Smelling The Coffee: 2010

Buzsaw, there is no religious connotation in mathematics or language. There is no pertinent need to introduce such. Anything less is a direct infringement on the Separation of church and State.What exactly are you calling for? Prayer in school? Creationism to be mandatory reading material? Compulsory attendence to bible classes? If you feel that education is hostile to religion, I would find that an embarassment if I was part of your religion. Because that would mean that it cannot stand up to legitimate scrutiny, and in order to keep the masses suckling on the teat of the Lamb you have to force them."Seek and you shall find," not "ram down their throats until the accept it and submit to the Eternal Lawgiver."You are vague as to what kind of direction for America you want. What do you seek for American education systemand what kind of American government do you seek?

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

If I start on Welsh stereotypes I will no doubt be accused of hate crimes.

Hi Hyroglyphx.I'm calling for whatever the local elected school boards decide upon for their schools. If they decide that the New England Primer, having religious connotations would be good for their school, there should be no laws from the state or feds forbidding that. If they decide that prayer is allowed before classes so be it. If they decide that the Koran, the Bible or even the Communist Manifesto is to be curriculum, so be it. If they decide that nothing religious is to be in their local school, so be it. Let the voters via their representatives determine what their children are taught. That's the way a republic is suppose to work.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

You'd be sore annoyed under a muslim theocracy. I suspect your attitude would change real quick.How about we keep all religious indoctrination out of the public schools, eh? That's what churches et al. are for anyway, isn't it?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

It is unbelievable to me that you can still remain so clueless about basic civics concerning the United States of America, particularly considering how long you have lived in this country.This nation was established as a republic precisely in opposition to direct democracy (which apparently you are advocating) because of the justified fear of mob rule inherent in such a system. That is why we have elected representatives and a supreme court, so that the immediate whims of the populace, as in American Idol, do NOT dispense laws or justice directly and according to the immediate and usually irrational emotions of the public at large.Otherwise we would speaking Arabic or Chinese, which by your posts seems to fit in with your usual and, in this case, contradictory authoritarian pronouncements.Look, if you hate it here so much why don't you do what your conservative talk show godlets suggest, move to where the government suits your civic (rather than religious {or is it because of your warped religious}) beliefs more, say Iran or North Korea.I was in military intelligence back when the US beat the Soviet Union without firing a shot (directly). So what did you do in the war daddy?Edited by anglagard, : ClarityEdited by anglagard, : I simply can't associate Buzsaw with the best sentiments of any mainstream religion, including Islam, Judaism or most particularly the NT.

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

Not like the current state of California method of legislature by popular vote and constitutional amendment.Moose

And look at the mess they're in!"Bread and circuses..."

Votes don't usurp the Constitution. If you want to discuss God in school, that's why private schools exist.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Things were different then. Today we have the technology to allow direct and immediate voting on each and every issue, without the need for the physical gathering of large crowds and the subsequent risk of mob mentality. There can be no excuse in this day and age NOT to have direct democracy (other than the preservation of existing interests and the need to control the public).

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Just stay clear of sheep-related references and you'll be fine.As to your post's title, the answer clearly is: "They're over there shagging your wives!"

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

The "mob rule" discussed here isn't the fear of an actual physical "mob" of a large gathering of people. Mob rule refers to a large group of people voting away the inherent rights of a smaller group of people. It wouldn't matter if they were physically congregating at a voting place or voting from a distance using technology.If a majority of people in your district thought it was a good idea to stone you you would be ok with that? That would be direct democracy and an example of "mob rule."

Lack of technology isn't the reason direct democracy was avoided at all.TO paraphrase Benjamin Franklin:"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting for what's for dinner."

Huh? What technology is this?This kind of idea is simply impractical. There would be too many items to vote on and people would soon get bored by issues they knew nothing about and barely understood. At the last British General election the turnout was 61.4%. That's a general election! Under your system, we'd soon have decisions being taken by a tiny minority. It would never work.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Well I am glad you mentioned the dreaded S word. As I would have been uncomfortable doing so in this volatile context. But dude my wife isn't called flossy and has never been sheared. So none of you guys would be interested.

Yes it would matter. The fear of "mob rule" stems from ancient Athens where skilled orators incited the crowds gathered at the Market to irrationally vote for or against a particular proposition by manipulating crowd psychology. Herd behaviour is certainly enhanced by physical proximity, although not restricted to it. At the time of ancient Athens or even of the Founding Fathers, the only way to implement direct democracy would be to gather large crowds at the same place and give them little time and information in order for them to make a decision, which in turn would leave them susceptible to emotional and irrational mob behaviour, incited by clever demagoges.Today, this doesn't have to happen. People can -on most occasions- be given time to mull over information and do their own research before voting from the comfort of their own homes/neighbourhood facilities. "Mob rule" would be no more of a risk than it is now. No it wouldn't! It would be no different to me being arrested and condemned to death as a result of my violating some current law proposed by government and voted by parliament. The only difference is that currently my death would be the application of the will of a minority while in a direct democracy it would be the application of the will of the majority, hence somehow more palatable.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"