That's where you wrong. If the property in question is *posted* with signs they have no choice (if you call them) to arrest for criminal trespass. Call your local sheriff/police and ask them

I actually asked once some guy I knew who was a Jehovah’s Witness what they did when they saw a “No soliciting” sign in front of a house. He said that those signs were irrelevant since they weren’t soliciting, but rather just talking and enlightening people; their primary goal isn’t to convert you apparently, but rather to bring peace and harmony in your life. He said many crazies would threaten to call the cops and some did, but no police officer would ever do anything (other than laugh or bitch at the person who called them).

I have no problem being loyal to my nation.  That's not the issue to me, I'm not being asked to say the pledge to the country, I'm being asked to say it to the Flag, which, as you say, is a symbol of the country.  Just as the Golden Calf was a symbol of something other than itself.

Cheers

Reply #72 By: jeblackstar - 1/11/2005 4:35:45 PM Either way, there is a serious difference between hunting and knocking on a door. Criminal Trespass only occurs if, 1. A person has resisted an oral order by an owner to leave the property, or 2. A person has breached a physical barrier to enter the property, or 3. a person has initiated an action, though not necessarily completed it, designed to deprive the owner of the use of some portion of his property. If your hunters cut through your fence, or even climbed over it, then they are guilty of trespass, if you have no gate on your driveway, and a man knocks on your door, police are usually not willing to arrest them.

Again, no fence was crossed or cut and there was no gated driveway during to the commission that is refered to in post 71 . Why don't you just admit that both of us maybe right. Different states, different laws and practices.

I actually asked once some guy I knew who was a Jehovah’s Witness what they did when they saw a “No soliciting” sign in front of a house. He said that those signs were irrelevant since they weren’t soliciting, but rather just talking and enlightening people; their primary goal isn’t to convert you apparently, but rather to bring peace and harmony in your life.

No....they want to convert you; it's been tried with me by JW coworkers.

They're nutcases.....JW is considered by many to be a Christian cult.
They started coming around my neighborhood for a while when I was a kid. They'd come up and talk and quote their version of the bible, offer you their pamphlets and stuff.
There was a minister who lived across the street from us who was really annoyed by them, because he said that they so misinterpereted the Word of God. What he would do is, he'd invite them in and let them start talking....after a little bit, he'd start asking them some really deep, sharp questions, quoting the bible and trying to shake them up.
Since most of the ones who came around us were just grunts, out there reciting their stuff by rote, he succeeded. After a short while, word got around and they started avoiding his house altogether. They apparently didn't like having their version questioned by someone who knew what he was doing.

I have no problem being loyal to my nation.

Then I have trouble seeing why you feel it wrong to pledge your loyalty to its symbol, which indeed stands for more than itself. It's the ~~ideals~~ the flag symbolizes that you're pledging your loyalty to, not the ~~actual~~ flag itself. The flag by itself is just a few pieces of cloth sewn togther...hell, even I'll admit to that. But it's what it represents that you swear your loyalty to.
If the wording were changed to "I pledge allegiance to the ideals represented by this flag, and to the republic, for which they stand"......would that do it for you? That's what you're doing when you say it now, it's just not worded that way.

This conversation about trespassing and Jehovahs Witnesses has gone far afield of the original subject, therefore I declare it completed and ask that we direct all remaining comments to the principle issue.

Cheers

Look, let me just make a pre-emptive strike here by saying that I'm not calling anybody a traitor for not wanting to say the Pledge; that's your right as an American. I just can't understand why you won't say it just as a way of showing your support and loyalty to your country, that's all.
If you don't want to say the "under God" part, then don't say it. That's your right (just as it's MY right to keep it in).
But the very fact that you have the right to edit it like that, and even the very fact that no one is actually requiring you to say it at all should be enough to make your hand find your heart and the words start to form. That's how I see it.

Then I have trouble seeing why you feel it wrong to pledge your loyalty to its symbol, which indeed stands for more than itself. It's the ~~ideals~~ the flag symbolizes that you're pledging your loyalty to, not the ~~actual~~ flag itself. The flag by itself is just a few pieces of cloth sewn togther...hell, even I'll admit to that. But it's what it represents that you swear your loyalty to. If the wording were changed to "I pledge allegiance to the ideals represented by this flag, and to the republic, for which they stand"......would that do it for you? That's what you're doing when you say it now, it's just not worded that way.

No, it wouldn't, and for that matter, why should you care whether I say the pledge or not?  My silence does not reflect a lack of belief in what the United States stands for, nor does it mean that I think the people who say it are pagans or heathens.  It's my choice and that's, ironcally, one of the beliefs the flag stands for.

Cheers

This conversation about trespassing and Jehovahs Witnesses has gone far afield of the original subject, therefore I declare it completed and ask that we direct all remaining comments to the principle issue.

I agree. Well said.

No, it wouldn't, and for that matter, why should you care whether I say the pledge or not? My silence does not reflect a lack of beliefs that the United States stands for, nor does it mean that I think the people who say it are pagans or heathens. It's my choice and that's, ironcally, one of the beliefs the flag stands for.

See #83, please.

My apologies, I was writing 85 while you were writing 83.

Cheers

Then I have trouble seeing why you feel it wrong to pledge your loyalty to its symbol, which indeed stands for more than itself

a.  it is a pledge for which there is no provision in the constitution. 

b. one could as easily argue the president is a living symbol of our republic.

I just can't understand why you won't say it just as a way of showing your support and loyalty to your country, that's all.

our country, without the constitution, deserves neither support nor loyalty.  thats the fallacy of 'my country right or wrong.'  when wrong = abbrogating the constitution, the founders were very clear that citizens then have a duty to oppose the government.

But "In God we Trust" has been around since 1837, that's quite awhile. Link is to US Treasury fact sheet.

that slogan (once again, please dont try to suggest the founders werent smart or focused enough to have come up with it had they intended its use) was added by salmon p chase--despite the fact we already had a perfectly good motto created by the founders.  by doing so  to accomodate the wishes of a well-intentioned (altho not very learned and most certainly a liberal) minister, chase clearly exceeded his authority as secretary of the treasury.  'quite a while' is hardly the basis for establishing validity even if it were a significant period of time (which it is not).   it's the kinda warm n fuzzy affectation that you would be outraged about if it didnt include the word 'god' and was added without consideration by congress to currency today at the suggestion of some well-meaning but looney liberal dogooder next week. 

Reply #89 By: kingbee - 1/11/2005 11:45:13 PM But "In God we Trust" has been around since 1837, that's quite awhile. Link is to US Treasury fact sheet. that slogan (once again, please dont try to suggest the founders werent smart or focused enough to have come up with it had they intended its use) was added by salmon p chase--despite the fact we already had a perfectly good motto created by the founders. by doing so to accomodate the wishes of a well-intentioned (altho not very learned and most certainly a liberal) minister, chase clearly exceeded his authority as secretary of the treasury. 'quite a while' is hardly the basis for establishing validity even if it were a significant period of time (which it is not). it's the kinda warm n fuzzy affectation that you would be outraged about if it didnt include the word 'god' and was added without consideration by congress to currency today at the suggestion of some well-meaning but looney liberal dogooder next week.

And just WHAT has this to do with the length of time the saying has been around? If your going to comment on something that was said, at least try to stay with what was said.

And just WHAT has this to do with the length of time the saying has been around?

i did comment on it. 

even if it were a significant period of time (which it is not

even if 167 years were more than a blink of an eye in the timeline of western civilization (which it isnt), it doesnt establish anything more than its been around too long.  

by doing so to accomodate the wishes of a well-intentioned (altho not very learned and most certainly a liberal) minister, chase clearly exceeded his authority as secretary of the treasury

He was well within his authority to do so! sec of treasury has the say on the appearance of US bills. Go look at
Link

Kingbee---- a: what does that have to do with anything? It's wrong to swear loyalty to your country just because it's not mentioned in the Constitution? Just because there's nothing that says you HAVE to do something is no reason not to do it. If the Constitution made point to state that you had to swear a loyalty oath to the nation, you'd no dobt find problems with that, too. You know, you libs love to assault our constitutional rights whenever something in it doesn't suit you (right to bear arms, freedom of religion or speech, etc), but you sure do fall back on it easily enough to prop up your own opinions.

b: But we don't swear loyalty to him, rather to the republic he serves.
You keep trying to roadblock this issue with semantics, which is a tried and true liberal tactic. You people need to find a new strategy.

The all-seeing eye could be the eye of righteousness or the eye of America or of the government, so that doesn’t have to be removed, but Annuit Coeptis needs to go too.

The problem with the All-Seeing Eye is that it wasn't created to be the eye of America or the government. In almost every incarnation, including the Freemasons, it meant some sort of deity. To condone such a religious symbol would be akin to allowing the cross to be placed on the flag on the grounds that some people could interpret the cross to mean America.

I'm sure that those two aren't the only questionable symbols either. It might just be easier for the government to remove all symbolism within it.

Kingbee---- a: what does that have to do with anything? It's wrong to swear loyalty to your country just because it's not mentioned in the Constitution?

In fact, because it does not comment on it in the constitution means that it's a right of the people to say it. I don't see how that would make it wrong.

In fact, because it does not comment on it in the constitution means that it's a right of the people to say it. I don't see how that would make it wrong.

----Juxtaposition

Thank you....the very point I've been trying to make here all along.

To condone such a religious symbol would be akin to allowing the cross to be placed on the flag on the grounds that some people could interpret the cross to mean America. I'm sure that those two aren't the only questionable symbols either. It might just be easier for the government to remove all symbolism within it.

----Juxtap

I think I see what you're saying here, I and I'm not sure I agree with it.

The only reason we have moral grounding in any aspect of life is that it is based on religion. Without the ideal a divine entity residing at the beginning and end of everything, what's really the point of living with morals and abiding by our laws (the most basic of which are founded on God's law as handed down in the Ten Commandments)?
To have these symbols on our money, to display them in our government buildings, etc., is to show that we, as a nation, believe in a Supreme Being, or some kind of deity. It also, very importantly, serves remind us that we, as a nation, adhere to at least some morality and an obligation to a Power greater than all of us put together. That's an important distinction.

He was well within his authority to do so! sec of treasury has the say on the appearance of US bi

either im in the process of being struck blind or there's nothing at the page for which you provided a link that has any bearing on this discussion nor about the duties of the secretary of the treasury.   by following what seemed to be appropriate links i was able to find a page describing the duties and function of that position...none of which authorize the secretary to add slogans at his own discretion or switch red for green ink on currency as you seem to be suggesting.  

It's wrong to swear loyalty to your country just because it's not mentioned in the Constitution?

once again, im flat out amazed by so-called conservatives being so  ummm well hell, there's no other way to say this accurately..LIBERAL about 'improving' the constitution.   im firmly convinced the founders were as cognizant and purposeful in deciding what to leave out of the constitution as they were about deciding how and what they specifically included.  if they felt we needed an oath of loyalty to the flag--not to mention one that asked or proclaimed god's involvement--they were surely as capable of producing one as, say, the francophile socialist unchurched minister who actually wrote the present one over a hundred years later.  ive never seen any evidence they meant to do anything of the sort but it somehow slipped their collective minds.

You know, you libs love to assault our constitutional rights whenever something in it doesn't suit you (right to bear arms, freedom of religion or speech, etc), but you sure do fall back on it easily enough to prop up your own opinions.

the 'you libs' dont work in this instance (and would be vaguely amusing if it didnt evoke serious concerns about a 'conservative' majority that should be--but clearly isnt--steadfastly opposed to adding new whistles and bells to the consitution as the whim strikes yall).  i can imagine few more dangerous assaults on the constitution or the rights it acknowledges than an amendment that has anything at all to do with marriage. 

i stand by my assertion that the constitution IS the country.  without it, the area demarcated as the united states might as easily be france or turkmenistan.    

But we don't swear loyalty to him, rather to the republic he serves.

200+ years ago, americans didnt swear loyalty to a flag or a man.  since it only took right-thinking 'patriots' about 160 years to alter that arrangement, it's as likely as not they'll be doing both by the end of this century thanks to the unfortunate synergy of the road to hell being paved with good intentions and patriotism being the last refuge of scoundrels.

It might just be easier for the government to remove all symbolism within it.

works for me. 

The only reason we have moral grounding in any aspect of life is that it is based on religion. Without the ideal a divine entity residing at the beginning and end of everything, what's really the point of living with morals and abiding by our laws (the most basic of which are founded on God's law as handed down in the Ten Commandments)?

that's absolute nonsense.  the most basic of our laws--including those incorporated in the ten commandments such as regulations prohibiting murder, theft, etc.--predate the code of hammurabi. which was in existence before the earliest possible time that moses could have been given the tablets.  

even without the overwhelming archeologic evidence of that fact, if you think about it for even a few seconds, if mankind was totally outta control until the ten commandments appeared, our species wouldnt have lasted long enuff to produce moses or anyone else.