| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
16 Aug 2005 03:46:27 PM |
| Object: |
4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
This was sent out by the Virginia Chapter of Americans United
(located in Virginia Beach, Va)
For those who live outside of the Virginian Pilot readership area or who
might have missed this excellent op/ed piece in yesterday's newspaper.
Opinion piece by Paul Rasor, Director of the Center for the Study of
Religious Freedom at Virginia Wesleyan College_:
[Published in the Virginian-Pilot, August 14, 2005]
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling upholding mandatory
recitations of the pledge of allegiance in public schools raises
troubling questions. The words "under God" have the effect of requiring
students to personally affirm the sovereignty of God, whether this is
their personal belief or not. They also link national loyalty to
religious loyalty. The implication is that you can't be patriotic
unless you also believe in God. This is problematic not only for those
who hold non-theistic beliefs, but also for many who have a deep
God-oriented religious faith.
The words "under God" were added to the pledge in 1954, at the height of
the cold war, to support the claim that God was on our side in the
struggle against those we often called "godless communists." The
implication was that our nation, and in turn our government, operates
with a sort of divine stamp of approval. This idea has long been
present in American self-understanding. The problem is that it can
easily lead to the view that dissent and disagreement are not simply
unpatriotic, but unreligious as well. When we reinforce this view daily
to our school children, the results can be troubling, especially for
those who have different beliefs or who may be going through a normal
stage of questioning their beliefs. It can send a message that says in
effect, "if you doubt your belief in God, then you must also doubt your
loyalty to the nation." This violates one of the oldest principles of
church-state separation, namely that a person's political standing in
the community should not depend on his or her affirmation of particular
religious beliefs.
The words "under God" seem to make loyalty to country subordinate to
loyalty to God. Ironically, this very belief is the reason many deeply
religious people are opposed to state-mandated recitations the pledge.
The Founders held the view that our most essential rights are not
derived from the state. Instead, they are given to us by the Creator,
or are inherent in the human condition, and therefore cannot be taken
away by the government. While it is true that many of our country's
basic principles are grounded in religious beliefs, it is also true that
the principle of God-given fundamental rights does not simply equate God
and country. Instead, it intentionally separates them. This is why our
religious principles can become the basis for civil disobedience; we are
first loyal to God, or to our consciences, not to the state. This, too,
is a biblical principle. The Bible is full of instances where those in
power were called to account - by God, speaking through the prophets -
for abuses of power. The prophets, the dissenters of their time, spoke
of a God who stands for justice on behalf of society's powerless, not
for nationalism.
By linking loyalty to country with loyalty to God, the pledge's current
wording promotes a view that is the opposite of what the founders
intended and contrary to the religious principles of many believers.
And forcing school children to make a state-sanctioned religiously-based
pledge violates these basic American principles.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads area of Virginia you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "J Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
17 Aug 2005 11:43:21 AM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:o2k4g1p0d48ueqrepbc0drutgg7ggdm0ec@4ax.com...
This was sent out by the Virginia Chapter of Americans United
(located in Virginia Beach, Va)
For those who live outside of the Virginian Pilot readership area or who
might have missed this excellent op/ed piece in yesterday's newspaper.
Opinion piece by Paul Rasor, Director of the Center for the Study of
Religious Freedom at Virginia Wesleyan College_:
[Published in the Virginian-Pilot, August 14, 2005]
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling upholding mandatory
recitations of the pledge of allegiance in public schools raises
troubling questions. The words "under God" have the effect of requiring
students to personally affirm the sovereignty of God, whether this is
their personal belief or not. They also link national loyalty to
religious loyalty. The implication is that you can't be patriotic
unless you also believe in God. This is problematic not only for those
who hold non-theistic beliefs, but also for many who have a deep
God-oriented religious faith.
The Pledge or Allegiance does nothing of the sort, regardless of what
Michael Newdow says, or what a hare brained editor has to say.
There is no religious loyalty express or implied in the Pledge of
Allegiance. There is no affirmation of religion on the part of the reciter
of the Pledge. Regardless of personal belief in religion, reciting the
Pledge does not alter that belief.
The mandatory nature of the recital should be more problematic than the
words under God. I suspect the mandatory nature described by the author is a
bit of sensationalization on his part. The Pledge is not mandatory because
children can already opt out of its recital.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
19 Aug 2005 01:48:42 PM |
|
|
"J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net> wrote:
:|
:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:o2k4g1p0d48ueqrepbc0drutgg7ggdm0ec@4ax.com...
:|>
:|> This was sent out by the Virginia Chapter of Americans United
:|> (located in Virginia Beach, Va)
:|>
:|> For those who live outside of the Virginian Pilot readership area or who
:|> might have missed this excellent op/ed piece in yesterday's newspaper.
:|>
:|>
:|> Opinion piece by Paul Rasor, Director of the Center for the Study of
:|> Religious Freedom at Virginia Wesleyan College_:
:|>
:|> [Published in the Virginian-Pilot, August 14, 2005]
:|>
:|> The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling upholding mandatory
:|> recitations of the pledge of allegiance in public schools raises
:|> troubling questions. The words "under God" have the effect of requiring
:|> students to personally affirm the sovereignty of God, whether this is
:|> their personal belief or not. They also link national loyalty to
:|> religious loyalty. The implication is that you can't be patriotic
:|> unless you also believe in God. This is problematic not only for those
:|> who hold non-theistic beliefs, but also for many who have a deep
:|> God-oriented religious faith.
:|>
:|
:|
:|The Pledge or Allegiance does nothing of the sort, regardless of what
:|Michael Newdow says, or what a hare brained editor has to say.
Your qualifications are?
The "hare brained editor" as you call him is not the editor.
He is Paul Rasor, Director of the Center for the Study of
Religious Freedom at Virginia Wesleyan College:
Did you miss that part? It's right up there near the top
Now for his credentials: (you just made an as of yourself again dummy )
Paul Rasor
Director of the Center for the Study of Religious Freedom at Virginia
Wesleyan College, Norfolk, Va
prasor@vwc.edu
Education
* Ph.D., Harvard University, 1999, The Study of Religion (theology,
religion and society)
* M.Div, Harvard Divinity School, 1994.
* J. D., University of Michigan, 1972.
* Associate Editor, Michigan Law Review
* B.Mus., University of Michigan, 1968.
* High Distinction; Phi Beta Kappa
Professional experience
* University and Seminary Teaching:
o Pendle Hill Quaker Study Center, 2000 to 2005.
Positions: Director of Religion and Social Issues Forum,
Interim Dean, Biblical and Religious Studies Teacher.
o Harvard Divinity School, Visiting Lecturer, 1999-2000.
o Andover Newton Theological School, Adjunct Instructor in
Theology, 1996 to 2000.
o Professor of Law, Washburn University School of Law, 1978 to
1992.
o Visiting Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law,
1986 to 1988.
o Visiting Associate Professor of Law, University of Detroit
School of Law, 1982-83.
* Teaching Abroad:
o University of San Diego Institute on International and
Comparative Law, Mexico City, 1991.
o Brunel University and Washburn University joint program in law,
Uxbridge, England, 1986.
* Teaching Awards:
o Texas Excellence Teaching Award, University of Texas, 1988.
Outstanding Professor, Washburn University, 1981-82.
Publications and Presentations, Religion
* Books and Monographs:
o Faith Without Certainty: Liberal Theology in the Twenty-First
Century (Boston: Skinner House, 2005).
o Unitarian Universalist Views of God (Unitarian Universalist
Association pamphlet, 1999).
* Articles and Book Chapters
o "The Postmodern Challenge to Liberal Theology," Unitarian
Universalist Christian vol. 58 (2003):5-56.
o "Reclaiming Our Prophetic Voice: Liberal Theology and the
Challenge of Racism," in Marjorie Bowens-Wheatley and Nancy Palmer Jones,
eds., Soul Work: Anti-Racist Theologies in Dialogue (Boston: Skinner House,
2003).
o "Intersubjective Communication and the Self in Wieman and
Habermas," American Journal of Theology and Philosophy vol. 21 (September,
2000):269-287.
o "The Self in Contemporary Liberal Religion: A Constructive
Critique," Journal of Liberal Religion vol. 1, no. 1 (fall, 1999).
o "The Christian Challenge to Unitarian Universalism," Unitarian
Universalist Christian vol. 53 (1998-99):13-23.
o "Biblical Roots of Modern Consumer Credit Law," Journal of Law
and Religion vol. 10 (1993):157-92.
o "A Law Teacher Looks at the Good Samaritan Story," Washburn Law
Journal vol. 31 (1991):71-9.
* Papers and Presentations:
o "Language, Religious Experience, and Postmodernity," Harper's
Ferry Ministerial Study Group workshop, November 2004.
o "Liberal Theology and Postmodernity," Greenfield Ministerial
Study Group workshop, December 2003.
o "Materialism, Violence, and Culture: The Context of Our Faith,"
Pendle Hill lecture, October 2001.
o "Toward a Holistic and Transformative Pedagogy," Friends
Association of Higher Education conference, June 2001.
o "Liberal Theology and the Problem of Evil," Unitarian
Universalist Association General Assembly presentation, June 2001.
o "Reclaiming Our Prophetic Voice: Liberal Theology and the
Challenge of Racism," Unitarian Universalist Association Consultation on
Theology and Racism, January 2001.
o "Creative Interchange and Communicative Action: A Comparison of
Henry Nelson Wieman and Jürgen Habermas," American Academy of Religion,
November 1998.
o "Shaping a Critical Liberal Theology for the 21st Century:
Learning from Our Critics Left and Right," Meadville Lombard Theological
School lecture, February 1998.
o "Covenantal-Legal Form and Function in Q/Luke 6:27-36," Society
of Biblical Literature, April 1992.
o "Biblical Roots of Modern Consumer Credit Law," Hamline
University Law School Symposium on Law, Religion and Ethics, October 1991
Publications, Law
* Books:
o Consumer Law: Cases and Materials 2nd ed. (with R. Rohner, J.
Spanogle, and D. Pridgen), (St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1991), 908
pages.
o Teacher's Manual for Consumer Law: Cases and Materials (St.
Paul: West Publishing Co., 1991), 179 pages.
o Consumer Finance Law: Cases and Materials (New York: Matthew
Bender & Co., 1985), 770 pages.
o Consumer Finance Law Teacher's Guide (New York: Matthew Bender
& Co., 1986), 164 pages.
o Kansas Law of Sales Under the Uniform Commercial Code (Topeka:
Kansas Bar Association, 1981), 269 pages.
* Articles and Book Chapters:
o "Security Interests in Investment Securities," in B. Zaretsky,
ed., Commercial Law Manual (New York: Matthew Bender & Co., 1991), chapter
26, 30 pages.
o "Financial Information," in G. Trudow, ed., Privacy Law and
Practice vol. 1 (New York: Matthew Bender & Co., 1987), chapter 3, 165
pages.
o "A Critical Look at Secured Transaction Under Revised U.C.C.
Article 8," Florida State University Law Review 14 (1987):859-90.
o "Privacy Implications of Consumer Credit Protection Laws," John
Marshall Law Review 19 (1986):941-57.
o "Controlling Government Access to Personal Financial Records,"
Washburn Law Journal 25 (1986):417-36.
o "The Secured Farm Creditor's Interest in Federal Price
Supports: Policies and Priorities" (with J. Wadley), Kentucky Law Journal
73 (1984-85):595-664.
o "Limitations on Taking and Enforcing Security Interests in
Consumer Credit Transactions," in P. Coogan, et al, eds., Secured
Transactions under the Uniform Commercial Code vol. 1B (New York: Matthew
Bender & Co., 1984), chapter 20AA, 52 pages.
o "The History of Warranties of Quality in the Sale of Goods:
Contract or Tort? — A Case Study in Full Circles," Washburn Law Journal
21 (1982):175-218.
o "Commercial Transactions under the New Bankruptcy Act," Journal
of the Kansas Bar Association 48 (1979):199-215.
o "Tribal Self-Government and the Indian Reorganization Act of
1934," Michigan Law Review 70 (1972):955-86.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
17 Aug 2005 06:25:19 PM |
|
|
J Strickland wrote:
The mandatory nature of the recital should be more problematic than the
words under God. I suspect the mandatory nature described by the author is a
bit of sensationalization on his part. The Pledge is not mandatory because
children can already opt out of its recital.
If they don't mind getting the snot beat out of them on the playground,
yes, they can.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
18 Aug 2005 11:38:03 AM |
|
|
"skyeyes" <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> wrote in message
news:1124321119.598213.57270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
J Strickland wrote:
The mandatory nature of the recital should be more problematic than the
words under God. I suspect the mandatory nature described by the author is
a
bit of sensationalization on his part. The Pledge is not mandatory because
children can already opt out of its recital.
If they don't mind getting the snot beat out of them on the playground,
yes, they can.
That has never happened.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
18 Aug 2005 11:42:23 AM |
|
|
"J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:HfudnT_DOpVpJZneRVn-3w@ez2.net...
"skyeyes" <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> wrote in message
news:1124321119.598213.57270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
J Strickland wrote:
The mandatory nature of the recital should be more problematic than the
words under God. I suspect the mandatory nature described by the author
is
a
bit of sensationalization on his part. The Pledge is not mandatory
because
children can already opt out of its recital.
If they don't mind getting the snot beat out of them on the playground,
yes, they can.
That has never happened.
How do you know?
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
18 Aug 2005 01:26:18 PM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
:|
:|"J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:HfudnT_DOpVpJZneRVn-3w@ez2.net...
:|>
:|> "skyeyes" <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> wrote in message
:|> news:1124321119.598213.57270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
:|> >J Strickland wrote:
:|> >
:|> >>The mandatory nature of the recital should be more problematic than the
:|> >>words under God. I suspect the mandatory nature described by the author
:|is
:|> >>a
:|> >>bit of sensationalization on his part. The Pledge is not mandatory
:|because
:|> >>children can already opt out of its recital.
:|> >
:|> > If they don't mind getting the snot beat out of them on the playground,
:|> > yes, they can.
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|> That has never happened.
:|
:|How do you know?
He doesn't. He is infamous for making things up.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
18 Aug 2005 12:19:05 PM |
|
|
My son says he recites the pledge as required but is silent during the
"under god" part unless a teacher is looking right at him. If he's
being watched, he'll say the words to avoid calling attention to
himself.
Lana (who agrees her son should avoid scrutiny from the authorities
when possible)
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
20 Aug 2005 10:01:12 PM |
|
|
wrote:
My son says he recites the pledge as required but is silent during the
"under god" part unless a teacher is looking right at him. If he's
being watched, he'll say the words to avoid calling attention to
himself.
Lana (who agrees her son should avoid scrutiny from the authorities
when possible)
All we know so far is that Lana and her son may be paranoid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
21 Aug 2005 08:49:35 AM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|
:|LanaXZR@aol.com wrote:
:|> My son says he recites the pledge as required but is silent during the
:|> "under god" part unless a teacher is looking right at him. If he's
:|> being watched, he'll say the words to avoid calling attention to
:|> himself.
:|>
:|> Lana (who agrees her son should avoid scrutiny from the authorities
:|> when possible)
:|
:|All we know so far is that Lana and her son may be paranoid.
What we actually know is you are a radical religious right theocratic
propagandist and troll.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads area of Virginia you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
21 Aug 2005 04:39:24 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 22:01:12 -0500, fred wrote
(in article <1124591998.230318.95020@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
LanaXZR@aol.com wrote:
My son says he recites the pledge as required but is silent during the
"under god" part unless a teacher is looking right at him. If he's
being watched, he'll say the words to avoid calling attention to
himself.
Lana (who agrees her son should avoid scrutiny from the authorities
when possible)
All we know so far is that Lana and her son may be paranoid.
"All we know" ="may be"
Or not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
20 Aug 2005 05:19:57 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:42:23 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:HfudnT_DOpVpJZneRVn-3w@ez2.net...
"skyeyes" <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> wrote in message
news:1124321119.598213.57270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
J Strickland wrote:
The mandatory nature of the recital should be more problematic than the
words under God. I suspect the mandatory nature described by the author
is
a
bit of sensationalization on his part. The Pledge is not mandatory
because
children can already opt out of its recital.
If they don't mind getting the snot beat out of them on the playground,
yes, they can.
That has never happened.
How do you know?
The Liar For Jesus® said so.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
18 Aug 2005 02:31:13 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:38:03 -0700, "J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net>
wrote:
"skyeyes" <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> wrote in message
news:1124321119.598213.57270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
J Strickland wrote:
The mandatory nature of the recital should be more problematic than the
words under God. I suspect the mandatory nature described by the author is
a
bit of sensationalization on his part. The Pledge is not mandatory because
children can already opt out of its recital.
If they don't mind getting the snot beat out of them on the playground,
yes, they can.
That has never happened.
When I was in highschool, I refused to go to a revival presentation in
the school gym during school hours. I got made fun of for that.
At any rate, there should be no chance of that. Such a violatile
subject has no business in school as it adds nothing to education.
If people want to say the pledge with all kinds of Christianity in it
and blatent religousness in it, why can't they just manage to say in
on their own time?
None of your theists has ever answered that question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
19 Aug 2005 11:12:25 AM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4322e113.512865687@news-west.newscene.com...
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:38:03 -0700, "J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net>
wrote:
"skyeyes" <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> wrote in message
news:1124321119.598213.57270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
J Strickland wrote:
The mandatory nature of the recital should be more problematic than the
words under God. I suspect the mandatory nature described by the author
is
a
bit of sensationalization on his part. The Pledge is not mandatory
because
children can already opt out of its recital.
If they don't mind getting the snot beat out of them on the playground,
yes, they can.
That has never happened.
When I was in highschool, I refused to go to a revival presentation in
the school gym during school hours. I got made fun of for that.
At any rate, there should be no chance of that. Such a violatile
subject has no business in school as it adds nothing to education.
If people want to say the pledge with all kinds of Christianity in it
and blatent religousness in it, why can't they just manage to say in
on their own time?
None of your theists has ever answered that question.
You will make decisions throughout your life that have cinsequences, some
you like and some that make you uncomfortable because of the reaction of
your peers.
The government must never make you feel bad for electing to not go to a
revival, but the government can't do a ***** thing about what your peers
might say. The government can do something about what they might do because
what they might do can be considered a hate crime. Hate crimes can work both
ways, the religious right can be hateful just as the liberal left can be.
Just because they all whisper, "look at Suzy, she's not goint to revival
with us," is not a hate crime. You have made a decision with a consequence,
the consequence is that your peers shun you. Big fucking deal. Get over it.
Now, when you teachers fail you for not going to revival, then come back and
we'll talk strategy on how to remedy the situation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.C." |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
19 Aug 2005 02:04:54 PM |
|
|
"J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:27KdndpnVv7xmZveRVn-gw@ez2.net...
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4322e113.512865687@news-west.newscene.com...
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:38:03 -0700, "J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net>
wrote:
"skyeyes" <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> wrote in message
news:1124321119.598213.57270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
J Strickland wrote:
The mandatory nature of the recital should be more problematic than
the
words under God. I suspect the mandatory nature described by the
author
is
a
bit of sensationalization on his part. The Pledge is not mandatory
because
children can already opt out of its recital.
If they don't mind getting the snot beat out of them on the
playground,
yes, they can.
That has never happened.
When I was in highschool, I refused to go to a revival presentation in
the school gym during school hours. I got made fun of for that.
At any rate, there should be no chance of that. Such a violatile
subject has no business in school as it adds nothing to education.
If people want to say the pledge with all kinds of Christianity in it
and blatent religousness in it, why can't they just manage to say in
on their own time?
None of your theists has ever answered that question.
You will make decisions throughout your life that have cinsequences, some
you like and some that make you uncomfortable because of the reaction of
your peers.
The government must never make you feel bad for electing to not go to a
revival, but the government can't do a ***** thing about what your
peers
might say. The government can do something about what they might do
because
what they might do can be considered a hate crime. Hate crimes can work
both
ways, the religious right can be hateful just as the liberal left can be.
Just because they all whisper, "look at Suzy, she's not goint to revival
with us," is not a hate crime. You have made a decision with a
consequence,
the consequence is that your peers shun you. Big fucking deal. Get over
it.
Now, when you teachers fail you for not going to revival, then come back
and
we'll talk strategy on how to remedy the situation.
But, if you are paying attention to what is working its magic on congress
now, we are not all that far from "hate speech" becoming a "hate crime"
punishible by prision time.
--
J.C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
19 Aug 2005 03:43:03 PM |
|
|
"J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p3qNe.24949$0_.12598@fe04.news.easynews.com...
"J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:27KdndpnVv7xmZveRVn-gw@ez2.net...
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4322e113.512865687@news-west.newscene.com...
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:38:03 -0700, "J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net>
wrote:
"skyeyes" <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> wrote in message
news:1124321119.598213.57270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
J Strickland wrote:
The mandatory nature of the recital should be more problematic than
the
words under God. I suspect the mandatory nature described by the
author
is
a
bit of sensationalization on his part. The Pledge is not mandatory
because
children can already opt out of its recital.
If they don't mind getting the snot beat out of them on the
playground,
yes, they can.
That has never happened.
When I was in highschool, I refused to go to a revival presentation in
the school gym during school hours. I got made fun of for that.
At any rate, there should be no chance of that. Such a violatile
subject has no business in school as it adds nothing to education.
If people want to say the pledge with all kinds of Christianity in it
and blatent religousness in it, why can't they just manage to say in
on their own time?
None of your theists has ever answered that question.
You will make decisions throughout your life that have cinsequences, some
you like and some that make you uncomfortable because of the reaction of
your peers.
The government must never make you feel bad for electing to not go to a
revival, but the government can't do a ***** thing about what your
peers
might say. The government can do something about what they might do
because
what they might do can be considered a hate crime. Hate crimes can work
both
ways, the religious right can be hateful just as the liberal left can be.
Just because they all whisper, "look at Suzy, she's not goint to revival
with us," is not a hate crime. You have made a decision with a
consequence,
the consequence is that your peers shun you. Big fucking deal. Get over
it.
Now, when you teachers fail you for not going to revival, then come back
and
we'll talk strategy on how to remedy the situation.
But, if you are paying attention to what is working its magic on congress
now, we are not all that far from "hate speech" becoming a "hate crime"
punishible by prision time.
Yes, I'm aware of that, which was my point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
19 Aug 2005 04:50:12 PM |
|
|
"J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net> writes:
"J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p3qNe.24949$0_.12598@fe04.news.easynews.com...
"J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:27KdndpnVv7xmZveRVn-gw@ez2.net...
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4322e113.512865687@news-west.newscene.com...
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:38:03 -0700, "J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net>
wrote:
"skyeyes" <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> wrote in message
news:1124321119.598213.57270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
J Strickland wrote:
The mandatory nature of the recital should be more problematic than
the
words under God. I suspect the mandatory nature described by the
author
is
a
bit of sensationalization on his part. The Pledge is not mandatory
because
children can already opt out of its recital.
If they don't mind getting the snot beat out of them on the
playground,
yes, they can.
That has never happened.
When I was in highschool, I refused to go to a revival presentation in
the school gym during school hours. I got made fun of for that.
At any rate, there should be no chance of that. Such a violatile
subject has no business in school as it adds nothing to education.
If people want to say the pledge with all kinds of Christianity in it
and blatent religousness in it, why can't they just manage to say in
on their own time?
None of your theists has ever answered that question.
You will make decisions throughout your life that have cinsequences, some
you like and some that make you uncomfortable because of the reaction of
your peers.
The government must never make you feel bad for electing to not go to a
revival, but the government can't do a ***** thing about what your
peers
might say. The government can do something about what they might do
because
what they might do can be considered a hate crime. Hate crimes can work
both
ways, the religious right can be hateful just as the liberal left can be.
Just because they all whisper, "look at Suzy, she's not goint to revival
with us," is not a hate crime. You have made a decision with a
consequence,
the consequence is that your peers shun you. Big fucking deal. Get over
it.
Now, when you teachers fail you for not going to revival, then come back
and
But, if you are paying attention to what is working its magic on congress
now, we are not all that far from "hate speech" becoming a "hate crime"
punishible by prision time.
Yes, I'm aware of that, which was my point.
I'm not. What are the particulars?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
19 Aug 2005 01:56:04 PM |
|
|
"J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net> wrote:
:|You will make decisions throughout your life that have cinsequences, some
:|you like and some that make you uncomfortable because of the reaction of
:|your peers.
:|
:|The government must never make you feel bad for electing to not go to a
:|revival, but the government can't do a ***** thing about what your peers
:|might say. The government can do something about what they might do because
:|what they might do can be considered a hate crime. Hate crimes can work both
:|ways, the religious right can be hateful just as the liberal left can be.
:|Just because they all whisper, "look at Suzy, she's not goint to revival
:|with us," is not a hate crime. You have made a decision with a consequence,
:|the consequence is that your peers shun you. Big fucking deal. Get over it.
Would you mind trying the above again only this time in English?
BTW jeffy
Here is a question for you:
From: "t1gercat" <wexford[delete]
Newsgroups: alt.education,alt.atheism,misc.education
Subject: Re: Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer
Date: 18 Aug 2005 21:56:11 -0700
There's a challenge I've hurdled at least 20 times to our religious
bretheren who argue that the Constitution does not provide for the
separation of Church and State, "Where do you draw the line?" Would it
be OK for children to be exposed to a short reading from the Bible
every day? A prayer? Suppose a Mormon teacher wanted to read from the
Book of Mormon or the writings of Brigham Young? Suppose a Lutheran
favored the more anti-semitic sentiments in Luther's "Table Talk?"
Suppose a Catholic wanted public school children to attend Mass on Ash
Wednesday. Those who don't chose to participate, don't have to pray;
they could just sit there. Suppose an Islamic teacher wanted to bow to
Mecca 5 times a day? Where do you draw the line and to what source do
you go to find that line? Don't just say the founders never intended
separation. That tells us nothing. Tell us precisely what they did
intend, then, and where the line is to be drawn.
I've never gotten an answer.
Wexford
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads area of Virginia you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
19 Aug 2005 04:21:28 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 19 August 2005 2:56 pm
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
"J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net> wrote:
:|You will make decisions throughout your life that have cinsequences,
:|some you like and some that make you uncomfortable because of the
:|reaction of your peers.
:|
:|The government must never make you feel bad for electing to not go to a
:|revival, but the government can't do a ***** thing about what your
:|peers might say. The government can do something about what they might
:|do because what they might do can be considered a hate crime. Hate
:|crimes can work both ways, the religious right can be hateful just as
:|the liberal left can be. Just because they all whisper, "look at Suzy,
:|she's not goint to revival with us," is not a hate crime. You have made
:|a decision with a consequence, the consequence is that your peers shun
:|you. Big fucking deal. Get over it.
Would you mind trying the above again only this time in English?
BTW jeffy
Here is a question for you:
From: "t1gercat" <wexford[delete]
Newsgroups: alt.education,alt.atheism,misc.education
Subject: Re: Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer
Date: 18 Aug 2005 21:56:11 -0700
There's a challenge I've hurdled at least 20 times to our religious
bretheren who argue that the Constitution does not provide for the
separation of Church and State, "Where do you draw the line?" Would it
be OK for children to be exposed to a short reading from the Bible
every day? A prayer? Suppose a Mormon teacher wanted to read from the
Book of Mormon or the writings of Brigham Young? Suppose a Lutheran
favored the more anti-semitic sentiments in Luther's "Table Talk?"
Suppose a Catholic wanted public school children to attend Mass on Ash
Wednesday. Those who don't chose to participate, don't have to pray;
they could just sit there. Suppose an Islamic teacher wanted to bow to
Mecca 5 times a day? Where do you draw the line and to what source do
you go to find that line? Don't just say the founders never intended
separation. That tells us nothing. Tell us precisely what they did
intend, then, and where the line is to be drawn.
I've never gotten an answer.
Wexford
And you never will get an answer other than "this country was founded on
Christian principles." [They won't mention -- and for a time brainwashed
and coerced by Christian principals.]
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
| User: "t1gercat" |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
20 Aug 2005 12:51:00 AM |
|
|
Darrell Stec wrote:
After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 19 August 2005 2:56 pm
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
"J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net> wrote:
:|You will make decisions throughout your life that have cinsequences,
:|some you like and some that make you uncomfortable because of the
:|reaction of your peers.
:|
:|The government must never make you feel bad for electing to not go to a
:|revival, but the government can't do a ***** thing about what your
:|peers might say. The government can do something about what they might
:|do because what they might do can be considered a hate crime. Hate
:|crimes can work both ways, the religious right can be hateful just as
:|the liberal left can be. Just because they all whisper, "look at Suzy,
:|she's not goint to revival with us," is not a hate crime. You have made
:|a decision with a consequence, the consequence is that your peers shun
:|you. Big fucking deal. Get over it.
Would you mind trying the above again only this time in English?
BTW jeffy
Here is a question for you:
From: "t1gercat" <wexford[delete]
Newsgroups: alt.education,alt.atheism,misc.education
Subject: Re: Separation of Church and State: A First Amendment Primer
Date: 18 Aug 2005 21:56:11 -0700
There's a challenge I've hurdled at least 20 times to our religious
bretheren who argue that the Constitution does not provide for the
separation of Church and State, "Where do you draw the line?" Would it
be OK for children to be exposed to a short reading from the Bible
every day? A prayer? Suppose a Mormon teacher wanted to read from the
Book of Mormon or the writings of Brigham Young? Suppose a Lutheran
favored the more anti-semitic sentiments in Luther's "Table Talk?"
Suppose a Catholic wanted public school children to attend Mass on Ash
Wednesday. Those who don't chose to participate, don't have to pray;
they could just sit there. Suppose an Islamic teacher wanted to bow to
Mecca 5 times a day? Where do you draw the line and to what source do
you go to find that line? Don't just say the founders never intended
separation. That tells us nothing. Tell us precisely what they did
intend, then, and where the line is to be drawn.
I've never gotten an answer.
Wexford
And you never will get an answer other than "this country was founded on
Christian principles." [They won't mention -- and for a time brainwashed
and coerced by Christian principals.]
I would dearly love to see the reaction of my Baptist neighbors to
having their children exposed to classrom readings from the Book of
Mormon. I have the feeling that a whole new cohort of Church-State
separationists would be spawned.
Wexford
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
19 Aug 2005 03:27:14 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:12:25 -0700, "J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4322e113.512865687@news-west.newscene.com...
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:38:03 -0700, "J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net>
wrote:
"skyeyes" <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> wrote in message
news:1124321119.598213.57270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
J Strickland wrote:
The mandatory nature of the recital should be more problematic than the
words under God. I suspect the mandatory nature described by the author
is
a
bit of sensationalization on his part. The Pledge is not mandatory
because
children can already opt out of its recital.
If they don't mind getting the snot beat out of them on the playground,
yes, they can.
That has never happened.
When I was in highschool, I refused to go to a revival presentation in
the school gym during school hours. I got made fun of for that.
At any rate, there should be no chance of that. Such a violatile
subject has no business in school as it adds nothing to education.
If people want to say the pledge with all kinds of Christianity in it
and blatent religousness in it, why can't they just manage to say in
on their own time?
None of your theists has ever answered that question.
You will make decisions throughout your life that have cinsequences, some
you like and some that make you uncomfortable because of the reaction of
your peers.
The government must never make you feel bad for electing to not go to a
revival, but the government can't do a ***** thing about what your peers
might say. The government can do something about what they might do because
what they might do can be considered a hate crime. Hate crimes can work both
ways, the religious right can be hateful just as the liberal left can be.
Just because they all whisper, "look at Suzy, she's not goint to revival
with us," is not a hate crime. You have made a decision with a consequence,
the consequence is that your peers shun you. Big fucking deal. Get over it.
Now, when you teachers fail you for not going to revival, then come back and
we'll talk strategy on how to remedy the situation.
That made no sense at all, nor did it answer the question. Why can't
you do your worshipping and your proclaiming for your religion on your
own time?
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
19 Aug 2005 03:45:19 PM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:432c4004.602706343@news-west.newscene.com...
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:12:25 -0700, "J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4322e113.512865687@news-west.newscene.com...
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:38:03 -0700, "J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net>
wrote:
"skyeyes" <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> wrote in message
news:1124321119.598213.57270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
J Strickland wrote:
The mandatory nature of the recital should be more problematic than
the
words under God. I suspect the mandatory nature described by the
author
is
a
bit of sensationalization on his part. The Pledge is not mandatory
because
children can already opt out of its recital.
If they don't mind getting the snot beat out of them on the
playground,
yes, they can.
That has never happened.
When I was in highschool, I refused to go to a revival presentation in
the school gym during school hours. I got made fun of for that.
At any rate, there should be no chance of that. Such a violatile
subject has no business in school as it adds nothing to education.
If people want to say the pledge with all kinds of Christianity in it
and blatent religousness in it, why can't they just manage to say in
on their own time?
None of your theists has ever answered that question.
You will make decisions throughout your life that have cinsequences, some
you like and some that make you uncomfortable because of the reaction of
your peers.
The government must never make you feel bad for electing to not go to a
revival, but the government can't do a ***** thing about what your
peers
might say. The government can do something about what they might do
because
what they might do can be considered a hate crime. Hate crimes can work
both
ways, the religious right can be hateful just as the liberal left can be.
Just because they all whisper, "look at Suzy, she's not goint to revival
with us," is not a hate crime. You have made a decision with a
consequence,
the consequence is that your peers shun you. Big fucking deal. Get over
it.
Now, when you teachers fail you for not going to revival, then come back
and
we'll talk strategy on how to remedy the situation.
That made no sense at all, nor did it answer the question. Why can't
you do your worshipping and your proclaiming for your religion on your
own time?
I do.
Why can't you keep it to yourself that you don't want to go to revival, and
the other kids pointed crooked fingers and hissed at you? I do not condone
them point fingers and hissing, but your complaining about it is silly and
just as selfish as they are being.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
20 Aug 2005 06:56:15 AM |
|
|
"J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net> wrote:
:|Why can't you keep it to yourself that you don't want to go to revival, and
:|the other kids pointed crooked fingers and hissed at you? I do not condone
:|them point fingers and hissing, but your complaining about it is silly and
:|just as selfish as they are being.
Jeffy read the following very closely especially the very first part, the
middle part and the last part
Article the third [Amendment I] [1]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The first part that is important here
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
The middle part that is important here
or abridging the freedom of speech,
the last part that is important
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Students. parents of students recognizing a violation of law has every
right to speak up and attract attention to that violations and if that
does not remedy the situation they have a right to petition (court action)
for a redress of grievances
I realize that is troublesome for you but get over it.
A reminder public schools are the government. teachers, etc in public
schools are agents for that government so long as they are on the clock
These are the rules of law defining the Establishment Clause:
The USSC defined the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Bd of Ed and here
is what they used to define it:
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE: [This is based on Madison's view]
In spite of all that Rehnquist and his buddies have done this remains the
definition for the Establishment Clause: (The no aid portion has been
battered, to be sure, but as Locke v Davey shows, it still has some bite
left in it. Nyquist also remains good law)
The Establishment Clause as defined by the USSC in Everson v. Bd of Ed,
1947
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
(1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
(2a) aid all religions,
(2b) or prefer one religion over another.
(3) Neither can force
(3a) nor influence a person to go to
(3b) or to remain away from church against his will
(3c) or force him to profess a belief
(3d) or disbelief in any religion.
(4) No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16]
(4a) or professing religious beliefs
(4b) or disbeliefs,
(4c) for church attendance
(4d) or non-attendance.
(5) No tax in any amount,
(5a) large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities
(5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called,
(5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach
(5d) or practice religion.
(6) Neither a state
(6a) nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
(6b) affairs of any religious organizations
(6c) or groups,
(6d) and vice versa.
Everson v. Bd of Ed, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/ scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case& court=US&...
It can be added the all 9 justices were in agreement on this definition.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
23 Aug 2005 05:49:35 PM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:432e6986.613332406@news-west.newscene.com...
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:45:19 -0700, "J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:432c4004.602706343@news-west.newscene.com...
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:12:25 -0700, "J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4322e113.512865687@news-west.newscene.com...
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:38:03 -0700, "J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net>
wrote:
"skyeyes" <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> wrote in message
news:1124321119.598213.57270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
J Strickland wrote:
The mandatory nature of the recital should be more problematic than
the
words under God. I suspect the mandatory nature described by the
author
is
a
bit of sensationalization on his part. The Pledge is not mandatory
because
children can already opt out of its recital.
If they don't mind getting the snot beat out of them on the
playground,
yes, they can.
That has never happened.
When I was in highschool, I refused to go to a revival presentation in
the school gym during school hours. I got made fun of for that.
At any rate, there should be no chance of that. Such a violatile
subject has no business in school as it adds nothing to education.
If people want to say the pledge with all kinds of Christianity in it
and blatent religousness in it, why can't they just manage to say in
on their own time?
None of your theists has ever answered that question.
You will make decisions throughout your life that have cinsequences,
some
you like and some that make you uncomfortable because of the reaction of
your peers.
The government must never make you feel bad for electing to not go to a
revival, but the government can't do a ***** thing about what your
peers
might say. The government can do something about what they might do
because
what they might do can be considered a hate crime. Hate crimes can work
both
ways, the religious right can be hateful just as the liberal left can
be.
Just because they all whisper, "look at Suzy, she's not goint to revival
with us," is not a hate crime. You have made a decision with a
consequence,
the consequence is that your peers shun you. Big fucking deal. Get over
it.
Now, when you teachers fail you for not going to revival, then come back
and
we'll talk strategy on how to remedy the situation.
That made no sense at all, nor did it answer the question. Why can't
you do your worshipping and your proclaiming for your religion on your
own time?
I do.
No you don't, or you wouldn't care about whether there was a mention
of god in our schools or not.
And obviously you do.
Why can't you keep it to yourself that you don't want to go to revival,
and
the other kids pointed crooked fingers and hissed at you? I do not condone
them point fingers and hissing, but your complaining about it is silly and
just as selfish as they are being.
Why is my tax money being spent on setting up kids to abuse my
children for not being their religion?
Because kids can be cruel. Get over it.
Why is my tax money being spent on trying to push someone else's
religion on my child? And how dare they?
Your tax money isn't being spent on that. My money is being spent on
teaching my own kids religion. They then go to school and abuse your kid.
That is my problem, and yours, but not the government's. It's my problem
because if my kids were really learning the Christian values I want them to
have, they wouldn't be abusing your kids.
Why aren't they spending my money on pushing atheism? Why aren't you
fighting for the pledge saying 'there is no god'? It's silly and
selfish not to, isn't it - according to you.
Why should they spend a dime to push atheism, they aren't pushing
Christianity.
If you do not understand what the Pledge means, maybe your kids should be
ridiculed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
23 Aug 2005 10:20:54 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Aug 05 17:49, J <so it's a falsie Strickland wrote:
Because kids can be cruel. Get over it.
Why is my tax money being spent on trying to push someone else's
religion on my child? And how dare they?
Your tax money isn't being spent on that. My money is being spent on
teaching my own kids religion. They then go to school and abuse your kid.
That is my problem, and yours, but not the government's. It's my problem
because if my kids were really learning the Christian values I want them to
have, they wouldn't be abusing your kids.
I take it you're still obsessed with not being elected
"Mother of the Year" at Columbine?
Gray Shockley
----------------------------------
It might have been deserved.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
17 Aug 2005 12:06:02 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:43:21 -0700, "J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net>
wrote:
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:o2k4g1p0d48ueqrepbc0drutgg7ggdm0ec@4ax.com...
This was sent out by the Virginia Chapter of Americans United
(located in Virginia Beach, Va)
For those who live outside of the Virginian Pilot readership area or who
might have missed this excellent op/ed piece in yesterday's newspaper.
Opinion piece by Paul Rasor, Director of the Center for the Study of
Religious Freedom at Virginia Wesleyan College_:
[Published in the Virginian-Pilot, August 14, 2005]
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling upholding mandatory
recitations of the pledge of allegiance in public schools raises
troubling questions. The words "under God" have the effect of requiring
students to personally affirm the sovereignty of God, whether this is
their personal belief or not. They also link national loyalty to
religious loyalty. The implication is that you can't be patriotic
unless you also believe in God. This is problematic not only for those
who hold non-theistic beliefs, but also for many who have a deep
God-oriented religious faith.
The Pledge or Allegiance does nothing of the sort, regardless of what
Michael Newdow says, or what a hare brained editor has to say.
There is no religious loyalty express or implied in the Pledge of
Allegiance. There is no affirmation of religion on the part of the reciter
of the Pledge. Regardless of personal belief in religion, reciting the
Pledge does not alter that belief.
The mandatory nature of the recital should be more problematic than the
words under God. I suspect the mandatory nature described by the author is a
bit of sensationalization on his part. The Pledge is not mandatory because
children can already opt out of its recital.
But the teacher can't.
And the atheist children have to listen to a governmentally paid
figure of authority tell them that this country is under God.
If that isn't supporting a religion, then I don't know what is.
Or did you forget that the whole purpose of putting those words into
the pledge was specifically to suck school children into Christianity
- as outrighted stated by Dwight Eisenhower when it was put into
unconstitutional law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
17 Aug 2005 01:33:18 PM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:43156d93.417762046@news-west.newscene.com...
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:43:21 -0700, "J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net>
wrote:
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:o2k4g1p0d48ueqrepbc0drutgg7ggdm0ec@4ax.com...
This was sent out by the Virginia Chapter of Americans United
(located in Virginia Beach, Va)
For those who live outside of the Virginian Pilot readership area or who
might have missed this excellent op/ed piece in yesterday's newspaper.
Opinion piece by Paul Rasor, Director of the Center for the Study of
Religious Freedom at Virginia Wesleyan College_:
[Published in the Virginian-Pilot, August 14, 2005]
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling upholding mandatory
recitations of the pledge of allegiance in public schools raises
troubling questions. The words "under God" have the effect of requiring
students to personally affirm the sovereignty of God, whether this is
their personal belief or not. They also link national loyalty to
religious loyalty. The implication is that you can't be patriotic
unless you also believe in God. This is problematic not only for those
who hold non-theistic beliefs, but also for many who have a deep
God-oriented religious faith.
The Pledge or Allegiance does nothing of the sort, regardless of what
Michael Newdow says, or what a hare brained editor has to say.
There is no religious loyalty express or implied in the Pledge of
Allegiance. There is no affirmation of religion on the part of the reciter
of the Pledge. Regardless of personal belief in religion, reciting the
Pledge does not alter that belief.
The mandatory nature of the recital should be more problematic than the
words under God. I suspect the mandatory nature described by the author is
a
bit of sensationalization on his part. The Pledge is not mandatory because
children can already opt out of its recital.
But the teacher can't.
And the atheist children have to listen to a governmentally paid
figure of authority tell them that this country is under God.
If that isn't supporting a religion, then I don't know what is.
There is a huge difference in the State recognizing that the citizens have
religion without the State telling them they must, and the State supporting
religion. Of course, you wouldn't know that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
19 Aug 2005 01:50:05 PM |
|
|
"J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net> wrote:
:|There is a huge difference in the State recognizing that the citizens have
:|religion without the State telling them they must, and the State supporting
:|religion. Of course, you wouldn't know that.
You have been shown time and time again not to know anything about any of
this
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
17 Aug 2005 06:18:28 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:33:18 -0700, "J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:43156d93.417762046@news-west.newscene.com...
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:43:21 -0700, "J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net>
wrote:
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:o2k4g1p0d48ueqrepbc0drutgg7ggdm0ec@4ax.com...
This was sent out by the Virginia Chapter of Americans United
(located in Virginia Beach, Va)
For those who live outside of the Virginian Pilot readership area or who
might have missed this excellent op/ed piece in yesterday's newspaper.
Opinion piece by Paul Rasor, Director of the Center for the Study of
Religious Freedom at Virginia Wesleyan College_:
[Published in the Virginian-Pilot, August 14, 2005]
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling upholding mandatory
recitations of the pledge of allegiance in public schools raises
troubling questions. The words "under God" have the effect of requiring
students to personally affirm the sovereignty of God, whether this is
their personal belief or not. They also link national loyalty to
religious loyalty. The implication is that you can't be patriotic
unless you also believe in God. This is problematic not only for those
who hold non-theistic beliefs, but also for many who have a deep
God-oriented religious faith.
The Pledge or Allegiance does nothing of the sort, regardless of what
Michael Newdow says, or what a hare brained editor has to say.
There is no religious loyalty express or implied in the Pledge of
Allegiance. There is no affirmation of religion on the part of the reciter
of the Pledge. Regardless of personal belief in religion, reciting the
Pledge does not alter that belief.
The mandatory nature of the recital should be more problematic than the
words under God. I suspect the mandatory nature described by the author is
a
bit of sensationalization on his part. The Pledge is not mandatory because
children can already opt out of its recital.
But the teacher can't.
And the atheist children have to listen to a governmentally paid
figure of authority tell them that this country is under God.
If that isn't supporting a religion, then I don't know what is.
There is a huge difference in the State recognizing that the citizens have
religion without the State telling them they must, and the State supporting
religion. Of course, you wouldn't know that.
Yes there is and having the state declare at the beginning of each
class for your children that there is a god, his name is God and the
US is under him is not only strongly supporting just religion but
insisting on a Judeo-Christian religion.
But obviously you aren't about to allow yourself to admit that.
Your dishonesty is noted.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
17 Aug 2005 01:00:06 PM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:43:21 -0700, "J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net>
wrote:
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:o2k4g1p0d48ueqrepbc0drutgg7ggdm0ec@4ax.com...
This was sent out by the Virginia Chapter of Americans United
(located in Virginia Beach, Va)
For those who live outside of the Virginian Pilot readership area or who
might have missed this excellent op/ed piece in yesterday's newspaper.
Opinion piece by Paul Rasor, Director of the Center for the Study of
Religious Freedom at Virginia Wesleyan College_:
[Published in the Virginian-Pilot, August 14, 2005]
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling upholding mandatory
recitations of the pledge of allegiance in public schools raises
troubling questions. The words "under God" have the effect of requiring
students to personally affirm the sovereignty of God, whether this is
their personal belief or not. They also link national loyalty to
religious loyalty. The implication is that you can't be patriotic
unless you also believe in God. This is problematic not only for those
who hold non-theistic beliefs, but also for many who have a deep
God-oriented religious faith.
The Pledge or Allegiance does nothing of the sort, regardless of what
Michael Newdow says, or what a hare brained editor has to say.
There is no religious loyalty express or implied in the Pledge of
Allegiance. There is no affirmation of religion on the part of the reciter
of the Pledge. Regardless of personal belief in religion, reciting the
Pledge does not alter that belief.
The mandatory nature of the recital should be more problematic than the
words under God. I suspect the mandatory nature described by the author is a
bit of sensationalization on his part. The Pledge is not mandatory because
children can already opt out of its recital.
But the teacher can't.
And the atheist children have to listen to a governmentally paid
figure of authority tell them that this country is under God.
If that isn't supporting a religion, then I don't know what is.
Or did you forget that the whole purpose of putting those words into
the pledge was specifically to suck school children into Christianity
- as outrighted stated by Dwight Eisenhower when it was put into
unconstitutional law.
First, your implication of absolute separation of church and state that
you and other separationists force into the establishment clause is
wrong. The 10th Amendmend reserved the power to address religion for
the states since the 1st Amendment prohibited this power only to the
federal government.
Also, I do believe that the public school approach to the Pledge has
been very crude. Instead of looking for ways to make everybody happy
the Pledge is being used as a political weapon.
Finally, why can't parents on both sides of the fence simply teach
their children to show some respect for people having different belifs?
Personally, I'd just listen to something on an iPod if I didn't want
to hear something.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: 4th Circuit, Virginia pledge in schools ok |
17 Aug 2005 06:21:36 PM |
|
|
On 17 Aug 2005 11:00:06 -0700, " | | | | |
