Yet Darrell Luzzo, senior vice president of Junior Achievement, defends the industry's antipiracy program by saying it's not meant to cover all aspects of copyright law. Rather, the idea is to encourage student debate. ''We are learning ways to enhance classroom discussions."
I don't know, back in the dim and distant past when I were a lad, it was considered harmful to use brainwashing and coercion in education. I guess that's the price you pay for progress though. I hear they're moving onto aversion ther
I don't know, back in the dim and distant past when I were a lad, it was considered harmful to use brainwashing and coercion in education.
I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
No it's not. The 9th Circuit ruled the "under God" bit unconstitutional, but even that's been stayed until the Supreme Court makes its decision. The only thing unconstitutional is forcing people to say it.
Score:-1, Conservative
Please don't tarnish conservatives by associating with us.
No, my my Ann Coulter fantasy involves her pulling a cart up and down 14th Street in DC while naked and with a horse-tail butt-plug stuffed up her ass as I whip her with a cat-o-nine-tails.
It's unconstitutional to force people to say it, that is definitly true and not even under discussion. This thing is alot of people think it's unconstitutional to have the government endorsing and religion reguardless of whether it's on a volentary basis or not.
No it's not. The 9th Circuit ruled the "under God" bit unconstitutional, but even that's been stayed until the Supreme Court makes its decision. The only thing unconstitutional is forcing people to say it.
I think there's more to it than that. I believe that Congress violated the constitution when they passed the law that made "under God" official. So, while individuals are certainly free to say it, the law that establishes it as an official oath remains unconstitutional even if no one is forced to say it.
The first amendment states in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free practice thereof,". I think it's pretty clear that "respecting an establishment of religion" was exactly what Congress intended. This becomes especially clear when you put it in its historical context. This was the time of the "red scare". Communism was the demon of the day. The characteristic that (predominantly Christian) Americans most despised about communism was its official adoption of Atheism. In reaction to that, and to gain political favor at home, Congress made several moves to officially distance the US from the "godlessness" of communism. Freedom of religion is something the US already had (at least officially), so there was nothing to be gained by pushing neutrality or freedom. What the politicians needed in order to win votes was to take a decidedly pro-religious stance, and to favor mainstream religion as much as they could get away with, constitution be damned. "In God We Trust" on the money was another facet of this same effort.
Some will argue that these are OK because they don't specify which god. But seriously, who really believes that Congress intended anything other than the Judeo-Christian God? And how many gods are actually named "God"? (Note the capitalization in the Pledge of Allegiance) To put it in perspective, "one nation under gods" doesn't specify which gods, and "one nation under goddess" doesn't specify which goddess. So by the same argument those should also be considered neutral and clear of any First Amendment complications. Right? Somehow I suspect that the people who are defending the "God" addenda are the ones who would howl the loudest if either of those phrases were in the Pledge. And they should howl about it because those are clearly biased against monotheistic and patriarchal religions, and also against atheism, agnosticism, and just simple non-religiousness. It's just that if they could see past their own religious bias they would be howling about it now because of the clear bias against polytheistic religions, matriarchal religions, atheism, etc. That "In God We Trust" and "under God" deprecate the views of those who do not believe in any gods is particularly hard to counter since it's pretty obvious from the historical context that this is exactly what they were intended to do.
So, regardless of any court's ruling, it is as clear as the nose on your face that the presence of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance as well as "In God We Trust" on the currency is now and has always been unconstitutional.
I believe the only reason these continue to be is that they are political land mines that can blow up in the face of any politician who dares to try to set it right, or even just to speak the truth about it.
This is why there can be no honest politicians. As long as the majority of the populace is unable to be honest even with themselves and put truth above popularity, no honest man can ever be elected.
Onwards and upwards... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know, back in the dim and distant past when I were a lad, it was considered harmful to use brainwashing and coercion in education. I guess that's the price you pay for progress though. I hear they're moving onto aversion ther
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:5, Insightful)
I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:0, Troll)
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:5, Informative)
No it's not. The 9th Circuit ruled the "under God" bit unconstitutional, but even that's been stayed until the Supreme Court makes its decision. The only thing unconstitutional is forcing people to say it.
Score:-1, Conservative
Please don't tarnish conservatives by associating with us.
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:1)
I'm wondering, do you have the urge to kick ann coulter in the face?
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:5, Funny)
But I'm just weird like that.
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:1)
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:1)
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:2)
FANTASY.
EVER.
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:2)
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:4, Insightful)
The first amendment states in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free practice thereof,". I think it's pretty clear that "respecting an establishment of religion" was exactly what Congress intended. This becomes especially clear when you put it in its historical context. This was the time of the "red scare". Communism was the demon of the day. The characteristic that (predominantly Christian) Americans most despised about communism was its official adoption of Atheism. In reaction to that, and to gain political favor at home, Congress made several moves to officially distance the US from the "godlessness" of communism. Freedom of religion is something the US already had (at least officially), so there was nothing to be gained by pushing neutrality or freedom. What the politicians needed in order to win votes was to take a decidedly pro-religious stance, and to favor mainstream religion as much as they could get away with, constitution be damned. "In God We Trust" on the money was another facet of this same effort.
Some will argue that these are OK because they don't specify which god. But seriously, who really believes that Congress intended anything other than the Judeo-Christian God? And how many gods are actually named "God"? (Note the capitalization in the Pledge of Allegiance) To put it in perspective, "one nation under gods" doesn't specify which gods, and "one nation under goddess" doesn't specify which goddess. So by the same argument those should also be considered neutral and clear of any First Amendment complications. Right? Somehow I suspect that the people who are defending the "God" addenda are the ones who would howl the loudest if either of those phrases were in the Pledge. And they should howl about it because those are clearly biased against monotheistic and patriarchal religions, and also against atheism, agnosticism, and just simple non-religiousness. It's just that if they could see past their own religious bias they would be howling about it now because of the clear bias against polytheistic religions, matriarchal religions, atheism, etc. That "In God We Trust" and "under God" deprecate the views of those who do not believe in any gods is particularly hard to counter since it's pretty obvious from the historical context that this is exactly what they were intended to do.
So, regardless of any court's ruling, it is as clear as the nose on your face that the presence of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance as well as "In God We Trust" on the currency is now and has always been unconstitutional.
I believe the only reason these continue to be is that they are political land mines that can blow up in the face of any politician who dares to try to set it right, or even just to speak the truth about it.
This is why there can be no honest politicians. As long as the majority of the populace is unable to be honest even with themselves and put truth above popularity, no honest man can ever be elected.