"If a lack of prayer or religion inserted into [public] events, speeches, items, etc. is your problem, do everyone a favor and STFU."

 

Are you talking about a prohibition on prayer or religion inserted into events, items, speeches, etc.?

Or just some event, item or speech that does not have any prayer or religion inserted into it?

 

I have a big problem with the former and no problem whatsoever with the latter.

I wasn't implying either, really. I was merely flipping around your sentence saying that people who don't like "one nation under God" should get over it. I think it could just as easily, and probably more reasonably, be said that the default rule should (in a "perfect" world, not legally) be no religion invoked typically, and religious people should have to deal with it -- or, as you said, STFU

back to the original topic for a moment - if Romney doesn't win Michigan despite outspending Santorum like 20-1... it's gonna get nuts.

"If a lack of prayer or religion inserted into [public] events, speeches, items, etc. is your problem, do everyone a favor and STFU."

 

Are you talking about a prohibition on prayer or religion inserted into events, items, speeches, etc.?

Or just some event, item or speech that does not have any prayer or religion inserted into it?

 

I have a big problem with the former and no problem whatsoever with the latter.

I wasn't implying either, really. I was merely flipping around your sentence saying that people who don't like "one nation under God" should get over it. I think it could just as easily, and probably more reasonably, be said that the default rule should (in a "perfect" world, not legally) be no religion invoked typically, and religious people should have to deal with it -- or, as you said, STFU

 

Except that the removal is not the status quo, and the status quo is not violating anyone's rights.

back to the original topic for a moment - if Romney doesn't win Michigan despite outspending Santorum like 20-1... it's gonna get nuts.

 

 

Romney is going to rip Rick like he ripped Newt - the assault is just going to hit full-force in the last 5-6 days or so

This whole thing is a mess. The Republican Party is destroying itself.

"If a lack of prayer or religion inserted into [public] events, speeches, items, etc. is your problem, do everyone a favor and STFU."

 

Are you talking about a prohibition on prayer or religion inserted into events, items, speeches, etc.?

Or just some event, item or speech that does not have any prayer or religion inserted into it?

 

I have a big problem with the former and no problem whatsoever with the latter.

I wasn't implying either, really. I was merely flipping around your sentence saying that people who don't like "one nation under God" should get over it. I think it could just as easily, and probably more reasonably, be said that the default rule should (in a "perfect" world, not legally) be no religion invoked typically, and religious people should have to deal with it -- or, as you said, STFU

 

Except that the removal is not the status quo, and the status quo is not violating anyone's rights.

It wasn't the status quo until 1954: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_of_.22under_God.22

It wasn't the status quo until 1954: http://en.wikipedia.....22under_God.22

 

 

And yet, it is now.

It wasn't the status quo until 1954: http://en.wikipedia.....22under_God.22

 

 

And yet, it is now.

I really don't think a 57-year tenure merits any special treatment just on that basis.

I really don't think a 57-year tenure merits any special treatment just on that basis.

 

 

Fine. But changes to the status quo - valid or otherwise - make waves. When there is absolutely nothing about the status quo that infringes on anyone's rights or privileges, why make the waves?

 

Better question, what kind of person raises a disruption for the sake of the disruption?

I really don't think a 57-year tenure merits any special treatment just on that basis.

 

 

Fine. But changes to the status quo - valid or otherwise - make waves. When there is absolutely nothing about the status quo that infringes on anyone's rights or privileges, why make the waves?

 

Better question, what kind of person raises a disruption for the sake of the disruption?

 

I'm not saying that we should necessarily change a status quo, let alone all of them, to reflect a non-religious/secular viewpoint. I think you're getting a little bit away from what I was originally arguing, so I'll re-quote it here:

 

 

All that said, regardless of your own faith (or lack their of), you should pretty much leave other people alone. The only time somebody else's beliefs should enter into it is if those beliefs fundamentally impact your rights. (such as Creationism education). "In God We Trust" or "Under God" or "Merry Christmas" - if that is your problem, do everyone a favor and STFU.

 

Why is there a presumption in favor of religious people, though? I mean, it happens because they're the majority, but it's stupid. It should be: "If a lack of prayer or religion inserted into [public] events, speeches, items, etc. is your problem, do everyone a favor and STFU.

 

I wasn't attacking a particular thing. I'm noting that many things do include allusions to God/religion, and that happens because they're the majority. So, the status quo favors that stance, and it primarily exists because religious persons are a strong majority.

 

Starting from a neutral standpoint, the status quo should not involve those allusions, and religious people should have to "do everyone a favor and STFU." (Admittedly, this point is arguable since a vast majority of Americans are religious, and maybe that should therefore, in a normative sense, be the starting point; however, on the other hand, there is a wide variance of beliefs and religions, although the concept of "God" does exist in almost all those religions.)

 

I suppose it's more a lament about the current state of affairs. These things can change as demographics shift, certainly. I don't see a real reason necessitating upheaval in many of those areas right now. However, I would equally want religious people to not be upset at a lack of religious allusions or if someone should say "Happy Holidays" in lieu of "Merry Christmas" -- that also doesn't "infringe[] on anyone's rights or privileges.

I really don't think a 57-year tenure merits any special treatment just on that basis.

 

 

Fine. But changes to the status quo - valid or otherwise - make waves. When there is absolutely nothing about the status quo that infringes on anyone's rights or privileges, why make the waves?

 

Better question, what kind of person raises a disruption for the sake of the disruption?

On your second question, I don't think that's a fair characterization. Your first question may have some merit; but, people, for example, who propose to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance are looking to make it more inclusive by not making the National pledge reflect views that a significant percentage, albeit not close to a majority, of Americans do not share. That's not simply a disruption for the sake of disruption, but is arguably a very important change for many people.

I really don't think a 57-year tenure merits any special treatment just on that basis.

 

 

Fine. But changes to the status quo - valid or otherwise - make waves. When there is absolutely nothing about the status quo that infringes on anyone's rights or privileges, why make the waves?

 

Better question, what kind of person raises a disruption for the sake of the disruption?

On your second question, I don't think that's a fair characterization. Your first question may have some merit; but, people, for example, who propose to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance are looking to make it more inclusive by not making the National pledge reflect views that a significant percentage, albeit not close to a majority, of Americans do not share. That's not simply a disruption for the sake of disruption, but is arguably a very important change for many people.

 

"Under God" does not make the pledge exclusive, and thus removing it would not make it more inclusive. If you do not believe in God, then the phrase should be meaningless to you.

I really don't think a 57-year tenure merits any special treatment just on that basis.

 

 

Fine. But changes to the status quo - valid or otherwise - make waves. When there is absolutely nothing about the status quo that infringes on anyone's rights or privileges, why make the waves?

 

Better question, what kind of person raises a disruption for the sake of the disruption?

On your second question, I don't think that's a fair characterization. Your first question may have some merit; but, people, for example, who propose to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance are looking to make it more inclusive by not making the National pledge reflect views that a significant percentage, albeit not close to a majority, of Americans do not share. That's not simply a disruption for the sake of disruption, but is arguably a very important change for many people.

 

"Under God" does not make the pledge exclusive, and thus removing it would not make it more inclusive. If you do not believe in God, then the phrase should be meaningless to you.

So, it shouldn't bother religious people if we included, "under the flying spaghetti monster," either?

 

That doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The more you add, the more exclusive it will be; that seems pretty straightforward.

Paul: He's a fake!

Santorum: I'm real.

Paul: Congratulations.

 

:lol

It must be so infuriating for Ron Paul to be up on the stage with Rick Santorum.

And surely that has nothing to do with Ron Paul being Ron Paul but rather Rick Santorum being Rick Santorum.

I'm not sure what that's actually trying to say, but I'm referring to the fact that Paul is a legitimate small-government conservative, whereas Rick Santorum could not be any less that.

Oh I was calling Rick Santorum an idiot.

Back to square one.

Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul were totally ass kissing each other the entire time.

 

Both know that they need each other, I'd say.

Anderson Cooper: "Oh. Yeah. We'll be waiting for that."

 

Lol Anderson Cooper is too funny.

Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul were totally ass kissing each other the entire time.

 

this is not a pleasing image.

Mitt wins Arizona and Michigan. Good news

Well I'd hardly call it good news.

 

The real good news is that Rick Santorum did not win either state.

So what exactly are the chances of a brokered convention?

 

And I'm assuming for that to happen we're going to have to see less polarity in voting where Newt and Paul start doing a bit better? Perhaps a momentum swing in Newt's favor with Georgia and the South could do the trick?