Uh, we already did that. At least the post office is not supported by tax dollars anymore.
As the price goes up, the service gets worse and worse.
What exactly is your complaint about the Postal Service? I send a letter and it gets just about anywhere in the country in 2-3 days. Can deposit mail in my own mailbox for pickup or in any of thousands of convenient locations around the country. For 37 cents? What's your complaint??
My only complaint is when they do price increases, they should increase to an even 5-cent amount (i.e., 30 cents to 35 cents to 40... None of this 37 cent BS that's just annoying).
I'm sure there is a bridge, but there is no way to drive from Panama to Colombia. That's some of the roughest, deepest jungle that exists. And the environmnetalists have protested all efforts to extend the Pan American highway through that area.
So, even with a bridge, you can't drive to Brazil unless you ship your car from Panama to Colombia.
That said, "Overseas" refers to any foreign country, as idiotic as that may sound. I live in Mexico but, for IRS tax purposes, I live "overseas."
When slashdot readers go outside more and speak with people in the real world, you will realize that the ability to talk to an artist (rich or famous notwithstanding).
Perhaps if you are interested in the art that they practice.
But if the artist is not a Jazz musician and you happen to swap thoughts with that artist about Jazz, is there any particular reason why that artist's opinion is any more relevant or interesting than that of any other "wanker", as you put it?
The guys posted that cities suck, I am giving counter arguments as to why cities can be good as well.
Hmm, and they may be good counter arguments for those that need to rub elbows with the rich and famous (or "artsy") to feel good about life.
It just shows that you are in fact 14 and typing out of your Mom and Dad's basement while wanking to pics of Sarah Michelle Gellar.
I'm grown, married, world-traveled, multilingual. But I guess I'm a cross-section of society that you aren't interested in because I'm not rich and famous. I guess that makes me a wanker. Whatever.
Are there any noticeable performance implications? Seems like it could tie things down if it had to continually compare every bit of every e-mail with a lot of strings...
I run a relatively small mail server. We probably have about 20-30 email accounts.
I was worried about a performance hit; my code is very inefficient. I search for strings after EVERY single byte that is received by sendmail in the DATA command. This can and will be optimized. Checking every 5 or 10 characters would be adequate, heck maybe even every 20 or 30. I buffer the last 200.
But even with my current very messy and inefficient implementation I haven't noticed any performance hit whatsoever...
I can forward you what I've done if you'd like. It's messy, but virtually everything is in a single.c file. Other than that all that is required is adding about 4 function calls (that call the single.c file) to sendmail/srvrsmtp.c. That's it. No major hackups on Sendmail, just add a source file and insert the 4 function calls. And you're done!
I also hang up on spam flooding. I was getting so many instances of spammers guessing thousands of email accounts on my system to see if they were valid. So now if I get more than 3 bad email addresses on a single SMTP connection, hasta la vista baby...
ahh and in addition to that it should maybe put in an iptables command to block all traffic from their IP (subnet?) for 24 hours or so.
Yep, that's what I was thinking. Temporarily blacklist them. I was thinking incrementally. First for 15 minutes, a repeat offense in a day gets them an hour, and build up to 24 hour blacklisting. At which point have the system email me automatically and notify me of a high-volume offender.
wow, that's exactly what I've been wanting to do! Is it possible with postfix? Any howto URLs?
I've done it by modifying Sendmail in 'C' directly. I want to make it more modular later but I haven't gotten that far. I've got two contracts going and only did the above as an emergency fix; when I have more time I plan to do it better...
Could anarchy work? If I were given free reign to do whatever I wanted with my life, without restraint, could society still function?
Try Mexico.
I'm 100% American but have lived here in Mexico for 6+ years. In my opinion, Mexico is pretty much an anarchy with a "government" as a front.
The government does NOTHING to help the citizens, in fact it screws them over, it does nothing to improve the infrastructure. There are police but, for the most part, people fear them as much or more than the criminals--in fact, the police often ARE the criminals! (organized kidnapping organizations have been found that are made of active duty police). The citizens pay their taxes just to keep the government off their back, not because they have any expectation any good will become of the taxes paid. People are used to having roads falling apart, a single rainstorm destroys roads by creating dangerous potholes. That is the norm, no-one excepts anything else.
I think Mexico is a pretty good example of a modern-day anarchy. It works, I guess, but it is damn frustrating!
I'd much prefer the United States' with all of its political and corporate corruption. It's better than a virtual anarchy with even more corrupt politicians and corporations. Everything is relative.
What I hate the worst is that most of the spam I get has some lines that say it's not spam
I used to hate that. Now I love it.
I modified my SMTP server to look for certain text that is a dead give away for spam.
My SMTP server now hangs up on the INCOMING CONNECTIOIN as soon as:
Any mention is made of that bogus "spam law" never passed by Congress.
Mention is made to "this mail not being spam," or any of a dozen permutations of that disclaimer.
A list of 100+ (and growing) websites or companies are mentioned in the incoming message.
A list of a number of contact phone numbers or addresses are detected.
Any word sequences that would only be used by spam are detected.
The cool thing is that I have my SMTP server HANG UP the connection before the mail is even completely delivered. My opinion is if they succeed at dumping their load and disconnecting, they've already won even if I filter it out later. I want to detect it when it's coming in and hang up the phone right away.
It's fun looking at the sendmail log and seeing dumb spammers trying again and again to deliver their BS, only to get hung up on again and again.
My spam has gone from about 30-50 per day down to around 5. And every time a new one makes it through, I analyze it and it gets added to the sendmail spam filters, never to get through again.
It seems to me that the xian moral code flies out the window everytime someone offers them money for something slightly immoral.
I don't know anyone, Christian or not, that would accept a million dollars to kill some random person without reason. At least I don't think I do... How many people have actually been offered a million to kill someone? Perhaps that would be the actual test, but I personally don't think anyone I know would accept it.
I wouldn't accept ANY amount of money to do it, period.
The only situation where I can see killing someone would be in 1) Self-defense. 2) Defense of my family. 3) Defense of my country, i.e. in war.
credit card companies charge the same amount for a $0.05 charge as they do for a $5,000 one
Wow, who is YOUR credit card company?
Mine charges me like 2% of the value of the transaction. I'd love it if a $3000 charge cost me the same as a $0.05 charge. Unfortunately, a $3000 charge will cost me about $60... And, yes, I do submit $3000 charges...
however, my purpose was not to compare slaverly and 'Under God', my purpose was to show how your argument is weak. I'll reiterate: doing something today because it is what you did yesterday is void of thought, logic, or progress
I understand that point of view. My point was simply to mention that the Supreme Court has already been asked to review prayers in legislatures, etc. It was deemed acceptable because it had become an accepted part of society. The Pledge, based on reaction in the last 24 hours, is also an accepted part of our society although that doesn't necessarily mean that 100% of the population likes it.
I am EXTREMELY patriotic. I have served my country in the military. While I am not currently in the military, if I was ever needed again, I would be there in a heart beat. They won't need to draft me.
Let me say that I honestly salute you for having served our country. I respect that. I have not served, but not for a lack of trying--they wouldn't take me during the Gulf War because I occasionally need medicine to control minor asthma. I guess I can understand that...
Removing 'under god' is another step towards freedom. Why should you care if 'god' has been removed from the pledge?
For exactly the reason that the decision will be overturned: Because it has become a part of our culture.
In 1954 I would have thought it inappropriate to have it added. I'm surprised it wasn't challenged. But since I grew up with the Pledge as it is I don't want to see it reduced. I would be equally upset if they removed "indivisible" from the Pledge.
So, if the time has come, if the culture has changed, and "Under GOD" has to go, you know what I say to you? Same thing you said to me: Tough.
IF times have changed.
They haven't. And that's reflected in the reaction of this country. The senate passed a 99-0 resolution oppposing the decision and senators have promised that if the decision is not corrected by a higher court they will fix it in Congress. The CNN poll (non-scientific, I know) shows at least 75% opposing the decision.
And the judge that issued the ruling has already issued a stay of that ruling.
So, I'm afraid, the times haven't changed. And that's why the decision is receiving so much flack.
But there is a major difference between pleasing/not pleasing and actively pissing people off.
Yep. Leaving things the way the majority of this country has grown up learning the Pledge is about pleasing/not pleasing people. Actively modifying the Pledge we learned in our childhood is actively pissing people off.
Ironically, I think this whole issue is only going to solidify "Under God" in our Pledge.
The most important thing is to reject messages while in the SMTP conversation! Do not accept them and then forward to/dev/null.
I did that just last month. I modified my Sendmail server to analyze the content of incoming messages. It actually looks at the content of messages. It's amazing how predictable most spam is and how easily it can be tossed based on simple filtering.
The main difference is that when Sendmail is in the "DATA" phase and detects filterable content it hangs up right then and there.
My spam on my 8-year-old email account has dropped from like 40-50 per day down to about 5. Works great and looking at the Sendmail log to see how many times I hung up on spammers gives me a nice warm fuzzy feeling.
Last time I checked, invoking the divine during a verbal recitation was a defining element of prayer. Without a divine reference, you're just talking.
Check the definition again. I cited it elsewhere in this thread, but feel free to check dictionary.com yourself.
That notwithstanding, the simple mention of God in the Pledge is not sufficient to be considered an "invocation." If the Pledge started with, "Dear God, I pledge allegiance..." I'd agree with you... THAT would be an invocation and a prayer. But to simply mention God is insufficient to make it either.
So many Christians in America think that non-Christians are also non-patriots that it's almost taken for granted as fact.
I'm sure there must be some that believe that, but everyone I know knows the difference between a Christian and a patriot. YMMV.
My choice to do the American thing by tolerating and respecting your beliefs prevents me from reciting a patriotic oath. Your god has denied me part of my American legacy.
With all due respect, that conclusion is silly. You may recite the entire oath and just OMIT the words "Under God." That way everyone else may participate in the Pledge as written and you, by leaving the offending words out, can participate in the Pledge and not say something in which you do not believe. It's as simple as that.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I am Protestant but my wife is Catholic and we live in Mexico (90%+ Catholic). We go to Catholic mass. Most of it is compatible with my beliefs; but there are some sections--especially referring to praising the Virgin Mary--which I do not believe in. I participate in the prayers with everyone else and just don't recite the lines that refer to praising the Virgin Mary. It works great!
Lately, people seem to think that as an American they have the right to live without being offended or without hearing viewpoints that they don't agree with. That's not a right that has been established by the Constitution.
Kinda like how slaverly was part of the fabric of society in the South way back when? The argument that we should continue to do something today becuase it is what we did yesterday is totally lacking in thought, logic, or progress.
I knew someone would bring this up, and that's fine.
First, if you can't see the distinction between slavery and a minor mention to "Under God" in the Pledge inasmuch as its negative affect on society and individuals, you need to really take a good look at what you are saying.
Second, as the descenting judge commented in the court ruling, the extremely miniscule possibility that "under God" could be construed as an establishment of religion is so minimal so as to not be a violation. His words were: "Lest I be misunderstood, I must emphasize that to decide this case it is not necessary to say, and I do not say, that there is such a thing as a de minimis constitutional violation. What I do say is that the de minimis tendency of the Pledge to establish a religion or to interfere with its free exercise
is no constitutional violation at all."
Third, as the judge also commented, such references are only viewed as an establishment of religion by those extremists that would insist that all mention of religion be deleted from all public discourse. "Normal," rational people, even if they don't believe in God, will not be significantly affected by the words "Under God." Only extremists, such as Newdow, are. As the judge wrote, "such phrases as "In God We Trust," or "under God" have no tendency to establish a religion in this country or to suppress anyone's exercise, or non-exercise, of religion, except in the fevered eye of persons who most fervently would like to drive all tincture of religion out of the public life of our polity."
Fourth, we are not talking about slavery. We are talking about reference to God in a government-supported or tolerated setting. The Supreme Court has already permitted prayers in Legislatures, etc. based on them having become accepted and traditional parts of the fabric of our society. This decision will be overturned for the same reason. I.e., precedent exists, whether you like it or not, to overturn the current ruling.
I don't accept it as part of my culture and it is obvious, through the fact that this is in the courts at all, that someone else doesn't accept it as part of their culture. You are not everyone.
In a word, "tough." There are 270 million people in this country. It's impossible to please all of them all of the time. But to say that the current Pledge isn't part of American culture and tradition because a few percentage points of the population doesn't like it is to distort the definition of "culture" which, by definition, is a collective entity. The Pledge IS part of your culture even though you might not like that part of the culture.
And to counter the previous posts, silently omitting the 'Under God' is simpily conforming to the majority (not that it is bad), but it is silent conformity where no protest or defense of one's own rights is made. Conformity of this nature is the worst since a person essentially waives his/her rights without defending them.
This is where I don't understand you.
You have the right to not say "Under God" if that runs counter to your beliefs. By simply omitting those words you are not conforming--you are modifying the Pledge to suit your belief system, and doing it in a way that respects others beliefs as well. No-one will even notice and everyone gets along just fine.
Now, if you make a point of letting everyone know that you are not saying "Under God" then that's your decision--but no decision is without consequence. I'm not in favor of descrimination, but unpopular views are, well, unpopular. Courts can't change that.
It seems that the conclusion here is that if school children don't say the Pledge of Allegiance, their unpopular beliefs will not be discoverable by others. That's unrealistic, sooner or later that belief will be discovered unless that child makes an effort to conceal that belief--in which case the child might as well just omit the words "Under God" for the same reason.
As one Senator has put it, this is "Political correctness run amok."
What exactly is your problem? There either is some reason for the bit about "God" or there isn't. If there isn't then why are you so upset about getting rid of it?
Nearly 50 years of tradition, that's why. Which is exactly the reason the decision will be overturned. Prayers were permitted in Legislatures, etc. because they have become an accepted part of the fabric of our society (see the ruling for reference to that). Likewise, the Pledge of Allegiance, as it is currently worded, over 50 years has become part of the fabric of our culture. The courts are going to permit it on that basis.
The complaint should have been made in 1955 or so. It wasn't and the wording was allowed to become part of our culture. Too late.
Someone else: The phrase 'under God' is no more unconstitutional than the prayers that start off the SC, Senate, and House of Representative daily sessions.
You: You never know -- this could one day be found unconstitutional as well.
No, as the current case cites (see PDF link in story header), the case of prayers starting the Supreme Court, House, Senate, etc. has already been reviewed and approved by the S.C. based on it having such a long tradition and having become a fabric of society.
I'm quite sure that this current case will be overturned for the same reason: It has become a part of our culture and our society. I learned it as a child, as have many others, and taking something away from it would be like removing a stripe from the flag.
This would have been a completely valid case in 1954 or so when the change was made. I would have supported it at that time. But there apparently was no challenge made and the new wording has become a part of our culture.
This decision will be overturned for the same reason that prayers are allowed at the opening of hte Supreme Court, House, etc.: It has become an accepted part of our culture.
As CNN mentioned, the 9th Circuit is the most liberal circuit in the country and is also the circuit whose decisions are most commonly overturned. With decisions like this, I wonder why.
Given the current status of Worldcom - their may be no one left at MCI to laugh!
Good point.
Seriously though - VOIP may well have a future, but I really only foresee it in some time of great network overcapacity.
I agree. That's why we don't have it now. But with all the "dark fiber" out there I doubt it would require much more than lighting it up and laying a little more on the "last mile." Certainly do-able.
As for the time scale, 10 years is on the conservative side, given the current Holocaust in Telcom.
I think the failure of Telcom companies will only accelerate the acceptance of VoIP-style solutions. As huge companies with strangleholds on the communications market go belly-up there will be huge opportunities for others to do something innovative such as this.
Fact is, LD rates are dropping lower every day. Cell phones are including more and more minutes which include free nationwide LD. Any way you look at it, prices are heading towards zero. When prices get to some point they will have to switch gears (to VoIP) to be able to compete.
When that happens, prices will be, say, a penny per minute. And then it's just a matter of time before some competitor says, "Why pay per minute? Pay us $30/month for all you can speak worldwide." It's just bandwidth which really doesn't cost anything once it's installed.
Anyway, that's my prediction. I've been wrong before... but only once.:grin:
If you don't say the Pledge with the rest of your class, you were likely labeled a commie traitor in the 50's, or a raghead terrorist today.
If you stand up and recite the Pledge and just omit "Under God" no-one will even notice, let alone care. Is that too hard of a solution?
That child has the right to omit "Under God" and everyone else has the right to say it. Problem solved, no lawyers necessary.
In any case, your peers would likely say you hate your country and ridicule you. A student should not be forced to pay lip service to a prayer that violates their religion.
See solution above. Just don't say "under God." If the rest of the Pledge works for you and the "under God" doesn't, I can't fathom that anyone would notice or care if a given child didn't say those two words.
This is only a problem if someone purposely draws attention to him or herself. If you stand up, out of respect for your classmates, and simply don't say anything you will not draw excessive attention to yourself and no-one will make a big deal out of it. If you sit down or announce, "I will not say the Pledge," then, yes, probably many other children will ridicule you. But the first student is to blame because he drew unnecessary attention to himself.
Everyone is entitled to unpopular beliefs. However, no-one is guaranteed that their beliefs will not be ridiculed.
Have we come so far as to finally institute the "thought police" and try to eliminate any event that could cause anyone to some kind of opinion about somebody else?
The two words "under God" turn the Pledge into a prayer.
Buzz, wrong. The primary definition of prayer is "A reverent petition made to God, a god, or another object of worship." Nowhere in the Pledge are you making a petition to God, nor is the Pledge even directed AT God.
So it definitely isn't a prayer. You'd have a point if we prefaced the Pledge with, "Dear God, I pledge allegiance..."
We're not talking about freedom from religion, we're talking about not being forced to pray to something you don't believe in.
As mentioned many times, no-one is forcing the student to say the Pledge. Or at least no-one SHOULD be forcing students to say the Pledge since 1942. If someone is being forced to receite the Pledge, that should stop.
But the fact is if you are worried about students being ridiculed by other students for not saying the Pledge, well, 1) Children will be children. 2) You can't legislate thought. Especially of children.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, we already did that. At least the post office is not supported by tax dollars anymore.
As the price goes up, the service gets worse and worse.
What exactly is your complaint about the Postal Service? I send a letter and it gets just about anywhere in the country in 2-3 days. Can deposit mail in my own mailbox for pickup or in any of thousands of convenient locations around the country. For 37 cents? What's your complaint??
My only complaint is when they do price increases, they should increase to an even 5-cent amount (i.e., 30 cents to 35 cents to 40... None of this 37 cent BS that's just annoying).
So, even with a bridge, you can't drive to Brazil unless you ship your car from Panama to Colombia.
That said, "Overseas" refers to any foreign country, as idiotic as that may sound. I live in Mexico but, for IRS tax purposes, I live "overseas."
Perhaps if you are interested in the art that they practice.
But if the artist is not a Jazz musician and you happen to swap thoughts with that artist about Jazz, is there any particular reason why that artist's opinion is any more relevant or interesting than that of any other "wanker", as you put it?
The guys posted that cities suck, I am giving counter arguments as to why cities can be good as well.
Hmm, and they may be good counter arguments for those that need to rub elbows with the rich and famous (or "artsy") to feel good about life.
It just shows that you are in fact 14 and typing out of your Mom and Dad's basement while wanking to pics of Sarah Michelle Gellar.
I'm grown, married, world-traveled, multilingual. But I guess I'm a cross-section of society that you aren't interested in because I'm not rich and famous. I guess that makes me a wanker. Whatever.
I run a relatively small mail server. We probably have about 20-30 email accounts.
I was worried about a performance hit; my code is very inefficient. I search for strings after EVERY single byte that is received by sendmail in the DATA command. This can and will be optimized. Checking every 5 or 10 characters would be adequate, heck maybe even every 20 or 30. I buffer the last 200.
But even with my current very messy and inefficient implementation I haven't noticed any performance hit whatsoever...
I can forward you what I've done if you'd like. It's messy, but virtually everything is in a single .c file. Other than that all that is required is adding about 4 function calls (that call the single .c file) to sendmail/srvrsmtp.c. That's it. No major hackups on Sendmail, just add a source file and insert the 4 function calls. And you're done!
I also hang up on spam flooding. I was getting so many instances of spammers guessing thousands of email accounts on my system to see if they were valid. So now if I get more than 3 bad email addresses on a single SMTP connection, hasta la vista baby...
Yep, that's what I was thinking. Temporarily blacklist them. I was thinking incrementally. First for 15 minutes, a repeat offense in a day gets them an hour, and build up to 24 hour blacklisting. At which point have the system email me automatically and notify me of a high-volume offender.
I've done it by modifying Sendmail in 'C' directly. I want to make it more modular later but I haven't gotten that far. I've got two contracts going and only did the above as an emergency fix; when I have more time I plan to do it better...
Try Mexico.
I'm 100% American but have lived here in Mexico for 6+ years. In my opinion, Mexico is pretty much an anarchy with a "government" as a front.
The government does NOTHING to help the citizens, in fact it screws them over, it does nothing to improve the infrastructure. There are police but, for the most part, people fear them as much or more than the criminals--in fact, the police often ARE the criminals! (organized kidnapping organizations have been found that are made of active duty police). The citizens pay their taxes just to keep the government off their back, not because they have any expectation any good will become of the taxes paid. People are used to having roads falling apart, a single rainstorm destroys roads by creating dangerous potholes. That is the norm, no-one excepts anything else.
I think Mexico is a pretty good example of a modern-day anarchy. It works, I guess, but it is damn frustrating!
I'd much prefer the United States' with all of its political and corporate corruption. It's better than a virtual anarchy with even more corrupt politicians and corporations. Everything is relative.
No, "Americas" is a pair of continents.
"America" normally refers to the "United States of America" just as "Mexico" normally refers to "United States of Mexico."
Get over it.
I used to hate that. Now I love it.
I modified my SMTP server to look for certain text that is a dead give away for spam.
My SMTP server now hangs up on the INCOMING CONNECTIOIN as soon as:
The cool thing is that I have my SMTP server HANG UP the connection before the mail is even completely delivered. My opinion is if they succeed at dumping their load and disconnecting, they've already won even if I filter it out later. I want to detect it when it's coming in and hang up the phone right away.
It's fun looking at the sendmail log and seeing dumb spammers trying again and again to deliver their BS, only to get hung up on again and again.
My spam has gone from about 30-50 per day down to around 5. And every time a new one makes it through, I analyze it and it gets added to the sendmail spam filters, never to get through again.
Life is good.
I don't know anyone, Christian or not, that would accept a million dollars to kill some random person without reason. At least I don't think I do... How many people have actually been offered a million to kill someone? Perhaps that would be the actual test, but I personally don't think anyone I know would accept it.
I wouldn't accept ANY amount of money to do it, period.
The only situation where I can see killing someone would be in 1) Self-defense. 2) Defense of my family. 3) Defense of my country, i.e. in war.
Wow, who is YOUR credit card company?
Mine charges me like 2% of the value of the transaction. I'd love it if a $3000 charge cost me the same as a $0.05 charge. Unfortunately, a $3000 charge will cost me about $60... And, yes, I do submit $3000 charges...
How old are you? I stopped being fascinated about the idea of rubbing elbows with the rich and famous when I was about 14, I think.
I agree, it's very much leftist which I get enough of anyway.
Plus every article I opened up offered me a couple of paragraphs and then told me I had to subscribe to get the rest. Thanks, goodbye.
I understand that point of view. My point was simply to mention that the Supreme Court has already been asked to review prayers in legislatures, etc. It was deemed acceptable because it had become an accepted part of society. The Pledge, based on reaction in the last 24 hours, is also an accepted part of our society although that doesn't necessarily mean that 100% of the population likes it.
I am EXTREMELY patriotic. I have served my country in the military. While I am not currently in the military, if I was ever needed again, I would be there in a heart beat. They won't need to draft me.
Let me say that I honestly salute you for having served our country. I respect that. I have not served, but not for a lack of trying--they wouldn't take me during the Gulf War because I occasionally need medicine to control minor asthma. I guess I can understand that...
Removing 'under god' is another step towards freedom. Why should you care if 'god' has been removed from the pledge?
For exactly the reason that the decision will be overturned: Because it has become a part of our culture.
In 1954 I would have thought it inappropriate to have it added. I'm surprised it wasn't challenged. But since I grew up with the Pledge as it is I don't want to see it reduced. I would be equally upset if they removed "indivisible" from the Pledge.
So, if the time has come, if the culture has changed, and "Under GOD" has to go, you know what I say to you? Same thing you said to me: Tough.
IF times have changed.
They haven't. And that's reflected in the reaction of this country. The senate passed a 99-0 resolution oppposing the decision and senators have promised that if the decision is not corrected by a higher court they will fix it in Congress. The CNN poll (non-scientific, I know) shows at least 75% opposing the decision.
And the judge that issued the ruling has already issued a stay of that ruling.
So, I'm afraid, the times haven't changed. And that's why the decision is receiving so much flack.
But there is a major difference between pleasing/not pleasing and actively pissing people off.
Yep. Leaving things the way the majority of this country has grown up learning the Pledge is about pleasing/not pleasing people. Actively modifying the Pledge we learned in our childhood is actively pissing people off.
Ironically, I think this whole issue is only going to solidify "Under God" in our Pledge.
"Dancing with tears in my eyes..."
I did that just last month. I modified my Sendmail server to analyze the content of incoming messages. It actually looks at the content of messages. It's amazing how predictable most spam is and how easily it can be tossed based on simple filtering.
The main difference is that when Sendmail is in the "DATA" phase and detects filterable content it hangs up right then and there.
My spam on my 8-year-old email account has dropped from like 40-50 per day down to about 5. Works great and looking at the Sendmail log to see how many times I hung up on spammers gives me a nice warm fuzzy feeling.
Check the definition again. I cited it elsewhere in this thread, but feel free to check dictionary.com yourself.
That notwithstanding, the simple mention of God in the Pledge is not sufficient to be considered an "invocation." If the Pledge started with, "Dear God, I pledge allegiance..." I'd agree with you... THAT would be an invocation and a prayer. But to simply mention God is insufficient to make it either.
So many Christians in America think that non-Christians are also non-patriots that it's almost taken for granted as fact.
I'm sure there must be some that believe that, but everyone I know knows the difference between a Christian and a patriot. YMMV.
My choice to do the American thing by tolerating and respecting your beliefs prevents me from reciting a patriotic oath. Your god has denied me part of my American legacy.
With all due respect, that conclusion is silly. You may recite the entire oath and just OMIT the words "Under God." That way everyone else may participate in the Pledge as written and you, by leaving the offending words out, can participate in the Pledge and not say something in which you do not believe. It's as simple as that.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I am Protestant but my wife is Catholic and we live in Mexico (90%+ Catholic). We go to Catholic mass. Most of it is compatible with my beliefs; but there are some sections--especially referring to praising the Virgin Mary--which I do not believe in. I participate in the prayers with everyone else and just don't recite the lines that refer to praising the Virgin Mary. It works great!
Lately, people seem to think that as an American they have the right to live without being offended or without hearing viewpoints that they don't agree with. That's not a right that has been established by the Constitution.
I knew someone would bring this up, and that's fine.
First, if you can't see the distinction between slavery and a minor mention to "Under God" in the Pledge inasmuch as its negative affect on society and individuals, you need to really take a good look at what you are saying.
Second, as the descenting judge commented in the court ruling, the extremely miniscule possibility that "under God" could be construed as an establishment of religion is so minimal so as to not be a violation. His words were: "Lest I be misunderstood, I must emphasize that to decide this case it is not necessary to say, and I do not say, that there is such a thing as a de minimis constitutional violation. What I do say is that the de minimis tendency of the Pledge to establish a religion or to interfere with its free exercise is no constitutional violation at all."
Third, as the judge also commented, such references are only viewed as an establishment of religion by those extremists that would insist that all mention of religion be deleted from all public discourse. "Normal," rational people, even if they don't believe in God, will not be significantly affected by the words "Under God." Only extremists, such as Newdow, are. As the judge wrote, "such phrases as "In God We Trust," or "under God" have no tendency to establish a religion in this country or to suppress anyone's exercise, or non-exercise, of religion, except in the fevered eye of persons who most fervently would like to drive all tincture of religion out of the public life of our polity."
Fourth, we are not talking about slavery. We are talking about reference to God in a government-supported or tolerated setting. The Supreme Court has already permitted prayers in Legislatures, etc. based on them having become accepted and traditional parts of the fabric of our society. This decision will be overturned for the same reason. I.e., precedent exists, whether you like it or not, to overturn the current ruling.
I don't accept it as part of my culture and it is obvious, through the fact that this is in the courts at all, that someone else doesn't accept it as part of their culture. You are not everyone.
In a word, "tough." There are 270 million people in this country. It's impossible to please all of them all of the time. But to say that the current Pledge isn't part of American culture and tradition because a few percentage points of the population doesn't like it is to distort the definition of "culture" which, by definition, is a collective entity. The Pledge IS part of your culture even though you might not like that part of the culture.
This is where I don't understand you.
You have the right to not say "Under God" if that runs counter to your beliefs. By simply omitting those words you are not conforming--you are modifying the Pledge to suit your belief system, and doing it in a way that respects others beliefs as well. No-one will even notice and everyone gets along just fine.
Now, if you make a point of letting everyone know that you are not saying "Under God" then that's your decision--but no decision is without consequence. I'm not in favor of descrimination, but unpopular views are, well, unpopular. Courts can't change that.
It seems that the conclusion here is that if school children don't say the Pledge of Allegiance, their unpopular beliefs will not be discoverable by others. That's unrealistic, sooner or later that belief will be discovered unless that child makes an effort to conceal that belief--in which case the child might as well just omit the words "Under God" for the same reason.
As one Senator has put it, this is "Political correctness run amok."
Nearly 50 years of tradition, that's why. Which is exactly the reason the decision will be overturned. Prayers were permitted in Legislatures, etc. because they have become an accepted part of the fabric of our society (see the ruling for reference to that). Likewise, the Pledge of Allegiance, as it is currently worded, over 50 years has become part of the fabric of our culture. The courts are going to permit it on that basis.
The complaint should have been made in 1955 or so. It wasn't and the wording was allowed to become part of our culture. Too late.
You: You never know -- this could one day be found unconstitutional as well.
No, as the current case cites (see PDF link in story header), the case of prayers starting the Supreme Court, House, Senate, etc. has already been reviewed and approved by the S.C. based on it having such a long tradition and having become a fabric of society.
I'm quite sure that this current case will be overturned for the same reason: It has become a part of our culture and our society. I learned it as a child, as have many others, and taking something away from it would be like removing a stripe from the flag.
This would have been a completely valid case in 1954 or so when the change was made. I would have supported it at that time. But there apparently was no challenge made and the new wording has become a part of our culture.
This decision will be overturned for the same reason that prayers are allowed at the opening of hte Supreme Court, House, etc.: It has become an accepted part of our culture.
As CNN mentioned, the 9th Circuit is the most liberal circuit in the country and is also the circuit whose decisions are most commonly overturned. With decisions like this, I wonder why.
Good point.
Seriously though - VOIP may well have a future, but I really only foresee it in some time of great network overcapacity.
I agree. That's why we don't have it now. But with all the "dark fiber" out there I doubt it would require much more than lighting it up and laying a little more on the "last mile." Certainly do-able.
As for the time scale, 10 years is on the conservative side, given the current Holocaust in Telcom.
I think the failure of Telcom companies will only accelerate the acceptance of VoIP-style solutions. As huge companies with strangleholds on the communications market go belly-up there will be huge opportunities for others to do something innovative such as this.
Fact is, LD rates are dropping lower every day. Cell phones are including more and more minutes which include free nationwide LD. Any way you look at it, prices are heading towards zero. When prices get to some point they will have to switch gears (to VoIP) to be able to compete.
When that happens, prices will be, say, a penny per minute. And then it's just a matter of time before some competitor says, "Why pay per minute? Pay us $30/month for all you can speak worldwide." It's just bandwidth which really doesn't cost anything once it's installed.
Anyway, that's my prediction. I've been wrong before... but only once. :grin:
If you stand up and recite the Pledge and just omit "Under God" no-one will even notice, let alone care. Is that too hard of a solution?
That child has the right to omit "Under God" and everyone else has the right to say it. Problem solved, no lawyers necessary.
In any case, your peers would likely say you hate your country and ridicule you. A student should not be forced to pay lip service to a prayer that violates their religion.
See solution above. Just don't say "under God." If the rest of the Pledge works for you and the "under God" doesn't, I can't fathom that anyone would notice or care if a given child didn't say those two words.
This is only a problem if someone purposely draws attention to him or herself. If you stand up, out of respect for your classmates, and simply don't say anything you will not draw excessive attention to yourself and no-one will make a big deal out of it. If you sit down or announce, "I will not say the Pledge," then, yes, probably many other children will ridicule you. But the first student is to blame because he drew unnecessary attention to himself.
Everyone is entitled to unpopular beliefs. However, no-one is guaranteed that their beliefs will not be ridiculed.
Have we come so far as to finally institute the "thought police" and try to eliminate any event that could cause anyone to some kind of opinion about somebody else?
The two words "under God" turn the Pledge into a prayer.
Buzz, wrong. The primary definition of prayer is "A reverent petition made to God, a god, or another object of worship." Nowhere in the Pledge are you making a petition to God, nor is the Pledge even directed AT God.
So it definitely isn't a prayer. You'd have a point if we prefaced the Pledge with, "Dear God, I pledge allegiance..."
We're not talking about freedom from religion, we're talking about not being forced to pray to something you don't believe in.
As mentioned many times, no-one is forcing the student to say the Pledge. Or at least no-one SHOULD be forcing students to say the Pledge since 1942. If someone is being forced to receite the Pledge, that should stop.
But the fact is if you are worried about students being ridiculed by other students for not saying the Pledge, well, 1) Children will be children. 2) You can't legislate thought. Especially of children.