Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional

One of the things many conservatives find irritating is the fact that government forces many things that are quasi-religious on kids in school yet makes a big deal out of excluding the very religious foundations that were so important to the founding of our country. For example, if the definition of "religion" would be an unshakeable belief in an idea or concept that cannot be proved scientifically but whose existence rests on faith, then global warming would qualify as a religion. Yet it is taught as fact. Similarly for the whole nine yards of Darwinism. Much of the "environmental studies" that elementary school kids are endoctrinated with is little more than the pagan concept of nature worship.

These are acceptable, yet a kid will be sent home if he displays a Bible.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

One of the things many conservatives find irritating is the fact that government forces many things that are quasi-religious on kids in school yet makes a big deal out of excluding the very religious foundations that were so important to the founding of our country. For example, if the definition of "religion" would be an unshakeable belief in an idea or concept that cannot be proved scientifically but whose existence rests on faith, then global warming would qualify as a religion. Yet it is taught as fact. Similarly for the whole nine yards of Darwinism. Much of the "environmental studies" that elementary school kids are endoctrinated with is little more than the pagan concept of nature worship.

These are acceptable, yet a kid will be sent home if he displays a Bible.
More...

This is a complete canard. Get me my barf bag, please.

Religion was not important to the founding of our country, as a republic. Ours was the only revolution driven by the property owners. The poorer folk actually supported the British because taxation put the onus on the wealthy. Religion was and remains important to the people, certain of the founders, but was deliberately excluded in the formation of the structure of government.

Global warming is a truism. The event has happened cyclically in the earth's history as revealed by the geologic record and may be happening now. The argument that it is being accelerated by the burning of fossil fuels is supported by a large segment of the scientific community, opposed by a large segment of the corporate community with vested interests in the burning of fossil and their political machine. The jury is out.

But yours is a prime example of the conservative's ploy of shifting the essential argument to one that is nonsensical.

Science and the scientific method is at the heart of our way of life, it's technological creations have generated the wealth conservatives so avidly pursue. But when it gets in the way of the conservative's effort toward social and religious conformism, or worse interferes with the creations of profits, it is regarded as religion.
 
A "large section of the scientific community" is as conflicted as the corporate side. In the universities it is safer career-wise to oppose affirmative action than write an objective article on "global warming." Way too much money at stake in grants, etc. EPA is of course looking for reasons to expand its regulatory empire. The environmental movement is looking for justifications to tell people how to live. The developing nations see a way to hobble the US and get a competitive advantage. And Democrats see a way to hammer the President.

I still remember the exact same scare tactics being used in the '70's, only then we were facing the ugly reality of a new Ice Age. Anyone who opposed this certain threat was either a tool of corporate interests or a fool. The scientific community had reached a consensus! If we didn't all starve because of rampant overpopulation, we would freeze. After all, not only did we face a global deepfreeze, but we were running out of fossil fuels. Somehow we survived.

I don't object to students being taught climate science. Just leave out the politics and hysteria.
 
Quote from ElCubano:

you are no where near an Einstein.....
More...
i never claimed i am anywhere near einstein. einstein is THE MAN. i was just saying i agreed with the einstein quotes. specifically, this one:
[Einstein:] "Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic [orgy of] freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived...Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude...which has never left me..."
More...
but now that you mention it, my average iq of 2 tests is 144 (153 and 135)--that's in the top 3%.

ALSO, einstein's personality type is INTP, which is the same as mine, AND INTPs are only 3% of the population.
 
Quote from Gordon Gekko:


i never claimed i am anywhere near einstein. einstein is THE MAN. i was just saying i agreed with the einstein quotes. specifically, this one:

but now that you mention it, my average iq of 2 tests is 144 (153 and 135)--that's in the top 3%.

ALSO, einstein's personality type is INTP, which is the same as mine, AND INTPs are only 3% of the population.
More...


.....so in addition to holding the record in the Mile, having a 4.0 GPA and only 2.3% body fat.....you are also in the top 3% in IQ score.....Uhhhhmmm...Ok.:D
 
Quote from TM_Direct:




.....so in addition to holding the record in the Mile, having a 4.0 GPA and only 2.3% body fat.....you are also in the top 3% in IQ score.....Uhhhhmmm...Ok.:D
More...

And I bet he's in the top 1% of traders too ..... oh wait, seems he's elaborated a LOT in his trading woes.
 
****I still remember the exact same scare tactics being used in the '70's, only then we were facing the ugly reality of a new Ice Age. Anyone who opposed this certain threat was either a tool of corporate interests or a fool. The scientific community had reached a consensus! If we didn't all starve because of rampant overpopulation, we would freeze. After all, not only did we face a global deepfreeze, but we were running out of fossil fuels. Somehow we survived.***

Just being a bit devil's advocate here, but I'm pretty sure that 70's liberals were already in a tizzy about global warming.
I refer to Soylen Green (1973) , presenting 2022 NYC as the typical liberal environmental nightmare- all resources depleted, mass overcrowding, AND infernally hot due to global warming.

NB- Now that I think about it, consevatives didn't object too strongly back then to the global warming theory. Why else would Charlton Heston help propegate such a liberal view of the environment's future?
 
the guy fighting for this, michael newdow, is REPRESENTING HIMSELF. this guy RULES! i want cameras in the courtroom for this.

michael newdow (an american hero)
story.newdow.jpg


another interesting thing... this was on the o'reilly factor (10/20): justice scalia has taken himself out of this case. it is thought that he would lean towards keeping "god" in the pledge. there are at least 4 justices who it is thought may want to take "god" out. in the event of a 4:4 tie, the judgement is the judgment of the previous court to rule in the case. the previous court ruled to take "god" out! YES!

then, in some states, "god" will be unconstitutional in the pledge. this is how big changes like this take place; it doesn't happen overnight. eventually other states will follow. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top