response 226 of 372:

Jun 13 03:21 UTC 2002

#218> Conventional speech or not, "in the year of *our* Lord," signed by the
government officials and referring to the birth of Jesus, is technically in
violation of the First Amendment, and establishes that the Deity of this
country is, in fact, Jesus. It's a case of the framers doing something without
realizing it (goes back to that pissing contest I had about "God bless you").

response 230 of 372:

Jun 13 16:32 UTC 2002

I have no problem with the calendar as it is. Some details of it arose
from an ancient desire to fix the dates of observation of Christian rites
in relation to astronomical observations, but that is all ancient history
now and irrelevant to using a practical if idiosyncratic calendar. I have
not heard of any suggestions of using a different calendar for scientific
purposes. Scientists now use a time standard that is deviating from the
calendar (due to both changes in and errors in the measurement of the
rotation and orbit of the earth), but that is hidden from the public by
the use of leap seconds to maintain public correspondence.

response 232 of 372:

Jun 13 19:27 UTC 2002

#229> Dating using the Christian calendar isn't the problem. Since you missed
the point, here it is again: The Constitution doesn't refer to 1787 (or
whichever year it is), or to 1787 AD (which at least buries the complaint),
it refers to "1787, the year of OUR Lord." "OUR" Lord. (As I said, I really
don't think that the Founders meant it that way, I just don't think anyone
had yet pointed it out.)
 
#230> Scientists use the same years as everyone else, but there are many
scientists who use BCE (Before Current Era) and CE (Current Era) in place of
BC (Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini, in the year of the lord). There was
also a minor push to use BP (Before Present) and AP (After Present), with year
0 being AD1950, but as far as I can tell, BCE/CE is much more standard.

response 234 of 372:

Jun 13 19:51 UTC 2002

Do you stop reading when I put things in parentheses, Rane?

response 236 of 372:

Jun 13 20:29 UTC 2002

The time standard is currently the NIST-F1 Cesium Fountain atomic clock.
http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq/cesium/fountain.htm  It is precise to
a second in 20 million years. Of course, it had to be *set* based on
astronomical observations and averaging for a "mean sidereal day*, which
fluctuates and hence the setting was somewhat arbitrary. The same
(NIST) site has a lot of information about different "times".

What was in parentheses that you don't think I read? 

response 238 of 372:

Jun 13 21:57 UTC 2002

Ooh!  Ooh!  I learned lots of useless info about this in high school.  :)

The Babylonians came up with the 12 hour day (because they only counted the
daylight hours, since they were using a sundial), and they liked 12 because
it was divisible by 2,3,4, and 6, and they didn't have any handy way to deal
with fractions.  Same motivation for 60 minutes in an hour, but 60 also
divides evenly by 5 and 12.

What's wrong with things not being metric, especially if there are nice
reasons for them not to be, like hours evenly dividing into halves, thirds,
quarters, etc?

response 240 of 372:

Jun 14 03:54 UTC 2002

Re #237:  Thinking about reviving Aztec religious rites too?

Re #238:  With an argument like that, your dreams of becoming a grad
will die by degrees (probably via radian sickness). ;-)

response 242 of 372:

Jun 14 10:59 UTC 2002

241: Just because someone has stated an opinion, it doesn't mean you 
can't state a substantially similar opinion from your own point of 
view.  It happens all the time.

response 244 of 372:

Jun 14 15:25 UTC 2002

#241> It is also typical in such cases to say something like, "I agree" or
"As Joe said..." to demosntrate that that's what you're doing. Otherwise it
can look like you're ignoring part of their comments. But whatever, it's not
important, you asked what the impetus of my comment was, and I told you.

response 246 of 372:

Jun 14 18:30 UTC 2002

I think the pledge of alligiancehad the words "under God" added in response
to two things...McCarthyism, and the fact that the Pledge was written by a
communist.  By adding the "under God" countered the communist threat.

Of course, if you are a communist, you would have no problem saying it anyway
since you would not believe in God.

As to it being a violation of the Constitution ...

Well, it does not violate the Decleration if Independence, since God is
mentuioned several times in that Document.

Now, the Bill of Rights.

Congress shall make no lawrespecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Neither any single one of you, nor as a group, nor as a government can in any
way establish a state religion, nor can you prevent me from exercising my
religion. So, if I want to pray in school, the government should not be able
to stop me from doing so.  Nor should it require me to do so.

Why do you anti religious zealots have so much trouble understanding that?

I cannot make you pray, you cannot stop me from praying. Stop trying.  Stop
complaining.

jmsaul...

Common joe.  you went to law school.  You are an intelligent human being. 
You know you can say the pledge of alligiance and just leave out that one
phrase.  I know people who do it every day.

We americans, are a religious people, by and large. We accept most religions
without reservation that do not injure or harm any individual in the course
of their worship.  WE also generally accept those who do not believe in
any religion.

Did anyone ever refuse;

Sell you an item,
Beat you up, (other than children)
fire you,
refuse to rent to you,
berate you, (other than on here)
dismiss you from federal service,
or do anything else to you, Because you were or are an atheist?

I didn't think so.

(boy, my spelling sometimes gets atrocious.)

On the other hand. Today is Flag day.  Go hang our flag.

response 248 of 372:

Jun 14 18:39 UTC 2002

Since you're a Christian, I'm not surprised that you don't see anything wrong
with it.  After all, it's your religion.

But if it said "Under Vishnu," would you say it?  Sure, I skip that part on
the rare occasions that I've said the thing in public events, but it still
shouldn't be there in the first place.

Now, I'm certainly glad that the US has religious freedom to the point where
what I have to worry about is verbal abuse or employment problems, rather than
screaming mobs with sticks and tridents massacring me and my neighbors (ref.
India) or imprisonment (ref. the PRC).  Don't get me wrong.  But we've still
got an environment that's hostile to the non-religious, especially -- and
especially ironically -- since September 11th.  I don't want to stop religious
people from practicing their religion, but I also don't want my government
endorsing religion, and it happens too much.