Ryan's Journal

So its ok to for...

So its ok to force children (in PUBLIC schools) to recite "poems" that directly contradict their beliefs and may inflict insult upon their lifestyle?

wcandy wcandy on June 28, 2002 01:02 PM

Of course it i...

Of course it isn't. The Supreme Court already decided in some-case-or-another that children can't be forced to recite the pledge in schools. That isn't the issue at hand. The problem is the most liberal judges in the country deciding that Eisenhower's modification to the pledge is vaguely unconstitutional, a decision the rest of the judges in the 9th circuit probably all disagree with, and which all of the Senate disagrees with. In a government of republic, they made the wrong decision. This could be a much longer, perhaps I'll add on more... Thanks for raising your point, be glad to hear what else you have to say now that I've clarified some.

Ryan Lee on July 02, 2002 05:13 AM

so is separation...

so is separation of church and state invalid?

wcandy wcandy on July 03, 2002 08:00 PM

It's hard to s...

It's hard to say, isn't it? I mean, I don't live my life by the Constitution, though it is extremely relevant to living in this country, so whether or not separation of church and state as Jefferson wrote is unconstitutional is hard for me to say. I do think the general concept of government-sponsored religion is dangerous, particularly for the religion being sponsored. Christianity took a turn for the worse when Roman Emperor Constantine mass-baptized his entire army by marching them through a strait. Did they know what their government was asking them to believe? No. But they called themselves Christians because their boss said so. And those imperial guard types weren't the most exemplary 'believers' in history. I wouldn't want someone to become a Christian because their government told them to. That isn't what it's about. People come to Christ as individuals, not as citizens. Is separation of church and state constitutional? Well, probably yes, since the First Amendment says about as much. But I'm no lawyer. Does Eisenhower's amendment to the Pledge amount to a violation of that amendment? I doubt it. I doubt it very much based on past court interpretations and the majority opinion these days. Do I think this country needs God? Yes, I think everybody needs God. But everybody has to make their own individual choices. And if you don't agree with the majority, which seems to like the whole 'under God' thing, don't believe the country's going to turn on you en masse in some slippery slope descent into fundamendalist inanity, as the plaintiff in this case seems to think will inevitably happen. You and I are free citizens of this country, free to believe as we will, free to not recite poems or sing songs. I'm as free to hope anyone who doesn't know Christ might find Him as you are to think I'm nuts. Um...sorry so longwinded, I'm kinda tired...maybe yet more tomorrow... Enjoy your Independence Day...

Ryan Lee on July 04, 2002 05:38 AM

so what is the i...

so what is the incentive for the pledge remaining as is?

wcandy wcandy on July 12, 2002 06:55 PM

The judge is a...

The judge is an idiot. Or how about the plaintiff is a liar (his daughter goes to church; he says the whole issue is about him, not her)?

One could argue majority rules, consent of the governed, etc., like I mentioned above. I also happen to think it's true. Where should the line get drawn to avoid the Roman tragedy I described above? I claim I don't know, for now...

Ryan Lee on July 14, 2002 04:03 AM

How can an 8 yea...

How can an 8 year old be an avowed christian?

Is the judge an idiot because he's liberal? because he's probably for women's rights and treating ethnic minorities fairly? Because he doesn't believe that because your opinion may be the minority opinion its necessarily the wrong opinion?

wcandy wcandy on July 14, 2002 05:59 PM

My cousin-in-l...

My cousin-in-law is a pastor. He was baptized at the age of 8. Of his own choice. Children can have faith. See Matthew. A Christian (in short) accepts Christ as their savior. Who says there's an age limit on making decisions in life?

You know, I apologize if I've been unclear, because I get the sense you're fighting against something that isn't really there.

Have I said anything about liberals, racism, or sexism? I would hope people we put on the bench have opinions of their own and aren't biased by things like race or gender. I say he's an idiot because he's trying to change the system by 'sneaking something through.' I don't want a judge at that level making sweeping changes to the way my country works by 'sneaking' judgments past the Supreme Court. Those justices have a lot of other things to do, and I worry that he'll actually succeed some day. And then what? Judge's decisions have impacts down the road we can't always see from here. Perhaps I'm naive and that's how it all works in our courts. But that would suck.

When did I say the judge held the wrong opinion? I said the judges made the wrong decision, by which I mean I don't think it's going to stand up to further deliberation. There's a difference. See above a couple of posts on freedom of speech and opinion in this country. I also disagree with his opinion, but that's just my opinion.

I am not trying to pick a fight with you, merely to address your questions and hopefully clarify my own thoughts. I apologize if the length or tone of my posts suggest otherwise. I'm only trying to be clear. So unless I've been unclear again, I think I've said enough. I'd rather lay this discussion to rest lest I inadvertently offend you (wcandy) personally. No discussion is abstract since there's always a living, real person on both sides; it's the wcandy and not the discussion that matters more to me ;p

Ryan Lee on July 16, 2002 04:17 PM

I read the artic...

I read the article that you linked to about the judge and I just really didn't understand how that led you to the conclusion that he is an idiot. It seemed to me that the article said liberal and you inferred idiot. I'm certainly not offended. It really isn't all that big of a deal. I merely wonder sometimes how people come to certain conclusions and what exactly they are based on, particularly when they have something to do with conforming, controlling, and discrimination.

wcandy wcandy on July 17, 2002 01:57 AM

Glad you asked...

Glad you asked so I could clarify, then.

Ryan Lee on July 17, 2002 10:28 PM

It will never happen!

They can't declare the pledge of allegience unconstitutional. Think of the presedence it would set. If I don't remeber correctly dosen't witness in court have to swear before god and on the bible to tell the truth. I mean million of cases could be overturned by this prisons would become empty and crimmals go free this is insane! The supreme court will relieze that and probly won't even grant cert. Well for now thats all I have to say.

megan spence on July 22, 2002 07:59 PM

Hi Megan, cong...

Hi Megan, congratulations on being the first person I didn't know beforehand to leave a comment in my journal. Nice to meet you.

I think you meant to say if you 'do remember correctly.' Unfortunately, I don't think what you're remembering is more than a tradition. Witnesses do swear on the Bible, but the point is to instill in them the fear of God so they'll tell the truth. It isn't a law of any kind, and you can substitute any affirmation that you'll tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth for it.

Sorry to disappoint, but thanks for your comment (and your email). Perhaps we'll see you again in these fora?

Ryan Lee on July 22, 2002 08:10 PM

aweo

ezcard info on March 20, 2020 04:58 PM