# A Silent Passing.......*obituary*



## KenpoTess (Dec 6, 2003)

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend by the name of Common Sense who has been with us for many years.

No one knows for sure how old he was since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.

He will be remembered as having cultivated such valued lessons as knowing when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm and that life isn't always fair.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not kids, are in charge).

His health began to rapidly deteriorate when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate, teens suspended
from school for using mouthwash after lunch, and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student only worsened his condition.

It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer aspirin to a student but could not inform the parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Finally, Common sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband, churches became businesses and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense finally gave up the ghost after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot, spilled a bit in her lap, and was awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents,
Truth and his wife, Discretion; his daughter,
Responsibility; and his son, Reason.

He is survived by two stepbrothers; My Rights and Ima Whiner.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.


----------



## Kempojujutsu (Dec 6, 2003)

Don't forget about them wanting to take "GOD" out of the pledge of Allegance.


----------



## RCastillo (Dec 6, 2003)

Not only is it dead, and buried, but the living are now quite infected, and there is no cure. It's just a matter of time before we all "buy the farm."


----------



## Matt (Dec 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kempojujutsu _
> *Don't forget about them wanting to take "GOD" out of the pledge of Allegance. *



I thought it was when they took the original pledge of allegiance (written by a minister) and messed with it (after many years of use) by *adding* "GOD" to it during the McCarthy era to help defeat those godless commies...

You'd think that if the guy who wrote it wanted "GOD" in there, he would have put him/her in in the first place...


----------



## Matt (Dec 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kempojujutsu _
> *Don't forget about them wanting to take "GOD" out of the pledge of Allegance. *



In fact, why not learn more about the guy who wrote it, and how he (and his family after he passed away)  felt about the changes. 

http://history.vineyard.net//pledge.htm


----------



## Nightingale (Dec 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kempojujutsu _
> *Don't forget about them wanting to take "GOD" out of the pledge of Allegance. *




I vote for putting the pledge back the way it was when it was originally written.  It was a beautiful verse then, and no changes were necessary.  Changing the original text of the pledge was akin to painting a moustache on the Mona  Lisa.


----------



## TonyM. (Dec 7, 2003)

The pledge of allegence has nothing to do with our government. It was written by a socialist which is why the original had no reference to god. To my mind it is a facist manifesto.

"Patriotism is the last refuge for a scoundrel."-Mark Twain


----------



## RCastillo (Dec 7, 2003)

So, then if it's worthless, who are we to be loyal to?


----------



## qizmoduis (Dec 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by TonyM. _
> *The pledge of allegence has nothing to do with our government. It was written by a socialist which is why the original had no reference to god. To my mind it is a facist manifesto.
> 
> "Patriotism is the last refuge for a scoundrel."-Mark Twain *



Actually, it was written by a Baptist -->MINISTER<--, Francis Bellamy.  Bellamy was a Christian Socialist.  

See http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm for a detailed history of the pledge.

The whole galling thing about this is that Congress made the law the add the words "under God" to the Pledge.  Doesn't the First Amendment of our constitution specifically deny them this authority?  Yes it does.  That fact that there's any controversy about this shows our educationaly system in a very poor light.  The number of people who have not even a basica understanding of our own government is apalling.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 8, 2003)

Just so's you know, Bellamy also made no mention of the United States in his Pledge. It was meant to be internationalist, apparently because he believed in World Government.

I just love it when flag-wavers adopt material with no idea of where it came from, and then use the results to prop up their idea of America. Next most-abused lyric: Woody Guthrie, "This Land Is Your Land."

As for common sense, well, there's a good solid term. Its most famous American historical usage comes from Tom Paine, good old agnostic, rabble-rousing Tom Paine. 

Otherwise, it tends to be what people invoke when they want everybody else to play by their rules, and don't want to discuss what their rules happen to be. It is instructive in this regard to recall that not so long ago, it was common sense that black people were inferior. Where I grew up, it was common sense that Jewish folks were misers and Catholics couldn't be trusted.

Oh well.


----------



## Jay Bell (Dec 8, 2003)

Common sense is most definately dead...it's terrible, but very true.

Look how easily we are roped into belief, simply because it was in the media, an email or in a book?  Must be true eh?

Not to get into a religious talk, but it's very much the same with the Bible and other religious texts.  People view it as history because it's an old book written long ago.

I think for some reason people's ability to question what they hear has dwindled away.  It's sad...but I feel that it's just bold proof that people can no longer think for themselves.

Liberal or Conservative...you can't be both (WHAT?!)  If you're a conservative, you must be a strong Bush supporter.  (HUH?)  Our ideas are no longer our own.  We're classified as sheeple into our little groups that do the thinking for us.  Sad..


----------



## Nightingale (Dec 8, 2003)

Robert-

I was going to try to PM you, but you have them disabled or something...

I've never heard anyone abuse "this land is your land"  so I was wondering if you could cite an example... I'm just curious, cause this was one of my favorite tunes as a kid... gotta love Peter, Paul and Mary.

PM me if you like.

-N-


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Nightingale _
> *Robert-
> 
> I was going to try to PM you, but you have them disabled or something...
> ...



Yes...me's curious too!


----------



## Jmh7331 (Dec 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by qizmoduis _
> *Actually, it was written by a Baptist -->MINISTER<--, Francis Bellamy.  Bellamy was a Christian Socialist.
> 
> See http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm for a detailed history of the pledge.
> ...



The 1st Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".  How does that prohibit them from adding "under God"?


----------



## Nightingale (Dec 8, 2003)

sure...

it makes the statement that the government is "respecting" christian religions... they're the only ones that call the supreme deity "God" you know...

if it was "One Nation, under Allah" people would have a huge issue, but for some reason, Christians seem to think that "God" is a generic term, when it isn't.

since "God" is capitalized, it is a proper noun, therefore referring to a specific divine entity.


----------



## Jmh7331 (Dec 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Nightingale _
> *sure...
> 
> it makes the statement that the government is "respecting" christian religions... they're the only ones that call the supreme deity "God" you know...
> ...



Actually, they're not, and Allah means God.  The amendment still says, "respecting an establishment of religion."  This is not respecting a particular establishment.  Besides, America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, 24 signers of the Declaration of Independence were ministers and/or held theological degrees.


----------



## qizmoduis (Dec 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jmh7331 _
> *The 1st Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".  How does that prohibit them from adding "under God"? *



How does it not?  Which interpretation of "under God" is not religious in nature?  Nightingale is correct in her reply to you.



> _Originally posted by Jmh7331 _
> *Actually, they're not, and Allah means God. The amendment still says, "respecting an establishment of religion." This is not respecting a particular establishment. Besides, America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, 24 signers of the Declaration of Independence were ministers and/or held theological degrees. *



Not this again.  Pure rightwing historical revisionism.  Another illustration of the failure of our educational system.


----------



## Jmh7331 (Dec 8, 2003)

And again, my question is not answered.  How does adding "under God" violate the 1st Amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."  What law was made that respects a particular religion?  

"Pure rightwing historical revisionism.  Another illustration of the failure of our educational system."

That's the first time I've heard of historical revision by the right wing.  I'd like to see some proof of this.  What part of my statement can you refute?  Have you ever read anything other than your school history book.  How about the actual letters and writings of our Founding Fathers?


----------



## Jay Bell (Dec 8, 2003)

> Besides, America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, 24 signers of the Declaration of Independence were ministers and/or held theological degrees.



I think you'd better take a closer look at history.  This is far from correct...

As far as their writings...

The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion... 

"How has it happened that millions of myths, fables, legends and tales have been blended with Jewish and Christian fables and myths and have made them the most bloody religion that has ever existed? Filled with the sordid and detestable purposes of superstition and fraud?

~John Adams



> Not this again. Pure rightwing historical revisionism. Another illustration of the failure of our educational system.



Yep.



> And again, my question is not answered. How does adding "under God" violate the 1st Amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." What law was made that respects a particular religion?



Freedom _of_ religion is also freedom _from_ religion.


----------



## Jmh7331 (Dec 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jay Bell _
> *I think you'd better take a closer look at history.  This is far from correct...*



Really? Take a look at the money in your pocket. "In God We Trust."  Until recently the Ten Commandments were in every courthouse.  They still pray to open a session in Congress.  You still swear on a Bible in court, etc.  Although they are going away, you can't deny the principles this Country was founded on, no matter how hard you try.  You're absolutely right, freedom of religon is freedom from religion, that's why these things are slowly fading, but if these things weren't at the foundation of the Nation, how did they permeate our government?  It wasn't the church that stamped our money.


----------



## Jay Bell (Dec 8, 2003)

Yes, Really.

From the Department of the Treasury:



> The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War.





> Until recently the Ten Commandments were in every courthouse.



I personally have never seen the 10 Commandments in a courthouse, save for the recent pictures on the television.



> You still swear on a Bible in court, etc.



In the two occasions that I have testified in a court trial, there was no bible to be seen, even during swearing in.



> Although they are going away, you can't deny the principles this Country was founded on, no matter how hard you try.



Sooooo I guess the founding fathers were wrong then?  I think a more appropriate point would be to say no matter how hard you fight to make points of the founding fathers and their beliefs, it does no good to turn a blind eye to what they actually said and put on paper.



> but if these things weren't at the foundation of the Nation, how did they permeate our government? It wasn't the church that stamped our money



It *became* a facet of reality...it didn't begin that way.  You're right, it wasn't the church that stamped our money.  It was many appeals from religious people throughout the country asking that the Secretary of the Treasury at the time, Salmon P. Chase, to add something denoting God to currency.  Most notably, Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Pennsylvania.


----------



## don bohrer (Dec 8, 2003)

Thanks Tess... I enjoyed your start of this thread. 

Now for the rest of you. :soapbox:

don


----------



## Jmh7331 (Dec 8, 2003)

Don's right, we could go on forever.  It was fun while it lasted. Jay Bell and qizmoduis, maybe we could start another one on gun control or something.  Anyway, let's save the disk space for the Martial Arts.  You can always e-mail me of you want to continue offline!  

PS. qizmoduis, I see you are into woodworking, have you heard of Jeff Lohr?  He is in Schwenksville.  I studied at his woodworking school.


----------



## Jay Bell (Dec 8, 2003)

So a question to everyone...How do we bring common sense back?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jmh7331 _
> *The 1st Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".  How does that prohibit them from adding "under God"? *




It prohibits them, Congress or the Executive BRanch of supporting this measure because if I do not believe in God then it is an offense. If I am Hindu, or Daoist, or Shinto, or even Satanist, etc, ..., .

Would you like to have teh Pledge read One Nation under Satan?
Or One Nation under Kali? (* Kali being the goddess of war in INdia *)
Or maybe one nation under our ancestors?

How about one nation under the great mother spirit?

How about one nation under the Great spirit of ___________
Insert any of teh following (* Wolf, Bear, Snake, Eagle, Hawk, River, MOuntain, etc, ..., . *)




Now as an Individual you wish to say Under God, or a silent Prayer before or after the National Anthom, then more power to you and everyone else.

This is how the words Under God may insult or make others fear for their rights to be violated.
:asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jmh7331 _
> *Really? Take a look at the money in your pocket. "In God We Trust."  Until recently the Ten Commandments were in every courthouse.  They still pray to open a session in Congress.  You still swear on a Bible in court, etc.  Although they are going away, you can't deny the principles this Country was founded on, no matter how hard you try.  You're absolutely right, freedom of religon is freedom from religion, that's why these things are slowly fading, but if these things weren't at the foundation of the Nation, how did they permeate our government?  It wasn't the church that stamped our money. *




And our Money is in violation to our US Constitution also.

I have said so in the past.

I think it should be removed.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jay Bell _
> *Yes, Really.
> 
> From the Department of the Treasury:
> ...




In the numerous times I have been in court for varous reasons, no one asked me to swear on a bible or to God.

Yes, and just because it was done in the past does not mean it is the right thing to do today or at all.
:asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 8, 2003)

To begin with, we could start telling the truth in schools rather than making up all sorts of BS. Look at that garbage about the Pilgrims! 

Why expect kids to recognize--let alone exercise--common sense? Their curriculum's been systematially gutted of all sorts of things that would teach it--for example, evolution, which provides a great opportunity to teach kids about basic observation and methods of drawing reasoned conclusions. 

And in the humanities, fageddabouttit. Look at all the books removed from the curriculums because some kook or kook group objected; look at all the editing of history that's been done, editing that removes chances to learn from the past. Most of that editing, despite what one hears, has been pushed by rightists and religious conservatives...you might want to check out the hitory of "Huck Finn," or get on Judy Blume's website...

No right-wing revisionism? Scope out the name, "David Irving," and check into his account of the Nazis in WWII. 

As for ol' Woody Guthrie, well, what they most assuredly shied away from teaching where I went to school was the fact that, "This Land Is Your Land," is fundamentally a little socialist tract about workers and ordinary people "owning," the country just as much as any rich banker or land-owner. I thought everybody knew that, and knew about Guthrie's connection to the IWW and to labor unions...

The real folks who pushed the song, by the way, sure as hell weren't "Peter, Paul and Mary." They came later--it was the Weavers (blacklisted during the 50s), and then Pete Seeger...


----------



## Nightingale (Dec 8, 2003)

I know PP&M weren't the originals...  they're just the ones I remember from when I was a kid.  I remember the Pete Seeger version too.


----------



## oldnewbie (Dec 9, 2003)

Just a quick note..

Common SENSE

If I put my hand in fire, it will get burned.
If I do wrong, I'm responsible
If I stick a screwdriver in my eye, be more careful, don;t sue the manufacturer


Common OPINION

Women should not vote
Blacks are inferior
Jews are stingy
etc. 

It's sad to see the blurring of word meanings, just like tolerence somehow NOW means acceptance......


----------



## Jay Bell (Dec 9, 2003)

Good stuff...

Oldnewbie,

So we have this flood of people who absolutely will not take responsibility for their own mistakes in life...finger pointers abound, it's THEIR fault.  So what can be done to get these morons out of the court system with frivolous lawsuits and the like?

Good posts, rm and Rich.

So, it seems pretty clear that the "system", lacking common sense just doesn't fly.  So what's the remedy?


----------



## qizmoduis (Dec 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jmh7331 _
> *Don's right, we could go on forever.  It was fun while it lasted. Jay Bell and qizmoduis, maybe we could start another one on gun control or something.  Anyway, let's save the disk space for the Martial Arts.  You can always e-mail me of you want to continue offline!
> 
> PS. qizmoduis, I see you are into woodworking, have you heard of Jeff Lohr?  He is in Schwenksville.  I studied at his woodworking school. *



I'm a bit of a dabbler, not even a very good hobbiest frankly.  I started doing a scrollwork a few years ago and tried doing some furniture, with mixed results.  I do enjoy it and am currently working on a loft bed/desk for my daughter.

I'd love to get more time to work on it.  It's enjoyable.  My wife constantly gives me a hard time about it.  To her, if I'm doing something other than a home improvement project or something I can make money from, I'm wasting my time.

I haven't heard of Jeff Lohr, but I haven't really heard of many people.  I didn't know their were any woodworking schools nearby.  I'll have to look into that.  I do happen to live almost next to a local rough wood supplier.  He recovers old trees from developers and others and cuts and dries the lumber himself.  Ronn Mann I think his name is.


----------



## Jmh7331 (Dec 9, 2003)

qizmoduis, go to http://www.jdlohrwood.com/  Try to get into one of his classes, they book fast but it is well worth the wait.  I did the weekend class.  You will learn a ton!


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 9, 2003)

Uh...also "common sense," ideas I've recently heard:

Anybody can see that black people are better football players.
It's obvious that women should not serve in combat.
Clearly, we need to detain Arabs on suspicion of terrorism.
Patently, civil liberties must take a back seat to national security.

As for the term, "tolerance," doesn't this really boil down to an assertion that a lot of this stuff is nobody else's business? And,  nobody has the right to discriminate about jobs, housing, loans, insurance, etc., simply on the grounds of their, "common sense," opinions about people they don't like?


----------



## oldnewbie (Dec 10, 2003)

Jay

I don't know how to stop the frivolous lawsuits... until the ones bringing up the suits are penalized from wasting our courts time, nothing will change. I'm not talking about stepping on civil rights, just accountablity.

Maybe we need an even lower court system which hears the preliminary case and judges whether it has any validity.

Or maybe we need to teach the real meaning of "common sense".

Do a search for the "Bill of NON Rights" a good read.

rmcrobertson

My point was that I felt you were using "comon sense" incorrectly.

Tolerance is the ability to put up with something you may not agree with, or believe in, yet you do nothing against it.
Acceptance is agreeing with the concept.

My point was that "we" ( as a people ) are asked for tolerance on a particular subject, and when the group asking for tolerance gets it, they presume to be accepted, or seen as equal/normal/status quo. I have a problem with that. I am a tolerant person (don't ask my kids tho), but I don't accept certian issues.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 10, 2003)

Fiddlesticks. 

Please tell me exactly--exactly--which group you're talking about. I'd also like to see some evidence that, "they," think this way.


----------



## oldnewbie (Dec 10, 2003)

> Please tell me exactly--exactly--which group you're talking about. I'd also like to see some evidence that, "they," think this way
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------

