|
|
|
|
PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate
attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't
be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats,
but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other
posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out
how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are
encouraged to read the
complete guidelines.
As entertainment critic Roger
Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue
with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
|
|
|
"I Pledge Allegiance..."
dabo 26942 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-26-02, 10:46 PM (EST)
 
  |
|
"I Pledge Allegiance..." |
I didn't get the whole story, but a court decided today that it is unconstitutional to make children in public schools recite the Pledge of Allegiance because it contains the words "under God."Boy oh boy, some of the things that get to trial these days, I just don't get it. The original Pledge was published in 1892. The words "my flag" were altered sometime later to read "the flag of the United States of America." The words "under God" were added to the Pledge in 1954 by an act of Congress. Just some food for thought. I hope our money doesn't become unconstitutional.  SMILES ARE FREE
|
|
|
Top |
| |
PepeLePew13 26135 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-26-02, 11:53 PM (EST)
|
|
2. "This is just as bad, if not worse..." |
Yes, really... check this out. Don't these people have better things to do with their time, like, oh let's say... actually running the country and reducing our tax burden?http://www.sen.parl.gc.ca/vpoy/english/Personal_Introduction/newsclips/Hill%20Times%20280501.htm
Time to change sexist anthem, say Liberal Senators
By Bill Curry
The Hill Times, May 28, 2001 Canada's national anthem is sexist and should be changed, says a group of Senators who have revived the debate in the Upper Chamber. Toronto Liberal Senator Vivienne Poy, who first raised the issue a few months ago, has found support amongst several other Senators who all agree it's time to change O Canada. The Senators object to the line, "True patriot love, in all thy sons command." They argue the word "sons," leaves out women and should be changed to a gender-neutral term. One Senator has suggested "sons," be changed to "us." Liberal Sen. Lucie Pépin (Shawinigan, Que.) also supports the motion to debate rewriting Canada's national anthem, O Canada. Fellow Ontario Liberal Senator Landon Pearson is expected to speak in favour of the move this week in the Upper Chamber. "I said I would speak because the wording for me, for some years, has been an issue singing 'in all thy sons,'" she told The Hill Times. "I mean, what about the daughters? I keep saying to myself. That's the only issue. That one line... So when I sing it, I just say 'In all of us .' It has the same rhythm. All of us Canadians who are up there singing away. I have found it increasingly difficult over the years to keep singing about sons. I keep thinking about the daughters. I have four daughters and I only have one son and my daughters are just as patriotic as my son," she joked."Is this an issue that we need to put a lot of energy into? I mean, I don't know, but I wouldn't mind seeing it changed. I think it would make it easier for those of us who somehow feel we're being discriminated against. When Sen. Poy first raised the inquiry, which is similar to a motion but isn't voted on, she explained the history of the issue. She pointed out that the English version of the national anthem is based on wording that dates back to 1908, when the phrase "in all thy sons command" was written by Montreal judge Robert Stanley Weir in honour of the 300th anniversary of the founding of Québec City. In 1980, when O Canada was officially made the country's national anthem under the National Anthem Act, Sen. Poy pointed out that some Parliamentarians at the time wanted changes to the words by getting rid of "sons" and also changing "our home and native land" to "our home and cherished land." But because of the ongoing unity crisis in Quebec, the government decided to fast-track the bill through, promising to allow amendments later. "Unfortunately, the national anthem has remained unchanged, despite much controversy over its wording," Sen. Poy told the Senate. Since then, six Private Members' Bills have tried to change the word "sons." The last attempt was made in 1994. "Each bill proposed a change to the words 'thy sons' in the national anthem, to something more equitable for the daughters of Canada," she said. "Each document, in its turn, has been shelved and forgotten." "For those of you who would argue that language is of little importance, just imagine the reaction if the anthem was written to read 'in all thy daughters command,'" Sen. Poy said. Sen. Poy even found support from the Senate's other party and gender in the form of Tory Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, Que.), who is also a constitutional expert. He argued that Parliament does have the constitutional power to change the word "sons." "However, we should avoid rewriting poems, literary works, et cetera. There are some limits," he said. "We must be prudent." He suggested that the Senate would be an ideal place to introduce a bill to change the wording. Liberal Senator Shirley Maheu (Rougemount, Que.) was the most recent Senator to support the idea. "Senator Poy has drawn the national anthem to our attention and is suggesting a change to non-sexist language. Is the political will there now?" she asked the Senate. "We also heard that there are two types of history: the kind we look back on and the kind we make ourselves. The Famous Five were not content with the status quo. They believed that they could change the world, and they did. The lesson for us today is that the power to make history is always in our hands. Honourable Senators, do not Canadian women of the past and Canadian women of the future deserve recognition in the English version of our national anthem?"  
|
|
|
Top |
| |
Crimsyn 590 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
06-27-02, 03:21 AM (EST)
|
|
3. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
I'm sick of all the religious debates and the sexist debates. Try living on an Air Force Base. The people here are from all over the world and none of them agree on anything.
Last week in the base newspaper, there was a little comment from the base commander. Someone wrote to him with a complaint about religious signs at the post office. The sign read: Jesus Loves You. The woman got mad and took the sign down. In response to her complaint, the commander, who is a Brig. General, said that religious paraphanelia are allowed at the base chapel, but should otherwise be restricted on base.Wasn't this country founded under God? I'm not a religious fantatic, I don't even go to church, but this is getting rediculous. Its a military installation, therefore, government property, which was founded under God, but religious affection is not allowed. Not even the hotel on base is allowed to have Bibles in the nightstand drawers. It seems now days everyone has a God of some sort or another that they believe in. Why can't the Pledge of Alience say "One nation, Under God"? It doesn't specify which one. We could be talking about Buddah here. If it were to say "Under Christ" then I could see the issue. Personally I don't care what it says, I'm not in school, so I never hear it anyway. I'm just waiting to see what the next great debate will be over. Next we'll see someone decide that the red in our flag is a symbol of evil, burn the flags, they'll say eagles are nasty creatures, they'll roast them all and kill the species, the Statue of Liberty is sexist, it should be a man, lets tear the damn thing down....etc, etc, etc. People really just need to get a life and be glad things are the way they are, or just move their sorry butts to some othere country. I hear Afghanistan is nice this time of year.  
"What are you gonna do? Release the hounds? Or release the bees? Or release the hounds and the bees? Or release the hounds with bees in there mouths, so when they bark they shoot bees?" Homer Simpson
|
|
|
Top |
| |
Bebo 21083 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 09:32 AM (EST)
|
|
5. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
After 9/11, I had an athiest explain to me about feeling left out when the signs "God Bless America" were flying all around the country and saw them as an imposition of beliefs on others. I saw it as an imposition of beliefs that this person was expecting others to hold back on expressing their grief, fear, frustration, support for others, etc. because it wasn't packaged in a particular format. Last time I checked, I had the right to say a lot of things that others may not completely agree with or like the format. You can't please all of the people all of the time.Things can be taken to extremes. Whether you believe in religion or not, it was a part of founding this nation. One of the reasons the Puritans came here was to escape religious persecution. To expunge any references to that is going too far. What's next, expecting all money to be reprinted/reminted without the phrase "In God We Trust"? Friendly advice dispensed daily, courtesy of My superiority complex
|
|
|
Top |
| |
 |
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 09:56 AM (EST)
|
|
6. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
EXACTLY, Bebo!! It may be offensive to this atheist guy for his child to have to stand there while the rest of the class says "Under God", but it's equally offensive to me (and I know to many many others) to be told we *can't* say it. Why should the wishes of one outweigh the wishes of everyone else? Cuz the one is making all the noise, that's why!As you said, you can't please all the people. But I think you should try to please the majority of the people as much as possible. 
- This Space For Rent The road goes on forever and the party never ends - Robert Earl Keen
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 10:23 AM (EST)
|
|
8. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
>The original Pledge of Allegiance did
>not contain the words, "under
>God." Let's just roll
>back. I personally don't
>believe in ANY "God," and
>I find it offensive that
>I was forced as a
>child to acknowledge a belief
>system that is antithetical to
>what I believe.
>
But can you not also see that it is equally offensive to me and many others that our belief system should be ignored simply because you as an individual are uncomfortable with it?
>And those who say, "if you
>want to live here, follow
>'our' rules..." are just trying
>to cram 'our' religion(s) down
>*my* throat.
>
"Our" rules are such that you are free to exercise your right to any religious belief that you want, but I also have that same freedom. So when our beliefs clash, who should "win"...the minority or the majority?
>Let's not forget that the same
>time period that gave us
>the words "...under God..." in
>the Pledge of Allegiance also
>gave us Senator McCarthy and
>"Better Dead than Red."
>
>-- JV
But the Declaration of Independence also mentions God and Our Creator, and our money says "In God We Trust", and those were in place LONG before 1954.
- This Space For Rent The road goes on forever and the party never ends - Robert Earl Keen
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
samiam 5976 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 01:02 PM (EST)
|
|
30. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
So, then, since in your view, the MAJORITY of Americans believe in the Christian God, screw everybody else? That's directly oppositional to the principles of liberty and equality, on which the Constitution is based.The original pledge was written in 1892 by a minister. He didn't think it was appropriate to have "God" in the pledge. Ask your grandparents which version of the pledge they remember. "Under God" was not in the Pledge until 1954, so it went 62 years with everyone thinking it was fine. Then, of course, the McCarthyists felt a need to Christianize everything, in response to those godless Communists. So we had "Under God" added to the Pledge, "In God We Trust" put on the money (which was NOT, as you stated, "way before 1954" but was actually in 1956), and judges were required to use "so help me God" at the end of their oaths, among other things. I think a lot of people are under the impression that these things have been around since the Founding Fathers, and now those damn secular folks are trying to remove God from everything, when that just isn't true. There is a movement to go back to "under God" not being in the pledge, as it was originally written, and "E Pluribus Unum" being on the money, as it was until the 1950's (with various interludes). Let me give you another scenario. Let's say you're a Christian American, and you move to another (fictional) country. You live there for a long time, and you'd like to become a citizen. So you do. However, the majority of the people in this country worship a different God than you do, which they call "George."
Every day, your children are required to say the pledge of allegiance to the flag of your new country, and their pledge includes the words "under George." Would you feel comfortable with them doing that? "Our" rules are such that you are free to exercise your right to any religious belief that you want, but I also have that same freedom. Well, certainly you do. We all have the right to exercise whatever religion we want to. However, the exercise of your freedom to practice your religion ends where mine begins...and vice-versa. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Congress made a law requiring the Christian God to be included in the National Pledge. Therefore, it is unconstitutional. It's that simple. Don't make it into a crusade. So when our beliefs clash, who should "win"...the minority or the majority? The answer is neither. There shouldn't be a NEED for anyone to "win" because we're all interested in tolerance and individual liberty, right?  God used to be my co-pilot, but then we crashed in the Andes and I had to eat Him.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
mistofleas 8043 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 01:13 PM (EST)
|
|
32. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
>>>>>>God used to be my co-pilot, but then we crashed in the Andes and I had to eat Him. >>>>>I'm taking a moment to hijack this thread and tell sami that I've had a bumper sticker on my car with that saying for two years and boy howdy have I gotten some reaction to it!!! Remind me to tell you about the play my husband is writing called "Don't Eat the Pope". Now back to your regularly scheduled debate--- 
mistofleas --loves a good thread hijack
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 01:15 PM (EST)
|
|
33. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
>So, then, since in your view,
>the MAJORITY of Americans believe
>in the Christian God, screw
>everybody else? That's directly
>oppositional to the principles of
>liberty and equality, on which
>the Constitution is based.
>
Nope that's not what I meant. But by the same token, it shouldn't be screw everyone who believes in a Christian God just because a small minority don't (doesn't?)>The original pledge was written in
>1892 by a minister.
>He didn't think it was
>appropriate to have "God" in
>the pledge. Ask your
>grandparents which version of the
>pledge they remember. "Under
>God" was not in the
>Pledge until 1954, so it
>went 62 years with everyone
>thinking it was fine.
>
And we've gone 48 years thinking it was fine with "under God" as a part of it.
>Then, of course, the McCarthyists felt
>a need to Christianize everything,
>in response to those godless
>Communists. So we had
>"Under God" added to the
>Pledge, "In God We Trust"
>put on the money (which
>was NOT, as you stated,
>"way before 1954" but was
>actually in 1956), and judges
>were required to use "so
>help me God" at the
>end of their oaths, among
>other things.
>
True.
>I think a lot of people
>are under the impression that
>these things have been around
>since the Founding Fathers, and
>now those damn secular folks
>are trying to remove God
>from everything, when that just
>isn't true. There is
>a movement to go back
>to "under God" not being
>in the pledge, as it
>was originally written, and "E
>Pluribus Unum" being on the
>money, as it was until
>the 1950's (with various interludes).
>
Hadn't heard about that till just now.
>
>Let me give you another scenario.
> Let's say you're a
>Christian American, and you move
>to another (fictional) country.
>You live there for a
>long time, and you'd like
>to become a citizen.
>So you do. However, the
>majority of the people in
>this country worship a different
>God than you do, which
>they call "George."
>Every day, your children are required
>to say the pledge of
>allegiance to the flag of
>your new country, and their
>pledge includes the words "under
>George." Would you feel comfortable
>with them doing that?
>
I have a problem with them being required to say it, just as I have a problem with kids today being required to say the pledge or pray or anything else. And I have a problem with kids not being allowed to say the pledge or pray if they want to.
That's the key to my argument. Frau should be allowed to practice her Wiccan beliefs if she wants to, but she shouldn't be allowed to restrict me from practicing my Christian beliefs if I want to. Likewise, I shouldn't be able to require her to practice my Christian beliefs.
>
>
>Well, certainly you do. We
>all have the right to
>exercise whatever religion we want
>to. However, the exercise
>of your freedom to practice
>your religion ends where mine
>begins...and vice-versa.
>
So where does that "line" begin and end? >The First Amendment states that "Congress
>shall make no law respecting
>the establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That's the part that keeps getting forgotten in favor of the first part.
> Congress made a law
>requiring the Christian God to
>be included in the National
>Pledge. Therefore, it is
>unconstitutional. It's that simple.
> Don't make it into
>a crusade.
>
>
>The answer is neither. There
>shouldn't be a NEED for
>anyone to "win" because we're
>all interested in tolerance and
>individual liberty, right?
>
I'm not looking to "win", just to be able to practice my beliefs as I choose, just like Frau and everyone else. But like you said, my freedom ends where yours begins and vice versa. Therein is the clash.
>
Mmmmmm.... God used to be my
>co-pilot, but then we crashed
>in the Andes and I
>had to eat Him. This still cracks me up!!!
- This Space For Rent The road goes on forever and the party never ends - Robert Earl Keen
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
samiam 5976 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 01:27 PM (EST)
|
|
39. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
First of all, don't throw "pray" in there, because kids praying individually in school is a protected right.AGAIN: The issue here is that including "God" (and the intended meaning IS the Christian God) in what is recognized as the Official, Congressionally-approved Pledge amounts to Congress recognizing Christianity as superior to every other religion that's represented in this country. THAT I have a problem with, yes. I'm not trying to keep you from exercising your right to believe that you, and the nation, are under God. I'm trying to get equal recognition for MY religion. Why do we HAVE to recognize that this country is under ANY particular God? YOU can personally believe that it is, but I also must be allowed to believe that it is under MY God, or not under any God at all. And for the national government to recognize one and not the other is WRONG. The ideals of this country are that EVERY voice be heard and respected, not just the majority.
God used to be my co-pilot, but then we crashed in the Andes and I had to eat Him.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 01:39 PM (EST)
|
|
42. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
LAST EDITED ON 06-27-02 AT 01:40 PM (EST)>First of all, don't throw "pray"
>in there, because kids praying
>individually in school is a
>protected right.
>
Then why are students being suspended for it?
>AGAIN: The issue here is that
>including "God" (and the intended
>meaning IS the Christian God)
>in what is recognized as
>the Official, Congressionally-approved Pledge amounts
>to Congress recognizing Christianity as
>superior to every other religion
>that's represented in this country.
> THAT I have a
>problem with, yes. I'm
>not trying to keep you
>from exercising your right to
>believe that you, and the
>nation, are under God.
>I'm trying to get equal
>recognition for MY religion.
>
I see your point.
>Why do we HAVE to recognize
>that this country is under
>ANY particular God? YOU
>can personally believe that it
>is, but I also must
>be allowed to believe that
>it is under MY God,
>or not under any God
>at all. And for
>the national government to recognize
>one and not the other
>is WRONG. The ideals
>of this country are that
>EVERY voice be heard and
>respected, not just the majority.
>
Hmmmmm....ok...I can see that...you've explained it better than I've seen before now. Thank you.
- This Space For Rent The road goes on forever and the party never ends - Robert Earl Keen
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
sittem 4186 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Jerry Springer Show Guest"
|
06-27-02, 11:01 AM (EST)
|
|
9. "Different View" |
I don't really care a whole lot what they do to the pledge. I don't say it and I haven't and will not teach it to my children. As a sympbol of America and it's rich traditions I have no problem with the flag. However, I will not pledge alliegance to it, nor the country for which it stands - my only allegiance is to God and I will not pledge my alliegance to any other.Also, I found it very amusing after 9/11 that everyone is singing God Bless America. It's a nice song and very stiring. But, God has blessed America beyond measure. What about the rest of the world? Why not focus a little energy on others who are so dramatically less fortunate than us? WTC was absolutely tragic and horrendous. But, what about the millions in Africa who are dying of wars and AIDS? (OK - control self here - don't get so serious!!) I even struggle about standing for the National Anthem. When younger I didn't stand - back in the 60's and 70's when it was cool to be anti-authoritarian. However, then kids came along and they go to school and they get taught all this garbage, so I decided I better stand at their kindergarten graduation ceremony (yes - in Chicago we actually celebrate graduating from Kindergarten!!) and at other events after that.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
PackMan 1207 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Politically Incorrect Guest"
|
06-29-02, 05:49 AM (EST)
|
|
90. "RE: Agree" |
I hate to revive this debate, as it looks like it has started to close, but I haven't had a chance to read any of the posts until earlier tonight. And Frau's words struck a cord with me... something I have been thinking about since this whole story surfaced.One of my real-life roles is performing root cause analysis. This includes identifying and prioritizing problems, and going after the issues that are really causing you to under-perform. The fact that our government is spending so much time and effort on the wording in the Pledge of Allegiance is disappointing to me, especially in light of the obvious problems we have in our educational system. Teachers are underpaid to the point that individuals, who would otherwise make excellent teachers, choose other professions so they can afford to enjoy the freedoms proposed by our Constitution. We pack 25 to 30 kids in a classroom and expect a single teacher to give each child the same level of attention. Then we tell teachers that they are going to just have to make do with older textbooks and teaching materials. Teachers are stressed to the breaking point, and the ones who excel in this environment have my utmost respect. Teaching is one of the most under-appreciated roles in our society. We bus kids halfway across the county in an attempt to bring equity to the education process. But we fail to address the core issue - these kids should not have to be put through all this effort to receive a quality education. We need to address the conditions at their schools, and do what is necessary to provide them every opportunity to excel. An educated child is better equipped to decide on their own what their beliefs are. I did a little checking on the federal budget for 2002. The estimated spend for education is $48 billion. Compare this to defense spending ($350 billion), Health & Human Services ($430 billion) and repayment of the national debt ($360 billion in interest). Education ranks 10th on the list of agency budget amounts. So while I hear a lot about education as a focus for this country, I do not see the corresponding action. As for the debate over religion and government, I am not overly concerned about it as long as no one is knocking on my door telling me how I should express my faith. When I was growing up, I can remember the debates over prayer is school... did it stop me from saying a prayer when I chose to - no. Did it change my religious beliefs - no. Is separation of church and state something I dwell on - no, because I think we have bigger issues to face. Why hasn't our government tackled these issues - because there are no easy answers, and it's easier to argue these "hot button" topics. And if we (as a country) would start working on the main issues facing us, we may find that we will be better equipped handle the other issues when they finally become the number one priority. Sorry for the rant, but this has been nagging at me since the beginning of the week when the national debate first began. I usually try to stay away from the deeper discussion here on OT. SB is my dessert, so I tend to stay on the lighter topics. But I had to get this one off my chest. Also, I know the grammar and spelling may be off, but I'm too tired to go back and check it all. *PackMan quietly puts away his soapbox and returns to his den*  PackMan
"When the only tool you own is a hammer, all problems begin to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
Frau Hexe 716 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
06-27-02, 11:47 AM (EST)
|
|
11. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
LAST EDITED ON 06-27-02 AT 11:49 AM (EST)All right, I guess it's time to express my own rather unpopular opinion. I have always hated the pledge of allegiance. When I was a kid in high school, the school board suddenly decided that we needed to recite it every day, and I refused, and at that point was ridiculed by classmates, and although my first-period teacher, a fabulous old anarchist, understood, I was actually punished by a few substitute teachers for not standing. My problem with it was not only "under god" but the fact that so much of it is a lie. We don't have liberty and justice for all. We have liberty and justice for white heterosexual Christians. I support allowing children to choose whether or not they say the pledge. Hell, 95% percent of kids have no idea what it means anyway. They have simply memorized words, collections of phonemes, but certainly not meaning. As for those who think "under God" represents anyone's god, I beg to differ. I don't worship a god. If anything I worship goddess and god energy in people and in nature. So what, am I supposed to let "God," a word filled with white-bearded-man-in-the-sky connotations, represent "goddess"? They aren't the same thing. Are my Buddhist friends, who don't in fact worship Buddha, but rather follow his teachings (BTW Buddha is not considered a god), are they supposed to say "God" and think Buddha? So yes, I have a problem with the whole "God" thing. People are saying that our nation was founded on "God," but this nation was also founded on a premise that there would be a separation of church and state. Sadly, there never has been. The U.S. Government is so tied to "church" that its laws are entrenched in biblical law. And these very same laws, my friends, are what keep people like me and Scribe and many other people on these boards from being permitted some pretty basic rights and priveleges afforded by the government to straight people. Don't tell me there isn't a general assumption of Judeo-Christian belief when "God" with a capital "G" is mentioned. When people after 9/11 were shouting "God bless you" and "God bless America" all over the place, they meant the Judeo-Christian god because let me tell you--the few times I replied very sincerely with "and Goddess bless" I got some pretty disgusted glares. I don't mean to piss anyone off here. I just think some of you are missing the point of all this. Think about it, wouldn't many of you have a problem if the tables were turned and people said "Allah bless you" and "one nation, under Allah"? My guess is you'd be pretty damn infuriated. 
"I know I can't be the only whatever I am in the room." -Ani Difranco
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 12:03 PM (EST)
|
|
17. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
>I don't mean to piss
>anyone off here. I just
>think some of you are
>missing the point of all
>this. Well, I don't agree with most of what you said, but since I'm white, hetero and Christian, that's to be expected. And you're welcome to your opinion, as long as I'm welcome to mine (which is usually the problem...) Think about it, wouldn't
>many of you have a
>problem if the tables were
>turned and people said "Allah
>bless you" and "one nation,
>under Allah"? My
>guess is you'd be pretty
>damn infuriated.
>
Well, I can only speak for myself, but if I lived in a Muslim country, nope, I wouldn't be infuriated in the least. I would take into account that that was the predominant belief in the country and accept the blessing for how it was intended, rather than get my dander up and try to change the way the majority of the people expressed their belief. - This Space For Rent The road goes on forever and the party never ends - Robert Earl Keen
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Strider 580 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
06-27-02, 12:31 PM (EST)
|
|
25. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
This is the second time is this thread that you have suggested that the minority must simply accept and be subject to the beliefs of the majority. This country was very carefully organized under the idea that a majority should not be allowed to quash the beliefs of a minority. Madison called it the "oppressive tyranny of the majority." Go ahead and express your belief. Pledge your alliance to the flag all you want. Just don't make me stand in a public classroom while the Pledge is being made. If laws were based solely on majority opinion, we would have no civil rights.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 12:35 PM (EST)
|
|
26. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
LAST EDITED ON 06-27-02 AT 12:36 PM (EST)Maybe I'm not saying it the way I mean it. I just mean that if 30 people in a room believe one way, and one believes differently, that the other 30 shouldn't have to give up their belief simply because the one feels uncomfortable about it, just as I wouldn't expect the one to give up their belief simply because the 30 feel uncomfortable with it. But when the two beliefs conflict, as in this case, why should the one get to exercise his beliefs to the exclusion of the 30? That's the question I can never seem to get an answer for....
- This Space For Rent The road goes on forever and the party never ends - Robert Earl Keen
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 01:23 PM (EST)
|
|
37. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
>I suppose that would depend on
>if YOU were the one
>person who had to suck
>up and deal, wouldn't it?
>
And I said that I would suck it up....>
>Europeans CAME here to get away
>from religious oppression, because they
>were told that they had
>to submit to the majority
>and didn't want to.
>Ironic? And now we're heading toward religious suppression by the minority.... - This Space For Rent The road goes on forever and the party never ends - Robert Earl Keen
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 01:41 PM (EST)
|
|
43. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
LAST EDITED ON 06-27-02 AT 01:47 PM (EST)But I don't see the "sharing", just the "I don't like that you pray to a different God than I do, or to a God at all, so you have to stop". Edited to add that I crossed over 400 posts somewhere in this discussion.... - This Space For Rent The road goes on forever and the party never ends - Robert Earl Keen
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
samiam 5976 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 02:00 PM (EST)
|
|
47. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
I will say this again: school prayer is not the issue. School prayer is a protected right.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 02:04 PM (EST)
|
|
50. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
>I will say this again:
>school prayer is not the
>issue. Agreed. But it goes to the freedom of religion thing. School prayer is
>a protected right. Debatable....
- This Space For Rent The road goes on forever and the party never ends - Robert Earl Keen
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
desert_rhino 10087 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 10:05 PM (EST)
 |
|
88. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
I expect you not to smoke in my face, and I expect you not to try (as an agent of the government) to shove your supposed "God" down my throat. I don't cram my God, Dog, or complete lack thereof down YOUR throat, do I? I can't count the number of times I was kept in from recess because I refused to say *2 stupid words* I didn't believe in.I'll also refrain from forcing YOUR kids to swear to "one Nation, under Satan...." Mmmmkay? The whole frelling REASON we live in a REPUBLIC and not a democracy was that our Founding Fathers at least *tried* to accept the fact that democracy was 2 wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. Granted, they didn't get it quite as right as they should have, but cramming christianity down the throats of schoolkids is NOT what they had in mind. This whole issue is getting WAY too much press. Roll back the stupid act of Congress, and move on. Nothing to see here, folks. -- jv
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
Bebo 21083 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 12:24 PM (EST)
|
|
23. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
the few times I replied very sincerely with "and Goddess bless" I got some pretty disgusted glares. Oh, those misguided fools, who didn't see your good intentions behind those words. When I made my comment about the money, I was saying less clearly what mistofleas says so well down below - that government time and money is being wasted on words. It would be nice if the money being spent on these court cases could be spent on more useful educational endeavors, like making sure kids actually had up-to-date books and the umpteen other things that are so desperately needed in our schools. There have been some terrific points made on this thread. My first thought when I heard the story yesterday was "well, just take those two words out then". Yes, I'm a Christian (although my views on many topics could get me kicked out of a lot of churches), and religion was a part of founding this country, but I certainly see the problems with people going overboard in "enforcing" a pledge with the words "under God". It's fine with me to take them out of the pledge, as long as I'm still allowed to say "God bless America" without being accused of being exclusionary. I'd rather people think about their faith and find meaning behind the words they say rather than recite some litany because they're told to, anyway. I know it's not going to be as easy as "just take out the words". It's going to take a lot of money, a lot of time, and some pretty hateful talk to get to a conclusion. I read that the man who brought the case is getting death threats -- a completely ridiculous response to the situation! Friendly advice dispensed daily, courtesy of My superiority complex
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
diamond 2307 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Seventeen Magazine Model"
|
06-27-02, 11:50 AM (EST)
|
|
12. "Don't worry..." |
I won't say whether I agree with this or not (I'm not interested in debating), but I don't think anyone has to worry about this court decision standing up. It is almost guaranteed to be overturned. Given the political leanings of the U.S. Supreme Court, it is pretty easy to predict that they would overturn it if the full panel of the 9th Circuit does not.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
Swami 5885 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 11:52 AM (EST)
|
|
14. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
As a non-religious humanist person, I must admit it becomes a bit tedious to have every public event begin and/or end with a group religious sentiment. I see these group expressions to be quite distinct from individual expressions, which are your inalienable & consitutional right. I am not concerned with the words any individual uses to express their beliefs & faiths, I just feel that routine group displays kind of waste my time. They have nothing to do with me. But I am used to it and mostly have no problem tuning out for a while, altho sometimes it does seem a bit much. I don't understand the constant need that some religious people have to validate their right to believe what they believe. You have that right. I am not arguing it.I am old enough that I remember when kids said the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of every day. Since this was not something we did at home, my parents advised me to respect the beliefs of my fellow classmates by standing with them, bowing my head respectfully and thinking my own thoughts. This I did for several years until one teacher noticed that my lips were not moving (after another kid told her I didn't really pray.) She informed me that I must pray. So I decided to lipsinc the prayer. This was quite successful until this same kid told her I wasn't talking. After that, for each morning prayer I was brought to the front of the classroom and the teacher stood right beside me with her head cocked, listening to be sure that I was actually saying the words to the prayer. I found this very humiliating. I tell you this story so I may make an analogy. How would you feel as, say, a Southern Baptist, if you were routinely expected to say Sunni Muslim prayers at all public or group events? Even though the Sunni Muslims said they respected your right to be a Baptist and you respected their right to be a Sunni Muslim. Year after year. That is how I feel during public prayer. I hope my little prayer story can help you understand how alienating this can be. Similar, if less formal & dramatic, experiences are common for non-theistic children. I will stand & respect your beliefs, without understanding at all why you must push them at me so relentlessly. Go home & pray there. Go to church & pray there. Bow your head & pray silently before, during and after all public events if you so choose. I'd rather not, thank you very much.  Swami
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Frau Hexe 716 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
06-27-02, 11:57 AM (EST)
|
|
15. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
I tell you this story so I may make an analogy. How would you feel as, say, a Southern Baptist, if you were routinely expected to say Sunni Muslim prayers at all public or group events? Even though the Sunni Muslims said they respected your right to be a Baptist and you respected their right to be a Sunni Muslim. Year after year. That is how I feel during public prayer. Looks like we're on the very same page, my wise Swami friend. I'd just like to see how Americans would react to me performing Wiccan ceremonies and rituals at things like graduations and sporting events. Well, I guess I know how they'd react--I'd likely be burned at the stake. You just have to love this country.
"I know I can't be the only whatever I am in the room." -Ani Difranco
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 12:18 PM (EST)
|
|
20. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
>
>I'd just like to see how
>Americans would react to me
>performing Wiccan ceremonies and rituals
>at things like graduations and
>sporting events. Well, I guess
>I know how they'd react--I'd
>likely be burned at the
>stake.
>
That's because the predominant religion in the US is not Wiccan. If it were, different story.
>You just have to love this
>country.
>
Yeah, such understanding and tolerance on both sides, huh?
- This Space For Rent The road goes on forever and the party never ends - Robert Earl Keen
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
MakeItStop 1098 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Politically Incorrect Guest"
|
06-27-02, 01:09 PM (EST)
|
|
31. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
WOW, what response time! It only took you two minutes to see my post.Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you are saying. But it seems to me that you are showing a lack of tolerance. That you are pretty much saying that majority rules. I just think that we all need to have more tolerance, that is what this country should be about. If we were all more tolerant, would that not solve a lot of problems? I don't care what the majority says. The majority should not force the minority to conform. Let's all just do our own thing. I don't really want to get into a big heavy debate. I come here to have fun, so I don't usually post on these types of threads. If I have misinterpreted what you have said, then I apologize. Oh, and BTW, I'm NOT saying that you are not allowed to have your own opinion because you certainly are. 
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 01:20 PM (EST)
|
|
36. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
>WOW, what response time! It
>only took you two minutes
>to see my post.
>
LOL...I have the email notice turned on. thsi is kind of a hot button topic for me and I wanna read what everyone has to say about it. I respect the posters here and wanna get y'all's thoughts.
>Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you
>are saying. But it
>seems to me that you
>are showing a lack of
>tolerance. That you are
>pretty much saying that majority
>rules. I just think
>that we all need to
>have more tolerance, that is
>what this country should be
>about. If we were
>all more tolerant, would that
>not solve a lot of
>problems?
>
And what I'm saying is that tolerance needs to go both ways. This atheist guy doesn't want to be tolerant of the fact that Judeo-Christian people want to say "under God" in the pledge.
>I don't care what the majority
>says. The majority should
>not force the minority to
>conform. Let's all just
>do our own thing.
>
But what do we do when your own thing clashes with my own thing? That's my big question that no one seems to be able to answer.... >I don't really want to get
>into a big heavy debate.
> I come here to
>have fun, so I don't
>usually post on these types
>of threads. If I
>have misinterpreted what you have
>said, then I apologize.
>
No apology necessary. By the same token, I apologize to those I've offended with my thoughts. I'd just like to understand...
>Oh, and BTW, I'm NOT saying
>that you are not allowed
>to have your own opinion
>because you certainly are.
>
As are you and everyone else here.
- This Space For Rent The road goes on forever and the party never ends - Robert Earl Keen
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Bebo 21083 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 01:26 PM (EST)
|
|
38. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
I'd just like to see how Americans would react to me performing Wiccan ceremonies and rituals at things like graduations and sporting events. Well, I guess I know how they'd react--I'd likely be burned at the stake. I wish there were more ceremonies for other faiths, because then I could observe and learn more. One of the biggest problems in the world is ignorance. People close their minds because they don't have the facts. They don't understand and don't try to understand. In that way, I think the separation of church and state has gone dangerously too far in the wrong direction. Give people the opportunity to learn about different beliefs, so they won't be so close-minded and intimidated by them. Not talking about religion just leads to a whole bunch of misunderstandings. Friendly advice dispensed daily, courtesy of My superiority complex
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
L82LIFE 5333 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 03:49 PM (EST)
|
|
71. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
I totally agree with you, Bebo. I would love to be able to see other types of ceremonies practiced at events. That way I could better understand the meanings of the rituals.I used to think that before deciding on a certain religion, one should watch a wide variety of religious ceremonies. I never got as far as I would have liked, and eventually I chose not to choose. I respect the beliefs of others, and sometimes wish my parents would have exposed me to more of them. My son has friends of many faiths and nationalities. That's what makes me the most proud of him, he hasn't a single bone of predjudice in him. BTW-Frau, I'm currently reading the third book in Nora Roberts Three Sisters Island trilogy, "Face the Fire". This series deals a lot with Wiccan ceremonies and it's very interesting. Just wondering if you've heard about or read any of them and if so, how close to the truth are they? 
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 12:10 PM (EST)
|
|
18. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
>I am old enough that I
>remember when kids said the
>Lord's Prayer at the beginning
>of every day. Since
>this was not something we
>did at home, my parents
>advised me to respect the
>beliefs of my fellow classmates
>by standing with them, bowing
>my head respectfully and thinking
>my own thoughts. This
>I did for several years
>until one teacher noticed that
>my lips were not moving
>(after another kid told her
>I didn't really pray.)
>
This is where I part with people like that. I think if you can stand silently and just allow the rest to say the prayer, even if you don't, that's just dandy.
>She informed me that I must
>pray. So I decided
>to lipsinc the prayer.
>This was quite successful until
>this same kid told her
>I wasn't talking. After
>that, for each morning prayer
>I was brought to the
>front of the classroom and
>the teacher stood right beside
>me with her head cocked,
>listening to be sure that
>I was actually saying the
>words to the prayer.
>I found this very humiliating.
>
It's people like this that give people like me a bad name.
>
>I tell you this story so
>I may make an analogy.
> How would you feel
>as, say, a Southern Baptist,
>if you were routinely expected
>to say Sunni Muslim prayers
>at all public or group
>events? Even though the
>Sunni Muslims said they respected
>your right to be a
>Baptist and you respected their
>right to be a Sunni
>Muslim. Year after year.
> That is how I
>feel during public prayer.
>
If I could just stand quietly as they said their prayers, I'd be just fine with it.
>I hope my little prayer story
>can help you understand how
>alienating this can be.
>Similar, if less formal &
>dramatic, experiences are common for
>non-theistic children. I will
>stand & respect your beliefs,
>without understanding at all why
>you must push them at
>me so relentlessly. Go
>home & pray there.
>Go to church & pray
>there. Bow your head
>& pray silently before, during
>and after all public events
>if you so choose.
>I'd rather not, thank you
>very much.
>
And that's just fine. But don't then go raise a big stink to the point that I can't do those things.
- This Space For Rent The road goes on forever and the party never ends - Robert Earl Keen
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Silvergirl1 9342 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 12:17 PM (EST)
|
|
19. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
Thanks, Swami and Frau Hexe. I agree with you and I am a Christian. I go to church every week and pray every day, but I don't want the public school system to teach my child about God or prayer. I feel that it is the parent's responsibility to teach their children about those things.Swami, I am sorry that you had such a humiliating experience. I remember how Madeline Murray was so hated because she took on prayer in school and won. My mom could not say her name without venom in her voice, and my mom doesn't even pray with any regularity. And Hexe, thanks for bring up the allegiance issue. In public places, we often say words that we don't have to think about just to conform to the group. You brought up some interesting issues that I have never had to think about before. 
Come on in, the water's fine!
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
samiam 5976 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 04:25 PM (EST)
|
|
79. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
Someone correct me if I'm wrong...That bit was in direct response to the Church of England. The head of the government (the king/queen) WAS the head of the church, and government permeated the church and vice-versa (changes in church law had to be approved by the House of Lords). The Framers wanted to make sure that the government's business (of running the country, making laws and policy) stayed completely away from the church's business (teaching people about God, and ministering to folks). For reference, from religioustolerance.org: The first phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." is called the establishment clause. It has been interpreted by the courts as requiring a separation between church and state. That is, the government (and by extension public schools) may not: - promote one religion or faith group over any other
- promote a religiously based life over a secularly based life
- promote a secularly based life over a religiously based life. Three tests have been developed to decide the constitutionality of laws that have a religious component: - The Lemon test: This was defined in a Supreme Court ruling in 1971. 10 To be constitutional, a law must: have a secular purpose, and be neutral towards religion - neither hindering nor advancing it, and not result in excessive entanglements between the government and religion.
- The Endorsement Test: Justice O'Connor created this criteria: a law is unconstitutional if it favors one religion over another in a way that makes some people feel like outsiders and others feel like insiders. - The Coercion Test: Justice Kennedy proposed this criteria: a law is constitutional even if it recognizes or accomodates a religion, as long as its demonstration of support does not appear to coerce individuals to support or participate in a religion. 11
God used to be my co-pilot, but then we crashed in the Andes and I had to eat Him.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
sittem 4186 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Jerry Springer Show Guest"
|
06-27-02, 04:40 PM (EST)
|
|
83. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
Well, S, I'm not correcting you, just continuing to question. Your references are from recent court rulings and reflect what is the current conventional wisdom. MY understanding, albeit not HIGHLY informed as I've forgotten much more than I've ever learned on the subject, is that some of the early settlers and those who had an influence on how the consitution was framed were concerned about their religion being trampled upon by the government, not vice versa. Of courese, we weren't nearly as pluralistic as we are now, and current interpretations must make allowances for the ebb and flow of culture.However, let's admit that what we have now may not actually reflect what the original framers intended (IF my premises are somewhere in the ballpark). Now, I see some of you snickering as you think about how I'm gonna teach my kids at home. Well, I'll be sure I know what I'm talking about by then. At my age you only have room in your brain for what you need to know at any particular time. It's kinda sad how it all leaks out as you get older.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
mistofleas 8043 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 12:02 PM (EST)
|
|
16. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
LAST EDITED ON 06-27-02 AT 12:12 PM (EST)I look at it this way. It's a free country. No one can make me stand and say the pledge of allegiance. No one can make me sing the national anthem. I don't have to do those things if I chose not to do them. The government can chose to spend it's time making laws about "in god we trust" all it wants, someone someday will come along and change it again anyway. I know that our country was "supposedly" started by people looking for religous freedom and that we "supposedly" have separation of church and state, but it always seems to be an issue for one group or another and it (in my opinion) always will be. (sorry grammar nazi's I dangled a participle *wink*) I chose to spend my time on issues that things I think our government should really be working on; once a month I'm a driver for Meals on Wheels, I spend 5 hours a month volunteering at the local recycling plant sorting plastics and glass, I petition and attend rallies for a moritorium on the death penalty...these to me are some of the things that we need to focus on in our country. Whether or not one is "forced" or "allowed" to say or not say "in god we trust" or "under god", for me is silly. Again, this is just me. Some may believe that the things I work on are silly and not worthwhile, but again, that's what our country is about. Freedom to chose or not to chose, freedom to do or not to do. I believe certain things very strongly but even if someone is standing opposite me shouting out against that for which I have fought , I will still defend their right to say it as I would hope that they would for me.
mistofleas --is a wicca who loves her country but wouldn't say the pledge of allegiance even is they said "one nation under the goddess"
Edited to say: Frau honey, you took almost every word in your post out of my mouth! When I was slaving over my post I kept trying to think of the right words to say what you so elloquently said. I'm glad I didn't try, you said it perfectly and as a fellow wicca, I thank you.
(wanna go be skyclad??*wink*)
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mistofleas 8043 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 04:31 PM (EST)
|
|
81. "RE: She's a WITCH! She's a WITCH!" |
>>>>She's a witch!!!!>>>Hey, I resemble that remark! I've been made crazy with "Holy Grail" stuff since I worked at Renaissance Festivals for 12 years, but I've always loved the "she's a witch" part of that movie! Actually I prefer "magically inclined" as opposed to witch! *giggle*
Hexe: Yup, I'm a Virgo too. Wow, 2 virgo witches on the same board...*hee hee* we could get up to so much trouble! Dianetic: Sorry about the love potion mix up, but if you take this blue potion under the full moon while standing inside a fairy ring, you'll be better.
Witchofleas --is also magically delicious!
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
Asskicker 61 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Hollywood Squares Square"
|
06-27-02, 01:01 PM (EST)
|
|
29. "Religious zealots can kiss my ass" |
Not only was this whole thing trivial to begin with, but the outrage expressed by people over the removal of the words makes things even more asinine. How in the world can anyone be offended over such trivial bullshit?All those politicians who condemned the ruling and then went outside to sing should do us all a favor and kill themselves. Get back to work you useless corrupt whores! So the word "GOD" has been taking out of a pledge. Big fucking shit! How can people be such pussies over something so stupid? Not only were those politicians being their usual crybaby selves, but they were also being hypocritical as most every decision they make everyday is based on greed, selfishness, corruption, and general assholery. I could care less if the words god where in a pledge, an anthem, or whatnot. I could also care less if they are removed. Both Christians and non Christians alike have to stop being such babies. Your life is not over if you have to say the word "god" and likewise your life is not over if you don't. I don't know whether the country was based on religion or not and I don't care. It doesn't matter! It's not important! Stop being a pussy!
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
Dianetic 618 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
06-27-02, 01:30 PM (EST)
|
|
40. "I'm the minority" |
Whenever I hear people making this argument about the majority should rule, I know I'm about to get screwed over again. Wasn't majority rule what Nazi Germany was all about?The wonderful difference between America and China is we actually care about each and every person. That's the reason you see handicapped entrances on public buildings here. Be glad you aren't a handicapped person in China or you would starve in back alleys. I'm not going to argue religious rights here for the same reason I wouldn't argue with Mitrelleum on his endless Basher Board rants. I'd rather talk about seafood. ~~~> LRon
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dangerkitty 1913 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
06-27-02, 02:02 PM (EST)
|
|
49. "I have a question or two" |
First, to know my stand on this, see Frau Hexe and samiam's posts. They have said it so well, I don't have to repeat it for myself. Second, my question is mainly for nailbone, and anyone else who has raised this point, and it's nothing at all about you personally - you keep raising an issue and I want to understand where you are coming from. You see the EXCLUSION of "under God" as a suppression of "your" religion - that somehow those who don't want it in are infringing your rights. I don't get this. The absence of the words makes the Pledge religiously neutral. Which it should be, in public schools, according to the Constitution. Having to say "under God" when those are not your beliefs is NOT the same as having religious neutrality. The objection you are making is more suited for a case where the "minority" view was SUBSITUTED for "under God". This isn't what is going on. And I also have a problem with the whole argument made by many, here and elsewhere, that since it has been that way for a long time, there is no reason to change it. "We've gotten along just fine this way; it's been this way for many years" etc. Well, if we based decisions and changes on that premise, then women and blacks still wouldn't be allowed to vote, interracial marriages would be illegal, non-Caucasians and Jews could be barred from living on, much less purchasing, property (unless they were living there as servants). And I guess we'd still have legal slavery, too. The list goes on and on, doesn't it? There a lot of demagogues out there making this issue something it isn't. I guess that's nothing new. (I'm really talking about the politicians, not people on this board - we're just having a great, open discussion). If we can focus on the basic point - Reciting "one nation under God" in a public school conflicts with "no establishment of national religion" - it seems pretty straightforward to me.
dangerkitty
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 02:14 PM (EST)
|
|
52. "RE: I have a question or two" |
>
>Second, my question is mainly for
>nailbone, and anyone else who
>has raised this point, and
>it's nothing at all about
>you personally - you keep
>raising an issue and I
>want to understand where you
>are coming from. You
>see the EXCLUSION of "under
>God" as a suppression of
>"your" religion - that somehow
>those who don't want it
>in are infringing your rights. I only pointed this out as a counter to those that say leaving in "under God" is infringing their rights. As I've said, where is the line where my rights stop and your's start, and vice versa? And who should decide where that line is? > I don't get this.
> The absence of the
>words makes the Pledge religiously
>neutral. Which it should
>be, in public schools, according
>to the Constitution. Having
>to say "under God" when
>those are not your beliefs
>is NOT the same as
>having religious neutrality. The
>objection you are making is
>more suited for a case
>where the "minority" view was
>SUBSITUTED for "under God".
>This isn't what is going
>on.
>
Agreed.
>And I also have a problem
>with the whole argument made
>by many, here and elsewhere,
>that since it has been
>that way for a long
>time, there is no reason
>to change it. "We've
>gotten along just fine this
>way; it's been this
>way for many years" etc.
I made that statement in response to one posted that said it was fine for the 62 years before it was changed in 1954.
> Well, if we based
>decisions and changes on that
>premise, then women and blacks
>still wouldn't be allowed to
>vote, interracial marriages would be
>illegal, non-Caucasians and Jews could
>be barred from living on,
>much less purchasing, property (unless
>they were living there as
>servants). And I guess
>we'd still have legal slavery,
>too. The list goes
>on and on, doesn't it?
>
Yes it does, but that wasn't my point. >
>There a lot of demagogues out
>there making this issue something
>it isn't. I guess
>that's nothing new. Ain't that the truth! (I'm
>really talking about the politicians,
>not people on this board
>- we're just having a
>great, open discussion). If
>we can focus on the
>basic point - Reciting "one
>nation under God" in a
>public school conflicts with "no
>establishment of national religion" -
>it seems pretty straightforward to
>me.
>
In that I have no argument. My argument is the basic premise stated above...where do my rights end and your's begin? And, assuming we can't have both, if exercising my rights affects less people than you exercising your's, why should your's take precedence over mine? - This Space For Rent The road goes on forever and the party never ends - Robert Earl Keen
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
samiam 5976 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 02:27 PM (EST)
|
|
53. "RE: I have a question or two" |
My argument is the basic premise stated above...where do my rights end and your's begin? And, assuming we can't have both, if exercising my rights affects less people than you exercising your's, why should your's take precedence over mine?See, it's this attitude that I and, I think, others, have a problem with. The minority is not saying they want their rights taking precedence OVER yours. They're saying they want theirs to be EQUAL to yours. And, again, the issue is the apparent endorsement of one particular religion by the government and the school systems....which, last I checked, was unconstitutional. God used to be my co-pilot, but then we crashed in the Andes and I had to eat Him.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 02:30 PM (EST)
|
|
54. "RE: I have a question or two" |
The minority
>is not saying they want
>their rights taking precedence OVER
>yours. They're saying they want
>theirs to be EQUAL to
>yours.
>
But when the two are in direct conflict with each other, one HAS to take precedence over the other, right?
>And, again, the issue is the
>apparent endorsement of one particular
>religion by the government and
>the school systems....which, last I
>checked, was unconstitutional.
>
Yep, in this case it is. But I'm talking in broader terms.
- This Space For Rent The road goes on forever and the party never ends - Robert Earl Keen
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
desert_rhino 10087 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 10:15 PM (EST)
|
|
89. "RE: I have a question or two" |
> The minority
>>is not saying they want
>>their rights taking precedence OVER
>>yours. They're saying they want
>>theirs to be EQUAL to
>>yours.
>>
>But when the two are in
>direct conflict with each other,
>one HAS to take precedence
>over the other, right? You're making what we call a straw man argument. It's not about asking that MY religion be promoted instead of yours, it's about simply asking that MY religion not get impugned on a daily basis by millions of kids. If you can't see that, you really, really, REALLY need to sit down and take a nice long think. >>And, again, the issue is the
>>apparent endorsement of one particular
>>religion by the government and
>>the school systems....which, last I
>>checked, was unconstitutional.
>>
>Yep, in this case it is.
> But I'm talking in
>broader terms. rreeeeeeeeealllly? sounds like you're beating this very small issue into a sword to attack all non-christians, actually. It's really starting to piss me off, too. The bigotry, that is. -- jv
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
dangerkitty 1913 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
06-27-02, 02:30 PM (EST)
|
|
55. "RE: I have a question or two" |
>My argument is the basic premise stated above...where do my rights end and your's begin? And, assuming we can't have both, if exercising my rights affects less people than you exercising your's, why should your's take precedence over mine?This is so interesting! I really appreciate being able to get at the differences of opinion here. Nailbone, we have a different interpretation of "rights". You have a complete right to say "under God" all you want, of course. But a public school does not have the right to teach that or require it to be said that way. If what you are saying is, make the words optional in the Pledge, so that in a school setting, kids could say it or not, their choice - in theory, that works. In reality, how does that work? Is there a gap in the words, and some say it, some stay silent? Leaving the gap implies that something should fill it. Even trying to write down the possible implications here is messy. And still, everyone wouldn't be happy. Here's a scenario I'd like to see: that this issue opens the door to great discussions in schools, with kids, teachers, parents, everyone, about different beliefs and how they are expressed. About all kinds of things that just get swept under the rug because "majority rules" or "it's always been that way". Having kids speak up about how they feel, without just spouting what's been indoctrinated. You know those cute little funny articles about all the ways that kids say the Pledge "wrong"? You know, they show up in Dear Abby or something every so often. Well, it's not really funny, because it just shows that kids are parroting what they think they hear, not saying something that they understand. And if they are too young to understand, then they shouldn't be saying it until they are. (Says me, anyway).
dangerkitty
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 02:35 PM (EST)
|
|
56. "RE: I have a question or two" |
>
>This is so interesting! I
>really appreciate being able to
>get at the differences of
>opinion here.
>
I totally agree!
>Nailbone, we have a different interpretation
>of "rights".
I think, as I said to Sami, that I'm talking in broad terms rather than just focusing on the Pledge issue.
>
>Here's a scenario I'd like to
>see: that this issue opens
>the door to great discussions
>in schools, with kids, teachers,
>parents, everyone, about different beliefs
>and how they are expressed. I agree completely. It could be fascinating, as this discussion we're having is. (grammar Nazi alert!!!) But there are those on both side that wil not let discussions happen. Their's is the only "right" way so no need to hear "the other side". >And if they are too
>young to understand, then they
>shouldn't be saying it until
>they are. (Says me,
>anyway).
>
Yeah, you're pretty much right there.
- This Space For Rent The road goes on forever and the party never ends - Robert Earl Keen
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LadyT 5567 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 09:03 PM (EST)
|
|
87. "Excellent thresd" |
So many wonderful points. I am posting under DK becausewhat she is aying is much what I am saying. You have a right in America to believe any damn thing you want. You can say whatever the hell you want. It is our right as Americans for that. Seperation of church and state, to me means that anything that promotes religion or excludes religion should be kept out of the government and anything that the government funds, like schools. The Pledge being said in schools, witht he simple words, "Under God" violates this. Take it out and the message of the Pledge is the same. And no one will be excluded. Religion would be out of it altogether. I too would like to see parents discuss this with their kids. In my opinion, great family time could come out of it, plus valuable discussions. Is that going to happe, probably not. Parents should be the teachers of religion, not the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Wiccan, Buddist, Zoroastrian, Shintoist teachers. And I believe that the US should stop printing money with "In God we Trust" Not everyone believe that they can trust God. Interesting point here. I went to public school until the ninth grade. In fifth grade, I believed that their was no God or that there was liberty and justice for all. I had to stand and say it. Even if I stopped talking and kept my mouth shut, I would get riducled by my peers and my teacher would give me a detention. When I went to a Catholic High School which was open to anyone of all religions, but you had to take four years of theology (which included learning of all major religions and had a year of social justice). I didn't have to say or stand for the Pledge. Nor was a riducled 
Lady T-mean Uber b!tch
|
|
|
Top |
| |
Swami 5885 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 04:12 PM (EST)
|
|
77. "See my pretty line?" |
Nailbone, honey, I love ya and I appreciate your good-natured determination that this is an issue that can be understood. Because you are such a great guy, I have a little line I want to show you. It may be the one you were looking for.|
|
Private| Public
|
|Private. Your right to hold whatever religious beliefs you want, which do not conflict with our secular laws. (Like fer instance, you can't practise ritual cannibalism--way out stuff like that ) In the privacy of your home you can pray silently or aloud, chant or bang gongs in celebration all you want. In a church (which are all privately owned, not public) you can pray, chant & bang gongs with like-minded people all you want. If I find gong-banging offensive, I won't go to your church because you have the right to bang gongs there. You & your neighbours can get together & agree to have a gong-banging celebration together in somebody's living room. You can even send out flyers & invite the whole town to come bang gongs with you. Private places: Home. Your yard. Churches. Summer Camps. Privately owned buildings. There's more, but I think you can get the drift. Public. You can pray silently all you want in public, because only you & alien mind-readers will know exactly what you are doing. You can remember your chants fondly, and walk in rhythm to imagined gong music. But now, my right to not take part in your kind of prayers or ritual gong banging takes precedence over your rights. Your rights are still there, still protected, but not at the expense of my rights to be gong-free while going about my business as a citizen of this great country. Public Places: Publicly Owned Buildings like Libraries, Amtrak Stations, Schools and (gasp) State & Federal Government Buildings. Certain Monuments & Parks, more. The reason why your school kids can't voluntarily gather & pray out-loud during school hours is that easy--it's a publicly held building. Public rules apply. The kids could meet before school to pray. They could get a permission to leave school and attend church sponsored gong-banging services if they need to bang gongs during school hours. They can rent (in many areas) a school room, after public class hours and pray there if they just have a single-minded need to pray in that particular building as opposed to all the buildings dedicated to prayer. And of course they can pray silently wherever they are because each persons mind is entriely their private space. Does that make sense? Can you see a line here?
Swami
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Teddy_Bear 1675 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Peanut Festival Grand Marshall"
|
06-29-02, 08:59 AM (EST)
 |
|
91. "RE: See my pretty line?" |
LAST EDITED ON 06-29-02 AT 09:20 AM (EST) Swami Swami, I just want to thank you for putting things, into the clearest perspective possible. I'm sorry for the abusivly fascist humiliation, you experienced in school as a child . I would also like to state, that I also agree with mistofleas, FrauHexe, Dianetic, DangerKitty, Desert Rhino, and especially to Samian--*CHEERS* --who spent so much time and labourious effort, in trying to explain all of this
--no-caffeine-addled-brain, not--withstanding *grin*. To steal a quote from Sami: You Swami, are indeed, the WISEST.LIZARD.EVER. Maybe that's why you were the only one, who was able to make my dove fly . Now on to more important things , like LRon has suggested: Seafood. I had Salmon Terriaki and Calafornia Rolls, yesterday.
Btw, Swami, I just looooove your pretty line |*Giggle*.
*Note: edited to add the word No to Samian's quote; sorry, Sami.
It is not necessary to accept everything as true, one must only accept it as necessary.
Light a Virtual Candle
Eleanor Roosevelt: No one can make YOU feel inferior without YOUR consent!
|
|
|
Top |
| |
diamond 2307 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Seventeen Magazine Model"
|
06-27-02, 05:01 PM (EST)
|
|
84. "Update" |
LAST EDITED ON 06-27-02 AT 05:51 PM (EST)edited to add more info. from CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/pledge.allegiance/index.html The Justice Department, which was named as a co-defendant in the case, said Thursday it would seek a hearing by the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday's decision. The ruling was made by a three-judge panel in a 2-1 decision.
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/27/pledge_ruling.htm
Court puts Pledge of Allegiance ruling on hold
By David Kravets, Associated Press, 6/27/02 SAN FRANCISCO — A day after he flabbergasted the nation by declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, a federal appeals court judge put his ruling on hold indefinitely Thursday. Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, who wrote the 2-1 opinion that said the phrase "under God" violates the separation of church and state, stayed his ruling until fellow members of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decide whether to reconsider the case. The appeals court can rehear the case with the same three judges, or an 11-judge panel. Goodwin's stay Thursday has no immediate impact, since the ruling already was on hold by court rules for 45 days to allow for any challenges. Vikram Amar, a Hastings College of the Law scholar who closely follows the appeals court, said the latest ruling means that, for now, Wednesday's opinion finding the pledge unconstitutional "has no legal force or effect." "They're acknowledging the likelihood that the whole 9th Circuit may take a look at this," Amar said. Goodwin flabbergasted people across the political spectrum when he declared that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional because the phrase "one nation under God" -- inserted by Congress in 1954 -- amounts to a government endrosement of religion. Legal scholars immediately said the ruling would probably be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, if not reversed beforehand by the 9th Circuit. "I would bet an awful lot on that," said Harvard University scholar Laurence Tribe. The lawsuit was brought by a California atheist who did not want his second-grade daughter to be forced to listen to the pledge. Goodwin said leading schoolchildren in a pledge that says the United States is "one nation under God" is as objectionable as asking them to say "we are a nation `under Jesus,' a nation `under Vishnu,' a nation `under Zeus,' or a nation `under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion." President Bush found the ruling "ridiculous," and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., branded it "just nuts." Critics of the decision warned that it calls into question the use of "In God We Trust" on the nation's currency, the public singing of patriotic songs like "God Bless America," even the use of the phrase "So help me God" when judges and presidents are sworn into office.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-02, 08:14 PM (EST)
|
|
85. ""Reversible" Reinhardt" |
A pragmatic point...The moment I saw this decision appear in a blurb, I had a guess about the identity of ONE of the judges in the majority. Let's see ... 9th Circuit ... very liberal decision ... Stephen Reinhardt! And sure enough, the other judge in the 2-1 majority (who has managed to avoid the limelight by NOT writing the opinion) is Reinhardt. Here are some of his other decisions, according to a Web site: ...Ninth Circuit recognizes right to die
...Ninth Circuit strikes down California's term limits initiative
...Ninth Circuit explores employees' privacy interest in connection with medical examinations
...Arbitration clause in broker's employment contract does not bar Title VII lawsuit
...No qualified immunity for warrantless search of public employee's office
...Discrimination based on tribal affiliation violates Title VII
...Outrageous sexual harassment may equitably toll the statute of limitations for a Title VII claim
...Employment may not be denied based on concerns about applicant's safety in the workplace
...Medical transcriptionist with obsessive compulsive disorder may pursue failure to accommodate claim
...State university professor's removal of handbills violates First Amendment But now, as to the decision ... uh, I think it's probably right, legally (it's a rare occasion when Reinhardt and I agree). It'll never stand up, because the federal courts don't want to take on this battle, though. I expect the full 9th Circuit to hear the case en banc and overturn the panel. Reinhardt is sometimes nicknamed "Reversible" because the Supreme Court reverses so many of his decisions.... And, since we're on the Supreme Court, what do y'all think about today's 5-4 vote approving school vouchers?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
dabo 26942 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-01-02, 11:29 AM (EST)
|
|
101. "RE: School Vouchers" |
I too was waiting to see if someone else would respond on the school vouchers issue. Overall, these are my complaints about school vouchers:1. They drain much needed resources from public schools (though those resources would likely be wasted anyway). 2. Vouchers do nothing to correct the problems in the public school system. 3. Only a small percentage of parents can actually take advantage of vouchers. Mainly, I do agree with the Supreme Court decision based on the case presented, some choice is better than none. Meanwhile, many public schools continue to be under-staffed, over-populated, and poorly served. SMILES ARE FREE
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-01-02, 05:18 PM (EST)
|
|
102. "How to fix them?" |
LAST EDITED ON 07-01-02 AT 05:19 PM (EST)Although I too would prefer honest public schools to vouchers, I don't see a solution coming any time in the near future. I happened to witness the disintegration of the Cleveland schools up close, and a few things struck me as simply awful: 1) Institutionalized corruption. The Cleveland public schools were, for years, run by a superintendant named Paul Briggs. Briggs had become superintendant when white ethnics ran Cleveland. He stayed on as superintendant until cross-town busing drove the white ethnics out of the city schools. During his time as superintendant, he maintained his power base by steering contracts to friendly, well-connected local businesses. When Briggs left, the new administration immediately appointed a black "business manager" for the schools: former Olympic gold medalist Harrison Dillard. His job was to redirect the patronage to black-owned businesses. So far, so good. But then the schools went broke and had to stop new programs. Did this slow down Dillard's work? It did not. The schools kept spending about the same amount of money EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE BROKE. They spent it on repairs and replacements ... except that there was no longer a program for repairs and replacements. The schools bought new computers ... but there was no one to install them. Most of them ended up stolen from storage; the rest were obsolete when installed. The schools had buildings fixed and paid the contractors ... but the repairs were never inspected, since the schools had laid off the staff to do this, so many (most?) were substandard and failed at once. When the city tried to take over the schools, what was the #1 problem? The local politicians, who insisted that Dillard keep his job ... and keep spending at the same rate. Finally, they were forced to yield when Ohio Governor (now Senator) George Voinovich decided to pull the rescue package unless it was accompanied by an overhaul of the Business Department. But then Voinovich moved on... 2) The teachers' unions. Union members are the people who complain the loudest for help. What an irony that the people who most ardently fight help for them are the teachers' unions, who have amassed huge power bases in the large urban districts and don't want them jeopardized. Vouchers MAY help fix these problems in Cleveland, because the drain of students and dollars to the parochial schools (which had LOTS of excess capacity) may break down these two continuing barriers to reform. We can but hope. If this doesn't work, I'm not sure how to fix the schools except by firing everyone and starting over.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
SkyRaider 1301 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Beef Jerky Spokesperson"
|
06-27-02, 08:30 PM (EST)
 |
|
86. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
LAST EDITED ON 06-27-02 AT 08:34 PM (EST)I just don't get it. First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof. Eisenhower and Congress did just that in changing the Pledge in 1954. That was in the hay days of Joe McCarthy and the witch hunts for Communists by the "House UnAmerican Acitivites Committee" and no one dared challenge it then, least they be branded a 'godless commie' and barred from employment at very least and possibly imprisoned.
Seperation of Church and State. 'Nouf said.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
desert_rhino 10087 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-30-02, 11:12 AM (EST)
|
|
95. "RE: I Pledge Allegiance..." |
CNN posted the results of a poll (article) in which nearly 9 out of 10 americans feel that the words "under God" should not be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.Now, I know this sounds overwhelming, and in a popular democracy, the beliefs of the "nearly 9/10" would smash those who dissent, but, think about this... the current US population (popclock) is about 287,410,000. This means that approximately 29 million people in this country feel like their right to NOT have a Christian God imposed on their allegiance to this Republic is being infringed, strongly enough to want that Pledge's wording changed. Aren't the beliefs of 29 million people enough to convince you that perhaps there's some merit to this issue? Or are we, indeed, becoming a true democracy, where 9 wolves and a sheep can vote on what to have for dinner, and the sheep just has to live with it? (so to speak.) -- jv
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-01-02, 09:14 AM (EST)
|
|
97. "RE: Agree" |
I agree with that, dabs. As usual, the way the media spins it has more to do with it that the actual facts. In fact, how I first heard about it was a CNN email alert thing that said "Judge declares Pledge of Allegiance unconsitutional." By the time I found out the actual story, I was already worked up about it.I still don't agree with it, but thanks to y'all wonderful SB'ers, I can at least understand the other side of the issue.
- This Space For Rent The road goes on forever and the party never ends - Robert Earl Keen
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-01-02, 09:25 AM (EST)
|
|
99. "RE: Agree" |
LAST EDITED ON 07-01-02 AT 10:51 AM (EST)Well, let me clarify my position a little then. I don't really want to impose my religious beliefs on others, but I don't want others to deny me my right to express my religious beliefs. Edited to add: Did y'all know that atheism is legally considered a "religion" now?
- This Space For Rent The road goes on forever and the party never ends - Robert Earl Keen
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
|
|
Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
