Reread the post

Post #170,282 by bepatient 8/19/04 4:57:52 PM Reply	Reread the post culminating in the religio-agenda matters superseding, via incessant legal wrangles and other ploys The "right" isn't using the Court system to legislate changes that suit their agenda, at least not in the specific example given (the Pledge). This was the >LEFT< using the Court system to reverse something that had been in place for the better part of a half-century. Whether right or wrong, correct or incorrect...it is largely ploy of the left to use the Courts to legislate their objectives was my point. I understand the positions of the >left< versus the >right< here. Quite frankly, you should have no say in what >my< kids learn and how they learn it unless you move into my local school district. And claiming this country is theocratic in nature is simply misleading in todays enviroment. The judicial process indeed now actively discriminates against religion...something that the federal goverment, by charter, is not even supposed to legislate. The Supreme Court should not have been involved in the pledge case. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #170,469 by mmoffitt 8/20/04 2:46:57 PM 8/20/04 2:48:44 PM Reply	Heh. The Supreme Court should not have been involved in the pledge case. I guess you're right. I guess if the State decides to sponsor religion, the USSC should not be asked about it. [Edit:] The thing you originally objected to was my obervation that, "The real problem with public school education, imo, is too much right-wing theocratic nonsense infecting academics." Putting "God" in the classroom is arguably as concrete an example of that as exists. And, btw, as a tot I was coerced into saying the pledge, but the phrase "under God" was not spoken in my classroom in Southern California in the 1960's. bcnu, Mikem If you can read this, you are not the President. Edited by mmoffitt Aug. 20, 2004, 02:48:44 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #170,472 by bepatient 8/20/04 3:17:03 PM Reply	I see... ...feet over hot coals? Threat of the whip? And I see it did lasting damage to your psyche as well. <tongue>Oh, I forget, we only worry about those that are far more feeble minded than we...who were able to make up our own minds even in the face of such strong indoctrination. </cheek> If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #170,516 by Simon_Jester 8/20/04 11:43:42 PM Reply	I have to agree with BP... the Right very rarely uses the courts to enforce what they want. They typically kill/maim anyone who disagrees with them. Quite frankly, you should have no say in what >my< kids learn and how they learn it unless you move into my local school district. This statement makes no sense given the Right's backing of "No child left behind". The judicial process indeed now actively discriminates against religion...something that the federal goverment, by charter, is not even supposed to legislate. Actually the judicial process has discriminated against religions for YEARS. Strickly speaking, states should be allowed to form (and have done so in the past) state religions. Normally it is the Right being behind such discrimination. (Case in point: Utah)
Post #170,561 by bepatient 8/21/04 2:05:05 PM Reply	Re: I have to agree with BP... This statement makes no sense given the Right's backing of "No child left behind". Since that was >my< opinion...whaddya think that means? (Ooh...maybe I'm not what you assume?) Normally it is the Right being behind such discrimination. I would tend to disagree on percentages and say it is normally the left only because the majority of cases are around removing monotheistic and/or catholic items from state/local buildings (clearly overstepping federal authority doing so). Cases in point, Ten Commandments removed from AL court, earlier in teh 80's removed from all local school...the hundreds of cases where Christmas decorations were not allowed to be placed on city grounds (Phila being one example). however, neither side is innocent...but BOTH sides are wrong in assuming that the federal government should have that authority and they are incredibly misguided if they translate the First Amendment in that fashion. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; I don't think that is too ambiguous on the subject, do you? What part of "make no law" is misunderstood? If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #170,579 by Ashton 8/21/04 5:57:52 PM Reply	..a Nation under God?__Cthulhu?__Where's:___None-of above?
Post #170,582 by bepatient 8/21/04 6:09:26 PM Reply	Find a state or city that agrees... ...and move there. Because the nation is not even "none of the above"...its "whatever the hell you want". If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #170,590 by Ashton 8/21/04 6:58:44 PM Reply	+6.6 for innovation..
Post #170,599 by bepatient 8/21/04 10:03:32 PM Reply	You shorted me a six, buddy. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #170,605 by n3jja 8/22/04 12:47:27 AM Reply	Should have been a +6.66, then? ;-)
Post #170,611 by bepatient 8/22/04 1:45:11 AM Reply	now tatoo it on my forhead! If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #170,664 by Ashton 8/22/04 7:21:35 PM Reply	True Seers need no pigmentation to See_____er, :-\ufffd
Post #170,669 by bepatient 8/22/04 9:04:12 PM 8/22/04 9:04:39 PM Reply	True.. ...but as the anti-Ashton, I must bear the mark ;-) If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient Aug. 22, 2004, 09:04:39 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #170,675 by Ashton 8/22/04 10:31:02 PM Reply	Ah.. an afficionado of String-along Theory
Post #170,693 by jb4 8/23/04 11:24:34 AM Reply	As the anti-Ashton, you must bear THIS mark: :-\ufffd jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #170,694 by Another Scott 8/23/04 11:30:12 AM Reply	Nay - "Ka Ching, Ka Ching, Ka Ching". HTH. :-)
Post #170,583 by Simon_Jester 8/21/04 6:10:25 PM Reply	Differences in opinion.... > Normally it is the Right being behind such discrimination. I would tend to disagree on percentages and say it is normally the left only because the majority of cases are around removing monotheistic and/or catholic items from state/local buildings (clearly overstepping federal authority doing so). Cases in point, Ten Commandments removed from AL court, earlier in teh 80's removed from all local school...the hundreds of cases where Christmas decorations were not allowed to be placed on city grounds (Phila being one example). however, neither side is innocent...but BOTH sides are wrong in assuming that the federal government should have that authority and they are incredibly misguided if they translate the First Amendment in that fashion. Certainly the recent arguments have come from the Left - and as I have agreed with you, the Left generally tries things in the Courts and, for the most part, abides by those rulings, even when they are against them. However, I'm not certain these arguments are more numerous than those from the Right, particular when viewed over time. As I have pointed out, several states did have State Religions. And if you think the Left would be the ones who would rally the fight against Utah declaring their State Religion to be Mormon, I think you'd be sadly mistaken.
Post #170,585 by bepatient 8/21/04 6:20:08 PM Reply	The problem in Utah.. ...is they imported too damned many Irish ;-) Seriously, though...I though Utah had a similar separation clause to that of the Constitution...making it unconstitutional at the state level to declare a "state religion". If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #170,645 by Simon_Jester 8/22/04 3:41:41 PM Reply	Ahem, I think if you investigate further... you'll find that amendment was a requirement for them to be added as a State to our Union. And if you dig, just a little deeper, you'll find the people who required said amendment. (And they won't be the Left.) (FYI: Salt Lake City is about 40% Catholic (iirc), but the state is something like 90% Mormon)
Post #170,653 by bepatient 8/22/04 5:15:57 PM Reply	Ok... not arguing...didn't know the history of that piece of their charter. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!