*DAMN R6 Forum

ok, for those of you who are not amreican, or have not kept up with national news heres the scoop

a few days ago, the ninth circut court of appeals decided that the pedge of alegance violated the first amendment  due to two little words
under god

if you are unfamilliar with  the constitution, the first amendment  deals with (among other things) the fact that there should  be a seperation of church and state. the court, somehow construed under god as an attempt to impose a state religino(what the first amendment was originally written to protect against)

i just wanted to get some reaction on this, both forign and domestic

my personal opinion: what the FUCK were they smoking/high on?

and sorry about the numerious mispellings

Remember the terrorism debate thread a little while ago?

If I were to post much here, this would turn into one just like that...with Ace posting his Republican views...and me being the minority liberal backed by the European observers.

So...my only reaction is that every member of the House and Senate is a hypocrite.  They blandly denounced it without any logical rationale...because its the politically correct thing to do.  I just wish some of them could have at least displayed their real feelings...

The pledge itself is not sacred, only the ideals that it represents

Personally i dont see the big deal. I think this was all started up by a paranoid parent. but seriously, do they really think that by saying "Under God" its gonna brainwash their children? By saying that little phrase does it tell them to change their religon. I think its a moral thing but if they dont believe in god they should just say "under (wutever god they worship)" or just skip that part and pretend they have a cough or something. I fail to see how this violates their rights and im not just saying this because im american.

this all hapened because some lame-ass liberal who hate our glorious government decided he was gonna throw a pissy fit when his son cam home and proudly stated the pledge of allegiance for his daddy.

loud, you forgot to mentsion almost every major ?newspaper in america denoucing the ruling as well. also you should have heard the argument from the decenting judge, he ?was making the point that ?if we follow the logic of the deision, we would have to remove the phrase ' in god we trust' from our money

you are correct haz, this was started as a lawsuit by an athiest who ddint want his 2nd grade daughter exposed to religion in school

news flash the judge who made the ruling, has put it on hold

i leave you know with a little wisdom from jay leno
"at this rate, pretty soon the only time that someone will be able to say god is when little jonny is screwing his teacher"

Seriously i think the problem is that people are trying to be too politically correct. seriously if that woman lived in my town i would leave her a letter that said stfu. While other countries are dealing with more important things americas government is focusing on something that shouldn't be blown out of proportion. instead of finding a more efficient way to run the country our officials are thinking about this crap. it angers me.

Loud, you must remember it was Bander, you and I against Ace, Grifter and I think blackhand. ?Then it went on to talking about how Bob did this to Ahmed or something or other.

Anyway, I really don't see why Under God needs to be in there, but I could really care less, I used to say the Pledge of Allegence from like Kindergarden to 3rd grade but I don't think I've said it since. ?I don't think it is really a violation of religion, but as I'm Christian I guess I may not be in a position to be offended.

Two final closing remarks, our goverment isn't glorious and Jay Leno isn't funny.

Well.....look.Schools and bush have a stick up thier ass so they take it out on us christian folk.Plain and simple. ;)

Mb you'd like the views of a athiest on this one...  ;D ;D
For me personaly, i don't hate religion, i think its a great thing. however, one can not deny that it violates the constitution. Alot of the senators are screaming Bullshit based off tradition, but those words were put into the pledge in 1954 durring the red scare. in a time that people were conservative, and scared of a religionless society (like comunism). So i don't think it should matter to much if it is removed. I don't have any personal problem with the words "under god" in anything, i mean, who is it hurting by saying that. I also think that the religious republicans will have the ruling overturned, since many of them are tightwads, who don't want anyform of change.
jebbsy
ps. If parts of this don't make sense, just know, i'm drunk, and its hard

well, in my quest for even more information on theis subject, i have found out that the 9th circut  cvourt of appeals is the most overturned appeals court in the country, so more than likely, this ruling is getting shot down.

i feel that it is also my duty to remind everyone of why the first amendment was added in the first place. to prevent the government from establishing a government religion(like the church of england) or requiring that a certian positon can only be held by someone with a certian religion

while some ppl may view  the words under god as a attempt supreme court after supreme court has made it clear that these 2 little words, while religious, are not a significant threat to the atheist establishment.

reigion(or at least belief in a highrte being) is inexorably intwined in our society.wh hold these truthes to be self evident that allmen are created equal and are endowedby their creater with certian inaliable rights...


more on this later i have to go now

Well... I'll chime in here too I guess.

First, while I hate most things about the Congress... I disagree with Loud here about them being hypocrites... they are the ones that put "under God" in the pledge in the first place... so it would be hypocritical of them to support the court's ruling... not defend the pledge.

Second, I'm really, really tired of the PC crap.  Anyone that doesn't understand that seperation of church and state doesn't mean an athiest state, just doesn't understand his history.  Back in the day... many of the people that came to America were fleeing the wrath of the CHURCH.... be it the Catholic Church... The Curch of England... etc.  Governments were very tied to some of the "The Church"'s... to the point where the organizations became politically powerful....  It's not the belief that causes it... but the political agenda's of the organizations that was screwing things up back then.  So the first amendment was there to make sure that we all had religeous freedom.... that there would never be a "Church of America".  Now, some 200+ years later... people take the words and twist them to their own needs.  

What will be hypocritical will bee when the high court of the land rules on this.... since "In God We Trust" is written in that courtroom, for all to see.

What's next... it comes off the money too?  Maybe the poor bastards that think it's wrong should refuse any money from now on too.... stand up for that principle!!

Here's the first amendment for those of you that have never actually seen it....  I know that saying "under God" isn't prohibiting the free exercise of religeon... but is the word "God" actually establishment of religion??  That must be what the court of appeals thinks....


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.

I'm fine with religious things like the words Under God being present in society, but I really really really wish Congress would stop enforcing their religious moral codes on the country.  Nearly every victimless crime is a crime because they find it immoral by their moral code.  It is unconstitutional and needs to stop.

That means the following among others need to be decriminalized.
"Statutary" rape, prostitution, poligamy, and drugs.

Oh, and homosexuals should have every single right that heterosexuals have.

"one nation under god, multiple gods and dieties, or lack there of depending on your faith" doesn't quite sound right.

honestly, if saying "Under God" bothers you that much, move to Canada. It's a nice place.

Grifter, you don't honestly think that the majority of religoius views in goverenment are catholic?
And being a athiest, i don't really care if god is mentioned in the pledge, i think that posting the 10 comandments in public schools is completely wrong. On the other side of the debate over the pledge, it won't really effect our lives if the god reference is taken out of it

Bondo's phrasing his point better than I am but I feel the same.  Here I go...

Another purpose of the first amendment in most interpretations, regardless of how it was originally phrased 200 years ago, is to prevent people from being harassed based on their religion.  Congress has reaffirmed that intent through other laws, for example those that illegalize discrimination based on religion, etc.

And therefore, I think the court is perfectly in line on this ruling.  How can you argue that it would not cause some sort of discomfort if not outright abuse for an atheist to be forced to proclaim their love for their country (which may be very strong) along with their loyalty to a God in which they do not believe?

The "in god we trust" symbolism is questionable as well, but at least it does not force anyone to proclaim belief contrary to their own.  Our money states that the government is basing the value of currency on faith, which is true.  Arguably that faith should not be in God, but again there is no one hurt by that assertation.

However, that the primary method of pledging allegiance to the USA requires also accepting that that nation is below a non-existent god (or one of many gods) is offensive.

Furthermore, as Hazard mentioned, he would have sent a letter to the little girl were she living in his community.  There have been people who took it to the next step and have sent hate mail to the family already.  And thus how exactly would this girl not be suffering abuse in school for having different beliefs if the entire country is so violently outraged that she might think differently from them?

Being half-Christian and half-Jewish, my religious views have always been very flexible, based more on morals than worship.  There are some of you that would argue that I am immoral because of this.  

But regardless of that, I fail to understand why our soceity attempts to instill its majority's views on the rest, while claiming to be accepting those feelings.

Religion simply isn't the same as politics.  Majority does not always rule.  If we abolished mention of God from government and all its buildings, etc. we would be far from a god-less state.

Rather, all forms of religion could flourish on their own, and no group would have any reason to feel as if others were imposing their will upon them.

Without having been in their detractors positions, the predominantly Christian leadership of this country would have atheists and polytheists pledge their allegiance to one God.  This is already the case, and has been since 1954.  Isn't it time we modernized our way of thinking?

I read in my local paper a letter to the editor where someone offerred the traditional complaint of "if you don't like it, go live in some other country that has freedoms, etc."  I thought the purpose of our freedoms was to be able to achieve change  - so that our nation might long endure.

Grifter, the Congress is hypocritical by your rationale every time they repeal a law.  Times change - laws should too.  What I found hypocritical was that they passed near-unanimous resolutions of solidarity in supporting God's place in the pledge.  It was entirely political posturing - and further offensive to those who would like to see the government stop endorsing God and leave that role to the citizenry.

I appreciate those of you who actually read through this.  Finally I would like to leave you with my reaction to a typical statement in this case.

example:


Is it possible to love the US but not God?

Thanks blackhand for echoing the person in my newspaper while I was typing my manifest ;)



Again, isn't one of the main ideals of the US that we can achieve democratic change?  

Your rhetorical question can be reversed.  

If it is so important to you to say "under god" in school or have it on your government buildings, why don't you move to Pakistan?

Religion is a personal practice that should be practiced on personal time.

exactly grift.
nowhere in the declaration of independance, constution, or in the bill of rights will you find the phrase 'seperation of church and state'
i do believe that some people were making the argument thst making teachers(government employees) say under god, is a form of 'religious test'. my response to these people is thus, do you have your heads shoved so far up your asses that you cant even see the simple solution and FAKE A COUGH! oh wait...you're a dumbass...a lawsuit is the ONLY course of action!

the freedom of america is a simple, you have the freedom to state your opinion, you can assemble in peace, you can even swing you fist around in the air, and guess what, if you are in the minority your rights are PROTECTED BY THE US GOVERNMENT. you do not, however, have the freedom to not hear what you do not agree with, and you do not ?have the right to turn your minority views into a veto of the majority. nowhere in ANY histoical document(us consstitution, delcaration of independance, bill of rights) or court cases have you been given such a right. to the athiest who started this whole mess i have one thing to say, stop over reaching your rights, cuz you are starting to abuse mine!
and remembet the right for you to swing your rights around stops at the tip of my nose
(yes i realize i modified the saying, but hey, i was making a point)

First of all, I hate it when we write posts at the same time...because I doubt Brain read mine.

Secondly, Brain, what rights of yours are being infringed upon?

The right to say "god" in your pledge of allegiance? ?
The right to worship during public school? ?
The right to impose your religion on others? ?
The right to declare your religion in a place of government?

Funny....I don't remember any of those in the Constitution. . .

And you can fake a cough all you want...but what if you want to declare your love of country with everyone else, without having to declare love of god in the same breath?

if i remember correctly the us government has been traditanally been prodestant  instution, not christin

and wow, i had  3 ppl post while i was writing my last rant

Hit refresh, I've got one more.

Protestant, Catholic, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist. . .

I don't care what the country traditionally has been - I don't understand why it has to be anything at all.

Freedom of religon means u can practice whatever religon u want whenever u want rite? so these people are saying that by saying "under god" its violating there religon, but if they do take "under god" out of the pledge of allegiance wouldnt it be violating the other peoples religion by prohibiting them from saying "under god" in school. to me this sounds that because every1 is trying to be polititcally correct someone always loses. if im wrong tell me.

first of all, yep, that's what happened

second,he is imposing his political(religious acually) view on me, therefore he is infringing on my right to my own political(religious) view, and if i wanted to i'm shure i could find a revelant passge in the constution to quote (or at least find some semi rellevant passage and fudge it)

Yeah, you're wrong.

You have a right to practice religion in school, but you don't have a right to make everyone practice your religion.  You have private religious schools available to you for that purpose.

You can still say the plege of allegiance in school, however.  The court decision just makes it illegal to force everyone to say it, at least as long as it includes the mention of God.  It's a shame the decision won't stand because people are accustomed to saying it as a group.  It's a beautiful thing.  But I could see how it wouldn't be for people who disagree with its wording.

Damn...another post made while I was posting.

Brain, read my response to Fire Hazard.  You still retain every right to say the pledge, to pledge your allegiance to God, etc.

However, you have no right to make everyone be a part of a group pledge to God.  Stopping that does not infringe on your rights.  You have lost NOTHING.

thats now what i meant. i meant that its stopping the other people from practicing there religon. its not forcing it because is it mandatory in your school to not skip those two words?

No but you have to listen to everyone else say them. ?You are unfairly isolating little children for having religious beliefs. ?It just doesn't seem necessary, and certainly not proper.

I just think that as long as the pledge contains a reference to God, it doesn't belong in public school. ?Period.

Brain, no you won't find separation of church and state in the constitiution, but you won't find innocent until proven guilty there either. ?Both are things that have become solidified political-legal mandates through the Supreme Court. ?So unless you want the burden of proof to start to fall on the defendant, don't think religion should be accepted as being supported by the government. ?Each person is free to their religion and to independantly tell others of their religion. ?The problem comes when the goverment is telling others of one set of religions.

I'm wholly christian but like loud, I don't buy the boundries, I think all religions are just God's different ways of communicating in the way that reaches them in order to get them to act morally. ?This of course goes haywire (suicide bombers, generally bad people) but I'd say it works. ?I don't believe that Christians will go to heaven but Jews won't because they don't believe that Jesus was our savior. ?And another thing, I don't take the Bible word for word as mandate from God like many people do. ?It is a book written by humans and like humans is flawed. ?I'm sure people could find something in the bible saying homosexuality is wrong, but I think there is no moral error in it, I'm just guessing one of the influencial leaders didn't like it so he wanted it to look like the word of God in the future.

Also, I was expecting at least one person to counter my claim that what is considered statutory rape (consentual sex with a minor) should be legal. ?I can always answer from the Bible and point out that Mary was only 13-14 and was married to Joseph who was late 20s or early 30s. ?At least we should look at other civilized countries and see that we have the oldest general age of consent and that it should be lowered to 14-15 (a point at which on average kids are into or through with puberty).

isolating little children? yes we lock them in the closet and make them say hail marys and listen to church music. by saying "under god" are we imposing our religon on other people? no. most little children say the words in the pledge without understanding them. if someone is worried about there child learning the wrong religon and their child getting messed up, what is wrong with them?if your that worried about that put them in a private school or help them better understand there religous preference.

And assuming the children do know what they are saying, and are made to feel uncomfortable by it?

I suppose you're saying that as long as they can't understand it, they shouldn't object to it.  Yeah that's pretty smart.  And the next time you go raise a ruckus about teaching evolution in schools, realize that most of the little Christian kids won't understand it anyway, so they can't be hurt by it.

Not to mention that it isn't impossible too believe in evolution and creation by combining the two and saying that God created the ability for beings to evolve.

im not saying its good that they dont understand it. im saying that its not messing up little children. the pledge has been around for a long time. when the caught Charles Manson or OJ did they say the pledge made them do it?

i may not have lost anything, however if this ruling is not struck down, then we have taken one more step towards a blank slate society. america is a society that DOES have religious traditions, that WAS founded on religious ideals.

this link provides a clearer view as to what was running through the heads of our founding fathers(section 16 is the section of particular intrest here)
http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/bill_of_rights/virginia_declaration_of_rights.html
the more we white wash our government of the religious ideals that it was founded upon the more boral decay will occur, for where do the majority get their morals if not from a higher power than thamselves?

Answer to Hazard:

---

Were either of them atheists?

I don't see your point. ?Are you really saying that people shouldn't be uncomfortable in group recitations of the pledge in its current form?

Wouldn't you be offended if you had to say

"one nation, under Allah, etc."

or if you had to keep silent while everyone else said that? ?Think about that, please.

---

Answer to Brain (I'm having to modify posts now)

---

I get my moral guidance from family and from my core beliefs. ?To state that government cannot act idealistically without the influence of God is narrow-minded. ?And that influence would not be altogether removed - it is still present outside of the public institutions. ?Morals do not come from government, they are applied to government.

Brain, religion is only a factor in one of the major moral principles.  All the rest don't depend on religion so don't tell me religion is needed for morality.

First there is Utilitarians, which means anything that maximizes general happiness is moral.  It has some problems but has good concepts as well.

Then there are the Kantians, which go by the golden rule saying it is immoral to do something if you wouldn't want it to be done if you were in the others involved in the action's shoes.  It also focuses on not treating people mearly as a means to an end.

In the theory I like the best, Thomas Hobbes' Contractarian (the one that was largely used by our founding fathers), a state (the government) has the duty of only intervining in our lives as an arbitor between its citizens.  Therefore, if neither side of a deal has a complaint, the goverment can't make a claim that anything was done wrong.  If one side does have a complaint, then the goverment steps in to deal with it through the legal system.  The essence then is that if nobody affected by something finds it wrong and thus doesn't complain, it is moral.

loud, i didn't think i needed to use sarcasm brackets. oh well.

though I was being facetious, I will say that the only people who actually view those two words as an issue aren't the type of people that i want living in our country. there's MUCH bigger problems domestically and internationally and to focus on two words is ridiculous.

Still, your sarcasm can still be applied vice versa.  I should have known better than to read your response as serious, however.  I was a little carried away.  Nevertheless...what scares me is that some people are not sarcastic when they say things like that.

Believe in what you want, its a personal thing, not something that should influence government. There are alot of judeo christian themes in governement, like "under god", "in god we trust" on our money, and swearing someone into office with their hand on a bible. How is that separation of church and state? I see the ruling as a step forward, not some gay Political correctness thing.

sorry, but i baited you into this one,
where did the morals come from ORIGIALLY(dont have time to use bold)
i hilghy doubt that og, all of a suden thot that being nice to thog was morally right one day

Brain, morality came out of people rationally being selfish.  They want to be as greedy as possible but they understand that that is what everyone else thinks as well, so they understand that if everyone else was nice but they were mean, they would be best off, and if they were nice but others were mean they would be screwed.  Also, if everyone was mean, things would just suck.  So nearly everyone comes to the conclusion that they need to have restrictions to their actions in order for them to be happy because they know that everyone else isn't going to be nice if they are mean.  Therefore in their own self interest they restrict their actions and everyone is better off.  This is how morality started Brain, not religion.

;D  Anyway Brain, if you're an atheist you don't believe in God, so morals couldn't have come from God. . .

Thus they would have to come from another source, as Bondo has clarified above.  Methinks I missed the hook . . .

My arguments would have been much less convincing had I not taken Ethics last semester ;)

I've got it one semester next year. . .

I'm sure you all can't wait  8)

Just cause your a athiest doesn't mean your a bad person, becasue god can't fill you with good. Shit alot of religious people are bad. Think of a athiest as someone who just doesn't do things in the name of god.

my question is are they gonna take everything with god in it out of america? doesnt our currency say god on it? isnt our callender based around the birth of christ? i got this question from the radio.

omg lol we were listening to the same thing then...right when it came out they were like sit down...and if you're in a car please don't crash. ?

I saw a cartoon with porky pig this morning...well at 2pm...when i woke up so that's what i call this morning. ?He was saying the pledge withouht it already.

...Our calendar isn't based on Christianity, our years are but not our monthly/daily calendar.  And where the years don't force a religious ideal on people, Under God does.  If we put, Under God, Gods, or no God, then it would be alright, but not Under God.

WOW, i'm a little late!  Ok, i don't mean to be a big, fat dickhead but i feel it is unconstitutional to include those words in something recited daily.  In Colorado or someplace in the US a while ago, they had a moment of silence everyday, a parent got angry, brought it to the supreme court and BOOM, out the window!

To tell the truth, i am athiest, so is gorf the dorf, but i really don't care if it is removed or not (especially since i go to a private school...damnit!), i'm just answering the question.

colin, i hated being a athiest at a catholic school. there was no way to avoid praying :(

holy shit, i think i have created a monster

first off, i would like to remind everyone that being forced to religion in general, not just christinaty, is at issue here

also, can i get some backup here, i mean, jesus christ, bondo and loud are double teaming me here..

ok, here is a feeble attempt to counter bondos argument that will most likely be brushed aside in 2 seconds, or in bondos first paragraph.(like my confidence in my argument?)

while i think that your theory on the beginning of morality is a good one, i dont believe that it is the only reason that we have morality today, i believe that religion has also played a major part in defining and shaping our current system of moral values, even if it wasnt ther in the beginning, it has definatly has had an effect on the end result.

as for loud's athiest comment, back in the stoneage (atleast as back as the earliest recorded history) werent most people of the belief of some higher power? imean ater all, how you you explain it if you were a caveman, and you saw a tornado pick up trees like small pebbles and toss them around like they weighed almost nothing? now imaging that you had done something morally 'wrong' right before that, would you construe that as a gods anger at your actions. this isnt a refutation of your argument, just a question on how you would act in prehistoric times.

now to bondos asertion that the callender isnt religious(cristian, not totally, but it is most definatly religious). the calender whe have today was based off the  things, the sun and the moon, the egyptians worshiped the sun god, and made the calender to help scedule their religious events, as well as harves times
months. the different months of the year are based on worship of the cycles of the moon (i'm shure bondo already knew this, after all he is a smart person, i just thought i would point it out to everyone else who may not have known)

and as to collin saying he was late, nope, not really, only about 2 or 3 hours

thus ends this instalment, feel free to start picking apart as soon as you read it

 Brain and everyone else...is all that stuff really the first shit that popped into your minds when you heard this? ?When this thread was started ?I thought that it was going to be for a few laughs. ?I thought that it was a joke. ?Guys this really isn't a big issue and you and those idiotic people in the real world are actually making it into something. ?I just laughed and turned off the radio when I heard it. ?Really who the fuck cares? You want to be idiots and change something in history that nobody really thinks about go ahead...be my guest...be assholes that get made fun of by almost everyone except the people in this forum who are taking it seriously. ?This is such bs. ?When you say the pledge in school do you really think about it. ?OMG you spit it out a mile a minute and don't think a thing. ?All you are thinking about is getting back into your sit and how the faster you say it the faster you will be there. ?Please don't make such a big deal about this...the issue is going to go into a higher court and be dismissed. ?It will be forgotten soon. ?Heck I've already forgotten about it...is this shit affecting your lives so much?

Later guys ?I'm going on vacation...be back just in time for the tourney's. ?Keep signing up and practicing. ;D ;)

Anyway, both your points above are true enough, religion was actually stronger in the early days because science wasn't available to explain the things it can today and thus they assumed it was a powerful spiritual being (think Black & White). ?Also, I wouldn't be so foolish as to say religion hasn't shaped morality, it has had a HUGE impact, but it certainly didn't bring about morality.



The calendar is based on science that was thought of with religious terms, but it isn't associated with any modern religions. ?While the eqyptians had a sun god and made a calendar based on the sun's movements in the sky, they were actually basing it on science of seasons and moon cycles like you claim. ?But they are scientific rather than religious. ?If for example we had a Christian based calendar, we'd have the month of Lent, the month of Advent, etc and they'd be longer or shorter than the other and make no sense.

Infection, if you haven't already gone on your vacation, just know that america was started with religious freedom in mind. And this is just a steping stone for equality among all religous sects(athiests and agnostics included). This might lead to "in god we trust" being taken off money, and things of that nature. i think this isn't some bs court desision, but a landmark one.

Actually, those are rights under Article One.... specifically the or prohibiting the free exercise thereof part.  And saying it isn't imposing anything on others....

Let me start with this...  In Michigan, this was contested in the courts a few years back.  It was decided here that any child wishing not to say the pledge was exempt. (didn't have to).  

As for Congress being hypocritical.... no, not this time.  Is it political posturing?  Sure.... but it's only hypocritical if they wouldn't have thought that way in the first place (this would be grandstanding).

As for the harm that saying "Under God" would do to any child... grow up.  Some of my good friends are athiests..  half my school was ismalic... Deadeye is a mix between some Native American and Zen... his navel is the Great Spirit or something like that.  Nobody was shunned or traumatized by those two words.... nobody really thought about them.  You aren't pledging yourself to God.... you are pledging your alegance to the United States of America. Stop making into more then it is... God isn't a Catholic or Chirstian or Jewish word, is it?  God is different for every person... and for an athiest, wouldn't it just mean.. under nothing?  Think about it... If an athiest believes that God doesn't exist... then the term means that the USA is under nothing... right?

And while you are bitching about people not reading your posts Loud (yeah, I read them)... try reading all of mine too.  You haven't talked about the point to it... what problem were they addressing... no.  

On to Bondo,

From your earlier post... I agree, Congress forces a false moral code on us too often.  You are blurring the lines between state laws and federal... but ok, I wont nit-pick on those...  What I will say is you should read a little more.  Like in Michigan, there is not crime "statutory rape".... hell, there is no crime called RAPE in Michigan... just "Criminal Sexual Conduct" in the first through fourth degrees....  Fourth degree isn't a felony... and would cover what you consided "statory rape"... but it's only for children 12 or under.... unless they suffer from mental defect or it is a figure of power (ie a teacher, priest, etc)... in which case it goes to 16.  Two 13 year olds having sex is not a crime in Michigan.  

This long lesson is actually for a reason... While I agree  that prostitution and weed should be legal and taxed, and that homosexuals should have all the rights as hetero's (but only if they get married... make it all the same).  But these all have to do with the States.  These aren't federal laws.  And there are states that are much more liberal in their views.  Like in Ann Arbor (where I'm working right now), it's a $10 fine for up to 1lb of weed.  (but I've heard it went up to $25).  That explains a lot of grad students at UofM....

People just need to not be so PC.... there was some stupid Sly movie (with Wesley Snipes) where he woke up in the future that was ultra PC.... and it was disturbing.... very disturbing.

Grifter you make valid points, and I certainly read and took issue with your previous post.

What I find odd about the majority view that you espouse, is that you really don't think its all that bad to have to be a part of a group saying the pledge when it has the "under god" statement.  

Today I read in the news someone talking about how annoying atheists are, trying to impose their views on others.  I must admit, atheists make pretty easy targets.  I wish this case had been brought by a polytheist, however.

The issue at hand may be children saying the pledge, who perhaps might suffer no harm from it.  However, there is a larger issue at hand, and that is the presence of God in our government.

It is entirely true as you stated in your first post, that the US draws its roots from religious people, etc.  However, I question why as a nation we are trying to preserve those roots so strongly.  Surely today there is no need for our government to express thanks to God for its existence?  It would be a more fitting tribute if we simply carried out the ideals of our founding fathers.  They may have been religiously motivated, but as an increasingly diverse soceity, we need not be.

You ask me if anyone would be harmed by saying "under god", or being an outsider in a group that says it.  I think I have argued (bitched, if you will) clearly that it is offensive, and it leads to harassment.  

However, shouldn't I be asking you if anyone would be harmed by NOT saying "under god" in the pledge, NOT having god on our money, NOT seeing tributes to god in our courtrooms?

Our government already recieves its religious influence from the people who are in office.  If the majority were one day atheists, I would object just as strongly if they were to deny God in our public buildings and the like.

There are actually 3 levels of religion in this case, but the third is often overlooked.

1.  . . .one nation under god. . .  - this is a statement endorsing religion.

2. . . .one nation . . . -the absence of God does not endorse atheism

3. . . .one nation without god. . . - if atheists truly were imposing their view on the rest, this would be our pledge.  

I don't see any danger of this happening, and I would be just as opposed to it as I have stated.

However, what I am trying to say, through bitching, rants, etc. is that religion just doesn't belong in government.  There is an arguable case that it offends people to have all these mentions of God.  But if people weren't so accustomed to them, I don't think they'd mind at all if they weren't present.

Free exercise would not be limited in this case.  Free exercise is not infringed if the pledge no longer contains under god, or if the pledge is not said in public school.  Again, we have private schools.  Referring to the 3 levels I described earlier, shouldn't we pick the middle ground as the norm?  Again, it harms no one but significantly reduces the chances of anyone having religious objections.

(And yes I did read your posts even if I don't nitpick every detail, Grifter...some people are easier to nitpick than others.  I'll give you that - you are well-reasoned even when I think you're just plain wrong)

Also - its funny how much we seem to agree on other things.



I would add there though that the "crime" of cohabitation is another victimless crime that should be abolished.  I don't know - maybe you don't have it in Michigan.  You are lucky to live in such a progressive thinking state.

One thing I will nitpick though -

Political correctness is what the entire Congress did by acting together to denounce the ruling.  It is doubtful that all truly felt that way.

Indeed, Bondo's and my positions are in this case the polar opposite of political correctness.  It is your view that has been adopted without question and should be dubbed "Politically Correct"

Grift, I realize that my complaints were against various state and federal laws, but both are decided by elected legislatures who bring their religious based morals into the room with them.  Glad to hear Michigan takes a more sane approach, I'm stuck in Republican Colorado.  Great state from a nature perspective (except when a dumb forest ranger sets it on fire), but outside of Boulder and to a lesser extend Denver there aren't many smart political people.

And Grift, isn't not saying Under God while the others do going to make the kid feel akward and thus cause pain?

Here's what I believe the harm is.... losing our traditions.  Flat out.  I know that some of you don't think that American is actually a culture, but it is.  And as in any culture, we have our traditions.  I say that those traditions should be held sacred by the patriots, just as Christian's hold the Bible sacred, or Muslem's hold the Koran, et al.  The term "One Nation, Under God" does not, in my opinion, endorse any faith... It shouldn't mean a thing to an athiest... since they just don't believe it.  I'm not frowning on athiests, or denouncing them... I just hate all the rewording / renaming that goes on in our society because of a minority opinion often couched under Political Correctness.  To me, this is just as bad as calling for the Washington Redskins or Atlanta Braves to change their names.... those names don't have a damn thing to do with how Native American's are treated or thought of...  Any more then Spartans, Tigers, Bears, or Wolves.  No, it's just some people that want to stick it to the system usually that start this.  Somebody show me the children that are shunned... are cast out... or brainwashed to believe in a God, just because of the Pledge.....  I want some hard facts, not just opinion.  I know that it didn't have any effect on how I see the universe.... but the Pledge itself... that is something that can actually stir the blood of a patriot... just like the National Anthym can...  Next that will be on the chopping block, because it advocates war and violence....  

And Bondo, no offense, but a wannabe ex-patriot's opinion on the subject is a little suspect.

Oh, and one last thing.... unless a few of my history classes were wrong, we owe the modern calendar to one of the Popes.... including the leap year...  Can't remember which one off the top of my head, but it can probably be found on the net.  Yes, they took the cycle of the moon from the Hebrew calendar.... and the months from the Romans... (being the Roman-Catholic church).  You have to remember.. the curch took many "pegan" symbols into it back then... trying to bring about the will of the people.  Gargoyles is a second example.. a third would be that many churches are built upon shrines and temples from before....

I guess I will chime on here too. I do not really care but because it is the only poiical argument on any of my talk borads I will speak up. Pledge of Alegieance my ASS! or however you spell it. When I went to High School they made us repeat the pledge day after day. I hated it and at times found it offensive. It made me feel alienated from the rest of the class. Usually I am a carefree troublemaker, but when the pledge was recited it really made me feel alien and foriegn. And of coarse the dumbasses would rag on me for being Russian. What I am tring to say is that the pledge should not be forced upon us. I have seen kids go to the principal's office for not saying it. That I feel is unconstitutional, and some schools do it. That type of thing would happen back in the Soviet Union. Also the words "under god" was supposed to offend us communist russkie bastards.

Gorf's 2?:

There is no god.  Anyone that believes in god wastes hours of their life bowing down to this amazing being.

What's up there?  Oxygen, hydrogen, helium, and a bunch of other stuff.

I am jewish and have had my barmitzvah, it's all a load of BS.  Everyone thinks they believe in god, but that's only because ur parents made u, and u grew up with santa and god crap.  I would believe in santa more than god.

And also about  this pledge of alegance crap.   Personally i'm from canada and i don't really FEEL like praising the US's name EVERY MORNING.  Thank god i go to private school and they realize that people from mexico, brazil, and korea don't feel like praising the US either.

So i would be happy if the pledge was taken away.  I don't think everyone in the US needs to be forced to pledge their country every morning.  Think all the non-americans who would like to have the "pledge of mexico" or whatever instead.

If people want to say the pledge on their own time that's fine.  People shouldn't be forced to listen to it every morning if you think about how many international students there are in the US now.

8)

Grift were you saying my view on the pledge isn't meaningful seeing as pledging alligence would be the last thing I'd want to do, God or no God?  I suppose that is fair enough.  I personally don't think we should be forcing kids to say the pledge in any form, like Cossak said.  I think that is why where I'm at they stop after elementary school because once you are smart enough, one sees through shallow patriotism.

Then again, expatriates have had a lot to do with many of the changes in the US over time so I don't think that is a disqualifier.

Well said gorf,
Religion started when groups of isolated peoples in prehistoric times, wanted answers to what was happening around them. Like  day and night, and the animals. Ancient indian tribes had different religions, and different belief systems, than say the egyptions. And when you try to say that GOD is right, why be so self centered in thinking that your religion is the right religion. So why should one groups belief be represented in our nations pledge of aligence, and our money? even though there have been countless other explainations of why us humans are here. What it all boiles down to, is that Christians are in outrage, over something that does violate the constitution, but for the reason that they are to close minded to think that many people have different beliefs than themselves. I don't see this as a stupid political correctness thing, i think it is a good start to eliminate the use of the christian god, and chirstian symbols in government.
jeb
ps. i went to catholic school since for 13 years, and i was a alterserver for 4 years, now i thank god i'm a athiest ;)

*decides to poke the hornets nest some more*

how do you get that the christians are the bad guys in this situation, last time i checked thery werent the only monotheistic religion,  just off the top of my head,i know that jews, and muslems are monotheistic as well.  therefore wouldnt under god represent those religions as well?

Brain - he was just referring to the Christian/Protestant majority in the country as they are the primary influencing religion.

And Grifter, you have seen hard evidence in people's testimonials of their own experiences. ?However, the best example I can give you is the hate mail directed at the atheist family that brought the suit. ?Is that not abuse?

And traditions aren't the important thing here. ?It's the underlying moral code they represent. ?If we lose or modify a tradition, we have not lost the beliefs it represents. ?Religion will not die if it is removed from government.

And perhaps one motivation for someone who chooses to be an expatriate is frustration at a nation they love, but cannot feel accepted in.

And btw farmerjeb - I love that line
"thank god I'm an atheist"

Gorf,your a fool.I hope you go to hell for saying that ;)
Just because your a jew doesnt mean christians arew wrong because you think they are.Read the bible,its true.Not to offend you or anything,but i mean cmon.What you said is racism with religion instead of religion.

Racism*^

Damn, I'm a long winded fuck.. I have to break this into two posts....

Ok, first, to those of you that brought up Russians, Korean's, Mexican's or any other nationality saying the Pledge in an American Public School... I say... Tough Cookies. ?Anyone in a position to go to an American school... paid for by the American Governments (Federal, State and Local)... with American taxes should not look at American patriotism with that kind of contempt. ?After all... say what you want for the state of public education here... but it's still some of the best PUBLIC education there is. ?The majority of the people in the world don't get it as good (or, don't you count the third world). ?

Now, for Loud's comments. ?Loud, I didnt' hear anybody hear say that the words "Under God" made them feel imposed upon, or put out... or brainwashed. ?I've heard some people say that they don't believe in the Pledge as a whole... especially people that aren't American (so I don't know why they actually care)... ?Like I said, the people I've talked to, of all religeons (or lack thereof), haven't had a problem with those words.

As for the hate mail... it wasn't because the kid was saying it in school or not saying it... it was because that ultra leftest father took it to court. ?And are you saying that all those other people don't have the right to express their opinions?? ?(Actually, anyone that sends hate mail to the young child is an asshole anyway... It isn't all hate mail either... I'm sure there are some educated opinions in there as well).

And traditions aren't the important thing here. ?It's the underlying moral code they represent. ?If we lose or modify a tradition, we have not lost the beliefs it represents. ?Religion will not die if it is removed from government.

You say that traditions aren't important here... I disagree completely. ?The traditions are important... They are there and structured to mean something, or hasn't anyone thought about that? ?You can't say open endedly that you can modify any tradition without losing it's lessons. ?And I am not talking about the health of religion, I could care less about the health of the CHURCH (I dispise organized religion... but that's just me... organized religion is worse to me then government is to Bondo). ?But what I do believe is that we live in the best country so far (yes, that's my opinion), that we are letting go to hell, as we worship the letter of the law, and not the spirit.

Part II

And perhaps one motivation for someone who chooses to be an expatriate is frustration at a nation they love, but cannot feel accepted in.

Perhaps that could be one... but not Bondo... He's said flat out that he would rather be elsewhere...

One great thing about our Nation is the ability for us, the people, to make it better. ?What the ultra liberal need to understand is that neither they, nor the ultra conservative will ever really win. ?Us moderates are the majority, and that's what this country was built upon... the majority. ?If someone like Bondo really and truely believes that prostitution and weed should be legalized, why not take it to court? ?Try and have those laws declared unconstitutional.... after all, I could make a much better case for anti-drug and anti prostitution laws being an infringment to my persuit of happiness (and liberty). ?And both have been legal in this nation before... ?My personal opinion is that Bondo is just 19 and likes to think of himself that way... but since he's never really lived on his own under another flag, he doesn't really know. ?Hell, when I was 19, and they made me register for selective service... and the Gulf War was looming.... yeah, I thought that it was completely wrong of our government to draft men and not women... even wrote a paper on it in college (a court case made it all the way to the Supreme Court on it too). ?On how 85% of all military positions are considered "non combat"... and how women actually score better on many of the exams for these... not to get into "Equal Responsibility for Equal Rights" (name of the paper)... ?But now... at almost 30.... I could give a shit about selective service. ?In 10 years, Bondo is most likely going to be like all the rest of middle America... and he'll forget all about the expatriot he wants to be (since he can't actually be one while living at home with his parents in America...) ?Maybe, if he actually took off to Europe for a semester (like many of us did), or even more... go to live there for a while. ?

And before too many of you take offense at my thinking America is the best country to live in... ?I'll only take it seriously coming from adults... sorry, but if you don't pay taxes, and have actually spent good time working in other countries, you haven't actually experienced them. ?Mauti, Kilzo, Ronin and a few others, those are educated opinions.... Guys that live in Canada and are in high school don't even know.... sorry. ?I mean, I love Canada, but between the taxes, the economy and socialized medacine.... need I say more....

Are there a couple small countries in Europe where the cost of living is a bit lower, and the income from rich to poor is less then it is here.... yep. ?There are a few. ?But then there are other issues. ?Those are some of the things that make nations great... some... but when you mix everything that's important to me together.... USA comes out on top. ?And I've spent months working in England, Germany, Sao Palo and Mexico City... along with shorter trips to other places... so I've been there.. and seen what it's like.

Grifter, I pay taxes.  And you should consider that my major is Geography and Environmental Science with an Energy Science minor.  I'm going to be liberal for my whole life.  Oddly enough there is this ultra liberal in the gamecube newsgroup who calls me a conservative pretending to be liberal but that is because he is an intolerant wench (odd for a liberal seeing as the definition of liberal is tolerant).  But my best friend who is moderately conservative would definately say I'm liberal.

But I digress.  As for living elsewhere Grifter, I only want to because I don't think the US will be changing and becoming a good nation anytime soon due to the political corruption.  The US is supposed to be by the people and for the people, but instead it is by the pockets and for the pockets.  It is all about money.  This nation's only chance is Ralph Nader.

First Bondo, you actually count as an adult, being over 18, and I'm sure you do pay taxes (although, if they are the same taxes I paid at 19, they don't really count anymore.... you'll know what I mean when they take $40,000 from you in a year.  You wont know that pain for a while... but when that bite comes, you'll look back with a different perspective on it... that's all.

Second, you can complain about political corruption as much as you like, and probably be right 95% of the time.  That doesn't make you an expatriot.  But my question there is... where isn't there just as much political corruption??  Find that place, and let me know.  Because that's the rule, not the exception.  Power corrupts.  There are a few that stand above it... but again, the exception, not the rule.

Third, you are talking to a guy that turned down a very attractive job with Upjohn and Dow right out of my undergrad (my B.S. is in Chemistry and Physics, with minors in Sociology and Environmental Biology... yes, I've always been an overachiever).  I turned them both down and took a couple very shitty jobs because I was young and knew how much those two companies contributed to the ecological mess that is our water supply.  I am still a member of Greenpeace, and the MUCC... you don't have to be an ultra liberal to care about the environment....  if you ever take the test in a pol-sci class (closer to 100 = liberal, closer to 0 = Conservative) I actually scored a 50 on it the first time... and I usually end up in the low to mid 50's.  Even now, it hasn't changed.  What's changed is that I've learned more about the world.  If I really wanted to work for a company that didn't polute at all... I'd never work... If you don't compromise your morals, you'll never survive.  Because the world doesn't see things the same way as you (or me, or just about anybody).  That's a truth that is global, not national.  So you learn to pick your fights.  Which is why I think you will never really become an expatriot... when you learn that there really isn't a uetopia (for yourself) and that here, you can make a small difference, you'll see things differently.  That's all.

what was my last post about? ? i'm ATHIEST. ?i never said ANYTHING about christians. ?what the fuck are you talking about u moron

please read your moronic statements before posting goku

I am jewish and have had my barmitzvah

Thats what you put.And by saying there is no god and its a load of bs that is insulting a christian and others that believe in god.So yes,you were saying stuff about christianity.

I have lived in Russia. Even though I am only 19 I consider myself  very educated about the world. (I am a history and geography buff) Anyhow living in Russia, especially during the breakup was very hard. As a kid it was hard. I go to America and life is so very nice. But what I do not like about this country is social and political. Social problems are very hard to fix. Many Americans (keep in mind I am in the Texas) are overly patriotic and are ignorant about places outside their own country and they tend to sacrfice too much for the sake of political correctness. History has proven that this is a dangerous combination. This combination was present during the 1933 elections in Germany. Look what that did. That is the main problem of this country. Politically we have many rights, but many live under a mental dictatorship or social dictatorship.

ok, it's official we have just broke the record for word count in a thread
actually this id just an educated guess, and i'm trying to lighten up a very dire mood. besides once grifter started posting all oppurtunities for me to post have been closed. damn over achieving, purple posting long winded bastard ;)
besides, since i'm only 19, and havent been abroad, i aperently dont meet  grifters requirements to be acnoleged(i know it's spelled wrong)
it's nice to have your own thread ripped out of your hands, thanks guys

Brain there is nothing preventing you from taking part in the intelligent debate you helped to foster.

Grifter, picking your battles is important.  But there is a time when you're young and have yet to become disillusioned completely with the world when you can believe that maybe your ideas will take root somewhere.  Maybe if you make a stand for everything that is important to you, later you will know better what is truly essential.

Do not disregard our arguments out of hand because we are younger and idealistic.  Do not throw away them because we are arguing small points that seem minor in your worldly context.  

However, I will thank you for providing a forum of debate, for youngsters to try their ideas on the world.  For every generation faces foils from those older, who hold the current reins of power.  And thank you for teaching us that now, so that one day perhaps we can argue these same ideas and actually achieve progress.

Is it even too late for you?

Brain you forum noob, go back to about page 18 and find the threads about the terrorist attack. ?There is one there that will never be passed as the wordiest thread.

Here is the link to it actually http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/YaBB/YaBB.pl?board=GR&action=display&num=1001120423

In addition to being the wordiest or most words per post.  I think it may actually be longest thread.

jesus christ, even when i make a joke i'm not safe from being refuted and humiliated...
have ever made even ONE argument that ANY of you have said' hey, that's a good point?' or is it just simply 'oh, yea right, brain is posting again', and you basically discount everything i say instantly?

dear god has it been a bad day...

oh and thanks loud, i appreciate that someone realizes that even though we dont have the same amount of worldly knoledge, it doesnt neccessairly make our points any less valid than that of a 40 yearold who has world wide experience.

Name three people that will be hurt if "under god" is taken outa the pledge ;D.
i mean alot of people object to the themes of god in our government, why not just get rid of them. Religion is person, and shouldn't have to be dealt onto everyone who wants to say the pledge of aligence. it won't really matter if its gone. But then again, coming from a person who thinks god is a load of BS, i might be wrong.
Jeb
Pray on your own time, and don't waste mine (cause ?we all know i spend my time playing RS :) )

Oh, and a side note...
I typed "god" into google and came up with 34,900,000 hits
I typed "anal" into google and came up with 14,400,000 hits, almost half
i typed "sex" into google and came up with ?86,600,000, twice as much.
what do you value more????

the guy who brought the lawsuit, and i'll let you pick any 2 members of the court of apeals ;D
i would guess that they would most like get herniated discs and multiple of papercuts from the massive amounts of hate mail ;)

That was exactly my point Loud.  That Bondo is in that state in regards to his expatriotism.  That I was there 10 years ago, so can relate...  I'm not bashing him for making that stand, just stating that I think he'll grow out of it, mostly because it's based in his disillusion, not in experience.



If I distegarded your arguments out of hand, I wouldn't bother to debate with you at all.  You are taking that a bit out of context (which is understandable with my long winded posts).  What I wont accept is an argument on Canada or Australlia or Brazil or Whosville is a better place to live from anyone that hasn't actually experienced living and working in those other countries... Somone that can form some context around it...  If you are a high school student, that has only ever lived in America... what makes you think you really know what it's like to live in England?  Because you talk to other high school kids that live there?  What are taxes, or health care, or the price of a cheese burger ($17 USD once to get a shitty cheese burger over there... but the fish and chips are good, and cheap)....  you get my point.  I'm not talking about all arguments... but a specific one, that most people here (and there are exceptions) don't have the experience to even look for.  Sure, Austria may be a great place to grow up compared to the US when you are 14... but wait, would you have the same standard of living??  Would your parents have jobs (what's unemployment there??)... again, you get my point.



Loud, this sounds like you trying to be an ass.... I still pick my fights and fight the good fight.  I still participate in the causes that are important to me.  Too bad you missed that point earlier.  Again, I'm not bashing the young for lack of experience... nor did I say that your opinion on the issues didn't have some merrit.... what I said was specific towards Bondo's expatriotism... and that he wasn't really one in my OPINION, because of the reasons I gave.  If you chose to read that as a general 'shut the hell up because you don't know what you are talking about' then you are wrong, and then maybe you should go back and read it a bit more....

Now Cossack has lived in Russia... and with all it's problems, he still seems to love it.  Good for him.  I'm not bashing Russia, or any other country.  If he likes Russia better then the US, then he should be there.  If he likes the US more but still loves Russia, that's fine too, he should be here and still take pride in his past.  

But anyone that bashes the USA as a place to live (as a couple Canadian kids did a while back) while the only real justification is what they see on TV and maybe a vacation... doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.  

Oh, and Cossack, there were many other factors going on in late 1930's Germany... like trying to dig out of the worst of the depression (it was much worse in Germany then it was anywhere else in the world... the Treaty of Versi (someone get the spelling on that for me) screwed over the Germans.  Germany was the center of the Great Depression.  The Nazi Party pretty much pulled them out of it, and using the tools of hate and propoganda (along with actually a great engineering and industrial tradition) built it back up to a world power (with a lot of turning a blind eye by the rest of the world).  So I don't agree that this is the same kind of situation... America wasn't just carved up and given to other nations (like what happened post WWI)... and we aren't looking for expansion.... otherwise, we would have taken over Mexico and Central America long ago...

Versailles, Grifter.

And once again we misinterpret each other.  My point was more that your refutation of our arguments seemed wearied and condescending.  That's only how it seemed to me.  

Similarly, you found my pointing that out seemingly my acting like an ass.

Neither of us has countered every valid point of the other.  But lets try to stick to those points as opposed to the viewpoint of the argument.  

You are correct in questioning statements about locations made by those who have never lived in them, but recognize that age has little to do with coherent thought.  

Grift, what if I said that Canada is a better place to live because the UN ranked it #1 in the standard of living, best overall country or whatever thing it is, and the US isn't really all that close to the top (not in top 10)?  Would that be educated reasoning?

Loud and Bondo....

The reason I argue age in THIS single area (one country being better to live then another) is because as a non adult, many posters don't have a large enough frame of reference to post intelligent and informed opinions on the subject. ?Like I said, if I thought nobody here could think or debate with some intelligence and logic, I wouldn't waste my time.  But in this specific case, age is a factor, along with living and working in other countries.  It's not about Pride... since I've actually looked into living in Canada, Scottland, Mexico and Japan... I've made a choice on which I believe is best...

Bondo, I'd question what the UN was using as criteria... ?since I haven't seen the report. ?Obviously they had a set of factors they were measuring, so I'd like to know what they were before passing judgement on the whole thing... but if the US wasn't in the top 10, yes, it puts it in the suspect category for me. ?After all, you can argue Canada v the US in many factors... less poverty there and socialized medacine, but socialized medacine has it's price too... both in much higher taxes and in lower quality of service (which is why Canada doesn't have the medical breakthroughs that happen in the US... well, one important reason of many). ?Have you ever checked out a dentest in Europe for example?? ?It's scarry.... trust me (when I compare them to dentests in the USA). ?But again, I'd like to see the report before throwing out lots of opinions.

Grift, I think it is a combination of numerous factors such as human rights, environmental factors, economic factors such as unemployment and average quality of life, social factors such as crime rate.  I couldn't find it in the few minutes I looked at their site but it is well known.

The main reason I consider reports like that suspect Bondo are the way they weigh the factors and how they get their data...  

I'll give you a good example...  but one internal to America and Detroit... but you'll get the point.  

In Detroit, the last Census had us at under 1 million people (for the first time in a long time).  This is a big deal for many reasons...  it means less federal money returned... it is the figure that gets reported and measured against all the other figures...  

Now, take that info and compare it to other info that the City has... if you go by valid driver's liscenses, there are well over 1 million living in Detroit...  same if you look at other factors (the many many people from the middle east living here, not reported)....  So figure that there are actually 1.5 million living in an area that is only reported at 900k.  Then measure crime and other factors against it... numbers will come out better or worse (depending on what you were measuring)...  but the numbers will be wrong.  

Now, this gets even worse with Detroit.... as this year (just like the last two), they failed to report the crime numbers to the FBI before the deadline...  which means the figures will never make it into a national report.... which means those numbers could be better or worse nationally if they were really measured...

All this for one city of about 1 million people.  And that's just the tip of the iceburg.

Now, how many other cities have these kinds of inconsistancies??  In America?  In the world??  How do other countries report these things??  

You get my point.

I want to see the particulars on how they collected the data and what the weighting factors are that they judged by.  I'm cynical enough to not believe anything I read without checking it out first....

But if the rankings can be incorrect so they can be correct.  I'll go by the "it all evens out in the end" aproach here.  With that many factors, slight mistakes won't matter because others will have mistakes as well.

I think we exhausted our stream of ideas. ?Wasn't it about this point in the terrorism thread where a guy named Bob who was an Afgan started messing with someone named Joe....

or something like that, I don't remember ???

Anyway, I just thought you might want to see this:

http://www.newsobserver.com/editorials/story/1501753p-1532212c.html

That's a link to an editorial that appeared in my local paper today. ?(I hope the link will stay valid beyond today - I'm not sure)

Anyway, it was written by a professor at the UNC law school. ?Compare it to some of my posts, if you will ?;D

In particular I was pleased to note that he used almost the exact same idea when he said:

Smart man (I think this is the point in the Terrorism thread where discussion of pot for no reason (oops already did that) and spam entered in.  We really should bump the Terrorism thread up for all the noobs to see, that is some classic assing going on.

well , i agree. it seems that we have reached an impass, and that untill something happens in this story. we are stuck

thus in order to keep keep this thread moving(too lazy to ?start another) i suggest that we talk about the school choice ruling ?handed down by the supreme court (this is a big local issue)

the meat of the case was that taxpayer money was given to those who go to underachieving public schools so they could attend private shcools, often ?religious ones.

the supreme court has ruled that this WAS constitutional. ?what do you think?

I think it stinks. ?Public schools are called public because they are paid for by the goverment (through taxpayers) and are free to attend (sort of). ?Private schools are called private because they are funded by the individuals attending it. ?The fact that it talks about poor public schools doesn't matter. ?We need reform of the education system in order to eliminate poor public schools, we don't need to make them poorer by taking away money and giving it to private schools. ?And the goverment can't afford to send every kid to private school so it isn't fair, some kids get the help, some don't.  The religious aspects aren't important to this case as the individual would be choosing the school probably and thus wouldn't choose a religious school if they weren't.

Loud... the one difference I have with his argument is that tradition still matters to me.  If this had just been a new change, this year... I'd be against it.  For the same reasons I'm against taking it out.  It's the tradition I wish to protect, and since I see no real harm in keeping it in (the effects to the family of the people FIGHTING to get it out is not because of the words.. but because of the FIGHT).  Once they start stealing our traditions... where will it stop.  Sombody will find everything offensive, so if something is going to be edited or deleted, there needs to be just cause... I don't see that here.  

If you want another logical argument.... the first ammendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  Well, being an athiest is being WITHOUT religion, right?  The pledge is not a LAW, right?  I say that the constitution does not cover this area at all... so the courts (which are NOT allowed to MAKE laws, ony determine if they are constitutional), should not be allowed to rule upon it.  

On to the Public Schools thoughts....

In Michigan, they were playing around with a voucher system... any kids that go to private school get a voucher, and that money comes off the tuition, from public school tax money.  I have mixed feelings on this... many mixed feelings.  

First, my wife now teaches at a private school.  The private school's have much better classrooms then pubic schools (in this area), better equiptment, and smaller classes.  But the teachers aren't paid dick (my wife works for the "richest parish" in Michigan... and still makes less then $30k/year... with a masters degree).  My wife did teach at Cass Tech... which is the stud public school in the city of Detroit... this is where all the smartest kids in Detroit Public schools go... they have to test to get in and keep up good grades to stay there.. or get sent back to their local public school.  Conditions there were horrible.  For two years, there wasn't tile on the floor of her room.. just bare concrete.  They had very few computers in the building... none in the science department (she teaches high school chem and biology and math).  Her class size was over the legal limit in Michigan...  there weren't enough books to give to each of her students...  and for two years, I paid for all the in class experiments for her... because there was no budget for labs (and chem without labs is like learning programing with no computers.... you can do it, but damn, it sucks).  

Now, with all that in mind.... I'm of a mixed mind.  When I went to HS... I had none of those issues...  classes were fine, the school had plenty of money for everything....  But, I grew up in a nice neighborhood.  I'm with Bondo that the whole system needs to be improved, but there are so many issues around it, that I understand why it's not a simple fix....

So, when my kids are old enough, they'll probably go to private school... because my wife works there and a few other reasons.... so why should I be paying for public schools if my kids aren't using them??  (one valid argument).  Why should tax money from the other side of the state go to help Detroit schools??  Why are we trowing money into public schools... why not make them all private (I've payed $8000 in city taxes since I've lived here... and I'll pay another $10000 before my first kid see's the inside of a school)  Getting the point?

Lots of issues to deal with.... the biggest yet to come... the school boards themselves.... biggest political whores there are.  The Detroit Public School Board members each make six figures.... expense trips to Vegas and Florida (why does a school board need to go as a group to Vegas??)... has car's and police protection at their meetings....  the list goes on and on....  (yes, this is the same district without enough books and no tile on the classroom floor for two years at their BEST school).  The state has tried to take action... but how do you?

So, in the meantime... there are all these issues, and hell, even as a tax paying adult, I don't know how I'd try to solve this problem....  and no matter what it is, it's going to piss off a lot of people.

And Bondo, using the voucher system, you aren't giving money to the private schools... you are giving back to the tax payer who isn't benefitting from public schools.... there is a subtle difference.  

Well, maybe I don't have a good feel on this as I went to a public school that is ranked (by one magazine) to be one of the top 100 high schools in the nation, we were ranked in the top 50 for music programs, and last but not least we were ranked 2nd on Jay Leno's snobbies schools top 10 list.  As a school we have a good hundred computers, and although class sizes aren't small they aren't bigger than the rooms allow.  It does help that the district's one high school is only 1200 kids in size, it also doesn't hurt to be based in a wealthy area (need I say more than The Broadmoor).

Anyway back to the point, so you are saying they only get the money they paid towards public schools back?  I suppose that isn't unfair but it still further cripples public schooling.

i heard this question broached on a radio talk show, and it got my mind to thinking(i never heard the response though, so all the reasoning is my own)
why cant the school vougher issue solve the pledge of allegance problem?
hold on here,because my reasoning might be a tad rough at times, but the whole case makes sence (in my wazrped mind at least)

this atheist is complaining that his daughter is being exposed to religion through the public school system, right.
and with this whole issue with the school choice system was that, childeren were often going to religious schools.
often but not always
so,i thought hey, why cant they just give the ruy a voutcher and then send the kid to a private shcool?
odds are the kid would get a better education, would NOT have to say under god, and then there would be no public response, no nastay hate mail, and no scathing newspaper editorials for acting unamerican in a time of war. this whole issue wouldnt even a blip on the radar screen
the under god suporters wouldnt care, they would still have god in the pledge; the athiests would be happy, they could get to go to a better school and not have to worry about religion being 'forced' to religion; and the public would be happy just tobe able to watch the news without seing out country being smoothed over and picked apart by (in their minds) frivoless lawsuits and excessive litigation(they could then get back to watching the stockmarket react to scandal after buisness scandal as they hope that their retirement package wont shrink two a few pennies by the time they get to that age)

everybody is happy, nobody has to file suit, and it's off the media radar. sounds like a fine souution to me

I don't think sending kids to a private school is a solution to having unconstitutional public school behavior.  Religion shouldn't be in schools other than in social studies talking about ancient religions and historical religious conflicts.  Those who want religion in their school should go to a religious school, and no, they shouldn't get a voucher to do so.

I know I'm a little late, but it would feel wrong if I didn't butt in and give my 2 cents...

I haved mixed feelings about the pledge. Yes, if you want to be  head-up-your-ass PC (politically correct, not the computer kind of head-up-your-ass PC) bitch, you probably can make a halfway decent argument that "under God" is infringing on your freedom of religion. However, you really need to think about what you are arguing first. This phrase only refers to a generic deity with absolutely no connection to any religion. Like GRIFT said, it is a tradition that, like it or not, has and always will be a part of our collective American culture. If you really wish to get rid of every such reference, we will be here a long time erasing a lot of stuff from our history. On an interesting note, I would really like to see someone testify in an appeal in support of this ruling and say "so help me God" as he/she is being sworn in.

As for the public school voucher system, while it does have it's merits, I have found (or at least with how they planned to do it in CA before it got voted down) was that it wasn't really feasible. Think about this. If you give people vouchers to leave bad public schools, those schools will have even less money and will get even worse. There has to be some method for improving those schools, not just leaving them to rot.

Oh yeah, if certain people think our government is so corrupt yet the only action they take to change it is bitching on these forums, get out of our glorious nation.

What would you suggest I do other than bitch...vote?  Voting doesn't matter in our two party system.  I won't vote for a Democrat or a Republican because they both have their heads up their asses.  And the chance of any third party getting elected is approximately nil.  Oh, and I live in a very republican district of a very republican city in a very republican state (cept Boulder and Denver).  My vote is not going to get a smart liberal elected.  If significant election reform happened maybe parties outside the main two would have a chance but until then...

Actually Bondo, they don't even get close to all their taxes back in those vouchers.... just a piece of it.

The basic idea is that they figure out how much $$$ per student goes into the schools from the local taxes...  then you can get a voucher for that amount to go towards the private school tuition.  

Yes, it is taking money out of the school... along with the major need of that money.... the student.

But they would be much better served cutting out the waste and getting thier shit together then to worry about the tuition vouchers.  Yes, I was lucky enough to go to a public charter school in a community that passed any specail millege that came up (exta taxes for schools that get voted on).  If they got some guys that knew how to run a budget in there.. and not just line their own pockets... it would be a great start.

Ace - I think that's come up in the courts as well.  I do believe you're not required to say "so help me god" if you do not wish to.  Correct me if I'm wrong - but I think there's an alternative areligious oath.  

Also, I forget which religion - I think it's Jehovah's Witnesses - does not allow the swearing of oaths.

They make a "solemn promise" as I recall. . .

That last one was a great example of starting a post at work, then finishing it at home later....

So on to the three posts that came in between....

Ace, I was going to bring up that tradition as well (swearing on the Bible or other holy books... but they do have a way around it for athiests... they take a more simple vow at least in Michigan.

As for the vouchers taking away from the schools that need it... yeah, in a way, but is it fair to pay taxes to those public schools when you are paying to send your kids to private schools?  And if you answer yes... why not socialize medacine and all other services?  

And Bondo... you can't have it half way.... if you are for vouchers, they are for all private schools.. religious or not.  Don't forget all of you guys that 90% of private schools are connected to one church or another.  There are others, but they are usually very small.  You also have to remember that the school districts that are in trouble are not the ones in rich neighborhoods like the ones we grew up in... (well, upper middle class at least).  The districts in trouble are the ones in the bigger cities... where polotics and corruption are rampart.

Also, don't let your cynicism blind you in voting... in your old home of Minn, an independant governer was elected a few years ago... no?  If it can happen there... it can grow, can't it?  Jesse made a big splash... and has done more good for independant candidates then any other person since we went to a two party system.  Like him or not, he made a big impact and some great points.  He was also upfront and honest (so refreashing in polotics) and even kept his envolvement in WWF and XFL to earn his money (instead of voting himself a raise like most guys in his place... or taking kickbacks... etc.).  So don't act like things can't change... they always do and already have.

You are correct Loud, except each state may have it's own little twist on how they handle it.

Yes, go vote! Campaign, support candidates who believe in similiar issues as you, petition, whatever. At the bare minimum vote. I thought you would at least do that, but I guess not. If there is one thing that pisses me off more than anything else, it's people who complain about the current situation yet do NOTHING to change things. In my eyes, since you didn't vote, you might as well shut the hell up and put a "I love President Bush" bumper sticker because that's what we (well technically they since I wasn't 18 yet) chose for you.

As for the swearing in processes or oaths, I'm sure if your states have such laws that CA has something equal. Does anyone know if there are similar rules for federal courts?

another great hing that jesse didn't do
no spin, he told it like it was, and didnt care who he offended. i wish he was wisconsins governor
of course there was no way he could have beat tommy. no way in hell

Grifter, I don't think I ever said I was for vouchers in any way, shape or form.  Therefore I wasn't wanting to have it both ways.  Also, I didn't mean to ask if they got all of their taxes back, I meant their taxes for the school which you said they did.  Most likely though this money isn't even close to being able to cover the expense of a private school so it will still take a family with money to go to private school.

And Colorado isn't Minnesota, the Jesse Ventura thing doesn't really apply to a state where Republicans win by large margins.  Maybe in 10-15 years but not now.

Poor attitude there Bondo.  Everyond said that Jesse couldn't do it either... but he did.  All it takes is someone that impresses the people.  The power is still there, you just need to get past the apathy (which you are a prime example of in this part of the thread).  

Being a Democrat or Republican is like being in a union.... you fight like hell on the inside... tow the line on the outside... and get all the funding.  

So what does it take?  It takes either a lot of money (Ross) or a personality that is so refreashing that the money isn't needed... a more grass roots campaign (Jesse).  Or a combination somwhere in the middle.  

But Ace is right...  people that don't take part in our political process give up any weight to their bitching about the government.  There are lots of ways to make a difference in this country... and remember, what the President does has much less effect on your life then what your mayor, governer, state rep or congressman does.  There are plenty of indies in local and state government... even a few in the House or Representatives... and one Governer...  so don't act like the two party system is the only game in town... it's just the biggest, for now.  Then there are all the other ways to help that Ace pointed out....

Also, you realize that you can always MOVE from that Republican bastion.... right?  And besides, you give a party too much credit... we get plenty of Democrats elected in Michigan.... and we are the HOME of the Republican Party (it was started here... either Kalamazoo or Grand Rapids... can't remember which.  But it's still a stronghold).  Heh... our governer (a shiteating GOP member that I dispise) pretty much ended his career when Michigan's votes went to Gore... how could the home of the GOP vote for Gore... hehe.

Anyway, there are lots of reasons to get involved, and no good ones not to.  Hell, you are in college... you probably have time on your hands (I know I did back then).  You could be the one that starts the fight to get rid of the Electoral College.  That would be a huge reform, and the bigest step forward into cleaning up the two party system.  Think about how much more it would mean if the indies popular vote got them some of those federal dollars for next time... instead of getting nothing because they scored no electoral votes...

wait a second... i thought the gop started in ripon wisconsin
*goes to check encyclopaedia*
oh no, says here it was jackson MI

than what the hellis the ripon connection to the gop???

Jackson... I always thought it was further west then that.  Grand Rapids is a much bigger city... and Kalamazoo is as conservative as it gets if you don't count the university.  Ah well... I knew it started here in Michigan anyway.  One more thing to curse this place for...

ok grift, after a little cross referencing, i have found information that wil allow  you to curse another state for the republican party.

the encyclopaedia britannica has the following information(not exactly word for word, but its close enough that i need to cite the source)

there was a meeting held on march 20 1854 in ripon, in the now famous(or infamous, your choice) little white school house ,that formed the 'great northern party which came to power as the republican party 6 years later under lincon

the convension that launched the republicans was held in jackson on july 6th of the same year

thus,you can now curse 2 states.

trying to spread the love  ;)
-brain

Frankly I see no need to curse Ripon...

All this "party of Lincoln" stuff is crap.  While the GOP is organizationally the same party as was formed in the mid-1800's, idealogically they have reversed.

Today's Republicans are more similar to yesteryear's Democrats, and vice versa.

Bring back the Wigs!!  Now that was a political party ;)

true dat grift
we need ?whig party canidate for the next election.... anyone want too ?voulenteer
;)

Well, I would but unfortunately I won't be 35.  I'll be elgible to run for President in the 2020 election though.

use the time to brush up on those legal skills bondo, you're gonna need em

I don't follow, why will I need legal skills?

so you realize what those bills are saying. you dont want to sign over your power to a goldfish do you?

You don't have to be a lawyer to know how to read...and you don't have to be able to read to be President, after all, Bush got elected. ;)

true
come to think about it bush threw any argument for needing any sort of intelligence right out the wndow

Hmmmmm, well people I must toss my 2 cents around this little political garbage.

First of all: Is the pledge unconstitutional? HELL NO! People get bent out of shape because of a simple phrase in ?One nation under God?. What crap, I don?t see any ever bitching about about the ? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, SO HELP YOU GOD? phrase used in court proceedings. It is entirely lame to whine about such ridiculous things. Seperation of church and state was meant to protect lives and stop the Government body of a state from persecuting those with different religions.

Second: Jesse Ventura is a CockSmoker. I live in Minnesota, and although he did win as a 3rd party member, he did absolutely nothing for our state except raise my tuition at the community college by 13% while his kids threw parties in the Governors Mansion. He sucks ASS, was worthless, and got nothing done! NOTHING AT ALL!!! Trust me, I watched him for 2 years do nothing.

Third: OK, as far as Prezident Bush goes, Who would you rather have seen in office after September 11th? Gore? OMG, that would have been the biggest fucking joke around, him and Clinton were the Anti-Christ. Do you have any idea of how many ppl died in their administration? As in ppl close to them, it was like 35-40, fuckin criminals is all they were. Bush is a great Prezident, sure you can bash him all you want, say he isnt smart, blah blah blah, but the simple fact of the matter is he is a guy who tells it like it is.

He isnt trying to impress any ppl with big words, and fancy ass speeches. He knows the real deal, and tells it like it is. No other person could have come on National tv after Sept. 11 and deliver that speech with such conviction, you could see how pissed off he was, he wanted to say fuck you lets dance, but couldnt. Any other piece of shit politician would have pussy-footed around it all. He meant business and you could see that, so Im sorry to say if I offend anyone, but STFU, Bush is a great man who we should all support and respect. Think any of you could better? NOPE, niether could I.

Why do all you think that since you read some bullshit from a history book (and it is Bullshit) that makes you so smart? Learn the real deal from keepin your ear to the streets, and listening, read between the lines, damn!

Nuff said from me, Kilzo

I'd have much rather had Ralph Nader in office, the man is a genius and not foolish like the Democrats in terms of "liberals".  Yes, I'm a liberal and I think the Democratic party is just as bad as the Republican party.

As for reading things in the history books, they usually aren't up to date enough so I don't know anyone who would have read about Bush in the history books.

3 things.
1 bush sucks, gore sucks more and nader(the one who didnt suck corperate dick) didnt have a chance
2 i bet alot of people could have made that speach before cngress, it just happened that bush was the one forced into it
3 i used to keep my ear to the streats till i was run over. so i wouldnt reccomend that to anyone anytime soon ?;)

Bondo where do you get this crazy idea that Bush was elected  ;)

Anyway, being liberal, you really ought not to equate the Democratic and Republican parties.  I wouldn't accolade the Dems either, but there is a difference.

It's a difference I would liken to that between Pinochet and Al Capone.  The Democrats may be bad, but they're not evil  ;)

And Kilzo, calling Clinton-Gore the antichrist is a little harsh.  If anything, they were a pervert and a bore.  But being boring isn't a sin.

If Gore were president, he wouldn't have delivered a firey speech after the attacks.  However, he would also not be waging a foolish indeterminate war that kills children at weddings.

My prediction of what could have been -

Gore:  orders an immediate surgical strike in Afganistan that kills some Taliban and Al-Qaeda leaders but not all.  A second one misses and hits a school.  Fighting stops and Taliban/Al-Qaeda are monitored closely and become ineffective.  Other countries applaud the US for not reorganizing the country as Bush has done.  Then, Gore switches gears and focuses on domestic problems - but the war-hungry populace gives him a 40-50% approval rating even as he averts economic crisis.

Nader:  declares no large-scale war, and instead completely overhauls the intelligence department.  the revamped CIA sends assassins into Afganistan who successfully remove the responsible parties. Meanwhile, the US adopts a new environmental standard, wins international praise, and stops meddling in the middle east.  Countries stop hating us.
The economy never falters as there were no stupid tax cuts and optimism remains high, and the dot-com boom continues indefinately.  "under god" is removed from the pledge of allegiance, and miraculously everyone in the country sprouts common sense,  and the US becomes a role model for history.  nader becomes dictator for life, but rules benevolently over the entire world.  After his death, the by now united countries of the world co-exist peacefully, and everyone shares a high standard of living.

Buchanan:  launches nuclear strikes on all arab nations as well as israel (because of the jews there)  Russia and china feel threatened and simultaneously fire their entire nuclear arsenals at the US, leading to global holocaust and the destruction of the human race






yeah...so I'm bored...sue me

And Kilzo, I obviously do think I could do a better job than Bush, or else I wouldn't be so outspoken.

However, I'm too unelectable to pursue politics.  Why?   ....because I'm outspoken!

So unless you want to hand me a mandate and give me the office, the US will just have to make do with crackheads like Bush.

Loud, you speak the truth...and my problem with getting elected is the same, that and mentally I've got more than a few wires loose.

A funny joke I heard on the daily show when they were talking about the Supreme Court ruling that retarded people couldn't be executed (and Europe lets out a similtaneous "duh, about time those stupid gits got one thing right").  Anyway, in the discent, Scalia wrote something about the Supreme Court was making the decision against what the public majority wants and that it was abusing its power.  So Jon Stewart naturally joked that somehow this wasn't a problem when they did the same to elect a president? ;)

I like it!  Great one  ;D

Btw - I hate that ABC is pulling Politcally Incorrect...sigh

Funny Loud....  wrong, but funny (well, you were right about Pat anyway).

I'm suprised that Bondo is more pro Gore though.  Gore being an environmentalist and all.  

To Kilzo, many, many people could have done that speach as well as Bush... it's not like he wrote it.  I respect the office, not the man in it.  That is my right as a voting American.

As for Jesse... he seemed to do exactly what he said he was going to do... what more can be expected?  I heard a few of his speaches (ok, many), and remember him saying that his only duties were to balance the budget and veto any stupid laws that the people didn't agree with.  He pointed out very clearly that the Governer doesn't make laws, he just has the power to veto them.  What exactly were you expecting from a governer...  I know he did a better job the Engler has been doing in Michigan (this bastard keeps diverting funds that were meant for public schools to other projects.)

Yeah I think you're right on that Grifter...

Btw - someone please lock this thread before it passes my record terrorism debate thread.... ;)

 LoL so no government agenency can tell you that you can't say Under God eh?

techncally nobody can, unless they have a bigger gun ;)

p.s. it's good to be back from vacation, and damn did you people get buzy while i was gone

    That "bigger gun" stuff reminded me of this quote. "The single definition of government I've ever seen that makes sense is that it's the organization which claims the right to kill people who won't do what it wants."
     -- Poul Anderson, "The Avatar"

ah, finally i have a recant post form you lorentho
i see that you joined up while i was away, and would just like to say hello
you seem to be quite opinnionated one
you'll do well here :D
nice to meet you ?

a fellow forum whore
-Brain

To any moderator...we need to have this thread locked before it passes the Terrorism Debate of last September/October.  That was much more classic than this one and needs to keep its record and not let these noobs like Brain get the honor of having the most replied to thread, that should be Loud's honor ;).

sombody's jealous....
but seriousy bondo, why am i not enitled to have  the recognitoin of starting a very hot thread(speaking of  which we need a icon for a thread of over 50 replys).
why am i any less worthy than loud? (and you better have an EXCELENT answer here bondo)

Loud contributed a lot to his thread ;)

and you're implying that i didnt contribute anyhing?
you're harsh bondo, you're harsh
(besides, what the hell am i supposed to contribute when i agree with grifter? he covers EVERY point that i want to make. do you know how annoying that is?)

I do my best to cover all the points I can.. and especially to be annoying ;)

MWAHAHAHAHA

it's alive!
IT"S ALIVE!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAH!!!!!
IT"S ALIVE!!!!!!


thanks ace :D :D

Well, I am about to commit the gravest forum sin of all,posting before reading all posts in the thread.  Instead I only read page 7.  As a result, no doubt, I will reiterate many things others have said.  oh well, don't care.  Those more aged forum posters know then when it comes to politics I'm neither uninformed nor stupid, though I may be a frickin' nutcase.  With that said:

1) Brian, you're a idiot.  Plain and simple, no two ways about it.  Loudnotes may have had a bad habit of posting excessivly back in the day... but at least he did it with intelligence.  maybe you could learn from that example.. maybe, but i doubt it.

2) My rant on "Under God":

a) The phrase was added on during the Eisenhower administration.  It was to show that Americans were the antithesis of the godless Communists.  It is a left-over from the cold war.  No heritage there except for our failings.

b) The first ammendment allows for the freedom of religon.  thus, freedom of religon implies the freedom to no religon.  "Under God" violates that right.  However, under previous court ruling though required to stand for the pledge citezans are not forced to repeat it.  One must ask hough... is not standing for the pledge a validation of?

c) Fundimentally, democracy is a government based on the will of the people.  In our case, it was a replacement for a monarchy where the monarch was annointed by god.  we long ago rebelled against that.  though the founders still believed in god it was seperated from the state.  Of course, half the founders also believed in slavery, so there intents are foolish to mention.  All we have left is the pandora's box of an institution they created, an institution in which the church and state are seperate.

d) As much as the Christian Right hates to believe it, we are a godless country.  We should have a godless pledge.  Humanism is where our future lies, not god.

e) Finally, for you grammar freaks, the "Under God" clause is an appositive.  this means that it is not vital for the life of the sentance.  We can eliminate it at will.  Eschew Surplusage. How fun!

3)Of course, in spite of all these truths, I don't care if the "under god" stays or goes.  If it goes, good riddence.  if it stays?  that's acceptable too  Though the clause is not part of our heritage, god, for good or ill, is.

4)I went to Japan recently.  They have the most interesting religious mindest there.  religon is not about faith or god or  sin or jihad, or anything.  It is simple reverance and tradition, to the point of praxis.  it's definitly an interesting way to look at it.  While I was there I bought a katana, and amazingly, got it back through Seattle customs.  Swords are kewl ;D

One thing I just thought about: Do these God-less bastards want to get rid of "God Bless America" too?

It doesn't matter.  "God Bless America" isn't institutionalized.  The godless bastards can hope and (ironically) pray to get rid of it,but there is neither the means nor a concievable reason to

of course, the aforementioned bastards arn't as heartless as we make them out to be.  i doubt they have much beef with a song like that.

Well it was sung by the entire Senate. I would call that institutionalized.

Who cares about God Bless America, it is a lame song.  We need less God Bless America and more I'm Proud To Be An American, that song kicks ass and has no mention of God or religion (to my knowledge).

Also, we need more posts from members of jn, they have sense unlike this stuck-up conservative types ;).

Die. Rot in some God-less, European, socialist hell.

Ace, I'm agnostic, not athiest.  I just think the song is boring, not something that would get me worked up into a patriotic ferver (well, in truth nothing would get me to be patriotic except for Nader as president).

what bondo fails to realize hear is that short of the national anthem, god bless america is one of the most moving patriotic songs we have, that is why is is song so often. proud to be american, while patriotic, just isnt as moving

and roy, what the hell are you judging that comment on, that little post war i had with loth? read some of my otherposts, in earlier threads, hell look at the first few posts in this thread, mb then you might see that i am not an idiot, but do actually have an iq of 100 or above

if you are going to judge me, so be it, but do so after you have ALL the facts

So when the line "God bless the USA" comes in, that wouldn't count?  It's near the end of the song.

And, it's about as inoffensive as saying "Under God" in my opinion.  If you don't believe in a higher being, then it doesn't mean anything.

Roy, here's the counter to your opinions... I'll be breif for a change....

Declaring the words "Under God" unconstitutional is the courts going one step past where they are supposed to tred.  The pledge isn't a law... it's a pledge.  Just like the oath you take to testify in court.  You don't have to say the oath with any reference to God... and you don't have to say the pledge either.  The courts are supposed to look at our laws, not our traditions... they over stepped their mandate on that one.  

Yes, I agree that the first ammendment is supposed to protect everyones choice about religion... but that doesn't mean that the word God makes something unconstitutional... or the courts would have to make themselves unconstitutional... I'm pretty sure the last time I saw a picture of the Supreme Court, the words "In God We Trust" were still there....

it was still there the last time i was there in '96 or 98'  (not exactly sure on the date)

Ok, so Proud to be an American has God in it, doesn't change that it is much better than God Bless America.

I won't even bother debating that, but the point is that the reference to a higher deity of some sort is a longstanding part of American culture and tradition that does not infringe upon your first amendment rights unless you are a God-less communist bastard.

In response to the many comments since my post...

Bondo: There are only 4 jn members, at least 3 regretfully inactive in play, 2.5 on the forum.  A pity.

Brian: As stated in the intro/psuedo-disclaimer of my previous post, I have not the time to read all the forumramblings of you, your less-esteemed colleagues (Loth) or your far greater-esteemed colleagues (Ace, Grift)  I based my opinion on maybe 15 of your most recent posts.  Those posts are incomprehensible blitherings, and I was stating my opinions on them.   Your older posts may be better. (translation: suck it.) Good luck, good hunting and god bless

Ace:  In 1957 several students of Spelman College went to watch a session of the Georgia State Legislature.  Spelman, at the time, was all-women, and all-black.  Instead of sitting in the "colored section" the young ladies decided to sit in the main gallary assigned to the white viewers.  Instead of continuing with their daily, and no doubt pressing, buisness of the day, the legislature went into an uproar.  The Speaker of the house went to the mic and said "You nigras get over to where you belong!  We got segregation in the state of Georgia." The other members stood on their seats an shouted at the students.  

A long-winded and probably unneccesary correlation, I understand, but it simply shows that just because the whole of the Senate acts a certain way doesn't mean it's an institution.  Or that even if it is [an institution], that doesn't make it right.

Grift:  thanks, as always, for your logic.  24 years of schooling does a man good.  I disagree with you, but understand your sentiment, surely.  

As for the "In God We Trust" on the Supreme Court, and obviously on the dollar bill, you and i both understand why that will probably never change, court rulings or otherwise.  Money: bucks, green, dough, cash, dead presidents.  it costs to change an engraving, to change a bill.   And those things, unlike "under god" are part of our heritage

I just think it's a shame the Senate was singing instead of, well, I dunno, balancing the fucking budget.  

A good civics lesson though, to show that the branches are in compotition even as they strive for the greater good in America.

well, i'll agree that those last 15 posts of mine were stupid


and i have a question, do you really thing that the extra time spent singing really delayed the budget that much? the budget is most likely still stuck in comittiee right now, and chances are those members didnt sing

Since you didn't read the whole thread Roy, I'll give you one more tidbit....

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

That's the part of Constitution in question.  So, first, the Pledge isn't a law (unless I'm greatly mistaken).  Second, the Pledge doesn't prohibit the free exercise of anything.

So, how exactly can the pledge be unconstitutional?

There are plent of arguments both for and against the wording... but my main point is that the Courts aren't supposed to have the power to challenge anything but a law... and that it's up to Congress to make those laws... so that if someone thinks it should be illegal to say the pledge in school... they should bring a bill before congress (through their representative).  

It is as simple as this.  The pledge is a patriotic statement, if they are forcing kids to say the pledge then they are forcing kids to be patriotic.  Forced patriotism is better known as fascism.  So the pledge in its entirety should be gotten rid off (or at least not forced on people) in an effort not to be fascists.

bondo, if the united states were truly facist as you claim, you would have been killed a long time ago

I don't know about where you live... but they don't force ANYONE to say it here.  The only rule is to stand durring it (as a sign of respect... like standing for the national anthym.)

And a fascist society would not allow anyone to disagree with it like this...

'Im proud to be an American" is an Awsome song.
Star spangle banner is to but, it was A peom and it metions god and its way to long But it is Still An awsome song.

Grifter, I don't consider the option to not say the pledge while others say it as not being forced to.  Call it fascism through peer pressure.

Actually the song is only the fist verses of the poem.  And it's a great poem (stirring is the word that comes to mind).  And it does mention God once... it is where "In God We Trust" comes from... (at least it's popular use in America).

For those of you that have never seen it... the complete Star Spangled Banner (The Defense of Fort McHenry) by Francis Scott Key:

Oh, say can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, now conceals, now discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines on the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! O long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wiped out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner forever shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!


[/list][/color]

Bondo, look at all the problems in our world today. Do you see where having little kids say the pledge before class rates on that list? No, because it's so far down and buried under a mountain of real problems. I can't believe this has become such a huge issue. For fuck's sake, this will not damage someone for life or even inconvenience them in all reality. You don't like it, don't say. It's that simple. But don't take away the ability of good Americans to say the pledge in schools or elsewhere.

No, it isn't important, but we might as well make it right while it is having attention put on it rather than just burying it to tackle more important issues.

make it right?
maybe in your mind bondo thare is a clear cut black and white line as to what is and isnt right, but i dont think that in everyone elses mind that this issue is so cut and dried.

assume for the sake of argument that right and wrong are mutually exclusive, no overlap at all.
if we make it 'right' by one group of people(a minority let's say) then aent we making it 'wrong' for another group of people(in this case, the majority)  isnt that forcing one groups will upon another? and according you your own post earlier a form of facisim?

this hypothetical situation is not to different from the pledge of alegance issue. either the words are there, or they aren't. no two ways about that. and for some groups(the minority) this is very wrong, to correct it would make it wrong for the majority(who are currently enjoying being 'right')

now if you take the theorys of what is moraly acceptable (grifter, you should know which one i'm talking about here) thar ever does the most good for the most people is morally right.ever see Star Trek 2, the wrath of kahn?  remember spocks quote "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few:" this means that the majority is in the right, after all, it's only simple logic

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one"

That is the full quote, and it is based on the Utilitarian moral principle of maximizing general happiness.  The thing is, we have this thing called the constitution which doesn't give in to majorities if the minorities rights are violated.  So by this it would be right to make a change that a majority would find to be wrong.  Utilitarian morality doesn't matter in this case.  You could argue that it should be that way but it isn't...and IMO shouldn't be.  You can't ignore a few people's needs just because many want to.  Utilitarian works in some situations but not in broad reaching policy.

And in my post I never said what right would be,  I just said that whatever is right (regardless of me thinking Under God and the Pledge in general don't belong in public schools) should be decided at the moment as people are talking about it.

Hmmmm, what this all boils down to is the need for good leadership. Someone that can get things done. In other words you need me. Vote me Tsar of the United States and I will make a cabinent out of gr members. Grifter, my good freind grifter will be in charge of supervising the production of sheep, Kilzo will be in my council of funk, I will head my war department and proclaim myslef dahli lama of the armed forces. Bondo will be in charge of executing people and will be givine the title of govornor of texas. Rapid will be in the graffiti council of doom and will be hence known as Darth Rapid. Zak will be in charge of Pot. And so forth. I am sorry but I had to do a unserious post. Now back to being serious. Kilzo you are a redneck, no offence, but Bush is a corporate lapdog. This Enron thing and Worldcom thing is of his making and his advisors. Dick Cheny is being investigated. The secretary of the army is being convicted of fraud by illegally raising energy rates in california when he worked for enron. Almost every single member of his cabneint is being investigated for corporate (white collar) crimes. Bush is terrible on the domestic front. Now there is talk about attacking a country that has not even transgressed upon us, Bush sucks in forign affairs. He is loosing support from the United Kingdom! The UK is supposed to be the U.S.s bitch! (figurativly speaking, Tony Blair loves the US) To say Bush is a good president is to say I think Hitler turns me on. (even though his mustache is kinda hot). This is Bush's career so far. Mediocre job at beggining, then 9/11. Makes some speaches, then he orders a war that beats the shit outta the Taliban(any president could have done that) Takes away some liberties for the sake of security. Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither- Ben Franklin (that quote has been said many times recently). The success in the recent US invaision of Afghanistan is attributed to Gen Tommy Franks. Bush gives the order to kick their ass the commandering genral does everything else. Corrrect me if I am wrong. FDR managed the country Eisnhower and Nimitz handled the war. FDR did not defeat them.

hey bondo, i know that's what kirk and spock say at the end, but i think spock says the shorter version earlier in the movie

Cossak, putting me in charge of execution and making me Govenor of Texas is probably a bad idea.  Do you know how many of those damned Republicans I'd need to execute before they accept that execution of criminals is wrong? ;)

cossak, what can i do? hopefully something fun. how about the propaganda department?

bondo, who's gonna miss a few politicians, after all, we'll be in charge

Brain, get it right, it is the Ministry of Truth.

Me being the head of execution would obviously work for the Ministry of Love.

Fine Brain you can be the Senior Homey G of propagnda, and bondo you re quite fine there. Hell if I care this will never happen in the first place. Hell be anything you want, supreame council of bitches and hoes.

Grift:This is why I like it more when your on my side, cause your smarter than me .  But that doesn't matter, cause i'm still a stubborn sonodabitch.

The fact that we are made to stand isn't just a recognition of respect for the pledge, it is complete justification for it.  Not right to make people speak, stand, sit, or shit for what they don't believe in.  Not in this country.

Of course in some places you don't even need to stand anymore.  In Falmouth Massachusetts for example, thanks to the protests of one girl, you no longer have to stand for it.  that girl is now attending Harvard University and has a writing deal with the prestiguous magazine that bondo reads religiously, High Times.

Bondo:  There are certain lines one should not cross with most any American, and I believe you have.  if for nothing else than to make you arguments more effective, don't call the US government fascist until we start toasting jews and gypsies.

Casper:  I bet you like "Born in the U.S.A" by Bruce Springstein alot too.  Did you know that that is a song about a Vietnam vet mistreated upon return to the U.S.? Problem is, he made the tempo a bit to fast, the lyrics too unitelligable, and the melody to positive, so everyone thinks a pro-US song when in fact it's a rather fierce tirade

Cossack: A little harsh, and lacking eloquence, but not altogether wrong.  Sorry man, though, grift gets my vote

Brain:Nothing is cut and dry, black and white.  Of course jimmy carter based his administration on that principle.  look where it got him?

Grift:part deuxPersonally i like "the hollow men" by T.S. Eliot alot more.  Ten times as beautiful and striking as the tripe  Francis Scott Key favors.  But maybe i'm just a sucker for anything concerning the failings of  humanity, and of course apocolypse, that too.

Ace:These simple, unimportant problem are the ones that affect the institution fundementally.  maybe not this one specifically, but issuees like this, issues like these as a whole.  the institutional questions must be, if nothing else, asked, before we tackle more important issues, say, our piss-poor healthcare system

All:"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one" -Jeremy Bentham

I find it funny that Bentham was an outcast and a general fuck-up.  He wrote that even as his needs were not the needs of the many.  he was an outcast, he himself "the one"

Roy:Shut the hell up Roy, the conversation is dead, and you've been typing for at least 20 minutes to long.  ::thwack, Roy gives himself a god blow to the head.::  Sure hope it does him some good.

You... stubborn?? ?No... I don't believe it.... not for a second ;)

As for those places... just more examples of courts overstepping their bounds:D

Personally... there are things that are just propper and things that are just not. ?I don't care what your opinion is of a country or a ruler... you should never spit on a flag... ours, theirs, nobodys. ?Even if you don't like the Queen of England, you should still stand when she walks in the room.... ?When they play the national anthym of any country, people should stand out of respect.

I'm not saying it should be a law to stand... or to say the pledge... because specifically... it isn't a law. ?And that's why the courts should not be getting involved in this at all... it should be passed to congress to make a law if that's what is needed. ?

But, we should still show respect and honor our traditions. ?

And if that girl that refused to stand for the pledge was in public school... she should have been kicked out and made to go to private school (just an opinion).... ?because you should show respect and gratitude to the nation that is organizing and providing that education. ?

roy, i know that not everything is black or white, i was simply using that strategy to simplify thewargument that i was making to eliminate extranous what ifs that ?would have detracted from the argument and to illustrate the fact thet undergod cannot both be and not be in the pledge, thus leaving someone unhappy

also dont beat on yourself, that was a well written post that actually provided insight on this issue, unlike 99% of the rest of our posts

What the fuck are you talking about, where did you get the fucking idea I was to god damn fucking harsh? Anyhow, I agree with Grifter (King of da Sheep) that standing for the Quenn of England, standing for the pledge is an act of respect and human decency. I also think that this is a very small issue in our nation today. There are more serious things now a days including this recent epidemic of large corporate bakrupcys and execuative corruption and the effec of private intrest or special intrests in our government i.e. the new Oil Boom. To argue over such an insignificant thing is immature. The dumbass jundge in San Francisco will be overturned soon and there is nothing stopping it. A little bit of religion never hurt anyone. A lot of religion is dangerous though. (points to bible belt freaks up in the midwest) Was that elequen enough for you, ya god damn sonofdabitch?

    Large companies going bankrupt is not a problem. The fundamental necessity of capitalism is failure. Companies who cannot compete fail. They go bankrupt. They die, to put a Darwinistic slant on it. Then, more capable companies/competitors/organisms step to the fore to take their place. Competion continues, and life is good for the consumers. Amtrak, which is a repeat failure kept alive by government payola, is a perfect example. A real competitor could run the trains more effectively and make a lot more money doing it.

    The problem with the Enron failure was the shafting of the employees. The company can die and rot for all anyone cares, but the workers need the money that they sold a portion of their lives for.

That was kinda what I was refering too. The shafting of the employees. Going bankrupt is perfectly constitutional, but fuckin your employees is not only unconstitutional but a sleezy dipicable thing to do.

While Enron screwing over its employees was pretty dick, there was nothing unconsitutional about it. Unlawful, yes. Unconstitutional, no.

Roy, I think you misconstrued my point. This is no grand institutional dilemma that will significantly harm anyones life or set horrible precedents that will have kids praying in schools one day or something like that. This is simply some jackass getting his panties in a knot over two little words that, like it or not, are an undeniable part of our American culture and tradition. Interestingly, I just read in the paper this morning about the mother of the child contesting the decision. The mother and father are not married (never were I believe) and the mother has legal custody. Hopefully her sanity will helpturn over this ruling.

when i heard this on the radio today, my jaw just about hit the floor

remember that jerk who started this whole mess about the pledge by filing the lawsuit in his daughter's name?

well, it turns out that isn't her legal guardian, in fact, he was never even married to the childs mother. but that's not the good part
the mother and child have said that they have no problem with the words under god in the pledge of allegance and say that they are embarassed about the whole thing

for thos of you wondering why the daughter was involved in the first place, heres why
the law does not allow you to sue on theory, you need to have been harmed in some way. since our 'concerned' father couldnt say he was harmed, he filed in the  name of his daughter who he didnt even ask if she agreed with the position
this asshole filed the suit to further his own political and religious ambitions!

this moron deserves to be drug out into the street and shot...

Welcome to the United States.
Each day is a soap opera.

It doesn't help the Soap Opra that Bush is president.

Grift:The reason we should pledge to the flag is because we don't have to.

All:Social Darwinism sux0rs.  So does capatilism in the unadulterated form.  Lucky for us we have fuzzy capitalism! w00t!

Maybe we can go Svedish and get some Socialistic Welfare state capitalism.  That's ?berfuzzy, and such the way to go.

23 more posts 'til you get to 200, Does anyone know what the record for most posts is for a topic?

less than 200
189 i think and that one was started by grifter if i remember right

Wasn't there somthing really high on one of the Romulus threads?

i dont know, but we had better get back on some semblace of topic before this thread is locked again

or i could just start bashing rapid and then we would get to 200 posts real fast ;)