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  

Archive through June 27, 2002

Sepulchritude Forum » The Absinthe Forum Archive thru January 2003 » The Monkey Hole » Under god? » Archive through June 27, 2002 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Admin
Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 1:17 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

hahah! but I've never worried about *anyone's* club. must be that rugged individualist upbringing I had.
_Blackjack
Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 1:10 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

DC public spends about the same amount per child per year - which education do you think was better?



It is absurd to compare the two based purely on numbers. It would be like saying that two people who spent the same amount on health care in a year should be equally healthy. DC Public Schools have a lot more issues to combat with their money than Sidwell does, if for no other reason than they have to accept EVERYONE. It costs more to educate kids who may have had poor home environments, limited exposure to English, learning disabilities, etc., than it does to educate a bunch of Senator's kids, for the same reason it cost more to keep a cancer patient alive than it does a healthy person.

I'm not saying the DC schools are a model of efficiency; DC has had one of the most corrupt administrations in the country for much of recent history. But the numbers alone do not tell the whole story.
Pataphysician
Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 1:07 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"kinda like a club I didn't belong to"

Bingo. There's the problem. I think it's something you SHOULD be worried about.
_Blackjack
Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 1:02 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

I also refer to it as GOD, and yet I am not a Christian.



Yep, but a whole lot of people DON'T, either in that they don't call their one or various deities by that name, or that they don't have one at all. The language endorses montheism explicitly, and those forms of monotheism which call their god simply God implicitly.
_Blackjack
Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 12:58 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

I said NAMED. "God" is not a name.



I explained this already, but I'll give it another go. "God", capitalized, without an article, is every bit as much a name in English, for the Judeo-Christo-Islamic deity as "Allah" or "Elohim" & "El" are in Arabic or Hebrew.


Quote:

"God" is a concept, and a concept worthy of reverence by our nation or any nation.



Well, I'm sorry, but it is a religious concept, and a religious concept that is not held by all religions, so if the government calls for people to revere it, they are giving a specific set of religions government sanction.
Admin
Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 12:53 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

in all my years in grade school, only one teacher in 3rd grade had us say the pledge. I just remember trying to memorize the words and always screwing it up, even after a semester. my parents were atheists, and it never bothered them none. in my mind, as a child, these were just concepts that were important to other people. kinda like a club I didn't belong to. I didn't worry about it, and neither did my parents.

I don't agree that that those in power mean to be inclusive when they use the term "god" ... HOWEVER. fuck them. it's up to the individual to live in this world and make of it what you can, without being bombarded by needless crusaders from either side of the fence.
Traineraz
Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 12:23 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

At the time he signed into law the addition of the words, "under God," Eisenhower commented:


Quote:

"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."




Today, the Senate Chaplain led one of our legislative houses in prayer:


Quote:

''We acknowledge the separation of sectarianism and state, but affirm the belief that there is no separation between God and state,'' Senate Chaplain Lloyd Ogilvie said in the morning prayer.

The Senate floor and partly filled visitors galleries were hushed as Ogilvie proclaimed that ''we are one Senate, united under You, to lead a nation that is free to say confidently, 'In God we trust.'''




The illustrious President Dubya had this to say:


Quote:

President Bush denounced the ruling as ''out of step with the traditions and history of America.'' He promised to appoint judges who would overturn such rulings.

''America is a nation ... that values our relationship with the Almighty,'' Bush told reporters. ''We need commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God.''


Translation? Dubya will do his best to stack the courts with people who believe that the United States should be "united" under his god.

In my opinion, anyone unable to recognize this clear promotion of a particular monotheistic belief system has, as Artemis so cleverly expressed it,

Quote:

no businesss commenting on anything other more complicated than "who farted?"


Artemis
Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 12:20 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

>> There are no "deities" named on any currency
>> of the United States.

> Er, what's that "God" bit, then?

I said NAMED. "God" is not a name.

"Jesus" is a name.

"God" is a concept, and a concept worthy of reverence by our nation or any nation.

I think you know this perfectly well, Blackjack.

If a child wants to envision a monkey demon with twelve arms when he recites the pledge, I couldn't care less. If he wants to refrain from reciting it, that's okay with me. If children want to recite it voluntarily, whatever it means, that's alright with me. To pretend that such a thing is hurting anybody is STUPID, and THAT is not alright with me.
Iulibraryguy
Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 12:09 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

You're right: some home schooled kids are screwed up. So what? What's your point: Public schools are incapable of producing 'screwed up' kids?

Look,I hope you guys continue your nice discussion. For my tastes the thread seems to be going far afield. See ya at the next conversation.
Anatomist
Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 12:00 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"As to education starting at home - 100% correct - just look at the test scores of home schooled children vs. public school kids and you're point is proven."

Yeah, and take a look at the long-term psychological well-being of those same test-acers. I have personally intersected with a few homeschooling situations, and the results may look good on paper, but the kids turned out to be total fuck-ups: socially screwed up, a high-school dropout taking way too much drugs and making a career of working at a co-op, another put into a mental institution, etc... Control freak parents breathing down one's neck all day isn't good for anybody, in my opinion.

The whole enterprise of home schooling is largely misconceived. The purpose of lower grades in education is not to fill a kid's head with facts and make them flawless test-takers, it's socialization, citizenship, learning to deal with peers - including people one doesn't like -, learning to show up on time, dealing with group social situations, etc... The parents I knew who insisted on home-schooling were well intentioned fucknuts, oblivious to the fact that they were inflicting emotional and social deformity on their kids.

K.
Iulibraryguy
Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 11:52 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

" As far as school choice goes, I don't want to get into it again, but it seems absurd to expect someone to have to seek private schooling to AVOID religious indoctrination. The churches have lots of money with which to subsidize thier own schools, so it is far more logical to keep the public schools as neutral as possible on the subject of religion, and let those seeking specific indoctrination go to private institutions. "

Moving away from the pledge issue for a second, it seems absurd to me to expect someone to have to seek private schooling to get a good education instead of (often but not always) being trapped in schools that simply don't work. Case in point - Bill Clinton sent Chelsea to Sidwell Friends in N.W. DC for approximately $10,000/year - DC public spends about the same amount per child per year - which education do you think was better? If you say DC public fine keep your kid there if you said Sidwell Friends - tough.

As for the establishment clause court decisions have dealt primarily with school prayer issues - not the pledge - and quite frankly the jury is still out. 40 years of jurisprudence has not produced a definitive answer to the establishment clause. I refer back to original intent and the actual text of the constitution.

As for tax dollars - you don't seem to mind using my tax dollars for an educational system that by any of a number of measures is failing our children - what is about actually educating future generations that you find so objectionable?
Artemis
Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 11:50 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

"I ask you, Artemis, what value does saying "under god" in a pledge to a secular democracy have?"

1. There is not, and never has been, a "democracy" in this country, secular or otherwise.

2. I don't give a fuck what value it has. The question was, whether it is unconstitutional, i.e., against the law.

> the one Christians refer to as GOD.

I also refer to it as GOD, and yet I am not a Christian.

> I for one, as an Atheist, have always been
> offended by being forced by my public school
> teachers to say ...

The girl in question was not forced to do anything, contrary to the lie printed in the National McPaper today. She didn't recite the pledge, she was not asked to do so, and she was really not even at issue here, according to her father's own admission (see CNN.com). He simply used the excuse of having a daughter in public school to carry out his own little sorry-assed, misguided, useless agenda.

> The under God line has nothing to do with true
> patriotism,

I didn't say a word about patriotism. I was talking about stupidity.

> this man is getting death threats

If he didn't see that coming, he's even stupider than I thought. I wonder if this brave man, at the time of the American Revolution, would have stood up for his "principles" as he is now, and risked his life and fortune alongside the founding fathers, or hid under his bed until it was safe to come out and kiss British ass? I'm confident of the answer. It's easy to pay a lawyer to show your courage for you in a courtroom. If you can afford such.

> from jerks like yourself, Artemis,

You want to get into that sort of exchange with me, you're going to lose, so watch your mouth.

> Not too far a cry from Stalin

You forgot to mention Hitler and Pol Pot. Lighten the fuck up. Any number of that asshole's constitutional rights are violated every day, including his right to keep and bear arms, and he's too stupid to say boo about it, but there is NO constitutional right involved in this issue. The constitution says the nation will not establish a church and force him to join. There is no national church and he hasn't been forced to join anything. He's an asshole with shit for brains empty "convictions" and my comment about euthanasia was not to be taken literally, but rather as my conviction that absence of such people would be a blessing. Take the gas pipe with him if you like, and don't let the door hit you in the ass.
Pikkle
Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 11:49 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

I was gonna say...
Bunnylebowski
Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 11:47 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Deal!
Pikkle
Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 11:39 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

I'll gladly teabag you Tuesday for a tossed salad today...
Iulibraryguy
Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 11:37 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Tinkerbell, I agree with you - education does and should begin at home (I also like eggs in my salad).

I'm just addressing the pledge issue that "God" does not in and of its self pass the anti-"establishment" smell test. Education starting at home has nothing to do with it. I'm just making a "progressive" argument for school choice. Local public schools are monopolies, pure and simple. If the local school board wants to make the pledge mandatory - well you're screwed unless you go to court. However, if parents had a choice they could send their kids to another school.

As to education starting at home - 100% correct - just look at the test scores of home schooled children vs. public school kids and you're point is proven.
_Blackjack
Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 11:33 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

Even though Eisenhower came out said the pledge is intended to promote religiousity - that is far removed from establishing a state religion which is the sole purpose of the establishment clause.



Well, that is not how the courts have been ruling for the past 40 years. Your position is entirely at odds with the prevailing legal climate, even among more conservative justices.

As far as school choice goes, I don't want to get into it again, but it seems absurd to expect someone to have to seek private schooling to AVOID religious indoctrination. The churches have lots of money with which to subsidize thier own schools, so it is far more logical to keep the public schools as neutral as possible on the subject of religion, and let those seeking specific indoctrination go to private institutions.

You will notice that the SCOTUS just upheld a voucher program, so you can even use my tax money...

Of course, plenty of people also claim that putting the words "I am Yahveh, your God, who has delivered you from the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage; you shall have no other gods before me!" on government buildings isn't establishment. Um, the god is identified by NAME (at least in the original Hebrew). How can "you shall have no other gods before me!" be anything but establishment?
Tinkerbell
Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 11:30 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Put that in your salad. How about tossing mine?
Tinkerbell
Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 11:25 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Children are products of their environment. No matter what school we send our children to they still have face where they come from at the end of the day. And what about summer vacation? If parents can't afford to send their kids to camp then they are just running the streets all day. The schools have very little to do with the troubled youth of today. It's the parents (or lack of) that are to blame. Not God or the Government. Education starts at HOME!!
Pikkle
Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 11:18 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

you know what I like? Eggs in my salad... hardboiled, sliced and plentiful... eggs.
Iulibraryguy
Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 11:02 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

I do not know what good or bad comes from leaving or omitting "God" from the pledge. To me it doesn't matter. From a legal point of view the ruling was wrong- just plain wrong on the facts and constitutional interpretation.

As I have said before - if a parent wants their child to attend a school where this sort of "indoctrination" does not takes place - fine. Expand school choice so that Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Dubya are not the only people in public housing who can afford to put their kids through private schools.

Even though Eisenhower came out said the pledge is intended to promote religiousity - that is far removed from establishing a state religion which is the sole purpose of the establishment clause. That's the point - you can argue all you want that "God" means this that or the other thing, or that the pledge is nationalistic jingoism - but that does not mean its inclusion is a de facto establishment of a state church - thus it (the pledge with the inclusion of "God") is not unconstitutional.
_Blackjack
Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 11:01 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

"Look. I-- I'd had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was, 'That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.'"
Admin
Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 10:52 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

"One Nation Under Gawd"

works for me, I use it for everything else. why not?
Admin
Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 10:50 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

"America is a nation ... that values our relationship with The Almighty," Bush told reporters. "We need commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God."

I don't think that's a generic deity he's referring to there. And I don't think that was the initial intention of adding it to the Pledge, they definately had Jehovah in mind.

However, I think this is all way too much fuss over semantics.
Iulibraryguy
Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 10:47 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Why should we retire the pledge? Again, if it is such a noxious activity for a parent to have his/her child recite the pledge every morning - fine - let them send their kid to a school where this activity does not occur. Unfortunately, this is not about to happen. School choice will not come about as long as the teacher unions maintain their strangle hold on public education and thus "progressive" parents are going to continue to have to send their children to public schools where the pledge will be recited - for good bad or indifferent. Its not the pledge we should get rid fo it is the current public education system in the U.S. we should change.

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