Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

To Lola, I don't have a problem either with the phrases being removed from the Pledge and the coinage. I don't have a problem with them being there. I don't honestly care one way or the other.

In order for you to show how the phrases establish a 'state religion' or even give preference to any religion, you would have to be able to show how you are in any way coerced or threatened or disadvantaged because the phrases are there. What does the government do to you or deny to you if you do not believe or recite the phrases or if you disagree that they belong in the Pledge or on the coinage? If nothing, then your rights are in no way being infringed.

I did answer Frank's question. He has yet to answer mine, however.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

a2k is not a religious institution nor is religion mentioned in the TOS.

that analogy doesn't hold at all, Bib. Come on.

That wasn't my point, neither was I suggesting religion. Merely spotlighting the principle that allegiance to "anything" is a choice, and the consequences of ones choice will be relevant to what the majority or the founders deem appropriate.

0 Replies

Quote:

The other debate is over the interpretation of "establishment" in the first amendment. I feel that putting a statement of "under God" in a Pledge of Allegienc to our country, and then asking young children in public schools to stand up every day, put their hands over their hearts and recite that pledge amounts to an establishment.

Under God wasn't in the pledge originally. It was added sometime within my ability to remember.......the fifties, wasn't it? As a child, which I was at the time, I never liked the phrase. I thought it unnecessary and I knew that it did not say what I believed. So in my pledge to my country, I had to repeat (which I never did, <he he> I just mouthed the words) I had to at least pretent to be pledging allegience to a God I wasn't at all sure was there to begin with.

The phrase doesn't belong there. It belongs in church where people go to worship their own god. More power to them for that.

0 Replies

Quote:

In order for you to show how the phrases establish a 'state religion' or even give preference to any religion, you would have to be able to show how you are in any way coerced or threatened or disadvantaged because the phrases are there. What does the government do to you or deny to you if you do not believe or recite the phrases or if you disagree that they belong in the Pledge or on the coinage? If nothing, then your rights are in no way being infringed.

Ok then, by way of proving my point.....how about if it said, "In God We Don't Trust". How would that be for you, Fox?

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Ok then, by way of proving my point.....how about if it said, "In God We Don't Trust". How would that be for you, Fox?

By the sounds of things, Lola, you don't trust anyone, so what would it matter who was stated as being trusted?

0 Replies

But that is your preference Lola. No matter what was in the mind of those who inserted the phrase, there is no requirement of any kind for you to interpret it in the same way, agree with it, believe it, recite it, or even read it. All the Albuquerque schools allow school children who choose to recite the Pledge to insert whatever name they wish for whatever diety whether Allah or Buddha or whatever. Presumably they could say "under Mickey Mouse" if they wanted to.

Your opinion is the phrase doesn't belong there. The majority of Americans like it. So as long as nobody's rights are involved but only people's preferences/prejucices/sensibilities or whatever, who should have the final say? You who are in the minority? Or those....by some estimates 90% of Americans....who are in the majority?

If we go purely by what "has to be there' and can remove anything that 'doesn't belong there', I know a whole raft of 'offensive' billboards, abortion clinics, adult bookstores, and ridiculous sculptures. around town that I would like to remove. Should I have that power? In our municipally owned airport in a main corridor is a massive bronze sculpture of a Roman God. Should I be able to say I don't want it there when the vast majority of people here (including me) think it is a magnificent work of art?

If the majority didn't like it, it would be removed. Well, okay, there is a sculpture of a Chevy on a Stick that nobody likes that is still there, but only because the majority haven't insisted it be removed.

Sometimes we just accept other people's preferences, especially those of the majority, because a civil society has to do that.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

To Lola, I don't have a problem either with the phrases being removed from the Pledge and the coinage. I don't have a problem with them being there. I don't honestly care one way or the other.

In order for you to show how the phrases establish a 'state religion' or even give preference to any religion, you would have to be able to show how you are in any way coerced or threatened or disadvantaged because the phrases are there. What does the government do to you or deny to you if you do not believe or recite the phrases or if you disagree that they belong in the Pledge or on the coinage? If nothing, then your rights are in no way being infringed.

I did answer Frank's question. He has yet to answer mine, however.

I owe you an answer?

To what?

I must have missed it?

0 Replies

Quote:

I know a whole raft of 'offensive' billboards, abortion clinics, adult bookstores, and ridiculous sculptures. around town that I would like to remove

None of these are government sponsored billboards or sculptures. Just for the sake of argument, Fox, say the Founding Fathers did decide to print "In God We Don't Trust." Would you think it a violation of your rights to keep it?

Or if you can't get your mind around that one, let's make a hypothetical. Say there was a country somewhere and in it's founding days, the founders decided to print that phrase on the currency. Would you, in that country, support the continued use of that phrase, especially if you and 10% (and growing) of the population were offended by it? Why couldn't that government just leave it off, thereby including all it's citizens in it's umbrella, not just 90% of them? What are you so worked up about anyway? If it doesn't matter to you, why shouldn't it be removed since it does matter to so many others?

And my beliefs are not only anal (but not in that obsessive way you indicate), they are also oral and, most importantly, oedipal......so there!

Bib,

Your response is unbelievable. Just because I don't believe in your God doesn't mean I don't believe in anything. Obviously I do, otherwise why would I be expressing my opinion? My beliefs a very important to me. Some of them guide my life and allow me to make difficult and necessary decisions. It's rude and unfair of you to devalue my beliefs. What's good for the Goose, you know............

0 Replies

Lola: the point was with respect to "trust" not "belief" - what you believe is your business and that's fine, but I was challenging your argument with respect to "does it matter who you trust."

0 Replies

Quote:

None of these are government sponsored billboards or sculptures. Just for the sake of argument, Fox, say the Founding Fathers did decide to print "In God We Don't Trust." Would you think it a violation of your rights to keep it?

Au contrare. All I mentioned (except the adult bookstores) are government owned or receive government funding.

And no, if the government decided to print "In God we don't trust" I would think that was a really stupid thing for a government to say when 90+% of the people believe in God, but I would not see that as a violation of any person's rights.

0 Replies

Quote:

Au contrare. All I mentioned (except the adult bookstores) are government owned or receive government funding.

Do they say on them anywhere, expecially in big bold letters, "This is an official site of the United States of America?" They probably don't say they're owned by Clear Channel.......but do they say they're solely owned by the government anywhere on them?

And I take your word for it that you wouldn't believe your rights were being infringed on.......but really, I must say.......that's really hard for me to believe. Since, it seems obvious to me that your rights would be violated.

0 Replies

When referring to the "State" to which branch of the US Government is one alluding?

Executive, Legislative or Judiciary?

0 Replies

Foxfire wrote:

Quote:

And no, if the government decided to print "In God we don't trust" I would think that was a really stupid thing for a government to say when 90+% of the people believe in God, but I would not see that as a violation of any person's rights.

Lola wrote:

Quote:

Would you, in that country, support the continued use of that phrase, especially if you and 10% (and growing) of the population were offended by it? Why couldn't that government just leave it off, thereby including all it's citizens in it's umbrella, not just 90% of them?

No, No, no Foxfire. You've misunderstood me. This is a "walk in my shoes" thing. I wrote what if those believing in God were the 10 percent and the 90% did not. Would you still give the same answer?

0 Replies

Bib,

Did I say anything like, "does it matter who you trust?" Point this out to me if you know where I said it.

In any case, I trust in lots of things as well. I trust my values and principles. How can you say I don't apparently trust anything when obviously I have enough trust in them to spend many hours of my time arguing with the likes of you.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
None of these are government sponsored billboards or sculptures. Just for the sake of argument, Fox, say the Founding Fathers did decide to print "In God We Don't Trust." Would you think it a violation of your rights to keep it?

Au contrare. All I mentioned (except the adult bookstores) are government owned or receive government funding.

And no, if the government decided to print "In God we don't trust" I would think that was a really stupid thing for a government to say when 90+% of the people believe in God, but I would not see that as a violation of any person's rights.

Let's take it out of the realm of "violating anyone's rights" for a bit...because you have already acknowledged that different people have different opinions on what personal rights are.

Let me ask you a few questions:

Would you consider "In God we don't trust" to be an insult to any people?

Would you consider it an unnecessary insensitive remark?

Would you consider "In Jesus Christ we trust" to be an insult to any people?

Would you consider it an unnecessary insensitive remark?

0 Replies

Similar to my last post - when referring to "Church" to which church is one alluding?

0 Replies

Bib............huh?

0 Replies

Lola writes

Quote:

And I take your word for it that you wouldn't believe your rights were being infringed on.......but really, I must say.......that's really hard for me to believe. Since, it seems obvious to me that your rights would be violated.

To me it is patently obvious that no rights of mine (or anybody else) are violated. The words on a coin do not cost me anything while to remove them at this time would. The words in a Pledge do not require me to do anything, believe anything, pay anything, nor are there any tangible repercussions of any kind if I do or do not profess or repeat the words in it. My rights are perfectly intact whether or not a particular phrase is inscribed on a coin or included in a Pledge.

It's a matter of preference. Not rights.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Bib,

Did I say anything like, "does it matter who you trust?" Point this out to me if you know where I said it.

In any case, I trust in lots of things as well. I trust my values and principles. How can you say I don't apparently trust anything when obviously I have enough trust in them to spend many hours of my time arguing with the likes of you.

You were playing devil's advocate by making the comment about "not trusting in god" as opposed to "in god we trust" - so I thought I'd challenge you as to why you trusted in anything.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

To me it is patently obvious that no rights of mine (or anybody else) are violated. The words on a coin do not cost me anything while to remove them at this time would. The words in a Pledge do not require me to do anything, believe anything, pay anything, nor are there any tangible repercussions of any kind if I do or do not profess or repeat the words in it. My rights are perfectly intact whether or not a particular phrase is inscribed on a coin or included in a Pledge.

Perhaps I'm restating the obvious here, but if what you say above is true, then you don't care what is written in the pledge, no matter what is written there it doesn't infringe anyone's rights because nobody is required to say the pledge or believe what's written in it.

In that case, your answer to Frank's question about "under Jesus Christ" would be that you don't feel that phrase infringes anyone's rights either. All of this would at least make your case consistent, even if we don't all agree with it.

However, IF you were to say that particular phrases in that pledge did infringe on people's rights, then there would be an inconsistancy between your opening statement and the last one.

So, do you feel that the phrase "under Jesus Christ" would infringe on people's first amendment rights, or don't you?

0 Replies

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know