Pledge! Now!

[Gabrielle]

[Oerwinde]

There is no god

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but god.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No he's right, the Saint of Killers shot him, and since God enchanted his guns to "Inflict no wound that is not fatal" god croaked. But it doesn't really matter anyway since God only created us because he's a love addicted psycho and really doesn't do anything other than revel in how many billions cry out how much they love him.

[julianw]

You meant she, right? Or is Gab a guy?

[Commissar]

Let the people decide what they want.  If the population wants to have it removed, then so be it.  Heck, I don't care even if some people omit the "under god" part, but don't deny us our right to say it.  If this is a democracy, then let the people decide, not some judge behind a desk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You scare the hell out of me, man.

 

If enough people decide to start imposing fines for lack of church attendance, can we do that? How about if they decide that we ought to start throwing in jail folks who decide to engage in premarital sex? What if the Catholics get enough people together to vote for a nationwide ban on contraceptives?

 

For the record, I think this is a crap ruling as well. No one ought to be required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and if they are, they ought not be required to include the "under God" part, and also should not be prevented from inserting whatever their own personal beliefs happen to be. So, whereas you folks might enjoy "under God," I myself would put in, "where I am free to support strippers and watch two chicks get it on."

 

That's fair, isn't it?

 

Edit: Changed "finds" to "fines" because I'm wicked sweet like that.

[Commissar]

Separation of Church and state is a key part of the US constitution, isn't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

not really. certainly the phrase does not exist, only the establishment clause which was originally intended (primarily) to keep government out of religion, not the other way around. the interpretation is certainly there in precedent over the years...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, it really is, if you look at it from an equal rights and equal protections standpoint.

[Reveilled]

Let the people decide what they want.  If the population wants to have it removed, then so be it.  Heck, I don't care even if some people omit the "under god" part, but don't deny us our right to say it.  If this is a democracy, then let the people decide, not some judge behind a desk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Pure democracy = Tyranny of Majority

 

The United States is an Elected Republic, I believe most nations which people call democratic are actually elected republics. If the majority's say was all that mattered black americans would still be "seperate but equal."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Must...not...nitpick...

 

Ach. Can't help it.

An elected republic is a form of democracy. Saying "most nations which people call democratic are actually elected republics," is like saying "most shapes which people call circles are actually red circles."

 

Note that in Athens, the first "Democracy" (in the sense that since they invented the term we must accept the entity they applied it to as fitting the term, even if it does not fit the present definition of the term), many things were not decided purely by majority. The only public officals who were selected on the basis of the majority's say were Generals. Also, Athens too had a constitution, proctecting the rights of Athenians. So the term democracy as it was originally concieved meant something more complex than "purely majority rule".

 

A few hundred years ago, that definition had changed to the one you seem to give, distinguishing between a democracy and an elected republic. But it has changed again such that a system of government involving fairly elected representatives is now considered to be a form of democracy.

 

So, no, the United States is a Democracy. It is also a Representative Republic, and the two are not mutually exclusive.

[Gabrielle]

You meant she, right? Or is Gab a guy?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

She for nothing else we could be.

 

Being an aethist I never paid the pledge any mind with it's word of god. I just consider it a pledge to one's country.

[Dark Moth]

1. Gabs is a grrl

 

2. There is also such thing as tyranny of the minority. Thanks to our system, it's possible for a small group of people to weild power over a large group, as we see here. Of course I don't think everything should be decided by vote alone. But for something like this, I think it should be up to the people to decide.

 

And for the record Comissar, your examples don't hold up here, because people tend to want things that are beneficial to society. I highly doubt we'll see enough people voting for something like "church attendance fines" or a ban on contraceptives. Why? Because majority of the people won't see it happen.

 

God loves you.

[Commissar]

1.  Gabs is a grrl

 

2.  There is also such thing as tyranny of the minority.  Thanks to our system, it's possible for a small group of people to weild power over a large group, as we see here.  Of course I don't think everything should be decided by vote alone.  But for something like this, I think it should be up to the people to decide. 

 

And for the record Comissar, your examples don't hold up here, because people tend to want things that are beneficial to society.  I highly doubt we'll see enough people voting for something like "church attendance fines" or a ban on contraceptives.  Why?  Because majority of the people won't see it happen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Beneficial to society" is highly subjective, though. Look at abortion. Plenty of people think it's beneficial to society that a woman be allowed to choose; plenty others think it'd be beneficial to society if abortions were banned.

 

I'm sure you could find a great number of people who'd think it beneficial to society if this country were run on "Christian" principles.

 

This is not a legislative issue (yet), it's a constitutional one. And our government operates on the basis that when the constitutional implications of a given issue are in question, it's the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, that decide.

[julianw]

1.  Gabs is a grrl

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay.

 

Btw, if the Supreme Court denies students the right to speak 'under God' or 'religiously' during the pledge in schools, you can still pledge in private.

 

But I agree the issue of the separation of church and state should be decided by the court. The build-in check on the court would be to pass a constitutional amendment which the congress and the states' legislatures can vote on.

[Delta Truth]

The pledge of allegience huh!! I don't understand why someone would be offending by that it is stating your pledge to your country which everyone should do ... what you do to show your nationalism after that is up too you ..

 

Wasn't the pledge created by the U.S. founding fathers, so why do they have to change it..

 

I guess its hard for me to say not being an American ..

 

Are there public and seperate schools (as in Catholic in the states ?? in Canada we do about half an half) Boy I remember as a kid having to pledge for the Queen <_<

[julianw]

This is only about public schools and the pledge was implemented in the early 1900s I think.

[Dark Moth]

1.  Gabs is a grrl

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay.

 

Btw, if the Supreme Court denies students the right to speak 'under God' or 'religiously' during the pledge in schools, you can still pledge in private.

 

But I agree the issue of the separation of church and state should be decided by the court. The build-in check on the court would be to pass a constitutional amendment which the congress and the states' legislatures can vote on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

True, but then again, we shouldn't have to pledge privately.

[Delta Truth]

Well for some its hard to break with Tradition although it just seems no one else is complaining so why should they change it cause then the majority will be upset

[Reveilled]

The pledge of allegience huh!! I don't understand why someone would be offending by that it is stating your pledge to your country which everyone should do ... what you do to show your nationalism after that is up too you ..

 

Wasn't the pledge created by the U.S. founding fathers, so why do they have to change it..

 

I guess its hard for me to say not being an American ..

 

Are there public and seperate schools (as in Catholic in the states ?? in Canada we do about half an half) Boy I remember as a kid having to pledge for the Queen  <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No. The Pledge of allegiance was not created by the Founding Fathers. It was written by a Baptist Minister by the name of Francis Bellamy in 1892 and originally read "I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

 

"Under god", along with other religious items (like "In God We Trust" on money) were added in the McCarthy Era.

 

Bellamy himself opposed the addition of "United States of America" into the pledge he wrote, so it is rather likely he would have opposed the "under god" one too.

[Commissar]

Yeah. Baptist ministers weren't nutty back then.

[Reveilled]

Yeah.  Baptist ministers weren't nutty back then.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A lot of them weren't even right wing. Bellamy himself was a Socialist. I don't know enough about the period to say whether that was widespread, but lots of protestant faiths throught history have been socialist or even communist (though taking the ideology from the Bible rather than Das Kapital), so it wouldn't surprise me if the Baptist church was "left-wing" on the whole back then.

[Shadowstrider]

Stuff

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Go back and point out where I said "Elected Republic != Democracy."

 

I, in fact, said Pure Democracy = Tyranny of the Majority.

 

Yes, an elected republic is a form of democracy, where did I suggest otherwise? It isn't a pure "majority rules!" system. I was explaining the american process to Mothman, and why "because we outnumber you" isn't how the USA's system works.

[Reveilled]

Stuff

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Go back and point out where I said "Elected Republic != Democracy."

 

I, in fact, said Pure Democracy = Tyranny of the Majority.

 

Yes, an elected republic is a form of democracy, where did I suggest otherwise? It isn't a pure "majority rules!" system. I was explaining the american process to Mothman, and why "because we outnumber you" isn't how the USA's system works.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Chalk it up to poor communication then. But using a term like "actually" generally implies that one clause is false and the other is true. Thus "I believe most nations which people call democratic are actually elected republics." certainly came across to me as you saying that the two were distinct. One can easily substitute the term "elected republics" with pretty much any other system of government ("I believe most nations which people call democratic are actually fascist dictatorships") and the sentence still makes sense and come across as a correction instead of a clarification. Something like "I believe most nations which people call democratic are more specifically elected republics." would have been more clear.

 

I apologise for misinterpreting your meaning, but the assertion that Elected Republic != Democracy is a very common one, so you seemed from that sentence to be asserting the two as mutually exclusive. Again, I aplogise for misunderstanding you.

[Shadowstrider]

I see what you mean now. I sort of figured the term elected would clue into democratically chosen body. I wouldn't call an oligarchical body chosen by the previous body an elected body.

[taks]

Actually, it really is, if you look at it from an equal rights and equal protections standpoint.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no, it is really not. it is never stated nor implied. there is ONE line preventing congress (US law) from respecting an establishment of religion. that one line - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - has been interpreted to mean 'separation of church and state,' but the population has always been divided on the issue as has SCOTUS.

 

the phrase we so often hear has been coined by politicians attempting to woo voters, not constitutional law experts.

 

taks

[LoneWolf16]

1.  Gabs is a grrl

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay.

 

Btw, if the Supreme Court denies students the right to speak 'under God' or 'religiously' during the pledge in schools, you can still pledge in private.

 

But I agree the issue of the separation of church and state should be decided by the court. The build-in check on the court would be to pass a constitutional amendment which the congress and the states' legislatures can vote on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

True, but then again, we shouldn't have to pledge privately.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, I should be forced to omit part of my nation's pledge and end up never really saying the entire thing, because of religious reasons?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And for the love of all things, why do people still believe in this "god" stuff?

[Commissar]

Actually, it really is, if you look at it from an equal rights and equal protections standpoint.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no, it is really not. it is never stated nor implied. there is ONE line preventing congress (US law) from respecting an establishment of religion. that one line - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - has been interpreted to mean 'separation of church and state,' but the population has always been divided on the issue as has SCOTUS.

 

the phrase we so often hear has been coined by politicians attempting to woo voters, not constitutional law experts.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, it really is. Aside from the fact that you'd be extremely hard-pressed to argue that the actual folks who wrote the Constitution didn't intend separation of church and state, the Supreme Court has, in fact, established and upheld the viewpoint that the Constitution provides for equal protection and equal rights of all US citizens, meaning that any legislation limiting rights or establishing disparate status for persons of differing religions would be illegal.

[Darth Barth]

Perhaps if more people were making a fuss about it, then I'd understand.  But most people seem to be okay with it.  Just because one person whines about it doesn't give them a right to declare it unconstitutional.  Until more people come out of the woodwork and complain, it can stay, as far as I'm concerned.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If something is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Show us where in the Constitution where it talks about seperation of church and state.

[Craigboy2]

SAN FRANCISCO