Does the "average American" agree with Michael Moore?

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by molly bloom One is not after all responsible for what people do with one's theories

My point being that it wasn't even their theory.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Ned


Guynemer, you may be the most tolerant guy around as clearly demonstrated by your post, but there are people in the Democratic Party who are getting people fired if they express their religious views at work, expelled if they display Christian symbols at school or vilified if they'll attempt to hold meetings or even camp anywhere on public property.

Please show me where "people in the Democratic Party" are getting students expelled for wearing Christian symbols. I will gladly join you in denouncing this if it is true.

But when one comes to confirming judges, Catholics need not apply as the Democratic Party holds a veto in the Senate. To a Democrat, separation of church and state means that a religious person cannot be confirmed to any court.

Frankly, the whole judicial debate bores me to tears. Republicans held up Clinton's nominees for bull**** reasons; Democrats hold up Bush's nominees for bull**** reasons; and I'm sure Republican's will hold up Kerry's nominees for bull**** reasons if Kerry should win the nomination and the presidency. A pox on both their houses; one of the (many) reasons I refuse to identify myself as a Democrat.


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

Dino,

Semantically, legally, you are right. No one is "forced". The alternative typically is to leave the classroom while the rest of the class says the Pledge.

But, I'm sure you remember how important it is in school to be one of the crowd, to not stick out in any way, lest one risk constant ridicule and intimidation. It takes a preternaturally brave child to welcome that kind of treatment by skipping out on the Pledge.

Legally, they are not forced; but given the school environment, they are effectively coerced into the Pledge--or else. That is the point I was trying to get across.

[Ben Kenobi]

The anti-sodomy laws, or look at Ben's post on "abortificants". Please, I know I set him up, being an ex-Catholic I knew he had to either be inconsistant or agree with banning the pill.

Well, start a thread, so we don't jack this one anymore. Is the pill an abortifacient? Assuming that it is not through rhetoric, does not prove your case.

The alternative typically is to leave the classroom while the rest of the class says the Pledge.

Be creative! How can they force you to say the pledge properly?

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Be creative! How can they force you to say the pledge properly?

/me is confused *

[Verto]

Legally, they are not forced; but given the school environment, they are effectively coerced into the Pledge--or else. That is the point I was trying to get across.

Your point is wrong, then.

[Ben Kenobi]

Guynemer:

There are more options for someone who does not want to say the pledge then to have to leave the room. They can mouth words they don't agree with, such as under God.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Guynemer:

There are more options for someone who does not want to say the pledge then to have to leave the room. They can mouth words they don't agree with, such as under God.

If they're going to pretend to say it, they might aswell be saying it.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Guynemer:

There are more options for someone who does not want to say the pledge then to have to leave the room. They can mouth words they don't agree with, such as under God.

Or, they can simply not recite it at all; I have not seen any mates taken out or 'disciplined' after refusing to recite it.

[Mr. Harley]

Ben, actually, we arent' hijacking a thread. The whole debate on "average American" has been pretty thoroughly debated here, including liberal-conservative secular-religious moderate libertarian, the only thing we are missing is Greens, and we may have too small a statistical base for that to be significant +/- how many per cent?

Ramo, thanks for posting that correction - I've been reading a book on Bleeding Kansas, and had a brain fart reference transposing names. However, I'd like to expound a little more on the affects of the Populists, or more properly, the affects of the measures taken to defeat them.

Both the Populists and Free Soil movement also had substantial support in the Midwestern farm belt, in addition to the southern bastion for the Populists. As Ramo noted, the Free Soil party was quickly coopted by the Republicans, but the Populists represented a very major threat to the status quo. After Reconstruction ended there was a de facto political partition of the United States, and both parties were largely satisfied with that. Corruption, oligarchs (very similiar to the modern Russian ones, in fact), and machine politics dominated the American landscape.

Ramo already very succinctly described why they had so much popular support in the American South. So much so that in correspondence of the time Democratic party members frankly admitted they stole the election of either 1892 or 1896, and if it hadn't been for the ballot stuffing, murders, and beatings the Populists would have won in much of the South.

In the midwest the Populists started to garner support due to the effects of the railroad monopolies. While not the sole reason for the worsening economic conditions of the farmers, excessive shipping charges were in numerous cases the deciding factor in individuals losing their farms, and also the most glaringly obvious. Whether it was the issues in the South or the midwest, the Populists almost overturned the traditional two party system in place since the civil war.

Many of your influencial leaders of the Republican party, people who had control and were very satisfied to let others take the glory, decided very matter of factly to distract the masses with foreign adventurism. Much of this is preserved in their correspondence. They did consider it foreign adventurism per se. They felt that not only would this preserve the two party system, and Republican control of national politics, but it would also make the US a respected world power, and increase our access to world markets and raw materials. Many of the American elites felt this was desirable, and it was not so much a conspiracy as a convergence of opinion and thought.

Now we get into the realm of unintended consequences. Not only were blacks targeted during the depression of 1893, so were other foreign workers/immigrants. Of significance here was the targeting of Asian workers, including Japanese. Just as the American yellow press inflamed popular sentiment among Americans, a similiar trend was occuring in Japan. This was one of the critical events cementing Japanese popular opinion about the US, and that our country was hippocritical and unabashedly anti-Japanese. The same people who grew up on this jingoistic press in Japan would become the army officers in the 1920-1930's, which when combined with the new and warped version of Shinto that would make it's way into the schools (think Hitler Jungen) would become convinced that war with the United States was inevitable.

edited to complete - preposted accidently