

	28-06-2002 02:56									#266
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

And Fitz is right. The Constitution in no way is saying that Congress has to create a church for the Amendment to be violated.

	28-06-2002 02:58									#267
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Thanks for putting it in clearer words Ramo. I had a feeling my point still wasn't going to get across.

	28-06-2002 02:59									#268
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Fitz: Doesn't matter if you back #1 because that supports me too. No established church in the US. #2 doesn't make sense because it refers to THE establishment. Congress making no law respecting the controlling group of religion is very wierd.

And it can't be a noun, because then it would mean Congress could not make any law that even acknowledges religion exists (ie, can't zone for churches, etc.).

quote: It's an irrelevent semantics distinction.

NO, it is very relevant. Support and establishment have nothing to do with each other.

And every Constitutional question is semantic.

quote: Again, if we had the same relationship with, say, the the Southern Baptists that the UK currently has with the Anglicans, would that suddenly become unconstitutional?

Of course, because they'd be our OFFICIAL CHURCH, which is illegal. You can't have an official church. Says nothing about supporting churches.

quote: Sure it does. It makes the religion an appendage of the state.

So all religions are appendanges of the United States? Ludicrious!

quote: A religion doesn't become a state religion by the government simply saying that it's the state religion. That's totally absurd!

No, that the total truth. A religion can ONLY become the state religion if the state says it is so.

quote: What do you consider the criteria for a religion being a state religion besides Congress declaring it so?

The government has to basically run it, by appointing its members and so on. Those are the only two ways a religion can become a state religion.

	28-06-2002 03:00									#269
	Put an end to popups!

quote: And Fitz is right. The Constitution in no way is saying that Congress has to create a church for the Amendment to be violated.

Um... yes it is. 'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion'. That very clearly states Congress can't create a state Chuch.

	28-06-2002 03:12									#270
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

That means that the congress can't pass any laws about religion, Imran. Don't be dense. It doesn't just mean that Congress can't found its own church or disband another church. It also means it can't show any preference.