It's out again - "under God" and the 9th circuit

[KrazyHorse]

No, vouchers would end up costing the public schools money.

Especially 100% vouchers.

Demonstrate the willingness to share property taxes beyond the county line. Until then people who won't be able to afford private schools (even with vouchers) will quite rightfully tell you to go stuff yourself...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MarkG
so i guess the word "gheto" doesnt have anything to do with the history of USA....

5/10.

Now, please explain again how Greece does a better job integrating IMMIGRANTS into its society than the US does.

[KrazyHorse]

It's been fun, but I've got a group meeting in 10 minutes...

Be back later

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
No, vouchers would end up costing the public schools money.

Especially 100% vouchers.

Demonstrate the willingness to share property taxes beyond the county line. Until then people who won't be able to afford private schools (even with vouchers) will quite rightfully tell you to go stuff yourself...

A. You could increase total funding for schools (which happened, though not enough, under No Child Left Behind) or B. You could establish less than 100% vouchers. Or you could vary the voucher amount by income.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


5/10.

Now, please explain again how Greece does a better job integrating IMMIGRANTS into its society than the US does.

For MarkG:

ghetto (gĕt'ō) , originally, a section of a city in which Jews lived; it has come to mean a section of a city where members of any racial group are segregated. In the early Middle Ages the segregation of Jews in separate streets or localities was voluntary. The first compulsory ghettos were in Spain and Portugal at the end of the 14th cent. The ghetto was typically walled, with gates that were closed at a certain hour each night, and all Jews had to be inside the gate at that hour or suffer penalties. The reason generally given for compulsory ghettos was that the faith of Christians would be weakened by the presence of Jews; the idea of Jewish segregation dates from the Lateran Councils of 1179 and 1215. Within the ghetto the inhabitants usually had autonomy, with their own courts of law, their own culture, and their own charitable, recreational, educational, and religious institutions. Economic activities, however, were restricted, and beyond the ghetto walls Jews were required to wear badges of identification. One of the most infamous ghettos was that of Frankfurt, to which Jews were compelled to move by a city ordinance of 1460. Crowded into a narrow section, the ghetto underwent several disastrous fires. The ghetto in Venice was established in 1516 after long negotiations between the city and the Jews. In 1870 the last ghetto in Western Europe, in Rome, was abolished. In Russia the Jewish Pale continued to exist until 1917. After the 18th cent. ghettos were also to be found in some Muslim countries. During World War II the Nazis set up ghettos in many towns in E Europe from which Jews were transported to concentration camps for liquidation; the Warsaw (Poland) ghetto was a prime example. In the United States, African Americans, Chicanos, and immigrant groups have been forced to live in ghettos through economic and social forces rather than being required to do so by law. See also anti-Semitism.

[lord of the mark]

"In the United States, African Americans, Chicanos, and immigrant groups have been forced to live in ghettos through economic and social forces rather than being required to do so by law."

at times in the past African americans were forced to live in ghettos by law, due to restrictive real estate covenants that made it impossible for them to move to white neighborhoods. Such covenants were abolished by SCOTUS decades ago, and so ghettos no longer exist in the US. Of course poor people are forced to live in low income areas, due to their poverty. This is properly called a slum, though the word ghetto is misapplied to this, and has been for some time. Immigrants normally live in distinctive areas for mutual support, and not out of any force - ergo the places they live are not strictly speaking ghettos either. In the USA today relatively few immigrants live in such concentrated areas, as urban forms evolve.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Why not scrap it entirely?

Cause if you did that the folks couldnt still Bi*** and complain, come on. This way in the next few years somebody else can get their panties in a wad and tie up the courts with crap.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


So says someone from a nation where the Church of England is still officially recognized.

I guess some folks cant see past USA bashing, or Bush bashing.

Who's bashing the U.S.A. , or Bush simply for the sake of it ? Not me.


Wasn't Madison an American politician, and wasn't Jefferson ?

Do I support the Church of England ? Am I a Royalist ?


Oh, get off your high horse- it's because I live in a country that has a state church (and which persecuted people of my religion) that I condemn the introduction of faith by stealth and by degrees.

And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions.... error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.... I deem the essential principles of our government.... Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; ... freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected.

Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

I wonder, would Mr. Jefferson have enrolled at Patrick Henry College ? I think not.

It is surely time for men to think for themselves, and to throw off the authority of names so artificially magnified.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, August 4, 1820


Would someone pass a Jefferson primer to Bush junior ?

Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it. I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted.... Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U.S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.

Thomas Jefferson, to Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808

http://www.positiveatheism.org/index.shtml

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom

Who's bashing the U.S.A. , or Bush simply for the sake of it ? Not me.

"One nation, under the thumb."


Jefferson opposed ceremonial deism. As you can see by your quote, he recognized that his predecessors (IE Washington and Adams) supported it.

Its quite American to disagree about the desirability of ceremonial deism, and I welcome that disagreement, and listen to arguments on both sides - the Jeffersonian POV as well as the Washingtonian.

But one nation under the thumb, implying that our limited ceremonial deism is a central aspect of our national life is something else altogether. And yes, coming from a foreigner adds a twist to the harshness of the rhetoric.

[KrazyHorse]

You're more than a little bit sensitive on this subject.

[Mr. Harley]

LOTM - did you Google the reference made on the previous page. "...one nation under Pte san win." I doubt the Native Americans quite agree with your nonchalance over the issue (and do you really need, or want a three to six paragraph explanation why, up to and including SCOTUS decisions in the 1990's). In defense of Molly Bloom, he has an overall knowledge of history that in my experience exceeds that of any poster here (including IMHO MtG who is damn good at military history and those areas he is interested in - but I am talking about broad-based general knowledge). Molly can be unpleasant, and will wonders never cease he can be biased (here, at Apolyton - for shame) but in general he quotes facts and gives cites, so I at least for one value his opinion. He also tends to be a trifle less harsh in his views of the British Empire than I do, but we all have some hot buttons. And generally when one reacts to a legitimate point as in your last sentence, methinks a sensitive spot may have been touched...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
LOTM - did you Google the reference made on the previous page. "...one nation under Pte san win." I doubt the Native Americans quite agree with your nonchalance over the issue (and do you really need, or want a three to six paragraph explanation why, up to and including SCOTUS decisions in the 1990's). In defense of Molly Bloom, he has an overall knowledge of history that in my experience exceeds that of any poster here (including IMHO MtG who is damn good at military history and those areas he is interested in - but I am talking about broad-based general knowledge). Molly can be unpleasant, and will wonders never cease he can be biased (here, at Apolyton - for shame) but in general he quotes facts and gives cites, so I at least for one value his opinion. He also tends to be a trifle less harsh in his views of the British Empire than I do, but we all have some hot buttons. And generally when one reacts to a legitimate point as in your last sentence, methinks a sensitive spot may have been touched...

Molly is bright, and well read, and articulate. Thats why I read him. But when he says something wrong or misleading about something I know about, I will disagree, and strongly if necessary.

I am sensitive to the way in which some people take relatively minor aspects of American life, and magnify them. In case you havent noticed some people over the last few years have taken to saying life in the US like life under the Taliban, etc. I wont try to charecterize the motivations, which differ I suppose. I am sick and tired of it however. I am a life long Democrat, no friend of fundamentalist Christianity, etc. After 9//11 i posted here whenever a European country helped us in Afghanistan, to the point that some American posters got sick of it. I believe in multilateralism, and a US tied to the Western world. But the constant harping, the mischarecterizations, the false moral equivalencies drive me up the wall and give me some sympathy for those who are more right wing than myself.

American under the thumb, cause of the pledge, for crying out loud???

[Mr. Harley]

LOTM - it depends on your view. If one is gay, somehow I don't believe that they will be quite as forgiving about the government actions taken at the behest of the misnamed "Christian Coalition". Have you ever bothered to read Bowers vs. Hardwick? It was the law of the land from 1986 through 2003. If you want to argue they did finally overturn it, look at our next Supreme Justice, who specifically states he DOES not support federal intervention in such cases as they are states rights issues - would you be worried if you were gay? Even with Bower vs. Hardwick overturned, do you know how many states have passed laws banning gay marraige, etc. and have passed or gotten on their ballot various initiatives to ban gays having the same rights under the law (equal protection), etc.

Now, and I am not saying this to be snide or ugly (and I don't think you got my point in the other thread - I support the right not to intermarry, it was the "those people" comment - ask any Afro-American about "those people") - take all the actions taken against Gays and instead imagine them applied to Jews. Do you think you just might, possibly, be willing to grant that from his viewpoint our so called ceremonial deism, which is strongly Judeo-Christian, and the intertwining of religion and politics is not so innocuous, and in fact very well might deserve "...under the thumb."

If that is not enough, Google "Dr. David Hager." FYI, you can listen to his own statements via archives of Science Friday on NPR once they get them back online, he was on two Fridays ago I believe. The man who will not prescribe Plan B to his patients, who has been one of Bush's appointees to the FDA on Women's Health, and has done everything in his power to subvert the scientific basis of that committee. Google it - if you want to argue we can start our own thread when I get the time.

Do you realize that we would not meet EU standards on human rights on the Death Penalty, Gay rights, minority religious rights (Native American Church discrimination which I've documented before, and SCOTUS was involved), and as soon as Bush can get a SCOTUS judge that lets them pass an Anti-abortion law with no exception for the life of the mother which was only blocked by O'Conner, women's rights? We are in danger of Turkey (as they reform to meet EU standards) having more individual rights for its citizens than we do. Think about it!

BTW - do you want me to post my info about religious and cultural discrimination towards Native Americans, or will you grant me the point that they too, like US homosexuals, might not consider ANY religious overlap with government innocuous, given their experience? Seriously I can almost do it from memory.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
LOTM - it depends on your view. If one is gay, somehow I don't believe that they will be quite as forgiving about the government actions taken at the behest of the misnamed "Christian Coalition". Have you ever bothered to read Bowers vs. Hardwick? It was the law of the land from 1986 through 2003. If you want to argue they did finally overturn it, look at our next Supreme Justice, who specifically states he DOES not support federal intervention in such cases as they are states rights issues - would you be worried if you were gay? Even with Bower vs. Hardwick overturned, do you know how many states have passed laws banning gay marraige, etc. and have passed or gotten on their ballot various initiatives to ban gays having the same rights under the law (equal protection), etc.

Now, and I am not saying this to be snide or ugly (and I don't think you got my point in the other thread - I support the right not to intermarry, it was the "those people" comment - ask any Afro-American about "those people") - take all the actions taken against Gays and instead imagine them applied to Jews. Do you think you just might, possibly, be willing to grant that from his viewpoint our so called ceremonial deism, which is strongly Judeo-Christian, and the intertwining of religion and politics is not so innocuous, and in fact very well might deserve "...under the thumb."

If that is not enough, Google "Dr. David Hager." FYI, you can listen to his own statements via archives of Science Friday on NPR once they get them back online, he was on two Fridays ago I believe. The man who will not prescribe Plan B to his patients, who has been one of Bush's appointees to the FDA on Women's Health, and has done everything in his power to subvert the scientific basis of that committee. Google it - if you want to argue we can start our own thread when I get the time.

Do you realize that we would not meet EU standards on human rights on the Death Penalty, Gay rights, minority religious rights (Native American Church discrimination which I've documented before, and SCOTUS was involved), and as soon as Bush can get a SCOTUS judge that lets them pass an Anti-abortion law with no exception for the life of the mother which was only blocked by O'Conner, women's rights? We are in danger of Turkey (as they reform to meet EU standards) having more individual rights for its citizens than we do. Think about it!

BTW - do you want me to post my info about religious and cultural discrimination towards Native Americans, or will you grant me the point that they too, like US homosexuals, might not consider ANY religious overlap with government innocuous, given their experience? Seriously I can almost do it from memory.

I dont agree that having the DP makes us a human rights violator - note, Im NOT DP proponent, but I think making that a criterion of Human rights is an imposition of particular values. I would note also, that at least in the US, religious Jews and Christians have been at the forefront of DP abolition - as they have been at the forefront of minority rights, including minority religious rights. Ceremonial Deism is NOT the property of Christian fundamentalism, and bringing in problems with christian fundamentalism is confusing the issue.

As for the Gay- Jew parallel, it took hundreds of years for Jews to gain civil rights in the West. One frequently hears allusions to how well treated Jews were in the 17th century Dutch Republic - despite the fact that they were still denied suffrage and other political rights - one looks at things in context, and in terms of historical change.

well, 50 years the notion that homosexuality was a mental illness, and not a perverse sin, was the PROGRESSIVE position here and elsewhere - 40 years ago laws to arrest gays as sodomites were vigourously enforced. Today we are arguing as to whether the definition of marriage should include gays - whether you agree with that or not, whether you want faster change or not, to deny that there HAS been rapid change, to assert that the US is "under the thumb" and to somehow tie to this to the poor old pledge of allegiance, is too much.



Oh, and as for SCOTUS, i would remind you that the US IS a federal republic, and that States DO have the right to make important decisions themselves. SCOTUS has to determine what rights states have based on their reading of the Constitution, and NOT on the preferred policy outcome.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Originally posted by molly bloom

Who's bashing the U.S.A. , or Bush simply for the sake of it ? Not me.

And yes, coming from a foreigner adds a twist to the harshness of the rhetoric.

My goodness, the temerity of these foreigners !!!

Next they'll be emigrating and becoming citizens of the U.S.A. . Presumably then they'd be able to make criticisms of the creeping faith agenda of right wing presidents like Bush.

Gosh, I'd better not mention my longstanding opposition to the death penalty, or to American states' executions of the mentally retarded- me being a foreigner and all.

So, L.O.T.M., will you follow the implications of your criticism of me, and keep yourself from making any derogatory statements about other countries ?

I look forward to your non-criticisms of China's human rights' policy or Iran's domestic nuclear power agenda- you not being a citizen of China, or Iranian...

Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline.

Thomas Jefferson

"On this National Day of Prayer and Remembrance, we pledge ourselves to the demanding work of revival, and renew the faith and hope that will carry that work to completion," Mr. Bush said in his remarks at the cathedral. "In the worst of storms, and in the rush of flood- waters, even the strongest faith can be tested. Yet the Scriptures assure us, 'many waters cannot quench love; neither can the floods drown it.'

George Bush

Now which president do we imagine has the backing of a well-organised right wing evangelical Christian grouping ?

By Alan Cooperman and Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, November 8, 2004; Page A01

As the presidential race was heating up in June and July, a pair of leaked documents showed that the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign was urging Christian supporters to turn over their church directories and was seeking to identify "friendly congregations" in battleground states.

Those revelations produced a flurry of accusations that the Bush campaign was leading churches to violate laws against partisan activities by tax-exempt organizations, and even some of the White House's closest religious allies said the campaign had gone too far.

Exit polls do not permit a direct comparison of how many evangelical and born-again Americans voted in 2000 and 2004 because the way pollsters identified these voters changed. Four years ago voters leaving polls were asked: "Do you consider yourself part of the conservative Christian political movement, also known as the religious right?" In 2004, the question was changed to: "Would you describe yourself as a born-again or evangelical Christian?"

Fourteen percent answered "yes" in 2000 and 23 percent did so in 2004, but polling specialists said the 2004 wording virtually assures more affirmative answers.

The percentage of voters who said they attend church more than once a week grew from 14 to 16 percent, a significant difference in an election decided by three percentage points. These voters backed President Bush over John F. Kerry 64 percent to 35 percent. Similarly, the percent of the electorate that believes abortion should be "illegal in all cases" grew from 13 to 16 percent. These voters backed Bush by 77 percent to 22 percent.

In the two major battlegrounds, Ohio and Florida, exit polls showed Bush substantially improved his support among voters who attend church more than once a week. At the same time, the percentage of the electorate that goes to church this often actually fell.

-- Thomas B. Edsall

But the untold story of the 2004 election, according to national religious leaders and grass-roots activists, is that evangelical Christian groups were often more aggressive and sometimes better organized on the ground than the Bush campaign. The White House struggled to stay abreast of the Christian right and consulted with the movement's leaders in weekly conference calls. But in many respects, Christian activists led the charge that GOP operatives followed and capitalized upon.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32793-2004Nov7.html

I suppose I'm just a tad suspicious of anyone who claims they have god on their side- must be having seen 'Elmer Gantry' when I was young, hmm ?

Elmer Gantry (Burt Lancaster) is a huckster who sells shoeshines and vacuum cleaners. Gantry is lustful, coarse, loud, ambitious, motivated by an easy dollar, golden-tongued, and often drunk. His first memorable appearance on screen in a speakeasy demonstrates his high-energy eloquence with words in this impromptu Christmas sermon...

http://www.filmsite.org/elme.html

Hmm, some more parallels come to mind....