|
United States24600 Posts
Disclaimer: This is not intended to be a religious discussion, but rather one having to do with US law/code.
The Bill of Rights is interpreted to prohibit "the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another." There is no official religion, regardless of how widespread one might be. There is no religion that is not permitted, regardless of how few people support it (certain religious activities could be blocked if they interfered with other laws, the same way freedom of speech has reasonable limitations). I support the above position of the USA.
"God" is a concept that comes up in many religions. Most modern religions are monotheistic, and since "God" doesn't specify which religion's God is being named, the word can be interpreted to be referring to most, if not all monotheistic religions. Polytheistic religions, while much less common, do not refer to a single God, so when the word "God" is used, it's implied that the polythestic religion is excluded. You could make a similar argument for some other types of religions (but as I understand it, most religions, past or present, that aren't monotheistic were polythestic). In other words, when referring to "God," you are referring to a purely religious belief of some (not all) religions.
This won't be anything new to most readers, but the word "God" comes up several times in the US government's official documentation. For example, the United States Flag code is where the Pledge of Allegiance is written. For those who don't know it be heart:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The Flag Code does not carry any penalties for people who disobey it. However, it is officially part of the US Code. As people have argued before, this particular line of the code is providing a preference of one (or several) religions over others. Of course, any citizen can just refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. I believe the word "God" should technically be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance as a violation of the Amendments to the Constitution. The reasoning I've given however, is so insignificant that it's not worth the time and effort it would take to get the code updated (nor would it make sense for me to bother writing a blog about it, however low my standards might be). Perhaps some people who feel more strongly than me on this matter would even disagree with me here.
The problem with the Pledge of Allegiance is that it is recited in public schools and at other public events. Children are not infinitely impressionable either, but the government is specifically banned from giving preferential treatment to any religion(s). Indoctrination of children with religious preference is a much more serious offense than causing adults a minor inconvenience. Some would argue that it isn't indoctrination since children are just as capable of not reciting the pledge as adults are (schools should not be permitted to force students to recite it, even though this does happen in some areas) but young children especially aren't all capable of understanding this issue. I believe this problem is severe enough to justify removing the words "under God" from the pledge of allegiance. I'm aware of the circumstances in which the words were added (during the Cold War) but I don't consider them relevant. Violations of the Constitution should be fixed when they are identified, regardless of what mistakes created them in the first place (I'm not even placing blame on whoever did something half a century ago; I just want things done right).
To a lesser extent, the same general argument can be made for money. It does not make sense, in a country which cannot prefer one religion over another, to place words on the currency that show preference for one religion over another. The issue is not so pressing that all bills and coins should be recalled, but a plan should be enacted to redesign future printed money and minted coins to exclude text which violates the first amendment.
Proposed patch notes for USA v1.01:
- Update the US Flag Code to remove the words "under God" from the pledge of allegiance
- New printed money will not have the words "in God we trust" or anything like that
"But the USA is a 'Christian Nation' so it's ok"
I wish to refer the speaker of such an argument to a map of which countries have state religions
You might already be sick of discussions about removing the word "God" from money and the pledge in the USA. I'll offer another example that is discussed much less often: Blue Laws. While I'm not a big drinker myself, making it illegal for stores to sell alcohol at times that correspond with the worship schedule of certain religions doesn't sit well with me. In fact, it should be overturned in all remaining areas in the USA where it is still in effect. It is in direct violation of the first Amendment.
One last thought: My proposed USA patch note to remove the word "under God" from the pledge has an unfortunate side effect: some people, such as congregations at Church, might want to recite the current version of the pledge. If my 'fix' gets implemented, they will need to violate US Code (although, without penalty) in order to do this. I propose rewording the pledge to say something like this:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation<optional religious reference>, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
This wouldn't give preferential to any religion, nor nonbelievers!
Maybe I'll just stick to the original patch note.
 
|
I like that our fiat currency says "In God we Trust" it makes me chuckle. Iit really should be "In the full faith and credit of the US government we trust
|
I don't know if I get this wrong, but isn't the word God kind of neutral; being valid for a multitude of religions?
|
On October 21 2012 03:08 grs wrote:
I don't know if I get this wrong, but isn't the word God kind of neutral; being valid for a multitude of religions?
It's neutral to monotheistic religions but not to polytheistic religions or non-religious people. Also I guess it refers to Christianity and not other monotheistic religions though not explicitly.
|
United States24600 Posts
On October 21 2012 03:08 grs wrote:
I don't know if I get this wrong, but isn't the word God kind of neutral; being valid for a multitude of religions?
Being valid for many religions is not the same as being valid for every religion. I haven't even given mention to the large chunk of Americans who specifically do not believe in any religion.
|
"God", "oh my god", "Gosh"... are all so entrenched in the English language, in particular the American deviation of the language that it means nothing more than "the superior authority in which we trust" IMO. It can be the government or any God from any religion as far as i'm concern. Even tho i understand your point completely and tend to agree with it, i think it'll never make a big case because, correct me if i'm wrong, people just use the word "God" thousand times a day without even believing in any kind of religion.
|
United States24600 Posts
On October 21 2012 03:22 Enearde wrote:
"God", "oh my god", "Gosh"... are all so entrenched in the English language, in particular the American deviation of the language that it means nothing more than "the superior authority in which we trust" IMO. It can be the government or any God from any religion as far as i'm concern. Even tho i understand your point completely and tend to agree with it, i think it'll never make a big case because, correct me if i'm wrong, people just use the word "God" thousand times a day without even believing in any kind of religion.
Yeah, and this contributes towards why I wouldn't even bother to mention it if it weren't for the child indoctrination component. Blue laws on the other hand...
|
On October 21 2012 03:25 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 03:22 Enearde wrote:
"God", "oh my god", "Gosh"... are all so entrenched in the English language, in particular the American deviation of the language that it means nothing more than "the superior authority in which we trust" IMO. It can be the government or any God from any religion as far as i'm concern. Even tho i understand your point completely and tend to agree with it, i think it'll never make a big case because, correct me if i'm wrong, people just use the word "God" thousand times a day without even believing in any kind of religion. Yeah, and this contributes towards why I wouldn't even bother to mention it if it weren't for the child indoctrination component. Blue laws on the other hand...
Indeed, that's where i agree with you. What i can't figure out is what to do to make it fair for everyone?
In France, we tried making laws and state/political institutions as neutral as possible. Instead of solving any issue, we created new ones. For instance, french muslims are now forcing cities to build mosque, school's refectory to not make any pork or have a different meal for muslims etc etc. At some point, you have to draw a line and say "we got a culture, we got a background and you cannot do shit because you believe in X god or Y god, we won't build a mosque (for example) next to our 14th century church". Someone at some point will not be happy whatever you do.
|
Out of curiosity, when was the last time you were in public education? You're right that students are suppose to say "one nation under God" and the pledge of allegiance every morning (or actually, I think they're only suppose to stand), but if you actually listen to the students (especially high school), you will find the most unenthusiastic bunch ever. Some don't actually say the pledge, most say it in the most apathetic matter, and only a few actually say it as if they mean it. Students aren't being indoctrinated by the pledge, they're smarter then that. I can say with confidence that saying "under God" does not affect students beliefs at all. In fact, the biggest discussion is about the fact that you're suppose to say "one nation under God" rather then "one nation, under God".
|
United States24600 Posts
On October 21 2012 03:57 NationInArms wrote:
Out of curiosity, when was the last time you were in public education? You're right that students are suppose to say "one nation under God" and the pledge of allegiance every morning (or actually, I think they're only suppose to stand), but if you actually listen to the students (especially high school), you will find the most unenthusiastic bunch ever. Some don't actually say the pledge, most say it in the most apathetic matter, and only a few actually say it as if they mean it. Students aren't being indoctrinated by the pledge, they're smarter then that. I can say with confidence that saying "under God" does not affect students beliefs at all. In fact, the biggest discussion is about the fact that you're suppose to say "one nation under God" rather then "one nation, under God".
As I said, younger children are more susceptible. A 17 year old senior in high school is usually as immune to the threat as you or I. When I was in elementary school, it was different.
|
What exactly is the frame and methodology of implementation you're talking here? While a compelling argument for the removal of religious language from US political documents can certainly be made (as you've shown), when it comes to political change here in the US, how we are to go about effecting change is oftentimes more important than justification itself. Are we speaking hypothetically, or are you advocating a grassroots campaign of sorts?
|
United States24600 Posts
On October 21 2012 04:11 farvacola wrote:
What exactly is the frame and methodology of implementation you're talking here? While a compelling argument for the removal of religious language from US political documents can certainly be made (as you've shown), when it comes to political change here in the US, how we are to go about effecting change is oftentimes more important than justification itself. Are we speaking hypothetically, or are you advocating a grassroots campaign of sorts?
My goal would be to get most people to agree... I don't have a grand plan to effect actual change.
At this point, this is just my viewpoint, expressed in a blog. I would support efforts to get these changes made, however.
|
As much as people, like you Micronesia, want this to happen, it violates a couple American philosophical principles.
- Freedom to worship how you please is not exactly true, freedom to choose your religion is, but freedom to worship how you please is not because of Judicial Review
- Not having a state religion does not mean that this country, along with all other countries laws, is not founded upon religious principles such as the God of nature (since a majority of the founding fathers were Deists)
Basically removing what you are saying will do 0 and will annoy a lot of people. It does not descriminate against people who do not believe in god, if you don't believe in god then saying this country was created by one should just not matter to you. One should not ruin other people's (the vast majority) beliefs because they disagree with a phrase that does not play a major role in life or even a phrase on money which again people don't care too much about.
In fact I disagree with your final statement about not showing preference by taking the phrase about god out since, even though the phrase was added later, that would descriminate against the majority by leaving out what they feel is an important factor in existence. This is just my point of view though, very well written blog Micro  .
|
On October 21 2012 04:32 docvoc wrote:
It does not descriminate against people who do not believe in god, if you don't believe in god then saying this country was created by one should just not matter to you
Your 2 arguments didn't make sense and this is just strange. I'm an atheist, and I don't "trust in God". I know for a fact that many atheists in the US, millions in fact, walk around with money that says "In God We Trust" even though it's a complete lie. Why is this necessary? Why would the motto exclude an important chunk of the population? Why is there no attempt at neutrality?
To remove the bias doesn't ruin anybody's religion in the slightest. If you live in a country which pretends to believe all people are equals, then your law shouldn't use language that favor a classification of people. It's not an attack on them. Given how rigid laws can be, and how sometimes they even define a country, it would be nice to make them as neutral as possible, as to include everyone.
"A nation under God" is a damn poor representation of today's multicultural US.
|
United States24600 Posts
On October 21 2012 04:32 docvoc wrote:This is just my point of view though, very well written blog Micro .
Thanks. I'm happy to consider contrary viewpoints and I recognize this isn't a 100% open and shut issue (otherwise it probably would have been changed already). I want to consider a few things you said, albeit out of order.
- Freedom to worship how you please is not exactly true, freedom to choose your religion is, but freedom to worship how you please is not because of Judicial Review
This is actually in agreement with what I said in the OP. I don't see it as counter-evidence for my overarching claim, though.
- Not having a state religion does not mean that this country, along with all other countries laws, is not founded upon religious principles such as the God of nature (since a majority of the founding fathers were Deists)
I don't see how this would change the interpretation I used of the first amendment. The religious views of the founding fathers were irrelevant to how we should treat religion in this country since they specified how religion should be treated in this country. As always, there is room for interpretation of the documents written by the founding fathers, though.
Basically removing what you are saying will do 0 and will annoy a lot of people.
I would argue that removing from US Code a regulation that violates the first amendment a good (great than 0) thing. Indeed, it will annoy a lot of people. Likewise, a lot of people (you even said 'people', such as me) are annoyed by how things stand right now. Which party of potentially annoyed people is larger is not really relevant, however.
It does not descriminate against people who do not believe in god, if you don't believe in god then saying this country was created by one should just not matter to you. One should not ruin other people's (the vast majority) beliefs because they disagree with a phrase that does not play a major role in life or even a phrase on money which again people don't care too much about.
Whether or not it bothers or doesn't bother me, or a devout Christian, or someone else, isn't really relevant. As I've attempted to establish, this word usage violates the first amendment. Removing words giving preferential treatment to certain religions from US Code is not ruining their beliefs. It is not even discrediting them. Also, this 'vast majority' isn't as vast as it was, according to recent polls (although I would rather not cite sources since it shouldn't matter how big the majority is/isn't). As for whether or not the phrase 'plays a major role,' I will make a statement at the end of this post.
In fact I disagree with your final statement about not showing preference by taking the phrase about god out since, even though the phrase was added later, that would descriminate against the majority by leaving out what they feel is an important factor in existence.
I'm not trying to suggest an action that would be devoid of all discrimination; I'm trying to suggest an action that would remove from US Code text that is in violation of the first amendment. However, I don't see how my proposed changes are discriminatory. Making things fair, and follow pre-established rules, is not a punishment.
As much as people, like you Micronesia, want this to happen, it violates a couple American philosophical principles. As I said earlier, there are a large number of people (albiet not necessarily a majority) who agree with me overall, so an argument about how we shouldn't "make most people suffer to pacify one or two people," while still irrelevant I'd argue, doesn't carry much weight anyway.
The only reason why I have made any type of a big deal about this though is for something you didn't acknowledge: the effect this has on children (again, I'm not focusing on older, high school aged children). It's nowhere as bad as lots of other problems children face, but it's still inexcusable to indoctrinate children by exposing them forcibly to words that violate the first amendment (moral issues aside, even).
|
The vast majority of people simply do not care. Making an issue out of it confuses them and they try to search for an answer.
The easiest answer to grab is:
"This person hates religion / Christianity / America and wants to make everyone else do what he wants."
That's as far as most people think, and it makes them defensive because they feel that their cultural identity and by extension they themselves are being attacked for no good reason.
I disagree with your interpretation of the First Amendment (as have the courts). There is no justification under the Constitution to push religion and government so far apart as to make it impossible for them to interact at all in the public sphere. The First Amendment says that the government cannot create an official state religion or give one (or more) religions favor, directly or indirectly, over others. It doesn't say anything about the government not being able to acknowledge religion or even not being able to promote it indirectly (as can be seen from the close relationship religious institutions have with government on many issues where their functions overlap, charity, welfare, social work, etc.).
You can't make a serious argument that the government is trying to promote religion in general or one religion in particular with "In God We Trust" on money. It's a cultural artifact.
The Pledge is different as it does require an affirmative act by the person saying it, but that's why a school can't require you to say it (and while that does still happen, legally that is not okay anywhere, and people should sue a school that requires all students to say it).
But the impact of a 5 second rote phrase is infinitesimal next to what a child receives from his parents and relatives and friends and neighbors. All that leaves is that the Pledge and the motto are offensive to some people's sensibilities, which isn't enough.
Being valid for many religions is not the same as being valid for every religion. I haven't even given mention to the large chunk of Americans who specifically do not believe in any religion.
It isn't a large chunk. It's about ten percent of the adult population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#No_religion
The idea that any chunk of the population, no matter how large or small, can wave the Constitution (wrongly) and try to impose its will on the rest of the people not to stop discrimination, not for equality, but rather to appease sensibilities and personal beliefs, is insidious to a free society.
But thankfully, common law demands that someone must prove actual harm to themselves if they wish to successfully prosecute a lawsuit. Sensibilities and opinions don't count, and the inability to prove harm has been used again and again to rightly dismiss these kinds of arguments from courts of law.
In short, stop trying to impose your opinion by waving the Constitution when what you are upset about causes no actual harm - sorry, the idea that the Pledge is going to harm children in any way is just laughable, or that anyone is harmed by "In God We Trust" on money - because all you do is piss off a majority of the people who actually give enough of a damn to think about it and make them wonder why you're such a jerk.
|
The hell :/
You can't make a serious argument that the government is trying to promote religion in general or one religion in particular with "In God We Trust" on money. It's a cultural artifact.
You don't see a complete lack of consistency in that? A religious message printed on a federal bill is a cultural artifact? Did you honestly write that with a clear mind? You have a massive human brain capable of so much. Your sentences are generally coherent and well articulated, and yet you're capable of making this stuff up? I truly am amazed :/.
In short, stop trying to impose your opinion by waving the Constitution when what you are upset about causes no actual harm - sorry, the idea that the Pledge is going to harm children in any way is just laughable, or that anyone is harmed by "In God We Trust" on money - because all you do is piss off a majority of the people who actually give enough of a damn to think about it and make them wonder why you're such a jerk.
I think it's strange that you started off being reasonable, saying that most people don't think beyond "that person hates religion" when in fact the position is more about equality than religion. You say he's "trying to impose" his opinion, but he's only arguing for it - arguing, at least it seems to me, that equality should supersede the "cultural" or "religious" preferences of the majority, at least as far as the public sector is concerned. The public sector does not need a personality.
|
United States24600 Posts
On October 21 2012 06:41 DeepElemBlues wrote:
The vast majority of people simply do not care. Making an issue out of it confuses them and they try to search for an answer.
The easiest answer to grab is:
"This person hates religion / Christianity / America and wants to make everyone else do what he wants."
That's as far as most people think, and it makes them defensive because they feel that their cultural identity and by extension they themselves are being attacked for no good reason.
Does any of this (excluding anything else you said below) question the legitimacy of what I said earlier, or are you just pointing out that less people care than I'd make it out to believe? Either way, I'd think there is a strong correlation between those who claim to not care, and those who subscribe to a monotheistic religion... not that this really matters based on the case I was trying to make.
I disagree with your interpretation of the First Amendment (as have the courts). There is no justification under the Constitution to push religion and government so far apart as to make it impossible for them to interact at all in the public sphere. The First Amendment says that the government cannot create an official state religion or give one (or more) religions favor, directly or indirectly, over others. It doesn't say anything about the government not being able to acknowledge religion or even not being able to promote it indirectly (as can be seen from the close relationship religious institutions have with government on many issues where their functions overlap, charity, welfare, social work, etc.). Can you specify which federal court case illustrates this?
You said my interpretation is wrong (I've only actually talked about a small component of the amendment of course) but you said, and I quote, "cannot create an official state religion or give one (or more) religions favor, directly or indirectly, over others." That is literally what I was saying. They are giving religions which have a 'God' favor over religions (or possibly alternative to religion, but I haven't gone there). If the courts consider this minor enough to dismiss it, then I should look at what statements they issued when they made the ruling for that case (again I'm focused on federal courts as this is federal code I'm interested in). In terms of technicality, I don't see how what you said rendered what I said wrong, but I recognize that this isn't necessarily black and white.
You can't make a serious argument that the government is trying to promote religion in general or one religion in particular with "In God We Trust" on money. It's a cultural artifact. The reason why it is intended to be there is not really relevant in determining whether or not it is favoring one religion over another. I freely admit that it's doubtful the government has some secret plan to indoctrinate people with the pledge of allegiance (at least, nowadays).
The Pledge is different as it does require an affirmative act by the person saying it, but that's why a school can't require you to say it (and while that does still happen, legally that is not okay anywhere, and people should sue a school that requires all students to say it). The effect of the pledge persists though; especially for young schoolchildren. In private school it's pretty clear what religious affiliations are there. In public school, it's clear from the pledge that monotheistic religions get preference over other ones (especially the ones which typically use the word 'God' to refer to their sole deity). Not legally forcing a 6 year old to recite the pledge doesn't mean that the inclusion of God into their daily activities won't impact how their religious views develop.
But the impact of a 5 second rote phrase is infinitesimal next to what a child receives from his parents and relatives and friends and neighbors. All that leaves is that the Pledge and the motto are offensive to some people's sensibilities, which isn't enough. It would be enough if law somehow dictated that "under god" was appropriate in the pledge, instead of inappropriate as I have attempted to show. As I requested before, if you have evidence that US law actually says the opposite of how I have interpreted it, it should be brought to light.
Show nested quote +Being valid for many religions is not the same as being valid for every religion. I haven't even given mention to the large chunk of Americans who specifically do not believe in any religion. It isn't a large chunk. It's about ten percent of the adult population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#No_religion
The idea that any chunk of the population, no matter how large or small, can wave the Constitution (wrongly) and try to impose its will on the rest of the people not to stop discrimination, not for equality, but rather to appease sensibilities and personal beliefs, is insidious to a free society. As I mentioned, I want to see how this is wrongly using the constitution. This issue has been somehow painted over the years to be "it's up to those darn atheists to prove 'under god' shouldn't be in the pledge", instead of "it's up to anybody to prove that "under god" actually can be in the pledge."
But thankfully, common law demands that someone must prove actual harm to themselves if they wish to successfully prosecute a lawsuit. Sensibilities and opinions don't count, and the inability to prove harm has been used again and again to rightly dismiss these kinds of arguments from courts of law.
In short, stop trying to impose your opinion by waving the Constitution when what you are upset about causes no actual harm - sorry, the idea that the Pledge is going to harm children in any way is just laughable, or that anyone is harmed by "In God We Trust" on money - because all you do is piss off a majority of the people who actually give enough of a damn to think about it and make them wonder why you're such a jerk. My major reason for actually caring enough to bring this up is because of the potential indoctrination of children. You have dismissed that by saying it is laughable, without actually making an attempt to prove yourself right on that issue. I am very interested on legal precedent, as that can very easily counter many things I have said (that's how this country works). I am not interested in being told what I said was laughable. Do back it up if you actually can, though.
|
Wait, do British people not utilize Oh My God a lot? Here, I thought that religion is much more ingrained there than in North America.
|
The majority of US is still Christian, like almost 75%. Thus it would make sense that they can preserve their religions traditions. That's democracy. Democracy is not about removing every single religions affiliation to make sure that no minority is offended. When Christianity makes up less than 50% of the US population is when it will be time to remove the "God reference".
Just because it's there, it doesn't mean it has to have any meaning to you. IMHO, trying to change this is a really unworthy pursuit, especially when it is so miniscule.
|
United States24600 Posts
On October 21 2012 07:10 shizaep wrote:
The majority of US is still Christian, like almost 75%. Thus it would make sense that they can preserve their religions traditions. That's democracy. Democracy is not about removing every single religions affiliation to make sure that no minority is offended. When Christianity makes up less than 50% of the US population is when it will be time to remove the "God reference".
Just because it's there, it doesn't mean it has to have any meaning to you. IMHO, trying to change this is a really unworthy pursuit, especially when it is so miniscule.
The percentage of Christians in the USA is not relevant.
Democracy means the law can be changed to make "under god" or "in god we trust" completely permissible. I don't agree with such a change and would hope it doesn't happen, however. In the meantime I want the law to be followed as is (there are many other laws which are not enforced and should be changed to be more efficient, as well).
I'm not proposing a change because I think it's the moral thing to do, or because of what meaning this has to me. I'm trying to show that the way we are doing it contrasts our own rules right now, and asking people to provide court cases or other counter evidence that is relevant, if they wish.
|
On October 21 2012 07:10 shizaep wrote:
The majority of US is still Christian, like almost 75%. Thus it would make sense that they can preserve their religions traditions. That's democracy. Democracy is not about removing every single religions affiliation to make sure that no minority is offended. When Christianity makes up less than 50% of the US population is when it will be time to remove the "God reference".
Just because it's there, it doesn't mean it has to have any meaning to you. IMHO, trying to change this is a really unworthy pursuit, especially when it is so miniscule.
Liberal democracies like the United States and Canada have laws that try to prevent the majority from oppressing the minorities. In this case the word "oppression" is a bit strong, I'll admit, but the spirit is there and the fact that a majority of people don't consider this to be important doesn't mean that it isn't a problem, at the very least symbolically. There is a very real and important explanation for why modern and progressive countries try to be secular - it's because, like I said, we strive to put everyone on equal standing. The US has a long christian tradition, and that belongs in the culture of Christians, and in history books, and really anywhere that's not public. However the State, or the Federal government, represents ALL of the US's citizen, presumably in equal measure. In theory, it doesn't represent the majority, it represents everyone. Atheists and polytheists are not fractions of men, at least I don't think so.
I understand that you might say it's not a big deal, those are just words, but I think that's disrespectful to many people who don't don't fit in the prejudiced description of what an American should be according to the the US of A.
|
On October 21 2012 07:10 shizaep wrote:
The majority of US is still Christian, like almost 75%. Thus it would make sense that they can preserve their religions traditions. That's democracy. Democracy is not about removing every single religions affiliation to make sure that no minority is offended. When Christianity makes up less than 50% of the US population is when it will be time to remove the "God reference".
Just because it's there, it doesn't mean it has to have any meaning to you. IMHO, trying to change this is a really unworthy pursuit, especially when it is so miniscule.
You don't understand American Government. We have a constitution that prevents two wolves from deciding to eat a sheep, so to speak. Our "democracy" (republic) has rules and regulations that are very hard to change. The inclusion of "God' in the government does/might violate some of the rules of the Constitution.
I think you are again missing the crux of micro's argument by saying it doesn't affect him. By telling children in public schools to recite the pledge, some would say that a religion is being established, Sure, you don't have to say it, but if the authority figures and other kids are saying it, a small child will as well, which could lead to indoctrination. I would like the pledge and currency to be changed as well but I don't care enough to do anything about it.
Oops didn't see the other replies 
|
Man there are so many other things wrong with this game country. The tech tree structure tax structure clearly favors certain races races and playstyles classes, but Blizzard Micronesia decides to focus on patching queen range the word God in US code?
Just wait until the Patchzergsatheists get here!
|
Well, when the Greeks first invented democracy they decided that things should be done as the majority wills. The whole point is that there is no absolute fairness, there is only the most fair way of doing something. If most people want this to stay/don't care then leaving the religious words is the most fair way of going about. Yes, it isn't absolutely fair, but it is the most fair way of going about it I think.
I just don't agree that so all the laws in the West revolve around "protecting" various minorities, sometimes at the expense of the majority.
|
On October 21 2012 09:27 shizaep wrote:
Well, when the Greeks first invented democracy they decided that things should be done as the majority wills. The whole point is that there is no absolute fairness, there is only the most fair way of doing something. If most people want this to stay/don't care then leaving the religious words is the most fair way of going about. Yes, it isn't absolutely fair, but it is the most fair way of going about it I think.
I just don't agree that so all the laws in the West revolve around "protecting" various minorities, sometimes at the expense of the majority.
Nobody said that "all" the laws in the West "revolve around protecting various minorities". That's a ridiculous thing to say in fact. It doesn't come close to what I said in the slightest, which makes it hard for me to argue with you since now I know that you can't read. You don't understand what I said, at all! So I don't know why I bother. But here we go, pay close attention.
I said that SOME laws exist for the protection of the minorities. Political "no-no's" that try to prevent the majority from trampling over the minorities. This is simply true. I'm not saying that those laws always succeed, obviously it is not the case, but some laws are still in place.
The Athenian "democracy" that lasted 50 years like 2500 years ago is irrelevant to this conversation. For one, women couldn't vote, for two, it most people who lived in Athens were not citizen and thus were ineligible to vote ("outsiders" who lived in Athens, and a fuckload of slaves). Also, it was a direct democracy wherein representatives weren't elected - all citizen could go and vote for or against laws in big meetings. They didn't operate under a constitution that had a notion of human rights and equality for all. They had SLAVES.
You may be inclined to say that in a pure democracy, the majority could be able to do anything it wants to the minorities - but luckily we don't live in such societies. Our constitutions promote compromises.
So please, go back to the drawing board.
|
On October 21 2012 03:25 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 03:22 Enearde wrote:
"God", "oh my god", "Gosh"... are all so entrenched in the English language, in particular the American deviation of the language that it means nothing more than "the superior authority in which we trust" IMO. It can be the government or any God from any religion as far as i'm concern. Even tho i understand your point completely and tend to agree with it, i think it'll never make a big case because, correct me if i'm wrong, people just use the word "God" thousand times a day without even believing in any kind of religion. Yeah, and this contributes towards why I wouldn't even bother to mention it if it weren't for the child indoctrination component. Blue laws on the other hand...
I really hate blue laws. I'm not a big drinker, but when I actually do feel like drinking and I get everything I need to do out of the way, I want to go to the liquor store, but oh wait, it's closed on sunday. Stupid christian blue laws mandating what other people can and can't do on a sabbath day they don't acknowledge(for pretty much any religion besides christianity).
|
Well, perhaps "all" wasn't the right word. I was speaking conceptually about what I believe are the core values of democracy should be. My opinion on the "in god we trust" debate still stands but I won't argue with you here.
|
On October 21 2012 10:04 shizaep wrote:
Well, perhaps "all" wasn't the right word. I was speaking conceptually about what I believe are the core values of democracy should be. My opinion on the "in god we trust" debate still stands but I won't argue with you here.
Well we're talking about real life here, I don't know why you somehow merged your ideals into reality and pretended like there weren't any laws protecting minorities.
But more importantly I don't know why anyone would ever argue with a pure democracy, or an unrestricted democracy where the majority is always right. We know for a fact that the majority ISN'T always right. You're Canadian, you're on the front lines to see why it's a good thing to promote equality rather than giving a dictatorship to the majority.
|
That's mostly historical, our nation's forefathers were big on religion
|
On October 21 2012 07:03 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 06:41 DeepElemBlues wrote:
I disagree with your interpretation of the First Amendment (as have the courts). There is no justification under the Constitution to push religion and government so far apart as to make it impossible for them to interact at all in the public sphere. The First Amendment says that the government cannot create an official state religion or give one (or more) religions favor, directly or indirectly, over others. It doesn't say anything about the government not being able to acknowledge religion or even not being able to promote it indirectly (as can be seen from the close relationship religious institutions have with government on many issues where their functions overlap, charity, welfare, social work, etc.). Can you specify which federal court case illustrates this? The supreme court has justified the use of phrases like "In God We Trust" as a national motto under the concept of ceremonial deism. The idea is that these practices are not religious at all, but rather are mere ritual. As you will see from the wiki page, the concept has come up in several supreme court cases.
Personally, I think the concept of ceremonial deism is BS. And so is the concept that the US was founded on Christian principles. It makes much more sense to say that the US was founded on enlightenment principles. While it is true that the founders were working in a Christian context, they they represented a number of different sects, and personally held a wide variety of religious views. (Jefferson, for example, may have called himself a Christian, but he totally rejected the divinity of Jesus.) To create a political system that would work for all these religious groups, the founders did not look to biblical principles, but rather to the at-the-time modern political ideas stemming from society's new appreciation of Roman and Greek culture.
|
On October 21 2012 11:35 iaminvisibIe wrote:
That's mostly historical, our nation's forefathers were big on religion
That's nice and inspiring... They were also rich white slave owners who wrote the constitution originally including that slave owners should pay 3/5 of a free person's taxes for every slave owned.
So as they say, you take some and you leave some, unless of course you feel that those people who lived over 200 years ago are demi-gods of some kind and transcend everything modern men can come up with.
|
United States24600 Posts
On October 21 2012 11:58 munchmunch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 07:03 micronesia wrote:On October 21 2012 06:41 DeepElemBlues wrote:
I disagree with your interpretation of the First Amendment (as have the courts). There is no justification under the Constitution to push religion and government so far apart as to make it impossible for them to interact at all in the public sphere. The First Amendment says that the government cannot create an official state religion or give one (or more) religions favor, directly or indirectly, over others. It doesn't say anything about the government not being able to acknowledge religion or even not being able to promote it indirectly (as can be seen from the close relationship religious institutions have with government on many issues where their functions overlap, charity, welfare, social work, etc.). Can you specify which federal court case illustrates this? The supreme court has justified the use of phrases like "In God We Trust" as a national motto under the concept of ceremonial deism. The idea is that these practices are not religious at all, but rather are mere ritual. As you will see from the wiki page, the concept has come up in several supreme court cases.
Thank you for sharing this. The money part of this is much less significant than the other two things, to me.
|
We have been having a lot of religion vs. government discussion in my contemporary law and justice class in high school these past few weeks. I pretty much agree with what you said for the pledge. God should probably be written out as it is a purely religious idea that should be separate from the school learning environment. Schools have to be completely neutral to religion - they can't actively support it or act against it.
Granted, I don't recall anything about the feelings of atheists/non-religious people being taken into account with this religious neutrality. Idk, it's all a very touchy subject. Because the majority of people here are Christian, they would not want to have the pledge changed. One of the funny problems that I kind of just realized though was that the Christian god's name...is God. If he were to have any other name like Allah or Jeffrey, they probably wouldn't allow that in the pledge as it's too specific and caters to only a single religion. But because it's God, that term can be applied to multiple religions and just changed to suit whoever one believes is in charge up there.
Someone tried challenging the case in Newdow vs US (I think). Newdow basically said that the words "under God" in the pledge was "an unconstitutional endorsement of monotheism". Unfortunately the court didn't rule on this issue because he wasn't the custodial parent. Argh, we would have been so close.
Also, I think someone earlier was asking about the requirements for students during the pledge. From the case West Virginia vs. Barnette, you do not have to salute the flag or recite it. Most schools just require that you stand for the pledge as a minimum, just to prevent students from sleeping through it.
Currency would be more difficult to change. Idk if you could reword new currency to exclude God, and still have old currency in circulation. Heck, most people don't even look at what they are handling anyways. They really don't care what's written on it. Also, with the use of electronic funds transfer, hard currency is seeing less and less use. As an atheist, currency is one of the least concerning things to change in regards to religious neutrality for me.
|
On October 21 2012 12:38 Epishade wrote:
Currency would be more difficult to change. Idk if you could reword new currency to exclude God, and still have old currency in circulation. Heck, most people don't even look at what they are handling anyways. They really don't care what's written on it. Also, with the use of electronic funds transfer, hard currency is seeing less and less use. As an atheist, currency is one of the least concerning things to change in regards to religious neutrality for me.
Well it wouldn't be a new currency, it would only be new physical money. Paper bills are only in circulation for a few years before being burned and replaced with fresh ones, so they could easily be progressively replaced with bills that have a new design. Coins are tougher, but it could just be a cycle that would take place over many decades.
It's not a main concern though, like you said. There are easier things to change, but those things really should be changed.
|
Forcing, or at the very least devoting, 2 minutes every morning in schools to cite the pledge is wrong to begin with. To swear allegiance to you nation, for better or worse, is ridiculous. It even goes against the founding father's warning to only serve the new government until it becomes tyrannical (or does not serve its people).
So basically, I propose a superior patch: fuck the warhound pledge
|
I 5 star'd this blog because once upon a time, during a 4 am grocery run (24 groceries ftw! I don't have to deal with lines or children!) I happened upon a lone bottle of Tecate, the beer of choice among Mexican King of Fighters players. I'll finally try it! If it's any good, I'll bring a case to the next KoF tournament for kicks. Upon trying to check out I find out that it is illegal for them to sell me even a single beer from the hours of 2 am to 6 am. And before 11:30 am on Sundays.
To hell with the south.
|
On October 21 2012 13:50 Trumpet wrote:
I 5 star'd this blog because once upon a time, during a 4 am grocery run (24 groceries ftw! I don't have to deal with lines or children!) I happened upon a lone bottle of Tecate, the beer of choice among Mexican King of Fighters players. I'll finally try it! If it's any good, I'll bring a case to the next KoF tournament for kicks. Upon trying to check out I find out that it is illegal for them to sell me even a single beer from the hours of 2 am to 6 am. And before 11:30 am on Sundays.
To hell with the south.
This is going to be out of touch with the thread's topic but vaguely relevant to what you just said. And who knows, someone may get a kick out of it.
In Canada you have to be 18 to buy alcohol. At the time I was 20 or so, and my cousin, a minor. He wanted a present for his mother for the holidays and she's kind of a Port wine enthusiast. We went over the the SAQ, which is a government monopoly for alcohol sales in QC, and we selected a $45 bottle, knowing that when she wanted to get fancy, she'd get herself a $20 bottle. We got to the cashier with the bottle and the lady asks for OUR ID's. So I show mine, and when my cousin says he's not 18, she rudely yanks the bottle and puts it behind her, as if we were criminals or something. Luckily the SAQ outlets are not exactly rare, roughly a 3 minutes drive and he waited in the car while I went in and bought the same bottle by myself.
Rigid laws can be absurdly stupid. Why would there be laws that strictly prohibit the sale of alcohol to and adult with minors? In that case it serves no purpose because it's too easy to avoid. I mean, MAYBE if I was trying to buy that vodka that comes in plastic bottles (lol) and I was with some stupid looking kids. But we were 2 serious-looking guys - no "hoodies" or backward caps or anything, not that it should matter. People are ridiculous. I mean what's the logic? "These 2 intend to get drunk off of a $45 porto"? The saddest part is that people who work at the SAQ are government employees, their cashiers make $24* an hour. Generally speaking, $24 an hour jobs are ones where the person has to at least do SOME thinking. But they're cashiers with a strict protocol. The girl who yanked the bottle from me, she was rude and probably a moron, but she worked a linear job with strict rules that cannot be trespassed, even in clear cut cases like this.
So yeah the old way isn't always the good way... That was my "cool story bro" material.
*: $24 an hour cashier, way to burn our tax money.
|
The constitution is there but American government will do as they please.
If the constitution says A and the American government wants C, and C doesn't abide by A, then C will happen.
|
This kind of thing depresses me. Nobody remembers that the Pledge of Allegiance was only made official in 1942 (during WWII), and it didn't even have the words "Under God" originally. That was added in 1954.
This has nothing to do with the founders. And most of them weren't christian anyway! They went to church as a social function, as was the custom during that time.
- George Washington was a deist.
- Thomas Jefferson was a deist who published his own version of the bible with all the 'magic' (miracles) taken out.
- Benjamin Franklin was a deist who appreciated Jesus as a teacher of morals, but also belonged to several pagan secret societies (most famously the Hellfire Club in England).
- Thomas Paine was famous for his deist book The Age of Reason, in which he argued, among other things, that christianity was nothing more than traditional pagan sun worship made over with christian teachings.
- John Adams was a theistic rationalist, more of a humanist. In response to Thomas Paine's criticism of christianity, he asserted that christianity was, compared to other belief systems, the religion of "wisdom, virtue, and humanity", and thus holds validity in terms of social moralism. However he was not a 'christian' as most modern evangelicals would define it (stressing the whole personal relationship with jesus deal).
'God' as it is termed in political documents is nothing more than a representation of the collective recognition of a higher power. Unfortunately partially informed religious types want to co-opt that term in order to push a view of the US as a 'christian nation'. Religion shouldn't matter, that's why it's supposed to be separated from every consideration of the state. Each citizen is free to believe as they will, and the only religious consideration appropriated at the founding of our nation was protection from state-sponsored persecution. Many groups had fled here because of persecution due to the Reformation (Puritans, Hutterites, Minnonites, Calvinists, etc) but they all disagreed with each other about what christianity even was.
This idea of a 'christian nation' presents history that has been perverted from a time when church was a gathering place for the town, a place where you heard the news and talked with your neighbors about what was happening in your neck of the woods. We forget that, nowadays having the internet, cable news, daily newspapers, magazines, radio, etc. In 18th century colonial society, the practice of attending church had less to do with personal religious views and more to do with community coherence and social involvement.
That said, I don't see how anyone can support the notion that we are a "christian nation". We are a nation of people, a majority of whom comport to the tradition christian value/belief system. A majority went to a christian-style church occasionally or frequently during their childhood, which will always maintain some impact on their identity. When polled these people will respond that they are basically christian, and will check that box instead of the one marked 'muslim', 'buddhist', or 'other'.
|
On October 21 2012 14:19 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 13:50 Trumpet wrote:
I 5 star'd this blog because once upon a time, during a 4 am grocery run (24 groceries ftw! I don't have to deal with lines or children!) I happened upon a lone bottle of Tecate, the beer of choice among Mexican King of Fighters players. I'll finally try it! If it's any good, I'll bring a case to the next KoF tournament for kicks. Upon trying to check out I find out that it is illegal for them to sell me even a single beer from the hours of 2 am to 6 am. And before 11:30 am on Sundays.
To hell with the south. This is going to be out of touch with the thread's topic but vaguely relevant to what you just said. And who knows, someone may get a kick out of it. In Canada you have to be 18 to buy alcohol. At the time I was 20 or so, and my cousin, a minor. He wanted a present for his mother for the holidays and she's kind of a Port wine enthusiast. We went over the the SAQ, which is a government monopoly for alcohol sales in QC, and we selected a $45 bottle, knowing that when she wanted to get fancy, she'd get herself a $20 bottle. We got to the cashier with the bottle and the lady asks for OUR ID's. So I show mine, and when my cousin says he's not 18, she rudely yanks the bottle and puts it behind her, as if we were criminals or something. Luckily the SAQ outlets are not exactly rare, roughly a 3 minutes drive and he waited in the car while I went in and bought the same bottle by myself. Rigid laws can be absurdly stupid. Why would there be laws that strictly prohibit the sale of alcohol to and adult with minors? In that case it serves no purpose because it's too easy to avoid. I mean, MAYBE if I was trying to buy that vodka that comes in plastic bottles (lol) and I was with some stupid looking kids. But we were 2 serious-looking guys - no "hoodies" or backward caps or anything, not that it should matter. People are ridiculous. I mean what's the logic? "These 2 intend to get drunk off of a $45 porto"? The saddest part is that people who work at the SAQ are government employees, their cashiers make $24* an hour. Generally speaking, $24 an hour jobs are ones where the person has to at least do SOME thinking. But they're cashiers with a strict protocol. The girl who yanked the bottle from me, she was rude and probably a moron, but she worked a linear job with strict rules that cannot be trespassed, even in clear cut cases like this. So yeah the old way isn't always the good way... That was my "cool story bro" material. *: $24 an hour cashier, way to burn our tax money.
It can be very strange how that works in america actually. At the ABC liquor store, you can bring in minor that is 17 or under with you and it's completely fine. But if you bring in someone 18-20 there are consequences (probably just a fine though). So weird how that works.
|
On October 21 2012 13:31 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Forcing, or at the very least devoting, 2 minutes every morning in schools to cite the pledge is wrong to begin with. To swear allegiance to you nation, for better or worse, is ridiculous. It even goes against the founding father's warning to only serve the new government until it becomes tyrannical (or does not serve its people).
Swearing allegiance to the nation should not normally imply allegiance to the government. They're two different concepts entirely, and nations can't exactly become tyrannical in the first place.
|
On October 21 2012 14:19 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 13:50 Trumpet wrote:
I 5 star'd this blog because once upon a time, during a 4 am grocery run (24 groceries ftw! I don't have to deal with lines or children!) I happened upon a lone bottle of Tecate, the beer of choice among Mexican King of Fighters players. I'll finally try it! If it's any good, I'll bring a case to the next KoF tournament for kicks. Upon trying to check out I find out that it is illegal for them to sell me even a single beer from the hours of 2 am to 6 am. And before 11:30 am on Sundays.
To hell with the south. This is going to be out of touch with the thread's topic but vaguely relevant to what you just said. And who knows, someone may get a kick out of it. In Canada you have to be 18 to buy alcohol. At the time I was 20 or so, and my cousin, a minor. He wanted a present for his mother for the holidays and she's kind of a Port wine enthusiast. We went over the the SAQ, which is a government monopoly for alcohol sales in QC, and we selected a $45 bottle, knowing that when she wanted to get fancy, she'd get herself a $20 bottle. We got to the cashier with the bottle and the lady asks for OUR ID's. So I show mine, and when my cousin says he's not 18, she rudely yanks the bottle and puts it behind her, as if we were criminals or something. Luckily the SAQ outlets are not exactly rare, roughly a 3 minutes drive and he waited in the car while I went in and bought the same bottle by myself. Rigid laws can be absurdly stupid. Why would there be laws that strictly prohibit the sale of alcohol to and adult with minors? In that case it serves no purpose because it's too easy to avoid. I mean, MAYBE if I was trying to buy that vodka that comes in plastic bottles (lol) and I was with some stupid looking kids. But we were 2 serious-looking guys - no "hoodies" or backward caps or anything, not that it should matter. People are ridiculous. I mean what's the logic? "These 2 intend to get drunk off of a $45 porto"? The saddest part is that people who work at the SAQ are government employees, their cashiers make $24* an hour. Generally speaking, $24 an hour jobs are ones where the person has to at least do SOME thinking. But they're cashiers with a strict protocol. The girl who yanked the bottle from me, she was rude and probably a moron, but she worked a linear job with strict rules that cannot be trespassed, even in clear cut cases like this. So yeah the old way isn't always the good way... That was my "cool story bro" material. *: $24 an hour cashier, way to burn our tax money.
if cashier sells you the alcohol then she will lose her job and have to pay $5000 fine . thats the law and nothing to do with the cashier. they can get randomly tested throughout the year and cant make any fuckups.
fuck knows why she is paid 24/hr tho. i am paid £6/hr in the UK, every bloody job here pays 6/hr
also it is creepy that your children have to "pledge alliegence to the flag", god or no god
|
On October 21 2012 21:01 FFGenerations wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 14:19 Djzapz wrote:On October 21 2012 13:50 Trumpet wrote:
I 5 star'd this blog because once upon a time, during a 4 am grocery run (24 groceries ftw! I don't have to deal with lines or children!) I happened upon a lone bottle of Tecate, the beer of choice among Mexican King of Fighters players. I'll finally try it! If it's any good, I'll bring a case to the next KoF tournament for kicks. Upon trying to check out I find out that it is illegal for them to sell me even a single beer from the hours of 2 am to 6 am. And before 11:30 am on Sundays.
To hell with the south. This is going to be out of touch with the thread's topic but vaguely relevant to what you just said. And who knows, someone may get a kick out of it. In Canada you have to be 18 to buy alcohol. At the time I was 20 or so, and my cousin, a minor. He wanted a present for his mother for the holidays and she's kind of a Port wine enthusiast. We went over the the SAQ, which is a government monopoly for alcohol sales in QC, and we selected a $45 bottle, knowing that when she wanted to get fancy, she'd get herself a $20 bottle. We got to the cashier with the bottle and the lady asks for OUR ID's. So I show mine, and when my cousin says he's not 18, she rudely yanks the bottle and puts it behind her, as if we were criminals or something. Luckily the SAQ outlets are not exactly rare, roughly a 3 minutes drive and he waited in the car while I went in and bought the same bottle by myself. Rigid laws can be absurdly stupid. Why would there be laws that strictly prohibit the sale of alcohol to and adult with minors? In that case it serves no purpose because it's too easy to avoid. I mean, MAYBE if I was trying to buy that vodka that comes in plastic bottles (lol) and I was with some stupid looking kids. But we were 2 serious-looking guys - no "hoodies" or backward caps or anything, not that it should matter. People are ridiculous. I mean what's the logic? "These 2 intend to get drunk off of a $45 porto"? The saddest part is that people who work at the SAQ are government employees, their cashiers make $24* an hour. Generally speaking, $24 an hour jobs are ones where the person has to at least do SOME thinking. But they're cashiers with a strict protocol. The girl who yanked the bottle from me, she was rude and probably a moron, but she worked a linear job with strict rules that cannot be trespassed, even in clear cut cases like this. So yeah the old way isn't always the good way... That was my "cool story bro" material. *: $24 an hour cashier, way to burn our tax money. if cashier sells you the alcohol then she will lose her job and have to pay $5000 fine . thats the law and nothing to do with the cashier. they can get randomly tested throughout the year and cant make any fuckups. fuck knows why she is paid 24/hr tho. i am paid £6/hr in the UK, every bloody job here pays 6/hr also it is creepy that your children have to "pledge alliegence to the flag", god or no god
Well technically a parent can for instance buy alcohol even if they're with their small kids. There's no clear cutoff, it's some weird law. I don't blame her for abiding by it though, I only blame her for being rude about it. We were nothing but polite, and didn't know about this law at the time - we were surprised to hear about it even.
In this case I'm blaming the government (or maybe it's an internal SAQ rule) for this BS. Either way some public organism screwed up, probably because they're out of touch with reality. Like I said, if you're going to give a $24 job to someone, it should be one where they have to make use of their judgment. If they don't, then (like in this case), it's a $10-12 job.
|
One thing that's relevant thay I may point out is that, in Canada, you have to swear allegiance to the Queen as well. Just a purely historical thing, a way to preserve tradition.
I, [name], do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.
However, there is an alternate version for those people whose religion prohibits them from swearing an oath.
I, [name], do solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm and declare the taking of an oath is according to my religious belief unlawful, and I do also solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
|
United States24600 Posts
Having the Queen of another country be your head of state must be rough.
edit: Then again I had GWBush as the head of state in my country for 8 years.
|
I totally agree, while they're at it they should repeal the silly restrictions some states have about only selling beer OR liquor in the same store, but not both.
Literally makes no sense in today's world.
Also, I felt the pain of blue laws in while I was living in Germany this summer hard core. Only really happened once, but running out of food on Saturday night... no way to buy food on Sunday except for some restaurants.
|
On October 22 2012 00:27 micronesia wrote:
Having the Queen of another country be your head of state must be rough.
edit: Then again I had GWBush as the head of state in my country for 8 years.
It's rough. She drags her ass here and we spend millions of dollars on security and little events so she can walk around on red carpets while people flip out about the most expensive mascot the world has ever known.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
