Jump to content

Grrrr, the f---s in CA have made it illegal for me to...


kenratboy

Recommended Posts

Wow, kenratboy, you really started something. It seems when a thread hits 999 hits it resets the counter... and thus the low hit to post ratio. Hornless ED, I come by my ED naturally... my name is Ed Dennis... and I love horns... but not as much as I love this country.

I particularly appreciate the effort that you and Roadhawg have brought to bring added insights... and more clarity to understanding various positions.

Rightly or wrongly deang, when you used the following statement with a beautiful picture of lawmakers on their knees... "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." -- 1892 Supreme Court ruling in Church of the Holy Trinity vs. U.S. (citing 87 precedents) ...I took it as your statement to the effect that ours is a Christian Nation from a de facto perspective.

Since I try to respond to your usually well thought out posts in a way that I too might learn... I looked up the actual opinion. I was dismayed... for that ruling is precisely what I suspect the framers feared when government authority creates a double standard on religious grounds. Frankly, I thought you had just not thoroughly researched your reference... but then you followed it up with "It's NOT what anyone THINKS the Framers meant -- it's about WHAT THEY SAID THEY MEANT."... and who should be the arbiter of that... a Supreme Court that makes an illegal transaction legal because it pertains to a Christian pastor and was sanctioned by a Christian Church.

No amount of Christian endorsement letters from Framers of the Constitution excuse the Supreme Court going beyond the letter of the law to award a decision on the basis of a Christian bias. To me, that is one more example of Christian judges failing to apply the Golden Rule and equality under the law. While having a moral electorate is critically important to any well conceived Republic, Supreme Court Judges who allow fail to render justice in the name of Christ are particularly reprehensible. I have learned the hard way that Christian people do not necessarily render Christian justice... but I try not to interpret the failing of the Christian person as the failing of Christianity. But, sometimes it is beyond my ken...

Experience has taught me not to allow my respect for Christianity to become a license for self-professed devout Christians to steal from me... or my country. As I grow older and more closely watch the interaction of Christians... they seem to be reading more things into the Bible than they are reading out of it. Obviously Evangelical Christian slogans are no substitute for moral integrity. So, my personal beliefs and personal experience with a large number of practicing Christians fills me with gratitude at the foresight of the Framers to leave "God" controversy out of the Constitution and encourage a God fearing people to abide by it.

At least, upon reflection, we seem to agree on one point... when I said more people were slain in the name of Christ I was including all the greed, hate, self-centeredness that you justly point out in this case... and in the Christian vs. Christian battles of our own Civil War. And, I am refreshed to hear that the Baptists are safe from you... now, if you could only export that sense and sensibility to Northern Ireland... it would be wonderful indeed.

A fair and impartial Constitution that deals with the temporal needs of its constituents provides the framework by which a moral people can prosper in the eyes of the world... and, surely, in the eyes of the God you worship. While the Roman Empire spread Christianity, I find it a poor model for the implementation of Christian principles in the fabric of society... and spawned many of the darkest aspects of the Dark Ages.

Deang, if what you hold turns out to be largely true... a groundswell of Evangelical Christian voters should be a cinch to assure our nation will remain in God's favor right up until the Second Coming. And with Christians like you describe providing the example... how much God is mentioned in the Constitution, Pledge or National Motto should be of small consequence. When Christianity and the positive acts of Christians are that strong... then all the religions of the world could see the light and make this whole question moot. Until then, I think all Americans have to protect against any one religion or combination of sects from imposing their symbolism upon us as the 84th Congress and President Eisenhower did.

Interesting that you chose "Woe there" over "Whoa there" because, to my mind, a government declaration that we are a Godly people who endeavor to do right is a definite WOE! ... for it advances a religious view of some of the people over all of the people. Sorry "righteous trampling" over the religious freedoms of my fellow Americans in the self-proclaimed name of God... no matter how devout you may be... is not what America is about in my opinion. Salvation and morality are personal issues that don't need a Constitutional Amendment for God's acceptance.

I am the last one living of a group of believers that went into an Italian and Irish American community and established first a mission and then a Protestant Church... and we found how tough it can be when Christians of the dominant sect seek to snuff out any competition. That little church grew in community service and is in the process of renewing that commitment in the face of the community shifting to be the largest community of ethnic Filipinos in the U.S. The little church has made its facilities available to a start-up Filipino Protestant Church with much of the service in Tagalong. It is great to see this community of over 100,000 have some of the community spirit that I knew as a boy.

Deang as to the last statement when you negatively stroked the intelligence FH can't seem to find... was it not you who said that conscience comes from God... so then doesn't it follow that God fearing people wanting to do the right thing will vote their conscience and in so doing... honor God and create a moral majority in the ballot box. As far as who to vote for, I come from a long line of politicians... and there has been no shortage of Christian candidates and Christian inspired measures on the ballot. If Evangelical Christianity works here on Earth, there should be ample opportunity to change hearts and minds... and honor God... without carving His name into areas of the Federal Government that violate the First Amendment. -HornED

PS: I have to be off on a philanthropic mission. But first I am going to fire up some John Phillip Souza on the Klipschorns and think of the good things that have come out in this thread... and the opportunity to know and respect one another as we get back to the audio track.

God bless one and all... and have a Happy Secular Fourth of July with your Christian, Muslim, Hebrew, Hindu, Buddhist, Agnostic friends... and ForrestHump!

This message has been edited by HornEd on 06-28-2002 at 08:19 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric,

Many of these quotations were used as precedants by the Supreme Court in the 1892 descision. They show us the minds of these men, and reinforce the idea that much of what constituted government from their point of view -- rested on the foundation religion.

On the other point you brought up regarding the meaning of the clause "respecting no establishment of religion", -- it's not so much my interpretation so much as it is Thomas Jefferson's, who I quoted directly. It is clear that he was thinking in terms of denominations -- because they had all been in the process of positioning themselves to become the "official" church of the New Republic. However, I do believe the meaning can now be broadened somewhat, since we have such a melting pot of belief systems in this country now -- without doing harm to the original meaning. The spirit of the law remains completely intact.

I would like to let it be known that though I am a Conservative, I do not align myself with the Christian Right on several issues. I do not believe in forced prayer in schools (because Godly people can pray anytime they choose, after all -- The Apostle Paul said to "pray without ceasing"), I'm on the fence regarding vouchers (because the loss of this money to the public school system is detrimental to their existence -- and we need them), and I certainly don't believe someone should have to utter the words "under God" if it is not what they personally believe, or if they find it offensive.

I find it extremely offensive that atheists and evolutionists misrepresent historical facts, distort scientific evidence, and use the courts to beat us down because they do not want our voices to be heard. When we fight back, WE are accused of attempting to legislate morality (of course, no one ever stops to think that even something as basic as a stop sign is a form of "legislating morality"), and brainwash our kids back into the dark ages (because we would really like our kids to know they have value, and are "fearfully and wonderfully made" by a Creator who loves them). The irony is that they see no problem using their belief system to change the way people think.

BTW -- can anyone explain to me why Atheism is NOT a "religion"?

"Religion -- a system of thought, feeling, and action that is shared by a group and that gives the members an object of devotion; a code of behavior by which individuals may judge the personal and social consequences of their actions; and a frame of reference by which individuals may relate to their group and their universe."

So, they can propagate their belief system, which can't even be reconciled with elements of basic biology -- using governmental agencies -- but we can't.

------------------

Deanf>s>

AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s>

Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s>

This message has been edited by deang on 06-28-2002 at 08:54 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by deang:

BTW -- can anyone explain to me why Atheism is NOT a "religion"?

"Religion -- a system of thought, feeling, and action that is shared by a group and that gives the members an object of devotion; a code of behavior by which individuals may judge the personal and social consequences of their actions; and a frame of reference by which individuals may relate to their group and their universe."

So, they can propagate their belief system, which can't even be reconciled with elements of basic biology -- using governmental agencies -- but we can't.


Perhaps the word can tell us why, Religion apparently comes from religâre, to tie fast. Rephrasing, this could be understood as to put together what was one, or in other words, to re-unite with divinity.

So, by definition, atheism is not the same thing. The definition you gave is more of a cosmovision, or a system of thought than a religion, and that correctly fits the meaning of atheism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all the discussion. The decision by the court is based on the theory that government has to stay out of religion. It might well be application of a principle to an unexpected result. None the less, it ain't so bad.

There is a bit of a conundum here. The government can't make any law regarding religion. To a large extent, the courts (judges) takes this to mean that government activities must be a-theistic, without God. Or at least can't take a position regarding religion, one religion, classes of religions, nothing. Also prohibiting compelled speech about religion, or God.

The theory of an "athesistic government" (my term) annoys some citizens very much. But please consider that that goal is to allow citizens as much religious freedom as possible, including freedom from peer pressure at government sponsored activities.

The cure may be harsh, but the alternatives which could develop without this sort of judicial stonewall are far worse. They could run from a generic judeo/ christian/ moslem/ budist/ shito/ aboriginal/ "godless secular humanism" / and who knows catch-all; to anti-religious pogram (sp?).

We have tax supported government-run public schools. So schools have to be "atheistic." It is a tough problem. And then there is the pledge with the mention of The Diety which most folks seem to favor.

But you see the issue. If government is "atheistic" or sterile of religion in its operations, doesn't that mean, necessarily, it is anti-religious? A vocal few would say so. I think not. (Evolution is a can of worms.)

Rather the freedom to worship is guaranteed. It really means something here in the USA. Religions florish. You can go to your house of worship as much as you like. Say prayers in public (except govenment sponsored activity) or in private. Even, much to my annoyance, ring people's door bells to prosthelitize.

Is the "atheistic government" of the USA anti-religion? Not by reasonable standards. When a government is anti-religious (rather than neutral to the point of sterility) it is overt. Houses of worship are shut down, people killed, etc. So for all the issues of "separation of state and church", no court decision which I'm aware of is anti-religious.

There is a consistent theme which runs though some arguments. It goes something like, "Unless my children get an education where God is acknowleged, or I can profess my faith in the pledge, my religious beliefs are beinging actively undermined by the government."

This doesn't quite ring true, given the freedom to exercise one's faith in every day life, otherwise. Putting one's religion in the hands of the government is as unwise as putting the government in charge of social security (smile) our tax dollars, or anything else. The compromises are roundly criticized.

Gil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ed,

It wasn't my intent to use the quotation of the Supreme Court in the 1892 decision to prove we were a "Christian Nation". I'm actually with Roadhawk on this one -- going to church makes one a Christian about as much as going into your garage makes you a car. I agree with him in equally applying this to a country. No, my point with the quotation, as well as Washington's from his Farewell address -- was simply to illustrate that for the better part of 200 years, no one had a problem with religion being excerised or expressed in government.

When I followed up with the "what they said they meant" statement, I was specifically speaking of the Framers -- not the 1892's Supreme Courts statement. My point here was that we have access to documents written by the Framers, that gives insight regarding their intent related to many things in the Declaration of Independance and The U.S. Constitution. I mean, they even wrote letters back and forth to each talking about this stuff as they were hammering out the details.

Regarding the 1892 decision, I have not had time to research it yet -- but you are very emphatic that an injustice was done. I absolutely see your point, and based on things you have related about it so far -- I am inclined to agree with you. The court should not have have sided with a Christian just because they were Christian. That is in fact the very thing the 1st amendment was designed to prevent. We agree here.

Your post is excellent -- and we are in much more agreement than disagreement. However, I see no problem with government aiding the church in propagating what is good and proper. This is in fact what laws are anyway -- a framework for acceptable conduct in all areas of civilized life. You see, we have freedom to do "right", we do not have "freedom" to do wrong.

So, how can government propagate what is right and moral -- without religion? That was George Washington's point.

You said, "...I think all Americans have to protect against any one religion or combination of sects from imposing their symbolism upon us as the 84th Congress and President Eisenhower did."

Why? The symbolism reflects our national heritage. It also represents much of the reasoning used by the Colonists to revolt against the British Crown. So then, the atheists choke on the word "God", but they are free not to speak it, and they have no religion but their non-belief, and they are free to practice it and lead their lives however they choose -- so how are they violated, and what rights have been breached or surrendered? They are splitting hairs!

Maybe America should bar people of religious orientation from running for offices of government because their bias' impact how they vote on various legislation. How far do we separate church and state?

The paragraph where you state: ...a government declaration that we are a Godly people who endeavor to do right is a definite WOE! ... for it advances a religious view of some of the people over all of the people. Sorry "righteous trampling" over the religious freedoms of my fellow Americans in the self-proclaimed name of God... no matter how devout you may be... is not what America is about in my opinion. Salvation and morality are personal issues that don't need a Constitutional Amendment for God's acceptance....

...gives me pause. It's a great point, and I find trouble in deciding how to respond to it. Your last statement I am in complete agreement with, and can only say that I don't believe leaving intact a bare minimum of references to this nation's Godly heritage is a form of "righteous trampling", or the advancement of a "religious view" over all of the people. To me, it is simply an acknowledgement of our origins as a nation.

------------------

Deanf>s>

AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s>

Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post Gil, and that's pretty much what Ed is saying too. I get it, I really do, and I really agree with the both of you. I definitely do not want government involved in my, or anybody else's religious affairs (except the Satanists of course Wink.gif

I just think references to God used in the context of our history should remain intact. We ought to be able to say The Pledge, sing God Bless America, Oh Purple Mountains, and the like -- without someone completely freaking out and going to the Supreme Court.

I'm certainly not going to feel like my religious freedoms are being assaulted if the pledge is changed back to the way it originally was.

Jeepers, I almost forgot that that was what this thread was about.

Well, it was sure fun exercising what little of my brain I have left.

------------------

Deanf>s>

AE-25 Super Amp DJH * S F Line 1 * S9000ES * HSU x-over * SVS CS+ * Klipsch RF7s f>s>

Metal drivers make metal music shinef>c>s>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we should drop "Purple Mountain's Majesty" as it may offend Pegan's...

------------------

Receiver: Sony STR-DE675

CD player: Sony CDP-CX300

Turntable: Technics SL-J3 with Audio-Technica TR485U

Speakers: JBL HLS-610

Subwoofer: JBL 4648A-8

Sub amp: Parts Express 180 watt

Center/surrounds: Teac 3-way bookshelfs

Yes, it sucks, but better to come. KLIPSCH soon! My computer is better than my stereo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An atheist does believe there's no god. That IS believing in something. Wink.gif

The narrow minded libs here skip over a simple fact. To bar someone from mentioning God in a public setting is a violation of THEIR 1st Amendment rights.

Take little deany in school. If he wants to say "under god" in school the Libs want to make this in effect Unconstitutional. In other words little deany is now a

criminal for mentioning God and will probably at least be suspended.

Now some other kids mentioning God and the atheist Kids

being allowed not to do so is not a violation of 1st Amendment rights.

Facts are-

Under God does not descriminate against other religions

because they all believe in a God. Allah is Arabic for God in English.

Under God does not descriminate against Atheists because they are not required to say it. Or they can say it and interpret God however they wish.

Atheists are a big minority in this country. The Majority does rule here. But anyway they are such a small group its de minimis anyway.

The Pledge is a minor tradition for this country and does not constitute forcing religion down anybody's throat. The only reason this issue is before us is because the Radical Libs fear the Moral Majority taking over and will infringe on them forcing their own rules on we the people. Its just an extremist battle whereas

most of us in the middle don't see it as a major issue at all and just assume stick with a traditional speech that worked fine for us as it is. Certainly didn't turn me into a Bible Beater. Wink.gif

------------------

Go Forth and Hump the World

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At long last this thread seems to be winding down with more peace and harmony than flaming rhetoric... and that is good. It is not often that a relatively open Forum can cover notoriously sensitive governmental and religious issues and come out as whole as we apparently have. Oh, yes, there may be a lack of end time agreement but it is done with consideration and mutual respect... for the most part... and, once again, that puts this Forum a cut above its peers.

Speaking of Heritage in other than the National or PWK sense... BobG and all the pros associated with making this web site what it is... and what it can be... for the creation of an exemplory Internet Heritage. Without which, we individual Forum Members... in truth or in error... would not have had the opportunity to sound out our views in the "mixed company" of a representative cross-section of contrasting opinion.

More understanding than wrath was generated here... and by that understanding coming from delicate non-audio issues, we Members are better able to communicate with confidence on audio issues.

William F. Gil McDermott, thanks for delivering one of your most eloquent posts ever... and that's not just because I agree with you. I hope you don't mind but I would like to save your comments and send them to people who ask my opinion of the separation of church and state.

You, Gil, succinctly convey the concept that omitting God from government is the ultimate protection that we can each keep our religious views in every day life... and, thus, by our contributions as citizens, keep God, morality and justice alive and well in America... even if Christians are in the minority.

Thanks, deang for the clarification contained in your last post. I thought we were in more agreement than a casual reader of this thread might surmise. Obviously, as a history buff, I have no problem with giving Christianity, deism or the obscure practices of Abraham Lincoln proper credit for shaping the founding and sustaining principles of this nation. I just prefer that they be in properly documented histories rather than one or two word inclusions that become obscure with time and subject to gross misinterpretation... and, potentially, misapplication.

And, thanks fini, for cluing us in on how the counter is reset... and adding a timely point here and there. Surely, Roadhawg, Eric D, Tripod, Clipped and Shorn, Ine937s, Manuel and so many others... stepped up to add balance to this thread. Thoughtful replies rise above empty rhetoric every time on this Forum...

And, again, we owe a vote of thanks to kenratboy who started it all with his sense of outrage at potentially losing traditions that he values. We get so busy with our everyday lives that we lose sight of what the college youth of America holds in its perspective of our common National Heritage.

Why even good ole for-us-thump-too offered more thought than invective toward the end. And that's good... because in all our cases, it is the thought that counts.

What a Country! What a Forum!! What a Klipsch!!! Heartfelt thanks to all the posters and lurkers who make it so. cwm38.gif -HornED

This message has been edited by HornEd on 06-29-2002 at 07:23 AM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, maybe I am fufilling the young protestor stereotype, but it just happens to be what the vast majority (look at polls taken in ANYTHING) supports, like 50-year old businessmen and most, if not all of the right and most all of the left.

No, this isn't a free Tibet thing...

------------------

Receiver: Sony STR-DE675

CD player: Sony CDP-CX300

Turntable: Technics SL-J3 with Audio-Technica TR485U

Speakers: JBL HLS-610

Subwoofer: JBL 4648A-8

Sub amp: Parts Express 180 watt

Center/surrounds: Teac 3-way bookshelfs

Yes, it sucks, but better to come. KLIPSCH soon! My computer is better than my stereo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, Kenratboy, I think you missed my drift. I don't see you as a young protester stereotype... I see you as being representative of a generation that will be responsible for protecting and defending a way of life. How you see that life, what you find important, what you believe heritages and traditions to be are important... for that is what is likely to be passed on to the generations that follow.

The fact that you cared enough to make an issue of the Pledge controversy says something good about you and the future of America. Compared to most of the other countries in the world, our left and right wings are fairly close together. Issues tend to be more about trends than actual implemented programs.

Of course, we may get off track Constitutionally once in a while... and sometimes Supreme Court Justices get it wrong... in the opinion of the next group of Supreme Court Justices... but the damage is usually minimal.... because our traditions include a spirit of fair play, separation of church and state, and measuring legislative fairness by the Golden Rule.

For those of us little people who have pretty well run our life's course, this is one of the few real opportunities we get to put forth our thoughts and give important young minds like yours an opportunity to see life from a different perspective. But, make no mistake, the most important part of the process is what you and your contemporaries elect to do with it.

Just as I was upset when the government changed the Pledge of Allegiance when I was in school to put "under God" in where it hadn't been before... I can understand why you were upset when government started messing with what you were familiar. Like deang, I don't think the inclusion or exclusion of those two words will ruin the nation in and of itself.

But, it is my belief that bending the law contained in the First Amendment to accommodate a religious preference... no matter how popular... will serve as a dangerous precedent for the next incursion of religious dogma into an area where the Supreme Law of the Land clearly doesn't allow it... as Gil so eloquently put it.

I am not likely to be around to defend and protect the Constitution with my vote... but you likely will. I am not so concerned as to how you vote... as I am about how serious you will be in examining the issues and voting your conscience. Stay healthy, America needs voters like you. -H.E.

This message has been edited by HornEd on 06-29-2002 at 03:36 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an opinion to offer:

The person who initiated the suit from the land of fruits and nuts may sound credible but kind of misses the main point: Our fore-fathers WERE religious and believed in God but realized that harm that had been done to citizens of countries that forced religion via the government. The Constitution's language was intended to reflect that this country was founded on the basic principles of Christianity (all are created equal, etc.) but that there should not be a mandated government religion and that religion should not be overly influential on government. However, the crux of the situation is that the fore-fathers did not intend for schmucks to nit-pick and attempt to remove ALL references to religion from government and public school systems.

The USA was not founded by Buddhists, Muslims, Druids, Atheists, etc. but by people who at the time had a basic belief in a supreme being that they called God. I personally do not see the harm in maintaining the references to God in the few places they exist as our fore-fathers were guided by principles that have managed to make this the best country on the planet - bar none. These were all average men who collectively solved a lot of problems that haunted previous governments and laid down ground rules for a nation that has done more for humanity in general than any other. Those who don't think this is the greatest country and want to do nothing but complain about it (while contributing nothing) - consider moving far, far, away. The last country that totally eschewed religion (USSR) sort of had to change their ways due to popular demand.

I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that the Pledge of Allegiance is un-constitutional can't see the forest for the trees and is undermining some well thought-out intentions written down by people whose ideas should remain respected. Personally, I'm getting a bit tired of folks who want to re-write history to whatever is convenient to them. Political correctness, no-tolerance policies in public schools, mainstreaming, treating ILLEGAL aliens as though they had citizen rights, racial quotas, etc. are just a few examples of where well-intentioned but totally misguided fools attempt to force responsibility on anyone but themselves. Look close and you'll find that most of types that spout these ideas rarely do more than give it lip service and run like hell when it starts to affect their wallets. Anyone read the tax code lately? Oh, I'm sorry, that would take about a year or so AFTER graduating Evelyn Wood.

Let's see, should we have Christmas or a "winter festival"? Salute the American flag or sue the school systems to fly flags for all of the nations who might have progeny attending there? Have discipline or metal detectors in schools? Be careful what you wish for ....

For a reference, I attended public schools, am not very religious (last time I was in a church was when I was married) and can change the channel when Pat Robertson comes on as fast as anyone else. BUT, I think this current court decision is a joke and will be rectified rather soon. Stay tuned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, HornED, I got a little confused at what you were trying to say, but I get your point now.

Yes, Fox News, Newsweek, etc. have all done polls representing 100,000+ people, and the overwhelming majority STRONGLY support "One Nation, Under God" in the pledge.

I have seen (including very liberal press) results ranging from 75-95% supporting the pledge as it was origionally.

Does this evidence not speak for it's self? Imagine is a canidate for an office got 85% of the votes, people would be happy (in general). Isn't that true?

------------------

Receiver: Sony STR-DE675

CD player: Sony CDP-CX300

Turntable: Technics SL-J3 with Audio-Technica TR485U

Speakers: JBL HLS-610

Subwoofer: JBL 4648A-8

Sub amp: Parts Express 180 watt

Center/surrounds: Teac 3-way bookshelfs

Yes, it sucks, but better to come. KLIPSCH soon! My computer is better than my stereo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Audioholic you make two very good points...

The first point was that the framers of the constitution were, for the most part, God fearing men who chose NOT to put God in the Constitution except for the reference to religion in the First Amendment which establishes the premise for the separation of church and state.

Your second point was that if something were established like the Pledge of Allegiance, that it should be left alone. Well, the Pledge of Allegiance was established without "under God"... I know because I recited it that way every day in elementary school. No one objected to it and it certainly conformed to the First Amendment language. Then, in order to whip up public sentiment for a war against communism, Congress and the President of the United States put religion into the Pledge. I didn't think they should change a good Pledge then and I would like to see it restored to its original form.

We have plenty of historical documents in which the founding fathers saw fit to include God, Providence, Creator, etc. and if our schools are not teaching American History adequately... then lets fix it in the schools instead of paying loose lip-service in a controversial but Official Pledge of Allegiance.

Going against the grain of the document that the framers of the Constitution looked upon as their finest work... seems a strange way to honor them. -HornED

PS: Turning the Pledge of Allegiance into a National Prayer, as President Eisenhower described the change, seems clearly contrary to the Supreme Law of the Land... and the attempt to keep religious controversy out of the government's business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kenratboy, I'm glad we are beginning to understand one another better now. Just because I don't always agree with you (or you with me) doesn't mean that I do not respect you.

Popularity polls are not usually classified as "evidence"... particularly when most of those polled probably gave a knee-jerk answer that would not mess with the Pledge as they understood it to be. Someone would have to be over fifty years old to experience having said the Pledge the way it was first taught. I doubt that 85% of the poll were old enough or wise enough to know that the Pledge was truned into a National Prayer in 1964... according to the President who signed it into law.

As has been mentioned before in response to your majority rules comments, the reason that the framers of the Constitution made this nation a representative Republic rather than a majority rules Democracy is that only in such a Republic are the rights of minorities protected from the fickle whims of a largely uniformed majority.

And, sometimes, even that doesn't work. We declared war on Spain and forced Spain to cede Cuba, the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico to the United States. Spain was punished by our military might for an act that for which they were not responsible... the sinking of the U.S. Battleship Maine anchored in Cuba which was then owned by Spain. After the fact, a Blue Ribbon U.S. Investigative Team found no evidence of hostile action... only indications that poor maintenance had caused her main boilers to blow.

In more recent times, President Johnson used a fictionalized event said to have occured in the Gulf of Tonkin as an excuse to go to war with North Vietnam... it was a lie calculated to fool the American majority... and it was a failure to a point where we had to bail... and gave over our allies to the enemy.

If you were to have taken a poll after the newspapers gave out wrong information about the sinking of the Maine or the incident in the Gulf of Tonkin... you would have probably gotten higher than 85% results... and they would have been dead wrong.

I think your 85% poll is more an indictment of the media and the educational system than it is of the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court. Most media seems to be treating as a joke on the taxpayers or an outrage in the case of religious right. Sadly, few people search for the truth further than the morning headlines or the evening news. And, further, the Supreme Court seems to be making more "popularity based" decisions IMHO... and that does not bode well for Truth, Justice and the American Way.

And BTW, fortunately one can still be a conservative in this country without becoming a Pat Robinson jingoist. I mean how much more a conservative position is the preservation of the Constitution the way the founding father's designed it... or the Pledge the way it was first adopted by all Americans.

As I see it, this issue is about restoring the old Pledge to conform with Constitutional Law... not changing into a new Pledge to benefit leftwing oddballs. I hope this helps us understand one another even better. -HornED

PS: kenratboy, in response to your question about polls I attempted to look some up on the internet.

The only large poll I found with large positive numbers one similar to your comment was a Poll taken in Wisconsin in March in which the question was "Should public school students have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of the school day." No mention of the "under God" issue was mentioned.

The only live poll I found was by Newsday and it was running slightly positive (51+%) for restoring the original Pledge (i.e., removing "under God").

I do not see either of these polls as being significant.

However, there is an existing Supreme Court ruling that children cannot be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in its current form. That Supreme Court decision, which side-stepped the real issue, was part of the deliberation of the 9th Circuit Court.

The core of the problem has nothing to do with patriotism or the faith of the framers of the Constitution. It is a simple matter of law created by the framers of the Constitution to avoid religious conflict.

The quotes available from people who have served various Justices of the Supreme Court find that the 9th Circuit ruling was consistent with recent Supreme Court decisions and that the Supreme Court is only reaping what it has sown.

Even the dissenting 9th Circuit Court Judge based his dissent on the basis that the religious connotation had a low probability of changing anyone's mind.

Again, my take is that the legal propriety of the First Amendment will be again compromised as it was in 1954 when the Pledge was changed into a nonconforming religious statement.

This message has been edited by HornEd on 06-29-2002 at 07:26 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RoadHawg

I absolutely love your post! I don't think you could be more accurate about your Christian faith (and mine) and the foundation of our country!

Kenratboy

It's nice to see another Navadan on the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by HornEd:

As I see it, this issue is about restoring the old Pledge to conform with Constitutional Law... not changing into a new Pledge to benefit leftwing oddballs. I hope this helps us understand one another even better. -HornED

Good point, HornEd! Unfortunately even though you are astute enough to see a change in the Pledge for the right reasons the average egg-sucking liberal will turn it into a media event to help save the spotted owls, print copies of "It Takes The Village People", and a campaign for double-secret national health insurance. I'm hoping that this court decision will get shut down now so that perhaps if the Pledge is changed it can be done so later and have the general public realize that it is a restoration rather than a political statement. It would be strange, though, to have it changed. I've only recited it in its current form and changing it would be like trying to recite the ABC's leaving out a few letters.

Too much emphasis is being placed on the I'm OK/You're OK touchy-feely garbage instead of a true education. The problem with the school systems is not the students or teachers - its the parents and administrators that muck it up. Parents want the school system to raise their kids for them while the teachers would be happy not to need Kevlar in the classroom. A focus on academics and actual history along with instilling a little national pride can go a long way, instead of showing kids that whining and threats of lawsuits are the way of the world. When the average 4th grader has a cell phone and an attorney on retainer there's just something gone wrong. Not everything is about "feeeeelings". And then they go and ban the game of "Tag" and "Dodgeball" in some schools - talk about f*@%ed up!

By the way Ed, did you read a lot of encyclopedias while on the can early in life? cwm20.gif Its obvious you're well educated and have a good grasp of what's going on around you (even if you do lean a little left). Excellent posts from HornEd, Kenratboy, Roadhawg, and everyone else on this thread with no name calling - that's pretty darned good considering politics is being discussed. Nuke the whales! cwm32.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...