Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sctmom

Court rules Pledge of Allegiance 'unconstitutional'

Recommended Posts

Both I and the supreme court disagree. Guess what that means?

 

Simple, it means that you're both wrong. The supreme court is not infallible and its words are not carved in stone. Their decisions may be reversed by later courts or by the will of the people.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both I and the supreme court disagree. Guess what that means?

 

Simple, it means that you're both wrong. The supreme court is not infallible and its words are not carved in stone. Their decisions may be reversed by later courts or by the will of the people.

 

As I asked before, why would any sane person WANT the government to decide what religion to promote? You have no respect for the religious rights of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have no respect for the religious rights of others.

 

That's a big assumption based on a false premise. There is a big difference between - the government allowing the people of a local community to express their faith collectively and publicly - and the Government declaring a religion to be favored by the State and giving it special rights that extend beyond the will of the people in those communities. It seems to me, Zorn is simply stating that the Government ought not interfer with local communities and their desire to recognize God. Something that I think Jefferson and the framers of our Constitution would agree.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sort of seems like you forget that part about free exercise of religious beliefs, Merlyn. What I don't really understand is why you feel it is appropriate for you to enter into debate on a board that is connected to an organization that clearly hold different religious beliefs from your own? When you have no interest in the organization otherwise, it seems one can conclude you are interested in disrupting only. Otherwise, if you hold true to the belief that their is NO God and you believe in respecting people's religious beliefs, what compels you to return here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also seems everyone forgets that the government cannot stop someone from professing their faith. This seems to be put on the back burner because we are too interested in taking God out of our everyday life.

 

Having the Ten Commandments on a court house wall is no more establishing a religion than Congress is by allowing each session to open with prayer. That is a right afforded by the 1stAmmendment & forcing someone to take down a religious plaque or forcing Congress to stop praying would be in direct violation of the 1st Ammendment therefore illegal!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"As I asked before, why would any sane person WANT the government to decide what religion to promote? You have no respect for the religious rights of others. "

 

Well Boris, we have an elected government in this country so it is really up to the people in the community, isn't it?

 

I've noticed that the only people that get really upset by any of this are the atheists. I've never know a Jew, Moslem, or Bhuddist to be upset by a manger scened. Maybe you ought to let God into your life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merlyn and Everyone,

I think I am observing a free exercise of religious expression. We are obviously not being denied this right. I agree with Merlyns point that no-one, neither individuals nor governments, should dictate to anyone, through statute or tradition, what their beliefs must be. We do have public religious expression. People freely decide every day to congregate and form new churches or not to do so, to dissolve old ones, to stand in public and shout their convictions if they choose to, and to move from faith to faith as their personal interests direct them. And I do not believe that the individuals in this forum would advocate that a group of people, by virtue of their majority status, should have the right to suppress similar free expression by minority faiths. Or am I wrong about this? Do you, as the majority view, want to suppress alternative views? There are no more Plymouth Rocks on which religious minorities can land in their Mayflowers. Those brave persons came to this country to achieve the freedoms that we enjoy, not to form a dominant majority at the expense of the freedoms of others.

However, for poor Bullwinkle who does not understand the English language, I revisit the 1st Amendment full text:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Zorn, it doesnt say establish. The word establishment has several alternative meanings in my dictionary. Most of them are not verbs. From the dictionary...1. something established: as A: a settled arrangement; especially: a code of laws B: ESTABLISHED CHURCH (hey this is the actual text from the dictionary) C: a permanent civil or military organization D: a place of business or residence with its furnishings and staff E: a public or private institution and blah, blah, blah.

The final alternative is the one Zorn alludes to: the act of establishing or the state of being established. This ambiguity of the meaning of this word and many others is among the reasons we have so much fun exercising our 1st Amendment right, arguing these topics. But Zorn, please notice that I have not placed suspicion on your ability to read.

Sorry Bullwinkle, Supreme Court not withstanding, you really don't understand the English language. Just who is this Bullwinkle person anyway? For that matter who is Boris?

 

P.S. Merlyn, I seem to have missed the part about you being atheist and communist and against Scouting principles of faith. I shudder to imagine of what next you will be accused.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Packsaddle,

 

Please click on Merlyn's posts and read them. You will find there, in his own words that he has no interest in the scouting program; that he is an atheist and that his interest is in promoting the rights of atheists. It is perfectly within Merlyn's right to be an atheist; I'm not debating that. What I am questioning is the appropriateness of his continued participation in a forum that is for people of an organization that holds religious principles that include a duty to God and for people that share an interest in the BSA program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ScoutParent,

Thanks, I stand corrected. You saved me from having to wade through old messages. I often daydream during 20-minute prayers, too. Oops, I probably wasn't supposed to admit that.

But don't you relish the opportunity to hear the other side and get your chance to present your best argument in opposition? Doesn't Merlyn's presence here represent the very essence of the strength of our system? I think he has good arguments to make and he articulates them well. Besides, if our logic can't stand such scrutiny, then we are hardly strengthened by closing the door and hiding in the closet. I think it is best to get ideas out for open discussion, even if some of us do it while holding their noses.

P.S. You get the firewood for the stake and I'll start rubbing two sticks together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Doesn't Merlyn's presence here represent the very essence of the strength of our system?"

 

No, not really. If this was a forum for those interested in discussing the government of our country, or for debating religious principles only, then yes it would; but the fact is this is a forum for Scouters and Merlyn has clearly shown that he is not interested in the scouting programs.

 

Why is it that if pagans, atheists, satanists want the right to express themselves, we are supposed to sit back quietly but when people who feel a Duty to God want the same right, we are considered bigotted or closed minded? I find this double standard incredible considering the "enlightenment" period that spawned many of these people's beliefs. It seems Jefferson's quotes want to be applied one way only.

 

I didn't understand the allusion in your post script, could you clarify that for me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ScoutParent,

Always a pleasure. (Heavy sigh) Oh well, I guess I don't expect everyone to see things the way I do. But I try to speak up when I have something to say and no one has ever thought that I am bigotted or closed-minded. I think the reason may be that I am willing to listen to the other side and if I see merit to an argument, I try to incorporate the logic of that argument into my view. I think this is preferable to mindlessly clinging to views that I know have less merit. Or to put it differently, how can I improve my ideas if I never put them to the test or if I never allow others to show me where I am wrong? Just because I strongly disagree with someone does not mean that I can't learn from them. As for 'pagans, atheists, and satanists' perhaps some of the perceived discrepancy is because they are such a tiny minority and therefore find it easier to gain media attention. I don't consider this a problem with the minority but rather with those of us who buy the products that the media sells...while holding our attention with words from the minority. When I speak, almost nobody cares.

As for the allusion in the postscript, it was in reference to a book by Umberto Eco, I suppose I was being too obscure, sorry.

On a pragmatic note, though, until Merlyn is kicked out by the Forum master, or whatever, you are stuck with him. Might as well have some fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Just who is this Bullwinkle person anyway? For that matter who is Boris?"

 

This country definately needs a return to classical education.

 

Bullwinkle is a talking moose that lives in Frostbite Falls Minnesota with his best friend, a flying squirrel named Rocky. Boris and his sidekick, Natasha, spend most of their waking hours trying to kill "moose and squirrel."

 

Now to understand everything, you should ask, "Who is Merlyn LeRoy?" Merlyn LeRoy is a wizard in "Fractured Fairy Tales," part of the "Rocky and Bullwinkle Show."

 

 

(This message has been edited by Zorn Packte)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"As I asked before, why would any sane person WANT the government to decide what religion to promote? You have no respect for the religious rights of others. "

 

Well Boris, we have an elected government in this country so it is really up to the people in the community, isn't it?

 

Uh, no. That's what I mean when I say you have no respect for the religious rights of others. The local community can't vote to promote their pet religion because that violates the rights of others. That's why towns can't erect signs that say "jesus is lord" any more than they can erect the ten commandments, or signs that say "don't be jewish in our town".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"That's why towns can't erect signs that say jesus is lord"

 

Why not? If everyone who lives in the town is a Sothern Baptist, it is infringing their rights to not allow the town to do that as it is their town, their tax money and you have no standing in the issue.

 

The problem is that you atheists never want to build, you only want to destroy because you fear those who have faith. You fear because deep in your mis-guided soul, you know that we are right and like a child who knows that he's done wrong, you cry out, "you can't tell me what to do!"

 

Grow up and find God, you'll feel better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"That's why towns can't erect signs that say jesus is lord"

 

Why not? If everyone who lives in the town is a Sothern Baptist, it is infringing their rights to not allow the town to do that as it is their town, their tax money and you have no standing in the issue.

 

Government entities, like towns, don't have rights (they have powers); only individuals have rights. That's why the town doesn't have a right to practice "its" religion; only individuals in the town do, and EVERYBODY in the town has the SAME rights on an equal basis. That means if someone gets to erect a sign in front of town hall promoting baptists, *I* also have the SAME right to erect a sign promoting atheism (or whatever). If you "vote" to only allow signs the majority likes, all you're really doing is shutting out minority views; the democratic thing to do would be to allow ALL views (but, as I've pointed out before, a lot of mayors would like to promote only religions THEY personally like, because they don't really LIKE democracy, they'd rather be tinpot dictators).

 

The town also can't prevent non-baptists from moving in; it's much like a sign saying "this is a white town". The unstated implication is that anyone who isn't baptist (or white) is not welcome. Towns can't do this, either.

 

And can the idiotic canard about atheists fearing your particular god; it's no more convincing than if I used the same argument on you that you, deep down, really believe in Zeus. As for atheists being destructive, do you have any idea how common atheism is among scientists? Besides, if you were a buddhist, you would know destruction is just part of the shiva/bramah/vishnu cycle anyway; "without change, there is no growth, and without destruction, there is no change"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×