| Are you DISGUSTED with this decision? |
| OH YEAH. This is HORRIFYING. |
|
50% |
[ 5 ] |
| Yes. |
|
10% |
[ 1 ] |
| Somewhat. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| No. It's a GOOD decision. |
|
40% |
[ 4 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 10 |
|
| Author |
Message |
zero
Rear Admiral
Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 4566
Location: Texas
|
 Wed May 04, 2005 3:47 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | zero wrote: | I know it is not legal to punish students for not saying it. But some schools still do it. Mine did.
Detention
Lunch detention
no recess
stuff like that. |
Challenge them on it. 
If you go to a certain university in California, you could even get a scholarship!  |
well being that I am outta school already, it wouldn't do any good. And this was in junior high and elementry
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed May 04, 2005 5:16 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | zero wrote: | I know it is not legal to punish students for not saying it. But some schools still do it. Mine did.
Detention
Lunch detention
no recess
stuff like that. |
Challenge them on it.
If you go to a certain university in California, you could even get a scholarship! |
lol. I got that, and it was good 
| webtaz99 wrote: | | I have a gut negative reaction to things like this. But when I really think about it, what's wrong with having our public institutions (schools, hospitals, courthouses, etc.) and our government secular? It's actually is a way of not discriminating based on religion or creed. |
It knocks out our history, first of all. We were founded upon religious principles, and we must keep that in light.
Second, morals would go down the drain without religion there.
And third, government peoples wouldn't be able to practice their religion, thereby interrupting their right to free exercize of religion.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Wed May 04, 2005 7:01 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: |
| webtaz99 wrote: | | I have a gut negative reaction to things like this. But when I really think about it, what's wrong with having our public institutions (schools, hospitals, courthouses, etc.) and our government secular? It's actually is a way of not discriminating based on religion or creed. |
It knocks out our history, first of all. We were founded upon religious principles, and we must keep that in light.
Second, morals would go down the drain without religion there.
And third, government peoples wouldn't be able to practice their religion, thereby interrupting their right to free exercize of religion. |
I never meant that government workers would not be allowed to practice their religion - that's a constitutional guarantee. And I am not talking about revising existing historical documents. I was talking about the removal of non-secular items and verbiage from government-funded (in whole or in part) places and documents, with the exception of direct quotes from individuals. If someone chooses to place a religious object in their place of work, or follow the tenets of their religion while at work, that is different.
With that in mind:
How do secular government places and documents "knock out our history"?
How would the removal of the word "God" from our currency lower our already-atrocious moral standards?
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed May 04, 2005 7:24 pm |
|
| webtaz99 wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: |
| webtaz99 wrote: | | I have a gut negative reaction to things like this. But when I really think about it, what's wrong with having our public institutions (schools, hospitals, courthouses, etc.) and our government secular? It's actually is a way of not discriminating based on religion or creed. |
It knocks out our history, first of all. We were founded upon religious principles, and we must keep that in light.
Second, morals would go down the drain without religion there.
And third, government peoples wouldn't be able to practice their religion, thereby interrupting their right to free exercize of religion. |
I never meant that government workers would not be allowed to practice their religion - that's a constitutional guarantee. And I am not talking about revising existing historical documents. I was talking about the removal of non-secular items and verbiage from government-funded (in whole or in part) places and documents, with the exception of direct quotes from individuals. If someone chooses to place a religious object in their place of work, or follow the tenets of their religion while at work, that is different.
With that in mind:
How do secular government places and documents "knock out our history"?
How would the removal of the word "God" from our currency lower our already-atrocious moral standards? |
1. Because we are a nation founded upon JUDEO-CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY. Secularizing a government NOT founded on secularism is pushing aside our history. A good argument for my side is in the book "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America," by Mark Levin. Check it out
2. I don't mean simply removing the word "God," but secularizing the government. Getting religion out of it. That was NOT the intention of the Founders.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Wed May 04, 2005 8:00 pm |
|
Perhaps not, but it can only be beneficial. The government is meant to represent the people and the Constitution. Outside interests, including religion, may get in the way of that. Not to say that religious people should be banned from office, but the government itself, and its decisions, shouldn't respect any particular religion. Nobody's denying history, just moving beyond it. What was good then isn't necessarily good now.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Wed May 04, 2005 8:23 pm |
|
Securalizing the government places and documents is not same thing as casting aside our moral philosophy, even though it is mostly Judeo-Christian. It is simply removing a percieved bias towards a given religious background. Morals exists even in the absence of what we think of as religion. The founders were deeply religious men (mostly), with little or no room in their world-view for non-Judeo-Christian beliefs or atheism. Yet they created a nearly-secular government. It is not throwing away or abandoning our history to make the final move to a truly secular government.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed May 04, 2005 9:43 pm |
|
| webtaz99 wrote: | | Securalizing the government places and documents is not same thing as casting aside our moral philosophy, even though it is mostly Judeo-Christian. It is simply removing a percieved bias towards a given religious background. Morals exists even in the absence of what we think of as religion. The founders were deeply religious men (mostly), with little or no room in their world-view for non-Judeo-Christian beliefs or atheism. Yet they created a nearly-secular government. It is not throwing away or abandoning our history to make the final move to a truly secular government. |
Our history IS of Judeo-Christian beliefs! If we get rid of that, we get rid of our HISTORY. While I do agree that the Constitution says that one religion should not be respected--as in, made the official religion--over another, but we STILL need to keep our history and traditions out there--including keeping Christmas a national holiday.
However, I do believe that if we strip religion from government, not just out of documents, but etc, then we will no longer have high moral ground.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 7:07 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | webtaz99 wrote: | | Securalizing the government places and documents is not same thing as casting aside our moral philosophy, even though it is mostly Judeo-Christian. It is simply removing a percieved bias towards a given religious background. Morals exists even in the absence of what we think of as religion. The founders were deeply religious men (mostly), with little or no room in their world-view for non-Judeo-Christian beliefs or atheism. Yet they created a nearly-secular government. It is not throwing away or abandoning our history to make the final move to a truly secular government. |
Our history IS of Judeo-Christian beliefs! If we get rid of that, we get rid of our HISTORY. While I do agree that the Constitution says that one religion should not be respected--as in, made the official religion--over another, but we STILL need to keep our history and traditions out there--including keeping Christmas a national holiday.
However, I do believe that if we strip religion from government, not just out of documents, but etc, then we will no longer have high moral ground. |
I never suggested we give up our beliefs, just our government-based verbiage and symbolism biased towards a given religious background. I never suggested anyone change their behavior, especially outside government buildings or jobs. I never suggested changing holidays. (BTW, what law makes Christmas a "national holiday"? Isn't that a tradition? I never suggested changing our traditions.)
And doesn't our "moral stand" derive from our beliefs, not the symbols and verbiage thereof?
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 6:37 pm |
|
| webtaz99 wrote: | I never suggested we give up our beliefs, just our government-based verbiage and symbolism biased towards a given religious background. I never suggested anyone change their behavior, especially outside government buildings or jobs. I never suggested changing holidays. (BTW, what law makes Christmas a "national holiday"? Isn't that a tradition? I never suggested changing our traditions.)
And doesn't our "moral stand" derive from our beliefs, not the symbols and verbiage thereof? |
Illiminating references to God is what you are saying, and THAT is getting rid of our nation's history. Do a little history lesson on it, will ya?
And in 1870 Fmr. President Ulysses S. Grant signed Christmas INTO LAW.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 6:40 pm |
|
| webtaz99 wrote: | | ^ How so? |
How does it discriminate against those woh have a Religion? Because its taking out God from the Pledge. Those who believe don't want that.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 6:45 pm |
|
The way I see it, this situation is similar to something that is kind of in media res but no one really talks about it: the change of usage from the suffixes "BC" and "AD" to "BCE" (Before Common Era) and "CE" (Common Era), respectively. I find that the whole change is kind of stupid, because regardless of what names you use, the calendar is still based on the birth of Christ.
I mildly amuse myself by postulating if I could sue the schools for religious persecution because they use the Gregorian calendar. I know that to do such a thing would be totally facetious and I probably wouldn't win (although with some judges, you never really know . . .) but it's entertaining to think about it nonetheless.
|
|
|
AndrewBullock
The Misguided One
Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 2112
Location: Kentucky. (North America)
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 10:12 pm |
|
I don't agree with them trying to change it to something like 'that.'
"Under our belief system?" How dull is that? What kind of idiots do we have running this country? (The finest in the world, I guess.)
It's just so... unatural to add something like that. It's like were talking in robot code or something 
If that ever gets passed and they decide to change it I won't say it. The one we have now is better then that. It's tradition that all Americans fallow... why break it now?
I heard they were trying to change the national anthem... again. They've been trying to change it for years. "America The Beutiful," I think is what they are trying to do.. Could be wrong though.. usualy am. They say it describes America better. Yet again... why break tradition?
Anyway, just what I heard. Don't take me 100% for certain because i'm not even sure if i'm right about that.
Regards,
~Andrew
-------signature-------
"Our integrity sells for so little, but it is all we really have. It is the very last inch of us. But within that inch we are free"
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Fri May 06, 2005 7:39 am |
|
Every national anthem looks fuzzy compared to the French one. In any case, if monotheists are going to be offended if the phrase "under God" is taken out, and everyone else offended if it stays in, minus the groups on both sides who don't care, it's hard to say what should be done. I'm inclined to take it out. Theists can practice their religion at home and in their institutions. There's no need to have the line "under God" said in the pledge, especially not in public buildings where everyone has to hear it.
Republican Man argues that taking the phrase out would deny history. In fact, history was denied the moment congress added the words to the pledge in the fervor of the Red Scare.
|
|
|
zero
Rear Admiral
Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 4566
Location: Texas
|
| Fri May 06, 2005 1:10 pm |
|
^ ooooooh Nice, Zeke!! I couldn't have said it better myself.
|
|
|
madlilnerd
Duchess of Dancemat
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 5885
Location: Slough, England
|
| Fri May 06, 2005 1:29 pm |
|
Do people get offended because the US currency has "In God We Trust" written on it?
|
|
|
zero
Rear Admiral
Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 4566
Location: Texas
|
| Fri May 06, 2005 2:44 pm |
|
^ I'm sure some people do get offended. Not everyone believes in god.
|
|
|
madlilnerd
Duchess of Dancemat
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 5885
Location: Slough, England
|
| Fri May 06, 2005 4:41 pm |
|
Yeah, that was my point. Some people don't belive in God at all, so handling little green pieces of paper with "In God we Trust On" could be weird for them. In England we have stuff in Latin written on our currency, but we do have God in our nation anthem, God Save The Queen/King
|
|
|
zero
Rear Admiral
Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 4566
Location: Texas
|
| Fri May 06, 2005 4:50 pm |
|
it would be like christians seeing In Allah We Trust.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri May 06, 2005 5:27 pm |
|
| AndrewBullock wrote: | I don't agree with them trying to change it to something like 'that.'
"Under our belief system?" How dull is that? What kind of idiots do we have running this country? (The finest in the world, I guess.)
It's just so... unatural to add something like that. It's like were talking in robot code or something
If that ever gets passed and they decide to change it I won't say it. The one we have now is better then that. It's tradition that all Americans fallow... why break it now?
I heard they were trying to change the national anthem... again. They've been trying to change it for years. "America The Beutiful," I think is what they are trying to do.. Could be wrong though.. usualy am. They say it describes America better. Yet again... why break tradition?
Anyway, just what I heard. Don't take me 100% for certain because i'm not even sure if i'm right about that.
Regards,
~Andrew |
My apologies. I thought you could have seen that it's not a law
What happened is last week, I believe it was, a Middle School in Jefco Public Schools here in Colorado was saying the pledge, like they do daily. However, the Counselor who was saying the pledge that day changed the words, leaving students stunned and preventing them from continuing. Since then, there have been apologies made by several people involved, including the counselor, but I believe it's the rules there, now, and it's changed for that school.
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | Every national anthem looks fuzzy compared to the French one. In any case, if monotheists are going to be offended if the phrase "under God" is taken out, and everyone else offended if it stays in, minus the groups on both sides who don't care, it's hard to say what should be done. I'm inclined to take it out. Theists can practice their religion at home and in their institutions. There's no need to have the line "under God" said in the pledge, especially not in public buildings where everyone has to hear it.
Republican Man argues that taking the phrase out would deny history. In fact, history was denied the moment congress added the words to the pledge in the fervor of the Red Scare. |
Red Scare? It was NOT because we were "SCARED." It was because we wanted to show how RELIGIOUS we were in comparison to them!
And besides, adding "Under God" to the Pledge displayed our history even more, and getting rid of it would only deminish it.
| zero wrote: | | it would be like christians seeing In Allah We Trust. |
Which would be fine...if this was a Muslim nation. It's still a "Christian" nation. God encompasses Muslims, however
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
zero
Rear Admiral
Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 4566
Location: Texas
|
| Fri May 06, 2005 5:38 pm |
|
^Not for people who do not believe in any god. That was my point.
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Fri May 06, 2005 6:15 pm |
|
Well RM, you're obviously too narrow-minded to be reasoned with on this subject. I'm dropping out here, as we're just talking in circles now.
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Fri May 06, 2005 6:16 pm |
|
When should PC stop then?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri May 06, 2005 6:26 pm |
|
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | Well RM, you're obviously too narrow-minded to be reasoned with on this subject. I'm dropping out here, as we're just talking in circles now. |
I'm narrow-minded? Perhaps you should rethink that.
| Jeremy wrote: | | When should PC stop then? |
What's PC?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Fri May 06, 2005 8:20 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | I'm narrow-minded? Perhaps you should rethink that. |
No, I'm pretty sure that's exactly the way to describe your adherance to flawed logic.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri May 06, 2005 8:43 pm |
|
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | I'm narrow-minded? Perhaps you should rethink that. |
No, I'm pretty sure that's exactly the way to describe your adherance to flawed logic. |
Well, to YOU it's flawed. To YOU. I think my logic is quite solid. You just disagree with me, so you think that my logic is flawed. But let's not get to attacking each other, okay? Let's debate, but don't risked getting banned.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
