NationStates Jolt Archive

Okey, dokey.

Do you believe that a law must "advance any particular monotheistic religion over any other" to violate the Establishment Clause?
As I said before I had to leave to go to class and before you edited the post by adding the below, nope.

FYI, From Wallace v. Jaffree (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/472/38.html), 472 U.S. 38 (1985):
Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. This conclusion derives support not only from the interest in respecting the individual's freedom of conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs worthy of respect are the product of free and voluntary choice by the faithful, and from recognition of the fact that the political interest in forestalling intolerance extends beyond intolerance among Christian sects - or even intolerance among "religions" - to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever and the uncertain.
Would you really argue against that sentiment?
Nope, though it appears you assume I have or would. I think you might still be reading too much into my original post that has led to this exchange.

See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/577.html), 505 US 577 (1992) ("The First Amendment's Religion Clauses mean that religious beliefs and religious expression are too precious to be either proscribed or prescribed by the State. The design of the Constitution is that preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere, which itself is promised freedom to pursue that mission. It must not be forgotten, then, that, while concern must be given to define the protection granted to an objector or a dissenting nonbeliever, these same Clauses exist to protect religion from government interference."); Torcaso v. Watkins (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=367&invol=488#495), 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961) ("We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person `to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs"); Everson v. Board of Education (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=330&page=15#15), 330 US 1, 18 (1947) (the First Amendment "requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers").

You might also read some of the conscientious objector cases. It is has been clearly held that "religion" does not require belief in a God or gods. That firmly held athiestic beliefs qualify as a religion.

I never said that firmly held aetheistic or poly-theistic beliefs did not qualify as a religion. Again, you are reading things into what I've said that are not there - take my words at face value, use a plain language analysis such as you would use in examing a statute that has been challenged as being void for vagueness or an insurance contract that has language claimed to be ambiguous. What is the plain meaning of the words I said? Again, I merely made the simple and single point, with no implied beliefs on my part being implicated, that the phrase "under god" in the pledge does not promote, endorse, etc. the god of fundamentalist christians only but that rather it can be taken to promote the god of any monotheistic religion. That is it, nothing less, nothing more, no hidden meanings, no implied or stated belief on my part that such is constitutionally permissible or impermissible. I was merely pointing out the falsity of the idea that "under god" in the pledge promotes fundamentalist christian beliefs alone. It doesn't, it promotes other religious ideaologies as well. That's it, nothing more or less, no comments on the constitutionality of pointing out any religious ideaology.

Ok, I got to about the 13 page of this, and got tired of hearing everyone say that the 10 commandments are in courthouses and the White House and such because they are in the Bible. That's a load of BS.

The 10 Commandments are revered like they are in the US because of their historical significance(yes, I know, that's debateable) from a legal standpoint. The 10 commandments are some of ancient man's sttempts to govern themselves. The Code of Hammurabi would probably be on the walls too, if it weren't so goddamned long. It's for this same reason we have a copy of the Magna Carta.

Besides, you find the Greek gods all OVER the Capital and in most major cities too(and I mean in architecture-not as marketing gimmicks). So am I to assume that since the 10 Commandments have this religious meaning, so do those gods? The Capital is actually advocating both poly- and monotheistic religions at once? No, it's all from a historical point of view.

I think it's ridiculous to use the 10 Commandments as both an example to support the destruction of Separation of Church and State, and to make it a victim while strengthening Separation of Church and State.

Cold comfort for the German Jews...

an excellent example of elite tyranny with a complacent or terrorized majority not willing to stand up for them, not one of tyranny by majority. even if we assume that everyone who voted nazi was in favor of the holocuast (not likely) and actively took part, they never got an outright majority of the vote.

You just got done with a post/speech about saving America, and then you agree with a post that says, essentially, "It's ALL about ME, MINE and MY WAY"

Whatever :rolleyes:

No wonder they are militant fighting for their rights against you, they have to be. You advocate a tyranny of your own, one that is out for judgment and vengeance against them and those with a different view of what America should be than you have. You would damn them all simply because they don't agree with your political viewpoints, and yet, you accuse them of trying to change it to their liking, just like you are.

Yep!

This describes Lyric to a T! She really doesn't like opposing opinions and no matter how logical or right it is, she ignores it for her own political purposes. She really does care about only herself.

Just one last thing before I turn in for the night:

I don't say the pledge. I think it's creepy. Pledging allegiance -- what the hell is that supposed to mean, precisely? I said earlier, my allegiance has to be earned. The US is a self-governing democracy, but there's no law, constitutional or cosmic, that guarantees it stays that way. I may give my allegiance to a self-governing, democratic republic, but I will not give it to an corporate oligarchy, or a theocracy, or a big-money-driven, elitist class-war. Now you sort out all the bullshit going on this country right now and predict what kind of government we'll have when we're all old. Only time will tell.

ADDITION: I won't give my allegiance to a self-governing democracy, either, if I think it is deliberately doing bad things, such as discriminating, limiting civil rights, fomenting conflicts, etc.

I don't care whether "under god" is in the pledge or not. I'd rather lose the pledge itself.

That's assuming you're neither a polytheist or an atheist. Any advancement of monotheism of any sort is offensive to say the least, particularly where ritual school activities are concerned.

You too need to work on your reading comprehension skills. I didn't say it wasn't "offensive" to polytheists or aetheists. I merely said it doesn't advance the "cause" of fundamentalist christians alone.

an excellent example of elite tyranny with a complacent or terrorized majority not willing to stand up for them, not one of tyranny by majority. even if we assume that everyone who voted nazi was in favor of the holocuast (not likely) and actively took part, they never got an outright majority of the vote.
Bush didn't get an outright majority, either. Oops, just opened that can of worms again. :p

A minority can easily oppress a smaller minority, if the larger minority have one of their own in power. The fact that the remaining majority wouldn't have done that themselves doesn't help, if they do nothing to stop it.

Silence is consent, as my civics teacher used to tell us.

EDIT: Now i'm going to bed. 'Bye.

It is not dirogatory to call a horse a horse. If you find my reference to fundie whackjobs to be insulting, then quit being a fundie whackjob! Fundie whackjobs are people who let Falwell, Robertson, Phelps, Wildmon, Dobson, and Sekulow do their thinking for them.

First of all, I'm not a "fundie whackjob." secondly, "fundie" is a derogatory term used to refer to fundamentalist christians just as spic is a derogatory term used to refer to hispanics. Just as it would be derogatory to call a black man a "******" it is derogatory to call a fundamentalist christian and "fundie." refering to either of them by these terms is not the same thing as calling "a horse a horse."

I'll tone it down when the world stops being so damned unfair...how's that?

I have a hell of a wake up call for you then Lyric. LIFE ISNT FAIR. There are people from all walks of life who deal with shit on the level of yours to even worse. Never have I met someone who I have agreed with yet because of how you argue I want to stomp on every damn ideal you argue for. GET OVER YOURSELF.

You wanna say "under God?" Bully for you! Say it. Don't force me to. Don't force anyone else to. The fundies are the ones trying to take away everyone else's rights here...including MY right to NOT say it. i'm not trying to take away anyone's rights. sorry, fundies, you do not have a right to force your moral view on anyone, or everyone...else.

Who is trying to force you to say "under god?" It is already established that in 1943 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that no one could be forced to say the pledge. Secondly, how do you know it is fundamentalist christians that are trying to "force their moral view" on anyone by the use of the term "under god" in the pledge. I could just as easily assume it was jews or deists that were trying to do so since the term "god" is a generic one.

How is it ok to allow Christianity to be endorsed by the pledge, yet any measure to make sure that NO religion is endorsed by the pledge is a tyranny of the minority. As far as I can see the minority is not recieving any sort of special treatment of it.

But it is nice to know you support tyranny.

How do you know that Christianity and not Judaism or Deism is being endorsed by the pledge?

No, it will be my responsibility to keep up the fight. And in the meantime, I still damn well maintain the right not to say it, and I will not.

I'll worship God in my own way, and I'll not be coerced or forced into it. The God I worship does not want forced or coerced worship or homage. He wants willing homage only. And, on that principle, I refuse to say the "under God" part, as I view this as forced or coerced homage. It is against my personal conscience to say it, and so I won't.

Well, since no one is forcing you to say it to begin with - you go girl! ride that high horse :)

I'll tone it down when the world stops being so damned unfair...how's that?

The world will never stop being "so damned unfair" - anyone who told you it could be made fair to all was yanking your chain.

and that is precisely why I am as militant as I am now...and why my arguments are so strident! Because I refuse to be cowed into silence. I refuse to lay down and die for the other side.

And your mom is right. I can't speak for everyone else, but I know that I, as never before, hold a black, bitter hatred in my heart for the other side of the ideological aisle. Because they are killing everything I once loved about this country. They are playing for keeps forever, and fuck me and anyone who thinks like me, they won't even give us so much as a symbolic inch! Well, I damn well ain't giving up without one hell of a fight!

Damned if I am going to lay back and let the forces of fascism destroy the country I love.
Aren't we supposed to love our enemies and "kill them with kindness" so to speak? You said you were a christian, but you hold "black, bitter hatred in your heart for those who disagree with you? Is that not an admission that you are in fact the very thing you claim to despise?

I agree...what HAS my country...and what HAS my government doen for me, lately?!? I pay my taxes, that is all this country has any right to demand from me. Now it is time for them to make good on the promises they made to me, and every other citizen of this country...and until they do, they get no respect, allegiance, or assistance from me.
OK, lets see, you have roads to drive on, police and fire protection, a decent military to protect you in the event of an attack, freedom to say damn near anything you want without fear of a gulag or a tank running over you, freedom to worship as you see fit, the highest standard of living available in the world, the opportunity to work hard and get rich, a welfare system that will provide you with at least a minimal subsistence if you fall on hard time or become disabled, the ability to vote for your leaders at all levels of the federal, state and local government, the freedom to travel damn near any where you want to go at damn near any time you want to go, do I really have to go on with the things that your country has already provided to you?

OK, lets see, you have roads to drive on, police and fire protection, a decent military to protect you in the event of an attack, freedom to say damn near anything you want without fear of a gulag or a tank running over you, freedom to worship as you see fit, the highest standard of living available in the world, the opportunity to work hard and get rich, a welfare system that will provide you with at least a minimal subsistence if you fall on hard time or become disabled, the ability to vote for your leaders at all levels of the federal, state and local government, the freedom to travel damn near any where you want to go at damn near any time you want to go, do I really have to go on with the things that your country has already provided to you?

Nope, just other rabid Americans with different views. Fortunately, you can only blame society for that, not the government.

How do you know that Christianity and not Judaism or Deism is being endorsed by the pledge?

Ok, change the word "Christianity" to monotheism, and quit skirting my question.

Aren't we supposed to love our enemies and "kill them with kindness" so to speak? You said you were a christian, but you hold "black, bitter hatred in your heart for those who disagree with you? Is that not an admission that you are in fact the very thing you claim to despise?

You are indeed correct Mauiwowee. She is the very thing she is claiming to despise.

Frankly, she is getting to the point where I'm just going to ignore whatever she says since most of what she says isn't based on logic nor facts.

Ok, change the word "Christianity" to monotheism, and quit skirting my question.
I don't believe I've skirted your question, rather I responded to an assertion you made. If you've asked me a question directly, please ask again so I can reply since I missed it and really don't feel like going back through 13+ pages to find it again.

I have yet to hear whether or not there is any substantial legal or moral difference between the pledge saying "one nation under god" and "one nation, there is no god"

Would it be any more or less constitutional to replace the former with the latter?

Neither make "specific" reference to a certain religion, but does the government have any business, under the 1st amendment, subjecting children to "there is no god" every morning?

I have yet to hear whether or not there is any substantial legal or moral difference between the pledge saying "one nation under god" and "one nation, there is no god"

Would it be any more or less constitutional to replace the former with the latter?

Neither make "specific" reference to a certain religion, but does the government have any business, under the 1st amendment, subjecting children to "there is no god" every morning?
I may be going out on a limb here, but I'd be willing to bet that those who object to the phrase "one nation under god" in the pledge would also object to the phrase "one nation, there is no god" as well - at least if they were intellectually honest they would.

I may be going out on a limb here, but I'd be willing to bet that those who object to the phrase "one nation under god" in the pledge would also object to the phrase "one nation, there is no god" as well - at least if they were intellectually honest they would.

Precisely, but the question remains, would people who support it with the cold war addition also support it with "there is no god."

Yeah...just you TRY "standing out" that much from your classmates at that age. See what kind of harassment you get!

Are we basing constitutionality on child taunting.. if this were the case there would be good cause to force all public schools to institute uniforms (overturning the idea of freedom of speech) as there is discrimination due to class. Poor kids can't afford trendy clothes or good school supplies. So all children should be made equal!

Are these the grounds by which constitutionality are really going to be decided ?

Are we basing constitutionality on child taunting.. if this were the case there would be good cause to force all public schools to institute uniforms (overturning the idea of freedom of speech) as there is discrimination due to class. Poor kids can't afford trendy clothes or good school supplies. So all children should be made equal!

Are these the grounds by which constitutionality are really going to be decided ?


We have seen several cases decided on something quite akin to "child taunting."

Prayer in school cases, mainly.

I'll post links to abstracts when i can find them.

It’s about time. Personally, I’m tired of being called unpatriotic for believing that religion and poltics should be separate.

Precisely, but the question remains, would people who support it with the cold war addition also support it with "there is no god."

Oh, I misunderstood your question - I have a feeling that the answer is "no" But, again, if they were intellectually honest, it would seem they should.

I already have. You choose to ignore it because it doesn't match your views. I've stated what the 4th Circuit has said on the issue and the 7th Circuit court said the samething.

actually, the opinions only agreed on the conclusion. nobody seems to think anybody's particular reasoning is very good. which makes sense since the reasoning isn't any good and they are just trying to avoid making an unpopular but obviously correct ruling.

if the judges were here i would debate them on their legal reasoning. they aren't, but you seem to think their reasons were great. so i'm afraid i'm not going to just let you appeal to authority to get out of this one - you get to be the stand in for them. i laid out some issues with the rulings you've cited. just pointing at them and saying 'end of story' instead of actually taking on those issues is just a tiny bit silly.

I don't believe I've skirted your question, rather I responded to an assertion you made. If you've asked me a question directly, please ask again so I can reply since I missed it and really don't feel like going back through 13+ pages to find it again.

How is it ok to allow monotheism to be endorsed by the pledge, yet any measure to make sure that NO religion is endorsed by the pledge is a tyranny of the minority. As far as I can see the minority is not recieving any sort of special treatment of it.

So now you are saying that America is simply 'unworthy' of acknowledging God? That's not what you were saying before.

One Nation Under God.... If the nation is not Under God, or if it is equal to God or if God has not place in it, then a believer in God should not pledge loyalty to it for fear of having two masters.

A believer in God MUST believe in God above the Government and their nation Under God, and they would be forced to say so during their pledge or not say the pledge at all.

Don't you DARE to tell me I MUST anything!!! My relationship with God is mine, and it doesn't need your approval, or your rules.
Welcome to Ignoreland. I have had as much of you as I can tolerate.

How come nobody worries about a tyranny of the *majority*?
Because it is idiotic.

Fine then don't say Under God. No one is forcing you too. BTW: What the Supreme Court goes. You'll have no choice in the matter. If they rule that it isn't a violation of the establishment clause, you better have a damn good reason for them to overturn that precedent since it is very damn near difficult to overturn one.



Bully for you. You actually said something that I agree with.



Neither does my God and you know what? No one is forcing you.



Bully for you. Do what you will. I frankly don't care but if they do uphold it, I expect you to accept it because there really will be no other legal recourse for anyone to take.


I expect you to mind your own damn business about what I accept and do not accept.

A minority can easily oppress a smaller minority, if the larger minority have one of their own in power. The fact that the remaining majority wouldn't have done that themselves doesn't help, if they do nothing to stop it.

yeah, but its all still minority tyranny. a real majoritarian tyranny is a rather rare beast. the vast bulk of people don't control the implements of power in any real sense, and most of them wouldn't care enough to really use them even if they did (unless they controlled them personally rather than collectively - then it's tyranny for everybody)

Silence is consent, as my civics teacher used to tell us.

though, to be fair, not being silent sometimes contains a fairly dramatic price (such as getting murdered) that makes the lack of noise at least understandable.

Yep!

This describes Lyric to a T! She really doesn't like opposing opinions and no matter how logical or right it is, she ignores it for her own political purposes. She really does care about only herself.

And you don't?
You care only about yourself. conservatives are real good at not caring about anyone else!

No, I care about me and mine...and I care about people like me. Fuck everyone else. Fuck the HAVE'S in this country. Damn right I don't care about them.

First of all, I'm not a "fundie whackjob." secondly, "fundie" is a derogatory term used to refer to fundamentalist christians just as spic is a derogatory term used to refer to hispanics. Just as it would be derogatory to call a black man a "******" it is derogatory to call a fundamentalist christian and "fundie." refering to either of them by these terms is not the same thing as calling "a horse a horse."
It is in my book. I'd just plain rather not type out f-u-n-d-a-m-e-n-t-a-l-i-s-t. F-u-n-d-i-e is easier. And if you find the term offensive, well, then, don't be one!
I have made it very clear who I direct the term "fundie" at. and I direct it at anyone who lets the likes of Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, Wildmon, Phelps, and Sekulow do their thinking for them. Anyone who supports the causes of these named men (and others like them) are fundies.

Aren't we supposed to love our enemies and "kill them with kindness" so to speak? You said you were a christian, but you hold "black, bitter hatred in your heart for those who disagree with you? Is that not an admission that you are in fact the very thing you claim to despise?
Better be careful, she'll threaten you with the mods, then she'll announce she is putting you on her ignore list, like it is a big event. Then she'll get together with the other far left wing loons who are destroying my party, and they'll pat each other on the back for mastering the old ignore feature on this website. I see it in every thread involving her, THe Nazz, and others of their ilk.

I have a hell of a wake up call for you then Lyric. LIFE ISNT FAIR. There are people from all walks of life who deal with shit on the level of yours to even worse. Never have I met someone who I have agreed with yet because of how you argue I want to stomp on every damn ideal you argue for. GET OVER YOURSELF.

Welcome to Ignoreland.

How is it ok to allow monotheism to be endorsed by the pledge, yet any measure to make sure that NO religion is endorsed by the pledge is a tyranny of the minority. As far as I can see the minority is not recieving any sort of special treatment of it.

Good question, ask someone who advocates the position that it is ok to allow monotheism to be endorsed by the pledge, but that objects to a pledge that doesn't mention any religion. If you read my posts in this thread carefully, you will see that I have not taken this position. Rather, I have challenged the assertion (made primarily by Lyric, but as I understood it, at least once by you) that the phrase "under god" is an attempt to force fundamentalist christianity on people. On the other side, I also agree that the use of the phrase "under god" is a reference to, at least, a monotheistic belief system to the exclusion of polytheistic or aetheistic beliefs. I have not stated a position on whether the use of the phrase is a violation of the establishment clause. Rather I have challenged the logic used by some to arrive at their conclusions for and against it. I have said those who support the use of the phrase, to be intellectually honest, should also agree that it would be ok if it said "one nation under no god." I personally see arguments on both sides of the issue and have been using this thread to test the logic and reasoning behind those that advocate for each position in order to ensure that when and if I do state a formal position, I am ready to defend it in a reasonable fashion rather than resort to "yelling" and illogical/emotional, unsupportable claims.

Who is trying to force you to say "under god?" It is already established that in 1943 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that no one could be forced to say the pledge. Secondly, how do you know it is fundamentalist christians that are trying to "force their moral view" on anyone by the use of the term "under god" in the pledge. I could just as easily assume it was jews or deists that were trying to do so since the term "god" is a generic one.

God...with a capital G...such as it is in the pledge...is not fucking generic and you damn well know it. To suggest otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest. If it were a lower-case g like "god" you might have a case.

Welcome to Ignoreland.
See?

Aren't we supposed to love our enemies and "kill them with kindness" so to speak? You said you were a christian, but you hold "black, bitter hatred in your heart for those who disagree with you? Is that not an admission that you are in fact the very thing you claim to despise?

I never claimed perfection. And I find that my weakness is in my inability to love my enemies. Sorry, but I have a hard time loving people who want me dead.

OK, lets see, you have roads to drive on, police and fire protection, a decent military to protect you in the event of an attack, freedom to say damn near anything you want without fear of a gulag or a tank running over you, freedom to worship as you see fit, the highest standard of living available in the world, the opportunity to work hard and get rich, a welfare system that will provide you with at least a minimal subsistence if you fall on hard time or become disabled, the ability to vote for your leaders at all levels of the federal, state and local government, the freedom to travel damn near any where you want to go at damn near any time you want to go, do I really have to go on with the things that your country has already provided to you?

YOU try and get welfare, or any other type of government assistance when you are single, white and have no kids.

I may be going out on a limb here, but I'd be willing to bet that those who object to the phrase "one nation under god" in the pledge would also object to the phrase "one nation, there is no god" as well - at least if they were intellectually honest they would.

I would object to such a phrase, yes. I object to any mention of God in the Pledge, whatsoever...pro or con.

It is in my book. I'd just plain rather not type out f-u-n-d-a-m-e-n-t-a-l-i-s-t. F-u-n-d-i-e is easier. And if you find the term offensive, well, then, don't be one!
I have made it very clear who I direct the term "fundie" at. and I direct it at anyone who lets the likes of Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, Wildmon, Phelps, and Sekulow do their thinking for them. Anyone who supports the causes of these named men (and others like them) are fundies.

I'm not black, Italian or hispanic, but I find the terms "******," "Dago" and "spic" offensive - I don't have to be a fundamentalist to find the term offensive. If I refered to you has "sweetie" or "little girl" or "whore" or "bitch" or "redneck, diaper, doper baby" or whatever term you found offensive, would you accept it if I said "well don't be one then"? I doubt it. Then what gives you the right, other than some sort of arrogant, double standard, to speak derogatorily of fundamentalists.

YOU try and get welfare, or any other type of government assistance when you are single, white and have no kids.

It can be done, I've seen it.

Antre_Travarious']See?
See what? You've been on my S-list for quite some time. And, unlike others, I do not go running to the Mods at any little thing, I tend to avoid the Mods, preferring to just ignore people I do not like.

I only go to the Mods on blantant flames. So I would appreciate you characterizing me accurately in the future. Not that I'm likely to see it.

I'm not black, Italian or hispanic, but I find the terms "******," "Dago" and "spic" offensive - I don't have to be a fundamentalist to find the term offensive. If I refered to you has "sweetie" or "little girl" or "whore" or "bitch" or "redneck, diaper, doper baby" or whatever term you found offensive, would you accept it if I said "well don't be one then"? I doubt it. Then what gives you the right, other than some sort of arrogant, double standard, to speak derogatorily of fundamentalists.

Because they speak dirogatorily of me and people like me. We didn't start the fire. They did. So screw them. They get a spoonful of their own medicine, and let 'em choke on it, too.

This message is hidden because Lyric has absolutely nothing to say that isn't hateful. Sweet silence

I never claimed perfection. And I find that my weakness is in my inability to love my enemies. Sorry, but I have a hard time loving people who want me dead.

You think your government wants you dead? or fundamentalist christians? or . . . who do you think wants you dead?

Good question, ask someone who advocates the position that it is ok to allow monotheism to be endorsed by the pledge, but that objects to a pledge that doesn't mention any religion. If you read my posts in this thread carefully, you will see that I have not taken this position. Rather, I have challenged the assertion (made primarily by Lyric, but as I understood it, at least once by you) that the phrase "under god" is an attempt to force fundamentalist christianity on people. On the other side, I also agree that the use of the phrase "under god" is a reference to, at least, a monotheistic belief system to the exclusion of polytheistic or aetheistic beliefs. I have not stated a position on whether the use of the phrase is a violation of the establishment clause. Rather I have challenged the logic used by some to arrive at their conclusions for and against it. I have said those who support the use of the phrase, to be intellectually honest, should also agree that it would be ok if it said "one nation under no god." I personally see arguments on both sides of the issue and have been using this thread to test the logic and reasoning behind those that advocate for each position in order to ensure that when and if I do state a formal position, I am ready to defend it in a reasonable fashion rather than resort to "yelling" and illogical/emotional, unsupportable claims.

I see. The problem is that I addressed that question to someone else that I don't recognize, so when you answered it, I assumed that I had originally addressed it to you.

Antre_Travarious']Quote:
This message is hidden because Lyric has absolutely nothing to say that isn't hateful.
that is perilously close to blatant flame. There is a limit to my tolerance.
I am 51% sweetheart and 49% bitch...don't push it.

I never claimed perfection. And I find that my weakness is in my inability to love my enemies. Sorry, but I have a hard time loving people who want me dead.

The "under God" people want you dead? Huh? Did I miss something?

God...with a capital G...such as it is in the pledge...is not fucking generic and you damn well know it. To suggest otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest. If it were a lower-case g like "god" you might have a case.

Sorry, but I disagree - God is a proper name and should be capitalized, no matter what god you are refering to. Jews speak of God, so do christians and deists and muslims.

You think your government wants you dead? or fundamentalist christians? or . . . who do you think wants you dead?

I think fundamentalist christians want me...and people like me dead...and I think our government does not stand up firmly enough for our rights.

In case you didn't know this already, I am a transsexual. fundamentalist Christians are doing everything they can to take my civil rights away from me because of it. I find myself unable to get a job because of discrimination, and my government will not stand up to them and tell them discrimination is unacceptable.

While they may not be murdering me by gun or by knife...they are murdering me by economic deprivation...by depriving me the ability to earn a living for myself.

Thus, the only conclusion I can draw is that they want me dead. therefore, I want them dead. Natural reaction, I think.

And Pat Robertson, in his 1988 book, actually advocated for the summary rounding up and execution of all gays. And by extension, I'm sure he meant lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender folks as well.

Now, you can't get more obvious than that. Those people want me dead. And it's quite natural to hate the people who want you dead.

that is perilously close to blatant flame. There is a limit to my tolerance.
I am 51% sweetheart and 49% bitch...don't push it.

In that case, my girlfriend is the absolute paragon of humanity. I'm so lucky!

Because they speak dirogatorily of me and people like me. We didn't start the fire. They did. So screw them. They get a spoonful of their own medicine, and let 'em choke on it, too.
Ok, so if a black man calls you a "cracker" or a " honkie" it is ok in your book to call them a "******?" if that is ok with you, then I'll drop it since at least you're applying the standard by which you use derogatory terms in an equal, "across the board" fashion.

Ok, so if a black man calls you a "cracker" or a " honkie" it is ok in your book to call them a "******?" if that is ok with you, then I'll drop it since at least you're applying the standard by which you use derogatory terms in an equal, "across the board" fashion.

Sure is. But I wouldn't do it. Because "cracker" and "honkie" don't offend me.

Faggot, queen, queer, freak...that does offend me. And that is what the fundies call me. So I give them a spoonful of their own medicine.

Or would you prefer I go back to my original moniker for people of that ilk, and call the The Religious Reich??

While they may not be murdering me by gun or by knife...they are murdering me by economic deprivation...by depriving me the ability to earn a living for myself.

HA. THat is the most asinine thing I have ever read. It couldn't be that you are just a mean person, and are unemployable?

:gundge:

Antre_Travarious']HA. THat is the most asinine thing I have ever read. It couldn't be that you are just a mean person, and are unemployable?

:gundge:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/nailhead.jpg

Antre_Travarious']HA. THat is the most asinine thing I have ever read. It couldn't be that you are just a mean person, and are unemployable?

:gundge:
I was employable just fine up until Bush screwed the economy. and now, since the economy sucks...and so many people are out of work...I'm less likely to be pulled off the shit heap, because there are others with equal qualifications to me who are NOT transsexual.

It's no accident that 70 percent of transgender people are un- and or under-employed. Learn the facts and the statistics. They are real.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/hit-the-nail-on-the-head-01.jpg
You are pushing awful hard, Gallo....one more and I swear I am going to report you. I did NOT report you on the link thing you did yesterday, but I notice a Mod saw it and chewed you out for it, anyway...but that was not my doing.

No, it's an affirmation of your loyalty to your country, personally I think it's gonna go to the Supreme Court and get fixed back to the way it should be, with the under God in it.

And if you have an issue with "under God", why not God bless America, or any similar phrase?


God Bless America isn't recited right after school starts, is it?

They never said the pledge at my old high school. Good thing too, I never recited it.

How does that make me unpatriotic? Because I don't believe anti-communism propaganda? I think it just makes all of you bible beaters idiots.

You are pushing awful hard, Gallo....one more and I swear I am going to report you. I did NOT report you on the link thing you did yesterday, but I notice a Mod saw it and chewed you out for it, anyway...but that was not my doing.

Ok, I'm listening Lyric, but you need to take it down a notch.

Where do your get your figures that 70% of transsexuals and so forth are un- or under-employed. I've never heard that statistic.

Antre_Travarious']HA. THat is the most asinine thing I have ever read. It couldn't be that you are just a mean person, and are unemployable?

:gundge:
That and she calls everyone who disagrees with her names like "fundie" and threatens them.

I think fundamentalist christians want me...and people like me dead...and I think our government does not stand up firmly enough for our rights.

In case you didn't know this already, I am a transsexual. fundamentalist Christians are doing everything they can to take my civil rights away from me because of it. I find myself unable to get a job because of discrimination, and my government will not stand up to them and tell them discrimination is unacceptable.

While they may not be murdering me by gun or by knife...they are murdering me by economic deprivation...by depriving me the ability to earn a living for myself.

Thus, the only conclusion I can draw is that they want me dead. therefore, I want them dead. Natural reaction, I think.

And Pat Robertson, in his 1988 book, actually advocated for the summary rounding up and execution of all gays. And by extension, I'm sure he meant lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender folks as well.

Now, you can't get more obvious than that. Those people want me dead. And it's quite natural to hate the people who want you dead.

Ahh, this explains the rather large chip on your shoulder. Sadly, I agree that their are those whom you, as a transexual, make so uncomfortable that they wish you didn't exist. On the other hand, can someone tell you are transexual just by looking at you? There is no obligation to tell them you are you know - If they can't tell by looking, but you tell them, you are inviting them to engage in the discrimination you (and I) despise.

As for the government "standing up" for your right to be free from discrimination, the government will stand up for your right to be free from discrimination based on your gender as male or female, but the law doesn't recognize transexuality as a protected or "suspect" class at this time.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/hit-the-nail-on-the-head-01.jpg
HAHAHAHA.

Clearly, this is a reportable offense![/sarcasm]

but the law doesn't recognize transexuality as a protected or "suspect" class at this time.
Nor should it.

Sure is. But I wouldn't do it. Because "cracker" and "honkie" don't offend me.

Faggot, queen, queer, freak...that does offend me. And that is what the fundies call me. So I give them a spoonful of their own medicine.

Or would you prefer I go back to my original moniker for people of that ilk, and call the The Religious Reich??

fair enough - if you refer to those who call you queer, freak, whatever, in an equally derogatory term that describes them, then fine. I, personally, would still "take the high road" and continue to treat them with respect, no matter what they referred to me as - it is, after all, the christian thing to do - you know, turn the other cheek. But as long as you're being fair about it, then I'll drop it.

I was employable just fine up until Bush screwed the economy. and now, since the economy sucks...and so many people are out of work...I'm less likely to be pulled off the shit heap, because there are others with equal qualifications to me who are NOT transsexual.

It's no accident that 70 percent of transgender people are un- and or under-employed. Learn the facts and the statistics. They are real.

Actually, I think if you'll check, it was 9/11 and an internet investment "bubble" that began to burst as Clinton left office that screwed up the economy, not Bush. Also, the economy at this time is growing at an acceptable rate and unemployment is comparatively low. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it should be easy for you to get a job, I'm just saying Bush didn't screw the economy nearly as much as things outside his control did.

[NS]Antre_Travarious - off topic, but to answer the question in your signature - the leaders of your party allowed themselves to be co-opted by the extreme far left liberal ideaolouges in the same way that the Republicans are on their way to being co-opted by the far right.

Can't see what was wrong with the original, without the reference to the United States and to God. Only needs the US part if you don't know where you are!

What I find amusing is that is was written by a socialist.

I expect you to mind your own damn business about what I accept and do not accept.

And I expect you to respect the government especially the Supreme Court. They are the highest court in the land and what they say goes for everyone else in regards to Constitutional matters.

If you fail to accept the Supreme Court's decision then you are disobeying God. You are a Christian as you've been stating here throughout this thread. However, by failing to listen and to ignore the government, you are (in effect) disobeying God. God wants us to respect our leaders even if you don't like him. That is in the Bible Lyric. As a Christian, I didn't like Clinton however, I respected him because he was our nation's leader. That is what Christians do. By not doing so, you are sinning against God.

And you don't?
You care only about yourself. conservatives are real good at not caring about anyone else!

Actually no. I don't care about only myself. I look out for:

My parents (honor thy mother and thy father)
Our troops
My friends
Strangers

I try to help as many people as I can.

No, I care about me and mine...and I care about people like me. Fuck everyone else. Fuck the HAVE'S in this country. Damn right I don't care about them.

And this is a sin against God. Since your a Christian, it is your duty to care about everyone. Since you obviously don't, then stop being a hypocrit. That is what you are. You claim to be a Christian but this sentence here debunks it. I sure hope you continously pray to God to forgive you your sins because you are committing them left and right.

I never claimed perfection. And I find that my weakness is in my inability to love my enemies. Sorry, but I have a hard time loving people who want me dead.

And no one wants you dead. I don't know where you are getting this.

This idea that America is Christian only is ridiculous. There are millions of Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists etc in the USA today (e.g. 14% of New York is Jewish) - they all refer to God as something else.

For goodness sakes people, this is why the world doesn't like you - STOP BEING A THEOCRACY. Enough of this 'God Bless America'. Do I turn on the BBC and see Blair say 'God Bless the UK' at the end of every speech? No. Do I see Vladimir Putin end his address to the Duma with the words 'God Bless Russia'? No. Religion has caused more pain, suffering and hatred in history than even borders have, but only when it is forced on people. A true democracy lets people choose what religion they are and to what extent they express it. Live up to your ambitions, and revert to a more inclusive pledge!

I was employable just fine up until Bush screwed the economy. and now, since the economy sucks...and so many people are out of work...I'm less likely to be pulled off the shit heap, because there are others with equal qualifications to me who are NOT transsexual.

This is rich! What screwed the Economy:

9/11 ---lost tens of thousands of jobs
Corporate scandals--been going on since the Clinton Administration (thousands of more jobs lost)
Tech Bubble Bursting--Markets crashed and even more jobs lost

Nope, doesn't look like Bush wrecked the economy. In fact, the economy was running on all cylinders till Katrina hit. Our GDP was at 3.5% or higher now its going to drop a point. The Budget Defict is shrinking as well and Jobs are being created.

Nope, doesn't look like Bush wrecked the economy. Just the opposite in fact.

It's no accident that 70 percent of transgender people are un- and or under-employed. Learn the facts and the statistics. They are real.

As are those with mean streaks who thinks the world is out to get them.

Antre_Travarious']Because it is idiotic.

Are you saying that it is impossible for 500 people to tyrannize 100 people?
Are you saying that if the majority want the minority to be silenced or pushed out of public life, that's okay?

(BTW, "idiotic" -- that's a nice, friendly term that implies an open mind. Thanks.)

yeah, but its all still minority tyranny. a real majoritarian tyranny is a rather rare beast. the vast bulk of people don't control the implements of power in any real sense, and most of them wouldn't care enough to really use them even if they did (unless they controlled them personally rather than collectively - then it's tyranny for everybody)



though, to be fair, not being silent sometimes contains a fairly dramatic price (such as getting murdered) that makes the lack of noise at least understandable.
I'm not directing this at anybody, but personally, I think of that as acoward's excuse.

I'm pretty pessimistic about people, and I frankly don't believe the "silent majority" when they tolerate tyranny against others and say they didn't know it was happening or they were too afraid to speak out. Such people are often perfectly willing to reap the benefits that are denied others and only express concern after the abuses are exposed and stopped and they are asked to account for their silence. I think that someone who knows a group is being oppressed and says nothing about it, either privately hates that group, too, or else is willing to sacrifice them to benefit themselves.

Sorry, but I disagree - God is a proper name and should be capitalized, no matter what god you are refering to. Jews speak of God, so do christians and deists and muslims.
Polytheists don't.

Ahh, this explains the rather large chip on your shoulder. Sadly, I agree that their are those whom you, as a transexual, make so uncomfortable that they wish you didn't exist. On the other hand, can someone tell you are transexual just by looking at you? There is no obligation to tell them you are you know - If they can't tell by looking, but you tell them, you are inviting them to engage in the discrimination you (and I) despise.

As for the government "standing up" for your right to be free from discrimination, the government will stand up for your right to be free from discrimination based on your gender as male or female, but the law doesn't recognize transexuality as a protected or "suspect" class at this time.
Sorry, Lyric does get overwrought, but on her behalf, I can't accept that statement. "Don't ask/don't tell"? That's your solution -- that people who are different should just try to conform and be as invisible and silent as possible and accept that their government does not acknowlege that they have rights? I agree with you on many points but, to me, this idea would be a rejection of everything America stands for, and is in keeping with my other points about "the tyranny of the majority."

Antre_Travarious']Nor should it.
Justify that statement, please.

And I expect you to respect the government especially the Supreme Court. They are the highest court in the land and what they say goes for everyone else in regards to Constitutional matters.

If you fail to accept the Supreme Court's decision then you are disobeying God. You are a Christian as you've been stating here throughout this thread. However, by failing to listen and to ignore the government, you are (in effect) disobeying God. God wants us to respect our leaders even if you don't like him. That is in the Bible Lyric. As a Christian, I didn't like Clinton however, I respected him because he was our nation's leader. That is what Christians do. By not doing so, you are sinning against God.
That is potentially the dumbest thing I have ever read on this forum, and that's really saying something. I mean, there's some really stupid shit that comes up in this place, but equating failure to listen to and accept the judgments of the government of the US with sin? Give me the biggest fucking break.

Corneliu--you have a serious teological problem here. I know what you're misinterpreting--Romans 13, which says, roughly, that christians are to be in submission to the superior authorities. But later, when Paul stood before the authorities and was ordered to stop preaching, he said "We must obey God as ruler rather than men." So there are times when disobedience of the authorities is not only acceptable, it's an imperative according to christian dogma.

Fortunately, as I'm not the religious type, none of that applies to me, so I can cheerfully tell the government to fuck itself, as long as I'm willing to accept the consequences.

Ok, I'm listening Lyric, but you need to take it down a notch.

Where do your get your figures that 70% of transsexuals and so forth are un- or under-employed. I've never heard that statistic.

Well, why WOULD you have heard of it? You don't care. It doesn't affect YOU, does it? I have seen this somewhere, let me go hunting for a minute and see if I can find it. I'll append to this message when I find my source.

ON EDIT: Here we go...I found my source. The following is a cut and paste from the larger article, which I have also linked to. Maybe if you read the whole article, you'd understand why I was so pissed off all the time! How'd you like to get treated, every day, the way the people in the article I am linking to get treated? But I have numerous of my own personal horror stories, and they DO eventually affect you, to the point where you get pissed off at everyone and everything!

From the article.....

According to a report by the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, nearly 70 percent of transgender people are unemployed or under-employed. As this next case illustrates, so prevalent is transgender employment discrimination that even cross- dressing off duty can cost people their jobs.

And here is the link to the whole article...the part I dut and pasted is about 2/3 the way down the page.

http://www.tgcrossroads.org/news/archive.asp?aid=584

Now, read the whole article, and ask yourself, once again...why is Lyric so pissed off? How would I feel if this were MY life story? then make a case for understanding.
I suspect most people are not truly malicious, they are just ignorant. And I use "ignorant" in it's literal definition, meaning "uninformed." It is NOT, contrary to popular belief, a synonym for "stupid."
Anyway, enough from me. Read the article.

As to my own horror stories....
1. I have been denied jobs, and even fired from jobs for who and what I am.
2. I have been physically attacked because of who and what I am.
3. I have been denied medical treatment for non-related conditions, because of who and what I am.
4. I have been denied service at public venues, because of who and what I am
5. I have been denied housing because of who and what I am.
6. I have been harassed by law-enforcement officers who were supposed to help me...because of who and what I am.

Sincerely, I have to live my life in fear of anyone in a uniform. I, unlike you, cannot always be sure that the cop has my best interests at heart. I cannot assume the paramedic who comes to help me will follow through. A TG friend of mine 10 years ago, was actually mocked by eight paramedics, as she lay broken and bleeding on the pavement. These people were supposed to save her life! Instead, they mocked her. How'd you like to spend the last minutes of your life having jokes made about you, by the people who were supposed to hellp you...while you lay broken and bleeding on the pavement?

This is the sort of treatment we recieve every day. and we want government and society to DO SOMETHING about it.

also from the above-mentioned article....if any of you wonder whyt I'm so pissed off with America, and why I refuse to pledge allegiance to this country, and why I think Europe is so much better than America...condier this:
---------------------------------------------------
Leave it to Europeans, however, to put to shame this slow, piecemeal approach to transgender rights and the strife that goes along with it. Last month Great Britain passed a law granting a panoply of rights to transsexuals, allowing them to marry, change their birth certificates, and be legally recognized as their chosen gender. The law on transgender rights in Britain was shown to fall "far short of the standards for human dignity and human freedom in the 21st century."

"If democracies are measured by how they treat their minorities," said Minister Rosie Winterton, "then I believe it is absolutely right that the 5,000-strong transsexual community be afforded the same rights enjoyed by the other millions of us in the UK."

America, are you listening?

And I expect you to respect the government especially the Supreme Court. They are the highest court in the land and what they say goes for everyone else in regards to Constitutional matters.

If you fail to accept the Supreme Court's decision then you are disobeying God. You are a Christian as you've been stating here throughout this thread. However, by failing to listen and to ignore the government, you are (in effect) disobeying God. God wants us to respect our leaders even if you don't like him. That is in the Bible Lyric. As a Christian, I didn't like Clinton however, I respected him because he was our nation's leader. That is what Christians do. By not doing so, you are sinning against God.

So anyone who didn't accept the Dred Scott ruling when it was decided was sinning against god???

*Snip*

The bible states to respect those that are in authority over us. I don't remember the exact passage unfortunately or I would state it.

By not respecting those in authority over us, we are, in effect, sinning against God.

Lyric has shown great disrespect to those in our government. By showing such disrespect, she has sinned against God.

Also, by showing contempt for her neighbors, she is sinning against God.

This isn't my opinion but what the bible states. As a Christian, it is my responsibility to respect those in authority even if I don't like them. I am obligated as a Christian to respect the highest court in the land. If I fail to respect the government, I am sinning against God.

So anyone who didn't accept the Dred Scott ruling when it was decided was sinning against god???

In effect yes. The Bible teaches us to respect those in Authority. Yes we can question decisions but we have to respect the decisions made by the government.

Ahh, this explains the rather large chip on your shoulder. Sadly, I agree that their are those whom you, as a transexual, make so uncomfortable that they wish you didn't exist. On the other hand, can someone tell you are transexual just by looking at you? There is no obligation to tell them you are you know - If they can't tell by looking, but you tell them, you are inviting them to engage in the discrimination you (and I) despise.

As for the government "standing up" for your right to be free from discrimination, the government will stand up for your right to be free from discrimination based on your gender as male or female, but the law doesn't recognize transexuality as a protected or "suspect" class at this time.

Well, firstly...I am NOT a very attractive person. didn't get the luck of the genetic draw. I was not good-looking as a guy, and I'm sure as hell no bathing beauty as a woman, either. I DO think that they can tell by looking, but, even if they can't...in the case of employers...we are compelled, on most job applications, to list any former names under which we worked or lived...for the purpose of background and/or criminal background checks. Even if I look like Cindy Crawford, (which I don't) it does NOT take a rocket scientist to figure out I'm transsexual if my name was once Jason and is now Melanie! (and no, those are not my actual former or current names, just used here as an example.) So YES...there IS an obligation to tell them! There is no way for me to hide that which ought to be none of their damned business.

And, yes, I know the government does not currently recognize us. And they need to. We are the most vulnerable. Discrimination has been demonstrated time and again...and it's time our government did something to protect the most vulnerable among us!

Did you know, once, on a job, I was being sexually harassed by a male co-worker...and was told I had no standing to complain about it? It was explained to me that, sexual harrassment could be committed by a man against a man or a woman...or by a woman, against a woman or a man....but, because "I was neither a man nor a woman" I had no right to expect any protection against sexual harassment? True story, so help me God!

And this same employer actually set up a one-seater bathroom just for my use, because I was neither male nor female, thus could not use either of the communal facilities? Actually, I did not mind the single-seat bathroom thing, but the REASON behind it kinda pissed me off.

It was as if I were some sort of Grendel, out to burn down the village, rape the women, and eat the children! For God's sake, all I want is the ability to earn a living and to be left the hell alone! Is that so much to want?

In effect yes. The Bible teaches us to respect those in Authority. Yes we can question decisions but we have to respect the decisions made by the government.

But if a government is making wrong decisions/doing wrong I see no need to show that government respect, and I'm at least hoping god wouldn't begrudge me for that.

Antre_Travarious']Nor should it.

So it is your view that discrimination is okay? It is your view that I have no right to be protected from sexual harrassment? It is your view that I should be denied medical services? It is your view that I should be denied the ability to earn a living, based upon something that has no bearing on my ability to do the damn job?

Just want to clear up where you stand.

No wonder you made my S-list a long time ago.

I'm not directing this at anybody, but personally, I think of that as acoward's excuse.

I'm pretty pessimistic about people, and I frankly don't believe the "silent majority" when they tolerate tyranny against others and say they didn't know it was happening or they were too afraid to speak out. Such people are often perfectly willing to reap the benefits that are denied others and only express concern after the abuses are exposed and stopped and they are asked to account for their silence. I think that someone who knows a group is being oppressed and says nothing about it, either privately hates that group, too, or else is willing to sacrifice them to benefit themselves.

it may be a coward's excuse, but it is fairly normal human behavior - particularly in class societies where an elite is thought or claimed to have authority and holds coercive power. hell, people are generally afraid to speak up against shit at their jobs where the worst that can happen is getting fired.

That is potentially the dumbest thing I have ever read on this forum, and that's really saying something. I mean, there's some really stupid shit that comes up in this place, but equating failure to listen to and accept the judgments of the government of the US with sin? Give me the biggest fucking break.

Corneliu--you have a serious teological problem here. I know what you're misinterpreting--Romans 13, which says, roughly, that christians are to be in submission to the superior authorities. But later, when Paul stood before the authorities and was ordered to stop preaching, he said "We must obey God as ruler rather than men." So there are times when disobedience of the authorities is not only acceptable, it's an imperative according to christian dogma.

Fortunately, as I'm not the religious type, none of that applies to me, so I can cheerfully tell the government to fuck itself, as long as I'm willing to accept the consequences.

I notice that poor and/or oppressed people never argue that religion dictates submission to temporal authority. It's only the people who feel secure in their positions who argue that others should just obey and accept their miserable lots.

But if a government is making wrong decisions/doing wrong I see no need to show that government respect, and I'm at least hope god wouldn't begrudge me for that.

All I'm saying is that you have to respect the government. Notice I said the Government. I did not say the person who runs the government. People do wrong yes and they use the power of the office to do it however you still have to respect the government. You don't have to respect the people who occupy the government! They really are 2 different things.

fair enough - if you refer to those who call you queer, freak, whatever, in an equally derogatory term that describes them, then fine. I, personally, would still "take the high road" and continue to treat them with respect, no matter what they referred to me as - it is, after all, the christian thing to do - you know, turn the other cheek. But as long as you're being fair about it, then I'll drop it.

Well, I don't claim to be perfect. And yes, I have been known to use slurs on people who have used slurs on me. I generally do not like slurs like the n-word for example, but bet you butt if one of them calls me something dirogatory, I'll be dropping the n-bomb. You hurt me and I hurt you back. no, not very "christian" but again, I am not perfect, nor do I claim to be. This is a shortcoming on my part. But no one is perfect, I'm sure that you act in plenty of non-Christian ways yourself...so, may I suggest you remove the plank from your own eye, before you worry about the speck in my eye?

The bible states to respect those that are in authority over us. I don't remember the exact passage unfortunately or I would state it.

By not respecting those in authority over us, we are, in effect, sinning against God.

Lyric has shown great disrespect to those in our government. By showing such disrespect, she has sinned against God.

Also, by showing contempt for her neighbors, she is sinning against God.

This isn't my opinion but what the bible states. As a Christian, it is my responsibility to respect those in authority even if I don't like them. I am obligated as a Christian to respect the highest court in the land. If I fail to respect the government, I am sinning against God.
By your reasoning, black people would still be slaves and all the white folks would be sitting in their parlors saying, tut, tut, that really is a shame, but what can we do if the authorities say so.

Well, if that's your definition of your duty as a Christian, by all means, lay down and let them walk all over you. Also do nothing to relieve the suffering of others. But please, stay out of the way of those of us who (a) are not Christians and don't feel any need to follow your rules, and (b) hold ourselves to a higher moral/ethical standard.

Actually, I think if you'll check, it was 9/11 and an internet investment "bubble" that began to burst as Clinton left office that screwed up the economy, not Bush. Also, the economy at this time is growing at an acceptable rate and unemployment is comparatively low. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it should be easy for you to get a job, I'm just saying Bush didn't screw the economy nearly as much as things outside his control did.
Outside his control my aching ass! He had the fucking PDB on August 6, 2001: bin Laden Determined To Strike Inside U.S. He did NOTHING with the information. He could have prevented 9/11 if he'd cared.

Condi Rice later said, who could have imagined they would use hijacked commercial airplanes as cruise missiles? Well, DOCTOR Rice...if you'd bothered to do your homework, you would know that a similar plot against the Eiffel Tower, using hijacked commercial airliners...was thwarted in 1995!! So someone imagined it before!
And a movie had to be delayed in it's release, because the plot was WAY TIOO SIMILAR to what happened on 9/11. So, DOCTOR Rice....if Hollywood could imagine it...and if there was a previous case of just such a plan, in 1995...and you were the National Security Advisor...why didn't YOU know about these things, and warn Bush about them??

No, sorry, 9/11 was NOT outside of Bush's control. And 9/11 did not cause the massive downturn in employment. 9/11 was just the convenient excuse companies used. If 9/11 had never happened, they'd have found another excuse.

And I expect you to respect the government especially the Supreme Court. They are the highest court in the land and what they say goes for everyone else in regards to Constitutional matters.

If you fail to accept the Supreme Court's decision then you are disobeying God. You are a Christian as you've been stating here throughout this thread. However, by failing to listen and to ignore the government, you are (in effect) disobeying God. God wants us to respect our leaders even if you don't like him. That is in the Bible Lyric. As a Christian, I didn't like Clinton however, I respected him because he was our nation's leader. That is what Christians do. By not doing so, you are sinning against God.

That is Old Testament bullshit...and was written by men...written in order to perpetuate their governments. The Old Testament means jack shit to me. And you have no business defining what MY relationship is with God. Now I will tolerate no further attacks from you.

And, by the way, Corny...the Bible ALSO states one should not be forced into doing something against their conscience.

Furthermore...I fail to accept the Supreme Court's decision on it, because it is not based in actual Constitutional law...but in their own opinions, or in the opinion of the popular masses. you have been shown, time and again, how the phrase "under God" fails all three prongs of the "lemon test." Therefore, any decision other than to drop the phrase...is not based in law, and I have no obligation to accept it...and I won't, either.

All I'm saying is that you have to respect the government. Notice I said the Government. I did not say the person who runs the government. People do wrong yes and they use the power of the office to do it however you still have to respect the government. You don't have to respect the people who occupy the government! They really are 2 different things.

I fail to see how disrespecting a tryanny or any other form of irresponsible or bad government is wrong. Sure it's good to show respect to your government, but if it is not deserving of it I do not see why you would still need to respect it though.

it may be a coward's excuse, but it is fairly normal human behavior - particularly in class societies where an elite is thought or claimed to have authority and holds coercive power. hell, people are generally afraid to speak up against shit at their jobs where the worst that can happen is getting fired.
What you say is true, but I believe there are certain points on which it is not a waste of time to shovel against the tide. I pick my battles -- there's plenty of bad shit out there I feel forced to abandon as lost causes (like the Republican party :p (kidding, people, kidding)). But there are a few things, matters of principle, on which I'd be too ashamed to live with myself if I didn't stand up, speak up. If that means I take a bullet -- well, I did choose to stand up in front of a guy with a gun.

You remember that guy at Tianamen, the one with the groceries who blocked the way of a line of tanks on their way to crush the students? He didn't accomplish much in that situation, but I say he accomplished a lot for humanity. He's a hero people should emulate. The lead tank could easily have pushed through or over him, but it didn't.

Sometimes, the guy with the gun doesn't shoot.

Actually no. I don't care about only myself. I look out for:

My parents (honor thy mother and thy father)
Our troops
My friends
Strangers

I try to help as many people as I can.



And this is a sin against God. Since your a Christian, it is your duty to care about everyone. Since you obviously don't, then stop being a hypocrit. That is what you are. You claim to be a Christian but this sentence here debunks it. I sure hope you continously pray to God to forgive you your sins because you are committing them left and right.


Well, sorry. Again, I don't claim to be perfect, and I think it is perfectly natural to hate those who oppress you and keep you down. Okay, maybe it's not "christian" to do that, but, I'm willing to lay good odds that YOU are not perfect, so, the same advice to you...worry about the plank in your own eye, before you worry about the speck in my eye.

By your reasoning, black people would still be slaves and all the white folks would be sitting in their parlors saying, tut, tut, that really is a shame, but what can we do if the authorities say so.

Actually no. It is of my opinion that they would've been freed either which way. It is unfortunate that we had a civil war but in the end, it did help free the slaves. Did I feel that Dred Scott was wrong? Yes but there would've been nothing I could do about the decision.

Well, if that's your definition of your duty as a Christian, by all means, lay down and let them walk all over you. Also do nothing to relieve the suffering of others.

As a Christian, we are to do all we can to help those that are suffering. That is what being a christian is all about, helping people.

But please, stay out of the way of those of us who (a) are not Christians and don't feel any need to follow your rules, and (b) hold ourselves to a higher moral/ethical standard.

I don't care if your a Christian or not. However, I will do all I can to make sure that my rights as a Christian get just as much weight as those that are not christians.

And no one wants you dead. I don't know where you are getting this.

They don't?
That's why Pat Robertson advocated for the summary rounding up and execution of people like me in his 1988 book?

That's why they will allow me to die slowly, of starvation, and economic deprivation, by refusing to give me a job?

If they don't want me dead...then I'm sure as hell glad because without trying and without wanting to...they are doing a damn fine job of killing me! Imagine if they actually WANTED to kill me then....

you are so fucking blind, corny. It is pointless to even talk to you. you refuse to acknowledge that discrimination exists...and you refuse to acknowledge man's unkindness to his fellow man - unless of course that unkindness is directed back at the people YOU support! When it is the poeple YOU support handing out the unkindness, you refuse to acknowledge it's existence.

Well, sorry. Again, I don't claim to be perfect, and I think it is perfectly natural to hate those who oppress you and keep you down.

I haven't oppressed you nor have I kept you down. So what is your beef with me?

Okay, maybe it's not "christian" to do that, but, I'm willing to lay good odds that YOU are not perfect, so, the same advice to you...worry about the plank in your own eye, before you worry about the speck in my eye.

Your right. I'm not perfect but I do go out of my way to help those in need even if they don't agree with me politically, religiously or sexually. Did you know that I have a couple of friends that are gay/lesbian? :eek: You bet I do. Why? Because I don't care if your gay, lesbian, bi, or a transsexual.

This idea that America is Christian only is ridiculous. There are millions of Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists etc in the USA today (e.g. 14% of New York is Jewish) - they all refer to God as something else.

For goodness sakes people, this is why the world doesn't like you - STOP BEING A THEOCRACY. Enough of this 'God Bless America'. Do I turn on the BBC and see Blair say 'God Bless the UK' at the end of every speech? No. Do I see Vladimir Putin end his address to the Duma with the words 'God Bless Russia'? No. Religion has caused more pain, suffering and hatred in history than even borders have, but only when it is forced on people. A true democracy lets people choose what religion they are and to what extent they express it. Live up to your ambitions, and revert to a more inclusive pledge!

Devil's Advocate: You guys still have "God Save The Queen" over there in the UK, don't you?

I'm not directing this at anybody, but personally, I think of that as acoward's excuse.

I'm pretty pessimistic about people, and I frankly don't believe the "silent majority" when they tolerate tyranny against others and say they didn't know it was happening or they were too afraid to speak out. Such people are often perfectly willing to reap the benefits that are denied others and only express concern after the abuses are exposed and stopped and they are asked to account for their silence. I think that someone who knows a group is being oppressed and says nothing about it, either privately hates that group, too, or else is willing to sacrifice them to benefit themselves.

Couldn't have said it better myself!!

They don't?
That's why Pat Robertson advocated for the summary rounding up and execution of people like me in his 1988 book?

And that is why someone needs to yank out his vocal cords! Even I don't listen to him.

That's why they will allow me to die slowly, of starvation, and economic deprivation, by refusing to give me a job?

Could it also have something to do with your attitude towards life? If you become less hostile then maybe you'll get hired alot easier.

If they don't want me dead...then I'm sure as hell glad because without trying and without wanting to...they are doing a damn fine job of killing me! Imagine if they actually WANTED to kill me then....

What you really need to do is to stop with the Conspiracy Theory crap. All he wants is attention and by giving him service as you are doing now, your playing right into his hands. By ignoring him, he'll have no power over you.

you are so fucking blind, corny. It is pointless to even talk to you. you refuse to acknowledge that discrimination exists...and you refuse to acknowledge man's unkindness to his fellow man - unless of course that unkindness is directed back at the people YOU support! When it is the poeple YOU support handing out the unkindness, you refuse to acknowledge it's existence.

I have never denied that discrimination exist. I was on the receiving end of discrimination when I moved to PA from Missouri. Why? Because I wasn't born and raised there. Also, my father didn't work for US Air! We were told that if we weren't born or raised in PA to get out. Probably one reason why I had the most difficult time making friends.

Your not the only one with troubles Lyric. I also have my own troubles and had my own troubles. The world does not revolve around either one of us. I try not to take into account sexual preferences, religion, skin, or political affiliation or even sex. I try to make friends with everyone. Doesn't always work but I do try to make the world better one person at a time.

The bible states to respect those that are in authority over us. I don't remember the exact passage unfortunately or I would state it.

By not respecting those in authority over us, we are, in effect, sinning against God.

Lyric has shown great disrespect to those in our government. By showing such disrespect, she has sinned against God.

Also, by showing contempt for her neighbors, she is sinning against God.

This isn't my opinion but what the bible states. As a Christian, it is my responsibility to respect those in authority even if I don't like them. I am obligated as a Christian to respect the highest court in the land. If I fail to respect the government, I am sinning against God.


Let him without sin castr the first stone.
Judge not, lest ye be judged.

These mean nothing to you, Corny?

In effect yes. The Bible teaches us to respect those in Authority. Yes we can question decisions but we have to respect the decisions made by the government.

Okayyyyyy, then. I guess all the Germans who didn't accept the Holocaust were sining, too! After all, they did not respect the decisions made by their government!!

They had to go through and rule on this? What a waste of time, I stopped saying the pledge after 2000.

All I'm saying is that you have to respect the government. Notice I said the Government. I did not say the person who runs the government. People do wrong yes and they use the power of the office to do it however you still have to respect the government. You don't have to respect the people who occupy the government! They really are 2 different things.

Nice try of worming out of it, Corny!! Did you really think we were going to let you off this easy? You made the statement. Either it applies in all cases, or in no cases. You can't have it both ways. So which is it, Corny?

I haven't oppressed you nor have I kept you down. So what is your beef with me?

My beef with you is that you support the people who have kept me down and oppressed. Guilt by association.

There's where one of your problems may lie...you are whining because you want the government to GIVE you a job...maybe if you go out and work hard at finding one...and that may mean taking a lower level entry position in a dead-end job to start out and moving on later...don't give me that crap that you can't get a job. That's rediculus. I know 15-year-olds that get jobs. There are jobs out there, you just have to work to get one.
I'm already looking for and applying for dead-end, entry-level jobs...and some not even in my field! I even applied for a job at a kennel. How much lower can you go than a job scooping shit all day? I didn't even get that job! So how about you close your mouth, since you know none of the facts?

EDIT: How the shit did THAT happen? I was replying to Sportsfan's assidying post...and somehow, his original post now appears AFTER this one...WTF?

There's where one of your problems may lie...you are whining because you want the government to GIVE you a job...maybe if you go out and work hard at finding one...and that may mean taking a lower level entry position in a dead-end job to start out and moving on later...don't give me that crap that you can't get a job. That's rediculus. I know 15-year-olds that get jobs. There are jobs out there, you just have to work to get one.

There's where one of your problems may lie...you are whining because you want the government to GIVE you a job...maybe if you go out and work hard at finding one...and that may mean taking a lower level entry position in a dead-end job to start out and moving on later...don't give me that crap that you can't get a job. That's rediculus. I know 15-year-olds that get jobs. There are jobs out there, you just have to work to get one.


*reads this post*

*then looks for and starts running away from Lyric who is about to explode like a Buick in Baghdad*

*reads this post*

*then looks for and starts running away from Lyric who is about to explode like a Buick in Baghdad*

You know what they say about assumption, don't you?

and by the way, this could be considered flame, so I'd watch myself. There are limits to my tolerance.

Actually no. It is of my opinion that they would've been freed either which way. It is unfortunate that we had a civil war but in the end, it did help free the slaves. Did I feel that Dred Scott was wrong? Yes but there would've been nothing I could do about the decision.



As a Christian, we are to do all we can to help those that are suffering. That is what being a christian is all about, helping people.



I don't care if your a Christian or not. However, I will do all I can to make sure that my rights as a Christian get just as much weight as those that are not christians.
Your statements are self-serving and contain inherent contradictions.

You say that Dredd Scott was wrong but you could have done nothing about it, and anyway the slaves would have been freed, somehow, eventually. The slaves were freed by human action -- by the political action, press, speech, and acts of civil disobedience of abolitionists even more than the Civil War itself, in my opinion. Those abolitionists, btw, overwhelmingly stated Christian duty as their motive to take those actions. They were a tiny minority in a country that either supported slavery or didn't care about it. Without their dedicated action, how do you think the slaves would have been freed -- and not just freed but acknowledged to have the same legal and human rights as whites? The minority did the right thing, even though it was not popular, and they prevailed by winning over the minds of the majority. So, indeed, there was something you could have done about it. Instead, you choose merely to shrug your shoulders and do nothing. That's some heavy duty your religion demands of you.

You say it is your Christian duty to help others. Reconcile that with your immediately preceeding statement in favor of non-action in the face of oppression, please.

Finally, you seem to imply that if non-Christians (and I'll expand that to include anyone who does not conform to the standards you set, whatever they may be) fight for and gain rights, that somehow threatens to diminish your "rights as a Christian." This is the argument that if A wins, B must necessarily lose. We're not playing football here. Rights can be shared equally by all. Your resistance to this idea smacks of a lack of generosity, at the very least.

I'm also interested in the phrase "my rights as a Christian." What does that mean? Your right to blindly obey the government or the will of the majority? I don't think you need an amendment to the Constitution to guarantee you that.

Hypotheticaly, since you respect the government so much, what if you, as a Christian, happened to live in a conservative Islamic country ruled by Sharia law? Would you attend mosque if required to? Would you swear on the Koran and thank Allah and the Prophet for your nation?

Outside his control my aching ass! He had the fucking PDB on August 6, 2001: bin Laden Determined To Strike Inside U.S. He did NOTHING with the information. He could have prevented 9/11 if he'd cared.

Yes of course, the United States is this tiny little country. All you have to do is add a few security to each building the U.S., and everything's a-ok. :rolleyes:

Condi Rice later said, who could have imagined they would use hijacked commercial airplanes as cruise missiles? Well, DOCTOR Rice...if you'd bothered to do your homework, you would know that a similar plot against the Eiffel Tower, using hijacked commercial airliners...was thwarted in 1995!! So someone imagined it before!

I believe that was also in a book, but note, the report did not say that the plot was to use airliners. It could have been any kind of attack. I can think of... 4 or 5 good ones off of the top of my head.

And a movie had to be delayed in it's release, because the plot was WAY TIOO SIMILAR to what happened on 9/11. So, DOCTOR Rice....if Hollywood could imagine it...and if there was a previous case of just such a plan, in 1995...and you were the National Security Advisor...why didn't YOU know about these things, and warn Bush about them??

Again, how did you expect him to know that was the method to be used? The report did not specify. In fact, all it said was that Al Qaeda wanted to attack inside the U.S. That's it! No location, no method, nothing.

No, sorry, 9/11 was NOT outside of Bush's control. And 9/11 did not cause the massive downturn in employment. 9/11 was just the convenient excuse companies used. If 9/11 had never happened, they'd have found another excuse.

I don't know about company excuses and all that, but I do know the economy was on its way down before 9/11. It certainly took a good hit because of 9/11, but it was already on its way down before that took place.

By the way, I found the statistic (at the source no less), and that is definitely interesting. I still don't see them as wanting to kill you (outside of Pat Robertson), but it was interesting.

Originally Posted by Pure Metal
does anyone else find this picture disturbing?

Yes!!!!!!

Teacher must be a total moron to have kids do that in class. Either that or he's a Nazi.

Thank you, I couldn't place what exactly that was disturbing but its the same crazy Fascist nationalism as the Nazis that we saw very recently. After 9/11 and all the flags (made in China) I was terrified of the people of this country finding me (a Jew) and putting me in some sort of special camp.

You know what they say about assumption, don't you?

and by the way, this could be considered flame, so I'd watch myself. There are limits to my tolerance.
He could have just been saying you'd be really angry. Benefit of the doubt, in spite of everything? :)

He could have just been saying you'd be really angry. Benefit of the doubt, in spite of everything? :)

Mostly, I give people the benefit of the doubt. I do not, however, give the benefit of doubt to those people who seem to make pissing me off their sole reason for existing.

There are certain people on this thread who have, over this thread and others...seemed to go intentionally out of their way to piss me off. These sorts do not get the benefit of doubt from me. their past actions make it impossible for me to give them that benefit.

And the person we are both referencing falls into the category of one who has a history of seemingly intentionally pissing me off.

Y
By the way, I found the statistic (at the source no less), and that is definitely interesting. I still don't see them as wanting to kill you (outside of Pat Robertson), but it was interesting.

What would you call it, then? discriminating against me, denying me an ability to earn a living, consigning me to the economic shit-heap...what would you call those actions? I call them trying to kill me.

Whether they do it with a gun, a knife, or thru economic deprivation, the result is the same.

So, how would you justify the actions of continuing discrimination? Obviously, they want me dead. They certainly aren't doing anything that will make it possible for me to go on living!

The bible states to respect those that are in authority over us. I don't remember the exact passage unfortunately or I would state it.

By not respecting those in authority over us, we are, in effect, sinning against God.
Quote it, and then explain away Paul's later statement, which I posted, where he says "We must obey God as ruler rather than men."

What would you call it, then? discriminating against me, denying me an ability to earn a living, consigning me to the economic shit-heap...what would you call those actions? I call them trying to kill me.

I call it the equivalent of an ecenomic sanction against you, not killing. If a person is shooting a gun at you, that is trying to kill you. Refusing to hire you is not a threat of death.

Whether they do it with a gun, a knife, or thru economic deprivation, the result is the same.

Having to apply for welfare and being shot are the same things? How fascinating is that? By the way, the claim that single white people can't get aid is in the top 10 for the biggest load of crap I've ever heard.

So, how would you justify the actions of continuing discrimination? Obviously, they want me dead. They certainly aren't doing anything that will make it possible for me to go on living!

Frankly, the way you keep screaming and yelling, I can't really blame them. The government provides programs to those who can't earn for themselves, and I suggest you take advantage of them.

(By the way, what does any of this have to do with "under God" being in the pledge of allegiance?)

What would you call it, then? discriminating against me, denying me an ability to earn a living, consigning me to the economic shit-heap...what would you call those actions? I call them trying to kill me.

Whether they do it with a gun, a knife, or thru economic deprivation, the result is the same.

So, how would you justify the actions of continuing discrimination? Obviously, they want me dead. They certainly aren't doing anything that will make it possible for me to go on living!

Funny I remeber this theory of destroying people being used in the Batman movie by the League of Shadows. :rolleyes:

My beef with you is that you support the people who have kept me down and oppressed. Guilt by association.

Sorry but again you are incorrect. I watch what people say. If they say something that I disagree with I say it.

If you actually believe what you just said then you are guilty by association of being a racist bigot as well as anti-religion.

We all know that the democrats have been keeping the african-americans down. It isn't the republicans that do. You h ave people like Jesse Jackson who have stated that successful african-americans aren't true african americans and they are to be shunned. To me, that is racism. The democrats have done the samething to Estrada, Rice, and others. The only one it seems they haven't touched is Powell.

By the way, since you completely ignored the rest of my post debunking the idea that Bush is clairvoyant and could have stopped 9/11 if he damn well pleased, I will assume you concede that point.

Actually no! We may not like it but we would abide by it! Most of us true Christians anyway!

Also, as a Christian, if they do rule in favor of the Pledge (which they will) it is your responsibility to accept it.

Hypocrite.

As a "true Christian," you refuse to accept Roe v. Wade. You work to overturn it.

Everyone has a right to disagree with SCOTUS and to seek change.

And, as I have pointed out, your prognostication is flawed. SCOTUS may or may not uphold the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge. (The Pledge itself isn't even at issue.) But it would be a difficult call under existing precedent. You've never made any argument other than a conclusory statement.

Also, you have been wrong in such predictions before -- remember the 10 Commandments cases?

Sorry but again you are incorrect. I watch what people say. If they say something that I disagree with I say it.

If you actually believe what you just said then you are guilty by association of being a racist bigot as well as anti-religion.

We all know that the democrats have been keeping the african-americans down. It isn't the republicans that do. You h ave people like Jesse Jackson who have stated that successful african-americans aren't true african americans and they are to be shunned. To me, that is racism. The democrats have done the samething to Estrada, Rice, and others. The only one it seems they haven't touched is Powell.

This is way off-topic, but ...

Speaking of racism, why do you assume African-Americans aren't smart enough to choose their own best interests? Why do you assume they vote for Democrats even when "the democrats have been keeping the african-americans down"?

Sorry, Corny, but (a) African-Americans don't share a hive mind; (b) African-Americans are as capable of you of analyzing American politics and voting what is best for themselves and for our country; and (c) other than your false statements and racist generalizations you give no reason to contradict the fact that each African-American votes they way is best for him/her and/or the country.

If you want to debate this further, start a new thread. But get your head on straight first.

I call it the equivalent of an ecenomic sanction against you, not killing. If a person is shooting a gun at you, that is trying to kill you. Refusing to hire you is not a threat of death.



Having to apply for welfare and being shot are the same things? How fascinating is that? By the way, the claim that single white people can't get aid is in the top 10 for the biggest load of crap I've ever heard.



Frankly, the way you keep screaming and yelling, I can't really blame them. The government provides programs to those who can't earn for themselves, and I suggest you take advantage of them.

(By the way, what does any of this have to do with "under God" being in the pledge of allegiance?)

1. Again...whether it is by gun, knife, or econmic deprivation, the result is the same, and I am just as dead...so they may as well be killing me. And just what gives them the right to apply an "economic sanction" against me for doing a completely legal thing? It is not illegal to obtain sex-reassignment surgery, it did not negatively impact my IQ, nor my ability to do a job...and it hurt no one. Your cutesy little "economic sanction" as an excuse isn't gonna cut it. That is just their weapon of choice with which to kill me...instead of a gun or a knife.

2. YOU fucking try to get welfare or any kind of help when you are single, white, and have no kids...and top it off with being transsexual. See how much the government is willing to help you? I got the answer already...ZERO!!!

3. I have tried. And it isn't like I cannot earn for myself. I am being DENIED the opportunity to earn for myself. Physically and mentally, I am capable of earning for myself. Now, if it wasn't for discriminating assholes, I would not have a problem.

4. Actually, it has nothing to do with "under God" in the Pledge...but EVERYTHING to do with why I refuse to say the Pledge AT ALL!! I will not give my allegiance to a country, and to a government, which has done nothing to earn it! If they won't stand up for my most basic rights, then they have earned no respect, no allegiance, no loyalty, no admiration, no assistance, and no cooperation from me. NONE.

That answer all your questions?

Oh...and while you're at it...be honest with yourself. You know goddamn well that you would feel exactly as I do...if you were getting treated as I am...for no better reason than the reason I'm being treated as I am.

You'd be angry and yelling, too. You'd be frustrated, pissed off, and lahing out, too. Don't even tell me you would just sit down, shut up, and accept your miserable lot in life. Because that is, at best, intelectually dishonest...and at worst, full of shit...and you know it.

By the way, since you completely ignored the rest of my post debunking the idea that Bush is clairvoyant and could have stopped 9/11 if he damn well pleased, I will assume you concede that point.
I'm not conceding jack shit!
He could have READ..or had read TO HIM...the fucking PDB dated Aug 6, 2001. Since none of us know the full contents of that PDB, we do not know. But he never even fucking TRIED to do anything to stop 9/11. A good way to have started would have been to READ the fucking PDB!!!

He didn't even take steps to inform himself of the nature of the threat! That may not have prevented 9/11...then again, maybe it would have! We don't know. But we DO know that Bush tried his damn best to stop an independent investigation into what went wrong, leading up to 9/11. Why would he want that stopped? Was he hiding something? Was he afraid of what might come out of such an investigation?

Quit being a shill for Bush. Open your eyes and realize the man belongs to the "Fuck Everyone But Me" Party.

Hypocrite.

As a "true Christian," you refuse to accept Roe v. Wade. You work to overturn it.


Fuckin-A!!! Hung on his own petard!!
You ROCK, Cat-Tribe!!!

1. Again...whether it is by gun, knife, or econmic deprivation, the result is the same, and I am just as dead...so they may as well be killing me. And just what gives them the right to apply an "economic sanction" against me for doing a completely legal thing? It is not illegal to obtain sex-reassignment surgery, it did not negatively impact my IQ, nor my ability to do a job...and it hurt no one. Your cutesy little "economic sanction" as an excuse isn't gonna cut it. That is just their weapon of choice with which to kill me...instead of a gun or a knife.

And again, I fail to see what this has anything to do with anything.

2. YOU fucking try to get welfare or any kind of help when you are single, white, and have no kids...and top it off with being transsexual. See how much the government is willing to help you? I got the answer already...ZERO!!!

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. I once helped my brother with the paperwork neccessary to get welfare. It took about 6 hours of paperwork, and 10 days later he got his first check. It wasn't that hard.

EDIT: to clarify, my brother is not a transexual, but I fail to see what that has to do with requesting aid. It was an entirely remote process.

3. I have tried. And it isn't like I cannot earn for myself. I am being DENIED the opportunity to earn for myself. Physically and mentally, I am capable of earning for myself. Now, if it wasn't for discriminating assholes, I would not have a problem.

Sorry to hear that.

4. Actually, it has nothing to do with "under God" in the Pledge...but EVERYTHING to do with why I refuse to say the Pledge AT ALL!! I will not give my allegiance to a country, and to a government, which has done nothing to earn it! If they won't stand up for my most basic rights, then they have earned no respect, no allegiance, no loyalty, no admiration, no assistance, and no cooperation from me. NONE.

Oh, that's what you're babbling about.

That answer all your questions?

Getting there.

Oh...and while you're at it...be honest with yourself. You know goddamn well that you would feel exactly as I do...if you were getting treated as I am...for no better reason than the reason I'm being treated as I am.

I kind of doubt it. I've been in some tight straights before in my life, and I never ran around biting random peoples' heads off for no reason. It's called misplaced aggression, and I don't display it.

You'd be angry and yelling, too. You'd be frustrated, pissed off, and lahing out, too. Don't even tell me you would just sit down, shut up, and accept your miserable lot in life. Because that is, at best, intelectually dishonest...and at worst, full of shit...and you know it.

No, I wouldn't just sit down and accept it, but I wouldn't run around yelling at random people on message boards who, likely, have never interviewed or even met you for no other reason than you are simply angry. You need to direct your anger where it belongs, and that is not here.

I'm not conceding jack shit!
He could have READ..or had read TO HIM...the fucking PDB dated Aug 6, 2001. Since none of us know the full contents of that PDB, we do not know. But he never even fucking TRIED to do anything to stop 9/11. A good way to have started would have been to READ the fucking PDB!!!

Look, I will say this slowly and use small words. Bush was not aware of the nature of the threat. He could have, of course, closed down all the airports, shut down all nuclear power plants, disabled all major electric grids, closed all government buildings, and cleared all buildings in the nation over 30 stories. He could then have declared martial law, suspended the constitution, and send the police around to search everyone who could feasably been involved in such a plot.

However, you'd be bitching alot harder if he had done that instead.

He didn't even take steps to inform himself of the nature of the threat! That may not have prevented 9/11...then again, maybe it would have! We don't know. But we DO know that Bush tried his damn best to stop an independent investigation into what went wrong, leading up to 9/11. Why would he want that stopped? Was he hiding something? Was he afraid of what might come out of such an investigation?

Source on refusing to inform himself? All news reports I had heard referred "an attack", but none specified its nature. Hell, the Chinese sent us a memo that Al-Qaeda was up to something, but they weren't sure either.

Quit being a shill for Bush. Open your eyes and realize the man belongs to the "Fuck Everyone But Me" Party.

I really don't care for Bush, personally. He's far too dimwitted for my taste.

Would you two please stop quibbling privately and return to at least somewhere in the vague vicinity of the topic?

Would you two please stop quibbling privately and return to at least somewhere in the vague vicinity of the topic?

I can agree to that.

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't say I have much issue with this; separation of Church and State issues aside, I've always had issues with the pledge - children are all-but forced to repeat a pledge they almost certainly don't understand, for no real reason other than the comfort of their elders. And yes, I'd argue school kids are 'forced' to say it, or face ridicule and such. People that age don't want to do anything to stand out or be different.

Beyond that, people seem to conveniently forgot the Pledge, as originally written, didn't even HAVE Under God in it, and that it was added for petty 'BEAT THE COMMIES' reasons.

Umm.....I am shocked. Well, not so....since when is pledging your support to your country wrong?

Perhaps you should not rely on welfare, and perhaps get a job.

If you cannot get a job due to choices you made, then perhaps you should accept the consequences of those decisions and not demand accomadations from others because of those choices.

*awaits insults, flames, and accusations of racism, bigotry, etc...*

Here, take my umbrella. It's about to rain.

2. YOU fucking try to get welfare or any kind of help when you are single, white, and have no kids...and top it off with being transsexual. See how much the government is willing to help you? I got the answer already...ZERO!!!

3. I have tried. And it isn't like I cannot earn for myself. I am being DENIED the opportunity to earn for myself. Physically and mentally, I am capable of earning for myself. Now, if it wasn't for discriminating assholes, I would not have a problem.
Perhaps you should not rely on welfare, and perhaps get a job.

If you cannot get a job due to choices you made, then perhaps you should accept the consequences of those decisions and not demand accomadations from others because of those choices.

*awaits insults, flames, and accusations of racism, bigotry, etc...*

Well that's wierd. I saw your post, quoted it, and posted a little quip... and my post is now above your post. That's strange.

Umm.....I am shocked. Well, not so....since when is pledging your support to your country wrong?
Well, here's one point of view: I question why little kids are being asked to pledge support to the country. Before a certain age, they don't even know what a country is (hell, some people never do). Why should they be pledging to support it?

I think there's way too much casual god invoking going on in America, but I don't care specifically about this particular issue -- the "under god" phrase. I'd like it to go, but if not, oh, well.

I take issue with the pledge. I take issue with the subtle indoctrination of kids before they develop the critical judgment to tell whether they agree with it or not. The pledge is not a moral statement; it's a political one. First graders don't have political views of their own. They don't know whether they're going to grow up to be patriots or not.

Immigrants might take the pledge when they get their citizenship. Soldiers and politicians might take the pledge. But why should everyone?

Now, of course, there's no repercussion for not following through on the pledge in one's life. I'll bet Timothy McVeigh recited it every day when he was a kid. But if it is so trivial (as trivial as I think it should be) why are people so worked up about it? Why do they insist not only that it be recited, but that it be recited with precisely these words?

Weird. WTF is going on here today?
Too many opinions coming in all at once?

Weird. WTF is going on here today?

Fuckin-A!!! Hung on his own petard!!
You ROCK, Cat-Tribe!!!
Its hoisted by your own petard. Not hung.

1. Again...whether it is by gun, knife, or econmic deprivation, the result is the same, and I am just as dead...so they may as well be killing me. And just what gives them the right to apply an "economic sanction" against me for doing a completely legal thing? It is not illegal to obtain sex-reassignment surgery, it did not negatively impact my IQ, nor my ability to do a job...and it hurt no one. Your cutesy little "economic sanction" as an excuse isn't gonna cut it. That is just their weapon of choice with which to kill me...instead of a gun or a knife.
Except the government is not doing this to you. If you really have been turned down based on your status at every job that is a discrimination problem with those employers not the government. Unless the government is comming down and saying hey you guys you see Lyric over there yea don't hire her you've got no reason to be mad at the government for this.

2. YOU fucking try to get welfare or any kind of help when you are single, white, and have no kids...and top it off with being transsexual. See how much the government is willing to help you? I got the answer already...ZERO!!!
We've already gone over options for you so I don't feel like draging this one back up.

3. I have tried. And it isn't like I cannot earn for myself. I am being DENIED the opportunity to earn for myself. Physically and mentally, I am capable of earning for myself. Now, if it wasn't for discriminating assholes, I would not have a problem.
Once again problem with individuals not the government. The funny thing is that you hate people who discriminate and yet you yourself generalize all republicans as horrible people. I mean its pot calling the kettle black here.

4. Actually, it has nothing to do with "under God" in the Pledge...but EVERYTHING to do with why I refuse to say the Pledge AT ALL!! I will not give my allegiance to a country, and to a government, which has done nothing to earn it! If they won't stand up for my most basic rights, then they have earned no respect, no allegiance, no loyalty, no admiration, no assistance, and no cooperation from me. NONE.
So what do you want the government to do come to your house with a check and say we are sorry? The government represents the majority in our system and if you cant realize/deal with this your going to have a problem. You are not in the majority Lyric and even though your voice does deserve to be heard its a very small voice. You expect the government only to recognize your ideas when there are so many different ones out there.

That answer all your questions?

Oh...and while you're at it...be honest with yourself. You know goddamn well that you would feel exactly as I do...if you were getting treated as I am...for no better reason than the reason I'm being treated as I am.
Well there is only one side of the story being told here so I can't help but be skeptical.

You'd be angry and yelling, too. You'd be frustrated, pissed off, and lahing out, too. Don't even tell me you would just sit down, shut up, and accept your miserable lot in life. Because that is, at best, intelectually dishonest...and at worst, full of shit...and you know it.
Ironically by shouting on a message board instead of trying the suggestions we have given and saying no one is going to give you a job/help you are pretty much sitting down and accepting it. Not silently grant you but your still pretty much accepting it.

Too many opinions coming in all at once?

Note: Your post is above the one you quoted. Wierd.

Perhaps you should not rely on welfare, and perhaps get a job.

If you cannot get a job due to choices you made, then perhaps you should accept the consequences of those decisions and not demand accomadations from others because of those choices.

*awaits insults, flames, and accusations of racism, bigotry, etc...*
Lyric will either flame you, or ignore you. You will get no straight answer to this legitimate statement.

1. I've already noted the issue is the statute that added the words "under God" to the official version of the Pledge.

2. Consider the following from Wallace v. Jaffree (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=472&invol=38#f51), 472 U.S. 38, 60 n.51 (1985):

As this Court stated in Engel v. Vitale (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=370&page=430#430), 370 U.S., at 430 :

"The Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not."

Moreover, this Court has noted that "[w]hen the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing [472 U.S. 38, 61] officially approved religion is plain." Id., at 431. This comment has special force in the public-school context where attendance is mandatory. Justice Frankfurter acknowledged this reality in Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=333&page=227#227), 333 U.S., at 227 (concurring opinion):

"That a child is offered an alternative may reduce the constraint; it does not eliminate the operation of influence by the school in matters sacred to conscience and outside the school's domain. The law of imitation operates, and non-conformity is not an outstanding characteristic of children."

See also Abington School District v. Schempp (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=374&page=290#290), 374 U.S., at 290 (BRENNAN, J., concurring); cf. Marsh v. Chambers (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=463&invol=783#792), 463 U.S. 783, 792 (1983) (distinguishing between adults not susceptible to "religious indoctrination" and children subject to "peer pressure"). Further, this Court has observed:

"That [Boards of Education] are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes." West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=319&page=637#637), 319 U.S., at 637 .

3. See also Engel v. Vitale (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=370&page=430#430), 370 U.S. 421, 430 (1962):

Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause, as it might from the Free Exercise Clause, of the First Amendment, both of which are operative against the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although these two clauses may in certain instances overlap, they forbid two quite different kinds of governmental encroachment upon religious freedom. The Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not. This is not to say, of course, that [370 U.S. 421, 431] laws officially prescribing a particular form of religious worship do not involve coercion of such individuals. When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain. But the purposes underlying the Establishment Clause go much further than that. Its first and most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion. The history of governmentally established religion, both in England and in this country, showed that whenever government had allied itself with one particular form of religion, the inevitable result had been that it had incurred the hatred, disrespect and even contempt of those who held contrary beliefs. 13 That same history showed that many people had lost their respect for any religion that had relied upon the support of government to spread its faith. 14 The Establishment Clause [370 U.S. 421, 432] thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its "unhallowed perversion" by a civil magistrate. 15 Another purpose of the Establishment Clause rested upon an awareness of the historical fact that governmentally established religions and religious persecutions go hand in hand.

Hypocrite.

As a "true Christian," you refuse to accept Roe v. Wade. You work to overturn it.

Who said I was out to overturn it? I want the court to narrow their opinion to make it more understanding. You said it yourself that the court was vague in its ruling. don't you think that the court should narrow the opinion?

And, as I have pointed out, your prognostication is flawed. SCOTUS may or may not uphold the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge. (The Pledge itself isn't even at issue.) But it would be a difficult call under existing precedent. You've never made any argument other than a conclusory statement.

There is no precedent when it comes to Under God in the pledge of alligence. The only precedent there is regards saying it. And they ruled that students can't be forced to say it.

Also, you have been wrong in such predictions before -- remember the 10 Commandments cases?

However, I don't believe I'm wrong here.

However, I don't believe I'm wrong here.


I wonder, when last the court considered the "under god" addition to the pledge, why they declined to rule on the case's merits and dismissed it on a technicality.

Conceivably, they did this to avert being forced to make an unpopular decision.

I wonder, when last the court considered the "under god" addition to the pledge, why they declined to rule on the case's merits and dismissed it on a technicality.

Conceivably, they did this to avert being forced to make an unpopular decision.

Actually, the technicality was necessary because he doesn't have custody of his daughter and the fact that both his ex-wife and daughter don't mind it. Therefor, there was no legal standing for the case.

Now however, there is legal standing. I do believe however that they'll support under god.

As for the unpopularity, either decision is going to be unpopular to one side or the other.

Actually, the technicality was necessary because he doesn't have custody of his daughter and the fact that both his ex-wife and daughter don't mind it. Therefor, there was no legal standing for the case.

Now however, there is legal standing. I do believe however that they'll support under god.

As for the unpopularity, either decision is going to be unpopular to one side or the other.


Indeed, but i would say that a decision against the 'under god' addition would be much more unpopular than a decision in its favor.

Indeed, but i would say that a decision against the 'under god' addition would be much more unpopular than a decision in its favor.

Both sides would scream foul. It doesn't make much of a difference what side of the fence your on.

However, I read the newdow opinion from last year and what I found was that Thomas and O'Conner (still on the bench till her replacement is comfirmed) have both stated that it wasn't a violation of the Establishment Clause.

I don't know where Roberts stands on the issue because he wasn't pressed on it because this case would probably get to him sometime this year. Stevens? I don't know. He's a wild card. I think he might (and I could be wrong) keep it as is.

The others? Don't know. This case will be the most watched case since Bush v. Gore.

I'm an athiest, and frankly my dear, I don't give a spam

The others? Don't know. This case will be the most watched case since Bush v. Gore.

Bigger then the Michael Jackson trial?

The others? Don't know. This case will be the most watched case since Bush v. Gore.


We can only hope and pray that it is better decided.

Polytheists don't.
But the word "God" doesn't have meaning in a polytheist world view the way it does in a monotheistic view and we've established (I believe) that the word "God" in the pledge is referencing only monotheistic belief systems.

Sorry, Lyric does get overwrought, but on her behalf, I can't accept that statement. "Don't ask/don't tell"? That's your solution -- that people who are different should just try to conform and be as invisible and silent as possible and accept that their government does not acknowlege that they have rights? I agree with you on many points but, to me, this idea would be a rejection of everything America stands for, and is in keeping with my other points about "the tyranny of the majority."

I'm not advocating "don't ask/don't tell" First - an employer can't ask, the EEOC would be all over him/her. Secondly, it is fact that some people will discriminate against transexuals and it is fact if you tell them you are one you are inviting that discrimination, it may not be right, but it is the way it is, whether we like it or not. Besides, why does it need to be told, who's friggin' business is it anyway? I don't want my employer sticking their nose into my private life, particularly those parts dealing with my sexual activity and proclivities.

also from the above-mentioned article....if any of you wonder whyt I'm so pissed off with America, and why I refuse to pledge allegiance to this country, and why I think Europe is so much better than America...condier this:
---------------------------------------------------
Leave it to Europeans, however, to put to shame this slow, piecemeal approach to transgender rights and the strife that goes along with it. Last month Great Britain passed a law granting a panoply of rights to transsexuals, allowing them to marry, change their birth certificates, and be legally recognized as their chosen gender. The law on transgender rights in Britain was shown to fall "far short of the standards for human dignity and human freedom in the 21st century."

"If democracies are measured by how they treat their minorities," said Minister Rosie Winterton, "then I believe it is absolutely right that the 5,000-strong transsexual community be afforded the same rights enjoyed by the other millions of us in the UK."

America, are you listening?
If Europe is so great, quit bitching about the U.S. and go live in Europe.

If Europe is so great, quit bitching about the U.S. and go live in Europe.

Nice. Either love it as is or leave. :headbang:

Why can't Lyric seek to change the government Lyric dislikes from within the country that Lyric loves?

Methinks that is part of what being American is all about.

Outside his control my aching ass! He had the fucking PDB on August 6, 2001: bin Laden Determined To Strike Inside U.S. He did NOTHING with the information. He could have prevented 9/11 if he'd cared.

Condi Rice later said, who could have imagined they would use hijacked commercial airplanes as cruise missiles? Well, DOCTOR Rice...if you'd bothered to do your homework, you would know that a similar plot against the Eiffel Tower, using hijacked commercial airliners...was thwarted in 1995!! So someone imagined it before!
And a movie had to be delayed in it's release, because the plot was WAY TIOO SIMILAR to what happened on 9/11. So, DOCTOR Rice....if Hollywood could imagine it...and if there was a previous case of just such a plan, in 1995...and you were the National Security Advisor...why didn't YOU know about these things, and warn Bush about them??

No, sorry, 9/11 was NOT outside of Bush's control. And 9/11 did not cause the massive downturn in employment. 9/11 was just the convenient excuse companies used. If 9/11 had never happened, they'd have found another excuse.

Sorry, but you're waaaayy off base with this - you blame Bush for 9/11? Next you'll be saying it was Jews flying the planes. Sorry, knowing that a plot similar to what happened on 9/11 had been thwarted in France several years before is not the same thing as being able to predict and prevent it from happening on 9/11/01 in the U.S. I will agree he might have prevented it if the Clinton White House had allowed the 'Able Danger' military intelligence group to share info. with the FBI, but Clinton's people made sure that the information the military had that might have been used to stop 9/11 was kept away from law enforcement.

Sorry, but you're waaaayy off base with this - you blame Bush for 9/11? Next you'll be saying it was Jews flying the planes. Sorry, knowing that a plot similar to what happened on 9/11 had been thwarted in France several years before is not the same thing as being able to predict and prevent it from happening on 9/11/01 in the U.S. I will agree he might have prevented it if the Clinton White House had allowed the 'Able Danger' military intelligence group to share info. with the FBI, but Clinton's people made sure that the information the military had that might have been used to stop 9/11 was kept away from law enforcement.

Um. We already moved on from this off-topic detour. If you are going to go back through old posts, how about answering the questions I posed to you yesterday?

Nice. Either love it as is or leave. :headbang:

Why can't Lyric seek to change the government Lyric dislikes from within the country that Lyric loves?

Methinks that is part of what being American is all about.

If she is seeking to change the government by legit means, then by all means, go for it. but I haven't heard anything about how she has been writing to her state and federal reps with her complaints, or running for office, or working in a volunteer organization to effect the changes she seeks. All I see is someone pissed off about how things are and bitching about it, but not doing anything to change it.

Um. We already moved on from this off-topic detour. If you are going to go back through old posts, how about answering the questions I posed to you yesterday?

Yeah, I've been out of town all day and was just trying to catch up - I noticed after I had posted this the swing back to the original topic.

I did answer them, go back and look at post #501 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9647979&postcount=501)

Yeah, I've been out of town all day and was just trying to catch up - I noticed after I had posted this the swing back to the original topic.

I did answer them, go back and look at post #501 (btw, how do you link to a specific post instead of just a page?)
Click on the post number--it'll open a new window with just that post in it and you can use the url from there.

Cat-Tribe--I've got a more political than legal question on this but I'd like your input.

I've said earlier in this thread that I think there are a couple of likely outcomes from this suit. The first is that the 9th Circuit will reverse itself and the Supremes will refuse cert on Newdow's likely appeal. The other is that the 9th lets it stand based on earlier precedent and passes it on to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS reverses the 9th and keeps "under God" in the pledge. No way do I see Newdow winning, regardless of the merits of his case, which I think are many.

How likely do you think either of those scenarios are, and more interestingly, how do you think the court would split on this, assuming they actually took the case, and given the assumption that Roberts is confirmed and that O'Connor's replacement hasn't been named yet?

But the word "God" doesn't have meaning in a polytheist world view the way it does in a monotheistic view and we've established (I believe) that the word "God" in the pledge is referencing only monotheistic belief systems.
And there are no polytheist Americans who may want to pledge allegiance to their country but not someone else's concept of god?

As I said before I had to leave to go to class and before you edited the post by adding the below, nope.


Nope, though it appears you assume I have or would. I think you might still be reading too much into my original post that has led to this exchange.



I never said that firmly held aetheistic or poly-theistic beliefs did not qualify as a religion. Again, you are reading things into what I've said that are not there - take my words at face value, use a plain language analysis such as you would use in examing a statute that has been challenged as being void for vagueness or an insurance contract that has language claimed to be ambiguous. What is the plain meaning of the words I said? Again, I merely made the simple and single point, with no implied beliefs on my part being implicated, that the phrase "under god" in the pledge does not promote, endorse, etc. the god of fundamentalist christians only but that rather it can be taken to promote the god of any monotheistic religion. That is it, nothing less, nothing more, no hidden meanings, no implied or stated belief on my part that such is constitutionally permissible or impermissible. I was merely pointing out the falsity of the idea that "under god" in the pledge promotes fundamentalist christian beliefs alone. It doesn't, it promotes other religious ideaologies as well. That's it, nothing more or less, no comments on the constitutionality of pointing out any religious ideaology.

The point is that your argument is either moot or you are admitting that the "under God" is a violation of the Establishment Clause.

If the law putting "under God" in the Pledge promotes any religion or even all religions, then it is, by definition, a law respecting the establishment of religion.

Government cannot promote religion -- especially not a specific religion or set of religions.

Unless you disagree with the well-established meaning of the Establishment Clause, your points concede a First Amendment violation.

I'm not advocating "don't ask/don't tell" First - an employer can't ask, the EEOC would be all over him/her. Secondly, it is fact that some people will discriminate against transexuals and it is fact if you tell them you are one you are inviting that discrimination, it may not be right, but it is the way it is, whether we like it or not. Besides, why does it need to be told, who's friggin' business is it anyway? I don't want my employer sticking their nose into my private life, particularly those parts dealing with my sexual activity and proclivities.
And what if I can't hide my difference? What if I am a transsexual who can't quite pass for fully female yet? Should I stay home or wear a burkha? How about if I am black? There are some people who discriminate against blacks. Should I only associate with my own race to avoid "inviting that discrimination"? How about people who are prejudiced against women? Should women just stay home or else risk inviting attack?

I know you don't believe these things, but you must see that your statement is blaming the victim for discrimination. I'm a born woman, and believe me, I know discrimination first hand. I've also had a number of gay and transgender friends, and I know the discrimination and threats I've faced are nothing compared to the often violent hatred some bigots express at the mere sight of someone who might be gay or transgendered. In many parts of this country (and others) there is no safe place for them. Saying that they should try to be less noticeable just adds insult to injury.

Meh. The 9th circuit is the most overturned Court in the country.. this is another flash-in-the-pan example of that fact.. You're not gonna get a traditionalist like Roberts to tip the scale toward banning the pledge when/if it hits the SCOTUS, and depending on Bush's next pick, I'd say it's clear skies ahead. :)

"Federal judge declares Pledge unconstitutional"

Ah, shit! And that was the only furniture polish I used too! Damn!

Cat-Tribe--I've got a more political than legal question on this but I'd like your input.

I've said earlier in this thread that I think there are a couple of likely outcomes from this suit. The first is that the 9th Circuit will reverse itself and the Supremes will refuse cert on Newdow's likely appeal. The other is that the 9th lets it stand based on earlier precedent and passes it on to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS reverses the 9th and keeps "under God" in the pledge. No way do I see Newdow winning, regardless of the merits of his case, which I think are many.

How likely do you think either of those scenarios are, and more interestingly, how do you think the court would split on this, assuming they actually took the case, and given the assumption that Roberts is confirmed and that O'Connor's replacement hasn't been named yet?

Arguably, the ED of Cal erred in this particular case in taking the reversed 9th Circuit decision as precedent.

What the 9th Circuit does could depend a lot on what panel gets the case, but the bottom line comes down to the same thing.

It is difficult to reconcile the existing SCOTUS precedent with the law allowing the "under God" statute.

I'm no expert on reading SCOTUS or 9th Circuit tea leaves.

I have the sneaking suspicion some further exception will be found, but the courts could stick to their guns and do the right thing.

One thought is that Justice Breyer's opinion in the 10 Commandment case could imply that a relatively established popular practice may technically violate the First Amendment, but still be allowed to continue.

If she is seeking to change the government by legit means, then by all means, go for it. but I haven't heard anything about how she has been writing to her state and federal reps with her complaints, or running for office, or working in a volunteer organization to effect the changes she seeks. All I see is someone pissed off about how things are and bitching about it, but not doing anything to change it.
Well, welcome to NSGeneral, Mauiwowee. Go take a toke and get over it. :D :p

Meh. The 9th circuit is the most overturned Court in the country.. this is another flash-in-the-pan example of that fact.. You're not gonna get a traditionalist like Roberts to tip the scale toward banning the pledge when/if it hits the SCOTUS, and depending on Bush's next pick, I'd say it's clear skies ahead. :)

1. This isn't a 9th Circuit case.

2. That 'factoid' varies by year. Are you sure it is currently true? If so, please give proof.

3. The 9th Circuit is one of the largest circuits and handles some of the most cases. It is not suprising it would lead to many Supreme Court cases.

"Federal judge declares Pledge unconstitutional"

Ah, shit! And that was the only furniture polish I used too! Damn!
You're my favorite person of the day! <kiss on nose> :D

1. This isn't a 9th Circuit case.

2. That 'factoid' varies by year. Are you sure it is currently true? If so, please give proof.

3. The 9th Circuit is one of the largest circuits and handles some of the most cases. It is not suprising it would lead to many Supreme Court cases.

The Michigan judge is deferring to the 9th.. I'm thinking down the road, when the supreme court will weigh the 9th vs. whatever new facts come up..

As for the 9th being overturned most often, I'm sure it's not true every year.. 2005 is young, so who knows. I know that it was the most overturned in 2002 and 2004 through a quick google of it, though.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledge.allegiance/

Not that it's helpful to assume any single case is more likely to be overturned simply because it emanates from the 9th, although it might help if you're gonna put $20 down on it. ;)

One thought is that Justice Breyer's opinion in the 10 Commandment case could imply that a relatively established popular practice may technically violate the First Amendment, but still be allowed to continue.
That's my bet, even though I disagree with it. The SC is terribly political these days. There is no way they'll call "under god" unconstitutional as long as there is a Republican in the White House.

Btw, I enjoy your posts tremendously.

Click on the post number--it'll open a new window with just that post in it and you can use the url from there.

Much obliged.

And there are no polytheist Americans who may want to pledge allegiance to their country but not someone else's concept of god?
I did not say or imply that. You're trying to read something into my statements that isn't there. re-read what I said in Post 501 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9647979&postcount=501) I'm only making a single, solitary point.

You're my favorite person of the day! <kiss on nose> :D
Thankya. Thankya verra much! [ bows ] :D

Thankya. Thankya verra much! [ bows ] :D
have to admit Eut... that post blindsided me.



Niiiice. :D

The point is that your argument is either moot or you are admitting that the "under God" is a violation of the Establishment Clause.

If the law putting "under God" in the Pledge promotes any religion or even all religions, then it is, by definition, a law respecting the establishment of religion.

Government cannot promote religion -- especially not a specific religion or set of religions.

Unless you disagree with the well-established meaning of the Establishment Clause, your points concede a First Amendment violation.

My ONLY argument is:
1. That the words "under God" in the pledge refer to or acknowledge a monotheistic religious ideaology, but no specific religion or doctrine such as Catholocism, Judeaism, Islamicism, Baptist, Methodist, Deist, etc.
2. The claim by Lyric that the words "under God" refer to the god of Christian Fundamentalists only is clearly fallacious and without merit.

This argument may be moot and irrellevant to the issue of whether the Establishment Clause has been violated, then again it may not, but it was not made for the purpose of proving or disproving an Establishment Clause violation, it was made for the purpose of refuting Lyric's fallacious assertion that the words refered only and exlcusively to the god of Christian fundamentalists. NOTHING MORE. I have taken no position on the application of Establishment Clause precedent and meaning to the pledge.

Above and beyond that, I have made NO claim and argued NO position on the matter in any of my posts. I HAVE NOT undertaken my own analysis to decide for myself if the words violate the Establishment Clause. I'm sure you're a fine attorney and you clearly believe they do. However, I'm a good attorney in my own right, if I do say so myself, and I prefer to do my own analysis. The cases say what they say and you may be right. However, I have not made my own independent determination either way. I am neither defending the use of "under God" nor am I "condemning" it either. I have taken, at this point in time, a neutral position until such time as I have undertaken my own exercise in research and analysis.

Arguably, the ED of Cal erred in this particular case in taking the reversed 9th Circuit decision as precedent.

What the 9th Circuit does could depend a lot on what panel gets the case, but the bottom line comes down to the same thing.

It is difficult to reconcile the existing SCOTUS precedent with the law allowing the "under God" statute.

I'm no expert on reading SCOTUS or 9th Circuit tea leaves.

I have the sneaking suspicion some further exception will be found, but the courts could stick to their guns and do the right thing.

One thought is that Justice Breyer's opinion in the 10 Commandment case could imply that a relatively established popular practice may technically violate the First Amendment, but still be allowed to continue.
My guess is that the ED knew this wasn't going away as long as Newdow was around, and probably ruled as he did in order to try to get some settled law on the case, to put to rest the argument that since SCOTUS hadn't ruled on the merits of the 9th Circuit's decision, but on the standing issue, that the 9th's decision was the law of the area.

And I agree that it's hard to reconcile SCOTUS precedent with allowing the phrase to stay in, Corneliu's objections notwithstanding. That said, Scalia and Thomas have never had much problem with ignoring precedent when it gets in their way. Breyer's opinion will likely be the loophole they'll use, and I'm betting it will be a near unanimous opinion, if not completely unanimous. SCOTUS is a political animal, and the judges who are nominally liberal on the court have to know this is a political loser of a case, and one where the decision can be rendered sufficiently narrow so as to prevent future intrusions into the church-state divide.

I did not say or imply that. You're trying to read something into my statements that isn't there. re-read what I said in Post 501 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9647979&postcount=501) I'm only making a single, solitary point.
Yes, I understand that, but my point is that I think you're being disingenuous.

"Under god" may not have been meant to indicate fundamentalist Christianity, but it is being *taken up* by radical fundamentalist Christians as one of many issues in their efforts to establish political presence and influence by linking all political symbols to their religion. To say X was not the original intent does not negate the statement that X is the current use, and it is the current use that matters.

As for my polytheist post, my point is that the language is not completely generic, not universally inclusive. This matters because language that excludes some groups may be used to exclude others as well. I am thinking of the radicals mentioned above.

And what if I can't hide my difference? What if I am a transsexual who can't quite pass for fully female yet? Should I stay home or wear a burkha? How about if I am black? There are some people who discriminate against blacks. Should I only associate with my own race to avoid "inviting that discrimination"? How about people who are prejudiced against women? Should women just stay home or else risk inviting attack?

I know you don't believe these things, but you must see that your statement is blaming the victim for discrimination. I'm a born woman, and believe me, I know discrimination first hand. I've also had a number of gay and transgender friends, and I know the discrimination and threats I've faced are nothing compared to the often violent hatred some bigots express at the mere sight of someone who might be gay or transgendered. In many parts of this country (and others) there is no safe place for them. Saying that they should try to be less noticeable just adds insult to injury.

First, you don't know squat about what I believe. Secondly, if you can't "hide" your difference, such as a black man can't or a transgendered who isn't fully female or male yet, then fine - you will have to deal with the unfortunate, but reality of discimination from some people. I merely advocated the idea that if there is no need to do so, why broadcast it? Unless you want to be victimized by even more people. When I talk to someone, I don't ask what their sexual identity is unless it is pertinent to the conversation's topic. If I notice it, fine, but if it is not noticeable, I'm not going to ask and there is no reason to tell. I didn't say "be less noticeable" I did say, "don't broadcast needlessly." There is a difference.

Yes, I understand that, but my point is that I think you're being disingenuous.
You're free to "think" what you will. I'm not being disingenuous though, I'm making a single, solitary point. That point may, by implication, lead to other conclusions on other matters, but that is not my intent with it, nor do I, at this juncture, care about the possible implied conclusions on other matters. They are not the subject nor focus of my argument in making my point.
"Under god" may not have been meant to indicate fundamentalist Christianity, but it is being *taken up* by radical fundamentalist Christians as one of many issues in their efforts to establish political presence and influence by linking all political symbols to their religion. To say X was not the original intent does not negate the statement that X is the current use,
I will agree with that
and it is the current use that matters.
In matters of constitutional law, that is not always so and I am not convinced that is so in the case of the pledge.
As for my polytheist post, my point is that the language is not completely generic, not universally inclusive. This matters because language that excludes some groups may be used to exclude others as well. . .
I would agree with you on that and that is probably relevant to an Establishment Clause analysis, but since I didn't and haven't made one, it is beside the point when it comes to what I was advocating and arguing in my post.

have to admit Eut... that post blindsided me.

Niiiice. :D
Thankya! I may be getting a tad "long in the tooth," but I can still manage to get up ... to mild mischief now and then. :D

First, you don't know squat about what I believe. Secondly, if you can't "hide" your difference, such as a black man can't or a transgendered who isn't fully female or male yet, then fine - you will have to deal with the unfortunate, but reality of discimination from some people. I merely advocated the idea that if there is no need to do so, why broadcast it? Unless you want to be victimized by even more people. When I talk to someone, I don't ask what their sexual identity is unless it is pertinent to the conversation's topic. If I notice it, fine, but if it is not noticeable, I'm not going to ask and there is no reason to tell. I didn't say "be less noticeable" I did say, "don't broadcast needlessly." There is a difference.
Well, I got the impression from Lyric's posts that she is rather noticeable, so I am willing to cut her a little slack for being angry, knowing just how bad homophobia can get.

And you're right, I don't know squat about what you believe. I was just trying to be polite by assuming that you don't believe in blaming victims for the actions of bigots. Since I think that would be a bad thing, I expressed good will by not ascribing it to you. Sorry.

You're free to "think" what you will. I'm not being disingenuous though, I'm making a single, solitary point. That point may, by implication, lead to other conclusions on other matters, but that is not my intent with it, nor do I, at this juncture, care about the possible implied conclusions on other matters. They are not the subject nor focus of my argument in making my point.

I will agree with that

In matters of constitutional law, that is not always so and I am not convinced that is so in the case of the pledge.

I would agree with you on that and that is probably relevant to an Establishment Clause analysis, but since I didn't and haven't made one, it is beside the point when it comes to what I was advocating and arguing in my post.
Are you sure you agree with any part of my statement? After all, if I "think" in quote marks...

Hmmm...

Bigger then the Michael Jackson trial?

Yep! This will pale that.

Yep! This will pale that.

lol I find it hard to believe that anything would be paler then Michael Jackson.

lol I find it hard to believe that anything would be paler then Michael Jackson.

Considering that he changed his skin color, your right.

However, it is my firm opinion that since the Pledge with "under god" doesn't violate the establishment clause of the US Constitution, the words under God will be upheld by SCOTUS.

We'll just have to wait and see and whatever the outcome, I'll respect their decision.

Well, I got the impression from Lyric's posts that she is rather noticeable, so I am willing to cut her a little slack for being angry, knowing just how bad homophobia can get.
And I can go along with that.

And you're right, I don't know squat about what you believe. I was just trying to be polite by assuming that you don't believe in blaming victims for the actions of bigots. Since I think that would be a bad thing, I expressed good will by not ascribing it to you. Sorry.
apology accepted, you are right, I don't believe in blaming victims for the actions of bigots as a general proposition. I do place some blame with victims of bigots when they needlessly subject themselves to the bigotry. A black man who decides he wants to go to a KKK meeting "just to see what would happen" bears some blame for whatever does happen (depending on what does happen, he doesn't bear all the blame - for example: if he were lynched, but he would bear some blame for his lynching due to his idiotic choice to go where he knew bigotry against him would be prevalent, but not all the blame since there is no valid reason, bigot or not, to lynch anyone. On the other hand if they called him a N*****r and spit on him and ran him off, I'd say he bore all the blame if his only injury is to his "feelings").

Considering that he changed his skin color, your right.

However, it is my firm opinion that since the Pledge with "under god" doesn't violate the establishment clause of the US Constitution, the words under God will be upheld by SCOTUS.

We'll just have to wait and see and whatever the outcome, I'll respect their decision.while they MAY keep the Under God portion, they might remove the Mandatory recitation of the "Pledge"

Are you sure you agree with any part of my statement? After all, if I "think" in quote marks...

Hmmm...
I put the word "think" in quotes because it was a direct quote of what you said - "I think you are . . . " I was merely saying you can "think" what ever you want, that doesn't change the point of my argument/post.

while they MAY keep the Under God portion, they might remove the Mandatory recitation of the "Pledge"

:headbang:

1943. Supreme court case. Supremes ruled: Recitation of the Pledge will not, and cannot, be mandatory. How many bloody times I have to say it?

while they MAY keep the Under God portion, they might remove the Mandatory recitation of the "Pledge"
Mandatory recitation is already unconstitutional, that was decided in 1943, before the words "under god" were even in the pledge.

EDIT: Darn it, Gallo, you beat me to it. :p
EDIT2: But at least I beat Corne :cool:

while they MAY keep the Under God portion, they might remove the Mandatory recitation of the "Pledge"

Actually, under a 1943 ruling, you can't force people to say the Pledge of Allegience.

:headbang:

1943. Supreme court case. Supremes ruled: Recitation of the Pledge will not, and cannot, be mandatory. How many bloody times I have to say it?
Then the article is wrong and mis informing the public.
from the article: bolding mine.

The decisions by Karlton and the 9th Circuit conflict with an August opinion by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. That court upheld a Virginia law requiring public schools lead daily Pledge of Allegiance recitation, which is similar to the requirement in California.
and thus, then, they have nothing to stand on since they can tell their child that it is their option to say the pledge. thus they are not being forced to say "Under God".

That court upheld a Virginia law requiring public schools lead daily Pledge of Allegiance recitation, which is similar to the requirement in California.

Reread that carefully. It requires the schools to lead the class in the recitation, but the students are under no obligation to repeat it.

Then the article is wrong and mis informing the public.
from the article: bolding mine.


and thus, then, they have nothing to stand on since they can tell their child that it is their option to say the pledge. thus they are not being forced to say "Under God".


The rulings against school prayer are based on the idea that even though a child can opt out of such a thing, there is undeniable and very real social pressure on him to conform.

The same reasoning may inform the decision in this case, or it may not, we shall have to wait and see.

Reread that carefully. It requires the schools to lead the class in the recitation, but the students are under no obligation to repeat it.how can one lead if no one follows? if the child is under no obligation to say the Pledge, then are they also under no obligation to say the words "Under God?"

So why not remove the Ruling that requires the Leading of the Pledge of Alliegence? won't that favor the Teachers who are Athiest?

how can one lead if no one follows? if the child is under no obligation to say the Pledge, then are they also under no obligation to say the words "Under God?"

Bingo.

So why not remove the Ruling that requires the Leading of the Pledge of Alliegence? won't that favor the Teachers who are Athiest?

Interesting thought. I guess no one took that all the way to the Supremes.

The rulings against school prayer are based on the idea that even though a child can opt out of such a thing, there is undeniable and very real social pressure on him to conform.

The same reasoning may inform the decision in this case, or it may not, we shall have to wait and see.
Agreed and to point out, while Lead Prayer is against the Rulings, I believe there is nothing for the teacher to provide some time for the students to pray (as long as [s]he doesn't announce it as such.)

I always wondered why my AP teacher took soooo long to pass out those exams... :D

I kind of doubt it. I've been in some tight straights before in my life, and I never ran around biting random peoples' heads off for no reason. It's called misplaced aggression, and I don't display it.



No, I wouldn't just sit down and accept it, but I wouldn't run around yelling at random people on message boards who, likely, have never interviewed or even met you for no other reason than you are simply angry. You need to direct your anger where it belongs, and that is not here.

Actually, no. what I'm pissed off about HERE is that people blatantly refuse to even entertain the notion that discrimination exists. And that it is the main reason for my employment problems.
What pisses me off, is people coming up with "solutions" to my problems that are not, in fact, actually workable. And THAT is the cause of my aggression on these boards....the refusal of certain people to acknowledge that discrimination damn well DOES occur in this country...and that it is damn well WRONG.

So why not remove the Ruling that requires the Leading of the Pledge of Alliegence? won't that favor the Teachers who are Athiest?

Wow! Now that is a very interesting perspective. I've never thought about it that way, and can find no court rulings that have considered it in that fashion (though, admittedly, I've only done a very cursory search). Off the top of my head though, I'd say these are excellent grounds upon which to strike down, under the Establishment clause, a statute that required teachers to lead the pledge since such statutes, while giving students an "opt out" provision (at least every statute I've seen requiring the pledge in a classroom gave an opt out to the students), do not give such to the teachers. Thus, aetheist or polytheist, or pagan or Wiccan, etc. teachers are being required by the government to recite an acknowledgement of a religious doctrine to which they do not subscribe. Hmmm, teachers need an opt out provision as well.

However, in the case at hand, this is not the issue, the issue is instead whether the inclusion of the words, "under God" in the pledge render the pledge itself unconstitutional.

Umm.....I am shocked. Well, not so....since when is pledging your support to your country wrong?
It isn't. If the Pledge of support is made by one who is of mature enough mind to actually know what he is Pledging...and is, of course, doing so of his own free will.
As I have said, numerous times in this thread, I WILL NOT pledge my allegiance to this country, until it has EARNED that allegiance. So far, this country has not earned it from me.
When this country finally stands up and FORCES employers to quit discriminating against me and my people...when it stands up and says that discrimination is NOT OKAY...and when this country follows through on the promises it made to me and every other citizen...THEN it is worthy of my allegiance. Till then, no salt.

Actually, no. what I'm pissed off about HERE is that people blatantly refuse to even entertain the notion that discrimination exists. And that it is the main reason for my employment problems.
What pisses me off, is people coming up with "solutions" to my problems that are not, in fact, actually workable. And THAT is the cause of my aggression on these boards....the refusal of certain people to acknowledge that discrimination damn well DOES occur in this country...and that it is damn well WRONG.

I never claimed that discrimination doesn't exist, yet you keep typing words in huge caps at me. I'm sorry people don't like you. Happy? Now, what do you expect the government to do about it, using the pledge of allegiance? (the topic at hand)

Wow! Now that is a very interesting perspective. I've never thought about it that way, and can find no court rulings that have considered it in that fashion (though, admittedly, I've only done a very cursory search). Off the top of my head though, I'd say these are excellent grounds upon which to strike down, under the Establishment clause, a statute that required teachers to lead the pledge since such statutes, while giving students an "opt out" provision (at least every statute I've seen requiring the pledge in a classroom gave an opt out to the students), do not give such to the teachers. Thus, aetheist or polytheist, or pagan or Wiccan, etc. teachers are being required by the government to recite an acknowledgement of a religious doctrine to which they do not subscribe. Hmmm, teachers need an opt out provision as well.

However, in the case at hand, this is not the issue, the issue is instead whether the inclusion of the words, "under God" in the pledge render the pledge itself unconstitutional.My guess--and this is only a guess--is that teachers are able to use the same opt out clause that SCOTUS provided that students are, and that if a teacher were to be fired for refusing to recite the pledge, the school district would find itself in a very untenable position.

My guess--and this is only a guess--is that teachers are able to use the same opt out clause that SCOTUS provided that students are, and that if a teacher were to be fired for refusing to recite the pledge, the school district would find itself in a very untenable position.

I would agree, although this has not been tested (at least in any example that I'm aware of).

plus, what good is a forced "love"? either you're honestly and truely grateful, and then you can say the pledge by your own will, or you are not, but what good is it to force you to say it then? what reason is there to make somebody say tahnk you if they don't mean it?!
This is a good point. Our pledge doesn't seem to mean much anymore. We recite the pledge during 2nd period every day at my high school, but most people just mumble it under their breaths. The nice thing is that you don't have to say, and if you don't, most people won't notice it anyway, as long as you do the salute. What's interesting, though, is that the pledge is recited over the intercom by the student announcer. Once, one of the announcers omitted "under God" by pausing. Of course, we live in a rich (not me), white, Christian (again, not me) suburb, so all Hell was quietly raised.
I'm glad this stupid "under God" thing is finally being addressed. In fact, thank "God!"

Actually, no. what I'm pissed off about HERE is that people blatantly refuse to even entertain the notion that discrimination exists. And that it is the main reason for my employment problems.
What pisses me off, is people coming up with "solutions" to my problems that are not, in fact, actually workable. And THAT is the cause of my aggression on these boards....the refusal of certain people to acknowledge that discrimination damn well DOES occur in this country...and that it is damn well WRONG.

Well, just on the off chance I've not made myself clear on this to you Lyric, I know discrimination exists (ever been to Natchez, Mississippi? it is a town where, as they proudly say, "The Old South Still Lives.") and I agree also that it is wrong.
All I've ever meant to suggest to you was that you should try to recognize situations in which you are needlessly exposing yourself to the possibility/probability of discrimination and try to avoid them, or understand/accept that you bear some blame when the discrimination only took place because you "invited" it. If you have no choice in the matter - discrimination happens no matter what you do, then blame the bigot freely and I'll back you up. It's only when you could have avoided it, but you chose to expose yourself to it anyway, that I would argue you have any blame for what happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky Head Cheese
Perhaps you should not rely on welfare, and perhaps get a job.

If you cannot get a job due to choices you made, then perhaps you should accept the consequences of those decisions and not demand accomadations from others because of those choices.

*awaits insults, flames, and accusations of racism, bigotry, etc...*

Well, perhaps if people would quit discriminating, I could get a job. doi you think I ENJOY being unemployed?
And, denial of a job should not be a punishment meted out for doing an entirely legal thing that hurt nobody. It is plain wrong to do that.

And, if you do not agree with that, then, yes, I believe you are prejudiced. I did something which hurts no one...and is entirely legal. You explain to me how you justify attaching economic sanctions against someone for doing something perfectly legal, and which hurts no-one.

It is high time people got over themselves. This is the 21st Century, and you would think we would be just a little more civilized. If you have hangups about what I have done, you have no right to make your discomfort into a hardship for me. We all work with people we'd rather not. no one I know is universally loved or liked. But you don't go denying them the ability to earn a living just because you do not like something that they have done.

It's called discrimination, and it is WRONG. and if you disagree with that, I have nothing further to say to you, because you will be placed on ignore. I will not allow you to piss me off. I'll simply tune you out.

I would agree, although this has not been tested (at least in any example that I'm aware of).
I couldn't cite a case, but since I know there are JWs who are schoolteachers, and that teachers are generally the ones who would be in danger here, I can safely assume that the issue has come up and has been resolved in favor of the teacher.

My guess--and this is only a guess--is that teachers are able to use the same opt out clause that SCOTUS provided that students are, and that if a teacher were to be fired for refusing to recite the pledge, the school district would find itself in a very untenable position.
I agree this would be the correct way to deal with it, but I've not seen a statute yet that gave the opt out provision to a teacher, only to students.

I couldn't cite a case, but since I know there are JWs who are schoolteachers, and that teachers are generally the ones who would be in danger here, I can safely assume that the issue has come up and has been resolved in favor of the teacher.

Again, I would be inclined to agree. It seems inevitable that it would have come up already.

I agree this would be the correct way to deal with it, but I've not seen a statute yet that gave the opt out provision to a teacher, only to students.
Oh, I seriously doubt that any statute has that wording in it. My point is that precedent is firmly on the side of the teacher's refusal, regardless of what the statute says.

Its hoisted by your own petard. Not hung.


Except the government is not doing this to you. If you really have been turned down based on your status at every job that is a discrimination problem with those employers not the government. Unless the government is comming down and saying hey you guys you see Lyric over there yea don't hire her you've got no reason to be mad at the government for this.


We've already gone over options for you so I don't feel like draging this one back up.


Once again problem with individuals not the government. The funny thing is that you hate people who discriminate and yet you yourself generalize all republicans as horrible people. I mean its pot calling the kettle black here.


So what do you want the government to do come to your house with a check and say we are sorry? The government represents the majority in our system and if you cant realize/deal with this your going to have a problem. You are not in the majority Lyric and even though your voice does deserve to be heard its a very small voice. You expect the government only to recognize your ideas when there are so many different ones out there.


Well there is only one side of the story being told here so I can't help but be skeptical.


Ironically by shouting on a message board instead of trying the suggestions we have given and saying no one is going to give you a job/help you are pretty much sitting down and accepting it. Not silently grant you but your still pretty much accepting it.


1. The government is doing nothing to stop it. They are allowing it to happen, they are giving their tacit approval to the practice by not standing up and saying that they can't. therefore, the government is just as guilty. They are supposed to stand up for all citizens. They are not standing up for me. So why the fuck should I stand up for them?

2. I characterize all Republicans as horrible people, because, in my not-so-humble opinion...they ARE horrible people. They are the ones who sold out to the "Christian" fundamentalists, who continue to refuse to do anything to stop discrimination...and in fact, Republicans push legislation to FURTHER discrimination. So how could I think they are anything BUT horrible people? I hate them, and everything they stand for.

3. I expect the government to allow me to have the same rights as everyone else. to live my life as I see fit, free from harrassment and/or discrimination. I expect to be given the same opportunities everyone else takes for granted. And that includes the ability to earn a living. The government has been presented with plenty of evidence, by myself and others over the last decade, to prove that discrimination is real, and it does happen. Yet they are spineless. They refuse to stand up and say that such practices are wrong. therefore, they are giving tacit approval to the practice, and are therefore every bit as guilty as those who practice the discrimination.
The government has a responsibility to it's citizens. The government is not living up to it's responsibility to me, or people like me.

4. You know...after all the yyears the government has failed me and let me down...yeah, I think I DO deserve a check. for every fucking cent worth of tax I have ever paid to support the very government that refuses to protect me from unfair discrimination. That refuses to represent my interests. There was a little Tea Party about 225 years ago in Boston Harbor over the issue of taxation without representation.

5. I have done a thing that is, granted, not common...certainly outside the usual "norm," but it hurts nobody...and is not against the law. Thus, it should not be okay to levy "economic sanctions" against me for it. Goddamn, fucking convicted criminals get treated better in this country than I do...and that is saying something!

Antre_Travarious']Lyric will either flame you, or ignore you. You will get no straight answer to this legitimate statement.

Wrong.
And just how is it a legitimate statement?

how do you justify levying "economic sanctions" against a person for doing something that is perfectly legal and hurts no-one? Okay, so it's outside the usual "norm," I grant that. but this country is supposed to be about my ability to do exactly what I did...and not have it held against me.

You justify WHY I should have economic sanctions placed against me for what I have done.

1. The government is doing nothing to stop it. They are allowing it to happen, they are giving their tacit approval to the practice by not standing up and saying that they can't. therefore, the government is just as guilty. They are supposed to stand up for all citizens. They are not standing up for me. So why the fuck should I stand up for them?

2. I characterize all Republicans as horrible people, because, in my not-so-humble opinion...they ARE horrible people. They are the ones who sold out to the "Christian" fundamentalists, who continue to refuse to do anything to stop discrimination...and in fact, Republicans push legislation to FURTHER discrimination. So how could I think they are anything BUT horrible people? I hate them, and everything they stand for.

3. I expect the government to allow me to have the same rights as everyone else. to live my life as I see fit, free from harrassment and/or discrimination. I expect to be given the same opportunities everyone else takes for granted. And that includes the ability to earn a living. The government has been presented with plenty of evidence, by myself and others over the last decade, to prove that discrimination is real, and it does happen. Yet they are spineless. They refuse to stand up and say that such practices are wrong. therefore, they are giving tacit approval to the practice, and are therefore every bit as guilty as those who practice the discrimination.
The government has a responsibility to it's citizens. The government is not living up to it's responsibility to me, or people like me.

4. You know...after all the yyears the government has failed me and let me down...yeah, I think I DO deserve a check. for every fucking cent worth of tax I have ever paid to support the very government that refuses to protect me from unfair discrimination. That refuses to represent my interests. There was a little Tea Party about 225 years ago in Boston Harbor over the issue of taxation without representation.

5. I have done a thing that is, granted, not common...certainly outside the usual "norm," but it hurts nobody...and is not against the law. Thus, it should not be okay to levy "economic sanctions" against me for it. Goddamn, fucking convicted criminals get treated better in this country than I do...and that is saying something!

Suggestion: Go to Law School and then go to work representing yourself and other victims of the discrimination you describe. If that is not possible, everytime you apply for a job and don't get it, file a complaint with the EEOC alleging discrimination based on gender (or lack thereof as the case may be) and if the EEOC won't take the case, take your right to sue letter and sue the people who wouldn't hire you. If they won't hire you, make them spend the money they would've paid your salary with on defense attorneys.

1. The government is doing nothing to stop it. They are allowing it to happen, they are giving their tacit approval to the practice by not standing up and saying that they can't. therefore, the government is just as guilty. They are supposed to stand up for all citizens. They are not standing up for me. So why the fuck should I stand up for them?
How are they allowing it to happen. And just how do you supose we make the government come down and make sure you aren't discriminated against when you apply for a job. Where has the government said transgendered people should not have jobs.

2. I characterize all Republicans as horrible people, because, in my not-so-humble opinion...they ARE horrible people. They are the ones who sold out to the "Christian" fundamentalists, who continue to refuse to do anything to stop discrimination...and in fact, Republicans push legislation to FURTHER discrimination. So how could I think they are anything BUT horrible people? I hate them, and everything they stand for.
And I suppose you think all muslims are terroists as well?

3. I expect the government to allow me to have the same rights as everyone else. to live my life as I see fit, free from harrassment and/or discrimination. I expect to be given the same opportunities everyone else takes for granted. And that includes the ability to earn a living. The government has been presented with plenty of evidence, by myself and others over the last decade, to prove that discrimination is real, and it does happen. Yet they are spineless. They refuse to stand up and say that such practices are wrong. therefore, they are giving tacit approval to the practice, and are therefore every bit as guilty as those who practice the discrimination.
The government has a responsibility to it's citizens. The government is not living up to it's responsibility to me, or people like me.
The government has allowed you to have the same rights its the people who are doing the discrimination and harassment. As far as I have seen the government has not been saying don't treat transgendered people equally so they havent approved of it. Really so the government hasn't said its wrong to discriminate people because of race, gender, creed, etc? This is news to me. :rolleyes:

4. You know...after all the yyears the government has failed me and let me down...yeah, I think I DO deserve a check. for every fucking cent worth of tax I have ever paid to support the very government that refuses to protect me from unfair discrimination. That refuses to represent my interests. There was a little Tea Party about 225 years ago in Boston Harbor over the issue of taxation without representation.
The government is a representation of the majority. They don't represent your interests unless your group is elected. I mean come on the government how has the government not protected you? People make the choice to discriminate and unless you file a civil suit there is really no action other action I am aware of that can be taken.

5. I have done a thing that is, granted, not common...certainly outside the usual "norm," but it hurts nobody...and is not against the law. Thus, it should not be okay to levy "economic sanctions" against me for it. Goddamn, fucking convicted criminals get treated better in this country than I do...and that is saying something!
THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT LEVYING ECONOMIC SACNTIONS AGAINST YOU. Your perspective employers refuse to give you the job base on you decision to change your sex bring them to court. You have failed to connect these employer's actions against you to the government and because of such aside from the idealogical differences between you and the government they haven't done a thing to you.

THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT LEVYING ECONOMIC SACNTIONS AGAINST YOU. Your perspective employers refuse to give you the job base on you decision to change your sex bring them to court. You have failed to connect these employer's actions against you to the government and because of such aside from the idealogical differences between you and the government they haven't done a thing to you.

My fault for using the term "economic sanctions," but I was really referring to the potential employers that supposedly discriminated against her based on her gender (or lack thereof).

Actually, the technicality was necessary because he doesn't have custody of his daughter and the fact that both his ex-wife and daughter don't mind it. Therefor, there was no legal standing for the case.

Now however, there is legal standing. I do believe however that they'll support under god.

As for the unpopularity, either decision is going to be unpopular to one side or the other.

If they do support it, then they prove themselves spineless...and they prove that the very Constitution might as well be used for toilet paper.

Because, you have been shown, time and again, where the phrase "under God" violates the Establishment Clause...you have been shown where, even if recital is not forced, it still violates the Establishment Clause, and you have been shown where it fails the "lemon test" on all three prongs.

If they support it, they show themselves spineless, and unable to separate popular public sentiment...or their own personal beliefs...from matters pertaining to the Constitution. In which case, they should not be occupying the benches they do.

I realize that removing "under God" would be unpopular to a lot of people, but it is still the Constitutionally correct decision. And if SCOTUS cannot tune out popular sentiment or their own personal opinions when ruling on matters concerning the Constitution, then they are unfit to sit on the bench of the highest court in the land...and the constitution may as well be toilet paper.

If the Constitution is to be ignored every time the Constitution directs us to make an unpopular ruling...then what rights do you...or any of us have? The moment a right YOU hold dear becomes unpopular...hey, the constitution?? Screw that, it's unpopular, so we won't pay attention to what the Constitution says!! And goodbye, your rights.

We will see, if this goes to SCOTUS, whether or not they are fit to serve there. Because the 1954 law adding "under God" should never have been passed in the first place. Thus proving that those who voted for it in 1954, were unfit to be legislators...and Eisenhower was unfit to be President, too.

They knew damn well it was Unconstitutional, and yet, they did it anyway.

1. The government is doing nothing to stop it. They are allowing it to happen, they are giving their tacit approval to the practice by not standing up and saying that they can't. therefore, the government is just as guilty. They are supposed to stand up for all citizens. They are not standing up for me. So why the fuck should I stand up for them?does the government know it's happening to you? did you get a lawyer to make your case known?

2. I characterize all Republicans as horrible people, because, in my not-so-humble opinion...they ARE horrible people. They are the ones who sold out to the "Christian" fundamentalists, who continue to refuse to do anything to stop discrimination...and in fact, Republicans push legislation to FURTHER discrimination. So how could I think they are anything BUT horrible people? I hate them, and everything they stand for.now who is showing Prejudice and Discriminatory feelings. ALL REPUBLICANS ARE HORRIBLE PEOPLE...

3. I expect the government to allow me to have the same rights as everyone else. to live my life as I see fit, free from harrassment and/or discrimination. I expect to be given the same opportunities everyone else takes for granted. And that includes the ability to earn a living. The government has been presented with plenty of evidence, by myself and others over the last decade, to prove that discrimination is real, and it does happen. Yet they are spineless. They refuse to stand up and say that such practices are wrong. therefore, they are giving tacit approval to the practice, and are therefore every bit as guilty as those who practice the discrimination.Government knows that Discrimination is real, and they are doing what they can. What Evidence did you present, why isn't your Lawyer following up on it, if he/she is incompetent, then get a new lawyer. use the Evidence you have and Sue the bastards who are discriminating against you.

The government has a responsibility to it's citizens. The government is not living up to it's responsibility to me, or people like me. or you are not going though the proper ways to get the government to notice your plight.

4. You know...after all the yyears the government has failed me and let me down...yeah, I think I DO deserve a check. for every fucking cent worth of tax I have ever paid to support the very government that refuses to protect me from unfair discrimination. That refuses to represent my interests. There was a little Tea Party about 225 years ago in Boston Harbor over the issue of taxation without representation. there's the 'D' word again. Do you have proof? get a lawyer. if you don't have proof, then get some.

5. I have done a thing that is, granted, not common...certainly outside the usual "norm," but it hurts nobody...and is not against the law. Thus, it should not be okay to levy "economic sanctions" against me for it. Goddamn, fucking convicted criminals get treated better in this country than I do...and that is saying something!do you flaunt what you did? You don't need to, you know. try this, withhold that one peice of information and if you do get hired, then sue those that didn't hire you for that means then that the one peice of information is what didn't get you hired. and when your job that you got fires you, then sue them because they fired you when they learned the truth. you have internet companies and Mail Order companies that will allow you to work at home, use them.

Some things I will suggest tho,
1) Loose the FUCKING RAGE! It does nothing to help your cause and all it will do is drive away the people who do want to help you.

2) Stop with the Fucking Swearing. when you post without the profanity, you sound reasonable and even likable.

3) Telling the whole truth about yourself is fine, but if you think that's preventing you from getting the job, then withholding such information should be considered. if they ask, then tell, if they don't ask, Don't tell. get some good friends within the company then let the secret be discovered. Let them get to know YOU now, before they know all your secrets (good and bad)

4) Loose the Martyr Complex. it hinders you from seeing all the posibilities.

5) don't fight the system, make the system work for you.

I'm not advocating "don't ask/don't tell" First - an employer can't ask, the EEOC would be all over him/her. Secondly, it is fact that some people will discriminate against transexuals and it is fact if you tell them you are one you are inviting that discrimination, it may not be right, but it is the way it is, whether we like it or not. Besides, why does it need to be told, who's friggin' business is it anyway? I don't want my employer sticking their nose into my private life, particularly those parts dealing with my sexual activity and proclivities.

Let me try to explain it again, since you obviously didn't read it the first time.

An employer does not HAVE to ask!! We are compelled to divulge all former names under which we worked, on employment applications...for the purposes of criminal background checks, credit history checks, and previous employment checks. And it does NOT take a rocket scientist to figure out what is going on when you have to put down that your name once was Jason, and it now is Melanie. (no, that was not my former name, nor my current name, I used them merely as examples.)

So we are de-facto FORCED TO TELL THEM. And your right, it is none of their goddam business. But we are, nevertheless, forced to divulge this information. So, even if I could be a body-double for Cindy Crawford (I can't) it still does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that I am a transsexual...and then make negative employment decisions based on that information.

See....it isn't like a gay guy, or a lesbian. THEY CAN HIDE THEIR ORIENTATION!! They should not have to, but they CAN!! No one keeps a record of who is gay and who is not! BUT, damn well your records with your former name hang around your neck like a fucking lead albatross if you are a transsexual...and there is no way you can AVOID divulging information that ought to be none of their damned business.

NOW do you understand? Have I made it clear enough for you this time? DO you see the difference between gay, lesbian, bisexual folks and transgender folks? THEY can hide their orientation. WE cannot hide our past. It hangs around our necks like a lead albatross!

*SNIP*
Lyric, there is a fine, but very important difference in the law between "tacit approval" and "acquiescence." I tend to agree that the government "acquiesces" to the discrimination you suffer, but I do not agree they "tacitly approve” it. The best I can do to put it in layman's terms is to say that:
acquiescence=letting it happen without doing a thing to stop it (because you don't care/it doesn't really matter/it doesn't affect you)
tacit approval=letting it happen without doing a thing to stop it because you don't object to (or maybe agree with) the foreseeable end result.

I don't think the gov. agrees with the "end result" of denying you a right to earn a living just because of your lifestyle choice. I think I would accept a claim that they are sitting around with their thumbs up their butts and letting it happen because they don't care and it doesn't affect them.

Cat-Tribes may have a better way to explain it if this is insufficient to let you see the difference.

If she is seeking to change the government by legit means, then by all means, go for it. but I haven't heard anything about how she has been writing to her state and federal reps with her complaints, or running for office, or working in a volunteer organization to effect the changes she seeks. All I see is someone pissed off about how things are and bitching about it, but not doing anything to change it.

Well. I have visited my legislators in their offices in Washington, DC on three seperate occasions, to lobby them in favor of a transgender-inclusive ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act.)
I did this once while a resident of Pennsylvania, once while a resident of Kentucky, and once while a resident of Texas. Each time, I went with a large group, and the groups not only saw their own legislators, but often legislators that were not theirs...but others in that particular group WERE constituents of the visited legislator.

In those three visits alone, I visited the offices of over 75 Senators and Congressmen. I have also lobbied State legislatures on the same issues in Harrisburg (PA) Frankfort (KY) and Austin (TX)

Furthermore, I was involved in efforts that got legislation passed in five different locations. New Jersey (statewide) now bans discrimination, partly due to a lawsuit I filed against a former employer there. My case was ruled favorably, and the decision was then cited in a different case, on the NJ Supreme Court level, and upheld. Then the State legislature itself passed laws to prevent discrimination. Allentown, PA passed citywide ordinances outlawing discrimination in 2002. Though I was not there for the final victory, I was the spark plug that got the effort started, back in 1996.

Louisville and Lexington, Kentucky...both passed citywide ordinances banning discrimination in 1999, and I was on the front lines of those civil-rights battles. We lost both in 1997, but came back victorious two years later. Lastly, in 2004, Austin, Texas passed a citywide ordinance banning discrimination. I was the spark plug who got it started, and was there for the finish...though I now have had to move away.

I have, in the past decade, done more than almost anyone in my community to get anti-discrimination laws passed. So much so that I was nominated for a Trinity Award. I did not end up one of the three finalists for that award last year because, in spite of all I have done...the three recipients last year were even more deserving than I was...and even I admit this.

Nevertheless, I have worked my buns off to change the system. and will continue to do so.

But I am NOT so naive as to believe that a law stops people from discriminating. It doesn't. they just have to be more careful in how they go about it now, that's all. So they tell me no jobs are available. Or that someone more qualified got the job. Or they tell me they just went with someone else, for no particular reason.

Discrimination is the hardest thing to prove in a court of law. I know from personal experience. In the New Jersey case I previously referenced...I had an open-and-shut case. My former employer and I never disagreed over the reason for my termination. The only bone of contention was that it was their position that such action was legal, and my position was, of course, that it was not. It took me FIVE YEARS of trials, decisions, appeals, etc....in order to finally win my case. and in the end I had to settle, because they threatened to appeal again, and I was quite frankly sick and tired of it all by then. so I settled. I got most of what I had wanted in the first place, so there was no point in going on.

The only things I wanted, and did not get were A - an apology, and B - an admission of guilt. But it still took me five years! So, even with laws in place...justice is still mighty goddamn hard to obtain. Always assuming, of course, that you can even PROVE your case.

And, just for the record...in the New Jersey case, I acted as pro-se counsel...meaning I represented myself. I had no attorney. I had, at the time I filed, absolutely no legal education or experience of any kind. Yet, I won my case, and, for a time, my name was in case law! I had no attorney because my case was precedent-setting...I was using existing law in a way that it had not previously been interpreted. and because there was no precedent, I couldn't get a lawyer to touch the case on contingency with a ten-meter cattle prod! And, since I was poor as a church-mouse, I could not afford an attorney.

Let me try to explain it again, since you obviously didn't read it the first time.

An employer does not HAVE to ask!! We are compelled to divulge all former names under which we worked, on employment applications...for the purposes of criminal background checks, credit history checks, and previous employment checks. And it does NOT take a rocket scientist to figure out what is going on when you have to put down that your name once was Jason, and it now is Melanie. (no, that was not my former name, nor my current name, I used them merely as examples.)

So we are de-facto FORCED TO TELL THEM. And your right, it is none of their goddam business. But we are, nevertheless, forced to divulge this information. So, even if I could be a body-double for Cindy Crawford (I can't) it still does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that I am a transsexual...and then make negative employment decisions based on that information.

See....it isn't like a gay guy, or a lesbian. THEY CAN HIDE THEIR ORIENTATION!! They should not have to, but they CAN!! No one keeps a record of who is gay and who is not! BUT, damn well your records with your former name hang around your neck like a fucking lead albatross if you are a transsexual...and there is no way you can AVOID divulging information that ought to be none of their damned business.

NOW do you understand? Have I made it clear enough for you this time? DO you see the difference between gay, lesbian, bisexual folks and transgender folks? THEY can hide their orientation. WE cannot hide our past. It hangs around our necks like a lead albatross!

I understood it the first time and if you bothered to read my other posts on the issue with any sense of reasonable comprehension, you'd see that. There is no need to berate me. I may have a plank in my eye I need to remove, but the speck in yours seems to be causing brain damage - sheesh! You need to dump the emotion and try using logic and rational thought.

It always amazes me that the people who claim to believe in the Bible 100% don't have a clue what it says. And they tend to use the most cuss words.

There was an arguement a few pages back as to whether a Christian had to obey the goverment. The answer is YES. Romans 13. This was written during the time of Roman decline. If God said they had to follow the laws of Rome, why wouldn't a person today have to follow the laws of their governmnet?

Second, in 1 Cor (as well as other places) Christians are not to force themselves and their religion on others. In the example given, Even though it was legal to eat meat given to idols, Christians were NOT to do it if they were with someone who felt it was wrong. How is that different from--Christians can say "under God" but they should not do it if they are with someone who feels it is wrong.?

I challenge anyone to show where Jesus or Paul taught, advocated, or hinted that a Christian should do something (even something legal under Christianity) if by doing it the Christian would harm the conscience of someone else.

Come on all of you who believe the Bible to be 100% true. Show me where Jesus would say it was correct to demand "under God" if there was a possibility that it would hurt someone else's beliefs.

Justify your arguements by quoting what you consider to be your "constitution".

Well. I have visited my legislators in their offices in Washington, DC on three seperate occasions, to lobby them in favor of a transgender-inclusive ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act.)
I did this once while a resident of Pennsylvania, once while a resident of Kentucky, and once while a resident of Texas. Each time, I went with a large group, and the groups not only saw their own legislators, but often legislators that were not theirs...but others in that particular group WERE constituents of the visited legislator.

In those three visits alone, I visited the offices of over 75 Senators and Congressmen. I have also lobbied State legislatures on the same issues in Harrisburg (PA) Frankfort (KY) and Austin (TX)

Furthermore, I was involved in efforts that got legislation passed in five different locations. New Jersey (statewide) now bans discrimination, partly due to a lawsuit I filed against a former employer there. My case was ruled favorably, and the decision was then cited in a different case, on the NJ Supreme Court level, and upheld. Then the State legislature itself passed laws to prevent discrimination. Allentown, PA passed citywide ordinances outlawing discrimination in 2002. Though I was not there for the final victory, I was the spark plug that got the effort started, back in 1996.

Louisville and Lexington, Kentucky...both passed citywide ordinances banning discrimination in 1999, and I was on the front lines of those civil-rights battles. We lost both in 1997, but came back victorious two years later. Lastly, in 2004, Austin, Texas passed a citywide ordinance banning discrimination. I was the spark plug who got it started, and was there for the finish...though I now have had to move away.

I have, in the past decade, done more than almost anyone in my community to get anti-discrimination laws passed. So much so that I was nominated for a Trinity Award. I did not end up one of the three finalists for that award last year because, in spite of all I have done...the three recipients last year were even more deserving than I was...and even I admit this.

Nevertheless, I have worked my buns off to change the system. and will continue to do so.

But I am NOT so naive as to believe that a law stops people from discriminating. It doesn't. they just have to be more careful in how they go about it now, that's all. So they tell me no jobs are available. Or that someone more qualified got the job. Or they tell me they just went with someone else, for no particular reason.

Discrimination is the hardest thing to prove in a court of law. I know from personal experience. In the New Jersey case I previously referenced...I had an open-and-shut case. My former employer and I never disagreed over the reason for my termination. The only bone of contention was that it was their position that such action was legal, and my position was, of course, that it was not. It took me FIVE YEARS of trials, decisions, appeals, etc....in order to finally win my case. and in the end I had to settle, because they threatened to appeal again, and I was quite frankly sick and tired of it all by then. so I settled. I got most of what I had wanted in the first place, so there was no point in going on.

The only things I wanted, and did not get were A - an apology, and B - an admission of guilt. But it still took me five years! So, even with laws in place...justice is still mighty goddamn hard to obtain. Always assuming, of course, that you can even PROVE your case.

And, just for the record...in the New Jersey case, I acted as pro-se counsel...meaning I represented myself. I had no attorney. I had, at the time I filed, absolutely no legal education or experience of any kind. Yet, I won my case, and, for a time, my name was in case law! I had no attorney because my case was precedent-setting...I was using existing law in a way that it had not previously been interpreted. and because there was no precedent, I couldn't get a lawyer to touch the case on contingency with a ten-meter cattle prod! And, since I was poor as a church-mouse, I could not afford an attorney.

::: Applauds :::
You have a right to be proud of yourself for all this - keep it up. Please note, however, that, at least in a settlement, you NEVER get an apology or an admission of guilt - it is ALWAYS phrased as an agreement to "buy their peace." That is just how settlements work. dump the emotion, you won! give yourself a pat on the back.

Well, I got the impression from Lyric's posts that she is rather noticeable, so I am willing to cut her a little slack for being angry, knowing just how bad homophobia can get.


Yeah...rather noticeable. I didn't exactly get the luck of the genetic draw, if you know what I mean. I pass fairly well except for my voice...and my size. I'm certainly a large woman. And I sure as hell am no bathing beauty. I'm willing to say that much.

And the slack is appreciated. At least herer is someone who knows something about how bad homophobia and transphobia can get!

Suggestion: Go to Law School and then go to work representing yourself and other victims of the discrimination you describe. If that is not possible, everytime you apply for a job and don't get it, file a complaint with the EEOC alleging discrimination based on gender (or lack thereof as the case may be) and if the EEOC won't take the case, take your right to sue letter and sue the people who wouldn't hire you. If they won't hire you, make them spend the money they would've paid your salary with on defense attorneys.

I would dearly LOVE to go to Law School. That is my dream. But I have no desire to make a career out of suing people on my own behalf. I'm really not the litigious sort. I'd really rather just work, live, and be left the hell alone to do it.

Even in the case where I DID sue a former employer...I didn't want to. But I got pushed into it by the actions of the employer after my firing. They lied to unemployment about the circumstances of my termination, to try to deny me benefits. It failed, but they managed to hold up my benefits for eight weeks. After that, they began to give false and misleading references to potential future employers...and taking care to "out" me as a transsexual to all potential future employers.
Now, it is one thing if someone doesn't want me to work for them anymore. It is quite another when they start pissing down my well after I'm already gone. They pushed me too hard, for too long. So I sued them. I represented myself...no attorney. I won the case, but it took me FIVE YEARS.

This is not exactly something I wish to make a habit of! Representing others, and doing my job as a lawyer is one thing. constantly bringing lawsuits on my own behalf is not really my style, nor my desire.

I challenge anyone to show where Jesus or Paul taught, advocated, or hinted that a Christian should do something (even something legal under Christianity) if by doing it the Christian would harm the conscience of someone else.

Goodlifes: that is the way to phrase the question. I won round one when you phrased it wrong, I'll concede round two to you. Jesus did ask people to do things that they disagreed with doing and that went against their beliefs all the time. HOWEVER, he also did say that in doing anything, a believer should never cause anyone else to "stumble." For example, I'm a christian, but occassionally have a few beers with my pizza. However, I have never and would never do so in front of my very impressionable 8 year old child who was just baptised and who has been taught in our church that drinking is "bad" (a common teaching in most protestant churches I do believe). To do so could cause him to "stumble" and do something that he believes is wrong.
(ok, so it is not the best example maybe, but it was all I could think of at the moment, hopefully you get my drift).

does the government know it's happening to you?

or you are not going though the proper ways to get the government to notice your plight.

1. they ought to know. I have been to Washington DC to meet with my legislators more often than most people ever do. Hell, most people do not even know WHO their legislators ARE.

2. Well, I know of no other way to get the government to notice my plight, except to bring it to my representatives in congress like a kettle of fish on ice.

In my time, I have spoken with the staffs of over 75 Senators and Congressmen about the discrimination people like me suffer.

And, for the record, currently my Senators are Arlen Specter (about the only Republican I respect) and Rick Santorum (or Prick Santorectum as I thnk of him - he's hopeless, but I have still visited his office anyway.) My Representative in congress is Paul Kanjorski, a Democrat. I have not yet visited him, since I recently moved, and am a new constitutent of his. But I have written him letters, and have called his office and spoken with his staff about these issues via telephone.

Lyric, there is a fine, but very important difference in the law between "tacit approval" and "acquiescence." I tend to agree that the government "acquiesces" to the discrimination you suffer, but I do not agree they "tacitly approve” it. The best I can do to put it in layman's terms is to say that:
acquiescence=letting it happen without doing a thing to stop it (because you don't care/it doesn't really matter/it doesn't affect you)
tacit approval=letting it happen without doing a thing to stop it because you don't object to (or maybe agree with) the foreseeable end result.

I don't think the gov. agrees with the "end result" of denying you a right to earn a living just because of your lifestyle choice. I think I would accept a claim that they are sitting around with their thumbs up their butts and letting it happen because they don't care and it doesn't affect them.

Cat-Tribes may have a better way to explain it if this is insufficient to let you see the difference.


Semantics. Whether it is tacit approval or acquiescence...the result to me is still the same.
Look, I'm a woman...I don't mind getting screwed once in a while. But they could at least use some goddam K-Y Jelly, dont'cha think? Do ya think it would hurt them to wine and dine me once in a while, first?

Goodlifes: that is the way to phrase the question. I won round one when you phrased it wrong, I'll concede round two to you. Jesus did ask people to do things that they disagreed with doing and that went against their beliefs all the time. HOWEVER, he also did say that in doing anything, a believer should never cause anyone else to "stumble." For example, I'm a christian, but occassionally have a few beers with my pizza. However, I have never and would never do so in front of my very impressionable 8 year old child who was just baptised and who has been taught in our church that drinking is "bad" (a common teaching in most protestant churches I do believe). To do so could cause him to "stumble" and do something that he believes is wrong.
(ok, so it is not the best example maybe, but it was all I could think of at the moment, hopefully you get my drift).
Maybe a better example would be having a beer in front of an alcoholic. Thanks for the reply. I don't understand why others won't take up the challenge. They are so adament about argueing law but they don't seem to want to actually look at what they believe. I find this to be most true of those that argue for the Bible as literal 100% true. They only seem to know what they think it says and not what it actually says. Sometimes I just want to say "Me thinks they doth protest too much"----and if a fundamentalist is reading this--NO that is NOT a Bible quote.

while they MAY keep the Under God portion, they might remove the Mandatory recitation of the "Pledge"

Technically, recitation of the Pledge cannot be mandatory for every student. See West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624 (1943). I've explained to before how this is of little import as a practical matter.

The problem is not, however, whether the pledge is mandatory, as I explained at length in another post, #645 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9651730&postcount=645). It is a government endorsement of religion. That is not permissible. Moreoever, in the school setting, it is inherently coercive.

::: Applauds :::
You have a right to be proud of yourself for all this - keep it up. Please note, however, that, at least in a settlement, you NEVER get an apology or an admission of guilt - it is ALWAYS phrased as an agreement to "buy their peace." That is just how settlements work. dump the emotion, you won! give yourself a pat on the back.

I know you never get those in a settlement. My point was...they settled for an amount I felt was fair...and was really all I expected to get, anyway. That the only thing I could have gained by continuing the fight...would be to get the admission of guilt and the apology. I decided it wasn't worth the continued fight.
I got all my back wages. I got enough from that settlement, in fact, to finance my surgery!
'Magine that shit...the company that discriminated against me for being a trassexual...wound up paying for my transsexual surgery! Poetic justice if ever there was any!!

Semantics. Whether it is tacit approval or acquiescence...the result to me is still the same.
Look, I'm a woman...I don't mind getting screwed once in a while. But they could at least use some goddam K-Y Jelly, dont'cha think? Do ya think it would hurt them to wine and dine me once in a while, first?

It may be semantics and the end result may be the same, but semantics are important in the law. You should not blame the government for "acquiesing" to private party discrimination. You have every right to blame them when they "tacitly approve" of it.

Technically, recitation of the Pledge cannot be mandatory for every student. See West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624 (1943). I've explained to before how this is of little import as a practical matter.

The problem is not, however, whether the pledge is mandatory, as I explained at length in another post, #645 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9651730&postcount=645). It is a government endorsement of religion. That is not permissible. Moreoever, in the school setting, it is inherently coercive.

Cat, just a question (and nothing more or less than that, a simple question which is relevant to my forming of a final opinion on the constitutionality of the pledge itself [or at least the use of the words 'under God' in it]. Trying to convince me one way or another won't work. Demonstrating how the words "acknowledgement" and "endorsement" have the same or a different meaning in constitutional jurisprudence will, however, have a bearing on my analysis) is there, in your opinion, a difference between "endorsement" and "acknowledgement?" What about "establishment" and "endorsement" and "acknowledgement?" As an attorney I'm sure you can see that any argument I make for or against the pledge and the phrase "under God" hinge on differences and similarities between the terms.

2. I characterize all Republicans as horrible people, because, in my not-so-humble opinion...they ARE horrible people. They are the ones who sold out to the "Christian" fundamentalists, who continue to refuse to do anything to stop discrimination...and in fact, Republicans push legislation to FURTHER discrimination. So how could I think they are anything BUT horrible people? I hate them, and everything they stand for.

Oh My God! This is so loaded with Bull! Who the hell tried to end discrimination? Shall we look at history?

1860: The South splits when Lincoln gets into office
1861: The Civil War Starts
1862-1863: The Emancipation Proclamation is released
1865: The war ends

The Republicans then FORCE the South to agree to the folllowing:

13th: Ends Slavery
14th: Citizenship to blacks
15th: Right to vote

All under REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP

Now fast forward:

The Civil Rights Act had more REPUBLICAN VOTERS than Democratic ones.

Don't sit there and tell me that we are horrible people. If you just lose your damn chip on your damn sholder you might actually get hired. I bet that is the real reason why you don't get hired is because of your hostility. However, if you are being discriminated against, SUE!

Oh for pete's sake! I (and the rest of my generation) recited that pledge every day at school for 13 years and it didn't hurt me one bit. As a matter of fact, I believe it helped teach me to take pride in my nation. Take the "under God" out or leave it in, I don't care. Also, I was never once "forced" to say it and I don't know of anyone else who was either.

Pledges, constitutions, patriotism...

Americans are so funny.

:rolleyes:

Great! While I'm not American and have never been forced to say something as a child that I had no knowledge or concept of..its about time the pledge is stopped.....its the equivilant of being forced to pray. I have no qualms(not sure how you spell the word) with people if they want to say it, they can get together and have a blast

Even in the case where I DID sue a former employer...I didn't want to. But I got pushed into it by the actions of the employer after my firing. They lied to unemployment about the circumstances of my termination, to try to deny me benefits. It failed, but they managed to hold up my benefits for eight weeks. After that, they began to give false and misleading references to potential future employers...and taking care to "out" me as a transsexual to all potential future employers.

And here we have a violation of the law. Giving misleading or false statements is a violation of the law. They have opened themselves up to a lawsuit by doing what they did. You have a full legal case right here. Under law, they can only tell a perspective employer that you actually worked there. If they say anything more than that, they have opened themselves up to be sued.

Sick a lawyer on them and they'll quickly back down.

Pledges, constitutions, patriotism...

Americans are so funny.

You know what's even funnier?

There's more patriotism in Europe, Latin America and Asia than there is in the USA!

Cat, just a question (and nothing more or less than that, a simple question which is relevant to my forming of a final opinion on the constitutionality of the pledge itself [or at least the use of the words 'under God' in it]. Trying to convince me one way or another won't work. Demonstrating how the words "acknowledgement" and "endorsement" have the same or a different meaning in constitutional jurisprudence will, however, have a bearing on my analysis) is there, in your opinion, a difference between "endorsement" and "acknowledgement?" What about "establishment" and "endorsement" and "acknowledgement?" As an attorney I'm sure you can see that any argument I make for or against the pledge and the phrase "under God" hinge on differences and similarities between the terms.

Without teaching an entire class on the subject, there is a fine but distinquishable line between acknowledgement and endorsement.

Endorsement in the Establishment Clause context is establishment, however. In fact, endorsement is a specific test for whether a government act is impermissable.

The Pledge with "under God" fails that test:

In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation "under God" is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. The recitation that ours is a nation "under God" is not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans
believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase "one nation under God" in the context of the Pledge is normative. To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility,
liberty, justice, and -- since 1954 -- monotheism. The text of the official Pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God. A profession that we are a nation "under God" is identical, for Establishment
Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation "under Jesus," a nation "under Vishnu," a nation"under Zeus," or a nation "under no god," because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion. "[T]he government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion." Wallace, 472 U.S. at 60. Furthermore, the school district's practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge aims to inculcate
in students a respect for the ideals set forth in the Pledge, and thus amounts to state endorsement of these ideals. Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the Pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the
current form of the Pledge.

....

The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers "that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community." Lynch, 465 U.S. at 688 (O'Connor, J., concurring).

Justice Kennedy, in his dissent in Allegheny, agreed:
[B]y statute, the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag describes the United States as `one nation under God.' To be sure, no one is obligated to recite this phrase, . . . but it borders on sophistry to suggest that the reasonable atheist would not feel less than a full member of the political community every time his fellow Americans recited, as part of their expression
of patriotism and love for country, a phrase he believed to be false.Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 672 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).7 Consequently, the policy and the Act fail the endorsement test.

Oh My God! This is so loaded with Bull! Who the hell tried to end discrimination? Shall we look at history?

*snip*

Now fast forward:

The Civil Rights Act had more REPUBLICAN VOTERS than Democratic ones.

*snip*

Flat out untrue.

Vote totals:
The Original House Version: 290-130
The Senate Version: 73-27
The Senate Version, as voted on by the House: 289-126

By Party:
The Original House Version:

Democratic Party: 153-96
Republican Party: 138-34

The Senate Version:

Democratic Party: 46-22
Republican Party: 27-6

The Senate Version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91
Republican Party: 136-35

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Republican votes were critical to passage of the Civil Rights Act, and so was the cooperation of the Republican leadership of the Senate.

But it was written by Democrats, introduced by Lyndon Johnson (a Democrat President), guided through passage by Democrat leaders of the House and Senate (Hubert Humphrey), and was voted for by more Democrats than Republicans.

<snip>I don't believe in blaming victims for the actions of bigots as a general proposition. I do place some blame with victims of bigots when they needlessly subject themselves to the bigotry. A black man who decides he wants to go to a KKK meeting "just to see what would happen" bears some blame for whatever does happen (depending on what does happen, he doesn't bear all the blame - for example: if he were lynched, but he would bear some blame for his lynching due to his idiotic choice to go where he knew bigotry against him would be prevalent, but not all the blame since there is no valid reason, bigot or not, to lynch anyone. On the other hand if they called him a N*****r and spit on him and ran him off, I'd say he bore all the blame if his only injury is to his "feelings").
All right, let's follow this reasoning:

Rosa Parks knew full well that she would offend white people by sitting in the front of the bus. So did she deserve to be arrested, called names? And was it wrong to launch the civil rights movement in response to that, since she just brought it on herself through her own actions?

Once again, you put the onus on the victim not to incite the bigot. Well, how are we to persuade society that discrimination is wrong, if we never stand up to it, if we never challenge people's prejudices? If gay/transgendered people keep their orientation secret, how will they ever gain equal rights, and how will they ever be able to overcome the fears of a society that doesn't understand them? Nothing bad can be changed until it is confronted by both its victims and by outsiders who see the victimization and stand up with the victims to say it's wrong.

Putting this in the context of this pledge debate: Many here are insisting that, if you're not forced to say the pledge, there is no foul. But I say that those 2 little words, "under god," are creating a situation in which some people are inevitably forced to either display or hide a difference from their schoolmates and colleagues. They have no choice but to risk social backlash or violate their own consciences. It's like a set-up, and it's not fair.

I am not very religious, Some may say that I hold christian values, But I don't pray, and I don't have a cross hanging around my neck.

This being said, I have no problem with saying "Under God" when reciting the pledge of alligence. After all, When I hear a song that I do not like, I don't go on a rant to change the lyrics of the song to how I see fit. I simply turn the song off.

If you don't want to say "under god" don't say it. Nobody is forcing you to say it, or the pledge itself for that matter. There are plenty of other ways in which to show your patriotism besides reciting the pledge of alligence. Take advantage of your freedom of speech and use them.

It may be semantics and the end result may be the same, but semantics are important in the law. You should not blame the government for "acquiesing" to private party discrimination. You have every right to blame them when they "tacitly approve" of it.

I do blame the government for acquiescing, because that is NOT what this country is supposed to be about.

Oh My God! This is so loaded with Bull! Who the hell tried to end discrimination? Shall we look at history?

1860: The South splits when Lincoln gets into office
1861: The Civil War Starts
1862-1863: The Emancipation Proclamation is released
1865: The war ends

The Republicans then FORCE the South to agree to the folllowing:

13th: Ends Slavery
14th: Citizenship to blacks
15th: Right to vote

All under REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP

Now fast forward:

The Civil Rights Act had more REPUBLICAN VOTERS than Democratic ones.

Don't sit there and tell me that we are horrible people. If you just lose your damn chip on your damn sholder you might actually get hired. I bet that is the real reason why you don't get hired is because of your hostility. However, if you are being discriminated against, SUE!


Nice fucking try, Corny. The Republican Party of Abe Lincoln bears NO RESEMBLANCE to the Republican Party of today, and you damn well know it. Hell, Lincoln himself would turn over in his grave if he knew what had been made of the Party he effectively started.

In 1948, you might recall that a man named Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat, ran for President as an independent, because he was against Civil Rights. Later, the same trick was tried in 1968 by George Wallace...also a Democrat. Both of these men were a part of a faction of the Democrats known as the "Dixiecrats." Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and even Phil Gramm were once Democrats. They all became Republicans, because the Republican Party better agreed with their own personal beliefs. And we all know how much Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms just loved any minority!!

You are trying to demonize Democrats for things in their past done by men who later turned REPUBLICAN...because the Republican Party platform better suited their ideals. And you are trying to sanctify Republicans by bringing up honorable men like Abe Lincoln...whom I have no doubt, if he were around today...he would be a DEMOCRAT.