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, you can pledge all you like. But government agents (i.e. teachers) can't lead children in a statement that asserts the existence of God. There are gray areas of the establishment clause, but this one isn't even close.
The "Treaty of Peace and Friendship" with Tripoli, written duing the Washington administration, states that "the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
To Christians, it's illogical to say that the pledge is unconstitutional for saying a fact (that God exists).
To an atheist, it's clearly unconstitutional to have the state push people to make a clearly untrue statement (that God exists).
Fortunately, we have a constitution that makes it clear that it is not the state's job to judge the truth or falsity of the proposition "God exists". Unfortunately we have a surplus of Christian nutcases who are incapable of accepting the plain text of the First Amendment.
To Christians, it's illogical to say that the pledge is unconstitutional for saying a fact (that God exists).
That God exists isn't a fact to anyone - not even Christians. It is a belief to them. That's the whole point of any religion. If it were a fact and not a belief then it would be a science and not a religion, and you woulndn't need faith to believe it.
No, you have the Republicans to thank, since they are the ones who allowed the "under God" reference to be added in 1954. Congress passed it [vineyard.net], but
Eisenhower [whitehouse.gov] should have vetoed it. Since try, thank you for trolling.
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.
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, you can pledge all you like. But government agents (i.e. teachers) can't lead children in a statement that asserts the existence of God. There are gray areas of the establishment clause, but this one isn't even close.
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:4, Informative)
Commie. [religioustolerance.org]
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:5, Informative)
Many of the "Founding Fathers" - Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Franklin, and Madison, to name a few - were Deists, Unitarians, or in some other way explictly disagreed with Christian dogma. [ffrf.org]
The "Treaty of Peace and Friendship" with Tripoli, written duing the Washington administration, states that "the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
To an atheist, it's clearly unconstitutional to have the state push people to make a clearly untrue statement (that God exists).
Fortunately, we have a constitution that makes it clear that it is not the state's job to judge the truth or falsity of the proposition "God exists". Unfortunately we have a surplus of Christian nutcases who are incapable of accepting the plain text of the First Amendment.
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:5, Insightful)
That God exists isn't a fact to anyone - not even Christians. It is a belief to them. That's the whole point of any religion. If it were a fact and not a belief then it would be a science and not a religion, and you woulndn't need faith to believe it.
Re:Onwards and upwards... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you have the Republicans to thank, since they are the ones who allowed the "under God" reference to be added in 1954. Congress passed it [vineyard.net], but Eisenhower [whitehouse.gov] should have vetoed it. Since try, thank you for trolling.
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:5, Funny)
But I'm just weird like that.
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.