HRH The KING

Plenty of time for the forces of evil to gather.

I live in a house by myself... and its scary, as its old and sometimes it sounds like people are walking around, but its just the house settinling in...

You hope it is.

I asked the diehards on StarTrek.COM

Even they didn't know. It must be a very obscure reference.

Why would Future Man be talking about baseball?

Historically, the involvement of religion in government has been a lot more involved than there being a few religious politicians.

Which itself would be unconstitutional if religion was being blended with government.

And, as I've repeated - the mention of religion is not prohibited (I'm not saying the history of the US regarding religious freedom has been a pretty picture). But the hostility currently being exhibited towards religion is just the flip side of the same coin.

It's not necessarily hostility but rather a desire for the law to be applied properly and fairly, rather than it being applied unfairly simply because a judge may be religious themselves and are unable of objectivity.

Removing the words "under God" will not solve the problem. Do you honestly think the athiests can say "nya nya we've won -you lost - you don't have the right to exist" (which is how a SC decision in their favor will be interpreted) and everything will be all peacefullly resolved? If you do you don't know much about human nature.

I think you are unfairly stereotyping Atheists. As for "peacefully" resolved, are you implying that religious people will resort to violence if the Supreme Court ruled in favour of modifying or scrapping the pledge?

Which is why simply removing those words would solve the problem.

You can still pledge loyalty to your nation and not have to pledge loyalty to a god.

Meanwhile religious people can pledge loyalty to their nation and pledge loyalty to their god in their own time and not on public school property.

HRH, I disagree - The same First Amendment that prohibits the government from establishing a federal religion also bars the same government from making laws restricting free exercise.

But the "free exercise" of the pledge containing religious references may violate the first part of the Establishment Clause, since it is a case of religion being featured in a public institution, IE: Public schools.

If children were forced to repeat the pledge I would be the first to argue against it. But that isn't the question because participation is voluntary. The issue is whether other people can be prohibited from saying it.

Even if they weren't forced to say it. It still could be interpreted as exclusion, since the pledge of the nation cannot be said without pledging the same loyalty to a god.

Why should a non-theist be unable to pledge loyalty to their nation simply because of a religious reference which they cannot pledge loyalty to?

It's the blending of the two that is the problem. It implies that to pledge loyalty to your nation, you MUST pledge loyalty to a god.

And there is a technical distinction of your argument - the pledge is to the flag and to the republic for which it stands - the term "under God" is used only as an adjective to define the term "nation." Historically the phrase "under God" had been an accurate "adjective" of the US. They may be troubling to some but it is historically accurate.

It doesn't matter. The term "Under God" can still be intepreted as a religious element.

It should be removed from the Pledge.

If the words "under God" fail to pass scrutiny it would likely be on the "excessive entanglement" prong of the test - what I guess you term "blending". Of course every word of that definition will be debated.

 

For what it's worth - in US history religion has always had a role in government.

 

The bottom line is, if the SC bans the pledge they will be imposing one persons beliefs on another - jsut as much so as requiring students to repeat it would be.

There may be politicians in the U.S. who are religious, but officially there is no state religion in the United States and no official role for any religion in the government.

It wouldn't be imposing one person's belief on another. It would simply be removing a reference which honestly should NEVER have been used in the pledge.

I don't know how the WWE can possibly justify charging people to see something as crap as The Big Grow vs Gene Sh*tsky.

I don't think that this stigma of being a "WWE Reject" is a problem these days, since the WWE have constistantly rejected anyone who doesn't have the "look" that Vince likes, IE: Lots of muscles and maybe some tattoos.

As for this PPV on Sunday, honestly I forget it was on.

The card is absolutely piss poor.

Waiting for dinner.

the point isn't what you believe but who has the right to decide to what everyone else "must" believe.

 

That's the question I'm waiting for someone to answer.

No one has the right to decide what everyone else must believe.

The actual point of the thread is that a pledge of loyalty to a god (whatever god it may be) is blended into a pledge of loyalty to the nation which is made in a public school.

If the Supreme Court do their job properly, then they MUST either remove those two words "Under God" from the pledge, or simply ban that particular version of the pledge from being spoken in public schools.

If they decide to use ideology in their judgement, then they'll say "Well, it does blend a religion into public schools but since our own political opinions support a role for religion in government institutions, we are going to allow it anyway".

Which I would consider absurd and it makes the U.S. Supreme Court look like a joke.

Here's an interesting article from PW Torch

It speculates that when WWE moves to USA Network, a number of peformers may be getting fired...erm....I mean "released".

If that happens, from their list, these are the guys that TNA needs to recruit:

Doug and Danny Basham

The best thing really would be for these guys to be packaged as a tag team since good tag teams are really rare these days and given the right characters, these guys could be relatively happy in TNA.

Nick Dinsmore

He's on limited time with the "Eugene" gimmick. Partly because the WWE have caused the problem by refusing to allow him to wrestle properly. A mentally retarded person with excellent wrestling abilities would be a decent meaningful character. A mentally retarded person who acts like a fool in the ring has been a frickin joke. Give Dinsmore a decent gimmick and let him wrestle properly and he'll be well suited to TNA.

Matt Striker

The "Wrestling Teacher" gimmick never had a prayer of succeeding. Another talented guy stuck with a dumb gimmick intended to get the WWE some press attention.

Yoshihiro Tajiri

Like many Japanese wrestlers, he's been stuck with the gimmick of being devious, speaking one or two words of English, constantly bowing and grinning. In TNA a character similar to his Japanese Buzzsaw gimmick would be a massive success.

Steven Richards

Great on the mike and always a riot. He has the ability and the verbal skills to prosper with the right character.

Simon Dean

The "Bodydonnas" gimmick was never going to work. As a "Nova" type character again, he would succeed in TNA.

Nunzio and Paul London

Both superb talents. No longer able to compete in the WWE due to the new policy they have adopted of "A Safe Style". Which practically ends the CW division. Both would make superb additions to the TNA roster.

You are most welcome, my dear Madame Butterfly.

The U.S. Senate drafted a resolution condemning the ruling against the Pledge this morning.And Atty.General Alberto gonzalez says he'll use every resource to keep the words of the Pledge as is.

I know the Supreme Court won't uphold the ruling.Especially with Roberts joining.

So I've no worries.

The Pledge will continue in it's present form for a long time to come. 

Why would it worry you if the words "Under God" were removed?

Would it cause you to lose your faith or for the Christian religion to fall?

In all honesty, if the United States Supreme Court did what they were supposed to do and uphold the United States Constitution, then they SHOULD order those two words to be removed from the pledge, or if not then the pledge itself should not be spoken in public schools.

The fact that they won't makes somewhat of a mockery of the court and the purpose they were intended to fulfill. For the Attorney-General to take such a religious bias is an absurdity.

King, I have a question for you. I know the terminology for your school systems are different from North America but how much religion is taught in British schools that would be considered public schools by North American standards. From what I read and see on television, religion being taught in public schools is much, much more of an issue in the US than Canada and Western Europe. Perhaps you can confirm or reject my observation based on your experience in Britain.

I do remember that occasionally prayers were said in school during assembly once a week, though that was long ago and I always remained absolutely silent during the prayer, as did some friends of mine. We were basically forced to bow our heads though which I always did with venomous thoughts in my mind.

We had Religious Education classes, but they were always a joke. No one wanted to be there and the class only lasted thirty minutes. Many occasions myself and my friends were told to shut up because we were asking too many questions which the teacher didn't want to answer or couldn't answer.

HRH The King

+69 points

[total of 2011.5 points]

Oh, I'm so frickin great!!!!! :lol: :blink:

Cadet Madame Butterfly

[total of 10 points]

When I feel the need for a refreshing high quality beverage, His Royal Highness The King only finds satisfaction from one drink.

His Royal Highness The King drinks Coca Cola. The brand which outstrips all others. Clearly the supreme name and the mark of quality in the soft drink industry.

The sun will always shine, the birds will always sing.

As long as there is thirst, there's always the real thing.

Coca Cola is always the one. Whenever there is thirst there's always Coca Cola.

Dododododo, ALWAYS COCA COLA YEAH!!!!!

Drink Coca Cola.

The Coca Cola Company.

Proud Sponsor and Official Corporate Partner Of His Majesty His Royal Highness The King.

Thirsty? Try The Real Thing!!!!!

Should they eliminate sex education because it might traumatize some students to leave the room when it is taught? Parents do have the choice to opt out their child if such teachings violate their beliefs?

Yes, an opt-out has always been used here in the UK. Before I was taught SexEd we had to get our parents permission first.

And what about the battle over "evolution" - whether we agree or not, for some people it is a moral issue. So how do you address it? Not teach it because someone will be offended if they leave the room or force children to sit through a class and repeat material (on paper if not verbally) that is personally offensive to them. Remember the point isn't what you feel about the issue but how we deal with forcing "common" beliefs on someone else who doesn't share them. The law should be applied equally to all children. To say non-religious children deserve protection but religious children don't is IMO a double standard and the sign of specific persecution.

The theory of Evolution would be taught in Science Classes. Religious parents may choose to opt out of those classes but honestly they may as well simply opt out ALL science classes because many things may be taught which are contrary to Biblical teachings. If parents REALLY want their children to learn about Creationism on an equal basis to Evolution or perhaps to ONLY learn about Creationism, then they can remove their child from public education and send them to a faith school privately.

Matters relating to Creationism would be part of Philiosophy or RE classes, which also would be optional for students, even though as an Atheist, I would still take those classes.

As for changing the words of the pledge - as I said before - it has now become "symbolic" and the battle will eat up precious time and resources while more pressing issues are ignored.

Sorry, but who are you to decide what's more pressing? To an Atheist, the fact that religious elements are mixed with a pledge of loyalty to the nation you are a citizen of IS a pressing issue and a constitutional matter.

Worst U.S. Champion of all time HAS to be either Steve McMichael or Orlando Jordan.

It's even worse when you consider that "Mongo" (dumb nickname) was also the worst colour announcer ever when he was on the announce team on Nitro and also the worst Horseman ever.

Best WWE Tag Team Champions of all time were Demolition.

The fact Jeff Jarrett won the NWA Championship AGAIN!!! is one of the reasons why TNA may struggle. He is TNA's Triple H and unless they deal with him, they are doomed.

this is just like atheists trying to get rid of the "God" in the canadian national anthem... most people i talk to don't really care about it, and if atheist children don't want to say God, just mumble or something, don't sue people. All in all, i hope this case gets thrown out as IMHO it is hogwash.

For you it's hogwash because you claim to be a religious person.

So obviously you would see nothing wrong with pledging your loyalty to a god you believed in anyway.

Those who don't wish to pledge loyalty to a god they don't believe exists might not feel the same way.

Well the primary enemy was either the Sphere Builders or the Mysterious Future Man.

Which I think is a shame because the Suliban were far more interesting.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility that in a later incarnation of Star Trek, the Suliban may come back to be developed, though they may need a re-vamp.

Alright then.

Well, we'll just have to "agree to disagree", won't we?

If it were a private school, then I guess the rules would be different.

But in a public school there is no way I would pledge any loyalty to a god.

Well that's the thing that annoys me.

Berman and Braga WERE capable of good work. It simply didn't happen on ENT or VOY.

I don't know what happened to their talent. I really don't.

Coto never impressed me at all.

I agree with the judge.

Pledging loyalty to the nation you are a citizen of is fine.

Pledging loyalty to a god you may not even believe in is not.

This should be the new Pledge:

"I Pledge Allegiance To The Flag Of The United States Of America, And To The Republic For Which It Stands, One Nation United And Indivisible, With Liberty And Justice For All".

If they don't alter the pledge, then an Atheist child should not be compelled to recite it.