What are the American and British Editions differences?
Harriet Todaro
the books. Does any one know what they are?
127.0.0.1
news:vh6ikbp...@corp.supernews.com:
> I heard that there are differences in the American and British editions of
> the books. Does any one know what they are?
s/Philosopher/Sorcerer/g
--
Spam:newsg...@craznar.com
EMail:<0110001100101110011000100111010101110010011010110
11001010100000001100011011100100110000101111010011011100
1100001011100100010111001100011011011110110110100100000>
Petrea Mitchell
Harriet Todaro <hto...@charter.net> strode forth and proclaimed:
> I heard that there are differences in the American and British editions of
> the books. Does any one know what they are?
A few bits of British slang and jargon are translated to American, plus
the infamous change from the Philosopher's Stone (original) to Sorcerer's
Stone (US only).
Other English-speaking countries got to keep the Philosopher's Stone. I
don't know whether the Brit-specific words also got changed.
--
/
Petrea Mitchell <|> <|> <pr...@m5p.com> <mit...@osm.com>
For every post, there is an equal and opposite riposte.
"Dan Quayle: the EDLIN of Vice-Presidents." ---Unknown
Douglas Bailey
> I heard that there are differences in the American and British editions
> of the books. Does any one know what they are?
Check out the HP Lexicon site: they haven't yet gotten around to OotP,
but they've done the first four books...
<http://www.hp-lexicon.org/differences-ss.html>
<http://www.hp-lexicon.org/differences-cs.html>
<http://www.hp-lexicon.org/differences-pa.html>
<http://www.hp-lexicon.org/differences-gf.html>
The third link (PoA) is bringing up a blank page as I write, but it
might be fixed again by the time you see it.
HTH,
doug
--
---------------Douglas Bailey (trys...@world.std.com)---------------
I can't see the lines I used to think I could read between...
--Eno
Roger T.
"Petrea Mitchell"
> Other English-speaking countries got to keep the Philosopher's Stone. I
> don't know whether the Brit-specific words also got changed.
Not in Canada.
--
Cheers
Roger T.
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/
Home of the Great Eastern Railway
X
Aside from "Philosopher's" --> "Sorcerer's", I know of one funny
wording that was changed.
From the British edition:
"Anyway, it's a nightmare of a year, the fifth," said George. "If you
care about exam results, anyway. Fred and I managed to keep our
peckers up somehow."
In the American edition, it's "spirits". I'm thankful they changed
that one. The British wording gives it a WHOLE new meaning.
Moxie
"Douglas Bailey" <trys...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.197d2fbe2...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> Check out the HP Lexicon site: they haven't yet gotten around to OotP,
> but they've done the first four books...
This page has the different words used in OotP:
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/strictly_british1.html
Moxie
Steve Vander Ark
> > I heard that there are differences in the American and British editions
> > of the books. Does any one know what they are?
>
> Check out the HP Lexicon site: they haven't yet gotten around to OotP,
> but they've done the first four books...
>
> <http://www.hp-lexicon.org/differences-ss.html>
> <http://www.hp-lexicon.org/differences-cs.html>
> <http://www.hp-lexicon.org/differences-pa.html>
> <http://www.hp-lexicon.org/differences-gf.html>
>
> The third link (PoA) is bringing up a blank page as I write, but it
> might be fixed again by the time you see it.
I am so sorry about the broken page. We have had to move the Lexicon
to a new server because of the amount of traffic (over a million hits
a day!). I fixed it.
As for OP, the only major difference we've spotted is the phrase "we
managed to keep our peckers up" which is a British slang term for
"keep our spirits up." As you might imagine, that didn't sit well with
American editors. Everything else, even "jumpers" for sweaters, was
left intact.
Steve Vander Ark
The Harry Potter Lexicon
John Fisher
> > I heard that there are differences in the American and British editions
> > of the books. Does any one know what they are?
>
> Check out the HP Lexicon site: they haven't yet gotten around to OotP,
> but they've done the first four books...
I noticed in Gof, p231/262, that in place of "What's she
like?" in the UK version the US version has "What is it with
her?"
Which was interesting because I always thought that "What is
X *like*?" (expressing exasperation) was an American
expression.
(on the point of leaving for the airport:)
Me: Look, I must just check that I shut the bathroom
door...
Friend (tearing hair): WHAT are you LIKE?!?
--
John Fisher jo...@epcc.ed.ac.uk jo...@drummond.demon.co.uk
Túrin
> I noticed in Gof, p231/262, that in place of "What's she
> like?" in the UK version the US version has "What is it with
> her?"
>
> Which was interesting because I always thought that "What is
> X *like*?" (expressing exasperation) was an American
> expression.
>
> (on the point of leaving for the airport:)
> Me: Look, I must just check that I shut the bathroom
> door...
> Friend (tearing hair): WHAT are you LIKE?!?
Interesting. I've never heard that here (CA), and it doesn't sound at
all like something an American would say.
Túrin
Eric Bohlman
news:bf0jkf$dlh$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk:
> I noticed in Gof, p231/262, that in place of "What's she
> like?" in the UK version the US version has "What is it with
> her?"
>
> Which was interesting because I always thought that "What is
> X *like*?" (expressing exasperation) was an American
> expression.
>
> (on the point of leaving for the airport:)
> Me: Look, I must just check that I shut the bathroom
> door...
> Friend (tearing hair): WHAT are you LIKE?!?
While "what is X like?" is in fact used in America, it's used in the sense
of a simple request for information; a boy might ask another boy "what's
she like?" about a girl he's interested in. But it's not used in the sense
of "why does X behave in a way that puzzles me?"; if the first boy in the
previous sentence went up to the girl, tried to impress her, and got
slapped in the face, he might ask his friend "what's with her?" or "what's
up with her?" ("What's up with you," OTOH, is just a variant of "how are
you?" meant as a greeting, not a question).
John Fisher
> jo...@epcc.ed.ac.uk (John Fisher) wrote in
> news:bf0jkf$dlh$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk:
> > I noticed in Gof, p231/262, that in place of "What's she
> > like?" in the UK version the US version has "What is it with
> > her?"
> >
> > Which was interesting because I always thought that "What is
> > X *like*?" (expressing exasperation) was an American
> > expression.
> >
> > (on the point of leaving for the airport:)
> > Me: Look, I must just check that I shut the bathroom
> > door...
> > Friend (tearing hair): WHAT are you LIKE?!?
>
> While "what is X like?" is in fact used in America, it's used in the sense
> of a simple request for information; a boy might ask another boy "what's
> she like?" about a girl he's interested in.
We say that as well, of course. It's the exasperated
intonation which makes "WHAT are you LIKE" different. I
think it's quite a new expression, maybe in the last ten
years, and I just assumed it came from the States. You live
and learn...
Dave
I now understand that Petunia's fridge was *not* directly above the
stove!
("It felt very strange to be standing here in Aunt Petunia's
surgically clean kitchen, beside the top-of-the-range fridge and the
wide-screen television...")
"Moxie" <mo...@dredlog.com> wrote in message news:<2fMQa.99110$bK5.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
Troels Forchhammer
>
> I am so sorry about the broken page. We have had to move the Lexicon
> to a new server because of the amount of traffic (over a million hits
> a day!). I fixed it.
At least the PoA page has some errors in the UK page numbers - do
you have a copy yourself I would you want me to check them?
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
+++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe
And Reboot +++
-- (Terry Pratchett, Hogfather)
Jonathan Buzzard
hoffma...@yahoo.com (Dave) writes:
> After reading the strictly_british1 page item about "top-of-the-range"
> I now understand that Petunia's fridge was *not* directly above the
> stove!
>
> ("It felt very strange to be standing here in Aunt Petunia's
> surgically clean kitchen, beside the top-of-the-range fridge and the
> wide-screen television...")
Well surely "top of the range" being such bad english should have told
you to look for an alternative meaning. I believe that the idea of
a "product range" is not totally alien to Americans having seen it
on USA websites. From this surely it only takes an instant to work
out what "top of the range" means.
I would also add the idea of a widescreen TV being in the kitchen
even today, let alone when OotP is set is utterly ludicrous.
JAB.
--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan at buzzard.me.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1661-832195
jwjen...@sbcglobal.net
phrase that always got to me was a greeting: "Are you all right?" That
always came to my mind as being a worry that I was ill, not feeling well,
etc.
"John Fisher" <jo...@epcc.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:bf0rqm$e3v$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
Kal Alexander
> I heard that there are differences in the American and British
> editions of the books. Does any one know what they are?
(Warning - Tongue In Cheek)
There aren't many differences at all. In fact, you might not even notice
them.
The most notable ones are:
Welcoming feast is a bar-b-que; Harry takes Cho square-dancing;
DA training includes firearm safety; accio charm is replaced with
lasso charm; the kids are carded at the bars in Hogsmeade; the
first year's brooms have a padded horse's head on the end; they
drink margarine beer; etc.
Things like that. :-)
--
Later
Kal
----------
I'll be in my room, making no noise and
pretending I'm not there while I read
book 6.
Dave
> Harriet Todaro wrote:
> > I heard that there are differences in the American and British
> > editions of the books. Does any one know what they are?
>
> (Warning - Tongue In Cheek)
>
> There aren't many differences at all. In fact, you might not even notice
> them.
>
> The most notable ones are:
>
> Welcoming feast is a bar-b-que; Harry takes Cho square-dancing;
> DA training includes firearm safety; accio charm is replaced with
> lasso charm; the kids are carded at the bars in Hogsmeade; the
> first year's brooms have a padded horse's head on the end; they
> drink margarine beer; etc.
>
> Things like that. :-)
Also, Snape leads the class in the Pledge of Allegiance at the
beginning of Potions, and Divination is taught by Miss Cleo. ;^)
Ashförd Wyrd
> Also, Snape leads the class in the Pledge of Allegiance at the
> beginning of Potions
Not in the 90's or 2K00's, The pledge of allegiance mentions a diety, which
is expressly illegal in educational institutions in the US
Larry Autry
is preposterous but the reply is even worse. In some leftist US
public schools it may be forbidden to recite the "pledge" but it
is most certainly not illegal.
The 2K00's??? two too many zeroes if you're going to use the
'K'?
--
Larry Autry
Manchester, MO USA
aut...@urthlink.nett
fix the spelling to e-mail me
Douglas Bailey
> "Ashförd Wyrd" <a_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Not in the 90's or 2K00's, The pledge of allegiance
> > mentions a diety, which is expressly illegal in educational
> > institutions in the US
>
> I'm not sure whether it's worth it to reply to this. The premise
> is preposterous but the reply is even worse. In some leftist US
> public schools it may be forbidden to recite the "pledge" but it
> is most certainly not illegal.
You might be surprised: it is currently illegal -- declared
unconstitutional by the 9th US Circuit Court for Appeals and not
overturned by any higher court to my knowledge -- for a public school
to impose a requirement that students recite the pledge. But it's
perfectly legal for students to recite the pledge on their own if they
so choose.
The legal issue is that public schools, as an arm of the government,
are barred by the establishment clause of the First Amendment from
endorsing *any* religion (including the lack thereof). And requiring
students to recite a creed including the words "under God" is
definitely a form of endorsement.
Jonathan Buzzard
<jwjen...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> I spent a lot of time (working and living there) in England and the one
> phrase that always got to me was a greeting: "Are you all right?" That
> always came to my mind as being a worry that I was ill, not feeling well,
> etc.
Personally I am half left...
Helmut P. Einfalt
> The legal issue is that public schools, as an arm of the government,
> are barred by the establishment clause of the First Amendment from
> endorsing *any* religion (including the lack thereof). And requiring
> students to recite a creed including the words "under God" is
> definitely a form of endorsement.
Now the European starts wondering -- what about forcing everybody in
the U.S. of A. to use money that explicitely states "In God we trust"?
Not unconstitutional?
HElmut
--
All typos Š My Knotty Fingers, Ltd. Capacity Dept.
Larry Autry
> notare...@charter.net wrote:
>> "Ashförd Wyrd" <a_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Not in the 90's or 2K00's, The pledge of allegiance
>> > mentions a diety, which is expressly illegal in
>> > educational institutions in the US
>>
>> I'm not sure whether it's worth it to reply to this. The
>> premise is preposterous but the reply is even worse. In
>> some leftist US public schools it may be forbidden to
>> recite the "pledge" but it is most certainly not illegal.
>
> You might be surprised: it is currently illegal -- declared
> unconstitutional by the 9th US Circuit Court for Appeals
> and not overturned by any higher court to my knowledge --
> for a public school to impose a requirement that students
> recite the pledge. But it's perfectly legal for students to
> recite the pledge on their own if they so choose.
I'm _not_ surprised. That was a TYPICAL ruling from that far
LEFT California based court. Also, the ruling applied only to
the states that the court serves. However you may be surprised
to read that the the court stayed its own ruling.
Here's the last status I know about:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56367,00.html
Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD), in a brief moment of lucidity
called it "just nuts".
The US Senate has passed a non-binding resolution to support
the "pledge" on a vote of 99-0.
If you have a later update, please let us know.
--
Larry Autry
Manchester, MO USA
aut...@urthlink.nett
If you can correct my spelling, you can e-mail me.
Douglas Bailey
[Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit in the USA]
> However you may be surprised to read that the the court stayed its own
> ruling.
Actually, I did read that and should have remembered it before posting.
You're quite right that the ruling was stayed, although it's since been
reaffirmed:
<http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/30/justice.pledge/>
"The appeals court at the end of February reaffirmed its ruling that
the pledge was unconstitutional."
The case is now being appealed to the US Supreme Court. As far as I
know, the USSC hasn't yet decided whether or not to hear the case.
As always, some of the best information about the case comes from
Snopes:
<http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/petition/pledge.htm>
jwjen...@sbcglobal.net
cases brought to it and usually agrees with them. It is based in San
Francisco, a center of such strange opinions.
"Douglas Bailey" <trys...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.198093328...@news.cis.dfn.de...
Mythos
Now if the government would just realise that...
stark
> It must be noted that the Ninth Circuit Court caters to all manner of wacko
> cases brought to it and usually agrees with them. It is based in San
> Francisco, a center of such strange opinions.
Yes... San Francisco... I hate it when those people constantly want their
constitutional rights protected. They should just do whatever the
government tells them and be happy. They shouldn't even need courts. The
government would never do anything to compromise their rights....
In seriousness, I find the idea of forcing, coercing, or even pressuring
people to say the Pledge in blatant contradiction of anything that might be
considered freedom. If only more courts were like the Ninth.
--
737461726B3A30372F31372F3033203134313823696E636C756465203C6373746469
6F3E0A23696E636C756465203C756E697374642E683E0A6D61696E28297B666F7228
6368617220632C693D2D313B7265616428302C26632C31293B69253D333429707269
6E74662822257325303258222C2B2B693D3D33343F225C6E223A22222C63293B7D0A
Mythos
> Douglas Bailey wrote:
>
>>The legal issue is that public schools, as an arm of the government,
>>are barred by the establishment clause of the First Amendment from
>>endorsing *any* religion (including the lack thereof). And requiring
>>students to recite a creed including the words "under God" is
>>definitely a form of endorsement.
>
> Now the European starts wondering -- what about forcing everybody in
> the U.S. of A. to use money that explicitely states "In God we trust"?
> Not unconstitutional?
Yes it is. Now if the govement would just see that... (sounds similar to
my last post).
--
This tagline is brought to you by the letter "C".
Douglas Bailey
> Douglas Bailey wrote:
> > The legal issue is that public schools, as an arm of the government,
> > are barred by the establishment clause of the First Amendment from
> > endorsing *any* religion (including the lack thereof). And requiring
> > students to recite a creed including the words "under God" is
> > definitely a form of endorsement.
>
> Now the European starts wondering -- what about forcing everybody in
> the U.S. of A. to use money that explicitely states "In God we trust"?
> Not unconstitutional?
Almost certainly unconstitutional. And there are certainly pressure
groups working on getting that changed, too.
John Fisher
<trys...@world.std.com> writes
>You might be surprised: it is currently illegal -- declared
>unconstitutional by the 9th US Circuit Court for Appeals and not
>overturned by any higher court to my knowledge -- for a public school
>to impose a requirement that students recite the pledge.
Er... I know about school students in US schools reciting the US Pledge
of Allegiance - but I wasn't aware that this was a requirement, which I
take to mean compulsory. Is that really the case? I mean, that kids
could be punished or excluded in a public school if they refuse to
pledge?
Does the freedom of speech not include the freedom to be silent?
> But it's
>perfectly legal for students to recite the pledge on their own if they
>so choose.
>
>The legal issue is that public schools, as an arm of the government,
>are barred by the establishment clause of the First Amendment from
>endorsing *any* religion (including the lack thereof). And requiring
>students to recite a creed including the words "under God" is
>definitely a form of endorsement.
Do I remember correctly that the "under God" bit was only added in the
1950's? If so, they could solve the problem by removing it, couldn't
they?
--
John Fisher jo...@drummond.demon.co.uk jo...@epcc.ed.ac.uk
Thomas
Firstly, the only Court higher than the 9th Circuit is the Supreme
Court. Secondly, it was stayed pending appeal before the full
Circuit, which has come and gone (I don't believe it is stayed
anymore, unless they are appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court).
Thirdly, that non-binding resolution means nothing. Polls have found
the country split on the issue, around 60-40 in favor of keeping it as
is...not very good numbers for that type of controversy. I find it
funny that people who support civil rights are referred to as far-left
and always characterized. People on the far-right only think the
Constitution applies to them and their beliefs...just look at the
recent sodomy ruling. They argued the SCt should not have been
involved, that it should have been left up to the States. Had the
decision gone the other way, you bet they would be hailing the U.S.SCt
as the seat of democracy and unfallable. Hypocrites. Plain and
simple.
I must add that I do believe that the 9th Circuit is correct. "Under
God" needs to be removed. Considering it is not part of the original
Pledge anyway, and was added around WWII (as was "In God We Trust" to
the currency). The problem is that not everyone believes in God, and
why should the will of the majority (assuming such) stand. The
majority is not always right (which is why the U.S. has the electoral
college, filibusters, and the Supreme Court)and should not impose
their beliefs on others. Not that it matters though, the SCt. has
already held that schools cannot force students to recite the pledge,
in my opinion it's more about courtesy and not forcing one's beliefs
onto others. Sorry for the off-topic rant. Long live Harry Potter!!
:o)
Mythos
> In article <MPG.19800d143...@news.cis.dfn.de>, Douglas Bailey
> <trys...@world.std.com> writes
>
>
>>You might be surprised: it is currently illegal -- declared
>>unconstitutional by the 9th US Circuit Court for Appeals and not
>>overturned by any higher court to my knowledge -- for a public school
>>to impose a requirement that students recite the pledge.
>
>
> Er... I know about school students in US schools reciting the US Pledge
> of Allegiance - but I wasn't aware that this was a requirement, which I
> take to mean compulsory. Is that really the case? I mean, that kids
> could be punished or excluded in a public school if they refuse to
> pledge?
It varies from state to state. Where I grew up, we were told that we
*had* to say it (or go to the head of the school), when I moved to Iowa,
we were not forced to say it.
>
> Does the freedom of speech not include the freedom to be silent?
You would think...
>>But it's
>>perfectly legal for students to recite the pledge on their own if they
>>so choose.
>>
>>The legal issue is that public schools, as an arm of the government,
>>are barred by the establishment clause of the First Amendment from
>>endorsing *any* religion (including the lack thereof). And requiring
>>students to recite a creed including the words "under God" is
>>definitely a form of endorsement.
>
> Do I remember correctly that the "under God" bit was only added in the
> 1950's? If so, they could solve the problem by removing it, couldn't
> they?
Correct. But not everyone knows when it was added, and think that it's
part of the original pledge - when they think that, then they like to
think that people are trying to change history by removing those two
words. Something similar when it comes to cash.
--
42? 7 and a half million years and all you can come up with is 42?!
Douglas Bailey
> Douglas Bailey <trys...@world.std.com> writes:
[USA, pledge of allegiance]
> > ...it is currently illegal...for a public school to impose a
> > requirement that students recite the pledge.
>
> Er... I know about school students in US schools reciting the US Pledge
> of Allegiance - but I wasn't aware that this was a requirement, which I
> take to mean compulsory. Is that really the case? I mean, that kids
> could be punished or excluded in a public school if they refuse to
> pledge?
It depends on the particular school: some schools lead classes in
recital but don't punish those who don't choose to take part, some
actually discipline students who won't recite the creed. (And some, of
course, don't impose the pledge upon their students at all.)
> Does the freedom of speech not include the freedom to be silent?
It should. But the court's position -- as I understand it -- is that
it's unconstitutional for the *school* to lead or encourage the recital
even if students are not forced to participate: the school, which
receives public/governmental funds, is still advocating a religious
position even if it doesn't enforce compliance.
(For the record, I agree with that position, though I have *no* problem
with individual students reciting the pledge -- or praying -- of their
own volition.)
> Do I remember correctly that the "under God" bit was only added in the
> 1950's? If so, they could solve the problem by removing it, couldn't
> they?
You do indeed remember correctly: it was added during Eisenhower's
presidency. And I suppose the words could be legislated out again
(though certainly not in the current US political climate, given that
the Senate voted 99-0 in protest against the Circuit Court's decision).
Túrin
It's not *expressly" illegal. A court has ruled it is unconstitutional,
but there are no laws against it, and the Constitution actually doesn't
prohibit it, just the current liberal interpretation of it. If people
wanted to add an Amendment specifying the separation of church and
state, they can do so, or if they want to ignore the Constitution and do
what they want, they can do that, but I don't like to see them say that
the Constitution means what it doesn't, because the founders did believe
in a god of some sort, and were *not* trying to make the State fully
secular humanist, with no mention of religion at any level. That wasn't
their intent. If the majority of the people in the US want to make that
change to the Constitution, they are free to pass an amendment to do so,
but the 1st amendment prohibits an "establishment of religion." Saying
"Under God" or "In God We Trust" does not establish a state religion.
If the 1st amendment really prohibited that, isn't it strange no one
noticed it for so many years?
Túrin
Túrin
>
> It must be noted that the Ninth Circuit Court caters to all manner of wacko
> cases brought to it and usually agrees with them. It is based in San
> Francisco, a center of such strange opinions.
As a resident of the Bay Area, I can confirm this.
Túrin
Túrin
>
> On 7/17/2003 12:11 John Fisher yelled across the void of the internet:
> > of Allegiance - but I wasn't aware that this was a requirement, which I
> > take to mean compulsory. Is that really the case? I mean, that kids
> > could be punished or excluded in a public school if they refuse to
> > pledge?
>
> It varies from state to state. Where I grew up, we were told that we
> *had* to say it (or go to the head of the school), when I moved to Iowa,
> we were not forced to say it.
Where I grew up, the class was led in the pledge, but several people
didn't take part, and no one hassled them for it. I was under the
impression that people could not be forced to recite, I think my history
mentioned a court case about it involving a Jehovah's Witness.
In any case, it's clearly Unconstitutional to *force* someone to say the
Pledge. It's also about the dumbest thing I can imagine. Of what
possible value is it to *coerce* someone into pledging loyalty? That's
something a government does when it's so oppressive and corrupt it isn't
worthy of *any* allegiance. Compulsory loyalty is an oxymoron. You can
coerce obedience, but not loyalty.
> Correct. But not everyone knows when it was added, and think that it's
> part of the original pledge - when they think that, then they like to
> think that people are trying to change history by removing those two
> words. Something similar when it comes to cash.
It is a part of history. 50 years? That's history. Sure, it's not
part of the original pledge, but so what? It's being *forced* to either
remove that part or stop leading it that's bogus.
I have no problem with people choosing not to say the Pledge, or
choosing not to say the words Under God. I do have a problem being told
it's illegal for a school to encourage such though.
Túrin
NJP
> > > unconstitutional by the 9th US Circuit Court for Appeals
> > > and not overturned by any higher court to my knowledge --
>
The 9th? Isn't that the one based in the People's Republic of San Francisco?
Didn't they declare the Constitution unconstitutional a few years ago?
NJP
Lori Coulson
>
> In seriousness, I find the idea of forcing, coercing, or even pressuring
> people to say the Pledge in blatant contradiction of anything that might be
> considered freedom. If only more courts were like the Ninth.
Besides, the words "under God" were NOT in the original Pledge. They
were added in the 1950s, at the height of the McCarthy Communist
Witch-Hunt era.
The original Pledge:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag, of the United States of America, and
to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisable, with
Liberty and Justice for all.
I agree with the Court, the words 'under God' should not be in the
Pledge. They were put in on the part of some political grandstanding
in Congress. The only alternative I can see would be to allow each
person to put their particular deity's name into the Pledge...
Lori Coulson
Túrin
>
> stark <at_n...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bf6pfq$bqivv$4...@ID-146807.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> >
> > In seriousness, I find the idea of forcing, coercing, or even pressuring
> > people to say the Pledge in blatant contradiction of anything that might be
> > considered freedom. If only more courts were like the Ninth.
>
> Besides, the words "under God" were NOT in the original Pledge. They
> were added in the 1950s, at the height of the McCarthy Communist
> Witch-Hunt era.
Those are two separate issues. AFAIK *no one* is arguing the Pledge
should be *compulsory*. That would be just stupid. People are upset
that the court is *forbidding* the Pledge to be led.
> I agree with the Court, the words 'under God' should not be in the
> Pledge. They were put in on the part of some political grandstanding
> in Congress. The only alternative I can see would be to allow each
> person to put their particular deity's name into the Pledge...
Just as people are free to not recite the pledge at all, there is
nothing stopping anyone from leaving out the words "Under God" when they
say the Pledge, nor is there anything stopping them from putting "Allah"
or any other name in place of "God."
We don't need a court case for people to excercise their freedom of
speech. The court is actually *restricting* freedom of speech in this
case by *forbidding* the Pledge to be led.
Túrin
Roger T.
"Lori Coulson"
> I agree with the Court, the words 'under God' should not be in the
> Pledge. They were put in on the part of some political grandstanding
> in Congress. The only alternative I can see would be to allow each
> person to put their particular deity's name into the Pledge...
Why recite it in the first place?
What other country does this at the start of every school day?
For that matter, what other country has their national flag in every
classroom?
--
Cheers
Roger T.
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/
Home of the Great Eastern Railway
Túrin
>
> "Lori Coulson"
>
> > I agree with the Court, the words 'under God' should not be in the
> > Pledge. They were put in on the part of some political grandstanding
> > in Congress. The only alternative I can see would be to allow each
> > person to put their particular deity's name into the Pledge...
>
> Why recite it in the first place?
>
> What other country does this at the start of every school day?
>
> For that matter, what other country has their national flag in every
> classroom?
Why does what other countries do have any bearing on what the US chooses
to do?
Túrin
Kal Alexander
The House and Senate start each session with a prayer as well. The
President is sworn in with his hand on a Bible, but I believe that is
optional.
--
Later
Kal
----------
I'll be in my room, making no noise and
pretending I'm not there while I read
book 6.
Kal Alexander
> In article <KG1Ra.22155$BM.61...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>,
> <jwjen...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>> I spent a lot of time (working and living there) in England and the
>> one phrase that always got to me was a greeting: "Are you all
>> right?" That always came to my mind as being a worry that I was
>> ill, not feeling well, etc.
>
> Personally I am half left...
>
> JAB.
LOL
Which half?
Roger T.
"Túrin" <morm...@knoledge.org> wrote in message
news:3F1722...@knoledge.org...
Nothing. Just thought I'd ask. :-)
Roger T.
> > Personally I am half left...
Personally, I'm half back, which is better than full back I guess.
Soccer players will get that.
John Fisher
Roger T. <roge...@highspeedplus.com> writes
>Why recite it in the first place?
>
>What other country does this at the start of every school day?
>
>For that matter, what other country has their national flag in every
>classroom?
At the risk of being impertinent, I suspect that these things are done
because the US is a nation of fairly recent immigrants many of whom
retain to some degree their original identities; and it was felt
important to impress on all children their over-arching allegiance to
the United States.
In my primary school we used to start each day with a prayer. I suppose
in a way, in the absence of prayers, the pledge becomes a kind of shared
moment of thought, if you like.
In response to your second question: I've no idea, though in China I
believe they start each day with a rendering of the anthem of the
People's Republic.
It would be interesting if schools got kids to start the day with the
pledge of allegiance over here. The UK pledge, which most people
(including me) have never uttered for real, as it were, reads: "I swear
by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to our
Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors according to
law." If you wish you can say "I solemnly and sincerely declare and
affirm" instead of "I swear by Almighty God." But you only have to do
it if you're elected to Parliament, or when you become a naturalised
Brit, or whatever.
Not long ago a new member of the House of Lords who is a Muslim did it
as "I swear by Almighty Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful..." which I
thought was rather nice.
Túrin
Okay. :-)
Personally I don't know the answers to the last two questions, but I
guess it's recited in the first place to engender a feeling of pride in
the country, of loyalty, of patriotism, "ask what you can do for your
country" type feeling. Americans used to think America was pretty
great, and something to take pride in. Pledging allegiance to the flag
is also affirming the ideals upon which the country was founded, like
life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc.
It seemed a good idea, but it gets harder and harder for me to take
pride in America though when we've been doing so many crummy things
lately.
Túrin
Alun Palmer
news:bf6pch$bpka4$1...@ID-76901.news.uni-berlin.de:
What annoys me is that the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts in the US use the
pledge of allegiance directly in place of where the respective promises
are normally used in other countries. Although us 'aliens' can be leaders,
we would have to recite the pledge in order to lead it. My wife does this
with some misgivings. Presumably any foreign teachers here must deal with
the same problem. Maybe they could play a tape recording instead?
Mythos
> Lori Coulson wrote:
>
>>stark <at_n...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bf6pfq$bqivv$4...@ID-146807.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>>
>>>In seriousness, I find the idea of forcing, coercing, or even pressuring
>>>people to say the Pledge in blatant contradiction of anything that might be
>>>considered freedom. If only more courts were like the Ninth.
>>
>>Besides, the words "under God" were NOT in the original Pledge. They
>>were added in the 1950s, at the height of the McCarthy Communist
>>Witch-Hunt era.
>
>
> Those are two separate issues. AFAIK *no one* is arguing the Pledge
> should be *compulsory*. That would be just stupid. People are upset
> that the court is *forbidding* the Pledge to be led.
As is. They would not have a problem with it if it was changed to take
out the unconstitutional part.
>>I agree with the Court, the words 'under God' should not be in the
>>Pledge. They were put in on the part of some political grandstanding
>>in Congress. The only alternative I can see would be to allow each
>>person to put their particular deity's name into the Pledge...
>
> Just as people are free to not recite the pledge at all,
Not everyone has the freedom not to say it.
> there is
> nothing stopping anyone from leaving out the words "Under God" when they
> say the Pledge, nor is there anything stopping them from putting "Allah"
> or any other name in place of "God."
No one should have to put anything in place of "God". The fact that
"God" is in there at all is wrong.
> We don't need a court case for people to excercise their freedom of
> speech. The court is actually *restricting* freedom of speech in this
> case by *forbidding* the Pledge to be led.
To be led *AS IS*. If the pledge is changed to something more
constitutional, then there will not be a problem with it being led.
Dave
>
> In any case, it's clearly Unconstitutional to *force* someone to say the
> Pledge. It's also about the dumbest thing I can imagine. Of what
> possible value is it to *coerce* someone into pledging loyalty? That's
> something a government does when it's so oppressive and corrupt it isn't
> worthy of *any* allegiance. Compulsory loyalty is an oxymoron. You can
> coerce obedience, but not loyalty.
Of course it is ridiculous to coerce someone into pledging loyalty.
But it's perfectly fine to teach a class of 25 five-year-olds to
recite the pledge by rote without explaining to them what they're
pledging
;^)
[pledge ... allegiance ... republic ... indivisible ... liberty ...
justice ... typical kindergarten vocabulary!]
Dave (who could regurgitate the Nicene Creed by age 6)
(who
Earwax
>
>Just as people are free to not recite the pledge at all, there is
>nothing stopping anyone from leaving out the words "Under God" when they
>say the Pledge, nor is there anything stopping them from putting "Allah"
>or any other name in place of "God."
And what are Agnostics and Atheists supposed to say?
--
Mythos
> Mythos wrote:
>
>>On 7/17/2003 12:11 John Fisher yelled across the void of the internet:
>>
>>>Er... I know about school students in US schools reciting the US Pledge
>>>of Allegiance - but I wasn't aware that this was a requirement, which I
>>>take to mean compulsory. Is that really the case? I mean, that kids
>>>could be punished or excluded in a public school if they refuse to
>>>pledge?
>>
>>It varies from state to state. Where I grew up, we were told that we
>>*had* to say it (or go to the head of the school), when I moved to Iowa,
>>we were not forced to say it.
>
>
> Where I grew up, the class was led in the pledge, but several people
> didn't take part, and no one hassled them for it. I was under the
> impression that people could not be forced to recite, I think my history
> mentioned a court case about it involving a Jehovah's Witness.
>
> In any case, it's clearly Unconstitutional to *force* someone to say the
> Pledge. It's also about the dumbest thing I can imagine. Of what
> possible value is it to *coerce* someone into pledging loyalty? That's
> something a government does when it's so oppressive and corrupt it isn't
> worthy of *any* allegiance. Compulsory loyalty is an oxymoron. You can
> coerce obedience, but not loyalty.
I agree 100% with that.
>>Correct. But not everyone knows when it was added, and think that it's
>>part of the original pledge - when they think that, then they like to
>>think that people are trying to change history by removing those two
>>words. Something similar when it comes to cash.
>
> It is a part of history. 50 years? That's history.
True. And new history can be formed when/if it is changed.
> Sure, it's not
> part of the original pledge, but so what? It's being *forced* to either
> remove that part or stop leading it that's bogus.
With this I have to disagree.
> I have no problem with people choosing not to say the Pledge, or
> choosing not to say the words Under God. I do have a problem being told
> it's illegal for a school to encourage such though.
Why is that a problem? As the pledge is now, if the school encourages
the recitement of it, then they are encouraging a certain deity over
another - I might be a bit rusty in constitutanal law, but to me that
sounds like a major bending of the first amendment.
--
Taglines are like cats. You just think that they're yours.
Kal Alexander
Instead of 'under God', they could say 'as per Darwin'. :-)
--
Later
Kal
--
"America must listen as well as lead
-- but don't ever apologize for your
values."
Tony Blair
Mythos
> Ashförd Wyrd wrote:
>
>>>Also, Snape leads the class in the Pledge of Allegiance at the
>>>beginning of Potions
>>
>>Not in the 90's or 2K00's, The pledge of allegiance mentions a diety, which
>>is expressly illegal in educational institutions in the US
>
> It's not *expressly" illegal. A court has ruled it is unconstitutional,
> but there are no laws against it, and the Constitution actually doesn't
> prohibit it, just the current liberal interpretation of it.
Liberal interpretation of it?
> If people
> wanted to add an Amendment specifying the separation of church and
> state, they can do so, or if they want to ignore the Constitution and do
> what they want, they can do that, but I don't like to see them say that
> the Constitution means what it doesn't, because the founders did believe
> in a god of some sort, and were *not* trying to make the State fully
> secular humanist, with no mention of religion at any level. That wasn't
> their intent.
Pardon me, but how can you know what their intent was? I *think* what
their intent was to have an environment where the state could not favour
one religion over another - as the government seems to be doing right
now, with the pledge and currency.
> If the majority of the people in the US want to make that
> change to the Constitution, they are free to pass an amendment to do so,
> but the 1st amendment prohibits an "establishment of religion." Saying
> "Under God" or "In God We Trust" does not establish a state religion.
It is coming very very close, and it can be argued that it does indeed
establish a preferred religion.
> If the 1st amendment really prohibited that, isn't it strange no one
> noticed it for so many years?
They did. People did not speak out in the 50's, and 60's I believe,
because they did not want to be taken away as Communists. People have
been fighting the current wording of the pledge for a long time, they
just haven't gotten much press.
--
Help fight against a cure for nymphomania.
Ashförd Wyrd
> the recitement of it, then they are encouraging a certain deity over
> another - I might be a bit rusty in constitutanal law, but to me that
> sounds like a major bending of the first amendment.
> --
> Taglines are like cats. You just think that they're yours.
In reality, there is no particular god named. the word "god"could refer to
any ov various deities; however, in practice most English speakers assume
that the word refers to Yahweh, even if they dont bother to know that that
is his name.
Ashförd Wyrd
"Earwax" <Ear...@hogwarts.sch.uk> wrote in message
news:1grehvsu9io4jddiu...@4ax.com...
Agnostics : under knosis
Atheists: under government
Lupricists: under Pan
Satinists: under me
Libertines: under my loins
this could get perverse... too late
Roger T.
"Túrin" <
>
> It seemed a good idea, but it gets harder and harder for me to take
> pride in America though when we've been doing so many crummy things
> lately.
Always be proud of your country even if you're not always proud of what it
does.
Mythos
>>Why is that a problem? As the pledge is now, if the school encourages
>>the recitement of it, then they are encouraging a certain deity over
>>another - I might be a bit rusty in constitutanal law, but to me that
>>sounds like a major bending of the first amendment.
>
> In reality, there is no particular god named.
True.
> the word "god"could refer to
> any ov various deities; however, in practice most English speakers assume
> that the word refers to Yahweh, even if they dont bother to know that that
> is his name.
I think that mainly is because in most cases, not all, churches and
religious texts of the Christian faith use the word God, as a name,
rather then to describe a deity. That's where the problem comes in with
the pledge saying "under God", now if it said "under god", then I don't
think as many people would have problems with it (because it would not
be referring to the Christian god, God). Just what I have observed in
this area.
--
You aspire to be a Viking.
Sophie Sensat
> "Túrin" <
> >
> > It seemed a good idea, but it gets harder and harder for me to take
> > pride in America though when we've been doing so many crummy things
> > lately.
>
> Always be proud of your country even if you're not always proud of what it
> does.
What exactly are you supposed to be proud of about it then?
Sophie
--
Sophie C. Sensat
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
B. A. Simon's Rock College, Great Barrington, MA 1999-2003
scse...@simons-rock.edu
Roger T.
"Sophie Sensat" <
> > Always be proud of your country even if you're not always proud of what
it
> > does.
>
> What exactly are you supposed to be proud of about it then?
You mean you can't think of anything your country has ever done that you can
be proud of?
Larry Autry
> "Earwax" <Ear...@hogwarts.sch.uk> wrote:
>> And what are Agnostics and Atheists supposed to say?
>>
>
> Agnostics : under knosis
> Atheists: under government
> Lupricists: under Pan
> Satinists: under me
> Libertines: under my loins
>
> this could get perverse... too late
Liberals: under-taxed
Conservatives: under-armed
--
Larry Autry
Manchester, MO USA
aut...@urthlink.nett
If you can correct my spelling, you can e-mail me.
Thomas
> Ashförd Wyrd wrote:
> >
>
> It's not *expressly" illegal. A court has ruled it is unconstitutional,
> but there are no laws against it, and the Constitution actually doesn't
> prohibit it, just the current liberal interpretation of it.
It's illegal in the 9th Circuit. If something is declared
unconstitutional, then the Constitution DOES prohibit it (even if it
is not expressly written).
If people
> wanted to add an Amendment specifying the separation of church and
> state, they can do so, or if they want to ignore the Constitution and do
> what they want, they can do that, but I don't like to see them say that
> the Constitution means what it doesn't, because the founders did believe
> in a god of some sort, and were *not* trying to make the State fully
> secular humanist, with no mention of religion at any level. That wasn't
> their intent.
The First Amendment does specify the separation of Church and State.
The Supreme Court affirmed this reading, and the language of the
amendment implies as much. States cannot IGNORE the Constitution.
All laws passed must conform to the Constitution, and if they don't
can be deemed unconstitutional by the courts. The Constitution does
not spell out every little thing, but left certain decisions to the
States.
I don't like to see them say that
> the Constitution means what it doesn't, because the founders did believe
> in a god of some sort, and were *not* trying to make the State fully
> secular humanist, with no mention of religion at any level. That wasn't
> their intent.
I don't like to see them say that
> the Constitution means what it doesn't, because the founders did believe
> in a god of some sort, and were *not* trying to make the State fully
> secular humanist, with no mention of religion at any level. That wasn't
> their intent.
No, the Founding Father's did not believe that. Some were religious,
but firmly believed that Religion had NO PLACE in government. If you
refer to speeches, letters, and various documents left by them, you
would clearly know.
Many of the Founding Fathers did not believe in an diety at all, and
most only moderately. Conservatives like to think that these people
were church-going bible readers, but they weren't. They were very
much against religion (hence the First Amendment).
If the majority of the people in the US want to make that
> change to the Constitution, they are free to pass an amendment to do so,
> but the 1st amendment prohibits an "establishment of religion." Saying
> "Under God" or "In God We Trust" does not establish a state religion.
> If the 1st amendment really prohibited that, isn't it strange no one
> noticed it for so many years?
It establishes belief in a diety. There are a lot of people who do
not believe in a higher power, so why should it be forced upon them,
merely because the majority believe in one? These phrases were added
at the end of WWII (or thereabouts) because the mentality was if you
didn't believe in God, you were a traitor and hence a communist. Thus
the start of the McCarthy era.
And, to answer an earlier post, NO school can legally force or punish
a student who refuses to recite the Pledge. The Supreme Court ruled
on that issue a l;ong time ago. Schools can initiate the Pledge,
though. They cannot initiate a prayer, however.
Túrin
>
> Túrin <morm...@knoledge.org> wrote in message news:<3F1703...@knoledge.org>...
> >
> > In any case, it's clearly Unconstitutional to *force* someone to say the
> > Pledge. It's also about the dumbest thing I can imagine. Of what
> > possible value is it to *coerce* someone into pledging loyalty? That's
> > something a government does when it's so oppressive and corrupt it isn't
> > worthy of *any* allegiance. Compulsory loyalty is an oxymoron. You can
> > coerce obedience, but not loyalty.
>
> Of course it is ridiculous to coerce someone into pledging loyalty.
> But it's perfectly fine to teach a class of 25 five-year-olds to
> recite the pledge by rote without explaining to them what they're
> pledging
>
> ;^)
Good point. I wouldn't mind if someone argued that the pledge shouldn't
be recited at all until people are old enough to actually understand and
mean it. Maybe the teacher could pledge allegiance as an example, but
not lead the class in a recitation until they're old enough to do it
voluntarily.
Túrin
Túrin
> > I have no problem with people choosing not to say the Pledge, or
> > choosing not to say the words Under God. I do have a problem being told
> > it's illegal for a school to encourage such though.
>
> Why is that a problem? As the pledge is now, if the school encourages
> the recitement of it, then they are encouraging a certain deity over
> another - I might be a bit rusty in constitutanal law, but to me that
> sounds like a major bending of the first amendment.
So what if a school encourages a deity? You know, if there were a
community made up largely of Muslims, and the Muslim faculty chose to
say "Under Allah" I wouldn't have a problem with that. I wouldn't *say*
it, I might not *like* it, but I don't think it violates the 1st
Amendment. It wouldn't be establishing a religion. The government and
all government bodies should not be forced to be completely areligious.
That was never the intention of the 1st Amendment.
Túrin
Sophie Sensat
> "Sophie Sensat" <
>
> > > Always be proud of your country even if you're not always proud of what
> it
> > > does.
> >
> > What exactly are you supposed to be proud of about it then?
>
> You mean you can't think of anything your country has ever done that you can
> be proud of?
I didn't say that. But if the government is mostly doing things that I
despise now, then what's the point of being proud of things it has done
in the past? I'd rather try and change what it's doing now. Then I can
be properly proud of it again.
Kal Alexander
> Roger T. <roge...@highspeedplus.com> wrote:
>
>> "Sophie Sensat" <
>>
>>>> Always be proud of your country even if you're not always proud of
>>>> what it does.
>>>
>>> What exactly are you supposed to be proud of about it then?
>>
>> You mean you can't think of anything your country has ever done that
>> you can be proud of?
>
> I didn't say that. But if the government is mostly doing things that I
> despise now, then what's the point of being proud of things it has
> done
> in the past? I'd rather try and change what it's doing now. Then I can
> be properly proud of it again.
>
> Sophie
Well, you can be proud that you are able to change it. A lot of people
in the world can't do that.
Mythos
> Mythos wrote:
>
>>>I have no problem with people choosing not to say the Pledge, or
>>>choosing not to say the words Under God. I do have a problem being told
>>>it's illegal for a school to encourage such though.
>>
>>Why is that a problem? As the pledge is now, if the school encourages
>>the recitement of it, then they are encouraging a certain deity over
>>another - I might be a bit rusty in constitutanal law, but to me that
>>sounds like a major bending of the first amendment.
>
>
> So what if a school encourages a deity?
It's moving backward, not forward. I don't look forward to this country
starting to prosecute anyone who does not have the right beliefs, I'm
not saying that will happen, but (to me) it seems to be started headed
that way.
> You know, if there were a
> community made up largely of Muslims, and the Muslim faculty chose to
> say "Under Allah" I wouldn't have a problem with that.
What about the Christians, presuming there are any there, who also have
to listen to "under Allah" every morning? You might not have a problem
with it because you are not there, and don't have to hear it, but what
about the people who do not share that faith and are forced to hear it
every day?
> I wouldn't *say* it, I might not *like* it, but I don't think it violates the 1st
> Amendment. It wouldn't be establishing a religion.
It's one step closer to it.
> The government and
> all government bodies should not be forced to be completely areligious.
It's the only fair way. Unless you can think of anther way that would be
fair, given the many different religious beliefs that are in this country.
> That was never the intention of the 1st Amendment.
The intent was to prevent a country ruled by a single religion, and I'm
afraid that is exactly where we are headed. I might be wrong, but I tend
to like to play it safe with things like this.
--
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a
Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was
not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I
was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
-Pastor Martin Niemöller
Sophie Sensat
> Sophie Sensat wrote:
> > Roger T. <roge...@highspeedplus.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Sophie Sensat" <
> >>
> >>>> Always be proud of your country even if you're not always proud of
> >>>> what it does.
> >>>
> >>> What exactly are you supposed to be proud of about it then?
> >>
> >> You mean you can't think of anything your country has ever done that
> >> you can be proud of?
> >
> > I didn't say that. But if the government is mostly doing things that I
> > despise now, then what's the point of being proud of things it has done
> > in the past? I'd rather try and change what it's doing now. Then I can
> > be properly proud of it again.
> >
> > Sophie
>
> Well, you can be proud that you are able to change it. A lot of people
> in the world can't do that.
I don't feel like I have the ability to change much in America right
now. That doesn't mean I won't try...
Kal Alexander
> Kal Alexander <kevm...@yahooxxx.com> wrote:
>
>> Sophie Sensat wrote:
>>> Roger T. <roge...@highspeedplus.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Sophie Sensat" <
>>>>
>>>>>> Always be proud of your country even if you're not always proud
>>>>>> of what it does.
>>>>>
>>>>> What exactly are you supposed to be proud of about it then?
>>>>
>>>> You mean you can't think of anything your country has ever done
>>>> that you can be proud of?
>>>
>>> I didn't say that. But if the government is mostly doing things
>>> that I despise now, then what's the point of being proud of things
>>> it has done in the past? I'd rather try and change what it's doing
>>> now. Then I can be properly proud of it again.
>>>
>>> Sophie
>>
>> Well, you can be proud that you are able to change it. A lot of
>> people in the world can't do that.
>
> I don't feel like I have the ability to change much in America right
> now. That doesn't mean I won't try...
>
> Sophie
Change in America takes time, and a lot of effort. It isn't easy, and it
shouldn't be. If every little group that had a problem could change the
way America works at a moments notice, it would be chaos on a daily
basis.
Ashförd Wyrd
"Mythos" <aiel9...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bfalgj$cqdih$1...@ID-76901.news.uni-berlin.de...
> On 7/18/2003 15:20 Túrin yelled across the void of the internet:
>
> > Mythos wrote:
> > You know, if there were a
> > community made up largely of Muslims, and the Muslim faculty chose to
> > say "Under Allah" I wouldn't have a problem with that.
>
> What about the Christians, presuming there are any there, who also have
> to listen to "under Allah" every morning? You might not have a problem
> with it because you are not there, and don't have to hear it, but what
> about the people who do not share that faith and are forced to hear it
> every day?
>
Allah is simply the Aribic name for Yahweh, there should be no offence
there... I agree with the basic point you areattempting to make, but your
example is imperfect. However someone who worships a different diety
altogether, say.... evolution, that person might be offended.
Lets steer this thread slightly in an on topic direction.... What if Snape
made his students all say a pledge to Hogwarts in which Silazar Slitherin's
name was used prominently in a position of honor, and the other house
founders were ignored....
Ashförd Wyrd
"Kal Alexander" <kevm...@yahooxxx.com> wrote in message
news:rj5Sa.71267$Ho4.4...@news.easynews.com...
> Change in America takes time, and a lot of effort. It isn't easy, and it
> shouldn't be. If every little group that had a problem could change the
> way America works at a moments notice, it would be chaos on a daily
> basis.
>
Yes, but isnt it wonderful to have a clause in our declaration of
independence that states that we have an inaliable right, and even DUTY, to
change or abolish any government which has become detrimental to our basic
human rights?
Kal Alexander
> "Kal Alexander" <kevm...@yahooxxx.com> wrote in message
> news:rj5Sa.71267$Ho4.4...@news.easynews.com...
>
>> Change in America takes time, and a lot of effort. It isn't easy,
>> and it shouldn't be. If every little group that had a problem could
>> change the way America works at a moments notice, it would be chaos
>> on a daily basis.
>>
>
> Yes, but isnt it wonderful to have a clause in our declaration of
> independence that states that we have an inaliable right, and even
> DUTY, to change or abolish any government which has become
> detrimental to our basic human rights?
>
That's not really a clause. It's a statement of belief, and one I tend
to agree with. But the DoI is not part of the Constitution, and the
Constitution does not protect your right to abolish the government.
Change it, yes. But abolish it? No.
Mark Hodgson
Roger T. <roge...@highspeedplus.com> writes
>
>"Lori Coulson"
>
>> I agree with the Court, the words 'under God' should not be in the
>> Pledge. They were put in on the part of some political grandstanding
>> in Congress. The only alternative I can see would be to allow each
>> person to put their particular deity's name into the Pledge...
>
>
>What other country does this at the start of every school day?
>
>For that matter, what other country has their national flag in every
>classroom?
Not only classrooms, all offices somehow connected with government, as
well as outside most houses too...if you believe Hollywood. This kind of
mass amnesia, forgetting which country you're in, should really be
treated. So, perhaps the pledge of allegiance is just a little aid to
memory.
--
Mark Hodgson
Mark Hodgson
Roger T. <roge...@highspeedplus.com> writes
>
and no real idea of the concept of manual gearboxes.
--
Mark Hodgson
Túrin
> > So what if a school encourages a deity?
>
> It's moving backward, not forward.
Like I said earlier, if this is people's real motivation, why not say so
and pass an Amendment, instead of twisting the 1st? Face it, the US was
not founded as a secular humanist country. If they want to establish
that as the government religion, they should do it legally and not
through misrepresentation.
> I don't look forward to this country
> starting to prosecute anyone who does not have the right beliefs, I'm
> not saying that will happen, but (to me) it seems to be started headed
> that way.
It seems to me like people are more likely to be prosecuted for
believing in a deity than not believing in one, the way things are
headed.
> > You know, if there were a
> > community made up largely of Muslims, and the Muslim faculty chose to
> > say "Under Allah" I wouldn't have a problem with that.
>
> What about the Christians, presuming there are any there, who also have
> to listen to "under Allah" every morning? You might not have a problem
> with it because you are not there, and don't have to hear it, but what
> about the people who do not share that faith and are forced to hear it
> every day?
Um... so? I'm forced to hear all sorts of things every day that I find
offensive. That's the price you pay for not being king of your own
country. Lots of stuff they're allowed to say in schools right now
offends me mightily, but no one is leaping to my defense. I don't see
how christians are harmed by hearing Muslims say "under Allah." That
should be protected free speech.
>> I wouldn't *say* it, I might not *like* it, but I don't think it violates the 1st
>> Amendment. It wouldn't be establishing a religion.
> It's one step closer to it.
Thank you for that admission. So it's one step closer to violating the
first ammendment, but doesn't violate it. But... haven't we been that
step closer for 50 years? And yet we've moved farther *away* from any
religious influences in schools, not closer to having a state religion.
Except secular humanism.
> > The government and
> > all government bodies should not be forced to be completely areligious.
>
> It's the only fair way. Unless you can think of anther way that would be
> fair, given the many different religious beliefs that are in this country.
Simple, how about freedom of religion? The muslims can still be
muslims, even when they're at work, and the jews can still be jews, and
the protestants can still be protestants, and the buddhists can still be
buddhists, and they don't have to leave part of themselves at the door
because the government tries to pretend religion doesn't exist. I'm not
talking about hindu teachers trying to encourage their students to be
hindus. That's inappropriate. But letting kids know that religion
exists in the world? That's bad? For atheists, I guess it sure is.
But my teachers had many different religions and I didn't convert to
each one because I was under the impression I had to join the state
religion. What they're doing now is the opposite of freedom of
religion: it's holding one (secular humanism) as superior to all the
others. It was a great victory when they got people to believe theirs
was the "default" position, and everything else was wacked out.
> > That was never the intention of the 1st Amendment.
>
> The intent was to prevent a country ruled by a single religion, and I'm
> afraid that is exactly where we are headed. I might be wrong, but I tend
> to like to play it safe with things like this.
I agree with that statement, but in the exact opposite meaning.
> --
> First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a
> Jew.
> Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was
> not a Communist.
> Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I
> was not a trade unionist.
> Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
> -Pastor Martin Niemöller
How appropos.
Túrin
Mike Hanson
<snip>
> Face it, the US was
> not founded as a secular humanist country. If they want to establish
> that as the government religion,
What religion? I thought you said "secular humanist" - a buzz-phrase
that I hadn't heard before that presumeably means 'having no
religion'.
> they should do it legally and not
> through misrepresentation.
<snip>
> And yet we've moved farther *away* from any
> religious influences in schools, not closer to having a state religion.
> Except secular humanism.
Ah. I see. You wish to equate not having a religion with having one by
the neat trick of giving it a label. And you were saying about
misrepresentation...
> I'm not
> talking about hindu teachers trying to encourage their students to be
> hindus. That's inappropriate. But letting kids know that religion
> exists in the world? That's bad?
Of course it isn't. Who would argue that it is? I don't.
<snip>
> What they're doing now is the opposite of freedom of
> religion: it's holding one (secular humanism) as superior to all the
> others.
<snip>
Your post contains some of the most absurd statements I have read in a
very long time. It doesn't matter how many times you type the words
"secular humanism": calling the absence of religion a religion is a
teenager's word game.
Mike.
Mythos
> "Mythos" <aiel9...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bfalgj$cqdih$1...@ID-76901.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>>On 7/18/2003 15:20 Túrin yelled across the void of the internet:
>>
>>
>>>Mythos wrote:
>>>You know, if there were a
>>>community made up largely of Muslims, and the Muslim faculty chose to
>>>say "Under Allah" I wouldn't have a problem with that.
>>
>>What about the Christians, presuming there are any there, who also have
>>to listen to "under Allah" every morning? You might not have a problem
>>with it because you are not there, and don't have to hear it, but what
>>about the people who do not share that faith and are forced to hear it
>>every day?
>>
> Allah is simply the Aribic name for Yahweh, there should be no offence
> there...
*Should* be no offence, but I think you still get the people who are
offended.
> I agree with the basic point you areattempting to make, but your
> example is imperfect. However someone who worships a different diety
> altogether, say.... evolution, that person might be offended.
Agreed, with most of that, except evolution isn't a deity. :)
> Lets steer this thread slightly in an on topic direction....
Ohhh... Gladly!
> What if Snape
> made his students all say a pledge to Hogwarts in which Silazar Slitherin's
> name was used prominently in a position of honor, and the other house
> founders were ignored....
Hmmm, good example. Yes, what if?
--
unzip;strip;touch;finger;mount;fsck;more;yes;unmount;sleep
Mythos
> Mythos wrote:
>>>So what if a school encourages a deity?
>>
>>It's moving backward, not forward.
>
> Like I said earlier, if this is people's real motivation, why not say so
> and pass an Amendment, instead of twisting the 1st? Face it, the US was
> not founded as a secular humanist country.
No. It was founded as a non-religious country that should stay that way,
so that the rights of the few are not trampled by the wants of the many.
> If they want to establish
> that as the government religion, they should do it legally and not
> through misrepresentation.
Agreed, and give the rest of the country an chance to get out. Canada
and the UK are looking so good.
>>I don't look forward to this country
>>starting to prosecute anyone who does not have the right beliefs, I'm
>>not saying that will happen, but (to me) it seems to be started headed
>>that way.
>
> It seems to me like people are more likely to be prosecuted for
> believing in a deity than not believing in one, the way things are
> headed.
Hu? Where do you get that?
>>>You know, if there were a
>>>community made up largely of Muslims, and the Muslim faculty chose to
>>>say "Under Allah" I wouldn't have a problem with that.
>>
>>What about the Christians, presuming there are any there, who also have
>>to listen to "under Allah" every morning? You might not have a problem
>>with it because you are not there, and don't have to hear it, but what
>>about the people who do not share that faith and are forced to hear it
>>every day?
>
> Um... so? I'm forced to hear all sorts of things every day that I find
> offensive. That's the price you pay for not being king of your own
> country. Lots of stuff they're allowed to say in schools right now
> offends me mightily, but no one is leaping to my defense. I don't see
> how christians are harmed by hearing Muslims say "under Allah." That
> should be protected free speech.
>
>
>>>I wouldn't *say* it, I might not *like* it, but I don't think it violates the 1st
>>>Amendment. It wouldn't be establishing a religion.
>>
>>It's one step closer to it.
>
> Thank you for that admission. So it's one step closer to violating the
> first ammendment, but doesn't violate it.
I never said it was violating the First Amendment, I said it was
"bending" the First Amendment.
> But... haven't we been that step closer for 50 years?
If you just look at the Pledge, then yes. But if you look at everything
else that has been going on, then no.
> And yet we've moved farther *away* from any
> religious influences in schools, not closer to having a state religion.
> Except secular humanism.
Please, define what you think "secular humanism" is.
>>>The government and
>>>all government bodies should not be forced to be completely areligious.
>>
>>It's the only fair way. Unless you can think of anther way that would be
>>fair, given the many different religious beliefs that are in this country.
>
>
> Simple, how about freedom of religion? The muslims can still be
> muslims, even when they're at work, and the jews can still be jews, and
> the protestants can still be protestants, and the buddhists can still be
> buddhists, and they don't have to leave part of themselves at the door
> because the government tries to pretend religion doesn't exist.
No, but their children do when they are forced to recite the pledge
(going back on topic in the off topic thread).
> I'm not
> talking about hindu teachers trying to encourage their students to be
> hindus. That's inappropriate. But letting kids know that religion
> exists in the world? That's bad? For atheists, I guess it sure is.
No, it's not bad, even for atheists. What's bad is when only one
religion is pointed out, rather then all the different religions. I
think a mandatory religion class in school, where they discuss the
differences and similarities between different worlds religions, would
be a great thing.
> But my teachers had many different religions and I didn't convert to
> each one because I was under the impression I had to join the state
> religion.
Did any of them make you take a pledge with their respective deity in it
and give you money that said that you trusted their deity on it? If not,
then you are talking about something different, so please, get back on
track.
> What they're doing now is the opposite of freedom of
> religion: it's holding one (secular humanism) as superior to all the
> others. It was a great victory when they got people to believe theirs
> was the "default" position, and everything else was wacked out.
As someone else said "It doesn't matter how many times you type the
words "secular humanism": calling the absence of religion a religion is
a teenager's word game.?". I liked that so much, that I had to use it again.
>
>>>That was never the intention of the 1st Amendment.
>>
>>The intent was to prevent a country ruled by a single religion, and I'm
>>afraid that is exactly where we are headed. I might be wrong, but I tend
>>to like to play it safe with things like this.
>
> I agree with that statement, but in the exact opposite meaning.
Which part? The part about the intent was not to be ruled by a single
religion, or the part about that is what I was afraid of?
--
CHECK OUT THIS TAGLINE! Made you look! Made you look!
Ashförd Wyrd
> No, it's not bad, even for atheists. What's bad is when only one
> religion is pointed out, rather then all the different religions. I
> think a mandatory religion class in school, where they discuss the
> differences and similarities between different worlds religions, would
> be a great thing.
>
It could be encorperated into the World Cultures year of Socal Studies... oh
wait...it already is (-;
> As someone else said "It doesn't matter how many times you type the
> words "secular humanism": calling the absence of religion a religion is
> a teenager's word game.?". I liked that so much, that I had to use it
again.
I thnk there is a bt of misunderstandiing here.... "secular humanism"
dosen't refer to simply the absence, but rather the obhorence of religion,
IE the belief that any religion is dangerous and must be eradicated. I think
the poster who keeps using the term is misapropriaring it a bit, oo
overreacting to seperation of church and state.
Freedom OF religion, not freedom from it, but if tou allow one diety to be
mentioned, you have to mention them all, or ou are being unfair to someone
out there....
Túrin
> Your post contains some of the most absurd statements I have read in a
> very long time. It doesn't matter how many times you type the words
> "secular humanism": calling the absence of religion a religion is a
> teenager's word game.
See? The so-called "lack of religion" is established as a default
position, when in fact there are none that lack some kind of religion.
Everyone has beliefs that they believe correspond to reality. One set
of human beings has declared another's beliefs to be "religion" and
their own not to be.
Túrin
Eric Bohlman
news:bfbuuv$d1sfv$1...@ID-76901.news.uni-berlin.de:
> No. It was founded as a non-religious country that should stay that
> way, so that the rights of the few are not trampled by the wants of
> the many.
Nitpicky but, I think, important: "non-religious country" doesn't quite
capture the meaning here. "Religiously *neutral* state" is, IMHO, a better
description. The Framers of the US Constitution didn't have to speculate
about what would happen if the government of a nation or even a locality
took sides in religious matters; they had all seen it personally, and the
picture wasn't very pretty. The experiences in the Colonies and in Europe
convinced them that the only hope for a just society was for religion to be
*none* of government's business, but rather purely a matter of personal
conscience. It's no accident that Thomas Jefferson first used the phrase
"separation of church and state" in a sympathetic letter to a Baptist
minister; at that time, the Baptists were not faring very well in European
countries that didn't separate the two.
The American ideal is that worship and the rest of religious life are
things for the *people* to do without the *state* getting involved at all.
In fact, it's the only way to reconcile two of the most important values of
a free society: governmental accountability and individual freedom of
conscience. The former demands that *everything* government does be open
to question and debate; nothing that motivates governmental policy can be
regarded as sacrosanct, and officials have to answer for all their
decisions. But the latter demands that individuals' private beliefs be
treated as, well, private, in the "right to privacy" sense of "not subject
to public interference. Individuals do not have to answer to *anybody* for
their personal beliefs, which are not a proper subject for public debate.
Therefore, if you allow church and state to mix, you wind up either with
government making policy on grounds that can't be questioned, or with
people being required to justify their deepest, most personal beliefs to
strangers.
So the American ideal is that government must be *neither* for *nor*
against any religious beliefs *at all*. That's not opposition, it's strict
*neutrality*.
Mythos
> "Mythos" <aiel9...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bfbuuv$d1sfv$1...@ID-76901.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>
>>No, it's not bad, even for atheists. What's bad is when only one
>>religion is pointed out, rather then all the different religions. I
>>think a mandatory religion class in school, where they discuss the
>>differences and similarities between different worlds religions, would
>>be a great thing.
>>
>
>
> It could be encorperated into the World Cultures year of Socal Studies... oh
> wait...it already is (-;
Not when I was in school, not too long ago. The closest we ever came to
studying religion when I was in school, was when a teacher tried to
assign homework where we had to read certain passages from the Bible,
and write about them - but nothing about other religions.
--
Police Begin Campaign to Run Down Jaywalkers
Ashförd Wyrd
> > It could be encorperated into the World Cultures year of Socal
Studies... oh
> > wait...it already is (-;
>
> Not when I was in school, not too long ago. The closest we ever came to
> studying religion when I was in school, was when a teacher tried to
> assign homework where we had to read certain passages from the Bible,
> and write about them - but nothing about other religions.
>
> --
> Police Begin Campaign to Run Down Jaywalkers
>
Funny, you were never told the connection to Hindu with India, Budhism with
Asian countries, etc...?
Mythos
Nope. I learned about religion on my own. I also didn't learn about
Wiccas' connection to nature, etc. The most I learned about religion, in
school, was from history class.
Are you telling me that you learned everything about different religions
from school? If you did, then I can think of one place I would like my
kids, if I ever have any, to go to school.
--
The only reason I burn the candle at both ends is because I haven't
figured out how to light the middle.
Ashförd Wyrd
> Are you telling me that you learned everything about different religions
> from school? If you did, then I can think of one place I would like my
> kids, if I ever have any, to go to school.
>
only the name and basic premise of each of the world major religions, and
the country which is most closely associated with them.
Mark Evans
> Personally I don't know the answers to the last two questions, but I
> guess it's recited in the first place to engender a feeling of pride in
> the country, of loyalty, of patriotism, "ask what you can do for your
> country" type feeling. Americans used to think America was pretty
> great, and something to take pride in. Pledging allegiance to the flag
> is also affirming the ideals upon which the country was founded, like
> life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc.
Mechanically repeating a pledge is far more likely to have the
opposite effect. With the meaning of the words becoming lost.
Even to the point at which people may as well chant nonsense
words.
Mark Evans
> "Túrin" <
>>
>> It seemed a good idea, but it gets harder and harder for me to take
>> pride in America though when we've been doing so many crummy things
>> lately.
> Always be proud of your country even if you're not always proud of what it
> does.
An alternative version is: A patriot is always loyal to their country,
but only loyal to their government when it deserves their loyalty.
Mark Evans
> On 7/17/2003 15:00 Túrin yelled across the void of the internet:
>> Ashförd Wyrd wrote:
>>
>>>>Also, Snape leads the class in the Pledge of Allegiance at the
>>>>beginning of Potions
>>>
>>>Not in the 90's or 2K00's, The pledge of allegiance mentions a diety, which
>>>is expressly illegal in educational institutions in the US
>>
>> It's not *expressly" illegal. A court has ruled it is unconstitutional,
>> but there are no laws against it, and the Constitution actually doesn't
>> prohibit it, just the current liberal interpretation of it.
> Liberal interpretation of it?
If anything it's a strongly *conservative" interpretation of the
actual text.
>> If people
>> wanted to add an Amendment specifying the separation of church and
>> state, they can do so, or if they want to ignore the Constitution and do
>> what they want, they can do that, but I don't like to see them say that
>> the Constitution means what it doesn't, because the founders did believe
>> in a god of some sort, and were *not* trying to make the State fully
>> secular humanist, with no mention of religion at any level. That wasn't
>> their intent.
> Pardon me, but how can you know what their intent was? I *think* what
They left plenty of documents explaining their positions and reasonings.
> their intent was to have an environment where the state could not favour
> one religion over another - as the government seems to be doing right
> now, with the pledge and currency.
There is also the 1796 "Treaty of Tripoli".
Ronald Hickey
<m...@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> writes
How can you take pride in a nation that refers to 'football' as 'soccer
ball' ?!! ;P
--
Ronald Hickey
Mythos
> Mythos <aiel9...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 7/17/2003 15:00 Túrin yelled across the void of the internet:
>
>
>
>>>Ashförd Wyrd wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Also, Snape leads the class in the Pledge of Allegiance at the
>>>>>beginning of Potions
>>>>
>>>>Not in the 90's or 2K00's, The pledge of allegiance mentions a diety, which
>>>>is expressly illegal in educational institutions in the US
>>>
>>>It's not *expressly" illegal. A court has ruled it is unconstitutional,
>>>but there are no laws against it, and the Constitution actually doesn't
>>>prohibit it, just the current liberal interpretation of it.
>
>
>>Liberal interpretation of it?
>
>
> If anything it's a strongly *conservative" interpretation of the
> actual text.
That's how it seems to me.
>>>If people
>>>wanted to add an Amendment specifying the separation of church and
>>>state, they can do so, or if they want to ignore the Constitution and do
>>>what they want, they can do that, but I don't like to see them say that
>>>the Constitution means what it doesn't, because the founders did believe
>>>in a god of some sort, and were *not* trying to make the State fully
>>>secular humanist, with no mention of religion at any level. That wasn't
>>>their intent.
>
>>Pardon me, but how can you know what their intent was? I *think* what
>
> They left plenty of documents explaining their positions and reasonings.
But people don't provide the documents (or links to them) to back up
their position.
>>their intent was to have an environment where the state could not favour
>>one religion over another - as the government seems to be doing right
>>now, with the pledge and currency.
>
> There is also the 1796 "Treaty of Tripoli".
I don't know about that document, I'll have to take a look at it, when I
get home from taking care of my brothers rats.
--
. CENSORED BY THE TAGLINE POLICE .
Tim Behrendsen
news:9aMDAOFrexH$Ew...@dsl.pipex.com...
> How can you take pride in a nation that refers to 'football' as 'soccer
> ball' ?!! ;P
Personally, I take pride that Manchester United came to the US, and
supposedly had a huge amount of security at the airport to protect them from
the rabid fans -- and 12 people showed up.
Of course, David Beckham getting dissed by the shoe salesman not closing up
the store because he'd never heard of them was priceless as well. :)
Tim