Post #114,599
8/20/03 3:58:10 PM
|
Beg all you like.
Forced pledge isn't any better than the decision to declare it unconstitutional for the generic "Under God".
The continued insistance that we must >legislate< society based upon its outliers is creating an unworkable tangle of litigative bullshit that wastes time and resources that are much better spent elsewhere.
Did the recitation of the Pledge in any way, shape or form make you feel >forced< to become monotheistic. Apparently not...as you continued to hold your belief in the face of this.
You must also be aware that you are and will continue to be in the vast minority of those in this country. Not that it means you should be >forced< to recite...but by counter you support >forcing< everyone else to stop.
And regardless of this, to say that placing "under God" on the Pledge violates Amendment 1's establishment clause is still a stretch given the historical reference to the Anglican Church and the concern that the sects in each of the colonies would battle for government control.
What those in the minority need to do is what you have done...maintain their beliefs and continue to think the rest of society is deluded...but get over the fact of trying to force the minority view on the majority.
We are now starting to see the same issues crop up in the gay/lesbian debate...and it is severely backfiring on the orgnization. By continuing to try and hammer their beliefs into the majority by force of law, the backlash created is actually hurting the cause. The latest stats show a 20% reduction is support of same sex unions among the population over the past 18 months...which has been the time that they Alliance has been trying to make a national issue of it.
Like I said, however, we are long past the point of no return in the religious area. Removing "In God We Trust" from the currency and declaring "God Bless America" unconstitutional are the next and endeniable steps. We all know that seeing that statement on money is creating millions of converts for the Catholic Church...regardless of their current problems with kids...right?
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #114,602
8/20/03 4:07:47 PM
|
That's not the point.
You've misrepresented my position.
I'm not for *BANNING* anything - I'm just for *NOT REQUIRING* participation in a religious event in order to receive public funding.
I'm not asking that "In god we trust" come off the dollar bill."
I'm not asking people to stop praying in school.
I'm asking to NOT BE SENT TO FUCKING DETENTION FOR REFUSING TO PRAY WITH THE REST OF THEM.
Hope I got my point across... ;)
In that final hour, when each breath is a struggle to take, and you are looking back over your life's accomplishments, which memories would you treasure? The empires you built, or the joy you spread to others?
Therin lies the true measure of a man.
|
Post #114,604
8/20/03 4:14:53 PM
|
No I got it.
And I thought my first statement actually >did< agree with you ;-)
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #114,694
8/21/03 4:25:40 AM
|
However, banning is exactly what is happening
Students are not allowed to lead a prayer before a football game. If the government has a voucher program that happens gives money to a religious school is that establishment of religion?
|
Post #114,760
8/21/03 12:44:00 PM
|
Re: However, banning is exactly what is happening
If the government has a voucher program that happens gives money to a religious school is that establishment of religion? Yes, that is an establishment in the direct sense. It's giving tax money to support a religious organization. It could work if the rules where properly structured to seperate educational and religious money, but no plan I have seen does so. As for the prayer before football games issue, I think it falls into the too trivial to worry about category. Fairness would require that every religion represented in the school get a chance to lead the prayer occasionally, plus a certain percent with no prayer to cover the nonreligious. But the world has far more serious issues to deal with. Jay
|
Post #114,762
8/21/03 12:45:14 PM
|
well stated
-drl
|
Post #114,766
8/21/03 12:58:42 PM
|
Disagree completely.
How is that action establishing a religion? If schools of any stripe participate in a voucher program, there's no support of a single religion.
-----
Steve
|
Post #114,772
8/21/03 1:11:50 PM
|
Correct...
...and the fact that the voucers are provided to the >people< to enable them to make there own choice makes >not< allowing their use for parochial schools a violation of "free exersize".
People have taken the Jeffersonian translation and assume that is the way the amendment works. By singling out religion as an activity that CANNOT recieve public funds...the current translation is actually prejudicial to religious activity.
In the constitutional sense, religion should not be part of the judging criteria on the award of public funds. Right now religion is used to exlude access. No better than using skin color.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #114,807
8/21/03 3:51:03 PM
|
Threat to long-term survival.
Perpetual reindoctrination of helpless children, long before their capability of discrimination can possibly be activated - into the same-old same-old Warring-Gods View of It All:
Guarantees the same-old same-old Endless Warfare States, too (if a=b, b=c ... a=c)
Ergo a secular government (as this one is, by definition -- government, not 'society'), merely for hope of long-term survival; the avoidance of the now seen to be repetitive effects of (Believers-at-War?) needs to protect future citizens from these known harmful afflictions.
This is not discrimination against 'religion'; it is -nominally- protecting the innocent from zealotry, until they are Fair Game for the Zealots to try to breach their firewall of adult-level mentation.
To do less? would be irresponsible of any government (constructed on the lines of this one). It could also be called: prevention of child endangerment, if not abuse. Ask any Jesuit.
Ashton Save the Children from Us LLC
|
Post #114,811
8/21/03 4:28:19 PM
|
So who decides on what proper 'indoctrination' is?
As a parent, then, I'm supposed to fall in lock-step with what the Gubmint dictates as 'good' and 'proper' doctrine for my kids to be forced upon them by the 'public' school system in the name of protecting future generations from religion.
Who's going to protect them from discriminatory anti-religious zealots such as yourself?
-----
Steve
|
Post #114,866
8/22/03 1:29:29 AM
|
Re: So who decides on what proper 'indoctrination' is?
Who's going to protect them from discriminatory anti-religious zealots such as yourself? It's the perennial, "who's watching the watchers" - no? There IS no 'proper indoctrination' for tykes! - That Is/Was my Point. Besides, I am no anti-religion zealot: I am an anti-Hypocrite zealot. To assert that, "there's nothing There" is as religious a Belief as any other. (What I happen to suspect-thus-far, from experience -- is very likely quite different from what you Imagine is my POV. And, it Doesn't Matter (either) for all obv. reasons.) I will admit: what I do despise is the presentation of the mouthings, imaginations + committee-embellishments of ordinary homo-saps (modern or ancient) who pretend to have a cel-fone to The Absolute (or by anyother name as will serve). Obv then: neither would I think it appropriate in class to advocate against a/any creed, belief, whimsy Either! The point would be - that the cheeldrun are informed that various religions exist; an explanation consistent with their nascent powers of discrimination of "human psych". They bloody well need to Know that, "out there" are many conflicting views, and that Each One claims to be the Only Correct One. This alone! is valuable information in preparation for a world which will be abusing language - indefinitely. (Even if the 'armament' is just a pea-shooter against the KW megaphones) Some history of the major sects would be appropriate and as inescapable as history, anyway -- and as subject to Believers' Slant as is Ashcroft's position on law enforcement. Admins can but aspire to adequate vigilance, as always. (And I think it dead obvious that - virtually every parent will do what always they have done: indoctrinate. My experience says, in that regard: only the parents who live the principles stand A Chance, anyway! vs a kid's natural suspicion of adult spin on everything) Only.. the school May Not! do this. << Nobody ever suggested that such an aim -non-indoctrination- would be simple to achieve nor that the effect of a relatively non-biased curriculum could render the tykes impervious to the ministrations of others who deem: It's OK to brainwash kids because They Are My Kids (See.. I don't happen to believe that They Are 'Owned' - parenthood does not confer the right to maim a child's mentation / mould it into a clone either. Another volume, that) Moot anyway. This be Murica. Won't Happen. Just theoretical - people will kill to project their mindset onto "their" offspring. This stuff is for a later post-adolescent Murica. However bloody unlikely. Ashton
|
Post #114,885
8/22/03 8:02:30 AM
|
Dear me...
...that we should be so bold as to protect children from their parents and their local areas.
We must give the Federal gubmint power over this "to protect the cheeldrun".
Nice try Ash. Really. A for effort.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #114,991
8/22/03 6:41:38 PM
|
An anticipated Bowdlerization. Let me Econ- it for ya:
See.. we Know that there is No Limit to the "profit percentage" an unfettered biznessman lusts after: none - More is always Better. Monopoly IS His Grail. We know this cold.
Realizing this factoid about homo-sap's still-infantile mentation - we "instituted laws" to regulate the Greed-coefficient consistent to.. (at least) averting marauding bands of Armani-suited predators.. entrepreneurs.. just.. Everywhere throughout the land.
(Obv these laws don't work very well, especially of late - but Law was all we thought we had. Then. And Christian-Morality-applied: led to more bizness preying than praying. And crocodile tears when caught.)
Similarly - we Know that those Possessed of a Belief - know no surcease from attempting to inflict same until Perfect One-Truth Homogeneity is achieved Worldwide. We Know That.
Ditto for admins, teachers etc - who are presumed mainly to be homo-sap in genetic origin. Too. And no, Beep; stop drooling over 'Guvmint Ogres' - your pants are all wet.
The Government is/was us: when it is/was properly inspected, staffed and overseen by responsible Citizens of a Free Republic. OK that's changed recently too, but the idea remains within that Constitution thing everybody wants Allegiance paid-to [Talk about.. things worth conservative-ing..]
ie With the usual great difficulty - yes, 'We' may indeed charge our institutions (which assuredly includes 'public schools') with behaviour to certain standards. In the present case:
Thou Shalt not proselytize nor disrespect.. the many many personal-belief oddities of the milieu.
Thou shalt inform about 'the situation' among the variously conflicting One Truths\ufffd, so as to prepare each nascent mind for the task as Will Arrive: sorting-out the fallacies contained in infinitely-nested levels within the claim,
"I Possess The Truth".
When the child becomes an adult: then shall it be revealed, how effectively has s/he become able to deal with her fellow homo-saps in the area where they are Least-sane, Most-bellicose and generally: utterly off-the-wall.
Hope this works for you, though I left out the spreadsheet of $-Costs of NOT 'doing it' .. so perhaps the bottom line isn't so clear to you.
Ashton Econ Translations LLC
- where ya gots ta really KISS
|
Post #115,004
8/22/03 7:45:03 PM
|
Not necessary...
...just surprised at the direction you took...and posted same.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #114,787
8/21/03 2:14:50 PM
|
Doesn't have to be a specific religion
Two problems with that. The theoretical problem is that it doesn't matter that it isn't a specific religion, support of all religions is equally forbidden.
The more practical problem is that such a program would be a subsidy for the large popular religions only. Groups too small to finance their own schools would be left with no recourse.
Jay
|
Post #114,819
8/21/03 4:55:27 PM
|
the constitution states ...
that the governement shall not establish a religion. It is clearly referring to a state religion like the Church of England. I fail to see how the government giving money to any school that qualifies irrespective of religion is establishing a state religion. If the governement gives mony to Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and non-religious schools what religion is it establishing?
|
Post #114,832
8/21/03 6:12:07 PM
|
Well, up here
there is state money for religious schools; they don't get as much because the state doesn't own the physical plant like they do in the public schools.
When I was going to high school, we got readings read over the loudspeaker in homeroom from a variety of sources, including buddhist, jewish, and muslim, though christian predominated. Not so much a prayer as just a quick thought provoking quote.
However, school control was a lot more decentralised then, and that had a lot more to do with the principal than it did the ministry of education.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #114,886
8/22/03 8:10:37 AM
|
Thats the common translation now bluke...
...which is pretty much what I'm rattling on about...that the current translation of the Jefforsonian "wall of separation" hasa gone far beyond the charter of keeping the Fed neutral with respect to religion to the Fed essentially taking prejudicial stances against religion.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #115,002
8/22/03 7:36:27 PM
|
I agree with that wording
And merely suspect that.. this 'government interpretation' is an expectable consequence of dealing with a mass of literal-minded zealots (across the board / orthogonally).
The problem that real Simplicity, especially re metaphysical hunches! is a difficult task to achieve - never deters the genuinely simplistic from insisting upon each's
One Truth - Mine.
So.. what did You expect?
sweet Reason !?
|
Post #114,817
8/21/03 4:52:14 PM
|
Not true
If the government makes clear criteria that any school whether religious (any religion) or not qualifies how is the governement establishing religion? Hypothetically, if vouchers are used at a Catholic school, a Jewish school, a Muslim school, a Mormon school, and some non-religious schools which religion is the government establishing? The message I would take is that the governement is not establishing any religion, rather the government is supporting education.
In any case, where do you draw the line? Can Catholic hospitals get federal money? They do. etc.
|
Post #114,833
8/21/03 6:14:48 PM
|
I'm pretty much with you on that
the main point is where the decision making resides. If it resides with representatives of the state, then it's Bad News. However, if it's being done by individuals, then that should be OK.
That said, I think a strong public educational system is a very important thing. I'd like to note that there is a distinction between "powerful" and "strong" in the context I'm using, if ya know what I mean.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #114,625
8/20/03 6:35:37 PM
|
Folie \ufffd deux.. folie \ufffd millon - Again!?
Forced pledge isn't any better than the decision to declare it unconstitutional for the generic "Under God". In the immortal words of Ernst Cantorowitz, an obscure UC professor who wrote a tract at the height of the [previous..] McCarthy hysteria, entitled The Fundamental Issue - wherein he pointed out that the Loyalty Oath was, at root "an attack upon tenure,upon the immunity from political pressures of academia - and an attack upon Free Speech. He demonstrated the absurdity of the "required oath" for Any purpose: A Coerced Oath is Invalid on Its FaceI'm surprised that a University-edjakated One like yourself.. is unaware Still! of that entire period of US History, of Why the loyalty oath itself Was finally Struck Down.. is unaware of the fallacy of all such oaths and.. (You didn't *actually* major in Econ, did you?) Anything else is peripheral, but there are consequences in the Mob-focus upon these incidentals: "Mouthing-the-Words" - a habit you above advocate as a solution inculcates into the little cheeldrun the germ of the idea behind the Massive-lying of politics and bizness in the New Millennium. It is a virtual recipe for a new generation of PHBs - of the Enron scale IMhO. Advocacy of such personal duplicity is an excellent means for conditioning the malleable young mind in a number of related attitudes about themselves and about their 'society'. Among these 'implanted suggestions' are - A) Adults don't *really* value honesty and integrity and Principles (they lie about those Farmily Valuez, in the end. Too.) B) Tyranny of the Majority is basically.. OK if you can (still) get away with it - but please to call this, "the illusion of consensus" - because That feels so good. SO much for any native respect In Fact for: an individual's Right to an Individual POV. C) Ergo: all that bizness lying, political spin (the murder of Language itself) - is acceptable behaviour: so Go Out and Get Yours, and screw the consequences for any you climb-over on the Way to the Top. D) Such a mindset inexorably paves the mental path towards: The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice and always has been...We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had-- the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he, by himself) believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism.
- Mark Twain, "Monarchical and Republican Patriotism" via mmoffitt As I said, I'm surprised that your 'US edjakayshun' + steel-trap mind for iptables and recursive descriptors: fails utterly to see how very much depends upon a culture's Tacit acceptance of ANY 'coerced oath'To make it reel simple, if Econ was indeed your major: an 'Oath' is taken entirely voluntarily or.. it is a duplicitous enforcement of a false consensus. It is a LIE. The US Constitution provides a difficult path towards expanding human awareness, responsibility for decisions made - and an individual's rights to free expression of Any Idea. In its intentional open-endedness lies its unprecedented Magnificence.
Those capable of such brave work were once called, informed voting citizens. Unfortunately, it appears that such a Grand Pledge cannot be adhered to - by a nation of perennial adolescents with lazy minds and still worshipping vengeful warrior God-things.
All and Everything
by Anon.
|
Post #114,703
8/21/03 8:20:23 AM
|
Re: Folie \ufffd deux.. folie \ufffd millon - Again!?
A Coerced Oath is Invalid on Its Face Yeah...I know it is. Bad....I said it was bad. What I also said was declaring the oeath >illegal< for those who >want< to say it...is also bad. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #114,737
8/21/03 11:51:45 AM
|
In context of peer (and teacher) pressure and required
school attendance:
Bad Venue for renewing one's 'Voluntary Vows', then.
(We all Know how-it-was with the conformity thing; that's practically the Definition of adolescence)
Presumably at heart, relatively innocent vows actually - when the cant is stripped away, and is not confused with 'The Flag' as its symbol:
"Yeah OK.. if Something is [actually] menacing my family and friends -?- I Will try to help them! not sit on my ass and watch"
Ashton Simple Vows LLC
|
