11-07-2002 02:11									#121
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Caligastia Stopping people from saying "under God" is prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Do you think the free exercise of religion should be allowed in school classrooms?

	11-07-2002 02:17									#122
	Support Apolyton

The most common rendition in my grade schools was probably not PC enough to post here. Some of the substituted 'words' made no sense either... silly kids.

	11-07-2002 02:42									#123
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

What's all this 'bout?
I thought Americans lived in a modern democracy? Well then, in a democracy chuch and state are separated, that's the simplest and best way to handle a country!!

A dictator however should always have a religion, to keep the population busy with something.

(ps: remember Ataturk when he threw the sultans out and he separated church and state? After that Turkey was a lot more at ease, and balanced!!)

Besides i don't see the point in saying "under Dog" if you don't believe in it, i wouldn't want to say it because i don't want to be considered as a christian, the reason is simple, i'm just not a Christian, so I don't wanna waste my time doin' Christian things! Why debate on this so intensely? When ye don't want to take part in religious practices (because c'mon, "under God" is definately religious) well then don't!!

	11-07-2002 03:14									#124
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless The pledge is not the danger.

I'm glad someone finally admited that. It took long enough.

	11-07-2002 05:45									#125
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless And this is precisely the sort of "tyranny of the majority" that the Constitution was designed to prevent. Thank you for proving my point.

I have proven no point of yours, you are proving my point, that the minority seeks to control the majority.
And to it that freedom of religious expression is part and parcel of the constitution and the likes of you are even more wrong.

quote: This isn't a minority wishing to control a majority, this is a majority seeking to oppress a minority, and an attempt to invoke the Constitution that supposedly defends against that.

Bullsh1t.
It would only be the case if you were compelled to say 'under god", and that is not the case.
in other words sir, you are full of it.

quote: But, apparently, the majority wishes to override the Constitution to carry on oppressing the minority. And Congress is packed with traitors concerned only with hanging on to Christian votes.

Actually, as your opposed to freedom of Religion, YOU are said traitor to the constitution you keep attempting to envoke.

Nice try though, but your argument hold ZERO water, as the supreme court is now making clear.

	11-07-2002 05:53									#126
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Aeson So if the majority of Americans were to want there to be ritual sacrifice in the classroom that would be ok? It's an extreme scenario, but one which your line of reasoning seems to support. One which the constitution refutes as well as common (hopefully) sense.

Nonsense.
All representative government is based on the will of the majority, if you don't understand that concept, you don't belong here trying to debate it.

The US Constitution FULLY supports freedom of Religious expression, this is an attempt to supress said expression, in other words, your on the WRONG SIDE of a constitutional argument.

quote: Anyone now begining to see why minority groups sometimes feel threatened by seemingly small issues which are forced upon them by the majority? It's not the specific issue, but the underlying principle of statements like "Get your self a majority and then you can do whatever you like" and "It will be used by the will of the Majority of Americans". "It" being classroom time in this case.

More nonsense.
Your reasoning is "If I don't like it, it goes, F*ck the rest".
Exactly the kind of thing laws were set up to prevent.
No matter how hard ypou try, your not the injured party here, this isn't about civil rights, it's about a small group trying to push their non-beliaf in god on the entire nation.
Sorry, we aern't having any.

quote: I'm not saying that the majority feels the way Chris seems to. But that is the type of mob rule concept that we need to protect ourselves against. Just saying "the majority wants it" and not considering the constitutional limits against such reasoning.

More nonsense, don't attempt to put words in my mouth sonny.
I never said "mob", which envokes a picture of lawlessness, I said a leagal majority, which is what ALL western law is based on.
Can't you debate without making my side up?
Obviously not.

quote: So anyone else have an answer to the question... What is the purpose of the Pledge, and why should it be retained (in whole or in part) in the classroom?

Asked and answered.

The fact that YOU don't like it only proves the assertion of an attempt by a small pressure group to get it's way.

Sorry, fortunatly the USA still works by it's laws, although you lot are gaining ground these days it seems.

	11-07-2002 09:41									#127
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Chris 62 Nonsense. All representative government is based on the will of the majority, if you don't understand that concept, you don't belong here trying to debate it. "

You make it sound like a simple majority is all that is needed for any action. The Constitution would refute you.

quote: The US Constitution FULLY supports freedom of Religious expression, this is an attempt to supress said expression, in other words, your on the WRONG SIDE of a constitutional argument.

So would it be alright to perform ritual sacrifice in the classroom if the majority wanted to allow it?

Care to answer the question this time?

quote: More nonsense. Your reasoning is "If I don't like it, it goes, F*ck the rest". Exactly the kind of thing laws were set up to prevent. No matter how hard ypou try, your not the injured party here, this isn't about civil rights, it's about a small group trying to push their non-beliaf in god on the entire nation.

Not trying to push my beliefs onto anyone.

There is a difference between not having any beliefs expressed in the classroom, and having mine or your's express. To be fair none should be officially supported, let the children (and their parents) decide what religious teachings they receive. That sort of teaching has no right to be in a publicly funded school.

quote: More nonsense, don't attempt to put words in my mouth sonny. I never said "mob", which envokes a picture of lawlessness, I said a leagal majority, which is what ALL western law is based on.

I never quoted you as saying "mob". That was my opinion about the views you expressed.

Also, you never put the "leagal" qualifier in your original post. A legal majority is different than a plain majority in some cases.

Of course, regardless of the percent the majority owns, there are still constitutional limits placed on their actions.

quote: Get your self a majority and then you can do whatever you like, untill then, it stays in.

This statement (from your prior post) being an example of the mindset which takes majority rule too far. The majority can't, and shouldn't, be able to do whatever they'd like.

quote: Asked and answered.

And thank you for answering. Your's is not the only opinion on the subject and I was soliciting other responses. As I'm sure you noticed, the question wasn't directed at you again.

quote: The fact that YOU don't like it only proves the assertion of an attempt by a small pressure group to get it's way.

I don't think I tried to use my opinion on the subject as proof. My personal opinions other than "religious teachings/oaths do not belong in the classroom" have not even been expressed in this thread. I've tried using logic and reasoning though.

quote: Sorry, fortunatly the USA still works by it's laws, although you lot are gaining ground these days it seems.

Thanks for the generalizations about me. I'm sure I fit perfectly into your stereotypical "lot" you've placed me in.

	11-07-2002 12:58									#128
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: This isn't a minority wishing to control a majority, this is a majority seeking to oppress a minority, and an attempt to invoke the Constitution that supposedly defends against that. Bullsh1t. It would only be the case if you were compelled to say 'under god", and that is not the case. in other words sir, you are full of it.

Haven't you been paying attention?

Firstly, many atheists ARE being compelled to say it.

Secondly, millions of schoolkids are being TRAINED to say it.

Thirdly, it establishes the principle that atheism is UN-AMERICAN.

quote: But, apparently, the majority wishes to override the Constitution to carry on oppressing the minority. And Congress is packed with traitors concerned only with hanging on to Christian votes. Actually, as your opposed to freedom of Religion, YOU are said traitor to the constitution you keep attempting to envoke.

Have I said that the pledge should include "without God"?

No.

Have I said that individuals who say "under God" should be prosecuted?

No.

This is quite obviously an attempt to twist the truth. You want the "freedom" to dictate the wording of an oath that WE are expected to swear. You want the freedom to brand those who don't share your religion as "enemies of America". And you don't like it when we complain about that.

And, yes, every member of the current Congress is a bully, a coward, and a traitor. They have sought to quash a legitimate, legal attempt to invoke the First Amendment by shouting it down, by intimidation, rather than waiting for the courts to decide. They did it because they're worried about losing votes. They don't give a rat's ass for the Constitution.

	11-07-2002 13:28									#129
	Judicial activism is an inherent evil Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Chris 62 What a silly thread. You can't have a Satan without a God, they are the Ying/Yang of the west. Believe in one, you believe in the other. As for all the "watchdogs" of US civil liberties, the world won't come to an end with saying two words, stop acting as if the fate of humanity rests on this. You don't want to say it don't, but your NOT going to force ME to STOP saying it, no matter how many dopey judges you find.

No, it isn't about whether or not the words are contested or even removed from the pledge. The words shouldn't be taken out by judges. They were put in to "tweak" the atheists, and the atheists in this case are merely seeking to tweak the theists.

Judicial activism is a usurpation of power delegated to another branch of the government. The atheists can try to convince their fellow citizens that the words are an offense to a minority, and that such an offense should be removed. If they succeed in convincing enough people then congress can act to alter the pledge again.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated that the Roe v. Wade decision was an unwise intervention in an ongoing public debate that should have been returned to a lower court for a decision of lesser precedence.

I would say the circuit court should never have entertained a complaint about the pledge; a complete waste of the court's time.

	11-07-2002 13:40									#130
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Yes, it would be better if the politicians removed "under God". But, realistically, how is that gonna happen?

The Constitution exists to compel politicians to "do the right thing" even if it's unpopular.

As for "judicial activism": it's not as if they're being asked to change something that's always been there. They're being asked to get off their butts and do what they should have done in 1954.

	11-07-2002 13:47									#131
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Aeson You make it sound like a simple majority is all that is needed for any action. The Constitution would refute you.

YOU make it sound as if majority decisions are some evil crime, yet ALL western society is based on this concept.
Do YOU care to explain that?

quote: So would it be alright to perform ritual sacrifice in the classroom if the majority wanted to allow it?

Didn't you try this assinine question before?
Where does it say the rules of law are changed by anyone?
In case you haven't noticed, murder is illeagal, supporting a diety isn't.
Try to stay with a realistic argument, this is just foolishness.

quote: Care to answer the question this time?

Care to ask one worth answering?

quote: Not trying to push my beliefs onto anyone.

Oh really?
Your next paragragh seems to differ from this.

quote: There is a difference between not having any beliefs expressed in the classroom, and having mine or your's express. To be fair none should be officially supported, let the children (and their parents) decide what religious teachings they receive. That sort of teaching has no right to be in a publicly funded school.

None are offically supported, it has long been established that saying the pledge is voluntary.
So people can decide already what they want, but to remove it is to FORCE everybody not to say it, in fact you are overriding their right to say it.
You cannot escape this, no matter how hard you try.

quote: I never quoted you as saying "mob". That was my opinion about the views you expressed.

To even hint at such an intrepretation is only a cheap attempt to invoke a threat/fear reaction in people, IE "if you don't support what I say, you are letting the MOB rule.

quote: Also, you never put the "leagal" qualifier in your original post. A legal majority is different than a plain majority in some cases.

Simple after the facts symantics on your part, do you deny that EVERY bit of western law and government is NOT based on the will of the majority?
Is that not what Democracy is?
To invoke the "mob" image is simple chacanery.

quote: Of course, regardless of the percent the majority owns, there are still constitutional limits placed on their actions.

All laws in the US are based on constitutional precips, I consider this inherent and not worth stating, as it should be obvious, but it seems if you don't, then automatically it is "mob rule".

quote: quote: Get your self a majority and then you can do whatever you like, untill then, it stays in. This statement (from your prior post) being an example of the mindset which takes majority rule too far. The majority can't, and shouldn't, be able to do whatever they'd like.

Again, nonsense.
All western society is based on the will of the majority, I again see the attempt to say that the will of the people is in some way evil.
It isn't, it is, in fact, the very fabric of our society.

quote: And thank you for answering. Your's is not the only opinion on the subject and I was soliciting other responses. As I'm sure you noticed, the question wasn't directed at you again.

The question as put forth by you seemed to indecate that the question originally put forth had not been answered, when in fact it had.
The problem with your line of argument is it refuses common sense, and instead tries to invoke a fear of totalitarian rule if your view is not adherred to.
That is patently absurd.

quote: I don't think I tried to use my opinion on the subject as proof. My personal opinions other than "religious teachings/oaths do not belong in the classroom" have not even been expressed in this thread. I've tried using logic and reasoning though.

If it's logic you seek, let me ask you this:
In what way does an oath you may disregaurd at your leasure infringe on your rights?
Nobody on the athiest side has given a satisfactory answer here.

quote: Thanks for the generalizations about me. I'm sure I fit perfectly into your stereotypical "lot" you've placed me in.

One good generalization deserves another, I cared little for your attempt to say that democracy (ie the rule of the majority) is in some way equated to mob rule.

I have read this whole thread, and I'm more convinced then ever that the court in this instance was completly out of line.
And I'm not even what you would consider a religous person in the least, as I find organized religion to be hopelessly corrupt.

	11-07-2002 14:02									#132
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless Haven't you been paying attention?

Very much so.

quote: Firstly, many atheists ARE being compelled to say it.

Can you provide documented evidence of this?
If so, it would then be the basis for a real law suite, not this bogus one put forth by that gentalmen.

quote: Secondly, millions of schoolkids are being TRAINED to say it.

Again, are they being given free choice?
The answer under law is YES.
If you can prove, with real evidence that is not the case, then your postion would have merit.

quote: Thirdly, it establishes the principle that atheism is UN-AMERICAN.

Nowhere is this indicated, that is only an assumption on your part.

quote: Have I said that the pledge should include "without God"? No. Have I said that individuals who say "under God" should be prosecuted? No. This is quite obviously an attempt to twist the truth. You want the "freedom" to dictate the wording of an oath that WE are expected to swear. You want the freedom to brand those who don't share your religion as "enemies of America". And you don't like it when we complain about that.

Amazing, I suddenly have all this "motivation".
In fact, YOU are attempting to dictate said wording, YOU are saying what is and is not acceptable, using your own values and judgements as criteria.
Every argument you make along these lines can, in fact, be "thrown in your face", simply because the inverse is eqaully true.

quote: And, yes, every member of the current Congress is a bully, a coward, and a traitor. They have sought to quash a legitimate, legal attempt to invoke the First Amendment by shouting it down, by intimidation, rather than waiting for the courts to decide. They did it because they're worried about losing votes. They don't give a rat's ass for the Constitution.

Well, you certainly have a recourse, if your convinced of this, get yourself a canidate, or a party of your liking, find like minded individuals, and attempt to convince your fellow Americans of the unworthiness of said Congress.
If you can convince enough people, you will have the majority you need to leagally make any changes that need to be made.
But bare in mind your paragrapgh only represents your opinion, it is not cosmic truth, nor is anything I say nor anyone else, but it hardly helps your postion to declare the entire congress traitors because they refuse to subscribe to your interpretation of Constitutional law.

	11-07-2002 15:05									#133
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Chris 62 YOU make it sound as if majority decisions are some evil crime, yet ALL western society is based on this concept. Do YOU care to explain that?

I don't mean to imply that a decision by a majority is a crime. Just that a majority supporting an action does not make it right. In the case of allowing classroom time for religious expression, the will of the majority isn't the issue. It's the interpretation of the Constitution, in how it deals with such, that matters.

Now if the majority (3/4ths in this case) wanted to amend the Constitution to allow classroom time for religious expression, that would be where the will of the majority matters. Until such time as the Constitution is ammended, then the law contained within it governs, not the will of the majority.

quote: Didn't you try this assinine question before? Where does it say the rules of law are changed by anyone?

It was a hypothetical. Just imagine you are on the other side of the majority on this issue for a second. Would the religious display in the classroom (officially given time, while your views were not) of those you don't agree with bother you?

quote: In case you haven't noticed, murder is illeagal, supporting a diety isn't. Try to stay with a realistic argument, this is just foolishness.

I meant a benign sacrificial ritual, of course human sacrifice is illegal. Remember it was a hypothetical question where the action was supported by the majority, so whatever specific sacrifice was being offered would also be supported.

Just assume some kid has an idol of his god and is melting crayons in praise of it on reserved classroom time in a public school. Should that time be reserved for it?

quote: Care to ask one worth answering?

I'm trying, thanks for being so patient.

quote: Oh really? Your next paragragh seems to differ from this.

Could you be more specific?

I said -

"Not trying to push my beliefs onto anyone.

There is a difference between not having any beliefs expressed in the classroom, and having mine or your's express. To be fair none should be officially supported, let the children (and their parents) decide what religious teachings they receive. That sort of teaching has no right to be in a publicly funded school."

Which seems to imply that neither your religious beliefs, nor mine, belong in a publicly funded classroom. Could you explain how this is me forcing my beliefs on anyone?

quote: None are offically supported, it has long been established that saying the pledge is voluntary.

The official wording of the pledge is what I am refering to here. It includes 'under God' as it's official wording. It does not include other beliefs about what should or should not be included there as official wording. Do you see the discrepancy?

quote: So people can decide already what they want, but to remove it is to FORCE everybody not to say it, in fact you are overriding their right to say it. You cannot escape this, no matter how hard you try.

It isn't forcing anyone to say or not say anything at all. Kids who want to say 'under God' can say 'under God' still, kids who don't can say or not say whatever they feel should be said there. The officially supported wording would just not include anything. Everyone's views (on the 'under God' issue) would be equally represented in official wording.

quote: To even hint at such an intrepretation is only a cheap attempt to invoke a threat/fear reaction in people, IE "if you don't support what I say, you are letting the MOB rule.

Well I'm glad you at least realized I wasn't quoting you on it. If the term 'mob rule' offends you I can use something else. The power given through majority comes with responsibility to not misuse that power. I'm sure you would agree that a majority of people should not be able to vote to take away the rights of a minority.

quote: Simple after the facts symantics on your part, do you deny that EVERY bit of western law and government is NOT based on the will of the majority? Is that not what Democracy is? To invoke the "mob" image is simple chacanery.

I'm sorry, but if you don't make your position clear how can you expect me to know what you really mean? Using the term majority without any other qualifier simply means more than 50% of the vote (in some cases less even).

I don't deny that the democratic process is the basis for our lawmaking, I never did.

quote: All laws in the US are based on constitutional precips, I consider this inherent and not worth stating, as it should be obvious, but it seems if you don't, then automatically it is "mob rule".

Again, it's best to try and make your position clear. Perhaps you can see how a statement like "Get your self a majority and then you can do whatever you like, untill then, it stays in." could lead me to suspect that you viewed a simple majority as justification for any action?

quote: Again, nonsense. All western society is based on the will of the majority, I again see the attempt to say that the will of the people is in some way evil. It isn't, it is, in fact, the very fabric of our society.

The will of the people can be evil. It has been in the past, and there are proper precautions in the Constitution to keep it from ruling in a despotic manner. My comments here are only directed at the issue of the pledge, and what it represents.

quote: The problem with your line of argument is it refuses common sense, and instead tries to invoke a fear of totalitarian rule if your view is not adherred to. That is patently absurd.

My line of argument is simply that alloting time, and having official wording which promotes religious expression in the classroom is out of line. Note the qualifiers. I'm not saying children reciting the pledge cannot add those words, or any other words they might deem fit. My view is not adherred to by current law, but is supported by the Constitution.

The real issue here is whether or not 'under God' is a religious phrase. If it is, then it shouldn't be in the official wording of the pledge as recited in school.

quote: If it's logic you seek, let me ask you this: In what way does an oath you may disregaurd at your leasure infringe on your rights? Nobody on the athiest side has given a satisfactory answer here.

In the same way that an oath you may disreguard at your leasure would infringe upon your rights.

The Pledge is an officially worded oath. The official wording includes 'under God'. This implies a certain level of religious ideology, as God is a religious term. An Atheist's views are not supported by the official wording, but a Christian's is. This is not evenhanded. Removing the phrase 'under God' from official wording does not preclude anyone from saying it. It just doesn't play favorites anymore. How is that wrong?

quote: One good generalization deserves another, I cared little for your attempt to say that democracy (ie the rule of the majority) is in some way equated to mob rule.

Mob rule is democratic. That's just it's nature. The majority applies their will to those fewer in number. That is not to say all democracies are mob rule. Our Constitution has checks to keep it from happening, which is how it should be.

Your statements on the other hand seemed to imply an unrestricted majority that could do whatever they wanted. You have since cleared up that perception, so it's no longer an issue.

	11-07-2002 15:13									#134
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Firstly, many atheists ARE being compelled to say it. Can you provide documented evidence of this? If so, it would then be the basis for a real law suite, not this bogus one put forth by that gentalmen.

You expect schoolkids to provide documentary evidence of being beaten up by other kids?

You've heard from soldiers who refused to say the pledge?

This thread contains testimonies from atheists who have suffered vandalism, threats, dismissal from jobs etc.

How do recognize an atheist?

Watch him/her say the pledge.

quote: Secondly, millions of schoolkids are being TRAINED to say it. Again, are they being given free choice? The answer under law is YES. If you can prove, with real evidence that is not the case, then your postion would have merit.

So now you're saying that atheists not only "come out" (even in the Bible Belt) but should also teach their kids to disobey their teachers. Get real.

quote: Thirdly, it establishes the principle that atheism is UN-AMERICAN. Nowhere is this indicated, that is only an assumption on your part.

Again, WAKE UP. We're talking about the Pledge of Allegiance, a summary of the core American values that patriots are expected to affirm!

quote: In fact, YOU are attempting to dictate said wording, YOU are saying what is and is not acceptable, using your own values and judgements as criteria. Every argument you make along these lines can, in fact, be "thrown in your face", simply because the inverse is eqaully true.

I am saying that religion should be IRRELEVANT in a Pledge of Allegiance. By opposing that, you are saying that it is VITAL in a Pledge of Allegiance. If that is not your position, then what IS your position?

quote: But bare in mind your paragrapgh only represents your opinion, it is not cosmic truth, nor is anything I say nor anyone else, but it hardly helps your postion to declare the entire congress traitors because they refuse to subscribe to your interpretation of Constitutional law.

They are attempting to railroad the Supreme Court's interpretation of Constitutional law. And some are already preparing to strip the Supreme Court of its powers if the verdict goes against them.

	11-07-2002 15:36									#135
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Aeson I don't mean to imply that a decision by a majority is a crime. Just that a majority supporting an action does not make it right.

Nor does it make it wrong.

quote: In the case of allowing classroom time for religious expression, the will of the majority isn't the issue. It's the interpretation of the Constitution, in how it deals with such, matters.

It is the very heart of the matter, as an oath of alligence and a simple phrase equates to religious expression.

quote: Now if the majority (3/4ths in this case) wanted to amend the Constitution to allow classroom time for religious expression, that would be where the will of the majority matters. Until such time as the Constitution is ammended, then the law contained within it governs, not the will of the majority.

There is NOTHING is the Constitution that precludes saying "under god", nor is it identified as applying the clause of seperation of church and state.
To argue this Constitutionaly simply isn't applicable along those lines.

quote: It was a hypothetical. Just imagine you are on the other side of the majority on this issue for a second. Would the religious display in the classroom (officially given time, while your views were not) of those you don't agree with bother you?

If it was forced, yes, that is not the case here.
The option to not participate is given.

quote: I meant a benign sacrificial ritual, of course human sacrifice is illegal. Remember it was a hypothetical question where the action was supported by the majority, so whatever specific sacrifice was being offered would also be supported.

It still has no place here, it simply doesn't fit.

quote: Just assume some kid has an idol of his god and is melting crayons in praise of it on reserved classroom time in a public school. Should that time be reserved for it?

Performing rituals and saying two words are totally different matters.

quote: I'm trying, thanks for being so patient.

Patience is not required, I was wating for some other argument besides those given, none have yet to give a single valid reason for precluding the words "under god".

quote: Could you be more specific? I said - "Not trying to push my beliefs onto anyone. There is a difference between not having any beliefs expressed in the classroom, and having mine or your's express. To be fair none should be officially supported, let the children (and their parents) decide what religious teachings they receive. That sort of teaching has no right to be in a publicly funded school." Which seems to imply that neither your religious beliefs, nor mine, belong in a publicly funded classroom. Could you explain how this is me forcing my beliefs on anyone?

By not allowing me to say something I believe because you don't, you are, by definition, applying your belief system over mine.

quote: The official wording of the pledge is what I am refering to here. It includes 'under God' as it's official wording. It does not include other beliefs about what should or should not be included there as official wording. Do you see the discrepancy?

IF this was an OFFICAL requirement of citizenship, you may have a cause of grievence, but since it's completly volutary, it simply doesn't apply.

quote: It isn't forcing anyone to say or not say anything at all. Kids who want to say 'under God' can say 'under God' still, kids who don't can say or not say whatever they feel should be said there. The officially supported wording would just not include anything. Everyone's views (on the 'under God' issue) would be equally represented in official wording.

That is simply the other side of the same coin.

quote: Well I'm glad you at least realized I wasn't quoting you on it. If the term 'mob rule' offends you I can use something else. The power given through majority comes with responsibility to not misuse that power. I'm sure you would agree that a majority of people should not be able to vote to take away the rights of a minority.

Nor should the minorty have undo influence on the majority.
This is the continous conundrum of this matter.

quote: I'm sorry, but if you don't make your position clear how can you expect me to know what you really mean? Using the term majority without any other qualifier simply means more than 50% of the vote (in some cases less even).

In many portions of society, such as the vote, for example, a simple majority is all that is needed.

quote: I don't deny that the democratic process is the basis for our lawmaking, I never did.

Very good.

quote: Again, it's best to try and make your position clear. Perhaps you can see how a statement like "Get your self a majority and then you can do whatever you like, untill then, it stays in." could lead me to suspect that you viewed a simple majority as justification for any action?

That would be absurdly hypothetical.
I'm often amazed that people would jump to such a conclusion based on so little.

quote: The will of the people can be evil. It has been in the past, and there are proper precautions in the Constitution to keep it from ruling in a despotic manner. My comments here are only directed at the issue of the pledge, and what it represents.

Nontheless, the will of the majority of the US cannot be denied by a small minority, no matter how vocal they may be.

quote: My line of argument is simply that alloting time, and having official wording which promotes religious expression in the classroom is out of line. Note the qualifiers. I'm not saying children reciting the pledge cannot add those words, or any other words they might deem fit. My view is not adherred to by current law, but is supported by the Constitution.

This is a matter of degree, there is no law here, as the pledge is not a law, so the Constitution cannot say it is a matter of religion being inserted into law or government.

quote: The real issue here is whether or not 'under God' is a religious phrase. If it is, then it shouldn't be in the official wording of the pledge as recited in school.

The actual matter is that the phrase somehow conects the government with religion, and it does not.

quote: In the same way that an oath you may disreguard at your leasure would infringe upon your rights. The Pledge is an officially worded oath. The official wording includes 'under God'. This implies a certain level of religious ideology, as God is a religious term. An Atheist's views are not supported by the official wording, but a Christian's is. This is not evenhanded. Removing the phrase 'under God' from official wording does not preclude anyone from saying it. It just doesn't play favorites anymore. How is that wrong?

First, the oath is not "offical", nobody is required to say it, therefore it cannot have a constitution equastion, as it is NOT "offical".
In point of fact, it's quite unoffical, as nobody is required to say it or adhere to it's tenants.

quote: Mob rule is democratic. That's just it's nature. The majority applies their will to those fewer in number. That is not to say all democracies are mob rule. Our Constitution has checks to keep it from happening, which is how it should be.

It also includes provisions prohibiting pressure groups from dictating policy to the majority.

quote: Your statements on the other hand seemed to imply an unrestricted majority that could do whatever they wanted. You have since cleared up that perception, so it's no longer an issue.

The rule of law is the key, but what the exact law is has yet to be established.

	11-07-2002 15:47									#136
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless You expect schoolkids to provide documentary evidence of being beaten up by other kids?

I expect you to back up your assertions with something other then histronics.
That is becoming less of a posibilty as we go along it seems.

quote: You've heard from soldiers who refused to say the pledge?

I have seen soldiers refuse to say under god, with no undo nor punitive actions against them.

quote: This thread contains testimonies from atheists who have suffered vandalism, threats, dismissal from jobs etc.

Said individuals should seek damages through the court system, this is still irrelivent to this topic.

quote: How do recognize an atheist? Watch him/her say the pledge.

Meaning what?

quote: So now you're saying that atheists not only "come out" (even in the Bible Belt) but should also teach their kids to disobey their teachers. Get real.

I wish you would.
This isn't the 1920s, if people can't stand up for themselves, with the law on their sides, it denotes an extreme lack of character that no law will remedy.

quote: Again, WAKE UP. We're talking about the Pledge of Allegiance, a summary of the core American values that patriots are expected to affirm!

More pointless histronics.
Attempting this only affirms that you have no argument, simply attempting to use scare tactics to convince me of your postion.

quote: I am saying that religion should be IRRELEVANT in a Pledge of Allegiance. By opposing that, you are saying that it is VITAL in a Pledge of Allegiance. If that is not your position, then what IS your position?

That I can say "Under god", and you don't have to.
What could be more simple?

quote: They are attempting to railroad the Supreme Court's interpretation of Constitutional law. And some are already preparing to strip the Supreme Court of its powers if the verdict goes against them.

Your insight into the inner workings of congress is astounding.
You can of course prove all of this?

	11-07-2002 15:58									#137
	Inflate your Upload Space

"This is a matter of degree, there is no law here, as the pledge is not a law"

"First, the oath is not "offical", nobody is required to say it, therefore it cannot have a constitution equastion, as it is NOT "offical".
In point of fact, it's quite unoffical, as nobody is required to say it or adhere to it's tenants."

I've asked this before without result, but what exactly is the basis for that pledge ? Is it just a custom ? Is there any law related to it ? How did the "under god" come in in the 50s ?

	11-07-2002 15:59									#138
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: I am saying that religion should be IRRELEVANT in a Pledge of Allegiance. By opposing that, you are saying that it is VITAL in a Pledge of Allegiance. If that is not your position, then what IS your position? That I can say "Under god", and you don't have to. What could be more simple?

And that is also MY position. It has always been.

So why are you not getting the message?

I really can't see how to make it any simpler. We BOTH AGREE that people should be free to say "under God" or not.

The issue is what the DEFAULT position is: what words the pledge should contain.

Nobody has yet given any good reason why it should contain "under God", or why this is inherently more acceptable to all than "under Satan", "under Stalin", or "without a God".

Nobody has yet given any explanation at all of what was wrong with the ORIGINAL pledge, which said none of these things and avoided all of these issues.

	11-07-2002 16:10									#139
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

The matter is changing it from it's current form, not what it was.

As I keep telling you, your own argument is applicable from the inverse postion.

	11-07-2002 16:10									#140
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: They are attempting to railroad the Supreme Court's interpretation of Constitutional law. And some are already preparing to strip the Supreme Court of its powers if the verdict goes against them. Your insight into the inner workings of congress is astounding. You can of course prove all of this?

quote: H.R. 5064: `No court established by Act of Congress shall have jurisdiction to hear or determine any claim that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, as set forth in section 4 of title 4, violates the first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'.

	11-07-2002 16:12									#141
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

i think he said several times what is wrong with the current pledge, but it seems you just ignore that.

	11-07-2002 16:13									#142
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Roland I've asked this before without result, but what exactly is the basis for that pledge ? Is it just a custom ? Is there any law related to it ? How did the "under god" come in in the 50s ?

It's just a custom.

Under god was added as a direct result of a growing fear that communism was infecting American society, the so called "red scare" of the 50s (Which, ironically, turns out to be fully justified according to Soviet records released in the early 1990s).

	11-07-2002 16:20									#143
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless H.R. 5064: `No court established by Act of Congress shall have jurisdiction to hear or determine any claim that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, as set forth in section 4 of title 4, violates the first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'.

From what I see here, it says "no court established by act of congress".

Is the US supreme court established by act of congress?

I think it's time to revue the first amendment of the US Constitution:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In other words, the pledge does NOT establish a religion, and by trying to prohibit the saying of "under god" your actually prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

	11-07-2002 16:22									#144
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Under god was added as a direct result of a growing fear that communism was infecting American society, the so called "red scare" of the 50s (Which, ironically, turns out to be fully justified according to Soviet records released in the early 1990s).

Precisely.

The change is pure, naked bigotry. A constant reminder that a bunch of idiots thought (and many more idiots still think) that atheists are communists.

And schoolkids are being trained to perpetuate this bigotry.

And it's still the official govenment line (or that's what the continued inclusion implies).

NOW do you see why we view it as equivalent to "under Satan"?

	11-07-2002 16:27									#145
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless Precisely. The change is pure, naked bigotry. A constant reminder that a bunch of idiots thought (and many more idiots still think) that atheists are communists.

But, on the other hand, Communists are atheists, it's one of the foundations of communism.

quote: And schoolkids are being trained to perpetuate this bigotry.

Your jumping to a conclusion again.

quote: And it's still the official govenment line (or that's what the continued inclusion implies).

What's implied and what is law are two VERY different things.

quote: NOW do you see why we view it as equivalent to "under Satan"?

Not at all, I do not and will not subscribe to your interpretation.

Ack, have to run, time to head to work.

Insomnia can be a real pain sometimes.

	11-07-2002 16:32									#146
	Increase the size of your Attachments

"It's just a custom."

Ok. So the next question is, is this custom somehow state-sponsored ?

	11-07-2002 16:34									#147
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Chris 62 Nor does it make it wrong.

Agreed.

quote: It is the very heart of the matter, as an oath of alligence and a simple phrase equates to religious expression.

Do you feel that the government should promote one form of religious expression in the classroom over others? If not, then how can the words 'under God' be officially promoted in the Pledge and not the words that would express other belief systems (not dealing with God) as well?

quote: There is NOTHING is the Constitution that precludes saying "under god", nor is it identified as applying the clause of seperation of church and state. To argue this Constitutionaly simply isn't applicable along those lines.

Not trying to preclude saying 'under God'. Just saying that official wording shouldn't favor one religious set of ideals over another.

quote: If it was forced, yes, that is not the case here. The option to not participate is given. It still has no place here, it simply doesn't fit.

Well thanks for answering anyways.

quote: Performing rituals and saying two words are totally different matters.

The Pledge itself is a ritual.

quote: Patience is not required, I was wating for some other argument besides those given, none have yet to give a single valid reason for precluding the words "under god".

Again, not precluding them. Just not promoting them as official wording of the Pledge. There is a difference.

quote: By not allowing me to say something I believe because you don't, you are, by definition, applying your belief system over mine.

Again, not disallowing you to say what you will. Just having official wording of the Pledge not favor one belief system over another.

quote: IF this was an OFFICAL requirement of citizenship, you may have a cause of grievence, but since it's completly volutary, it simply doesn't apply.

The official wording does show favoritism to those who believe in God though correct? They can recite the Pledge without having to deviate from it. Those who don't believe in God do not have a Pledge officially worded for them to say.

quote: That is simply the other side of the same coin.

The other side of the coin would be to change the official wording to express my beliefs (or any other belief system), and allow everyone else just drop that phrase. This is not what I am saying. Everyone would be equally treated by removing 'under God' and allowing each individual to express their views in that slot. Everyone is not equally treated as it is.

quote: Nor should the minorty have undo influence on the majority. This is the continous conundrum of this matter.

Neither the majority's rights, nor the minority's rights need to be stomped on here. Everyone can be treated equally (concerning this issue) by just dropping the words 'under God' and allowing everyone to say what they will in that slot.

quote: In many portions of society, such as the vote, for example, a simple majority is all that is needed.

Aye, and in others it is not as simple.

quote: That would be absurdly hypothetical. I'm often amazed that people would jump to such a conclusion based on so little.

It would be jumping to a conclusion to assume otherwise. I just took your statement literally. How else should it be taken until you explain otherwise?

quote: Nontheless, the will of the majority of the US cannot be denied by a small minority, no matter how vocal they may be.

It would depend on the issue. The minority would have a very good case if the majority were trying to take away their rights to vote for instance. I'm not saying that would ever happen, just showing limitations of the will of the majority in our country.

quote: This is a matter of degree, there is no law here, as the pledge is not a law, so the Constitution cannot say it is a matter of religion being inserted into law or government.

Publicly funded schools are a part of our government. The Pledge is recited in those schools as a product of legislation. It's wording, specifically the 'under God' portion was dictated by our government, even though the Pledge itself was not a product of our government.

quote: The actual matter is that the phrase somehow conects the government with religion, and it does not.

Publicly funded schools are a part of our government. Alloting time for the recitation of oaths with religious phrases is a connection between our government and religion.

quote: First, the oath is not "offical", nobody is required to say it, therefore it cannot have a constitution equastion, as it is NOT "offical". In point of fact, it's quite unoffical, as nobody is required to say it or adhere to it's tenants.

But it is given credence by our government by alloting classtime in publicly funded schools to it's recital. The Pledge itself, without the phrase 'under God', is perfectly fine in the classroom (though I wouldn't say it myself). With the phrase 'under God' as official wording, allotting classroom time to it shows favoritism to those who believe in God. This is not something that our government should be involved in doing.

quote: It also includes provisions prohibiting pressure groups from dictating policy to the majority.

And rightly so. This is about changing an area of policy that is unfair. It would be changed to something which serves the same purpose, but is evenhanded in it's approach.

By removing 'under God' from the official wording, and allowing all people to add their prefered phrase in it's place (including 'under God') then everyone has the same rights concerning the issue. As it is now, the official wording does not allow everyone the same rights. Some can follow the official wording and maintain their beliefs, while others are forced to deviate from the official wording to do so. It's government dictated favoritism which could easily be done away with.

	11-07-2002 16:59									#148
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: `No court established by Act of Congress shall have jurisdiction to hear or determine any claim that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, as set forth in section 4 of title 4, violates the first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'. From what I see here, it says "no court established by act of congress". Is the US supreme court established by act of congress?

You should take that up with the bozo who submitted the resolution. It was a direct response to the pledge controversy. He wants courts to be denied jurisdiction on this issue.

quote: In other words, the pledge does NOT establish a religion, and by trying to prohibit the saying of "under god" your actually prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

And by requiring that atheists boil their grandmothers to make glue and grind their children into canned meat products, you are prohibiting the freedom not to HAVE a religion.

I hope you can think better after your rest. Maybe you can follow the argument then.

	11-07-2002 17:41									#149
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless You should take that up with the bozo who submitted the resolution. It was a direct response to the pledge controversy. He wants courts to be denied jurisdiction on this issue.

Thousands of bills are submitted, that doesn't make them (or this) law.

quote: And by requiring that atheists boil their grandmothers to make glue and grind their children into canned meat products, you are prohibiting the freedom not to HAVE a religion.

Pure silliness.
If you have a real argument, make, you still haven't.

quote: I hope you can think better after your rest. Maybe you can follow the argument then.

You have yet to present one, in page after page, it's the same thing.
There is nothing to follow simply because you have failed to make a valid case.

	11-07-2002 17:44									#150
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Chris 62 But, on the other hand, Communists are atheists, it's one of the foundations of communism.

Er, so? The fact that communists were atheists does not mean that atheists are communists, in the same way that although English people speak English, not every English-speaker is an Englishman.