Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [evol-psych] Texas-Petition to withdraw from the USA got quorum

Expand Messages
  • clarence_sonny_williams
    Pini, Omitting under God and being excused from the Pledge recitation have been addressed by the US Supreme Court. SCOTUS decided that they do NOT make a
    Message 1 of 19 , Nov 30, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      'Pini,

      Omitting "under God" and being excused from the Pledge recitation have
      been addressed by the US Supreme Court. SCOTUS decided that they do NOT
      make a school sponsored recitation constitutionally permissible; it is
      still unconstitutional for a school or any of its authority figures to
      lead or act in any way to authorize a recitation of the revised Pledge
      of Allegiance (circa 1950) that contains "under God." I cannot recall
      the name of the case (let me know if you want it and I'll look it up),
      but it contained an extensive review of psychologically based material,
      which led SCOTUS to decide that such omission and voluntary excusal...in
      elementary school children (big factor; secondary school kids are old
      enough)...creates a harmful atmosphere for young children; it singles
      them out as "outsiders" and they are not mature enough to handle that
      without psychological harm. Older kids (college) and adults are not
      harmed by such "peer pressure."

      The Colorado law requiring that all school kids recite the Pledge or ask
      to be excused (voluntary excusal) is unconstitutional. Unfortunately,
      as in all such cases, it takes several years before the "right case"
      comes up. When an aggrieved party with proper standing in the
      courts...and enough money...is found, the courts will act. Colorado
      passed this odious, contemptible law about 5 years ago.

      The debate is over, but American Christian Nazis like we find in Texas
      and Colorado will always feel that God impels them to keep trying, and
      so the struggle will continue. Only a constitutional amendment can
      overturn the law of the land as defined by SCOTUS, but Christian Nazis
      know they would not be able to accomplish that, so they take the cowards
      way out and keep pestering us so that we need to continually swat them
      away from the disease-infested insects that they are.

      (P.S. Does my hatred of Christian Nazis show?)

      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Winyan <winyan7@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Just tell whatever children you are responsible for to simply not say
      'under God'. I personally never utter them.
      >
      > 'Pini
      >
      > On Nov 29, 2012, at 8:14 AM, "clarence_sonny_williams" clarencew@...
      wrote:
      >
      <snip>
    • nini
      Hi Sonny, I believe it was 1954 and the minister who wrote the pledge, and wanted it maintained *unaltered* was opposed to the words under god being added.
      Message 2 of 19 , Nov 30, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Sonny,

        I believe it was 1954 and the minister who wrote the pledge, and wanted it maintained *unaltered* was opposed to the words 'under god' being added.  

        The change was made at the behest of Senator Joseph McCarthy (aka Tailgunner Joe) the old drunken Wisconsin senator, who was seeing 'commie's' and 'pinko's' behind every tree.

        'pini

        On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 8:08 AM, clarence_sonny_williams <clarencew@...> wrote:
         

        'Pini,

        Omitting "under God" and being excused from the Pledge recitation have
        been addressed by the US Supreme Court. SCOTUS decided that they do NOT
        make a school sponsored recitation constitutionally permissible; it is
        still unconstitutional for a school or any of its authority figures to
        lead or act in any way to authorize a recitation of the revised Pledge
        of Allegiance (circa 1950) that contains "under God." I cannot recall
        the name of the case (let me know if you want it and I'll look it up),
        but it contained an extensive review of psychologically based material,
        which led SCOTUS to decide that such omission and voluntary excusal...in
        elementary school children (big factor; secondary school kids are old
        enough)...creates a harmful atmosphere for young children; it singles
        them out as "outsiders" and they are not mature enough to handle that
        without psychological harm. Older kids (college) and adults are not
        harmed by such "peer pressure."

        The Colorado law requiring that all school kids recite the Pledge or ask
        to be excused (voluntary excusal) is unconstitutional. Unfortunately,
        as in all such cases, it takes several years before the "right case"
        comes up. When an aggrieved party with proper standing in the
        courts...and enough money...is found, the courts will act. Colorado
        passed this odious, contemptible law about 5 years ago.

        The debate is over, but American Christian Nazis like we find in Texas
        and Colorado will always feel that God impels them to keep trying, and
        so the struggle will continue. Only a constitutional amendment can
        overturn the law of the land as defined by SCOTUS, but Christian Nazis
        know they would not be able to accomplish that, so they take the cowards
        way out and keep pestering us so that we need to continually swat them
        away from the disease-infested insects that they are.

        (P.S. Does my hatred of Christian Nazis show?)



        --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Winyan <winyan7@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Just tell whatever children you are responsible for to simply not say
        'under God'. I personally never utter them.
        >
        > 'Pini
        >
        > On Nov 29, 2012, at 8:14 AM, "clarence_sonny_williams" clarencew@...
        wrote:
        >
        <snip>


      • Edgar Owen
        Sonny, Someone should tell that to our local mayor and borough council who begin each public meeting with the the pledge including the under God phrase.
        Message 3 of 19 , Nov 30, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Sonny,

          Someone should tell that to our local mayor and borough council who begin each public meeting with the the pledge including the "under God" phrase.

          Edgar


          On Nov 30, 2012, at 8:08 AM, clarence_sonny_williams wrote:

           

          'Pini,

          Omitting "under God" and being excused from the Pledge recitation have
          been addressed by the US Supreme Court. SCOTUS decided that they do NOT
          make a school sponsored recitation constitutionally permissible; it is
          still unconstitutional for a school or any of its authority figures to
          lead or act in any way to authorize a recitation of the revised Pledge
          of Allegiance (circa 1950) that contains "under God." I cannot recall
          the name of the case (let me know if you want it and I'll look it up),
          but it contained an extensive review of psychologically based material,
          which led SCOTUS to decide that such omission and voluntary excusal...in
          elementary school children (big factor; secondary school kids are old
          enough)...creates a harmful atmosphere for young children; it singles
          them out as "outsiders" and they are not mature enough to handle that
          without psychological harm. Older kids (college) and adults are not
          harmed by such "peer pressure."

          The Colorado law requiring that all school kids recite the Pledge or ask
          to be excused (voluntary excusal) is unconstitutional. Unfortunately,
          as in all such cases, it takes several years before the "right case"
          comes up. When an aggrieved party with proper standing in the
          courts...and enough money...is found, the courts will act. Colorado
          passed this odious, contemptible law about 5 years ago.

          The debate is over, but American Christian Nazis like we find in Texas
          and Colorado will always feel that God impels them to keep trying, and
          so the struggle will continue. Only a constitutional amendment can
          overturn the law of the land as defined by SCOTUS, but Christian Nazis
          know they would not be able to accomplish that, so they take the cowards
          way out and keep pestering us so that we need to continually swat them
          away from the disease-infested insects that they are.

          (P.S. Does my hatred of Christian Nazis show?)

          --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Winyan <winyan7@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > Just tell whatever children you are responsible for to simply not say
          'under God'. I personally never utter them.
          >
          > 'Pini
          >
          > On Nov 29, 2012, at 8:14 AM, "clarence_sonny_williams" clarencew@...
          wrote:
          >
          <snip>


        • nini
          Edgar, It s become custom now, though you can leave it out if you like. pini
          Message 4 of 19 , Nov 30, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Edgar, 

            It's become 'custom' now, though you can leave it out if you like.

            'pini

            On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:
             

            Sonny,


            Someone should tell that to our local mayor and borough council who begin each public meeting with the the pledge including the "under God" phrase.

            Edgar


            On Nov 30, 2012, at 8:08 AM, clarence_sonny_williams wrote:

             

            'Pini,

            Omitting "under God" and being excused from the Pledge recitation have
            been addressed by the US Supreme Court. SCOTUS decided that they do NOT
            make a school sponsored recitation constitutionally permissible; it is
            still unconstitutional for a school or any of its authority figures to
            lead or act in any way to authorize a recitation of the revised Pledge
            of Allegiance (circa 1950) that contains "under God." I cannot recall
            the name of the case (let me know if you want it and I'll look it up),
            but it contained an extensive review of psychologically based material,
            which led SCOTUS to decide that such omission and voluntary excusal...in
            elementary school children (big factor; secondary school kids are old
            enough)...creates a harmful atmosphere for young children; it singles
            them out as "outsiders" and they are not mature enough to handle that
            without psychological harm. Older kids (college) and adults are not
            harmed by such "peer pressure."

            The Colorado law requiring that all school kids recite the Pledge or ask
            to be excused (voluntary excusal) is unconstitutional. Unfortunately,
            as in all such cases, it takes several years before the "right case"
            comes up. When an aggrieved party with proper standing in the
            courts...and enough money...is found, the courts will act. Colorado
            passed this odious, contemptible law about 5 years ago.

            The debate is over, but American Christian Nazis like we find in Texas
            and Colorado will always feel that God impels them to keep trying, and
            so the struggle will continue. Only a constitutional amendment can
            overturn the law of the land as defined by SCOTUS, but Christian Nazis
            know they would not be able to accomplish that, so they take the cowards
            way out and keep pestering us so that we need to continually swat them
            away from the disease-infested insects that they are.

            (P.S. Does my hatred of Christian Nazis show?)

            --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Winyan <winyan7@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > Just tell whatever children you are responsible for to simply not say
            'under God'. I personally never utter them.
            >
            > 'Pini
            >
            > On Nov 29, 2012, at 8:14 AM, "clarence_sonny_williams" clarencew@...
            wrote:
            >
            <snip>



          • clarence_sonny_williams
            Yes, Pini, I m very familiar with the history of the Pledge. The Congressional record clearly shows that under God was added in order to signify a
            Message 5 of 19 , Dec 1, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Yes, 'Pini, I'm very familiar with the history of the Pledge. The
              Congressional record clearly shows that "under God" was added in order
              to signify a difference between America and the "God-less" Soviet
              empire; we followed "Divine guidance." Thus, it was, in effect, an
              establishment of religion, which is forbidden by the Constitution's
              First Amendment. Unfortunately, it takes a long time before
              unconstitutional activities reach SCOTUS and the activity stopped. For
              instance, it took roughly 70 years for the Bill of Rights to be fully
              applied to State government, despite Congressional records revealing
              that this was the specific purpose of the civil-war's 14th Amendment.
              If it takes nearly 70 years for Congressional intent to be legally
              enforced, you can imagine how long it takes for a state's
              unconstitutional actions to reach SCOTUS.

              --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, nini <winyan7@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > Hi Sonny,
              >
              > I believe it was 1954 and the minister who wrote the pledge, and
              wanted it
              > maintained *unaltered* was opposed to the words 'under god' being
              added.
              >
              > The change was made at the behest of Senator Joseph McCarthy (aka
              > Tailgunner Joe) the old drunken Wisconsin senator, who was seeing
              > 'commie's' and 'pinko's' behind every tree.
              >
              > 'pini
              >
              > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 8:08 AM, clarence_sonny_williams <
              > clarencew@... wrote:
              >
              <snip>
            • clarence_sonny_williams
              Edgar, That specific subject has reached SCOTUS, and it is permissible. Remember, I said that SCOTUS has found that CHILDREN require special protection.
              Message 6 of 19 , Dec 1, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Edgar,

                That specific subject has reached SCOTUS, and it is permissible.
                Remember, I said that SCOTUS has found that CHILDREN require special
                protection. Adults in city council meetings are not in such a
                constitutionally protected category. SCOTUS has also determined that
                the nature of the court room is such that citizens involved in court
                proceedings also enjoy this protected status. That is why a person can
                refuse to swear on the Bible or even recite an oath and a judge is
                required to find an alternative. Moreover, a judge is not permitted to
                display religious symbols; he is an authority figure presiding over a
                protected category of person...akin to a school authority figure
                presiding over protected children.

                --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen
                <edgarowen@...> wrote:
                >
                > Sonny,
                >
                > Someone should tell that to our local mayor and borough council who
                begin each public meeting with the the pledge including the "under God"
                phrase.
                >
                > Edgar
                >
                >
                <snip>
              • Edgar Owen
                Sonny, How is an official local government meeting in which ordinances, the core business of that government, are enacted allowed to invoke a religious belief?
                Message 7 of 19 , Dec 1, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Sonny,

                  How is an official local government meeting in which ordinances, the core business of that government, are enacted allowed to invoke a religious belief? 

                  And as I recall the 1st Amendment gives protection to all people, not just children...

                  Edgar



                  On Dec 1, 2012, at 8:35 AM, clarence_sonny_williams wrote:

                   

                  Edgar,

                  That specific subject has reached SCOTUS, and it is permissible.
                  Remember, I said that SCOTUS has found that CHILDREN require special
                  protection. Adults in city council meetings are not in such a
                  constitutionally protected category. SCOTUS has also determined that
                  the nature of the court room is such that citizens involved in court
                  proceedings also enjoy this protected status. That is why a person can
                  refuse to swear on the Bible or even recite an oath and a judge is
                  required to find an alternative. Moreover, a judge is not permitted to
                  display religious symbols; he is an authority figure presiding over a
                  protected category of person...akin to a school authority figure
                  presiding over protected children.

                  --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen
                  <edgarowen@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Sonny,
                  >
                  > Someone should tell that to our local mayor and borough council who
                  begin each public meeting with the the pledge including the "under God"
                  phrase.
                  >
                  > Edgar
                  >
                  >
                  <snip>


                • clarence_sonny_williams
                  Edgar, First, the U.S. Constitution says what SCOTUS interprets it as saying. We cannot have it any other way since the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are
                  Message 8 of 19 , Dec 1, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Edgar,

                    First, the U.S. Constitution says what SCOTUS interprets it as saying.  We cannot have it any other way since the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are so sparsely worded.  The First Amendment's "religion clauses" are as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."  From that simple wording, SCOTUS must interpret every conceivable conflict, and thereby tell us what the Constitution says.

                    So, the short answer to your ending comment is this: "No, the 1st Amendment does not give equal protection to all people."  The Constitution affords primary school-age children special protection against an establishment of religion that you and I do not have.

                    It has been some time since I wrote my book, "The...Real History of American Religious Freedom ," but I'll take a minute here to comment and excerpt from it.  There are a number of important SCOTUS decision applying to religious activities in schools, but I'll limit the discussion to primary school-age children and their special status.

                    To understand why primary school age children are afforded special protection, see Abington School Dist v Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) .  Here, a school district conducted daily Bible readings in an effort to instill moral values and ethics, which are legitimate state interests (the "state" stood in for the school district).  At any rate, the state argued in its further defense, children can freely excuse themselves from the reading.  In this landmark decision, SCOTUS established what are now called the Lemon tests" (3 tests) to determine if any public enactment (not only laws) violates the 1st Amendment's religion clauses (establish and free exercise).  And importantly to answering your comments here, it established that primary school-age children are specially protected by the Constitution (another decision involving the U. of Missouri at Kansas City said that secondary school-age kids are not specially protected).

                    See Justice Brennan's concurring opinion, which contains research citations for SCOTUS's decision that the Constitution (now) says, "children are disinclined at this age to step out of line or to flout `peer-group norms.'Thus, they require special protection.

                    Legislatures and other deliberative bodies (e.g., city council meetings) are exempt from this particular area concerning the establishment clause.  They may conduct an opening prayer, even including paying the chaplain, but cannot compel a person to profess a belief in God in order to hold public office.  See Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) for a full discussion of why this is now what the Constitution says.  (Use FindLaw  to find the case.)

                    In conclusion, let me emphasis an important point: Only SCOTUS decides what is written in the U.S. Constitution.  They can, however, "change their mind," and overrule an earlier decision...but that has happened very, very rarely in American history (slaves, for instance, were once declared by SCOTUS to be "property" and that decision was overruled).  No legislation can overrule a SCOTUS decision...thank heavens!  In fact, the U.S. Constitution says (because that is what SCOTUS says it says!) that no law nor any other enactment of "majority opinion" can derive any citizen of his or her individual rights as contained in the Constitution.  The ONLY way a SCOTUS opinion can be overturned is via a Constitutional Amendment.  See the Constitution and discussion in the state constitutional convention debates to understand why that is exceptionally difficult to do (2/3rds of all state legislatures).

                    P.S. See Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)to understand why it is unconstitutional to teach "creation science" in school. 


                    --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Sonny,
                    >
                    > How is an official local government meeting in which ordinances, the core business of that government, are enacted allowed to invoke a religious belief?
                    >
                    > And as I recall the 1st Amendment gives protection to all people, not just children...
                    >
                    > Edgar
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > On Dec 1, 2012, at 8:35 AM, clarence_sonny_williams wrote:
                    >
                    > > Edgar,
                    > >
                    > > That specific subject has reached SCOTUS, and it is permissible.
                    > > Remember, I said that SCOTUS has found that CHILDREN require special
                    > > protection. Adults in city council meetings are not in such a
                    > > constitutionally protected category. SCOTUS has also determined that
                    > > the nature of the court room is such that citizens involved in court
                    > > proceedings also enjoy this protected status. That is why a person can
                    > > refuse to swear on the Bible or even recite an oath and a judge is
                    > > required to find an alternative. Moreover, a judge is not permitted to
                    > > display religious symbols; he is an authority figure presiding over a
                    > > protected category of person...akin to a school authority figure
                    > > presiding over protected children.
                    > >
                    > > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen
                    > > edgarowen@ wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > Sonny,
                    > > >
                    > > > Someone should tell that to our local mayor and borough council who
                    > > begin each public meeting with the the pledge including the "under God"
                    > > phrase.
                    > > >
                    > > > Edgar
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > <snip>
                    > >
                    >
                  • Edgar Owen
                    Sonny, God almighty! No wonder the US is going down the drain. Anyway thanks for the very well informed commentary though it didn t do much to improve my view
                    Message 9 of 19 , Dec 1, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Sonny,

                      God almighty! No wonder the US is going down the drain.

                      Anyway thanks for the very well informed commentary though it didn't do much to improve my view of the US legal system...

                      Best,
                      Edgar



                      On Dec 1, 2012, at 2:56 PM, clarence_sonny_williams wrote:

                       

                      Edgar,

                      First, the U.S. Constitution says what SCOTUS interprets it as saying.  We cannot have it any other way since the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are so sparsely worded.  The First Amendment's "religion clauses" are as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."  From that simple wording, SCOTUS must interpret every conceivable conflict, and thereby tell us what the Constitution says.

                      So, the short answer to your ending comment is this: "No, the 1st Amendment does not give equal protection to all people."  The Constitution affords primary school-age children special protection against an establishment of religion that you and I do not have.

                      It has been some time since I wrote my book, "The...Real History of American Religious Freedom ," but I'll take a minute here to comment and excerpt from it.  There are a number of important SCOTUS decision applying to religious activities in schools, but I'll limit the discussion to primary school-age children and their special status.

                      To understand why primary school age children are afforded special protection, see Abington School Dist v Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) .  Here, a school district conducted daily Bible readings in an effort to instill moral values and ethics, which are legitimate state interests (the "state" stood in for the school district).  At any rate, the state argued in its further defense, children can freely excuse themselves from the reading.  In this landmark decision, SCOTUS established what are now called the Lemon tests" (3 tests) to determine if any public enactment (not only laws) violates the 1st Amendment's religion clauses (establish and free exercise).  And importantly to answering your comments here, it established that primary school-age children are specially protected by the Constitution (another decision involving the U. of Missouri at Kansas City said that secondary school-age kids are not specially protected).

                      See Justice Brennan's concurring opinion, which contains research citations for SCOTUS's decision that the Constitution (now) says, "children are disinclined at this age to step out of line or to flout `peer-group norms.'Thus, they require special protection.

                      Legislatures and other deliberative bodies (e.g., city council meetings) are exempt from this particular area concerning the establishment clause.  They may conduct an opening prayer, even including paying the chaplain, but cannot compel a person to profess a belief in God in order to hold public office.  See Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) for a full discussion of why this is now what the Constitution says.  (Use FindLaw  to find the case.)

                      In conclusion, let me emphasis an important point: Only SCOTUS decides what is written in the U.S. Constitution.  They can, however, "change their mind," and overrule an earlier decision...but that has happened very, very rarely in American history (slaves, for instance, were once declared by SCOTUS to be "property" and that decision was overruled).  No legislation can overrule a SCOTUS decision...thank heavens!  In fact, the U.S. Constitution says (because that is what SCOTUS says it says!) that no law nor any other enactment of "majority opinion" can derive any citizen of his or her individual rights as contained in the Constitution.  The ONLY way a SCOTUS opinion can be overturned is via a Constitutional Amendment.  See the Constitution and discussion in the state constitutional convention debates to understand why that is exceptionally difficult to do (2/3rds of all state legislatures).

                      P.S. See Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)to understand why it is unconstitutional to teach "creation science" in school. 


                      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Sonny,
                      >
                      > How is an official local government meeting in which ordinances, the core business of that government, are enacted allowed to invoke a religious belief?
                      >
                      > And as I recall the 1st Amendment gives protection to all people, not just children...
                      >
                      > Edgar
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > On Dec 1, 2012, at 8:35 AM, clarence_sonny_williams wrote:
                      >
                      > > Edgar,
                      > >
                      > > That specific subject has reached SCOTUS, and it is permissible.
                      > > Remember, I said that SCOTUS has found that CHILDREN require special
                      > > protection. Adults in city council meetings are not in such a
                      > > constitutionally protected category. SCOTUS has also determined that
                      > > the nature of the court room is such that citizens involved in court
                      > > proceedings also enjoy this protected status. That is why a person can
                      > > refuse to swear on the Bible or even recite an oath and a judge is
                      > > required to find an alternative. Moreover, a judge is not permitted to
                      > > display religious symbols; he is an authority figure presiding over a
                      > > protected category of person...akin to a school authority figure
                      > > presiding over protected children.
                      > >
                      > > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen
                      > > edgarowen@ wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > Sonny,
                      > > >
                      > > > Someone should tell that to our local mayor and borough council who
                      > > begin each public meeting with the the pledge including the "under God"
                      > > phrase.
                      > > >
                      > > > Edgar
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > <snip>
                      > >
                      >


                    • clarence_sonny_williams
                      When researching the last half of my book, which discusses the history of SCOTUS decisions, there were many of them that I disagreed with. As you know, I m a
                      Message 10 of 19 , Dec 1, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        When researching the last half of my book, which discusses the history
                        of SCOTUS decisions, there were many of them that I disagreed with. As
                        you know, I'm a staunch anti-religious individual. Letting kids ride
                        public school buses and using state-paid text books...even when they go
                        to a religious school...really sounded wrong to me. However, in the
                        majority of those cases that I disagreed with, my position was always
                        softened and sometimes even changed after I read the decision. More
                        importantly, I became convinced that the U.S. Supreme Court is far and
                        away the best of the 3 government branches.

                        You should read March v Chambers, which is one I disagreed with and
                        expect you would as well. I think you would be as impressed as I was at
                        how well-thought out was the decision. None of us living in a democracy
                        should expect to agree with everything all the time, and it is always
                        good to "lose" to such a worthy, intelligent and patriotic group of men
                        and women. Even in disagreement, I came away with the belief that I was
                        still in goods hands with SCOTUS.

                        --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen
                        <edgarowen@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Sonny,
                        >
                        > God almighty! No wonder the US is going down the drain.
                        >
                        > Anyway thanks for the very well informed commentary though it didn't
                        do much to improve my view of the US legal system...
                        >
                        > Best,
                        > Edgar
                        >
                        <Snip>
                      • Julienne
                        ... Of course, pini - but who is teaching other children that they can do this? The system Julienne ... Perpetual devotion to what a man calls his business,
                        Message 11 of 19 , Dec 2, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 06:09 PM 11/29/2012, Winyan wrote:


                          Just tell whatever children you are responsible for to simply not say 'under God'. I personally never utter them.

                          'Pini

                          Of course, 'pini - but who is teaching other children that they can do this?

                          The "system"


                          Julienne




                          On Nov 29, 2012, at 8:14 AM, "clarence_sonny_williams" <clarencew@...> wrote:

                           

                          Julienne,

                          You're talking down to me, but I'll let that slide. Yes, I'm aware
                          that the Texas school system flirts with Christian demogogy and attempts
                          to inculcate all children with Christian teachings. I'm also aware that
                          several other states do the same. Here in Colorado, our school kids
                          must begin every day by reciting the modern Pledge of Allegiance, with
                          the odious addition of "under god." One county has adopted a voucher
                          system, and the parents are free to use state money and send their kids
                          to religious schools. As noted by Bee, he is associated with a Virginia
                          high school that has been sued by the NAACP (and probably joined by the
                          ACLU) for racial discrimination that they hide behind the pretext of
                          wanting "high achievers" to have their own school (roughly).

                          We can go on and on about these "bad" state-level decisions...but that
                          sidesteps the issue. So because Texas citizens have done something to
                          which you in New Mexico disagree, we should let the Federal government
                          decide the issue? James Madison warned us against the evils of such
                          centralized control, as that is where the minority can and do exert
                          undue control. You dislike a Republican majority in the House because
                          it gives them control you find disagreeable, and which you believe is
                          not representative of the overall population. The principle is the
                          same.

                          The "worthless employees" are those who fill what I call "entitlement
                          positions." These are jobs whose pay and continuation are NOT a
                          function of performance. How many more years of continuing
                          deterioration in the education of our kids will it take before we start
                          assessing blame and firing people? As I noted earlier, the Federal
                          government does not even do a good job of reallocating the taxes they
                          collect to ensure that all school districts have equal financial
                          resources. This disparity is painfully obvious. So, I ask you, "What
                          has the U.S. Department of Education done RIGHT and what evidence do you
                          have for that?"

                          --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Julienne <julienne@...>
                          wrote:
                          >
                          > At 09:44 AM 11/28/2012, clarence_sonny_williams wrote:
                          > >'Pini,
                          > >
                          > >Your brief post is a good opportunity to make my sole comment in
                          regard
                          > >to this train of thought: the concept that modern-day federalism has
                          > >shredded the U.S. Constitution is an important subject worthy of
                          serious
                          > >debate. Only through acts of secession can states do anything about
                          > >that, and those acts might possibly result in another constitutional
                          > >convention that is sorely overdue. Such a convention will allow the
                          > >nation to once again debate "federalism versus states rights."
                          > >
                          > >Let's take one simple example. Why in the hell does the federal
                          > >government have one good, Goddamned thing to do with education???
                          What
                          > >a terrible, terrible waste of money. There is ONLY a need (a real
                          one
                          > >that I wholeheartedly support) to redistribute educational funds that
                          > >are collected at the local level in order to ensure that no state
                          (or,
                          > >better, no local school district) is disadvantaged. Damn, we don't
                          even
                          > >accomplish that with this worthy federal bureaucracy! Hell, give me
                          a
                          > >committee of 10, non-political experts and I can do that!! Why in
                          the
                          > >F$#@! do we need a Department of Education with so many worthless
                          > >employees??
                          >
                          >
                          > Oh, my. have you looked at the school system in Texas? have you looked
                          at
                          > what the Texas school textbook committee (or whatever it's called) has
                          > done to foul up the nation's textbooks for kids?
                          >
                          > Right there is your answer - because some states teach nonsense, or
                          would
                          > if they could.
                          >
                          > Then we have the problems of segregated schools...
                          >
                          > Which do you consider the "worthless employees"?


                          Perpetual devotion to what a man calls his business, is only to be sustained by perpetual neglect of many other things. Robert Louis Stevenson
                           

                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.