RANT: The Pledge Of Allegiance

Greetings!

I was watching the news, and shocked that the US Pledge of Allegiance has been declared unconstitutional by a federal appeals court. Now, I believe very strongly in the freedoms safeguarded by the constitution, and I am not very religious in any way, but I think we are becoming a little too "politically correct" to take such offense at the words "under God". Whatever it may mean to different people, it is an important part of American culture.

For those who want it, I am offering up an illegal MP3 file - the only MP3 on my player that I did not rip myself, but downloaded from the web: Red Skelton's rendition of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Note: if anyone can point me to a CD on Amazon.com or equivalent with this track, please PM me...

will an audio cassette do?

edit
maybe this CD will do?

Next thing you know money will become illegal. It does say on the back "In God We Trust".

This country is in sad shape.

PC is one of the reasons I decided to retire from the Armed Forces...we are trying so hard to please everybody that our operational effectiveness is being eroded away daily....

I've been waiting for this day since middle school.

Do you all realize that that those two little words were added by congress under Eisenhower in the 50's? It's not even part of the original Pledge. God should have nothing to do with patriatism or pledging allegiance to this country. What if it was "under Allah"... how would you feel then? This is purely and simply a constitutional issue... and has not a damn thing to do with the state of this country. It's as American as it GETS... upholding the Constitution. Kids being forced (not that they legally can be... read the findings of the court regarding why this suit was brought) to recite the pledge have their rights infringed upon by those two words. Simple as pie. Violation of the Establishment Clause. Look it up.

I have issues with the fact that it's REQUIRED BY LAW in thie state of CA that public schools begin each day with "appropriate patriotic excersises"... but that's a whole other can of worms.

Did you all even bother to read the courts findings??

Here they are in PDF.

edit: check out this quote from the findings...

"Moreover, the legislative history of the 1954 Act shows that the "under God" language was not meant to sit passively in the federal code unbeknownst to the public; rather, the sponsors of the amendment knew about and capitalized on the state laws and school district rules that mandate recitation of the Pledge. The legislation's House sponsor, Representative Louis C. Rabaut, testified at the Congressional hearing that "the children of our land, in the daily recitation of the pledge in school, will be daily impressed with a true understanding of our way of life and it's origins," and this statement was incorporated into the report of the House Judiciary Committee. Taken within it's context, the 1954 addendum was designed to result in the recitation of the words"underGod" in school classrooms throughout the land on a daily basis, and therefore constitued as much of an injury in fact as the policies considered in Wallace and Santa Fe. As discussed earlier, Newdow was standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the religious education of his daughter. The mere enactment of the 1954 Act in its particular context constitues a religious recitation policy that interferes with Newdow's right to direct the religious education of his daughter."

Read it... really... it's fascinating...

Is it really that important of an issue that we have to take it all the way to the supreme court? If a kid doesnt want to say it...just remain silent. There is nothing wrong with that. "Under God" is in the pledge because "God" is what this country was built on. Now I believe in religious freedom as much as the next guy, but no one is forcing anything on anyone...i just hate to see tax dollars go to WASTE on items such as this one. Flame me if you want, but this is just my opinion.

I think all they have to do is remove "under god" and the problem is over. I don't mind the kids saying it - I did everyday, but I went to school on an Army base...

Interesting when the President chastises the lower courts for having this kind of authority, when basically all they did was uphold a current law?

Greetings!

Yes, I am aware of the words being added in the '50s. And you are correct - it is a constitutional issue, and it is something that is important to debate and defend. I personally have no objection to anyone reciting it to use the deity of their choice in reciting it, or to leave the words out if they prefer. I agree that no one should be forced to recite it against their will, and that it is meaningless if it is forced.

As to the state of the country, I didn't really intend to go in that direction.

I do feel, though, that self-censorship is perhaps the worst form of censorship - not saying something because it is unpopular. It works both ways: I feel sorry for the person who has to stand silent listening to others say the words around them, but I also feel that I still have the right to say the words if I choose to. Thus my PC comment.

I am very glad for the link - I will definately read the original findings. Thanks!!!

Edit: I have read the original. Very interesting indeed! There are a number of valid points raised. I must admit, though, that I do not agree with either of the opinions completely. I do not personally feel that the phrase is an effective form of coersion, no matter how subtle. If anything, I would think it would be something that would be a learning experience, opening discussion between a child and parent of the importance of their shared beliefs. I would think that discussion would only serve to strengthen those beliefs, not erode them.

Cthulhu saves - in case he is hungry later.

Personally, I have no problem with it because I don't consider it to be religious to me, so it's purely patriotic in my eyes, and God doesn't really come into it for me.

What I do have a problem with is that in my county (maybe state?), schools have a mandatory moment of silence at the beginning of each day. I find that ridiculous.

I see your point - it's not like many of the words of the pledge have anywhere near as much meaning as they should, especially when it comes to the legislative branch. This pledge is much more apt:

I pledge allegiance to the RIAA
and the Corporations for which it stands
One organization, under Rosen
un-distributable
with tyanny, and injustice for all

or this one:

I pledge allegiance to the CEOs of America
and the scamming for which they stand
One scandal, under Andersen
Un-accountable,
With job-loss and stock crash for all.

I feel sorry for the person who has to stand silent listening to others say the words around them, but I also feel that I still have the right to say the words if I choose to.

First, I haven't actually read this ruling, but if it is just upholding that other law, then I know what's being talked about. So just tell me to shut up if I'm making an incorrect assumption.

There is no law that prevents you from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance (or for that matter, from praying out loud) in a public place, including a school. The law specifies that the government cannot compel you to pray, or encourage prayer (I believe that as long as it's framed in the context of ``a moment of silence'', it's okay, because then each person is free to do as he wishes privately). Since the PoA contains the phrase ``under God'', that can be construed as a prayer, or at least to be religious, and that's the problem. If the schools were to remove that phrase, I can't imagine that there would be a problem.

And even if you want to argue that it's ``god'' and not ``God'', then that alienates atheists, and possibly other people whose religions to not include a god (not that there seem to be many Confucians in the US ).

I'm with Loren.

The added phrase does -not- belong there. It is patently unconstitutional. Some say this country was built on God. While it is true the majority of the founders had deep religious convictions, they went to extreme lengths to ensure that the government they crafted would -not- impose a belief system on its citizens. The imposition of beliefs, and the tyranny of the church of the day, was what drove many out of the early settlers from their countries of origin.

Though sometimes hard to swallow, we must strive to ensure that the separation of church and state remains intact.

Whatever it may mean to different people, it is an important part of American culture.

Well, on some level, so is Al Capone, but...

I don't have any kids, but I post my response here as a kindred spirit (ha! irony!) with the gent who is the plaintiff in this case.

The estimates vary quite a bit, but it seems like something between 5%-10% of folks in the US fall under the umbrella of atheist or "no-specific-deist-belief". More reliable estimates may be hard to come by because, IMO, many folks who are in this ballpark, belief/nonbelief-wise, are reluctant to categorize themselves in this regard. In turn, I think there are many reasons for that, whether it is a personal discomfort with the notion of being an atheist or a more pragmatic reason ("conservative senator's aide exposed as an atheist!!" read all about it). I have friends with kids who are *functionally* atheists, but who essentially keep a very low profile on this --- lest neighbors forbid their children from playing together among other reasons.

The old ecumenical/assimilationist rejoinder is that we should "respect other people's beliefs". Well, I don't think it works that way. It's downright hard to respect somebody's beliefs when you find them extremely puzzling and hard to fathom. So, I guess the more realistic behavior is to respect other people's right to maintain those beliefs as long as they don't try to injure you and or annoy you with those beliefs.

I somehow seriously doubt that the plaintiff in this case goes from door to door on Saturday mornings trying to convert his neighbors to atheism or that he leaves atheistic leaflets under people windshield wipers. If his life as a parent is close to what I have observed, he probably spends a lot of time talking with his daughter about the beliefs and church-going habits of her schoolmates and struggles with how he'll react if and when his daughter decides that she wants to go to church, too. He is surrounded by a lot of mass culture that he finds pretty alien -- he watched "Touched By An Angel" once then got roaring drunk just for fun. So, maybe he isn't going to go try to convert the neighbors or Kill His Television, but is there a reason he has to abide state-sponsored "under-godness" when one of the great virtues of this system of government is supposed (distinctly un-Taliban) separation of church and state?

Anyhow, my hat's off to him. he probebly didn't make many friends. And, for folks who find the ruling objectionable, you can just relax!! With this Supreme Court in this year's United States, the ruling doesn't stand a chance.

I watched a little local news story about the ruling. They interviewed a woman who said - and I quote - "There are just so many people in this world who are blind. We need God in our schools...". Lady, if you are out there reading this, please mark this atheist down as highly offended by your statement. (Although, I formed the strong impression that almost anyone who didn't belong to this woman's denomination might qualify as "blind" and can sign up to be offended, too!)

Anyhow, I submit that it was people like this sanctimonious, ignorant slut who successfully sought to insert "under god" in 1952 and this could be a *big* reason why some folks, myself included, would be pleased to see it go away.

"There are just so many people in this world who are blind. We need God in our schools..."

Yeah. What amazes me is that what I'm sure this woman meant is that we need morality in our schools, and that she and a remarkable number of other people are unable or unwilling to separate religion and morality. This would tend to imply that the only reason we have to be nice to each other is so that we'll be looked after in the afterlife. (Of course, even that assumption is a somewhat Christian-centric based notion, but we are talking 99.99% Christian bigots here.)

> I do feel, though, that self-censorship is perhaps the worst form of censorship - not saying something because it is unpopular. It works both ways: I feel sorry for the person who has to stand silent listening to others say the words around them, but I also feel that I still have the right to say the words if I choose to. Thus my PC comment.

I don't think it is PC at all. PC means to me the censoring of people by other people because they don't like what they say. To me, it generally does not involve the government. For instance, the push to get all sports teams to stop using Indian names (the Braves, the Redskins, etc...) because it might be offensive to some people is the epitome of silly political correctness gone wild to me. But this doesn't involve the government. Some guy saying you should or shouldn't say this is one thing, but the government saying it is another, and that is why this is a correct ruling. Frankly, there are enough people out there telling us silly things like "God is what this country was built on" and that the lack of religion in this country is causing our problems that we certainly don't need the government telling us too.

Bitt: Saying 'god' also leaves out Bhuddists, and since it is singular, Hindus as well.

Regarding President Dumya: This is the guy who said:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

Respectfully, it appears that it was George Bush Sr. who felt atheists did not deserve citizenship.

I think the scariest part of all this has been missed: The legislative and executive branch threatening the judicial. Remember A. Jackson and the Trail of Tears?

Edit: I'm not implying a word variation in how we indoctrinate our children is equivalent to the Trail of Tears. But if you're praying for the Judiciary to protect anyone from the PATRIOT act, or anything else, you might see where I'm going with that.

I don't even know if I really want to respond here, but I guess I just have to say something. What is "unconstitutional" is the government imposing a particular religion on the citizens of the United States. Thats it. The constitution wasn't written with how people "felt" about religious differences in mind, it was written pecause people were getting persecuted for having different beliefs. In this country if someone expresses personal religious beliefs in certain places (ie: teachers in schools) they stand to lose their jobs as a first amendment violation. This seems contrary to the spirit with which the first amenmend was written.

I know this won't be a popular view on this board, but I honesly have "felt" like athesiem is the only valid choice left to anyone because of all the "god" stuff we aren't supposed to do. In the end, its nearly impossible to get yourself away from dealing with spiritual (or non-spiritual) things in life and it shouldn't be the governments job to protect us from that. If a child is uneasy about some Chrisitan, Muslim, Athiest, ect. thing that he has heard or experienced, it has to be up to the parents to deal with it appropriately. Now if the police start knocking on peoples door or rights to vote are determined by religious belifes, we have a first amendment violation.

Religious people and Athiests alike are taught things in school that they disagree with because of their belifes, you can't get away from this. If you take out all of school that somehow is related to spiritual disagreements there would be nothing left to learn. It is sad to me the the words "under god" have become such a battlefield when there are so many important things going on in this country. I belive in religious tolerance, but that doesn't mean I don't have to deal with the fact that some people, even most people, disagree with me; it means I have to accept them as American citizens despite their different religious views.

Nobody is forced to say the pledge. Nobody is forced to pray during the moment of silence. Nobody is forced to say "under God". What this ruling does is it takes away the child's right to say it. They also want to take away a child's right to pray. If you want seperation of church and state, then don't embrace a law that forces this guy's atheist beliefs on the other children.
Civil liberties my ass. They're only taking rights away.

What this ruling does is it takes away the child's right to say it.

Nope, it doesn't. The child is free to say it, but it's the school that, not only by law, but also by one of the basic principles of American democracy, is prohibited from LEADING the children to say it. Each child can continue to say it as they have been, it just won't be led with the words under God (which were added only because the Knights of Columbus campaigned for the words to be added in the 1950's.)

Nobody is forced to say ANYTHING during the pledge, nor are anyone's lips watched to make sure they're speaking every word. Kids can continue to (under the direction of their parents) say under God, say "under Allah", say nothing at all, or even say "[censored] America." But the simple fact is that one of the basic principles of this country is the separation of church and state, which allows people of all faiths to be EQUALLY FREE to practice whatever religion they wish, or to NOT PRACTICE those religions. The phrase "under God" obviously alienates people with certain beliefs, beliefs which I myself don't share, but need to respect just as I expect them to respect mine.

It's very simple. The act that was passed in 1954 was unconstitutional. The law is on this guy's side, and he is going to win. Get over it, continue to say the pledge as you always have, and get onto more important issues.

Amen. uh, I mean, you're right!

I challenge any reader here to show me where separation of church and state is in the Constitution.

I find it quite humorous that so many people can have a debate about the Constitution and don't seem to have ever read it. "Well...everyone says it, so it must be in there somewhere...."

My Constitution reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"

Therefore, in restricting the freedom of religious speech, the court is actually violating the constitution.

I challenge any reader here to show me where separation of church and state is in the Constitution.

Challenge? You did it for us already! Where's the challenge?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

I'm trying to figure out how you can directly quote the phrase that clearly proves that church and state shall remain separate, yet claim it exists nowhere in the document. Let's look at it in detail at the way this phrase (called the "Establishment Clause" in the study of Constitutional law) is interpreted by the courts (and has always been interpreted by the courts.)

Congress = the legislative body of the U.S.
shall make no law = shall not make any laws
respecting = having reference to
an establishment = a public or private institution
of religion = (duh)

Translation = "The legislative body of the U.S. shall not make any laws having reference to a public or private institution of religion."

Q.E.D.

I COMPLETELY agree with the fact that the second clause (called the "Exercise Clause") guarantees that you have the right to express your religion. But Congress does not have the right to express their religious beliefs in our laws. If they did, they would be free to say that God has commanded them to, say, kill all atheists in our country, and we'd be compelled by our laws to follow their lead. Doesn't that sound a little bit like the tight binding of religion and politics that exists in certain middle-Eastern countries that tend to cause the occasional problem or three in this world?

Translation = "The legislative body of the U.S. shall not make any laws having reference to a public or private institution of religion."

The word "respecting" is a key word. A better translation that reflects the framers intent (easily attainable through other documents, journals, etc...) would be:

Translation = "The legislative body of the U.S. shall not make any laws concerning a public or private institution of religion."

Congress (and indirectly the court system) has no jurisdiction where matters of religion are concerned. In the enumerated powers and limitations of Congress, nowhere is given the power to "police" the use of religion in any form, public or private.

I know exactly how the court system has twisted it to fit their agenda, but in it's pure form, the phrase above simply states that religion is not going to be controlled or prohibited by the government in any way.

It's interesting how that court's decisions are the most overturned in the country. In other words, those judges' decisions are more often ruled by higher courts to be wrong decisions than any other court in the country. The ruling is bullshit. And it is PC crap like this that is eating away at this country.

Imagine an American going to a school in India and demanding that they stop using the word 'Allah'. Do you think that would be reasonable?

You're exactly right, Meatball.

The phrase above simply states that religion is not going to be controlled or prohibited by the government in any way.

The act which inserted "under God" to the Pledge did exactly that. It made a law respecting the establishment of a relgion. If you're going to split hairs and say that the word God does not equate to religion, that's just silly. But the Pledge of Allegience is a nationally-mandated daily occurrence, and it made reference to religion. No amount of creative interpretation can change that fact.

The fact is that when it was inserted into the Pledge, it was done so by the Government in a carefully orchestrated attempt to stamp out atheistic communism. Think 1950's, think anti-communism... And read the words of Dwight Eisenhower when he signed it:

"From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

Go ahead and try to tell me that's not "making a law respecting the establishment of religion."

Look, I think the dude who took this to court is an idiot, and the words "under God" don't offend me, as I do believe in a higher power. The verdict WILL be overturned, though by the letter of the law, the Pledge is, in fact, unconstitutional. If someone challenged it high enough, and the judicial system worked as it should, either the Pledge or that phrase in the constitution would have to be ammended. They are in direct contrast, and no reasonable interpretation can say otherwise.

Imagine an American going to a school in India and demanding that they stop using the word 'Allah'. Do you think that would be reasonable?

You dope, the people of India are mostly Hindus. Maybe 10% of the country is Muslim. Go read a book.

And what you're talking about is what makes America a great country, that we DON'T (or shouldn't) push any one particular religion, because our people are a mix of all faiths. The fact that other countries do it doesn't mean we should.

I don't think it's a federal law to recite the pledge.

But let me ask you a question. If this is a democracy where majority rules, and the majority of people want to keep and say the pledge, why should we allow a minority of the population to stop the majority from doing what they wish, especially since what they're doing doesn't cause any harm to anyone. And don't say that saying "under God" in the presence of an athiest is infringing on their personal rights.

In reply to:

---

that we DON'T (or shouldn't) push any one particular religion, because our people are a mix of all faiths

---

I agree with that. But I also don't think we should ban any religions or religious activities in public or private places. At my school, the pledge was always led by a student. What's wrong with that?

If you're going to split hairs and say that the word God does not equate to religion, that's just silly

I'll say exactly that. The ammendment was designed to prevent the establishment of a solitary religion (ie...state church) by our government like the Anglican Church in England, where people were fined for missing church and persecuted for disagreeing with the established church.

They did not believe that all religious things should be separated from government, or they would not have opened up each of their sessions with prayer.

I don't think it's a federal law to recite the pledge.

Correct... Sorta. The wording of the Pledge is at the Federal level. At the State level, I believe that all public schools in the 50 states must lead students in reciting the pledge. A quick Google search showed this to be true for several states, but IANAL. Of course, nobody is required by law to join in, but the schools themselves are, I believe, legally bound to lead the recitation. If I'm wrong with the lawyer stuff, I welcome any corrections.

As to your minority/majority thing, who is STOPPING the majority from doing ANYTHING? People are free to say "under God" but, by the letter of the law, Congress is not free to make reference to religion in our laws.

I do think it's silly to be alienated by such a benign phrase, but based on our laws, that phrase should never have been there. Now that people have become accustomed to it, taking it away will alienate the majority.

But this is moot, because there is NO WAY this ruling will survive the wrath of Congress, who is viciously defending the Pledge as it's written.

Imagine an American going to a school in India and demanding that they stop using the word 'Allah'. Do you think that would be reasonable?

Do I need to respond to this? Or does everyone see what is wrong with this statement?

Ok I thought so.

Yz33d, you really shoud read more before you start typing.


edit: wow, i guess i was a little late on that one huh?

edit: wow, i guess i was a little late on that one huh?

It's the thought that counts.

> And what you're talking about is what makes America a great country, that we DON'T (or shouldn't) push any one particular religion, because our people are a mix of all faiths. The fact that other countries do it doesn't mean we should.

Furthermore, why do you think India has so much bloodshed? Their government has historically been very pro-Hindu, and the BJP party that has power there now has taken it up a notch and caused even more problems not only for the significant Muslim minority, but Christains and other religions as well. The government's pushing of one religion has split the country along religious lines and is the root cause of most of the horrible violence that the country suffers from. With the exception of the issue of abortion, there has been almost no violence in this country along religious lines, and the seperation of church and state is a major reason for this.

In reply to:

---

Nobody is forced to say the pledge. Nobody is forced to pray during the moment of silence. Nobody is forced to say "under God".

---

Bullcrap. In my grade school it was forced. Some kids once got into all kinds of trouble when they left out the "under god" bit after being told not to.

I am also more than a little offended by "In god We Trust" on the money. I hope the reform of that comes on the heels of this.

But let me ask you a question. If this is a democracy where majority rules,

Well, it isn't a democracy where the majority rules. It's a Republic. And if the majority ruled, then there'd be a different President.

and the majority of people want to keep and say the pledge, why should we allow a minority of the population to stop the majority from doing what they wish


I don't think that anyone has a problem with the concept of a pledge - only the 1954 amendment to it that definately breaks the rules on separation of chuch and state.

Remembering that the Colonies were founded by people escaping state-sponsored religon, and that the War of Independance was over (amongst other things) taxation, I find it ironic that US citizens today have to pledge to a nation under a monthesistic deity, and pay higher taxes than before Independance.

With the exception of the issue of abortion, there has been almost no violence in this country among religious lines, and the seperation of church and state is a major reason for this.

Best statement made in this thread so far.

The current events on this planet underscore the unchanging truth of a rather icky part of our nature: Organized religion is responsible for an illogical amount of the blood shed throughout human history. Our country's efforts to keep government separate from religion should be an applauded example, not reviled.

Now on the particular issue of the PoA, I couldn't care less whether "Under God" was in there and I think we should be focusing our resources on more important problems. My first reaction to this was, "haven't we already covered this before?"

I think a more important issue is... why do we even need to make our children recite a daily pledge of fealty in the first place? It's always sounded rather fascist to me, with or without the God reference.

Ninti:
Furthermore, why do you think India has so much bloodshed?

tfabris:
Organized religion is responsible for an illogical amount of the blood shed throughout human history.

XTC
Dear God, sorry to disturb you, but..
I feel that I should be heard loud and clear.
We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
and all the people that you made in your image,
see them fighting in the street
'cause they can't make opinions meet
about God,
I can't believe in you

Ugg, Focus on the Family is already making their voice heard about this. From the local paper here in Colorado Springs:

The ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco does not affect Colorado, which is outside its jurisdiction, but the message it sends worried such people as Tom Minnery, vice president of public policy for Focus on the Family. He called the decision "as shocking in its own way as the attack on the World Trade Center."

"If the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, then certainly the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional because that mentions God three times and the pledge only mentions God once," Minnery said.

Hmm, well the Declaration of Independance is a written document that was created more then 200 years ago. The pledge is a spoken event that occurs in most schools to turn us all into good little patriots, started during the Wolrd War II mess. The "under God" part was added to fight communism. To me, the pledge is a fine idea, but it should represent a true pledge to the country, and not a religion. It should not be forced on anyone and instead just be an optional thing as it sits in my school district. Here in District 11, it's not even really said outside of elementry school. And I did remember a few people who opted out of participating, mainly due to the ovidious religious content. Now the big mess is the outcome of this. The person who brought it up is stating he is getting death threats, and Bush is saying he will put judges on the bench that will overrule this. Anyone else see a problem with the second part of that? I thought justice was supposed to be a process of fact finding and rulling. But when the highest single person in command admits to fixing the system, something definitly needs to be done to correct the broken system.

Do I think we should spend tons of effort on things like this? No. But right now I can't become president of this country without declairing God on my side.

School vouchers seems to be another sticky issue right now. Some people here are saying that this issue does violate church/state issues. Why? The vouchers allow students to be educated the way their parents want, even if they don't have the money to do so. Here is a perfect example where the state is giving choice, including religious choices for education. Don't want your student to be taught the work of the devil, aka evolution? Well do something about it.

Ugg. Anyone own a large island? Lets go set up our own empeg loving nation :-)

Heh, I did a parody of that song. (It's at my web site if you wanna see it.)

Ugg. Anyone own a large island? Lets go set up our own empeg loving nation :-)

Word! We'll call it Empegonia. Hugo will be our leader, with the rest of the Empeg guys having cushy government jobs and living off our tax dollars. Except Patrick, whose tuner-making skills are far too important to have him in government. He'll get his own three-story lab with a full automated factory for producing tuners.

So when are we moving? I'll pack my bags.

Heh, I did a parody of that song. (It's at my web site if you wanna see it.)

haha, good stuff.

"And Steve Ballmer too."

tsk tsk.

haha, good stuff. "And Steve Ballmer too."

ROFL, you are the FIRST person so far who's gotten the reference in that line. I was SOOOOO proud of that one. Now I feel vindicated.

That's the risk I take when I parody a not-so-well-known song. The best parts of a parody are the ones that are only funny if you know the original song well. So the more obscure the source song, the less likely someone will get those jokes.

"Ugg. Anyone own a large island? Lets go set up our own empeg loving nation :-) "

Heh, I don't think that would work as half of us would probably kill the other half. That's one reason this board is so cool: we disagree completly on issues like this and yet most of us are very intelligent people who respect others viewpoints. I don't think we'd ever agree on any government on said island (and surly those with many empegs would constitute the upperclass while us single empeg owners would be reduced to poverty levels. . . and if a Neo owner got there acciddently. . .)

and if a Neo owner got there acciddently. . .)

Nah, we'll just set up a penal colony to send them to. We can call it "Australia" or something.

<ducks>

> School vouchers seems to be another sticky issue right now.

I'm sure the religious right as not really sweating this small victory for the constitution, since they are well on the way to turning this country into their little Christian paradise. While the 9th Circuit is trying to uphold the separation of church and state, the conservative Supreme Court is tearing it down. As of today, your tax money can be used to support religious schools. They will almost certainly overturn this pledge of allegiance ruling as well.

Hmm. I was on board with you before, but I actually have no problem with tax money being used towards religious schools as long as it's the same amount of money that was allocated for your public schooling (I believe that's the case.) Parents already have a right to send their kids to religious schools, and these schools typically cost more than their public counterparts. To me, this is in effect the parent paying for the "religious portion" of their education, thus I don't have a problem with it.

If they wanted to get real technical with the separation (as the 9th circuit court did in the other ruling) I would be happy with an arrangement where the religious education in these private schools were accounted for and funded separately, with no tax funds going towards those specific accounts (with the rest of the education being partially paid for by these vouchers.) That way, no money would be going to paying for religion. I realize there are all sorts of technicalities there and things that could be exploited, but since these schools already cost more than public schools, it doesn't seem to me that religious education is really being "paid for" by tax dollars.

Or am I missing something?

My problem with school vouchers is not so much the potential religious issue (which does bother me slightly, but I'll get over it), but the fact that it provides yet another benefit to affluent families.

First, let's assume that private schools are better than public schools. Since they existed previously, and people paid for them outright, that doesn't seem like a hard jump to make.

Since private schools do cost more, most poorer families will still not be able to send their kids there, as they don't have that extra money. So, for that reason, vouchers only benefit families with extra money.

Since private schools are still private, the administration can reject whatever applicants it wants. Imagine an inner-city black family that decides that they should spend a large portion of their money to send Junior to a private school in hopes that he'll get a better education and get out of the ghetto (an exaggerated, somewhat stereotypical circumstance, I'll grant). The school can still decide that Junior doesn't fit their entrance criteria (maybe based on the fact that he ``wouldn't fit in''). If these voucher-ized schools were required to accept anyone who could pay the entrance fee, then I'd be more okay with it (except, see my previous point). But I don't think that's going to happen, as I believe that many of the families that send their children to private schools do it specifically to get them away from those inner-city kids.

Anyway, just my 2 cents. And it's way off topic now.

All extremely good points that I hadn't considered, Bitt. I think someone needs to come up with some way to give religious but non-affluent families the ability to send their kids to their chosen school without contributing to the rich getting richer. Not sure what that would be, though.

Oh man, the pledge of allegiance and vouchers, I don't know where to start.

The Pledge: Forcing children to recite religious phrases in a school that they are by law forced to attend (unless they can afford otherwise... we'll get to that) should not be allowed. Allowing children to say it? Sure. By force or coercion? Nope. The pledge of allegiance is about the country, not about god.

Vouchers: I've been to both public and private schools, so I know the difference. I've visited downtown oakland schools with one white kid in a class of 30. I spent middle school in a class with 20 odd white kids and one black kid. (This is the reason I love Token on south park...). The fact that amazes me the most is that private schools charge LESS tutition than public schools get per student. There are very few people in private schools for whom the tutiton isn't some sort of hardship, yet their parents make the choice that it's worth it. There are some for whom $12,000 doesn't seem like much, but those are few and far between.

Public schools are a mess of beauracracy, and letting kids who can't afford private schools attend private schools seems fine with me. Perhaps a few of us spoiled rich kids would get the discount too, but we do pay the taxes that go into supporting schools, right?

Matthew

Okay... did everyone do their homework and READ THE RULING??? I've told everyone who wants to argue with this about me here in the physical world to forget it unless they read the thing and know what they are arguing about. Haha... so far, only one person has taken me up on it.

Hell no. I didn't even click the link. I am satisfied with the biased summary that was delivered to me through the tv. Even tv is starting to take too long. They need to invent something to where you can just inject the knowledge directly in your veins with a needle and have it go straight to your brain. That is the wave of the future.

In reply to:

---

As of today, your tax money can be used to support religious schools.

---

OK, so say if a woman with no job and eight children is on welfare and uses her food stamps to buy kosher pickles, would you be against that?

Ok, I just clicked the link. And as soon as I saw that little scroll bar was about a half of a millimeter long, I immediately hit the back button.

Exactly. So shut the F up lest ye scroll that millimeter.

i don't have time to read that crap. The knowledge that I will gain from reading it doesn't outweigh the benefits I will gain from doing absolutely nothing in the same time span. If was going to read something right now, I'd read something I'm more interested in. I have very little patience for reading large documents on a computer screen in this uncomfortable computer chair.

I have very little patience for reading large documents on a computer screen in this uncomfortable computer chair.

Then don't start spouting nonsense about Allah in India. I don't care what you choose to read, but here's a little tip: only use facts that you don't make up.

...Unless, of course, you are Mr X. I can hear those molemen yelling at you now.

Greetings!

I have read it. I still find that I disagree with both sets of judicial opinions. It is definately a constitutional issue, and will be debated. Most notable was the text of the original introduction of the phrase, based on a deliberate act which may alone be enough cause to strike the phrase. I still stand by my personal opinion that, deliberate as the original insertion may have been, I do not personally think that it is a government endorsement or enfranchisement of any religion any more than striking the phrase would be an endorsement of atheism.

Of course, your milage and opinions will vary, as well they should. I find it significantly better to see people actually paying attention to the pledge and to the constitution, even if I may not agree on some topics.

" I do not personally think that it is a government endorsement or enfranchisement of any religion any more than striking the phrase would be an endorsement of atheism. "

I couldn't agree more, not just with the above statement but with your entire post.

I wasn't going to respond, but....

First, there's the problem that it doesn't respect that fact that many religions (including atheism itself) do not have a god, and many others have more than one, calling both of those groups into question.

Second, it obviously refers to the Christian god, since it is obvious from the context under which it was originally endorsed, and secondly, because it is capitalized, a distinctly Christian thing.

Interestingly, and to lighten the mood a little, did you know that the original inventors of the teletype were aware that they could only support either lower case or upper case letters and they did a small study to see which was better? They came to the conclusion that lower case was easier to read and generally more attractive and were set to go that route, but then their boss vetoed it because if it were all lower case, then it would be impossible to ``spell our Lord's name correctly'' (or something like that -- I'm paraphrasing). Thanks, guy!

fact that many religions (including atheism itself)

Point of order, kind sir! Atheism --whatever else this odd state may be -- is not a religion.

And before anyone tries to argue that point, note that it's been done to death already.

Look, I think the dude who took this to court is an idiot,

_t0ny,

I appreciate your very thorough treatment of this issue ('54 was it? I was thinking '52 but am pretty convinced that I am better off taking your word for it!) and I am guessing that you may be characterizing this guy as an "idiot" in a somewhat figurative "what a PITA!" sense.

I haven't seen this guy (the plaintiff) in the media, just saw this interview reprinted on CNN. He does have seem to have a few funny ideas, like "When atheists become the majority in this country..." (OK, that'll be, like, in the year 3067!), but I can't really fault him on his generally professed intent vis-a-vis constitutional issues.

This is not a suit I would have filed. For one, I am allergic to courtrooms and lawyers. Second, if I did, it might make it onto the NBC Nightly News and my 80+ year-old parents might see my mug shot, conclude that I am doomed to Hell, and they would no longer be able to sleep at night. (As it is, I can reveal my true, dark, godless nature here knowing that my folks are not internet-enabled!)

If this guy *is* a major PITA, that would not be a big surprise to me. It is not to say that that all folks that are a PITA are some vanguard of some worthy or admirable cause (and you may consider this guy's cause distinctly un-admirable), but it strikes me that it is sometimes the quirky, PITA type of folks who walk point on controversial issues while folks like me lie back, shelter their dear parents and relations from their true nature, and maybe reap the benefit of the PITA's efforts.

It's not directly analagous, but in this case I think of Jack Kevorkian. How is it that such an unappetizing point man should emerge for a issue with which I feel significant common cause? Dang! Isn't there someone *nicer* -- a little less rigid -- to carry the a right-to-die banner? Oh, that's right, the nicer spokesperson didn't get any media attention...

Likewise, the failure of atheists to build some big shiny temple may come down to the extreme distaste with which a lot of us regard the avowed spokespersons for our "religion", whether living or dead. Think Madelyn Murray O'Hare (sp?). While it does not please me that the KofC managed to get "under God" into the Pledge in the 50s, it does pain me to watch some of these humorless, self-promoting O'Harists behave as if they are my monsignor as they tilt at various church/state issues. Perhaps this plaintiff gent is one of those humorless PITAs? I don't know. On balance, though, I think I thank him for "walking point", even if perhaps I wouldn't want to invite him over for dinner.

(OK, if he wasn't rambling before, he is now! ...)

I guess I maintain a fairly high degree of sensitivity about membership in a minority, when I routinely see and hear sentiments in media and personal life like the prviously quoted woman lamenting the many "blind' godless who don't have the benefit of her particular religion. I send letters to the editor occasionally. I complained to United when i heard this song on their in-flight entertainment. The list goes on. Overall, though, I try not to get too torqued about it because....well...I'm in a minority. Especially on days like this, with continued Republican encroachment, and verdicts like the Cleveland school voucher verdict, I frankly feel a sense of resignation. The notion that somehow I could get more folks to think like me went away a long time ago (Hell, Jim, you're not even willing to go door-to-door on Saturday mornings! What *were* you thinking!!)

The depressing part of this feeling of resignation, though, is that, even if the "Under God" Pledge proponents and school voucher advocates (oh, and may I insert the mandatory drug testing for high school extracurriculars ruling here?) continue to assert their ersatz moral majority and score victories such as this, I don't think that it will satisfy. Maybe this is just US politics, but I think that these folks could succeed in instituting mandatory public school bible study, creationism curriculae, drug testing in kindergarden, and abolition of all public schools, yet still find themselves unsatisfied -- find that the institution of a lot of religio-cultural proscriptions perhaps did not really improve underlying societal fundamentals.

OK, I'm *really* rambling here. Question, though: Has anybody on the BBS read Kevin Phillips recently published book _Wealth and Democracy_?

Well, the atheists.org people are right that atheism is not a religion -- or, more precisely, that isn't always a religion. But I'll bet you money that, to this guy that brought the case, it's a religion.

The interesting thing to me here is I've always felt in the minority by believing in God. The more I've thought about this though, I think that belief in God and no belief in God are two extremes that do end up being minoritys. I now this sounds silly, but of all the poeple I meet, very view care one way or the other: They don't belive in anything. At least an athiest believes something: that there is no God.

You are in the minority because you claim this belief, but almost everyone I meet lives this way. I live in the south, wher most people seem to be born religious, but in the end most of these poeple are functionally atheist if not ones in belief.

I must admit I'm not so sure why that song would upset you, as most music out today (aside from some country and Christian music) outrightly defy's religion and Christian teaching in specific. I find little comfort in hearing such a song on the radio because the singer has other songs that go the other way (I much prefer a group like Rush: though I may completely disagree with them, at least thy are honest and engage the mind).

I guess my point is that if you want some comfort in your minority state, most people live like there is no God, even if they won't admit it to themselves. The thought is much to heavy for a culture that cares not to deal with consequences.

I guess my point is that if you want some comfort in your minority state, most people live like there is no God, even if they won't admit it to themselves. The thought is much to heavy for a culture that cares not to deal with consequences.

Well said.

In reply to:

---

You dope, the people of India are mostly Hindus. Maybe 10% of the country is Muslim. Go read a book.

---

In reply to:

---

Do I need to respond to this? Or does everyone see what is wrong with this statement?

Ok I thought so.

---

In reply to:

---

Then don't start spouting nonsense about Allah in India. I don't care what you choose to read, but here's a little tip: only use facts that you don't make up.

---

Ok so I made one F'ing irrelevant demographical mistake. Is it that big of a deal? You knew what I meant. Swap out "India" with "Pakistan" or "Allah" with whoever the hell the hindu god is. Why don't you tell me the percentage of jehova witnesses in the US? Ha, it's your own country and I bet you don't even know. How's it feel now, hypocrite? But I'm sure half a dozen people are gonna go to Google and shove the statistic back in my face and act like they knew it off the top of their head.

Calm down dude. I think it's more about debating in a calm manner and being able to make logical assertions from facts. Those responses to your mistake were a reaction to your confrontational posting style.

I, like you, defend our right to have "under God" in the pledge. You have to realize that no matter how logical the argument and no matter how much venom you inject in your invectives, noone here is actually going to change their mind. So lets be civil and state our case in a manner that is worth the time it takes to read.

Oh, don't worry, the India/Allah thing was just the most obvious (and humorous) logical errors you have made in your arguments here. It's hard to take your other aguments seriously when you're so ignorant of other cultures to think that India is a Muslim country. Did you also know that the "Indians" here in America aren't the same people as the "Indians" in India? They are also in no way related to the Cleveland Indians, the Atlanta Braves, the Washington Redskins, the Kansas City Chiefs, or the state of Indiana. Strange, but true.

You're right. I will chill out.

In reply to:

---

you're so ignorant of other cultures to think that India is a Muslim country

---

I never said India is a Muslim country.

yea.. every day I think more and more about moving to finland. my girlfriend has family there, and speaks fluently. she really wants to move over there... oh well..

In reply to:

---

Point of order, kind sir! Atheism --whatever else this odd state may be -- is not a religion.

---

Incorrect. The link Tony posted is also incorrect.

The fact that "Nearly every dictionary will define religion as belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed a worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe" is true, but it is not the only definition. You will also find that nearly every dictionary will also define religion as "a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader" and/or "a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion". You might also examine the definition of atheist, which is typically defined as "one who disbelieves or denies the existence of a god, or supreme intelligent being". Thus, if I wish to pursue my non-beliefs with zeal and conscientious devotion, I should be able to enjoy the privilege of calling my atheism religion. And why would I wish to be associated with such a repugnant concept as traditional, supreme-being based religion? Because an Atheist is at least as devoted to his or her beliefs as your average American follower of a bible based religion, and thus should be able to enjoy the benefits of being recognized as a religion. I feel strongly that if Christians should be able to designate a myriad of days "holidays" due to their beliefs, and feel that they should not be expected to have to attend their places of employment on these days, then a devout Atheist should at least be able to enjoy a holiday of their own.

I would also like to comment on the somewhat confused commentary that Tony linked to. The author begins by pointing out how disturbingly wrong (and even insulting) the definitions of many dictionaries are, and then goes on to use said dictionary definitions to back up his or her argument. I can only hope that they are two completely different essays that had the misfortune of being combined as one without adequate review.

I noticed that incongruity about dictionaries in the treatise there. Doesn't mean his statements are wrong. He just notes that the dictionaries get it right in some places and not in others.

And as I said, the "atheism is/is not a religion" philosophical argument has been done to death already, and in the end it all boils down to semantics or basic philosophical concepts where the two camps simply agree to disagree.

"I feel strongly that if Christians should be able to designate a myriad of days "holidays" due to their beliefs, and feel that they should not be expected to have to attend their places of employment on these days, then a devout Atheist should at least be able to enjoy a holiday of their own. "

Except that I can't think of a truly "Christian" holiday. Easter, Christmas, and All Saints Day are all "Christianized" holidays that started out secular. Of these, only Easter really remains a Christian Holliday, and even that can be suspect to me sometimes. Christmas is a consumer bonanza having more to do with Santa Clause that the birth of Christ. Not that I'll deny that these days to still carry some religious weight, I just feel they are pretty hollow at the core. Still, I'll take "athiest day" off too if you think that would be more fair

a devout Atheist should at least be able to enjoy a holiday of their own.

Holiday, Hell! (or is using that invective wrong?)
I'd rather have tax-exempt status. If the Scientologists can get it, surely we followers of the Almighty Empeg must be able to cook up something worthy enough to pass IRS scrutiny.

Follow me brethren, as we kneel before the pulsing LED.....

Well, the atheists.org people are right that atheism is not a religion -- or, more precisely, that isn't always a religion. But I'll bet you money that, to this guy that brought the case, it's a religion.

Oh, I think I know what you mean (maybe!) in terms of somebody's single-minded, zealous pursuit of, and identification with, an issue. I suppose that for somebody who spends a year sitting in the crown of an old-growth tree or who spends 10 year bicycling around the world multiple times preaching the virtues of solar energy, well, that's their "religion". In those cases, though (which I made up, BTW), a moniker of "religion" wouldn't really do much to confuse the "is-or-isn't-something-a-religion?" question. So I guess that's one reason you always have atheists popping up like Internet Jacks-in-the-Box whenever the label is applid!!

Tony is right that the issue has been done to death, and God help us if alt.atheism should ever be dragged over here! Whenever I verge on a protracted discussion of anything like this, I just point to the a.a intro doc over here which I think does a decent job of summarizing my general thinking (Hell, does a much better job than I can!)

I saw a little news clip of the plaintiff playing back threatening messages on his answering machine. Sure, I'd say he has a major hair up his ass. One thing that is very interesting is that, while the ACLU agreed with the ruling, they had nothing to do with the suit. Did the plaintiff not seek their help? Or did they refuse? Is he the PITA, go-it-alone vengeful paladin we suspect? Mebbe.

I never said India is a Muslim country.

Ummm... actually, I kinda think you did, right here.

tanstaafl.

Now on the particular issue of the PoA, I couldn't care less whether "Under God" was in there and I think we should be focusing our resources on more important problems. My first reaction to this was, "haven't we already covered this before?"

While I obviously have some opinions on the whole PoA issue and I don't begrudge the plaintiff his right to pursue the case, one of the reasons it upsets me so much is for precisely the reason you mention. Whoever "wins", I fear there are much bigger issues left unattended. In some sense, the plaintiff and the ruling create an opportunity for many of our elected representatives to perform cheap tricks -- stand up, blast the ruling, and recite the pledge while other bigger issues float by uninspected.

I always remember a Boston talk show host -- Gene-something --who made an unbelievably large political name and career out of a single issue -- repealing the state's seat belt law. The amount of energy expended in that non-issue campaign could have built 14 Hoover Dams.

I just point to the a.a intro doc over here

Ah, that's the doc I was originally looking for when I wanted to link the statement that "it's been done to death". Didn't have it immediately handy, so I went for the other one, which isn't as detailed.

The interesting thing to me here is I've always felt in the minority by believing in God. The more I've thought about this though, I think that belief in God and no belief in God are two extremes that do end up being minoritys. I now this sounds silly, but of all the poeple I meet, very view care one way or the other: They don't belive in anything.

Well, it doesn't sound silly, but it is surprising to me -- that you have a serious feeling of minority. Guess that says something about respective vantage points. I saw a reference to this House Bill 459 which essentially denounces the PoA ruling. I don't know what the spread will be if and when it comes to a vote, but I assume that it will pass quite handily with many of the few reps who don't support it vanishing into the woodwork of abstention. If that's how it goes, I guess I'll say "Yep, I'm in the minority!" How about you? Seriously?

At least an athiest believes something: that there is no God.

That intro link I posted in response to Bitt deals with this issue in a way I agree with. I think that there are lots of things that I don't believe in but which I don't consider positive beliefs.

You are in the minority because you claim this belief, but almost everyone I meet lives this way. I live in the south, where most people seem to be born religious, but in the end most of these poeple are functionally atheist if not ones in belief.

Again, this surprises me but I guess it might come down to how strict your standards are and what people project (perhaps versus how they really behave). Example: I didn't know that the rather priestly priest who married me back in the early 1980s would turn out to be the life partner of the other priest now being tried in Boston for serial child abuse; my sister probably couldn't know that the very sanctimonious priest who indignantly *refused* to marry her (to a non-catholic) would later be convicted of multiple charges of child molestation! (edit: The point being that they all seemed pretty religious to me!)

I must admit I'm not so sure why that song would upset you, as most music out today (aside from some country and Christian music) outrightly defy's religion and Christian teaching in specific. I find little comfort in hearing such a song on the radio because the singer has other songs that go the other way (I much prefer a group like Rush: though I may completely disagree with them, at least thy are honest and engage the mind).

Different songs may upset me for different reasons. I'm a stong free-speech, anti-censorship kind of guy, but I have to say that I get really steamed (and write my local radio station to ask that they improve their playlist) when I hear a lot of the horribly misogynous music (rap, mostly) that gets airplay (this is *another* thread). But the fact that some music upsets me for one set of reasons doesn't help me not get offended by different songs for different reasons. The smug, insulting JM Montgomery song basically implies that if you don't subscribe to his particular religion that you are "lost" and that you are doomed to a life of drug abuse abuse and child neglect. That's enough for me to get insulted!

I guess my point is that if you want some comfort in your minority state, most people live like there is no God, even if they won't admit it to themselves. The thought is much to heavy for a culture that cares not to deal with consequences.

Thanks. This sounds like small comfort all the way around!

Read it again, Doug. I never said it.

Hey, can everyone stop abbreviating Pledge of Allegiance to PoA? I'm having a difficult staying focused. Everytime I read PoA, images of hot chicks enter my subconcious mind.

Anyway, we're all missing the point. This whole topic, while controversial, is pretty much a waste of time, money, and energy, given everything else going on in the world. So just why was it such big news? Did anyone check which Bills were going through the Houses that day?

Because we all need some new big controversy to keep our attention. Or at least, we think we do because the media tells us so. The entire nation has a severe case of ADD when it comes to this stuff.

That's right. Plus, since I'm young I need something to be pissed about.

Read it again, Doug. I never said it.

What you said was:

Imagine an American going to a school in India and demanding that they stop using the word 'Allah'. Do you think that would be reasonable?

which would certainly imply that you were suggesting that India was a Muslim nation.

All that aside... is anybody else as impressed with this bbs as I am? I can't imagine an open forum anywhere else on the internet where such a hot-button discussion as we are having in this thread could be carried out in such a civilized and intelligent manner. I've said it before: I count it as an enormous privilege to be able to associate with such an intelligent, articulate, and well-educated group of people.

Now, obviously all you godless heretics whose religious beliefs differ in any way whatsoever from my religious beliefs are certainly going to burn in Hell -- but that's your problem, not mine. (Juuusssstt kidding!)

tanstaafl.

I can't imagine an open forum anywhere else on the internet where such a hot-button discussion as we are having in this thread could be carried out in such a civilized and intelligent manner.

And with Yz33d in the thread, too, no less.

(I think we've just gotten used to the guy.)

What really bugs me about this whole post..... what really gets me!!! Is that I'm labled "Enthusiast".... I've tried to contribute positively and held my tongue on more than one occasion. While Yz33d has done nothing but really agitate things since he joined and he's an "Old hand"!!!
Doh! Sorry for not offering up anything constructive... but thats my rant.

Bah. Those labels don't mean shit.

Well, Pooh on you.

Damn straight. of course, I shouldn't talk

I agree though. this is definitely one of the best communities I've belonged to. It's definitely the largest of the good ones. Maybe Klipsch, but I haven't been there for a long while and it was going downhill when I left, but it seems better now.

Anyway, the only other really good communities I belong to are ones with less than 10 people, and 2 of those are with friends from "real life"

No, I'm serious, they're meaningless. I think all those things do is increase someone's tendency to post more just to beef up their post count so they get a cooler title. I think they have an adverse effect on the quality of discussion, in general.

I used to run a dialup BBS which had the same problem, so I junked the whole system (and went so far as to make it impossible for users to even see how many posts someone else had) and I saw much less noise and much more signal. People's contributions should be measured by something other than how much "hot air" they dispense.

And don't get me started on these karma/rating systems. No surer way to destroy a good online community than implementing one of those.

I was making a pun. I agree that they are meaningless.

It's just that you said "Bah" when your rank is Pooh-Bah. I thought you were trying to be funny, I was just rolling with the pun run.

I suppose your right, I'm not going to lose sleep over it or anything. I have more important stuff to lose sleep over , but regardless I totally agree that this is a great BBS.

Oh, no, I got the pun, I just chose to let it bounce off and further explain my aversion to these BBSes with goofy user rating systems. To acknowledge your pun would have been to encourage you, and would have knocked me off of my soap box.

The "bah" was probably a Freudian pun or something.

People's contributions should be measured by something other than how much "hot air" they dispense.

/Jim thinking "Oh, [censored]. If that's the case, I'm doomed!"

So, Tony, what's the next step after Pooh-Bah??

I dunno, I never look at the ranking information.

It's OK. I was just trying to tease yn0t_/Tony. If there was an Uber-Pooh step, we could ask him "So, how many more posts to go?" every week!

FWIW, I agree with him, though.

(PostCount++!)

And don't get me started on these karma/rating systems. No surer way to destroy a good online community than implementing one of those.

Agreed.

Incidentally, there's an upgrade to UBBThreads available, and PaulH discussed the upgrade with a few of us.

The Infopop people, since aquiring the WWWThreads people, have been slowly infecting the UBBThreads code with their icky-ness, and one of the icky features they just added is one of those ratings systems. There was no obvious way to disable the ratings so that the BBS worked as it does now. This was one of the criteria for the decision to NOT upgrade the software.

So, Tony, what's the next step after Pooh-Bah??

I hear it's FAQ Master, but I also read somewhere there's a "bad puns per week" clause...

Actually there is none, and I think that's just fine. Actually I hate this nick and I was going to create another account and retire this soon.

Edit: I stand corrected, I guess carpal tunnel comes next. Pretty lame title if you ask me.

I did I think it's "Carpal Tunel", which Tony must have by now

I agree with you [other] Tony, the ranks are definitely meaningless. But I don't know, I kinda like having them.

However, I completely agree with you on the rating systems. Nobody should put those on their boards. I always wonder why people do. It's a large reason why I stopped asking for help from people on Arstechnica. Those people are ruthless.

However, I completely agree with you on the rating systems. Nobody should put those on their boards. I always wonder why people do.

It's an attempt to reduce the signal-to-noise ratio in an online discussion. It's supposed to be akin to having a moderator, but without the need for an actual moderator. It's one of those things that SOUNDS good on paper, but doesn't work well in implementation.

I was discussing this with some friends who were asking themselves the very question of how to handle an online group discussion without introducing too much noise. And one of them was championing the ratings system.

I think what makes this BBS so great, and what gives it such a low S/N, is that the topic is focused enough, and the number of active users is small enough.

Then again, one of the persons in the discussion I mentioned above says that this particular BBS has way too much noise, and he complains vehemently about that fact. So I guess there's no pleasing some people.

Oh yes, I understand the theory, but I've yet to see it work. It just hurts members.

I agree with your thoughts about the board though. I think it's quite a low level of noise. If anyone thinks otherwise, time to visit some other message boards out there that are so overpopulated populated with childish morons it's a wonder anyone enjoys belonging to them.

Frankly, Tony, I think we have quite a large population here. I suppose you have to assume more noise with more people, but it's the amount you pick up when that happens that means something, and we have quite a good number of users and still maintain a great community. I love it.

lopan, I don't try to piss anyone off. I just present my opinion. And because it is in the minority, some people, like yourself, get mad. I don't see why you should though. I don't personally attack anyone, or target anyone to piss off. You just get angry because you don't agree with my view. If you can't handle a different viewpoint then I'd say the problem is with you, not me.

Plus, I can tend to just outright say some things, instead of using an appropiate euthanism like some people would.

And I don't give a damn about a rating. They're just good fun with statistics. If anyone is seriously concerned with their rating, I would recommend that they get a hobby.

In reply to:

---

lopan, I don't try to piss anyone off.

---

I think a lot of us might disagree with that.... but keep telling yourself that

In reply to:

---

I just present my opinion. And because it is in the minority, some people, like yourself, get mad.

---

Never said I got mad at you personally, by that you imply that I actually give a crap about your opinions... make no mistake, I don't... What agitates me, is your inability to speak with consideration of the other members of the bbs, but that quality is along the same lines as your opinions, mostly childish and rude so like most of the other people here I've learned to ignore it.

In reply to:

---

If you can't handle a different viewpoint then I'd say the problem is with you, not me.

---

I can handle all kinds of viewpoints just not ones that tend to be backwards...

In reply to:

---

And I don't give a damn about a rating

---

Cookies for you! I don't really either... I mean it's fun and all, but I was really commenting on the fact that you've achieved this level by offending just about everyone here!

Ok, then. I challenge you to point out one instance where I have been inconsiderate and disrespectful to anyone. The only instance I can recall is once a while back with acurasquirrel, but it was in retaliation and he was asking for it.

Challenge me? Why the hell would I waste my time messing around with you? This post is pretty much gonna wrap it up for me. I'm not dredging through months of frickin posts just to give you something to argue about... anyone can look at just about any one of your posts and see where someone has called you an idiot or a prick, or just generally rubbed someone the wrong way.

Now now fellas. If you guys really wanna duke it out, private messages will provide a nice place. Frankly, I haven't had many problems with the guy, except for that web page thing, so I'm not too hostile about it. Then again, I don't read the other forums much anymore.

Needless to say I think this thread has definitely run its course...

I hope you meant "euphemism" -

ha. Yeah that's what I meant. Thanks

Ok, Lopan. All I have to say is if you're gonna make accusations you should be prepared to back them up.

shocked that the US Pledge of Allegiance has been declared unconstitutional

The UK has an established religion: Christianity. That wouldn't be my choice, but in practice it is never, ever actually a problem. It always amuses me that the US are so proud of their separation of Church and State, and yet US politics is riddled with religion in a way which UK politics simply is not. If you bluntly ask Tony Blair or the Queen whether they believe in God, both will say yes; but neither will go out of their way to mention religion in speeches aimed at the general population.

Responding to specific points: the reference in the US constitution to "an establishment of religion" probably meant a specific technical meaning of "establishment", that of a state-sponsored church -- in the sense that the Anglican church is the "established religion" in the UK. And I read somewhere that "Congress shall make no law..." was a formula meaning "We'll leave it to the individual states to decide", not "There shall be no such law anywhere".

Religious schools: it's never been quite clear to me what "humanist" means, but I'm all for it if it means that that which de-humanises is evil. That certainly includes religious schools. I wouldn't mind them if they offered a more broad-based education: Christianity one year, Hinduism the next, Islam, Judaism, and so on. That way such schools might function as an inoculation, and prevent children contracting full-blown religion if they were exposed to contagion later in life. But I suspect none actually function like that, instead just acting as recruitment and indoctrination camps. Supporters of political parties or football teams don't get to send their kids to indoctrination camps in order that they grow up with their parents' arbitrary biases and blinkerednesses, and I don't see why supporters of religions should either.

Peter

In reference to whether or not the Constitution is prohibiting intermingling of government and religion, or only Federal government and religion is somewhat unclear. As per usual, our best bet for determining it, at least in my mind, is to look at Thomas Jefferson's opinions. Unfortunately, he seems to waffle a little on this point. First, he would claim, in a letter to Samuel Miller (Jan 23, 1808) that:

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling in religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority.

So it would seem that you would be right. But, at the same time, he was the principle author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which states:

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness

So it would seem that while he believed that the Constiution delegated such authority to the states, that the states shouldn't have that power either, especially considering the fairly vehement language he uses in the statute.

So, to sum up -- maybe you're right and maybe you're wrong. Who knows?

"Supporters of political parties or football teams don't get to send their kids to indoctrination camps in order that they grow up with their parents' arbitrary biases and blinkerednesses, and I don't see why supporters of religions should either. "

Actually I don't see why they couldn't do exactly that. If someone wanted to found a school deticated to following a sports team, am I wrong in thinking this would be perfectly legal in the U.S.? I think probably most parents aren't so dedicated that they'd want to do this, and even if they were they would have to find enought others with their dedication that they would want to fill up such a school.

There are many religious schools in the U.S. and I think they make perfect sense. Aside from math and grammer, religious beliefs color every aspect of a childs education and it is not incoceviable to think that having a child learn the same beliefs as his/ her parents beliefs is consistent with our freedom to practise our own beliefs.

Aside from math and grammer, religious beliefs color every aspect of a childs education...

That's if you are a religious person. I think you're assuming that all children will automatically follow their parents' beliefs and be as much or more involved in that religion as they are, which is an incorrect assumption. That depends on the religious fervor of the parent.

Actually I meant that religious beliefs as well as non-beliefs will color aspects of a childs education. The current public education system necessarily follow current popular (though not necessarily correct) beliefs/non-beliefs. You are correct that a child has the choice what to believe, but if the childs education is to be influenced by either popular opinion or the parent's, I think the better choice is the parent.

So it would seem that while he believed that the Constiution delegated such authority to the states, that the states shouldn't have that power either, especially considering the fairly vehement language he uses in the statute.

Perhaps this could be squared by the theory that he personally would vote in Virginia against any state-established church, but that as a writer of the constitution, he allowed for the possibility that if there were a state full of voters who thought otherwise, he wouldn't deny them the chance. It looks as if the framers of the constitution were pretty careful about keeping their personal opinions out of federal matters, but felt it was only right to express them at a state level.

Peter

I think you're assuming that all children will automatically follow their parents' beliefs and be as much or more involved in that religion as they are, which is an incorrect assumption. That depends on the religious fervor of the parent.

And sometimes, it depends inversely: the more fervent the parent, the more the child spots that it's a bad idea. Not always, though.

Perhaps it's worth it for atheist parents to pretend to be very religious when their children are young, so that when the children automatically rebel against them, they'll end up doing the right thing...

Peter

Haha, good idea.

I don't know. Perhaps it's merely because my parents werent' very religious themselves that I am not very much at all. They go to services sometimes, but I don't. I haven't decided for myself yet.

So then I suppose I could pretend to be an athiest then?