Cadmus

I have to agree with syntax252. I do not think that this imperils anyone's right to a secular government. It only imperils the implementation of a secular government.

By your use of the word "so-called", are you suggesting that the words under god are not a reference to religion? Are you suggesting that if there are just a few references to god they would not impact negatively on the rights of those who do not wish to hear them? I have no problem with a group of children on their own time and in their own location holding prayer sessions on school grounds. Are you equating such a situation with the pledge, which is semi voluntary and is part of the classroom agenda?

The pledge has been changed over the years, with the words in question inserted not too long ago. Just out of curiosity, would you be in favor of inserting a few more optional references to god in the pledge. Why or why not?

You can go to the Help menu and select About Internet Explorer. I never use Internet Explorer, and see that my version, version 6, only gets about 2/3 of the character types, which is still more than you. Anyway, I recommend that you go to netscape.com or to firefox.com and download Netscape or Firefox. I recomment Firefox. They are free, and I like them much more than Internet Explorer. My firefox and netscape browsers can read all of the character types except for the Anglo-Saxon/Norse types. Other than that, I am sorry but I am out of ideas.

I still think that you should consider the settings of your browser. If you have an old browser, you might consider updating. Try the page http://www.columbia.edu/kermit/utf8.html, and see if these several types of example characters are readable.

I agree that a set of rules for acceptable behavior is important. I do not necessarily agree with any of your specific rules as being necessary, as it seems that modern societies function reasonably well without any of them. I furthermore consider that a government is necessary to organize society, as well as to formalize and enforce rules.

OK. I am the only one so far who has taken your question seriously. You seem to have ignored my response completely. You seem to prefer and support sayonara trying to stifle the only actual response that you have received so far. If no more responses are addressed to me, I will leave this thread alone for you.

sayonara nakimushi sama, It seems to me that you are spending more effort complaining than contributing. Your comments contribute nothing to the topic of conversation at all. Your "appropriate" statement is different from mine only in wording, not in meaning. I wonder why it is that you want to quibble so over wording, even though it does not change the meaning or the intent. Why spend so much time sending this thread off topic, when you might use your time more appropriately by contributing to this conversation.

There you go. Then I think that time keepers are certainly a minimum requirement.

It is certainly quite possible that you have a better understanding of what he is asking that I do. If he does not like my response, then he is certainly free to state so. I don't understand why you feel compelled to interpret the meaning of his somewhat vague question in such a manner that you must make a point of disregarding my response. If our society lost all of its time keepers, it would be altered to such a major degree that I think it would be a fair question to ask whether it or not the new condition would constitute survival of the old society. Furthermore, what does level of technology necessarily have to do with it? Without time keeping, even agriculture would never have developed.

What type of society? If you want the society to be at all advanced, then there must be a calendar that enables members of the society to keep track of time. Modern society could not exist at all without keepers of time. If the keepers of time for a society were to disappear, the society could not maintain itself.

One house for the entire nation? The nation would have to total less than a million or so people for that to work. Your point is taken, however. I also consider the question to be a little vague.

Money might disappear. If energy were free, then that is possible. Will the development of workable fusion create such a scenario? Money will probably be out, but people might receive an allotment just for being there. This is not new to history. Based on my experience, I believe that communism does not lead to utopias.

Does this page help? http://www.unicode.org/help/display_problems.html It is listed on the page that you cited.

Correct (although 9/9 = 1)

Close. What makes you think that the large number of potential responses is infinite? I disagree that there are infinite choices, and I disgree that the available choices have an equal probability of being correct.

THis pretty muchs defeats the meaning of nine out of nine, doesn't it? I suggest that you adopt a different theory. I see that statistics is not your strong suit. Do you agree?

Are you personally offended by the phrase children in the trenches? This is not a matter of free spech at all. When you say the pledge of allegiance, you have the right, in my mind, to intersperse god in as many times as you like. When the government determines that a speech that children are encouraged to give everyday should contain a reference to god, and then demand that those who are offended simply refrain from saying it and be satisfied, then I consider this to be beyond the bounds of free speech. This is not about free speech. It is not about the speakers at all. It is about inserting a religious reference into a sentence that children are encouraged to say every day. If the phrase "under god" were removed from the pledge, how would this restrict your right to insert the word god after every word? How does removing a reference to god affect your freedom to say whatever words you want? Please rephrase this, as I have no idea what you mean.

I think not. Terror is a loaded word that is not called for, I believe. Somewhat. I think that many children who would prefer not to be exposed to the pharse do not consider it completely voluntary. To children in the trenches, distant court rulings are not the end all, are they. Define it however you wish, and then respond, if you would.

Do you really think that this is the source of the concern? Terror, huh. It is nice that you don't resort to hyperbole. Voluntary, huh. Is that how you consider this situation? Since this is your wonder, why don't you attempt a guess. What percentage of people who do not want their children exposed to homosexuality do you think are still quite willing to require that non-religious children are nevertheless forced to be exposed in public schools to religious concepts.

Well said. It does seem clear that some people on this forum prefer to ask questions rather than to make statements. You seem to have found a way to do both at the same time.

I suppose that we should take this as a NO response to atinymonkey.

You are entitled to your opinion. I hope you realize that you are speaking only for yourself, and not for everyone. You make it sound so easy. You seem to think that a peer group would NEVER exert peer pressure on anyone to say the words if a child were not to want to. Do you really believe that no child would be pressured by his peer group to conform against his will? I think that the goal is not to promote religious freedom, but to promote freedom. Desiring the every child vocalize the word "god" every morning, or if a child refuses to do so desiring that the child hear others vocalize the word and at the same time realize that he is going against his peer group and what is obviously school policy is hardly a way to promote freedom in my mind.

No There is also lack of symmetry in their acceleration. you did, from your initial/final position.

Beacause they were around. What else might you mean? Yes, and no. Sanskrit is distant in time and space from Indo-European.