Pledge! Now!

[Reveilled]

I'm pretty sure the swastika has been developed independently by several cultures. It's not like it's a particularly complex symbol.

[Gromnir]

still got miscommunications with ss.

 

the Court has no duty to follow "current" precedents. the Court determines Constitutionality and as the highest court in the land it not need to follow past precedent. if it deems an act to be unconstitutional, then guess what... the act is unconstitutional until the Court changes its mind. and as it is the Court that determines what is law

[Musopticon?]

Ah, well I've never heard of Viking swastika. Only runic swastika I've seen was used by Freecorps Denmark in WW2, a Nazi Viking-inspired SS division.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This isn't really Viking related,but Mus? might find it interesting.

3

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks, WS. That was an interesting read and proves that Reveilled is right.

[Calax]

the Bhuddists had a swastica that went the opposite from the one the nazi's used. It meant life. And my comment about the axe was from my TOMBS report (thank you Eldar)

[Cantousent]

Wasn't lost on my, Calax.

[Calax]

Wasn't lost on me, Calax. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From an english teacher... makes you wonder what the schools are like today!

[Lucius]

Finns still use it, no? I read somewhere that it isn't viewed as a Nazi symbol in Finland.

[Shadowstrider]

still got miscommunications with ss.

 

the Court has no duty to follow "current" precedents.  the Court determines Constitutionality and as the highest court in the land it not need to follow past precedent.  if it deems an act to be unconstitutional, then guess what... the act is unconstitutional until the Court changes its mind.  and as it is the Court that determines what is law

[Gromnir]

is not semantics. Congress cannot overturn a Court decision re Constitutionality. Congress' only option is to change the Constitution.

 

and as to following precedent, NOT overturning roe v. wade or some other case ain't the same as following precedent.

 

maybe this is a vocab thing... am not sure.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

regardless, the following is just plain wrong:

 

"It is the Court's duty to rule on what is legal or illegal based on current precedents and law."

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Cantousent]

I'm not an English teacher, dammit. Furthermore, I'm glad I don't have to worry about forcing a bunch of kids to stand still and recite the pledge.

[Calax]

yes but your paper on Odysseus gave that impression. plus the fact that you had students come back and talk to you about their college.

[Cantousent]

Fair enough. Those were former students, though, and they would not only say the pledge as written, but gladly as well.

[Musopticon?]

Finns still use it, no? I read somewhere that it isn't viewed as a Nazi symbol in Finland.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It used to be the symbol of our airforce, but nowdays...there's not much an army. No to mention an airforce.

[Lucius]

Finns still use it, no? I read somewhere that it isn't viewed as a Nazi symbol in Finland.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It used to be the symbol of our airforce, but nowdays...there's not much an army. No to mention an airforce.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No Russkies knocking on ye door anymore, eh? Same here, though.

[Musopticon?]

Nah, we're too important for'em. And the eastern border is full of mines.

[Lucius]

Nah, we're too important for'em. And the eastern border is full of mines.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Watch your step. ^_^

[Musopticon?]

Heehee, I'm applying for sapper class in the army, so that goes without saying.

[~Di]

I agree with the court's ruling, not because I have a problem with the Pledge of Alligiance per se, but because I have a problem with the fact that a bunch of Christian fundamentalist legislators headed by the infamous McCarthy put the words "Under God" into a perfectly good pledge in the mid-1950's for purely religious reasons.

 

I prefer my religion to be politic-free, and my politics to be religion-free, thanks.

[Cantousent]

The claim that the legislators who included "under God" in the pledge were trying to create a state religion falls flat. It does not create a state religion. It does not cite Christ. It does not allow for state sponsorship of any particular religion.

 

It's funny, most folks in this thread would not have children pledge their allegiance at school, but for very different reasons. I couldn't care less about the phrase "under God" in the pledge. What I don't like is that the pledge is meaningless in the first place. Half the kids probably screw up the phrase, either intentionally or unintentionally. Of course, quite a few don't recite the correct words for the rest of it also. The pledge should mean something. Until the children mean it, they should not recite it.

 

We worry about the phrase "under God" while there are folks suggesting that outright treason is good indicator of a healthy democracy? Of all the dangers that face our country, Christian fundamentalist is pretty damned low on the list. There are worse things than being intolerant in your religious views. I'd say killing folks over them would be on the worse side. I'd say advocating treason against your country is far worse. I'd say touting an existance with no view of a higher purpose or calling is far worse.

 

I'm Catholic. I've had Christian fundamentalists make some ugly claims regarding my religion. I've had some of them make these claims to my face, which is even worse. ...But folks who act like Chicken Little in regards to Christian fundamentalists are either sadly mistaken or pushing more than one agenda simultaneously.

 

...And this post is not aimed directly at you, Di. You just happened to be the latest person to cite the fundamentalists.

[Calax]

No it doesn't make one religion dominate over all in america but it does make a religion by exclusion.

 

The way I see it, because you are making reference only to god, not allah or gods or whatever, you are therefor excluding the parties that don't refer to their god as god. or rather you are excluding the religions that have named their god (Allah, Yahweh, Satanists... you get the picture)

[alanschu]

Allah = God.

[~Di]

The claim that the legislators who included "under God" in the pledge were trying to create a state religion falls flat.  It does not create a state religion.  It does not cite Christ.  It does not allow for state sponsorship of any particular religion.

 

This is a long thread, so perhaps I missed the post that claimed legislators who included "under God" in the pledge were trying to create a state religion. Certainly I never said nor implied such a thing. The legislators at the time were quite upfront about their reason for inserting the words "under God" in our pledge, (as well as putting "In God We Trust" on all our money). They did it to distinguish God-fearing Americans from those godless Soviet commies.

 

We worry about the phrase "under God" while there are folks suggesting that outright treason is good indicator of a healthy democracy?  Of all the dangers that face our country, Christian fundamentalist is pretty damned low on the list.

 

Low on your list, perhaps. Not so low on mine. Besides, I imagine a decade or so back moderate Muslims were saying the same thing about their more radical, fundamentalist brethern. Singing a different tune now, I suspect.

 

To me history has proven that radical, fundamentalist religion has resulted in more wars, more bloodshed, more human atrocity than anything else. So fundamentalism, along with the intolerance and hatred it breeds, is pretty high on my personal danger-list.

 

There are worse things than being intolerant in your religious views.  I'd say killing folks over them would be on the worse side.  I'd say advocating treason against your country is far worse.  I'd say touting an existance with no view of a higher purpose or calling is far worse.

 

Fortunately, you live in a country and in an era where most people can be intolerant of others without being slaughtered by the government for their beliefs. However, as the power of religious fundamentalism grows, overtaking the very structure of government itself, history has shown that such intolerance can and has been punished by death. People should not deceive themselves that a new inquisition cannot intrude upon our "modern" world. It can, and has done so around the globe in our lifetimes (Taliban, anyone?). Any religion brought to extreme is dangerous. In my opinion. To scoff at that is to ignore the very real lessons of history.

 

But folks who act like Chicken Little in regards to Christian fundamentalists are either sadly mistaken or pushing more than one agenda simultaneously.

 

Or perhaps they simply believe differently than you. It's rather intolerant of you to make such a presumption, in my opinion. I do not believe that my concern about religion fundamentalism is mistaken, because milennia of history proves my case. I do not have a hidden agenda, but thanks for insinuating that I do, thereby attempting to denigrate both my intelligence and my opinion.

 

...And this post is not aimed directly at you, Di.  You just happened to be the latest person to cite the fundamentalists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Of course you were aiming the post directly at me. Others as well, perhaps, but the response was definitely caused by my comments. It's rather disingenuous of you to claim otherwise, don't you think? Nevertheless, even moderators have a right to disagree! Clearly we are not likely to see eye-to-eye on this topic. Luckily, neither of us is likely to be arrested and excuted because of that. At least, not yet!

[Calax]

but what about buddha? or perhaps Kishrima? Bhuddists got excluded because they don't even believe in god. Islam got excluded because america doesn't like Islam at all (horrible argument I know). Hindu got excluded because they believe in multipul gods that are an expression of the collective souls etc etc... now how does that make the pledge all inclusive?

[Child of Flame]

Everyone except Christians are going to hell anyway so what does it matter?