Just out of curiosity: Would that do it for you?

Post #63,119 by CRConrad 11/15/02 4:50:19 PM Reply	Just out of curiosity: Would that do it for you?
Post #63,121 by bepatient 11/15/02 5:06:57 PM Reply	I don't see another... ...objection that could be made on constitutional grounds. So...it would pretty much solve my Constitutional Crisis. There are alot of other reasons that people will bring up...but Ash's response about trashing the constitution...well...The Pledge..as well as prayer...were required in the schools for a very long time...we still have a Constitution...so if it didn't trash the big C then...don't see why it will now. So, you see, CRC...I'd call Ash's response an >over-reaction<. And the governor probably won't sign this anyway....but I suppose in the current environment...you never know. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #63,125 by imric 11/15/02 5:24:41 PM Reply	The act of protesting would be covered under freedom of speech, I think. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #63,127 by bepatient 11/15/02 5:33:07 PM Reply	I suppose that ...that could be interpreted from the parental consent...making it "coerced". We'll see if [link\|http://www.aclupa.org/index.html\|these guys] bring that one up. I expect they might. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #63,128 by Ashton 11/15/02 5:35:55 PM Reply	I'd agree 'over-reaction' if.. (It IS about 'the current environment'.. D'Oh..) If.. we didn't have the first Murican wannabe-Pope still as AG, despite wide reportage of his er peculiarities, and if.. there were some sign that Ashcroft is an extremist in this admin. Unfortunately all indications are that - he's merely average for the group (though the others keep lip zipped, don't cover up the breasts on statues or record sing-alongs about Eagles etc. Yet). I believe we shall see a crescendo of God-content fulminations, misogynistic proposals represented as Save the Zygotes from Commyunist Moms, flag-backdrops and implicit condemnation of All who wish theology left out of State: as (my Gramma lives..) Com- Librul- symps. This admin, more than any other in my memory (or read of) - is as dedicated to language murder as Jack the R was dedicated to misogyny. That is why such as the above - is IMO an indicator not an aberration. Ashton Of course it isn't All just this junta's doing - it needs the concupiscence of a nation of hardly-voting sheep, to effect this much concentrated mischief without significant opposition. (Maybe it also takes a living HL Mencken or Twain to awaken such - but that's just a wishful guess. And which infotainment Corp would give either - airtime?)
Post #63,155 by deSitter 11/15/02 9:03:37 PM Reply	Over reaction? It's a maudlin, trivial nostrum invented by an Italian barber for Columbus day in something like 1904, not the dying words of Jefferson. I'd sooner cite the Pledge of Allegiance to Good Pasta and Abundant Tomato Sauce. I pledge allegiance to this Sauce, And the Pasta on which it stands; And to the restaurant in which it's served, One entree, courtesy of Gino, With parmesan and fresh bread for All. -drl
Post #63,179 by Silverlock 11/16/02 4:24:03 AM Reply	I agree Stringing post header and comment together-- I don't see another objection that could be made on constitutional grounds. Do you see any objection? Non-constitutional, of course.
Post #63,198 by bepatient 11/16/02 8:16:13 AM 11/16/02 8:22:14 AM Reply	Sure. Most of them have been made here. Of course...equating forced Pledge of Allegiance to the 3rd Reich is a bit extreme...but the point is made. Then again...I don't see anyone crying about the rights of athletes forced to stand during the singing of the National Anthem either. I guess my point is...that if this was done for dozens of years and the country didn't fall apart...why...all of a sudden...does it become some big deal? A crisis of constitutional scope. Back to the other thread on forced conformity. Allowing those who want to do and those who don't to not...is >not allowable<...better that all don't...because we wouldn't want poor Johnny to worry about his teacher talking to his parents (Christ no...NOT THAT!) Should this be a law. Nope. But even without this legislation...the point would be legislated. If the school system started the Pledge on its own...the legislation would be drafted and passed in the Courts. (but they don't >make< laws....yeah...right) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient Nov. 16, 2002, 08:22:14 AM EST Expand All History
Post #63,254 by Ashton 11/16/02 3:23:49 PM Reply	Possibly it is more significant now because of 'conditions' 1) For the fact of a court adjudicated Answer: It is unConstitutional (no matter that the judge is instantly slandered and the usual doggerel ensues). 2) We have a loony AG, and that is the kind-word adjective. He has an (now Obv) agenda - and is Not disciplined by his peers-in-Power. 3) God-words were bandied about to an unprecedented degree in recent elections. Our CIEIO is fond of sprinkling them into the most improbable sentences. Pure religious pandering for 'effect'. Bad in a National-CIEIO at any time. 4) We are all ready to invade another country, first-strike: and while it has zippo to do with our putative (now almost forgotten) ID'd ENEMY ("Al-Q" and whateverhappenedto Our #1 Target we were gonnahuntdown no matter what?) 'GOD' by-any-Other-name, and Her claimed plans for >opposing< groups: figures prominently in all the bellicose matters now underway. Employing Her Name in like manner - neither soothes the troubled waters nor indicates superior intelligence. 'Crusade' - use of just that word - indicates the importance of such words, especially when STUPIDLY used. 5) A long-standing affront (to the basic secular 'contract' of the Republic) -- has no expiry date for redress. Never mind the direct affront to: the millions who deem God-words (especially politically self-serving God-words) akin to other superstitions of the past. The agnostic view is the only possible 'view' of this phenom: if you are speaking for A Country!, IMhO. Are these enough 'reasons' for Why? Now? [or.. at all] Ashton
Post #63,288 by CRConrad 11/16/02 7:00:57 PM Reply	Never mind the constitution... ...'coz that ain't what it's about (however shocking that may seem to you -- remember, I'm not an American, so I'm not conditioned to equate "Constitution" = "Right & Good", "UnConstitutional" = "Wrong & Bad"); in fact, I didn't even notice (not that I can remember now, anyway) your use of the term. I was asking more, "would you have anything against it, if it weren't for the 'God' bit?". I must confess I am a bit disappointed that this didn't seem to be the case -- I would have expected (such a staunch defender of American Values as) you to voice at least some of all the objections Ashton, SilverDon, Brandioch, and, above all, InThane have voiced. Fuck, even from (or perhaps precisely because I am?) way off over here, I can clearly see that this is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of "ALL THAT AMERICA IS (SUPPOSED TO BE!) ABOUT". Oh, and to reply to what you did say -- as opposed to all of the above, which is more about what you didn't -- Ashton is of course right that just because something -- be it just the letter of your Constitution, or the ideas and ideals behind it -- has been trampled underfoot for a long time, is no reason to think that being trampled underfoot is good for it. Christian R. Conrad Microsoft is a true reflection of Bill Gates' personality - the sleaziest, most unethical, ugliest little rat's ass the world has seen unto this time. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=42971\|Andrew Grygus]

Welcome to IWETHEY!