|
|
| Post Number: 21
|
Darth Liberus 
Emperor of Detnet
Group: Members
Posts: 2246
Joined: Jan. 1970
|
 |
Posted on: Jun. 28 2002,01:55 |
|
   |
| Quote | from MSNBC news (forgot to grab the URL, sorry):
President Bush on Thursday said the ruling was “out of step with the traditions and history of America” and promised to appoint judges who affirm God’s role in the public square. |
::sigh::
yeah, this is an important enough issue that we need to stack the courts...
"Dear Lord, please protect me from Your followers. Amen."
--------------
"let's travel around with our laptops, plug in, and destroy the very fabric of modern reality." -a2n3d7y
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 22
|
Beldurin
Mayor of Detnet
Group: Members
Posts: 1242
Joined: Aug. 2001
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 28 2002,02:17 |
|
 |
| Quote (forumwhore @ 27 June 2002,19:46) | OHSHIT;
I must be losing what marbles I have left.
I find myself agreeing with CatKnight.
So let's pull the "under God" part and get on with the business of America, Business.
Naturally the above sentence will take about six months to come down to in the courts.
btw I am quite happy to be an American citizen. |
ditto
--------------
If someone's ungrateful and you tell him he's ungrateful, okay, you've called him a name.
You haven't solved anything.
-- zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 23
|
Nikita
Princess of Darkness Spy. Assassin. Seductress.
Group: Members
Posts: 937
Joined: Apr. 2001
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 28 2002,03:31 |
|
|
| Quote (Beldurin @ 26 June 2002,23:51) | | I'm going to stop now before I really work myself into a lather. |
He's got the urge to herbal ... 
Anyways, what if I'm buddhist and I want to say "one nation, under big fat buddha" since buddha would be my 'god' (though there's so many gods in that system). Probably would get my ass kicked. Would be funny if everyone subbed in the name of their 'god' ... hey, cthulhu!
Ugh, christian background is clamoring ... I can imagine what some of my friends (who got left in the dust) will be saying ... though I don't know why christianity is so prevalent in the US when everything supposedly happened in way over in Bethlehem/Jerusalem/etc etc etc. In a country where (most) ppl only know one language and don't even twitch a brain cell to learn another .... why take the trouble to translate/mangle them scrolls/scripts/doohickeys ... bah anyways, here's what some of my friends would say:
"... oh no, will someone please think of the pilgrims and their reason for coming here!"
"...take God out of the system, and they wonder why things are going to hell ..."
"...let's organize a prayer chain ..."
"REPENT! THE END IS NEAR! THE SEALS WILL SOON BE BROKEN!" 
--------------
Mad scientist, sexy engineer
Who's yo Mommy?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 24
|
kuru
Detonate.net's 9mm wielding geek-hit-Goddess
Group: Members
Posts: 2566
Joined: Aug. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 28 2002,14:54 |
|
|
| Quote | The Esteemed CK:
saying "one nation, under god" in the pledge doesn't prevent you from practicing any religion. |
What it does do is, by Act of Congress, officially establish this as a theist society. It ignores the fact that not everyone in this country is a theist individual, and violates the establishment clause because, while it doesn't pick any specific religion, it does officially give the nod to theism.
Well, what about the millions of people who like me, are not theists and believe that our religious opinion cannot be chosen against by the federal government?
| Quote | Nikita, with a question:
Anyways, what if I'm buddhist and I want to say "one nation, under big fat buddha" since buddha would be my 'god' (though there's so many gods in that system). |
Well, there might actually be some Buddhists in the crowd of people kicking your ass, since the Buddha was no more than a man named Siddharta Guatamu. Buddhism in and of itself has no gods. Certain sects of Buddhists do worship the Hindu gods, and others the Tao gods (Zen Buddhism), but as it began with Siddharta, he never even asked the question. What he did was assume that if there were any gods, they were no more immune to the dukkha of life than man, they just lived under it for a much longer period of time.
</pedantic Buddhist>
| Quote | | "... oh no, will someone please think of the pilgrims and their reason for coming here!" |
Because it was either that or spend their lives being tortured in British prisons for their refusal to accept the Church of England?
--------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 25
|
CatKnight
Jedi Republican
Group: Members
Posts: 3807
Joined: Dec. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 28 2002,20:16 |
|
|
| Quote | | yeah, this is an important enough issue that we need to stack the courts... |
oh, so the ~300 clinton appointees plus the ~150 carter appointees to the ~50 bush plus ~50 reagan isn't stacked enough for you?
| Quote | | What it does do is, by Act of Congress, officially establish this as a theist society. |
Holy cow you just lept over the grand canyon there. All it says is "most people in the US believe in god, therefore, we will put in a statement that says our country is not above god in the pledge of alligience".
| Quote | | while it doesn't pick any specific religion, it does officially give the nod to theism. |
I don't see anywhere in the constitution that bans this. I have it right infront of me.
| Quote | | Well, what about the millions of people who like me, are not theists and believe that our religious opinion cannot be chosen against by the federal government? |
the pledge of alligience is not a law, it doesn't "force" you to believe in god. nor are you forced to say "under god" while making the pledge, if you even do that.
| Quote | | Because it was either that or spend their lives being tortured in British prisons for their refusal to accept the Church of England? |
last time I checked, there was no church of the US.
Edited by CatKnight on Jan. 01 1970,01:00
--------------
[url=http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/b/dbl125/dfa.jpg]If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful that you can possibly imagine.[/url]
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 26
|
demonk
The other white meat
Group: Members
Posts: 800
Joined: Aug. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 28 2002,22:37 |
|
|
Wow CK, you really don't get it, do you. First off, did you even read my post about the "all or none" test? This applies here. If it applies to nativity scenes on government owned property, then it applies to the pledge that we require our young children to receit every morning.
(I do want to make one quick side point here: different schools inforce this differently. Some couldn't really give a rat's ass if you said the pledge correctly or if you even said it at all, while other's are really anal retentive about it. So we can't make a blanket statement about how it is implemented at all school.)
Here is the first amendment, so we can all see the real law:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the
press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
That first part of the first line is important: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..." What do you think the "under God" part of the pledge does? Is says that yes, there is a god. Sounds like establishment of religion to me. It may not be specific, but is does exclude several groups of people in one swoop.
Now I know that your counter point is the second part of that sentence: "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". But let's think for a second. By keeping the under god part in, we violate the first part of the sentence. Do we violate the second part by taking it out? No. Everyone is still allowed to exercise whatever religion he or she believes. By removing it, the government isn't saying "you must not practice religion". With that line removed, the government removes its self from a situation that is unsolvable and uncompromisable: the debate about religion.
I support the decision of the judge(s) and am proud of them for standing up to a very religious administration and lobbying group. It's time to enforce the law, not just the personal desires of people who are in power for only a short time (I'm not talking about Bush here CK. I'm talking about Eisenhower.)
--------------
I'm just two people short of a threesome!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 27
|
demonk
The other white meat
Group: Members
Posts: 800
Joined: Aug. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 28 2002,22:42 |
|
|
| Quote (CatKnight @ 28 June 2002,12:16) | | so the ~300 clinton appointees plus the ~150 carter appointees to the ~50 bush plus ~50 reagan isn't stacked enough for you? |
In the end, the people who get to appoint the Supreme Court Justises have the longest affect on this country. I can't remember how many Supremes Clinton or Carter appointed, but I know for a fact several of the current Supremes are stepping down during the Bush administration. I can guarrente you that Bush is going to stack the Court so far to the right that in 5 years you'll swear we were back in the 1930's, 40's, and 50's. That is the scarest legacy Bush will leave us with. That was the biggest reason I didn't want him in office.
--------------
I'm just two people short of a threesome!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 28
|
CatKnight
Jedi Republican
Group: Members
Posts: 3807
Joined: Dec. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 28 2002,22:42 |
|
|
| Quote | | (I do want to make one quick side point here: different schools inforce this differently. Some couldn't really give a rat's ass if you said the pledge correctly or if you even said it at all, while other's are really anal retentive about it. So we can't make a blanket statement about how it is implemented at all school.) |
I agree completely. So why is this guy in california trying to get the courts to rule that it is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, in all public schools?
| Quote | "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the
press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
That first part of the first line is important: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..." What do you think the "under God" part of the pledge does? Is says that yes, there is a god. Sounds like establishment of religion to me. It may not be specific, but is does exclude several groups of people in one swoop. |
congress shall make no LAW respecting an establishment of religion.
the pledge of alligience is not a LAW. it is not unconstitutional.
the rest of your argument is irrelevant because it just relates to the first part, which is based on incorrect premises.
--------------
[url=http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/b/dbl125/dfa.jpg]If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful that you can possibly imagine.[/url]
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 29
|
CatKnight
Jedi Republican
Group: Members
Posts: 3807
Joined: Dec. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 28 2002,22:46 |
|
|
| Quote | | I can guarrente you that Bush is going to stack the Court so far to the right that in 5 years you'll swear we were back in the 1930's, 40's, and 50's. That is the scarest legacy Bush will leave us with. |
what are you scared of? the constitution being interpreted how the founders wanted it to be?
--------------
[url=http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/b/dbl125/dfa.jpg]If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful that you can possibly imagine.[/url]
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 30
|
demonk
The other white meat
Group: Members
Posts: 800
Joined: Aug. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 28 2002,23:07 |
|
|
Yes. They were from a time period that has almost no relation to our time period. It was written back in the late 1700's to early 1800's, back when most of this country lived on farms. While I don't agree with many of the views held during those times, they did make one very smart decision that has kept this country working to this day. They knew they wouldn't be able to get everything right, so they wrote into the Constitution the ablity to change it and the way the government works. We have used this over the 200+ years the Constitution has existed, a majority of which has all turned out for the better. Just because our founders thought something should be one way doesn't mean that we have to do it that way. We have the ablity to chose how our government works, and it is our responsibility to exercise that right. Also, if you would actually READ the first amendment, then you would see that they are upholding the Constitution and what our founding fathers wanted (so  )
Since Congress passed this LAW requiring the "under God" part added to the pledge (not the recieting of it), it does indeed violate the first part, and therefore my arguement is completely sound. That's the part you are missing CK. Congress did pass this as a LAW. Get your facts straight first. I suggest doing a net search on the histroy of the Pledge and look at more than just Rush Limba's website for news about what is happening now.
Edited by demonk on Jan. 01 1970,01:00
--------------
I'm just two people short of a threesome!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
