Sorry, didn't notice page 4 yesterday. If Dukakis hadn't vetoed that bill, it would never have passed judicial scrutiny. There have been other attempts, but none have been successful. Incidentally, that veto took place in the mid-seventies, not anywhere near the election. That's what Dukakis gets, though. I guess no one ever told him that politicians are supposed to bend to the will of the people first and ask Constitutional questions later.
Major, Numbers are irrelevant, even ONE tax dollar spent on frivolous lawsuits like this is too many. My point is that we are wasting court time with this stuff. I mean honestly, the Pledge of Allegience....come on....why doesn't the father just do HIS JOB and explain to his daughter what HIS beliefs are...ultimatly it is her decision what to believe and what not to believe. As to my comment about atheists praying to God..just in case, I heard that from my grandfather when he was fighting WW2, I take his word for it, you don't have to. Mrs JB, The point about enemies etc...is that throughout history, Society when faced with a threat against itself has bonded together and circled the wagons so to speak, until the threat has passed, and since at this point in time, we really do not have a threat to our society, we spend our time worrying about frivolous garbage like this. It is a pendulum, the relevance to Rome is that they were the only super power too, and frivolous concerns INSIDE the republic brought it down...don't think it can't happen here too. Our politicians...are wasting our tax dollars spending time on irrelevant stuff.....there is no shame in NOT passing any new laws if none are needed. We have so many domestic issues in this country....REAL IMPORTANT ones, like Homelessness, Education, drugs, crime, gangs...etc..etc.. We should be spending our tax dollars trying to help people in our country that need it, not doing the JOB of some irresponsible parent. Just my .02, nothing more. I want our money spent wisely, and yes Major, that does mean, not spending money on Frivolous military projects too. DaDakota
We are talking about impressionable young children here who don't want to stand out from the crowd. She shouldn't have to be subjected to saying or listening to those words. It is coercion. Since the majority of the US is Christian why not just add the words "Jesus Christ" somewhere in the pledge? I'm sure Dubya would approve of that. Jews and Muslims can just ignore it like you're asking this little girl to do.
Seriously, now, let's be a little more responsible with history. Just a few things that combined to bring Rome down: 1. Constantine and Christianity - created a divide within the nation and shattered historic fluidity 2. Overexpansion - and the revolts that resulted in the outer territories (such as England), causing a strain on government hieracrhy, manpower, and funds 3. Attack from enemies such as the Gauls, Huns, and the Visigoths (often concurrent) So how do any of those relate to an impotent lawsuit in the contemporary US?
Well, if personal anecdotes count, my 83 year old grandfather fought in North Africa in WWII and has continued to be atheist from his adolescence to this day. I believe his philosophy is 'when you're dead, you're dead, and that's all there is to it'. This from an Irishman, no less... (By the way DaDakota, the USA *is* spending a hell of a lot of money on the drug war already. It's not doing any good, of course. Talk about an exercise in futility. And as Major says, what about those 'frivolous' lawsuits that went against majority opinion like Brown v. Topeka Board of Education?)
coercion??? are you serious, outlaw???? you really think that??? coercion is a pretty strong word...you really wanna go with coercion??? is it coercion if they sang the star spangled banner instead??? would that be coercive??? there are people who say it's just a song about war...and people who are offended by the song because it represents american imperialism...would it be coercive to sing that at a public school graduation ceremony?? or before a high school football game??? how about the rest of the pledge itself...many religions find a pledge to a flag to be blasphemous in and of itself...i guess we should scrap the pledge altogether, huh? or just scrap the flag, maybe? i mean, at least we wouldn't ever offend anyone, right? we could throw away our entire national identity too! we could ignore entirely the culture we live in so we can make sure it never offends anyone!!! you know what...i was "coerced" to listen to a lot of bullcrap from my law school professors at the University of Houston Law Center (a public institution). maybe i should sue! will you help me file the suit??
I agree somewhat Outlaw, but she has to learn some time that people are different, and have different views. Her father should teach her at home, to complain about a simple pledge is silly, and a waste of time. Rimmy, Yes all those factors certainly played a large part in Rome's downfall, as did the constant in fighting and backstabbing that weakened her from the inside. Now, granted what I am saying is a reach, I am just trying to say....WHO CARES !!! One thing that seems obvious to me is that there is nothing common about sense. DaDakota PS Rimmy, Constantine huh? You wouldn't be Sigma Chi would you? In hoc signo vinces.
Yeahhh the memories... it seemed like yesterday I was kid in Elementary school, and witnessing half the classroom commit themselves to Christ right after the pledge of allegiance..... I'm sure everyone else shared the same experience
I'm just catching the tail end of this, but one thing I have noticed is that a lot of people seem to be of the opinion that since something was never a problem before, it shouldn't be now, and that to suggest that it is means you are a "woos" , etc... Well, this simply isn't true...First of all, we all know all about the Ammendments, right? Well, to ammend means to change/fix/make better, and several of these were done a long time ago..Should they have skipped them under the notion that " Well, if it was good enough for the Founding Fathers, it ought to be good enough for us!" that is being thrown about in this thread? The Law, and hence the Constitution is a living thing, and it has to be allowed some flexibility to change with the people it represents, or to make new allowances for those new-found situations it didn't or couldn't anticipate. When Freedom of Religion was originally invoked, it was assumed, based on the population it was then addressing, that it was a matter of what shade of the same color you wanted to adhere to...Now there are entirely different religious colors people follow, including many who don't follow any at all, and for some of them having the daily assumption read allowed that patriotism = religious conviction might be as offensive as was having to follow the tennants of a particular ceremony to those who left Europe to come here and avoid it. It's easy to say that it doesn't bother me, therefore it shouldn't bother anybody else, but that is flawed democratic thinking. If we protect everyone's freedom, we protect even those with which we cannot identify,and the error, if there has to be one, MUST be on the part of omission, not comission. Yeah, it may not be a big deal to hear " In God We Trust " declared as being representative of our way of life, even to those of us who don't believe/trust in any God, but the standard isn't set by what we are willing to submit to, but by whether we have the right to make anyone else submit to anything with which they don't agree, when there is the alternative available of not offending them at all. I also agree that it does seem that every day there are more and more people who are offended by something, and there is a reason for that...because every day there are more and more people of different cultures/beliefs becoming part of America, and therefore altering the definition of America. Freedom for everyone cannot be achieved if it is built upon cultural homogenization, with original Anglo-Saxon Protestant ideals being the standard to which everyone else must adapt. We must be a culture of many colours, made greater by the variety, not a nation of whitewashers.....
What if it said "One Nation Under Satan"? Would you still tell all the Christians that would definitely be in an uproar that they were being silly? Would you let your son say that?
Put yourself in this little girl's shoes. Your parents tell you there is no god. Yet every morning at school you are forced to say there is one. Even if you don't say it, all the other kids around you and the teachers are saying it so it must be true. What do you think this child is going to believe? I applaud this man who brought the lawsuit. DaDakota called him irresponsible but he is protecting his child from something which he thinks is harmful probably at great financial cost to himself. I find it sad and ironic that he has received so many death threats out of this. "I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. A belief's a dangerous thing, Bethany. People die for it. People kill for it."- Rufus the 13th Apostle Dogma
Since the common theme of removing religion from public view is apparent in this thread, how do you suggest Holidays are handled? Will the impressionable aethist/non christian kids become confused on Easter and Christmas? What do you suggest there?
trust me...there will be more than a few things taught at my son's public school that i will teach him a different view on. it is not the school's job to raise my child...that's me and my wife's job. i definitely don't want prayer in public school...my wife taught in public school and i had the privilege of meeting some of her fellow teachers...believe me..i don't want them teaching my kid to pray in any way shape or form. that's for me to handle...i just make a stark distinction between that and simply saying, "under God," in the pledge of allegiance. i agree wholeheartedly that it's tragic this man received death threats....not wholly unexpected given how quickly people resort to violence over disagreement....but tragic, nonetheless. as for financial cost...i doubt quite seriously this guy is incurring any real cost...is he representing himself?? i'm guessing he has an organization behind him and a fellow lawyer who is loving the media attention.
I am amazed. I had no idea how many people in this country want this country to believe in NOTHING and stand for NOTHING. Has anybody else caught the point that the jackass that filed the suit has admitted that: 1) His daughter voluntarily says the pledge, 2) it doesn't bother her, 3) This is not really about his daughter it is about him, 4) He has quit his job to "fight for the cause." WHAT???!!!! So now this guy has quit his job to fight the governement. This guy is the most irresponsible guy I have ever heard of. I guess I'll father a kid and then quit my job to fight for a cause. And I'll take money (wellfare) from the same governement that I don't want my kid to pledge allegiance to. It's amazing the lack of spine that a lot of people have these days.
talk about jumping to conclusions.... did the guy ever say he had a problem with his child pledging allegiance to this nation? Not that I've heard... he has problems of the words "under God" in the pledge... so now its irresponsible to fight in something you beleive in? Perhaps the guy has enough money that he can afford to live comfortably without a steady income... and perhaps I'm wrong, but if you quit your job I don't think you're qualified for unemployment insurance. lack of spine? if anything, he has more spine than the rest of us. He is willing to turn his life upside down to fight for a cause he truly believes in, even if you don't. Too bad there aren't more people who will fight their perceived injustices, rather than just roll over. yes, this has nothing to do with his child, but rather his beliefs. so, what's wrong with that? did you know that 14% of the population is "non-religious"... not non practicing, but non-religious. in addition, 20% of students are "non-religious"... that's a pretty big chunk of the popluation, so why shouldn't their feelings be considered? Why are people so quick to dismiss this as a frivolous suit?
Maybe but what if we <b>weren't</b> fighting the drug war? How bad would the streets be then? If we treated the drug kingpins like the terrorists they are, we would see better results. Unfortunately, their lieautenants are our suburban sons and daughters who make lousy casualties. It's a no-win situation almost.
I call him more of an "opportunist" than "someone with a spine." You would quit your job too if I now had to plan your marketing strategy to milk this for all its worth. He's using all of us to make a buck lol
He is representing himself. He is an ER doctor but he has a law degree as well. Refman, what's your source for that?
What should I title my next book, "How I got back at all you Christians", or " na na na bo bo, someone else who made another joke of the US Courts." Not counting his 15 seconds of fame that he now feels has legimitized his existence.
