#0 · Jun 26, 2002, 15:48 · PeacefulWarrior
June 26, 2002 Posted: 5:28 PM EDT (2128 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) -- A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. flag cannot be recited in public schools because the phrase "under God" endorses religion.
In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that reciting the phrase was a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state and amounted to government endorsing religion.
If it stands, the ruling means schoolchildren -- at least in the nine Western states covered by the court -- cannot recite the pledge, according to The Associated Press.
"The recitation that ours is a nation 'under God' is not a mere acknowledgement that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase 'one nation under God' in the context of the pledge is normative," the court said in its decision.
"To recite the pledge is not to describe the United States; instead it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice and -- since 1954 -- monotheism."
The phrase was added in 1954 through legislation signed by President Eisenhower. The appeals court noted that Eisenhower wrote then that "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."
Pledge of Allegiance
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.
EXTRA INFORMATION
History of the Pledge
LEGAL RESOURCES
Latest Legal News
Law Library
FindLaw Consumer Center Select a topicBankruptcyDiscriminationDivorceEstate PlanningLandlord-TenantPersonal InjuryTaxes
Although no child is forced to say the pledge, the judges said any child whose personal or religious beliefs prevented him from reciting the pledge was left with the "unacceptable choice between participating and protesting."
The case had been filed against the United States, the U.S. Congress, California, and two school districts and its officials by Andrew Newdow, an atheist whose daughter attends public school in California.
The government said that the phrase "under God" had minimal religious content.
But the appeals court said that teachers having classrooms reciting the pledge did not pass the coercion test. The court also said that an atheist or a holder of certain non-Judeo-Christian beliefs could see it as an attempt to "enforce a `religious orthodoxy' of monotheism."
The three-judge panel was not unanimous in the ruling.
Circuit Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, who agreed with some elements of the decision but disagreed with the overall opinion, said phrases such as "under God" or "In God We Trust" have "no tendency to establish religion in this country," except in the eyes of those who "most fervently would like to drive all tincture of religion out of the public life of our polity."
"My reading of the stelliscript suggests that upon Newdow's theory of our Constitution, accepted by my colleagues today, we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings. 'God Bless America' and 'America the Beautiful' will be gone for sure, and while use of the first and second stanzas of the Star Spangled Banner will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third. And currency beware!" wrote Fernandez.
The 9th Circuit is the most liberal and the most overturned appeals court in the country.
fides quaerens intellectum
#1 · Jun 26, 2002, 17:50 · Tom
#2 · Jun 26, 2002, 18:58 · Tisha
The people who are writing these newspaper articles are saying some very stupid things. California schoolchildren not being able to say the Pledge? For heavens sake, they can SAY it, they'll just have to say it the way that it was ORIGINALLY INTENDED.
Now, I believe in god/dess (with many subgods and goddesses, angels and spirits, but that's beside the point). But I'm not going to wail and gnash my teeth over this. I don't believe that just because I happen to believe in god/dess, that everyone else in the U.S. has to invoke Her too.
The motives for inserting the phrase "under God" . . . they seem kind of creepy to me anyway. Good riddance.
tisha
PS: Hard-line Christian right-wingers huff and puff about the U.S. being a Christian country. That is CRAP. . . many people came here for religious freedom, including the freedom to be left alone, and worship or NOT worship as they please. Anyway, don't they know that the Founding Fathers were Masons? HELLO! George Washington was an OCCULTIST, and so were most of his cronies.Look at all that masonic/occult imagery on the U.S. dollar bill!!!! Ever visit the Masonic Temple in D.C.? HELLOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
tisha
(Descendant of the mother of George Washington!)
#3 · Jun 26, 2002, 19:56 · cainam_nazier
Then this was strengthened even more when I started learning about this counrty's history. The why and who of those fleeing other countries to come here to be free, mostly to be free from religious prosocution. But as things go the same establishment that drove most people here is now in control.
I believe that there should be a very clear and uncrossable seperation between religion and politics. Religion should not be forced apon the masses but rather it should be some thing that can turn to if they choose.
Also I personally never liked the idea that it says, "In God We Trust" on ALL of our currency.
David Rogalski
cainam_nazier@hotmail.com
I am he who walks in the light but is masked by the shadows.
#4 · Jun 27, 2002, 07:18 · WalkerInTheWoods
As far as finding God on money and other places, I think this is different. It is not making you pledge an allinment with a deity. It is just there. How many times do you actually look at it. It is more out of tradition. I do not think we should bother taking it off. Anyway, it does not actually promote a religion but the idea of a higher being. In a way I think it humbles us a little by reminding us that there is always something bigger, no matter how powerful we may think our nation is. This can be a god or nature or another nation, whatever, but just remember there is always a bigger dog somewhere that can take you out.
Reguardless of any beliefs I have I do feel strongly that religion and state should be separate. I also hope this ruling stands up because it is actually correct according to the US Constitution.
#5 · Jun 27, 2002, 21:55 · PeacefulWarrior
fides quaerens intellectum
#6 · Jun 28, 2002, 04:57 · WalkerInTheWoods
PeacefulWarrior, are you saying that just because this man is an atheist he is not good or righteous? How can you be certain that the founding fathers of the US were good and righteous? Of coarse history will make them to be such because who wants a nation founded by evil selfish men (not saying they were). I am just saying that you cannot really judge historical figures because their true personalities are not shown but rather the "hereo" that the public has made of them. Granted it would seem that they did have a belief in God, but again they made it clear that they wanted church and state to be separate. The author of the pledge understood this and believed in this. This atheist may be the best man you could ever meet. Just because he does not believe in a god does not mean he does not believe in morals. Likewise just because one believes in a god does not make them moral.
I believe that his daughter has the right to believe what she wants and not feel pressured by the government to believe what is accepted. Would you still fee the same if it said "under the Gods and Goddesses"?
#7 · Jun 28, 2002, 05:29 · cainam_nazier
Asked the Native American, or American Indian which ever you prefer, if those the "created" this nation were good or evil. Were they good and righteous? Or did they drive an entire culture from thier homes because they were deemed "uncivilized"?
The belief in anything, God, no God, way of life, good, bad, or what ever really should not be forced apon any one in any way shape or form. Who decided that any one person or group of people should be allowed to force thier morals and beliefs on another person? What makes them so "good and righteous" that they should be allowed to do so?
Do not get me wrong. I am willing to defend my home and my country should the need arise, but I do not do so in the name of any god, for any god, or because I think any god would think it right. I would do so for my country, not for my god.
I do not believe a god would care for any city, state, country, or nation. I believe that a god would only care about its followers, or those that believe in it. Not any and all that live near one of its churches.
Let me ask you this as well. Do you believe that forcing a person to say that they believe in any god would be any different than what the Romans did to the first followers of Christ?
I personally do not like being forced to lie about my beliefs because it is what the majority says is right.
David Rogalski
cainam_nazier@hotmail.com
I am he who walks in the light but is masked by the shadows.
#8 · Jun 29, 2002, 01:01 · PeacefulWarrior
I feel that people like this man are imposing their will and forcing others to do as they say. Anyway, no matter how much flak I take for this I stand by my God and I do it proudly. No matter what you want to say, this country was founded my those who believed in God and trusted in Him. Not everything done in the name of God is supported by God, but I don't feel this is any reason to wipe out the word "God" from every aspect of society. And no, I don't think aethists are evil... in fact I don't believe there truly exists an "pure atheist" for everyone worships something, whether it be themselves, money, a principle, an idea, a hope, their career, etc. I, like many others, strive to worship and become more like God and I see Him wherever I turn, in the trees, in the sky, in the astral and in the eyes of every man and woman regardless of their race or belief system.
fides quaerens intellectum
#9 · Jun 29, 2002, 13:12 · koshka
I recall G. Gordon Liddy saying that before World War Twice school children recited the Pledge not with their hands over their hearts but stretched out in a Nazi or Roman salute. Some "old-timers" have told me that they held their hands palms up when giving this salute.
We all tend to react in knee-jerk fashions to stories such as these. It's like a speck landing in one's eye -- a little thing, but one often ends up with a blood-shot, tearing condition. I've heard that this New England Baptist minister was a leader of a "Socialist" Christian movement. As the British say, "There is much to know" about this minister, his ideology, the motivation and design of this (I believe) loaded "Pledge" phenomenon.
There is a film (which I have not yet seen) which was up for an Academy Award: "A Nation Adrift." It is a history of these church and state issues in the United States. The "fact" that all the Founding Fathers were deists...illuminati...liars, etc. is a recently introduced "truism," and one wonders whose agenda is served by such broadly brushed characterizations.
Fundamentalists do not believe in pledging or swearing to anything earthly. Interesting. All kinds of "trivia" was very important to our ancestors. We have " thoroughly modern" citizens who believe in " Politicall Correctness." "PC" is a creed in itself, however, which supports banning of certain books, speaking and writing of certain words...thinking certain thoughts.... We're all capable of seeing the speck floating in another's eye while ignoring the beam jutting out in our own.
Why should these judges be appointed bosses for life anyway? Lifetime power = power absolute = corruption absolute. Yet now the military is saying that even these slothful, corrupt judges cannot second-guess the martial authority when an individual is declared a hostile combatant. I'll trade in a questionable "pledge" ritual for a functioning Habeas Corpus any day.
#10 · Jun 29, 2002, 13:41 · Frank
quote:Well said, that man.
Originally posted by koshka:
Howdy --
I'll trade in a questionable "pledge" ritual for a functioning Habeas Corpus any day.
Yours,
Frank
#11 · Jun 29, 2002, 13:55 · distant bell
I think that patriotism is bad- it is the first stage on the way to nasty things like rasism. So you live in a country and you like it.. but hey, there are loads of nice places on earth. Of course I would defende my home and my beloved to if someone attact me- but that would be neither for god or for the government- it would be for me and the people I care about.
Anyway..I think it´s total madness to include "Under god"...
Obviously that is only a construction- should the rest of the world not be under god? That is scarry- almoust like old judaism with there one god one people thing... is there a speciall american god or whats going on?
-- Love is the Law - Love under Will --
#12 · Jun 29, 2002, 15:42 · RandomName
-Our country is great, the greatest,but nobodys perfect, but people should understand themselves before trying to understand others.
#13 · Jun 29, 2002, 16:31 · McArthur
)
#14 · Jun 30, 2002, 00:06 · PeacefulWarrior
June 29, 2002 Posted: 5:28 PM EDT (2128 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Nearly nine in 10 Americans believe the phrase "under God" should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance, and most believe it is acceptable for the government to promote religious expression, as long as no specific religion is mentioned, according to a Newsweek poll.
The poll, released Saturday, also found that while a majority of Americans think it is likely that terrorist attacks will be carried out during the upcoming Fourth of July holiday, most aren't planning to alter their plans.
The margin of error in the poll of 1,000 adults conducted Thursday and Friday was plus or minus 4 percentage points.
On Wednesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled the Pledge of Allegiance was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion because it contains the phrase "under God," which was added in 1954.
Asked if the Pledge should contain the phrase "under God," 87 percent of those polled by Newsweek said yes and only 9 percent said no. Asked if the government should avoid promoting religion in any way, 36 percent said yes, but 54 percent said no, and 60 percent of poll respondents said they think it is good for the country when government leaders publicly express their faith in God.
Only 12 percent of those polled thought the government should eliminate all references to God and religions belief in schools, government buildings and other public settings, while 84 percent said such references are acceptable, as long as they don't mention a specific religion.
The poll found that 45 percent of Americans hold the view that the United States is a secular nation in which religious belief, or lack of it, isn't a defining characteristic. Twenty-nine percent believe the United States is a Christian nation, and another 16 percent believe the United States is a Biblical nation, defined by the Judeo-Christian tradition.
In regard to possible Fourth of July terrorist attacks, 12 percent of those polled thought an attack was very likely and 45 percent said it was somewhat likely. Thirty-nine percent thought it was not too likely or not at all likely.
Despite that concern, only 37 percent indicated that their plans would be affected in any way, and less than a quarter of those polled said they would avoid traveling, flying, visiting large cities such as New York or Washington or attending events in crowded public places such as theme parks or sports arenas.
Pledge of Allegiance
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.
fides quaerens intellectum
#15 · Jun 30, 2002, 00:29 · astralc
Over here in Ozzie land we used to sing God Save the Queen at our school assembly in the mornings. We stopped doing that about 30 years ago. Don't remember why, but for me it was a waste of good breath.
I agree with the majority of posts, and especially distant bell, why all the fuss?
Australia was founded by criminals and so we mostly shun and distrust religion, probably because it never saved those poor buggers on their way to the penal colonies. We don't have 'bible belts' and those sorts of God-fearing things here. Our worst religious cases waste away, because so few attend church these days.
Wasn't America founded by the Puritans and other persecuted religious groups in Europe? 'Give me your poor, your dispossessed religious nuts, etc' is what the statue of liberty says (I think it says something like that anyway)?
It is interesting that the comments are mostly from the US, we on the outside like to sit back and enjoy the fun. Good post!
Astralc
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
www.shoal.net.au/~astralc
"The marriage of the ancient arts of astrology, taoism, tantra and the modern science of psychology."
#16 · Jun 30, 2002, 00:51 · distant bell
People hopfully will start to se the world as one place in america to one day I hope. Here in europe most young people would like to move to a new country and try out a different culture. We take a pride in beeing multi cultural over here. To me it seems wery strane that school kids should have to say a pledge to a governmental system. After al what have they to comapar with?
I whant to stress this point- CULTURE is not the same as a governmental system- and it seems to me that the amercian pledeg is to a governmental system. And when it comes to cultures- only a fool could go around beliving that his culture is the best on earth..
The world is full of nice cultures- there´s more than the
US out there you know!
Felix
-- Love is the Law - Love under Will --
#17 · Jun 30, 2002, 05:05 · Tom
#18 · Jul 01, 2002, 00:44 · Cylentpanthur
Second, the first amendment states that we have freedom of religion. This means that we are allowed to worship what we like. Be it a God, an element, money, time, or even ourselves. Believe it or not, but the definition of "religion" is simply a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. (Source: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religion ) By that definition, even athiests practice religion. Established or not, God or not, it's a religion. And yes I know, everything I've said so far has annoyed some, angered others, and convinced several of you that I have no idea what I'm talking about, but do your reaserch, check out the links I've listed, I may be out of it, but I'm not wrong.
Third, the 9th circut ruling ONLY affects those states under it's jurisdiction, and ONLY when the pledge is said in SCHOOL. Nothing else. So far anyway.
Fourth, removing references to God is a two sided coin. This whole thing was started by an atheist father who was standing up for his beliefs in not wanting his daughter to recite the pledge of allegiance and thus acknowledge a God. I have no problem with this. But he proceeded to turn around and decide that since he did not believe in a God, everyone else should have to cease references to their own beliefs to suit him. This doesn't sound like freedom of religion to me. This sounds like freedom of his religion, and sh** for everyone else. If he doesn't want his daughter exposed to religion, that's fine. Have her step out of the room before the pledge is said. I think that is much less problematic than forcing the rest of the population not to say it.
#19 · Jul 01, 2002, 10:29 · cainam_nazier
But how can there be a freedom of religion if the government acknowladges the existance of any god.
I feel that the US Gov. should stay completely nuetral on the sublect. Neither confirm or deny the exstance. Also I feel they should make no reference to or lack of a god. There should be no comment on the subject.
By forcing any one to say that there is a god or there isn't is an infringment on this right.
And yes I have seen this happen. The force can be either through punishment, simply singling a person out, or pressuring them to do so. By simply not conforming to the "considered norm" a person can be singled out, and riticuled. This kind of pressure can be unbearable at time, more so for a child. What is a kid to do when thier parents teach them one thing and sociaty tries to force another?
Religion, god, morals, manners, and so on are the responsability of the parents to teach, or for a child to learn on its own, or seek guidance when dealing with. These are not things that should be forced apon some one by sociaty or gov.
David Rogalski
cainam_nazier@hotmail.com
I am he who walks in the light but is masked by the shadows.
#20 · Jul 01, 2002, 11:05 · Tom
#21 · Jul 02, 2002, 00:21 · alchimiste
Why debate this when there are more important things to be getting on with ie. Your own personal spiritual education and evolution!
It's one thing being patriotic it's another being blind, wake up and smell the coffee as the americans love to say.
Life is short to save yourself from your imminent second death (your more than likely spiritual one that is) as the physical one can't be avoided so get to work guys 'n gals and leave govt. bickkering and religious ranting to the mortals.
The devils advocate
Alchimiste
#22 · Jul 02, 2002, 00:55 · Cylentpanthur
That may be what government is now, but that's not what it was created to be. The American public has forgotten who holds the power in our nation. Not the government, not the officials, US! Sadly it is a truth not soon remembered.
MEOW
#23 · Jul 03, 2002, 12:52 · koshka
I appreciate your quote by (American) R. W. Emerson. Has not OZ-land passed a draconian gun confiscation system? How has that helped with the hundreds of gang rapes by new Muslim immigrants -- a phenomenon so egregious that you've had to pass legislation against liberal immigration policies?
In this country (USA) quite a number of us are aware that president F. D. Roosevelt (did I spell that correctly?) KNEW that the attack on Pearl Harbor was to occur AT LEAST 12 days before the event. At this time there is mounting evidence of AT LEAST prior knowledge of 911 by the "leaders" of our country. Back in the 60's, the "Northwood" plan was cooked up by the Joint Chiefs. This PUBLISHED artifact (visit www.infowars.com , e.g.) called for deaths of Americans in airliners, etc. to foment war feeling for attacking Cuba. JFK was appalled. He said "No." He died.
Presently the "USA Patriot Act" was passed by a Congress that was not allowed to READ the thing on penalty of being denounced as soft on terrorism.
Have you perchance read THE BIGGEST SECRET?
#24 · Jul 11, 2002, 21:34 · astralc
great post. As for draconian guns laws - when Martin Bryant took his arsenal of guns along to a tourist centre in Tasmania Australia, in 1996, and slaughtered more people than any other lone gunman in the western world, it was the people, not the government, who said "that is enough!"
He killed 34 people, women and children, it took a lot of action by the people to persuade the government to stop the average man on the street from getting a gun for no apparent reason than to shoot it off somewhere.
I don't think that anyone has the right to own a gun, hand gun or rifle. They exist for one reson only, and that is to kill. Our laws allow gun club owners and farmers to register and own a gun, and they must be kept in a locked cupboard away from kids.
We outside the USA watch with horror at how your elected governement allows people to carry and use firearms with impunity. It is almost a monthly act to watch an American citizen murder his school friends, this is just plain crazy.
Gun laws exist to protect us. You guys really need to do something to stop the blatant murder of your youths by guns.
Astralc
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
www.shoal.net.au/~astralc
"The marriage of the ancient arts of astrology, taoism, tantra and the modern science of psychology."
#25 · Jul 12, 2002, 02:17 · cainam_nazier
A quote that rumored to have been said during the debat over the ammendments.
Yes I believe gun ownership should be a more controlled thing. However if a person who is truely bent on getting one will. Most gun law and bans however keep guns away from the normal citizen. Granted there is no way to know when a person is just going to flip out and go crazy. But criminals will get guns no matter what laws are passed. That is the simple truth of it.
Children naturally should not be able to get a hold of any firarm. But that is the resposability of the parent. They need to teach thier children proper gun safety and usage. They are also responsable for the proper storage of said firarm. It is often the irresposible actions of the parent that allows a child to get thier hands on a gun.
Again I say, it is not sociaties job to teach me or my children right and wrong, give them morals, and teach them the consiquences(sp?) of thier actions. That is my job. And that is the job of every parent. If you are unable or unwilling to take on such a responsability then you should not have kids.
David Rogalski
cainam_nazier@hotmail.com
I am he who walks in the light but is masked by the shadows.
#26 · Jul 12, 2002, 05:01 · WalkerInTheWoods
#27 · Jul 12, 2002, 12:09 · Cylentpanthur
MEOW
#28 · Jul 12, 2002, 18:03 · koshka
First, speaking to the subject of this (the more we look at it -- bizarre) pledge phenomenon. My research shows that it began back in 1892 as an agenda backed by the most popular American magazine of the time. The push for the pledge was supposedly organized to celebrate the fourth centennial of Columbus' discovery of the New World. (Take note of the name "Columbus" and the term "New World" for later discussion.) The public focus was schools. Most American schools did not fly a national flag, which really is more of a fixture and requirement for military and national government reservations. Lots of hoopla about this at the time.
The original words of the pledge said: "I pledge allegiance to MY flag...." The long-range plan was for ALL school kids in EVERY nation to repeat the same pledge, essentially, simply changing the quaint local name of the nation state. Hey, it just struck me that the International Boy Scouts includes a flag pledge of allegiance as part of their ceremonial tradition (in the US at least). Hmm. Do these elements remind anyone else of the Nazi movement? Probably just a coincidence. The Swastika is a hypnotic mandala which was affixed to everything. Red, white, and blue bunting became more ubiquitous in the Commonwealth and America and France. The modern Olympic movement began back about that time, true? The "Flag-Bearing Ceremony" is perhaps the most well known spectacle of "The Games" except for...the lighting of the "Eternal Flame" which symbolically supercedes the flags. Most nations in fact dip their national flags as a gesture of respect (submission) to the illuminating flame of the Olympian games (gods).
And this is the same "eternal flame" as appears on the grave of JFK and Princess Diana. The same (sacrificial -- "illumined" -- Luciferic) flame carved above the entrance to the tunnel where Diana met her death by collision with the thirteenth pillar therein. That location in Paris being built on the site of the ancient Diana (sacrifice) cult. Dast those coincidences.
The shooting incident in Australia has become well known as a classic example of a very possible mind control operation. Remember Mel Gibson's character in "Conspiracy Theory?" The shooter had been under the "care" of a Tavistock affiliated doctor.
One Tavistock mind control doctrine has been referred to as the Hegelian Process, or "Problem -- Reaction -- Solution" (Thesis -- Antithesis -- Synthesis). Say you wish to bring about a preposterous-sounding notion such as disarming the rugged, independent-minded Australian. Head on, this would seem ludicrous on the face. Create a Manchurian Candidate (who is actually anything but a random madman). Engineer an atrocity (which is not actually random either, and often augmented by other team perpetrators). The public is shocked and outraged -- scared witless. "What can be done?"
"SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!" The government stammers at first (as we're accustomed to governments behaving). A bold, fantastic initiative emerges: ban all guns. "YES YES YES!" cry the people with EXASPERATION at the accustomed denseness and sloth of "democratic" government. Done. Good work that, mate. Problem -- Reaction -- Solution.
Columbine High School in Colorado is another one of these engineered atrocities. Even the name "Columbine," related to "Columbus" (derived from "columba" meaning "dove") is an occult symbol of death. Interesting that schools were targeted back in 1892 during the Columbian Centennial.
#29 · Jul 12, 2002, 18:56 · Patty
this seems naive to me. Many parents haven't the slightest idea of what parenthood is (myself included) until they go through it. Each age presents new challenges. Many parents have children they didn't plan. They didn't want to be parents in the first place. And there certainly isn't any sort of effort in place to motivate parents to police their kids actions re: guns. For example, the columbine shooters parents are not in jail (and I am not saying they should be.)
Where does one draw the line? Should be people be allowed to keep submachine guns in the house? After all, it is the people that kill people, not the weapons.
Re: A criminal will get his hand on a weapon......
Well, in the case of school shootings, if the only easily accesible weapon was a knife, most likely no one would have died (at the most perhaps one or two people) and the boys would have gotten some help before they actually ended the lives of many fellow students. The difference is that a gun can take out people, many people, at a distance. Any weapon that can do that is qualitatively 'different' and more dangerous. One needs only to look at the percapita gunshot deaths in Canada (or presumably Australia) compared to the US to see that gun laws save lives.
quote:For more info, go to:
Canada-US Comparaison
Canada has always had stronger firearms regulation than the United States, particularly with respect to handguns. In Canada, handguns have been licensed and registered since the 1930's, ownership of guns has never been regarded as a right and several court rulings have reaffirmed the right of the government to protect citizens from guns. Handgun ownership has been restricted to police, members of gun clubs or collectors. Very few (about 50 in the country) have been given permits to carry handguns for "self-protection." This is only possible if an applicant can prove that their life is in danger and the police cannot protect them.
As a result, Canada has roughly 1 million handguns while the United States has more than 76 million. While there are other factors affecting murder, suicide and unintentional injury rates, a comparison of data in Canada and the United States suggests that access to handguns may play a role. While the murder rate without guns in the US is roughly equivalent (1.8 times) to that of Canada, the murder rate with handguns is 14.5 times the Canadian rate. The costs of firearms death and injury in the two countries have been compared and estimated to be $495 (US) per resident in the United States compared to $195 per resident in Canada
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm
Patty
#30 · Jul 14, 2002, 01:40 · astralc
I appreciate your points, but I still stand by my convictions, no guns = no school shootings. Come on girls, we need more Patty's, this male phalic thing is getting out of conrol.
Sure we should all teach our kids how to handle things safely, but how many parents even know what their teenage sons get up to?? Not many.
How many yong males commit suicide by shooting, I think it is next highest to hanging, & that is in Australia. With guns so available, shooting suicides might be higher than the rope in the US.
I spent the past 12 months trying to help our teenagers at school deal with a shooting suicide we had - inside the school itself. It was not a nice experience believe me. So anyone who advocates free availability of guns on the open market, must be crazy.
Do you want an idiot like Martin Bryant living next door to you? A nutter who is allowed, by the laws of his country, to have an arsenal by his bedside waiting for him to flip out and shoot you, or your son or daughter? I don't.
Astralc
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
www.shoal.net.au/~astralc
"The marriage of the ancient arts of astrology, taoism, tantra and the modern science of psychology."
#31 · Jul 14, 2002, 07:42 · cainam_nazier
David Rogalski
cainam_nazier@hotmail.com
I am he who walks in the light but is masked by the shadows.
#32 · Jul 14, 2002, 13:11 · koshka
I had just hit the submit button on a very eloquent reply...
and my computer immediately went black -- at that exact moment.
#33 · Jul 14, 2002, 16:24 · koshka
#34 · Jul 14, 2002, 19:10 · astralc
If I had a gun in my pocket I would have shot Martin Bryant too, but my argument is that no body should have access to guns without first proving that they have a darn good reason for it.
The Martin Bryants of this world, and the two kids at Columbine HS, should never have free access to weapons, ever. And our society should have laws to protect us from those who wish it to be otherwise. To think that 'Moses' Charlton Heston, head of the Gun Lobby in the US, has such a sway over the US people that he can make everyone in the USA fear for their and their childrens lives because all you have to do to get a gun is pay the money at the counter.
As for Sharon Stone's The Quick & The Dead, the movie was a flop as it should have been!
Astralc
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
www.shoal.net.au/~astralc
"The marriage of the ancient arts of astrology, taoism, tantra and the modern science of psychology."
#35 · Jul 14, 2002, 22:38 · koshka
Kennesaw, Georgia passed a city ordinance back in the eighties requiring each household to have a firearm. Their crime rate now is nearly zilch. No one who wishes not to comply is questioned. Their economy is booming from the people and businesses fleeing Atlanta and other urban gardens of restricted gun peace. Virgin, Utah recently passed a similar ordinance (see www.virginutah.com ).
#36 · Jul 14, 2002, 23:06 · koshka
I had to study films and reports of the New Mexico Prison riots. It was unbelievable savagery -- and without guns -- just screwdrivers, blowtorches, broomhandles and such. Our pleasant valley home is just 12 miles north of Carson City, location of the large state prison complex. If those prisoners ever erupt from there, they're likely to follow the interstate north to Reno. Well, maybe they'll just succumb early to "soldiers' starvation" after victimizing my neighbors. "Darn good reasons" are many times only clear AFTER the rape.
#37 · Jul 14, 2002, 23:25 · koshka
The sheriff at the Columbine event refused to let anyone leave the high school building for 3 HOURS. Kids witnessed masked military types prowling the halls and rooms, shooting people. The hours of video tapes recording the events inside are not allowed to be released. Neither are the 18 independent video surveillance tapes present around the Murrah Building in Oklahoma city.
#38 · Jul 15, 2002, 14:11 · PeacefulWarrior
fides quaerens intellectum
#39 · Jul 15, 2002, 15:58 · koshka
That's interesting that your friend was at the high school that day. What happened? Hopefully your friend is allright.
#40 · Jul 17, 2002, 01:20 · astralc
nice info re:Kennesaw, Georgia, I wonder how long things will stay sane? Where there is a firearm, there is always someone to pull the trigger I say! But if it works, and I do doubt it, then we should all do it. I will await longterm findings first, keep us informed, koshka.
'Soldier illness', poor bastards, I am sure not all of the Japanese soldiers helped in the terrible attrocities at Nanking, to the sensitive soul it must have been bad, but for the poor citizens, much much worse.
PeacefulWarrior - good post, yeah, keep it simple and straight down the line, mate!
Anyway, back to my line, no one should have guns without strict control. I wouldn't want one of those mexican prisoners climbing down my street either, so why build prisons near townships? We do screw things up well us humans.
Astralc
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
www.shoal.net.au/~astralc
"The marriage of the ancient arts of astrology, taoism, tantra and the modern science of psychology."
#41 · Jul 17, 2002, 08:39 · koshka
It's official: England/Wales has the highest per cap crime rate of the western countries. Switzerland (where every man is furnished a military firearm by the government) is sitting about 16 or 17, with the wicked, gun-totin' USA next in line at 15 or 16. Yes, thank you: there IS another side to these issues.
FEMA is on-line to complete "temporary cities" (concentration camps) to hold many thousands or millions of people by the first of 2003. The prisons WILL be the townships. The Second Ammendment was recognised (not established -- it's always inallienable) to deal with an intolerable government of oppression. "The roots of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots" (Thomas Jefferson -- who would have been VERY concerned if slaves could possess guns).