Page 11 of 29 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314151621 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 566
  1. #201  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    I guess in the same sense that Americans are forced to use American currency, with "In God We Trust" stamped on the back, for our monetary transactions.

    Again, I guess hypocrasy knows no bounds.
    Indeed they are forced to do that too, and that too should be changed IMHO..
    Same problem in other countries, some dutch coins had 'god zij met ons' on it, which means 'god is with us'.
    I dont believe the dutch euro coins have that any more..
    <correction the dutch 2 euro coin still has it apperantly)

    Ironically 'Gott Mit Uns' german for 'god with us' apperantly was a slogan from the nazi SS (source: http://www.xs4all.nl/~in/Nl/Zaken/Euro/Start.HTM)
    I have not confirmed if this is true since the nazi's weren't religious perse..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  2. #202  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    Which is exactly the OPPOSITE approach Newdow took, as he is forcing HIS sensitivies on THOUSANDS of school children.

    Again, the needs of the minority outweighing the needs of the majority.
    .
    Wrong the need to seperate church from state outweight the need of religious mayority..
    And that need is one of the foundations of modern democracy..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  3. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
    #203  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    My comment was slightly in jest, as it generally takes a long time for an appeal to reach the Supreme Court, and since Roberts is already in confirmation hearings (and most likely will be appointed), he will be in the SC long before the case makes it there.
    I hope you're right. I hope they wouldn't be able to expedite things like congress did for Terri Schivo.
  4. #204  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    I have not confirmed if this is true since the nazi's weren't religious perse..
    Not necessarily true. The Nazi leaders were very religious, but not in a standard sense. They were very much into the occult and were attempting to craft a "Nazi religion" based on Christian and occultist ideals. A blend, if you will.
    I'm back!
  5. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
    #205  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    I agree with you on that one, but you also show why I have a problem with that whole pledge thing..
    for you kids sake you dont want to make a big fuss, but you know it is not right..

    Seperation of church and state should mean nobody would feel like they are 'forced' to say a pledge with religious implications.
    What you want to say is that you want to outlaw peer pressure. I understand that peer pressure is difficult to cope with, but that is not an excuse to outlaw it. Besides, it's a lesson in life every child needs to learn.

    As for inclusiveness, there is no act of exclusion,force, or coercion because they didn't do the following:

    "Please stand up and step to the side of the auditorium if you have issue with 'under god'"
    "Say the pledge or you are going to the principal's office"
  6. #206  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    Wrong the need to seperate church from state outweight the need of religious mayority..
    And that need is one of the foundations of modern democracy..
    Which religious majority? Christians? Jews? Muslims? Yes, this country was FOUNDED on Judeo-Christian beliefs, but when a Muslim girl says "under God", does that automatically exclude Allah?

    And again, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION, DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, ETC. CALLING FOR A SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

    I need to change my signature....
    I'm back!
  7. #207  
    Quote Originally Posted by naivete
    What you want to say is that you want to outlaw peer pressure. I understand that peer pressure is difficult to cope with, but that is not an excuse to outlaw it. Besides, it's a lesson in life every child needs to learn.

    As for inclusiveness, there is no act of exclusion,force, or coercion because they didn't do the following:

    "Please stand up and step to the side of the auditorium if you have issue with 'under god'"
    "Say the pledge or you are going to the principal's office"
    Thank you for interpreting what I want to say.. too bad you missed my point..

    outlaw peer pressure makes just as much sense as to outlaw gravity.
    My point is that a school which is a gov. run institution should not 'force' kids to make religious statements. seperation of church and state remember?
    You are twisting my argument.. one would almost think you were a troll... but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt... once..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  8. #208  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    You are right in your characterization of the Bill of Rights...but by implication, that means if the mob (majority) want to impose their will onto the minority, if it violates the Bill of Rights, then they legally can't. The Bill of Rights safeguards everyones rights and its especially effective from the minority group's point of view.

    Arguably we left England to not be under the tyranical control of a King. One of the functions of a democracy is to give all citizens a voice (stake) in the government. I am not intending to limit democracy to a single role of protecting the minority, but by giving each person the same rights, it essentially evens out the playing field (we have done this in other ways, for instance, because we don't trust the mob rule (majority) in creating laws in this country, we balance out the power of the House of Representatives (based on population) by having the Senate (2 votes for every state regardless of population-giving equal power and sometimes more power to states that have smaller populations...ie small states not ratifying certain amendments.)

    There are probably other examples as well...like the electoral college. We don't trust the majority to pick the president so as a safeguard, we have electors do it.
    It appears we are largely in agreement. I think you are saying that the Bill of Rights is in place to ensure that a large number of stakeholders do not, by sheer force of their will, violate the inalienable rights of those who disagree on a given topic.

    I suppose, conversely, the same Bill of Rights, would ensure that a forceful minority does not violate the inalienable rights of the majority.

    I think my initial objection was the reference to "majority" and "Minority" as a basis for protection. In fact, I will offer that the organization of this republic does not provide any basis for "majority" or "minority" designation, accept in the accounting of votes, in which such designations have limited scope and duration based on that point-in-time measurement (vote) in a specific context (proposal being decided).
  9. #209  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    Which religious majority? Christians? Jews? Muslims?
    Yep and all other 'deus' religions..
    The mayority believes in some sort of god, but millions don't so that makes it OK to force that on the others?

    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    Yes, this country was FOUNDED on Judeo-Christian beliefs, but when a Muslim girl says "under God", does that automatically exclude Allah?
    nope did I ever say or even imply that??

    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    And again, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION, DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, ETC. CALLING FOR A SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

    I need to change my signature....
    Mmm I assumed it did, since most civilised democracies have that clause.. again it is one of the foundations of modern democracy..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  10. #210  
    I wonder if much of this depends on the semantics of who,or what God/god is...

    If God is a higher being or entity, and you do not believe in the traditional Judeao/Christian concept- what is your higher being? I think everyone has a concept of what is Ultimate, be it the State, one's own independent autonomy, a undefined spirit, what or who ever.

    So, pledging that the country is under some other ultimate concept should thoretically not be a problem for an athiest. If the athiest believes he is his own ultimate authority in his own skin, then by definition wouldn't he be his own god... and therefore noting that the country & flag are under that authority is just stating that he, not the country, is supreme?

    This may be rupulsive to an athiest to consider it like this, but if God is the ultimate authority, and you are that authority, then aren't you in this case your own God?

    I only see a problem for those who think the country should be supreme and ultimate.
    Even above one's family, own self, etc. Then saying that it is under anything should be -pardon the phrase- "blasphemous'.

    Are we really pledging alliegence to a country that can at some point (and we debate if it has already) turn into an evil, terrible, mean despised and decreped entity?

    Or is the pledge, as ammended in the 50's, pledging a kind of tentative alligence. An alligence to a country that we acknowledge is, as great as it is, not the be-all/end-all, and is still under or subservient to whatever higher concept/god may exist?

    So, is the Country itself the Ultimate? Or is some One or some Thing possibly higher?
    Whatever that would be, that would be God- wouldn't it?

    Your thoughts...
    "Everybody Palm!"

    Palm III/IIIC, Palm Vx, Verizon: Treo 650, Centro, Pre+.
    Leo killed my future Pre 3 & Opal, dagnabitt!
    Should I buy a Handspring Visor instead?
    Got a Pre2! "It eats iPhones for Breakfast"!
  11. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
    #211  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    Thank you for interpreting what I want to say.. too bad you missed my point..

    outlaw peer pressure makes just as much sense as to outlaw gravity.
    My point is that a school which is a gov. run institution should not 'force' kids to make religious statements. seperation of church and state remember?
    You are twisting my argument.. one would almost think you were a troll... but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt... once..
    I am not being a troll. I am just trying to help you realize the similarities between this and what happens on the playground when a student decides to smoke because he/she wants to fit in. Will you come to the kid's rescue and break up the the group, or let the kid learn to cope with it on his own?
  12. #212  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    My point is that a school which is a gov. run institution should not 'force' kids to make religious statements. ...
    To the extent that "under god" is a religious statement, all citizens of the USofA consent to such religion. The Declaration of Independence asserts that the very rights we are discussing are obviously ("self-evident") endowed by our Creator.

    To whatever extent one agrees or disagrees with the founders' conclusion, one can determine the appropriate course of action.

    BTW, suing is not the appropriate course of action. The time for the judicial to evaluate the law was at its inception. To change the law now ought be a legislative matter.

    Not to mention, if the earlier references to efforts to remove "in god we trust" from financial units is accurate, the court has already asserted multiple times that the "separation" required by the consitution has been sufficiently observed.
  13. #213  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    Yep and all other 'deus' religions..
    The mayority believes in some sort of god, but millions don't so that makes it OK to force that on the others?


    nope did I ever say or even imply that??


    Mmm I assumed it did, since most civilised democracies have that clause.. again it is one of the foundations of modern democracy..
    One thing...

    Our country is not founded on "modern democracy" but on the Consitution, The Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights,...
  14. #214  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    To the extent that "under god" is a religious statement, all citizens of the USofA consent to such religion. The Declaration of Independence asserts that the very rights we are discussing are obviously ("self-evident") endowed by our Creator.
    Are you saying that all citizens of the USofA believe there is a god because of the Declaration of Independence?
    What was writen in the Declaration of Independence cannot be changed and was part of the way people were thinking/speaking then. What is said today is a totally seperate issue IMHO..
    When I got to the police I dont speak to them in Shakespearian engilsh even though the law broken I want to talk to them about was originally writen in that language..
    Get my point?
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  15. #215  
    Quote Originally Posted by naivete
    I am not being a troll. I am just trying to help you realize the similarities between this and what happens on the playground when a student decides to smoke because he/she wants to fit in. Will you come to the kid's rescue and break up the the group, or let the kid learn to cope with it on his own?
    I would try to educate all the kids so they know smoking is stupid and dangerous for you and others health.
    I would certainly not make them plege to the country 'under cigarete smoke'
    the difference between the pledge and smoking peer pressure is that is pledge is encouraged by the school/state while smoking hopefully isnt.. big difference..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  16. #216  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    One thing...

    Our country is not founded on "modern democracy" but on the Consitution, The Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights,...
    I get confused, americans seem to boast about being a free and democratic country, so I allways assume their county is founded on free and democratic values.. but I have proven to be wrong in this case..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  17. #217  
    The word "God" and "In God we Trust, does not indicate religious beliefs, or government condoning religion, it is expected to be overturned by the Supreme Court.

    Anbody other than a mindless liberal would know this.
  18. #218  
    Quote Originally Posted by dlbrummels
    The word "God" and "In God we Trust, does not indicate religious beliefs, or government condoning religion, it is expected to be overturned by the Supreme Court.

    Anbody other than a mindless liberal would know this.
    Then what DOES it mean??
    Please enlighten this mindless liberal..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  19. #219  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    Are you saying that all citizens of the USofA believe there is a god because of the Declaration of Independence?
    No. I started my statement with, "to the extent that..." That was a means of making a comparison. The point is, the POA is no more a religoius statement than the Declaration of Independence is. Perhaps, you find the Declaration to be religious
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    What was writen in the Declaration of Independence cannot be changed and was part of the way people were thinking/speaking then. What is said today is a totally seperate issue IMHO. When I got to the police I dont speak to them in Shakespearian engilsh even though the law broken I want to talk to them about was originally writen in that language..
    Get my point?
    I get your point. It just misses mine.

    And, here's the distinction...

    While you do not speak in Shakespearian english, you do reference the law written in such, for it is the only basis upon which you have standing to make a claim. AND, your ability to understand Shakesperian english enables you to comprehend what said law affords you.

    My references to the Declaration of Independence is not a deference to the times in which it was written, nor a deference to the beliefs that shaped it. Rather, I'm pointing out that it is one of the appropriate reference points for determining what is consitutional. And, it specifically references the Creator.

    As I stated in my earlier statement, it is the full right of any citizen to launch an effort to change the laws of the land. Perhaps someone has a better foundation upon which to build a society. But the current foundation of these USofA asserts that each and every one of us have inalienable rights, endowed by our Creator.

    Is there doubt that these are our rights?
    Is there doubt that they are inalienable?
    Or, is there only doubt that there is a Creator?

    If, only the latter, I would ask, on what basis then can one lay claim to inalienable rights?

    Perhaps it is believed that our rights are granted by the state. I once thought that way about the Constitution. But, then I remembered the Declaration of Independence.
  20. #220  
    What many don't understand is that what makes inalienable rights inalienable, is the source -- the Creator. When you take away the Creator, you take away inalienability.

    Main Entry: in·alien·able

    Pronunciation: (")i-'nAl-y&-n&-b&l, -'nA-lE-&-n&-

    Function: adjective

    Etymology: probably from French inaliénable, from in- + aliénable alienable

    : incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights>
    Source

Posting Permissions