peacefuljeffrey

To be fair, I think I see why people want things like god out of the pledge. It is seen as a preliminary step toward what could eventually be incrementalism toward theocratic rule -- an idea that may seem remote but which is always possible. I would think of it in the same way we oppose registration of guns, Kennedy, because of what we know could come later on. You don't oppose small, apparently insignificant changes in the immediate present because they themselves are so horrible; you oppose them because they gradually change and erode the political landscape, making huge changes over huge amounts of time so that they are barely noticable as they happen. I can see the point, and agree with it -- even though I do NOT agree that the first amendment demands a strict separation. Regardless of that, I do still feel that government and religion have no business mixing, and should not. In fact, I would support amending the first amendment to something like, "Federal, state and local government entities, their official documents and their official actions must be devoid of references, allusions, and loyalty of any kind to any religion." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

What a load of shit. What you should have said is: "Often MISREPRESENTED as the separation of church and state." The same type of person who reads "separation" into it reads "as long as you serve in a state militia" into the second amendment. Both are full of shit. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I don't see how this is good. God sounds like a bully. You could have made the same comments about Saddam Hussein to Iraqis: "Serve Saddam with fear; with trembling bow down in homage, lest Saddam suspect you of plotting his overthrow from power and you perish at the hands of his sick sadistic evil scumbag sons in a blaze of political torture. Happy are all who are subservient to Saddam!" Someone please tell me why the fuck I would want to believe in a god I needed to fear! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Exactly! The acknowledgment of God is not "establishing a religion." The VAST majority believe in the most basic concept of a God or gods regardless of their specific religion. I'd bet that the vast majority of CAVEMEN believed in angry lightning gods whenever there was a thunderstorm, which they didn't have the capacity to understand. Just becaue the "vast majority" have a need for this crutch we call religion does not mean it should be forced on those who don't feel the need to believe. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Only certain types of hate are more severely punished under hate crime law. The original statement is flawed. If the only variable between a crime punished with X sentence and the same action, classified as a "hate crime" punished with Y sentence, is the motivation (hate), and sentence Y is greater or more harsh than sentence X, sure as shit you have "effectively" outlawed hate. It is what garnered the additional punishment. In a paradoxical way, it is troubling that they have not outlawed hate, since this amounts to being punished additionally for something that, as you point out, is not a crime. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Nope. Heard of a "barbeCue," though. Also am familiar with a Bar-B-Q... Your replies to mine have become bizarrely unrealistic and dare I say kookoo. You're being earnest when you say "we would if gas wasn't so expensive..."?? As though anyone would really leave their cars running full time? In any case, the fact that we DON'T proves rather pointedly and effectively that we are NOT "doing everything we possibly can" to hasten climate change, as you claimed. I easily pointed out several other things we could be doing but aren't. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

My question, maybe poorly asked, is what guarantees that the rise from historic levels to the current 350ppm began only after we began our industrial activity? How are we sure that the rise did not begin outside of the influence of our industrialization? And in the first, say, 50-100 years of industrialization, were we really putting out such pollution? The earth's population was drastically lower than it's become in the last few decades. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Especially since money is the one thing that puts people the furthest from "god" of all. I can't understand why the religious would want "god" on money! It's like blotting the blood from an abortion with bible pages. Why would they want god associated with money?! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No comments? I wanted to ask you where the option, "Take it the fuck out!" was... edited: Actually, the option should be "take it BACK the fuck out and leave the pledge like it was ORIGINALLY, BEFORE the religious zealots got their hands on it!" - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

This is that famous, oft-repeated lie. Here is what the Constitution says about the so-called "separation of church and state": "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Would you please explain for us how you read that to mean "separation of" when clearly all it means is that the government may not establish a religion that would be considered the official government religion. I know it may seem as though I'm playing both sides of the fence, here, since I'm obviously anti-belief-in-god-and-religion, but that being true I still don't like when "my side" (the side of religion out of government) LIES and distorts the Constitution in order to try to bolster or validate its view. There is no Constitutionally-mandated "separation of church and state": there is simply a prohibition of an offiicial state religion a la the Church of England. This part, I agree with. People try to justify all kinds of things just by their popularity with poll-respondents. Doesn't make it right. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Where is it written that those who believe in god have dominion over the wording of a pledge that demonstrates allegiance to our country? Why does it come down to believers-in-god getting their way, if our country does not have an established religion nor an establishment of religion. This is not a country for religious people and the non-religious people be damned. It's supposed to be a country for everyone. Allowing "god" in the pledge (particularly since it was not there originally!) is an offense to those who want to pledge allegiance to the U.S. but who don't feel god has to have something to do with it, and who do not make god a part of their lives. You may cheer it, but it's a petty victory, and overall it is not even a good thing. Blue skies, -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

He's expected to say, "Yellow!" isn't he? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Are you falling free if strapped to another person who is the only one that can undo the straps? From the son's point of view the mother was missing. You're just taking too narrow a view. If anyone was sure to deliberately misconstrue my points, it was you, kallend. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I just saw on my local news some coverage of George Bush's skydive in Texas. I congratulate this 80-year old for his achievement and the fact that he shares the enjoyment of something as wonderful as skydiving. The first thing I noticed was that the ex president did a tandem skydive. I had heard that he'd planned to do a solo -- possibly an AFF-type jump. The woman narrating the news segment is an idiot -- or whoever wrote her copy is: While video of the president's freefall was playing, she said, "The skydive was supposed to be a freefall; but due to high winds the president was forced to do a tandem jump." Ah, I see, if you're tandem, you aren't freefalling, eh beeyatch? I wish the news would bother to employ well-rounded people who are at least moderately intelligent and articulate. Another story had the woman saying, "Ms. So-and-so was reunited with her son after being missing for more than three hours." Only trouble with that one was, it was the SON who had been missing. The grammatically bankrupt way they read the story implies that the woman had been missing. It's like the "I shot an elephant in my pajamas" joke. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You mean like these idiots who pay like $60 for a shirt that advertises Puff Daddy for him and think they're better than those of us wearing Target clothes because of it? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Isn't it hugely disingenuous to imply that "WE'VE" gone from historic levels to 350ppm? The cores you're talking about may reflect a change, but they don't necessarily establish whether "WE" are responsible in large or small part for those changes. What it seems like some people want us to do is arrest climatic change right where it is (or back a few steps) so that the globe neither warms nor cools, and this is folly. The earth has, historically, warmed and cooled to suit itself for billions of years, mankind or not. To suggest that we can somehow manage to preserve things ad infinitum with exactly the set of species we now have, exactly the climate we now have, and exactly the coastline we now have, is stupid and naive. WHAT??! That seems like a reckless statement. Surely if we were doing all we could to put as much CO2 into the air as possible, we'd all be going out each night and burning trash and dead leaves in barrels in our yards. We'd leave our cars running in the driveway while we slept... What kind of ridiculous statement is that, bill? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

What the hell has Kirstie Alley been debating? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well, there was the Sedition Act of 1798 (?date?). Clearly not a good idea, lasted only a couple of years before being repealed by Congress. No-one has been stupid enough to try that again. Doesn't this very fact expose your fear of a crackdown on criticism of the President as the boogeyman that it is? Sedition was outlawed, and then that mistake was dealt with. And as you said, no one has been stupid enough to try it again -- and they likely will not be. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I doubt there's ever been a war during which the propriety of criticizing the government was not debated. It probably always will be. But we have not passed laws to prohibit it. And if Congress did, we have the Supreme Court which would presumably strike it down. And if they did not, there would be a huge public opposition to the law and any enforcement of it. But tell me, did the French oppose or otherwise fight against the passage of this law we're talking about, this anti-free-speech atrocity? She could have done a YEAR in JAIL over her unfavorable opinions of Muslims?! WTF?! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That right is not as debatable as some disingenuous liars would have you believe. Loss of the ability to express one's opinions doesn't raise your eyebrows. Hmm. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

So in any location where there was ever an abuse of freedom, freedom must be forever curtailed there? That seems to be your argument here: since Germany and France had big bouts with racism/ethnic purging, they may not now have freedom of speech, lest it lead to another Kristalnacht, or death camps. Um, what's wrong with trusting people to use their freedom judiciously, letting them have that freedom, and punishing only those who transgress?? Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I have lost track... Is Britain using the Euro or do they still use pounds and pence and shillings and farthings and stuff? When I was there, I loved the pound coin. I think it'd be a shame if they're not using their traditional British currency anymore because of this globalism crap. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Boy, was his point ever lost on you. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I wonder how far away the French are from book burning... because it sure doesn't seem like "very." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

While this made me laugh out loud, I have to admit I don't understand what negative connotation there is associated with "cheese-eating." I love cheese. Cheese is wonderful and delicious. (Well, it's wonderful because it's delicious --- I don't suppose it would be very wonderful except for being delicious...) How about, "whiny, wine-swilling, surrender monkey"? "Whiny, baguette-on-a-bicycle carrying, surrender monkey"? "Whiny, refusing-to-help-international-coalitions, surrender monkey"? Just a few suggestions. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"