|Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 12:45 pm: |
> If it said "the divine" or "the creator" or "a
> higher force" ...
Well, Head Prosthesis and I, under the influence of much Lambic of various fruity flavors, and even a concoction reconstructed from the alleged tomb of King Midas, watched a movie called "Dance with the Devil" last weekend, wherein a kidnapped white boy tried that line on the Santeria/Aztec sorcerer/bank robber who had captured him.
"Fuck higher energy" exploded the sorcerer in response, "fuck that hippy shit; I'm talking about GOD!" as he struggled to explain to the white boy why it would be necessary to cut out his heart in a ceremony to be performed later that day.
Which only goes to show that God is whatever you want him to be, and yes, that pledge is useless, and in fact, for a goodly number of those children, that school is probably useless. Some of them would certainly be better off in Sorcerer School, or White Boy school, or Hausgemacht school. In any case, the government should stay the hell out of it.
|Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 12:23 pm: |
God is whatever humans decide to create, be it a bowel movement, a simplistic "love god," an immature and violent "wrath god," or a twelve-armed monkey demon.
I vote for the twelve-armed monkey demon, myself.
|Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 12:01 pm: |
God is is
|Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 11:35 am: |
God is a good bowel movement.
Scatology recapitualtes eschatology.
Shitting is the most primary act of ego. It is the act by which you differentiate your self from that which is not-self, marking your being as a dicrete entity rather than a part of the whole.
Or at least that's what I thought while taking a dump on acid.
|Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 11:26 am: |
Most pledge reciters and their defenders *in this country* would tell you that "God" is a generic term, whereas "Allah" is specific to the Muslim religion.
Ah, but it is NOT. Arabic-speaking CHRISTIANS call their god Allah as well, because "Allah" MEANS "God".
Listen, if you asked most Christians in this country what the name of their deity was, they'd say "God". Some might be familiar with the mis-transliteration "Jehovah", but not too many know "Yahveh". Even a good number of Jews in this country avoid writing "God" fully (using "G-d" or somesuch), treating it with a level of reverence similar to the Tetragrammaton.
"God" is the primary English name for the deity worshipped by Jews, Christians and Muslims. While it may also be used by some general monotheists, it is PRIMARILY used by this specific family of religious traditions (throwing in Baha'i and Sikhism for good measure). It is not commonly used by, for instance, theistic Buddhists, the henotheistic sects of Hinduism, or the Zoroastrians. Hell, even most Deists back in the day tried to be a little more general than that.
If it said "the divine" or "the creator" or "a higher force", I'd buy arguments that it was meant to be generic. Except that the people who put it in ADMITTED that they meant Yahveh.
Regardless, is is unquestionably a religious sentement. We can go on all day about what constitutes "establishment", but why the heck do we need a specifically religious sentement in our public schools? Even if it is constitutional, I don't see how it is helpful, and can certainly see where it could do harm.
|Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 9:56 am: |
God is a good bowel movement.
|Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 9:32 am: |
God is Eric Clapton on absinthe.
|Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 9:26 am: |
" ... one nation, under Allah", would you agree that it was referring to a specific god?"
Yes, I would agree to that. Now you're going to use some linguistic argument, quite possibly well-founded, to demonstrate that it's the same thing. I don't think that approach is valid in this situation.
Most pledge reciters and their defenders *in this country* would tell you that "God" is a generic term, whereas "Allah" is specific to the Muslim religion. A Muslim may say differently, and a linguist may say differently, but they aren't speaking to the point *in this situation*.
"how do you think god feels about absinthe?"
God IS absinthe.
|Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 9:05 am: |
The decision will be reversed. The phrase "under God" is not the product of a congressional law respecting an establishment of religion. End of story.
Even to the Framers, the word "God" had various shades of meaning. Jefferson's concept of God was Deist; others had more traditionalist views. Still, all of them acknowledged a belief in some Higher Being (called, in an all-inclusive way, "God"). Some of our earliest national symbols refer to God: the "all-seeing eye" within a pyramid (a motif that can still be seen in Catholic churches); the cluster of stars ringed by a protective heavenly cloud.
The Framers simply did not anticipate that future atheists or polytheists would feel imposed upon by a cultural belief in a Higher Being. The Framers' concern was with religious dictatorship, and/or intolerance regarding other religions. By intolerance, they meant outright suppression: censorship, prohibition against assembly, confiscation of property, incarceration, exile, and/or death.
In other words, nothing that the Pledge comes close to doing.
|Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 8:51 am: |
"telling us that sex was like ice-cream. It tastes very nice but if you take it without paying for it..."
So remember, children: always pay for sex.
|Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 8:28 am: |
I've lived in Chile since '98, and I'll probably marry a Chilean. So I guess that makes me a South American by proxy.
|Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 8:24 am: |
Oh, I thought you were South American. Well, the more Americans who actually know what they're talking about the better.
|Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 8:21 am: |
Thanks ... but I am indeed American, born in Michigan and raised in California! My father's ancestry is Swiss (from the Jura "absinthe" region, in fact) -- hence my last name. My mother is French.
|Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 8:21 am: |
So your sex education at school was a load of crap, well so was mine. Sex education at my school (a Catholic school) involved the science teacher standing in front of the class (we were 12 yr olds at the time) and telling us that sex was like ice-cream. It tastes very nice but if you take it without paying for it (i.e. outside marriage or wearing a condom inside marriage) then it is wrong and sinful. He was too embarrassed to discuss the matter much further than a hasty explanation of where you put your bits during sex. That was it, all of 20 minutes and much of that 20 minutes was filled with references to God, sin and Hell.
Just because sex education was ill-informed rubbish for us that doesn't mean the notion of sex education in schools is a waste of time these days. Thankfully these days sex education begins much earlier than 12, is infinitely better informed and involves talks and visits from health professionals. A new (controversial) initiative in the involves teams of healthcare professionals regularly visiting High schools in mobile clinics where their services include confidential advice for children and free contraceptives (along with expert advice) for those school children legally entitled to acquire them.
If you leave it to parents alone then lots of children will not learn anything until it is too late.
As for not being able to measure the effects of social education in schools, sure it is not as easy as recording a test score in Mathematics (which in itself is not a measurement of teaching or pupil achievement in Mathematics as I'm sure you know) but the effects of social education can be measured by the increase or decrease in school vandalism, school-girl pregnancies, assaults occuring during school, racial incidents etc. etc. You can't give individual children a score in this area, but the effectiveness of this education on the school community can be measured. As you well know, Headteachers (and the school's Governing body)have a responsibility to measure the effectiveness of everything that happens in the school. There is more to measuring than test scores.
|Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 8:19 am: |
Figures. I always find it funny how it usually takes someone who's not american to educate americans about their own history and origins.
Very informative, Chevalier. God called and told me to tell you thanks.
|Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 7:46 am: |
Take a closer look at the origin of the Pledge, and at the history of its author.
As mentioned earlier, the Pledge of Allegiance as it was originally written goes like this:
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
This was as it appeared in a Boston based magazine called "The Youth's Companion" back in 1892. The words were put there for students to repeat on Columbus Day. The magazine's circulation manager, Francis Bellamy, wrote it. Columbus Day fell on October 12, 1892 and children recited the Pledge of Allegiance - beginning the tradition of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of each school day.
On June 14, 1923, at a National Flag Conference in Washington, the Pledge of Allegiance was modified. The words "my flag" were replaced with "the flag of the United States of America."
In 1942 Congress officially recognized the Pledge of Allegiance.
In June of 1954 the words "under God" were added. The change was made after the Knights of Columbus (the self-proclaimed "Strong Right Arm of the Church") campaigned for it.
Bellamy, the Pledge's original (1892) author, was the circulation manager for the "The Youth's Companion" magazine because he walked away from his church as a Baptist minister the year before. Bellamy had been minister of the Dearborn Street Church in Boston (which he later named Bethany Baptist Church). There he was involved with the social, religious, labor and economic problems of the city's poor factory workers. While pastor he gave a speech entitled "Jesus the Socialist" and a series of sermons on "The Socialism of the Primitive Church." In addition, he was a vice-president of the Christian Society of Socialists. In 1891, Bellamy was forced to resign from his Boston Pastorate because the conservative businessmen of the "Committee on Christian Work of the Baptist Social Union" withheld additional funds for his work. The Committee complained of Bellamy's increased socialist sermons and activities.
As a staff member of "The Youth's Companion" magazine, Bellamy was asked to help the publisher, James B. Upham, promote the National Public School Celebration for Columbus Day. In February 1892, Bellamy was also chosen as the National Education Association's (NEA) chairman for this celebration. Being prestigious and very influential members of the NEA, Upham and Bellamy used this upcoming celebration to advance their concepts of American patriotism based upon NEA beliefs, which were the promotion of state-run secular public schools, as opposed to church-operated religious schools. Historically, the NEA has promoted the concept of the separation of church and state.
Up to this time, the nation had no salute or pledge to its national symbol. In 1889, Colonel Balch had written a pledge for his New York City kindergarten class as follows: "We give our heads and our hearts to God and our country: one country, one language, one flag." Bellamy accepted the task of writing a new pledge which would promote his ideas of nationalism, patriotism, statism and socialism.
The wording which Bellamy used in the writing of his pledge was intended to weld together the mentality of all Americans in their allegiance to a centralized federal government. The word "allegiance" was taken from Lincoln's "Oath of Allegiance" for rebellious Southerners. The word "indivisible" was in opposition to the concept of secession which resulted in the War for Southern Independence of 1861-1865. Both ideas were intended as propaganda tools for altering the minds of school children nationwide, and especially those of the South. Bellamy's idea of "liberty and justice for all" found in the 14th, 15th and 16th amendments were really substitute words for "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity", which he felt were "too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization" to be included in the Pledge.
Francis Bellamy as a "Christian Socialist" in conjunction with many other liberal thinkers and writers of his day favored a socialistic centralized federal government as opposed to traditional conservative Christianity and the local government concepts of the South.
Bellamy's granddaughter has said that he would have resented the "under God" addition because it went beyond (if not against) his original intent for the Pledge of Allegiance.
|Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 7:02 am: |
|Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 6:59 am: |
According to Jerry Falwell, DP is OK with God so long as the two men are not in anyway homosexually inclined. Also, God called, and he said he was insulted by our pledge naming him as the ultimate authority for our fucked up country. He kindly requested his name be removed from the pledge, otherwise he'll let another wave of terrorist attacks happen to send a message (just like Jerry Falwell said he did after 9/11).
He also said OJ is guilty, and that extraterrestrials do exist, and that Betty's absinthe is a rip off.
|Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 6:40 am: |
how do you think god feels about absinthe? Is he like groovy with it? Do you think he's okay with DP? If anyone sees him, I'd really like to know these things...
|Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 6:31 am: |
"you think all of this is 'silly'? probably because you are fine pledging to your god. "
Assumptions, assumptions. Bullshit assumptions. I explained why I think all of this is silly, and it has nothing to do with my religious beliefs or lack thereof. I'm a radical empiricist - I believe in as little as possible. I just don't think in formulas and regurgitated platitudes. As you obviously do, I can understand your confusion.
"what about the millions of others who would feel uncomfortable?"
Oh shit! Someone somewhere feels uncomfortable? Do you think only one new legal precedent will do it? I think we need to pass a dozen new laws at least... maybe even set up some new government agencies.
"but, of course, i am not surprised by any of your views, you being in florida and all."
More assumptions. After having said this, I'll no longer be surprised by anything you say. This may be the most half-witted piece of presumptuous bigotry ever spoken on the forum. Everyone who happens to be in Florida is a right winger and holds the same views? Stick around or look at the archives. If a formulaic non-thinker like you isn't surprised by any of my views, it can only because you aren't listening, or aren't capable of it.
"but that would be 'silly' of me to bring up an election that was ripped from the people by the bush bros. and cruella de ville."
I was nowhere near Florida at the time.
|Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 6:17 am: |
god, schmod, gimme some cod...
|Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 5:06 am: |
Artemis, let me try a different approach: if the pledge read "one nation, under Allah", would you agree that it was referring to a specific god?
|Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 4:35 am: |
Because I didn't agree with you doesn't mean I didn't understand you, much less didn't understand some concept which you arrogantly think you get and I don't.
I don't think it is arrogant to respect the historical context in which words have long been used. It is more arrogant to ignore that context when it is inconvenient. I suspect. There is no question, based on the words of the men who added it, that the reference to "God" in the pledge was meant to mean "Yahveh", specifically.
"God" is the other than man, the more than man, the ultimate to which man can aspire, which is the whole point (for me anyway).
Eine Nation unter dem Ubermench...
According to the clowns on that joke of a court (which would not exist in its current makeup if Senator Daschle and his sorry cohort weren't holding up judicial appointments to punish President Bush for winning the election), it's the government's job to PREVENT people who revere the concept from mentioning their reverence on any soil tainted by public funds.
Er, no, I think they said it's not the government's job to FORCE CHILDREN to express reverence in publicly funded schools.
|Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 4:23 am: |
The 'loss' in the case is extremely temporary, and the gain in terms electing more cheerleaders for God is immense.
Backlash is always a danger (Roe v. Wade created the Pro-Life movement, just as the burgeoning women's movement had created abortion laws 100 years earlier), but I am not willing to give up on trying to do what is just, even if it is only a technicality, out of fear of the backlash it will create. So far, backlashes and all, we have contiued to move foreward. There was plenty of backlash against the original ruling against school prayer (some of which I took on the knuckles), but it has stood the test of time and the idea of returning to the mandatory Christian prayer of past days seems rather reacionary today.
|Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 4:14 am: |
> Well, that may be your opinion, but that's not
> the opinion of the law.
It was not the opinion of two people in the legal profession, but that doesn't mean it's not the opinion of the law. The opinion of those two people is legally speaking, "DOA" according to CNN's legal "expert":
"I've been talking to law professors this afternoon and I think this decision is dead on arrival either in the full 9th Circuit or in the United States Supreme Court. It really seems to be outside the mainstream of American legal opinion."
And yes, I implied we shouldn't talk about this anymore, but now I'll let it rest.