Freethought & Rationalism Archive

3DChizl · 08-11-2002, 06:48 PM

You may have noticed in my previous post, that I talked to Ms. Capito. What I did was call her office and leave a message that I disagreed with her on this. I was surprised she called me back (the same day) but that goes to show you that they take this as a very serious issue. I wanted to leave her with some easy way to remember the conversation - thus the 'defend don't amend'.

If you have never done it, make some notes on seperation issues, founding fathers' quotes and history of the pledge and motto, rhen call them. Request a call back. Tell them that as a constituant, you consider this a urgent issue. Don't talk like you are a freakin' nut, but that you want to discuss the issue.

If this thing goes through - we are screwed. I'd rather let them keep their little mottos than have this happen.

[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: 3DChizl ]</p>

szcax · 08-11-2002, 06:49 PM

wow... if you go to that <a href="http://www.wepledge.com" target="_blank">www.wepledge.com</a> site, you can literally see the numbers growing just by refreshing your browser continuously... it's scary. I just wish they had a forum or guestbook of some kind so I could lurk and see exactly whats motivating all these ppl. I hate to say this, but I think we're fighting a battle we can't win.

Buffman · 08-11-2002, 07:12 PM

Just start telling people that might support this Amendment that to do so is the surest way for them to lose their religious freedom and their unalienable right to express their individual conscience without fear of government intrusion or penalty...and know why you are right to make that claim.

3DChizl · 08-11-2002, 07:18 PM

Who is behind the <a href="http://www.wepledge.com" target="_blank">http://www.wepledge.com</a> site?
The American Family Association <a href="http://www.afa.net" target="_blank">http://www.afa.net</a>
Learn more about them at AFAExposed <a href="http://www.afaexposed.com" target="_blank">http://www.afaexposed.com</a>

Homophobia anyone?

[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: 3DChizl ]</p>

Kevin Dorner · 08-11-2002, 07:19 PM

While you check out the "WePledge" site, check out their <a href="http://www.wepledge.com/purpose.asp" target="_blank">Purpose Of Campaign</a> link.

If it doesn't make a cold, sinking feeling dwell in the pit of your stomach, nothing could. The level and tone of bullshyte on that one page is astounding.

Quote:

Because of one atheist and two radical, liberal judges, in the future our children may not be able to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school!

. . .all it will take is FIVE JUDGES of the Supreme Court voting to make it illegal for school children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance! PERMANENTLY!! FOREVER!!

Uhh... they're only going to remove two words that shouldn't have been there, and only when led in recitation by a government employee. Switch to decaf before your head explodes... talk about hype.

Alonzo Fyfe · 08-11-2002, 07:44 PM

CaptainDave

You are correct, I spoke a bit too quickly. The marginal utility of writing to a federal representative or senator is low, but not zero. There are several tools available to make this easy.

Yet, the focus should be local. I would recommend by starting with letters to state legislators. Once the letter is written, the marginal cost of a quick edit and sending it to a federal legislator is quite low. This should be done as well.

But the primary focus should be local: friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, local civic groups you may belong to, local schools, state school board, state legislators.

Bokonon · 08-12-2002, 06:25 AM

But we are not going to do nothing unless we make our friends, our families, our co-workers, our neighbors, and whomever may listen aware of these concerns.

I agree. Last week, I think I convinced a born-again friend of mine to agree with our position. His father is a rather influential pastor in the area. We can only hope...

ohwilleke · 08-12-2002, 07:41 AM

Perhaps they should try something that would really work:

Section 1. Congress may establish religion, and may impose restrictions on the freedom of speech and freedom of press with regard to any material that is deeply offensive to anyone or shows an absence of moral character or is unpatriotic.

Section 2. People accused of crimes, terrorism, or involvement with terrorist organizations have no rights.

Ron Garrett · 08-12-2002, 08:35 AM

Money talks and bullshit walks. The way to stop this shit is support her opponent and let them know specifically why they are being supported. My state rep voted against posting the Decalogue in public schools. She got a large check from me and for her re-election campaing an a letter explaining that her strong separation stance is the reason.

Who's running against Capito and what is the campaign address of the opponent so we can send them a check and a letter?

Alonzo Fyfe · 08-12-2002, 09:51 AM

Just a little strategy note:

The issue of a constitutional amendment focuses on a weakness in arguing about separation of church and state solely on constitutional grounds.

If one's arguments are always grounded on the constitution, then the person hearing those arguments remains disarmed against anybody who seeks to change the constitution.

In order to arm the listener against both the law in the question and a future constitutional amendment, it is important to include elements on why separation of church and state ought not to be infringed.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-11-2002, 06:48 PM	#11
3DChizl Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: West Virginia Posts: 160	You may have noticed in my previous post, that I talked to Ms. Capito. What I did was call her office and leave a message that I disagreed with her on this. I was surprised she called me back (the same day) but that goes to show you that they take this as a very serious issue. I wanted to leave her with some easy way to remember the conversation - thus the 'defend don't amend'. If you have never done it, make some notes on seperation issues, founding fathers' quotes and history of the pledge and motto, rhen call them. Request a call back. Tell them that as a constituant, you consider this a urgent issue. Don't talk like you are a freakin' nut, but that you want to discuss the issue. If this thing goes through - we are screwed. I'd rather let them keep their little mottos than have this happen. [ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: 3DChizl ]</p>

08-11-2002, 06:49 PM	#12
szcax Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: PA Posts: 51	wow... if you go to that <a href="http://www.wepledge.com" target="_blank">www.wepledge.com</a> site, you can literally see the numbers growing just by refreshing your browser continuously... it's scary. I just wish they had a forum or guestbook of some kind so I could lurk and see exactly whats motivating all these ppl. I hate to say this, but I think we're fighting a battle we can't win.

08-11-2002, 07:12 PM	#13
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Just start telling people that might support this Amendment that to do so is the surest way for them to lose their religious freedom and their unalienable right to express their individual conscience without fear of government intrusion or penalty...and know why you are right to make that claim.

08-11-2002, 07:18 PM	#14
3DChizl Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: West Virginia Posts: 160	Who is behind the <a href="http://www.wepledge.com" target="_blank">http://www.wepledge.com</a> site? The American Family Association <a href="http://www.afa.net" target="_blank">http://www.afa.net</a> Learn more about them at AFAExposed <a href="http://www.afaexposed.com" target="_blank">http://www.afaexposed.com</a> Homophobia anyone? [ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: 3DChizl ]</p>

08-11-2002, 07:44 PM	#16
Alonzo Fyfe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO Posts: 3,515	CaptainDave You are correct, I spoke a bit too quickly. The marginal utility of writing to a federal representative or senator is low, but not zero. There are several tools available to make this easy. Yet, the focus should be local. I would recommend by starting with letters to state legislators. Once the letter is written, the marginal cost of a quick edit and sending it to a federal legislator is quite low. This should be done as well. But the primary focus should be local: friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, local civic groups you may belong to, local schools, state school board, state legislators.

08-12-2002, 06:25 AM	#17
Bokonon Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Left of the Mississippi Posts: 138	But we are not going to do nothing unless we make our friends, our families, our co-workers, our neighbors, and whomever may listen aware of these concerns. I agree. Last week, I think I convinced a born-again friend of mine to agree with our position. His father is a rather influential pastor in the area. We can only hope...

08-12-2002, 07:41 AM	#18
ohwilleke Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Denver, Colorado, USA Posts: 4,834	Perhaps they should try something that would really work: Section 1. Congress may establish religion, and may impose restrictions on the freedom of speech and freedom of press with regard to any material that is deeply offensive to anyone or shows an absence of moral character or is unpatriotic. Section 2. People accused of crimes, terrorism, or involvement with terrorist organizations have no rights.

08-12-2002, 08:35 AM	#19
Ron Garrett Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: United States Posts: 1,657	Money talks and bullshit walks. The way to stop this shit is support her opponent and let them know specifically why they are being supported. My state rep voted against posting the Decalogue in public schools. She got a large check from me and for her re-election campaing an a letter explaining that her strong separation stance is the reason. Who's running against Capito and what is the campaign address of the opponent so we can send them a check and a letter?

08-12-2002, 09:51 AM	#20
Alonzo Fyfe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO Posts: 3,515	Just a little strategy note: The issue of a constitutional amendment focuses on a weakness in arguing about separation of church and state solely on constitutional grounds. If one's arguments are always grounded on the constitution, then the person hearing those arguments remains disarmed against anybody who seeks to change the constitution. In order to arm the listener against both the law in the question and a future constitutional amendment, it is important to include elements on why separation of church and state ought not to be infringed.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.