namelesstavern.net

Resources? A pen and a sheet of paper? Just write down "Thou shalt not put the name of thy LORD GOD into thine pledges of patriotism. Any man disobeying thy LORD BUSH'S will is subject to a plague of a thousand fists."

Zanchief wrote:Isn't apathy convenient all of a sudden.

I wouldn't expect you to understand without using an unnecessary "u" and several metric analogies.

I'll back up the fact that using the courts to change something that bothers 0.0001% of the population is ridiculous. Why is society so hellbent on changing laws to cater to the minority? The whole concept of our government is to focus on the majority. I don't recall seeing this up for a vote, because no one would care.

How about this. If you don't want your children saying UNDER GOD when they say the pledge of allegiance, tell them to omit that part. They can't be FORCED to say it.

I can't wait until I am done with Law School, and I am a judge. PEople will not like me.

I have a new goal. Im gonna become principle of a kansas school, and personally recite the pledge every morning over the intercom. Only Im gonna say 'Under Allah.' No one should have a problem with that.

Right?

labbats wrote:

Zanchief wrote:Isn't apathy convenient all of a sudden.

I wouldn't expect you to understand without using an unnecessary "u" and several metric analogies.

I'll back up the fact that using the courts to change something that bothers 0.0001% of the population is ridiculous. Why is society so hellbent on changing laws to cater to the minority? The whole concept of our government is to focus on the majority. I don't recall seeing this up for a vote, because no one would care.

Actually that is the opposite of the focus of our government. Our government is set up to protect the minority. We are a constitutional republic, not a majority says mob rule pure democracy. That = freedom for all. yay.

Try being a principal instead...it'll probably work out better.

Or do both! Then you can be a principal with principle!

mofish wrote:

labbats wrote:

Zanchief wrote:Isn't apathy convenient all of a sudden.

I wouldn't expect you to understand without using an unnecessary "u" and several metric analogies.

I'll back up the fact that using the courts to change something that bothers 0.0001% of the population is ridiculous. Why is society so hellbent on changing laws to cater to the minority? The whole concept of our government is to focus on the majority. I don't recall seeing this up for a vote, because no one would care.

Actually that is the opposite of the focus of our government. Our government is set up to protect the minority. We are a constitutional republic, not a majority says mob rule pure democracy. That = freedom for all. yay.

Is that why the majority vote wins?

Martrae wrote:Try being a principal instead...it'll probably work out better.

Or do both! Then you can be a principal with principle!

AND Martrae dodges another rightwing issue that she knows is wrong so she can still pretend she's moderate while NEVER speaking out against anything remotely conservative.

...or maybe it was an innocent(?) dig at someone's spelling.

Kaeerwen wrote:...or maybe it was an innocent(?) dig at someone's spelling.

My point exactly.

Or maybe I really don't care about the issue and am in a funky mood today?

I tend to agree with Zanchief.

Martrae wrote:Or maybe I really don't care about the issue and am in a funky mood today?

If you were Queen Bee for a day would you change it, or leave it as is?

I'd probably leave it because it's not on my radar of things to care about.

Of course, FDR did put it in and we're still reaping the 'benefits' of shit he started so it might be worthwhile to remove it.

Why do you even bother Martrae? You're so easy to figure out yet you try to act like you're something you're not.

FDR didn't put it in, he died in 1944. EISENHOWER put it in, in 1954. OK, Congress in 1954 did, but Eisenhower backed it and signed it into law. Not to mention, you know damn well what someone means when they refer to the "Almighty" as a noun, instead of as an adjective. Stop being deliberately obtuse.

It harms NO ONE to remove that statement from the pledge, whatsoever. It does cause problems having it in there. It should be removed for that reason alone, if for no other. The people fighting this aren't trying to remove the pledge, they're trying to remove 2 words from it, that aren't even in the original version.

-Arlos

mofish wrote:I have a new goal. Im gonna become principle of a kansas school, and personally recite the pledge every morning over the intercom. Only Im gonna say 'Under Allah.' No one should have a problem with that.

Right?

The problem with that is that 'Allah' identifies the god of a specific religion. It would be no different than replacing the generic 'god' with "the Trinity", "Jesus Christ", or "Buddha".

As far as I'm concerned, they can dump the entire pledge. It's a rote exercise, not an honest expression of devotion.

Seconded. How many elementary school kids actually know what the hell they're talking about, and have the capacity to recite it on their own volition?

Arlos wrote:It harms NO ONE to remove that statement from the pledge, whatsoever. It does cause problems having it in there. It should be removed for that reason alone, if for no other. The people fighting this aren't trying to remove the pledge, they're trying to remove 2 words from it, that aren't even in the original version.

It harms nobody leaving it in there. Newdow is politicking, solely.

While YMMV, the court seems to think it is not unconstitutional so to change it, one should head to the legislative branch.

I bet this gets thrown out, too.

My bad...wasn't FDR.

And I'm confused...what exactly am I 'trying'?

FYI I didn't say the pledge in school and I'd get in trouble for it in elementary school because I didn't believe in God.

labbats wrote:

mofish wrote:

labbats wrote:

Zanchief wrote:Isn't apathy convenient all of a sudden.

I wouldn't expect you to understand without using an unnecessary "u" and several metric analogies.

I'll back up the fact that using the courts to change something that bothers 0.0001% of the population is ridiculous. Why is society so hellbent on changing laws to cater to the minority? The whole concept of our government is to focus on the majority. I don't recall seeing this up for a vote, because no one would care.

Actually that is the opposite of the focus of our government. Our government is set up to protect the minority. We are a constitutional republic, not a majority says mob rule pure democracy. That = freedom for all. yay.

Is that why the majority vote wins?

Majority rule unless that majority vote violates the civil rights of anyone, minority or majority. Basics of it are that your rights stop at someone elses nose.

That being said while I have no problem with someone not saying the phrase "under god" in the pledge, nor do I think they should be forced to, I also don't think anyone should be prevented from doing so.

Tacks wrote:FYI I didn't say the pledge in school and I'd get in trouble for it in elementary school because I didn't believe in God.

Are you sure you got in trouble for not believing in god, or was it for telling your teacher "shut the fuck up, you stupid mother fucker" when told it was time to say the pledge?

I rarely, if ever, misbehaved in school but thanks anyways asshat.

That was meant as a joke Taxx, sorry if I offended.