Shadowstrider

Why was it not a cause for concern for the last 50 years? I think the complaint is not particularly valid because it's not required to say the thing. For particularly the reason you mention, its not required. That doesn't make it a non-issue, it just makes it less important. The timeframe of the complaint is a non-issue. It doesn't detract from the complaints value in any way. I've actually had a gripe with it and "In God We Trust" on the dollar for sometime, its just not something I'm particularly willing to take before the Supreme Court over, where someone else may. I am adamantly against eating Oysters, muscles or clams, but I don't run around making an issue of it. If someone says "would you like oysters?" I say no and explain that I don't like them. Does that make my adamant refusal to eat them invalid?

does the term "bandwagon" come to mind? ooh, lookey, somebody is raising hell about something that will make conservatives (er, religious conservatives) squirm! let's all get on board. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This basically boils down to an ad-hominem attack. I should note I'm a conservative and an atheist, just like you! It has nothing to do with bandwagon jumping. Its a topic for discussion, it was brought up, so I discuss it. By this logic any time anyone brings up any political discussion, people jump on the bandwagon just because, rather than for real reasons. "O'Conner is retiring from the supreme court!" "Ya, but where were you in 1999 while she was still on the bench, we all knew she'd go eventually. You're just talking about this now to make X squirm." Sorry, that don't fly.

It has been discussed before. I don't know if it was on this forum or another. Again, does that make the complaint any less valid? What does it matter WHEN it is discussed? Its being discussed NOW.

Why does that matter? Personally, I'm an atheist, and I'm not mad over this issue. I talk about it because its at the table.

A lot. Probably as many as know "In God We Trust" is on the dollar. Does that make the complaint any less valid? Nope.

The forum guidelines may be found here. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Reminder: The forum guidelines may be found here.

It was locked once, purged once. Like a good troll, it'll only go down in a raging inferno.

For many people using Firefox isn't doable. My company, for example ONLY works with IE. My sister for example cannot login to her school's webserver with Firefox, or anything besides IE, for that matter. If she tries she is kicked from the server and sent to a page telling her to log in using Internet Explorer. Using Firefox isn't an option for some people.

Crap! Totally forgot about your problematic post. I'll look into it tomorrow or something. As for this week's episode, I loved it. Furthered the story magnificently while building the intrigue of every plot. I was disappointed that they didn't focus more on Titus and the female he rescued. However this was made up for by the other scenes, completely.

I read Beowulf quite often as well. Thats the primary reason England in Literature (Macbeth Edition) is in my bookshelf. Beowulf is one of the first pieces.

once a month? ... post-war french absurdists give us gas... but we agree that "the stranger" is worth reading at least once. HA! Good Fun! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I can usually read it in about 2 hours, if that.

I read it once a month, so interpret how I like it as you will. In my opinion the book is short enough that everyone should read it at least once and see for themselves what they get from it.

The Mayor of Casterbridge The Stranger England in Literature (Macbeth Edition) Grammar and Composition The Elements of Style (3rd Edition) 3 text books. 2 fiction.

The show is a success, no doubt. The problem was the season that was being worked on was not up to par with the previous season, and he basically refused to work on it unless comedy central agreed to fine tune it, or some such. I don't recall the specifics, there was an article about it somewhere.

The entire IWD/HoW soundtrack rocks mah socks. If I had to pick one song from it, it'd be a toss up between the theme for the final visit to Easthaven ( ) or the svirfneblin village's theme (hell the entire Dorn's Deep musical score, even). Those two really resonate with me. I also really loved the Candlekeep theme from Baldur's Gate.

That turned out to be false, Alanschu, he was refusing to work on the series because the product wasn't turning out as well as he'd hope, or something.

Thats entirely possible, that doesn't mean I agree with it. I have no problem debating letter of the law rather than interpretation of intent. Eh? You've lost me here. How am I on the fence? I didn't say that the court should be swayed by public opinion. What I said was that most people tend to accept "seperation of church and state." That doesn't mean "the court should do what the people think." That'd be an instance of you misinterpreting my intent. The intent of my message was that since most people accept "seperation of church and state" that they shouldn't lobby congress for a law change, or even better that they should lobby and make it official. How does this make me wrong? I said Congress has the power to overturn a court's decision, albeit in vague language. Or do you mean I was wrong in that it never happened? Well sure. I thought I said I didn't know whether it'd happened before, not "its never happened, period."

Its not banned from schools, either. Its only banned from the morning announcement type situations. You can walk the halls saying the pledge all you like.

Uhm... what are you talking about? They're not forbidding anyone from saying "under God" by doing this. All they're saying is that having "under God" in an official, national pledge of allegiance violates the "seperation of church and state." No one is stopping you from saying "under God."

I've probably read the Qur'an more times than you've read the bible.

Uhm... wrong. If you had actually read the Qur'an, as you claim, and studied Islam you would know that Islam's Allah is the same god as Judaism and Christianity. It even acknowledges the prophets and important figures from Judaism and Christianity. Only halfway correct. I recommend you resume and/or continue your studies.

They may have spoken on an issue, that doesn't mean they covered it completely. Politicians have also been known to do strange things, like vote for something they thought was wrong and defend their decision. Thats not to say I believe the framers or founding fathers did this. Simply that people do crazy things, as you yourself said, thusly I don't really intend to debate intent. As the romans used to say, the public is a fickle mob. Generally speaking what I said was true, which was my point. Public opinion thankfully doesn't control law, either. I don't see how my notions are wrong, either.