Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help Member List Member List Edit Profile Register  
Search Last 1|3|7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Under god?

Sepulchritude Forum » The Absinthe Forum Archive thru January 2003 » The Monkey Hole » Under god? « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
Archive through June 27, 2002Bob_Chong25 6-27-02  12:42 am
Archive through June 27, 2002_Blackjack25 6-27-02  10:43 am
Archive through June 27, 2002Admin25 6-27-02  1:17 pm
Archive through June 28, 2002Artemis25 6-28-02  3:39 am
Archive through June 28, 2002Artemis25 6-28-02  12:45 pm
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page        

Author Message
Posted on Tuesday, July 2, 2002 - 10:19 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


Nobody is "making" children recite anything.

Indeed, if you'd read the rest of my post, instead of jumping on the ad hominem train, I said the same thing. I also said that there is strong legal precedent (in previous cases specific to school prayer) that exposing children to a "voluntary" recitation, when the purpose of that recitiation is specifically to promote religious sentiment, constitutes establishment.

If every day at public school, the teacher lead all the students in salauting a picture of Nietzsche and saying "I say there are no gods! For if there were gods, how is it that I might endure to not be a god?", but informed them that this was voluntary, wouldn't this be stepping over the line?
Posted on Tuesday, July 2, 2002 - 3:26 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

"they are saying that making children recite it in public schools is unconstitutional"

Okay, I can't let that slide. Is mendacity a fringe benefit of working for the McPaper? Is it contagious?

Nobody is "making" children recite anything. Reciting the pledge is voluntary. The daughter of the clown in question, by his own admission, does not recite the pledge. What the asshole and assholes like him object to is OTHER children, ANY children, reciting the pledge *in their presence*, got it? Which is precisely why Nolamour is correct - they should look the other way and get over it.
Posted on Monday, July 1, 2002 - 8:24 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

"Kind of like Pornography: If you don't like it, don't watch it. Under God: If you don't like it, don't say it...Simple."

it's exactly like it! i remember my old school. every morning the teachers would screen pornographic films for the children. it was a great way to get the kids interested, and a nice way to start the day. some nutjob parents made a fuss. give me a break. if they don't like it their kids can close their eyes.

oh and parents got really peeved about the teacher-led morning atheism affirmation speech. but noone was forcing the students to particpate.
Posted on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 3:27 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


You are right, there are certainly more pressing issues. But sometimes it's nice to get a grain of sand out of your shoe, even if you are still stuck in the midle of the desert...
Posted on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 2:53 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Black and Trainer, You are both right.

I have to remember that just the small part of the pledge is at issue...

I just think there are SOOOO many more issues at hand to think about and something like this shouldn't be such a priority. Terrorism, Nuclear Warfare, Chemical warfare, Education, Welfare, Genetic cloning, etc...things that could change our lives dramatically.

Kind of like Pornography: If you don't like it, don't watch it. Under God: If you don't like it, don't say it...Simple.

There is a book out that was written right after 9/11 called, What's so great about America, by Dinesh D'Souza - I think everyone should read this, especially the youth. Education is imperative.
Posted on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 2:17 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

. . . and the entire pledge isn't the issue, the phrase "under dog" is.
Posted on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 2:15 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Nolan, you're missing the point. Nobody is saying that the PLEDGE is unconstitutional; they are saying that making children recite it in public schools is unconstitutional. The pledge, like any other speech, is PROTECTED by the constitution.

This is not a limit on free speech; it is a limit on government power. This ruling seeks to limit the ability of the GOVERNMENT to compel students to be exposed to what is unquestionably a eligious sentiment.

There is no question that the schools can't force the chldren to say the pledge. The issue of compuslion to say the pledge was determined 1943 when a Jehovah's Witnesses sued because he felt paying homage to a flag violated his religious beliefs.

What was it issue here was if the voluntary, teacher-led recitiation constituted an endorsemnt of religious sentiment on the part of the State. Such an argument has been used successfully against teacher-lead, voluntary prayer in public schools, so it is not unreasonable.

This isn't exactly the approach used to argue the case, but I think they would have done better if they had focussed less on the "under God" part and more on the question of coersion. Looking at the actual ruling, the case was constructd and argued poorly and probably wouldn't have survived another appeal, BUT I think the idea was basically right. Moreover, I simply think that we would be better served, in gray areas like this, in erring in favor of less government intrusion on speech and religion. If we don't NEED the government telling our children what to swear and by which deities, then we should beware of giving them that power.
Posted on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 1:24 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

As Man is God and therefore I am God I think that if I was an American I would have no problem pledging an oath under myself or saying "so help me myself" at the end. Or even saying "so help me good bowel movement".

Posted on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 1:18 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Last time I checked, you could sing whatever you wanted in church. The point is, neither the public schools nor my wallet are churches.
Posted on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 10:42 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

...the United States Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.

Today I attended church, the one I grew up in. As I don't always make it, I was very glad that I did today.

The second song the choir sang was "America, The Beautiful" Words By: Katherine Lee Bates. We hear this song more today due to 9/11, but, this was moving...The choir sang with pride and power. It "Rocked the House" and I was proud to be an American, as I usually am.

I say BAN this song...How can anyone sing "God shed His grace on thee," - How horrible! What were we thinking?

In all seriousness...I understand what the courts are debating, but, if we are to make the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, We have to think about this song or any song like it. Currency should be changed as well? America should think about where it started and remember it's founding principles. I, personally, don't think anything should be changed...although, I value all opinions as that's what they are.
Posted on Saturday, June 29, 2002 - 1:00 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

That man is an Avatar of Me.
Posted on Saturday, June 29, 2002 - 12:36 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Sorry Lord Hubris, THIS man is God:

Posted on Saturday, June 29, 2002 - 12:31 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

I am God.
Posted on Saturday, June 29, 2002 - 12:30 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Man is God.
Posted on Saturday, June 29, 2002 - 12:25 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


The 'Communists' did not have a particular aversion to the Judeo-Christian God. The 'Communists' meant the principle of God in whatever form you care to percieve 'God'. 'God', Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Brahman or the Great Spirit, it mattered not to the 'Communists'. There is no place in Communism for any of these. In Communism there is no power higher than Man.

Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 6:15 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

You all could go Masonic and say "Under Goat"
Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 5:43 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

If God is Absinthe, than I'm perfectly fine with the pledge saying "Under God".

You've got an interesting argument Chevalier, because it goes to the core of the intent behind the establishment clause. Jefferson was a Deist, which was that time periods equivalent of Atheism, but atheism didn't really exist at that point because of potential persecution. I think his intent was more aimed at preventing a theocracy or oppression than to prevent the country stating it was under "God" (or absinthe). I believe it is NOT unconstitutional if "God" is determined to simply mean higher power. Shit, I think space and the laws of physics are God (and absinthe).

That being said though, if you look at the intent behind the 1954 ruling, those lawmakers were not intending "God" to be a generic higher power. They were intending it to be the Judeo-Christian God, whom the communists were declaring did not exist and had no place in the state. If you're looking for intent, you must look both ways.

I fully believe also that the ruling will be overturned, but no because of consitutional law, but because of the conservative majority on all the higher courts. I don't think it matters if the pledge says "under God" either, and it's not an important issue in todays world, but I think what the lawmakers did in 1954 was unconstitutional.
Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 4:51 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Then enroll and make your own danged bottle.

Don't blame ME when your absinthe is full of dead bugs, since there's no top to keep em out!

Hey, ain't you spozed to be on yer knees? Make like a DOG, boy! ALL FOURS!


[Remainder of scene censored to avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of forumites.]
Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 4:46 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I've always preferred the topless bottle. So much easier to pour from, and oh so chesty.
Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 4:43 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Of course not, it's magic. The absinthe won't spill out of the magic bottomless absinthe bottle!

I will also put a spell on the bottomless absinthe bottle, so that no matter how much absinthe you pour from it, it will remain full of the very best absinthe ever.

Of course, if your enemy attempts to pour a drink, he will find his glass filled with either urine or Hill's, whichever he considers worse.
Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 4:22 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


There, I shall learn to create the bottomless absinthe bottle.

But if it hasn't got a bottom, won't all the absinthe spill out?
Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 3:56 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I thought it was Spanish Flea?
Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 2:51 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


"I pledge allegiance to the fag ..."

Just kidding, Traineraz. Said in the spirit of friendship. ;-)

That pledge is to be given ON YOUR KNEES, BOY!

Then you can get under me, cuz I got yer GOD right here!
Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 2:14 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Is Head P. really Torgo?

("Your first name of Torgo makes you extremely generous. You have a bubbling, spontaneous nature and a happy-go-lucky outlook which helps smooth the pathway of life. Also you are sympathetic to the needs of others. Interested in art, music, singing, dancing, and anything of an artistic nature, you could become a very fine performer. Your spontaneous expression stands you in good stead during arguments or debates, though you are perhaps too outspoken and inclined to sarcasm. A very real weakness of this name is lack of system and order. The use of this name makes it extremely difficult to carry through and finish the things you start. It is easy to make promises in an effort to make others happy, although not so easy to keep them. You spend your money recklessly, seldom reckoning whether you can afford to be so generous. The use of this name can cause weak ankles, a strong desire for such foods as sweets or pickles, which causes skin or liver troubles, and a desire to eat too quickly.")
Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 2:11 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"I pledge allegiance to the fag ..."

Just kidding, Traineraz. Said in the spirit of friendship. ;-)
Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 2:09 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

The scene in the van where they're grooving to Herb Alpert's Tijuana Taxi is a riot.
Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 2:01 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I wanna go to Hogwart's School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. There, I shall learn to create the bottomless absinthe bottle.

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page