 |
| |
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
Technically I said belief systems. And you assuming that not believing in God is not a religion is false.
The term God, rather than Gods, denotes monotheism. All polytheistic religions are thus 'cut out' from official wording. Buddhists do not believe in a God, yet it qualifies as a religion.
|
Your proceding from a false assumption.
I said that athiesm is not a religion, I said nothing about Budists, those who follow the Tao, Pagens, or any other religious system.
quote:
Depends on the words and what is being killed. |
That would be people.
quote:
But yes, killing is different. I offered a non-murder circumstance of ritual for you to compare (the crayon sacrifice to an idol). Do you think classroom time should be devoted to this practice if the majority of people believe in that tradition? |
We are not talking about religious rituals, we are talking about the right to say two words.
quote:
Then why do you worry about keeping official wording as it is? Why did congress worry enough about it to insert that phrase into the Pledge? |
This is just something to pass the time, debating is interesting to bring forth different views, but nothing said here will change anything.
Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the way of the US knows that the Supreme court would over-turn the 9th district court, the same way they ruled that "In god we trust" shall stay on US currency.
quote:
Atheism is a belief system, I am sorry. |
Sorry, the belief in nothing isn't.quote:
It is a personal one in most cases, but a belief that there is no God is a belief. In my case I am agnostic, which is about as far as you can get from a belief system (no clear belief when dealing with God), but there are many things I still believe in. |
You confuse what belief system means.
A belief in nothing cannot be a belief system, that is illogical.
quote:
There is middle ground.
Extremes: 'under God', and at the other end of the spectrum 'under Satan' (satanist viewpoint). With of course everyone inbetween having their own view about what should be said.
Middle Ground: treating everyone equally by either not officially recognizing any particular belief system, or recognizing them all. The second being just about impossible to implement (and would result in a rather volumous Pledge). The first being extremely easy to implement. |
By the very wording of the first amendment, saying "under god" is acceptable, attempting to prohibit is unconstitutional.
The middle ground is for people to start realizing they can't control all of US society to the point where nobody is ever offended, that simply isn't possible.
Someone ALWAYS will be, no matter what.
If you wanted to say under satan, go ahead, I have no problem with it.
quote:
You can still say 'under God'. Your view would just no longer be favored in the official wording. Just as nobody elses view would be favored in offcial wording. |
The other side of the coin argumant again, as I pointed out to jack, both sides have the exact same issues.
quote:
And that is not what I am proposing here am I? I agree that a court disallowing the phrase 'under God' is wrong. My quarrel is with the official wording of the Pledge, and shouldn't be confused with the Court's quarrel. |
Since the pledge is not an offical part of the US government, nor a part of US law, it is NOT for a court to decide, as you said, it is for the PEOPLE to decide, and that brings us to that dreaded majority rule matter.
quote:
I take text on a forum literally, barring the presence of a smiley of some sort or other qualifier to the statement. I'm sorry, but there just is no way for me to accurately divine what your statements were 'really' staying without you properly qualifying them. |
Make an attempt not to, very little said here should be taken litterally.
quote:
Could I start up a religion and receive government funding for it? |
You could recive tax exemptions and other benifits, this happens all the time.
It's what freedom of religion means.
quote:
I don't think I ever said federal government specifically did I? Please point it out if I did. Sorry if my lack of qualifiers is causing confusion in this matter. My usage of the term 'government' is encompassing local, state, and federal in this case. |
There we see me taking you litterally.
quote:
Would it be alright to have a state or local government religion? Just not federal? |
We have none of the three, which is as it should be.
quote:
How is allowing everyone equal opportunity to state their beliefs not evenhanded? |
Nobody stops you from changing under god, but we see people attempting to have people stop saying it.
quote:
Well, if you continue to think that I am trying to prohibit the phrase 'under God', then just know I agree with you in most of your argument, even though you are refuting a non-existant argument of mine. My argument is not to disallow the phrase. |
We are simply discussing the leagality of the phrase was my understanding from the start.
There continues to be a growing movement in the US for greater control on the federal level, a sickening giant government breathing down every American's back, we see it in this very thread, some want rulings on everything in sight, others call the congress "corrupt" because they wish to change a law (while ignoring the fact that one of the perviews of Congress IS to do just that).
Another common theme is anyone who believes in Religion in any form suddenly is a "Christian Fundementalist", a "right wing nut", or other such nonsense.
Common sense is almost dead, it is on poly, if it ever exsisted to begin with, labeling is far more common.
Look at the static I recieved because I phrased democracy as the will of the Majority (The PC attack on that was astounding), which only a fool would deny is the way the US works.
Echinda said I shouldn't even speak because I stated the obvious in a way he's not used to seeing! 
Unbeleavable.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
|
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
I was trolling, yes. But it seems appropriate after another "tyranny of the majority" rant. The US IS a Constitutional Republic, albeit a largely democratic one. |
I never "ranted', it's fact, and we both know it.
quote:
The biggest problem with "under God" in the pledge is that it makes the entire pledge either a violation of Constitutional rights if coerced or completely useless if not. Doesn't anyone else see the irony of chanting "indivisible" with a bunch of people standing around on the sidelines? |
I see the irony of trying to use the first amendment incorrectly.
The time for your debate was the 1950s, you might as well try and turn back the clock on everything.
quote:
At least the original pledge could be recited in full by just about all Americans, as Bellamy intended! |
Still can.
quote:
No, that is not the case.
I have.
You are wrong in thinking that.
I am curious to know why you keep assuming that. |
Curios at your motivations, seeing that you said the government is corrupt for attempting to place a law (which is their function), and wondering why you keep this argument going after it was pretty much settled.
The guy that started this is a nut, he tried the "in god we trust" argument first, found out that the supreme court had aready ruled on it, so went looking for a new way to "make his mark".
He doesn't give a damn about his daughter, no parent worthy of the name would put their child into a media circus to further a "cause".
As a Constitutional argument this is a wash, it just doesn't fit the criteria, despite some of the more "imaginative" interpretations posted so far.
It basically comes down to atheists not wanting to haer "god" mentioned.
That all it really is.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
 |
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
Curios at your motivations, seeing that you said the government is corrupt for attempting to place a law (which is their function), and wondering why you keep this argument going after it was pretty much settled. |
The pledge is not a law. However, the 1954 alteration of the pledge WAS a law, passed by Congress. It was a law created with the specific purpose of establishing religion as "American" and intimidating the non-religious. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
That was 1954. In 2002, Congress has attempted to pre-empt the judgement of the Supreme Court on this issue by bullying and intimidation. And, as previously noted, some are preparing to block the authority of the courts to rule on this issue at all.
quote:
The guy that started this is a nut, he tried the "in god we trust" argument first, found out that the supreme court had aready ruled on it, so went looking for a new way to "make his mark". |
The guy who started this WAS a nut, but his name isn't Michael Newdow.
quote:
He doesn't give a damn about his daughter, no parent worthy of the name would put their child into a media circus to further a "cause". |
His daughter is being taught that her father is not a "true American". Unfortunately for Neadow and everyone else, this issue cannot be brought before the courts by a disinterested party. But his daughter didn't bring the case, and the reporters concentrating on HER are inhuman scum.
quote:
It basically comes down to atheists not wanting to haer "god" mentioned.
That all it really is. |
Except that it isn't.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
In the paper today there is an article reporting that a group has offered legal representation to defend the girl's name. I presume that they are going to bring action against the father. The father has gone on record as saying that he deliberately kept the girl's name off the case record because the action was more about him than her.
How can a non-custodial parent bring a suit superficially on a child's behalf to suit his own, not the child's interest? The child is an acknowledged Christian. Surely for this man to bring the suit on her behalf demonstrates an utter disinterest in her mental well being. I predict that there will be personal repercussions for him because of this action. He obviously has no regards for the child's feelings and should be cut off from custody.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
You are a master at the spin technique Jack. Let's start from the beginning shall we?
1. Little girl goes to Sunday school every week with her mother and believes in God.
2. Mother and father get divorce (or seperate).
3. Dad doesn't like God even though he claims that he doesn't esist.
4. Dad decides to do something about the fact that HE doesn't like God.
5. Dad USES his daughter who believes in God along with her mother to further HIS agenda even though HIS OWN DAUGHTER prefers to say the words 'under God' and is supported by her mother.
6. Now the mother is angry that her daughter is Being used by the father so she fights back.
7. The daughter is in the middle and is being used as a pawn by both sides thanks to the insensitive actions of the father.
Jacks solution: The father should not be opposed because he is an atheist so he mist be right.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
So because of a movie you don't believe in God? And you feel free to slander others because they do not believe as you do?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
So the mother is not a part of the girl's family? Or do anly atheists have a right to infuence their kids?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
One thing we know for sure and that is that the father used his little girl to further his own agenda. You may twist that fact however you want but it will not change it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
- Groucho -
|
|
You're amazing, Chris62. You belittle Jack and then accuse him of using improper tactics in an argument. Since when have ad hominens become fair play?
As for your own assertions that "majority rules", I give up. If you can't see that the constitution is fundamentally about making sure that the majority can't trample on the minority then there is no point continuing this with you. The right to bear arms is not about making sure the majority has enough guns to shoot the minority. Freedom of speech is not about allowing the majority to shout loud enough to drown out the minority. These protections are all about making sure the majority can not use its numbers to trample the fundamental rights of the minority. If you can't see that then there isn't even enough common ground here to have a sensible discussion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
|
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Echinda
You're amazing, Chris62. You belittle Jack and then accuse him of using improper tactics in an argument. Since when have ad hominens become fair play? |
Motivations are the issue, as a crusader, he never had an interest in the other side of the argument, it was already decided in his mind, so he was wasting my time.
quote:
As for your own assertions that "majority rules", I give up. |
You should give up, because if you can't grasp this, you have no conept of western society.quote:
If you can't see that the constitution is fundamentally about making sure that the majority can't trample on the minority then there is no point continuing this with you. |
I never once said other wise.
The real danger is when you not only assume, as you did, but then act on your assumption.quote:
The right to bear arms is not about making sure the majority has enough guns to shoot the minority. |
How many more absurdities will you post?quote:
Freedom of speech is not about allowing the majority to shout loud enough to drown out the minority. |
Nobody said it was, nobody said anything about "shouting down", your as bad as the other guy who made the "mob" connection, you assume that majority rule means stealing the rights of the minority, which it never does.
It means that when we have an issue, we vote on such things, and in democratic fashion, the majoritry rules.
Why are you having so much trouble grasping this.
Are you so indoctronated in that PC crap that you can't acknowledge a simple truth?quote:
These protections are all about making sure the majority can not use its numbers to trample the fundamental rights of the minority. |
It also means the minority cannot carry out the inverse, which is what this is all about.
At NO TIME did I say that rights would be violated by a majority decission, YOU ASSUMED IT.quote:
If you can't see that then there isn't even enough common ground here to have a sensible discussion. |
If you would stop assuming, we might get somewhere. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:20
|
|
On CNN right now:
quote:
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- The 8-year-old girl whose father successfully sued to have the Pledge of Allegiance declared unconstitutional has no problem with reciting the pledge at school, her mother said Thursday.
"I was concerned that the American public would be led to believe that my daughter is an atheist or that she has been harmed by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, including the words 'one nation under God,"' Sandra Banning said in a statement. "We are practicing Christians and are active in our church."
Banning never married Michael Newdow, the third-grader's father and the atheist behind the pledge lawsuit. She has full custody of the girl, which Newdow is challenging in court.
It was Banning's first public comment since the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Newdow that the words "under God," inserted by Congress in 1954, make the pledge an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. The ruling has been put on hold pending appeals.
Banning, who has hired lawyers in part to explore intervening in the case, said she hopes her efforts will lead to a reversal of the ruling. She also said her daughter "expressed sadness" after the ruling. In his lawsuit, Newdow argued that his daughter was "injured" by being forced to listen to others recite the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified School District.
He said Thursday that he has the right to determine how she is raised.
"I have a right to send my child to a public school without the government inculcating any religious beliefs," he said. Newdow also said that taking an 8-year-old to church doesn't mean the girl is choosing to be religious -- and at any rate, it doesn't matter what the child believes.
"The main thrust of this case is not my daughter, it's me," he said.
Some legal experts said the mother's revelation that the girl herself willingly recites the pledge in class could cast doubts on the legitimacy of the case.
Courts can only hear cases in which there is an injured party, and if there is no injury there is no grounds for a case, said Rory Little, a Hastings College of the Law professor who follows the 9th Circuit.
The federal courts can't address anything unless it's a case of controversy," Little said. "You have to have injury."
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-07-2002 15:38
|