Invasion of US Capitol building

[rafezetter]

I notice a long post I did is here is no longer - so I'll just leave this instead:

I find it odd that people whom have been proclaiming "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. " since kindergarten for the last 130 years would have managed to nail it down by now, but apparently they are still more interested in furthering thier own agendas to the detriment of that very same society and constitution upon which it was built.... weird huh? You'd think with that mantra being used daily for the last 130 years the USA would be leading the way as the greatest socially equal country in the world.... but it's actually almost the direct opposite; It's almost as though they don't actually BELEIVE those words, and that "freedom of speech" is nothing like it.

About the only bloody constitutional point that is fiercely upheld without "personal viewpoint" ambiguity** is the one that's THE most stupid in modern society; "the right to bear arms", regardless of how many shootings of schools and childen there are.

** to mean "the rules" are bent according to personal agenda

oh and "the right to a free trial" - they LOVE that one, gotta keep making sure all those Harvard Law School grads have somewhere to work, right?

Overlords FYI - I'm 50% American on my mothers side (and her father flew Liberators in WW II), so I have the right to express a viewpoint on America and Americans. (you can check my historical posts for "american" I've made multiple references to my heritage over the years)

(Edit - oh and her Brother died in Vietnam - Sorry for the oversight Uncle Bruce)

 

[D_W]

It's odd that you would refer to something that kids mindlessly repeat as if it were something that adults "proclaim". A couple of things:
* liberty and justice aren't "social equality" or "social justice warrior" type stuff
* some number of the nutballs believe the mantra that there was fraud that cost the elections. I have no idea what they read every day, because I don't read any of it, but I'd imagine it goes something like a laundry list of falsehoods about votes being changed on electronic machines or trucked elsewhere or kept from being counted

And some of them are just jerks.

What part of this past week would suggest anything about limiting speech?

 

[rafezetter]

It's odd that you would refer to something that kids mindlessly repeat as if it were something that adults "proclaim". A couple of things:
* liberty and justice aren't "social equality" or "social justice warrior" type stuff
* some number of the nutballs believe the mantra that there was fraud that cost the elections. I have no idea what they read every day, because I don't read any of it, but I'd imagine it goes something like a laundry list of falsehoods about votes being changed on electronic machines or trucked elsewhere or kept from being counted

And some of them are just jerks.

What part of this past week would suggest anything about limiting speech?

That was a reference to speech limiting behaviour elsewhere, read my posts first line again.

Is "liberty and justice for all" NOT social equality type stuff? Hnuh, ok then - please elaborate.

Ofc there are nutjobs - I had assumed you would know I wasn't referring to them, because there have not been enough nutjobs over the last 130 years to account for where America is currently.

So that leaves "we, the people" in the driving seat.

 

[D_W]

The word justice and social equality don't mean the same thing. When someone talks about social equality, they usually mean equality of outcome, not opportunity or regulation.

I see now that you're attempting to equate the entirety of the united states to a minority of people and very recent history (perhaps even the last week or two). Not interested. We have the same constitution for over a couple of hundred years It's not going anywhere, and this movement is over soon once Trump is out of office and there isn't any real platform for him to agitate.

We'll be back to the regular news seesaw (which is people will be complaining that joe biden will make us broke with social spending and higher taxes), vs the turn that it's on right now (all of the big corporations are getting tax breaks, we're going to burn up in the environment and go broke).

 

[D_W]

About the only bloody constitutional point that is fiercely upheld without "personal viewpoint" ambiguity** is the one that's THE most stupid in modern society; "the right to bear arms", regardless of how many shootings of schools and childen there are.

 

[TRITON]

About the only bloody constitutional point that is fiercely upheld without "personal viewpoint" ambiguity** is the one that's THE most stupid in modern society; "the right to bear arms", regardless of how many shootings of schools and childen there are.

It is crazy yes. The NRA et all appear to ignore the 80 or so people killed EVERY DAY, so they can if needed stand up against the government, using their guns. Also estimated nearly 200 are maimed or injured DAILY from public held firearms.

Which is a bit daft really because if the 'Government' wanted to move towards a dictatorship(Hilariously unlikely) there is no public held armament that could be used to hold them off. OK to wield your glock around in defence, when whats coming at you is a tank or infantry platoon carrying fully automatic 50cal machine guns.
Or hold up in your shack, when its the drone strike with hellfire missiles raining down that's going to end that battle.

The point that they could be used to hold back government forces is so ridiculous it not really funny. Maybe back in 1776 but not with todays military, Cold dead hand is damn right, and there would be a lot of them to wrench the weapon from. No member of the public or militia could withstand an assault from modern troops, because remember, in such a scenario, the gloves are off. Theres no standoff like with David Koresh. You surrender or they flatten the building and everyone in it.

Its estimated theres a BILLION hand guns in circulation in the US, and the only point of a handgun is to kill people. It's not a hunting weapon, and is pretty useless at putting food on the table, its sole and primary purpose is to kill people.

I dont really have an issue with hunting, and in some places that are extremely remore or rural, thats an accepted fact, though I do think for food animals we should always prefer to make dispatch as humane as possible, ie in a slaughterhouse where it is controlled, rather than some wannabe hunter blasting off and leaving the animal to suffer greatly before succumbing to its wounds. Taints the meat with Adrenalin for starters, before you get into the humanitarian side of it.

 

[SamTheJarvis]

It's my opinion that this event was nowhere near what would constitute a terrorist attack or an attempt at insurrection. The politicians (professional and amateur) claiming this are doing it for well, a political end, naturally.

Not to say active support of this by politicians large or small is great, but this to me seems to be a protest. A bloody and regrettable one, no doubt.

Riddle us on what Michael Moore does to make a living.

He's basically a Youtuber by now.

 

[Jacob]

It's my opinion that this event was nowhere near what would constitute a terrorist attack or an attempt at insurrection. The politicians (professional and amateur) claiming this are doing it for well, a political end, naturally.

Not to say active support of this by politicians large or small is great, but this to me seems to be a protest. A bloody and regrettable one, no doubt.


He's basically a Youtuber by now.

Five people died including one policeman beaten to death. Let alone all the other details.
If it had been a small group of black, asian, muslim, etc. intruders with a fraction of the weaponry it would have been regarded as a major terrorist attack and ALL of them if not already shot would have been hunted down and arrested.
There's also mounting evidence of pre planning and collusion amongst republicans, police (hardly showed up) and others in security forces, and involvement of well equipped and prepared ex military (Ashli Babbitt for starters).
Not looking good, more to come I expect.

 

[billw]

Five people died including one policeman beaten to death. Let alone all the other details.
If it had been a small group of black, asian, muslim, etc. intruders with a fraction of the weaponry it would have been regarded as a major terrorist attack and ALL of them if not already shot would have been hunted down and arrested.

This is probably the most disturbing thing about the whole affair. The US was built upon racial inequality, it's in its DNA, will it ever go away? Not in our lifetimes.

Two policemen have died now.

There's also mounting evidence of pre planning and collusion amongst republicans, police (hardly showed up) and others in security forces, and involvement of well equipped and prepared ex military (Ashli Babbitt for starters).
Not looking good, more to come I expect.

I've seen some evidence but it seems to be at an individual level, not a huge pre-planned effort. Chalk this one up in the conspiracy theory column.

The National Guard didn't show up until late because who's the one meant to call them in? The President, who strangely enough said he did, but actually didn't. Pence did it, the guy left in the Capitol building to suffer all the consequences of his boss' actions.

 

[billw]

It's my opinion that this event was nowhere near what would constitute a terrorist attack or an attempt at insurrection. The politicians (professional and amateur) claiming this are doing it for well, a political end, naturally.

Americans struggle to call whites terrorists, so I think the politicians were making a strong point by repeatedly doing it. When you've got a country full of gun-toting lunatics and a politician says "I was scared for my life and those around me" I think they've got a point that they were indeed terrorised.

The politicians who objected to the vote and caused this whole scene were doing it for politician ends. Scared of a man with a Twitter account in case he gave them one of his mean nicknames. If it was in a TV show you'd laugh at it being unrealistic.

 

[Jacob]

Americans struggle to call whites terrorists, so I think the politicians were making a strong point by repeatedly doing it. When you've got a country full of gun-toting lunatics and a politician says "I was scared for my life and those around me" I think they've got a point that they were indeed terrorised.

The politicians who objected to the vote and caused this whole scene were doing it for politician ends. Scared of a man with a Twitter account in case he gave them one of his mean nicknames. If it was in a TV show you'd laugh at it being unrealistic.

Michael Moore puts a strong case. He makes a lot of valid points and even if you don't think they add up it's worth watching, just as a gripping part of the whole drama. Or you could cut to his conclusions at 50+ minutes in. He mentions insurrectionist posters apparently going up all over the place but I haven't seen anything on the media about this.

 

[NormanB]

Be interesting to see those arrested from the ‘invasion’ turn up in front of the judge and the defence lawyer mounts the defence they were loyally following the orders of their President, who has not been arrested for an indictable offence so the order must have been legal and their responsibility is diminished.

 

[Jacob]

Be interesting to see those arrested from the ‘invasion’ turn up in front of the judge and the defence lawyer mounts the defence they were loyally following the orders of their President, who has not been arrested for an indictable offence so the order must have been legal and their responsibility is diminished.

FBI are on the case it seems FBI puts up signs in DC seeking info on Capitol intruders

 

[Yorkieguy]

I don't want to engage in the discussion about events at Capitol Hill, save to say that despite the claims of those who engaged in the events believing they're 'True Americans' 'Defending the Constitution', I don't they've even read the Constitution. The First Amendment includes freedom of speech, freedom of peaceable assembly and the right to petition government for redress of government. But that’s not without limitation. Along with rights go responsibilities and no-one is free, nor should they be, to engage in the violent events on Capitol Hill.

The Constitution and 'God':

Many seem confused about what the American Constitution says, and assume that terms such as 'One Nation Under God' and 'In God We Trust' are part of it. The opposite is true. Neither ‘One Nation Under God’ nor ‘In God we Trust are any part of the constitution - they actually contradict the First Amendment and were not introduced until the 1950s.

Amendment I of the American Constitution made it clear that there was to be complete separation of State and Religion. It states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

There was an important reason for that – they didn’t want the State to impose any particular religion upon the people because it could put them in the same position as they were in in England, with one ‘brand’ or religion getting the upper hand over another (As in Protestants V Catholics), leading to the sort of persecution that they’d endured.

The Puritans who sailed from England to America did so primarily due to religious persecution. The non-separatist Puritans wanted to remain in the church and reform it from within. The separatist Puritans felt the church was too corrupt to reform and instead wanted to separate from it.

‘One Nation Under God’:

‘One Nation Under God’ goes against and contradicts the First Amendment in that by inference, it establishes religion and State. It was not introduced into the pledge until June 1954. During the Cold War era, many Americans wanted to distinguish the United States from the state atheism promoted by Marxist-Leninist countries, a view that led to support for the words "under God" to be added to the Pledge of Allegiance. Congress passed the necessary legislation and Eisenhower signed the bill into law on Flag Day, June 14, 1954 President Eisenhower said:

“From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.... In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war”.

That statement imposes religion by the State upon its people - by including it, America ceased to be a 'democracy' and became a 'theocracy'.

Pledge of Allegiance’:

Again, nothing to do with the Constitution – it first appeared in a popular American Children’s magazine. It was composed in 1892 by Francis Bellamy – a Baptist Minister and Christian Socialist. The Bellamy "Pledge of Allegiance" was first published in the September 8 issue of the popular children's magazine The Youth's Companion as part of the National Public-School Celebration of Columbus Day, a celebration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's arrival in the Americas. The event was conceived and promoted by James B. Upham, a marketer for the magazine, as a campaign to instil the idea of American nationalism in students and to encourage children to raise flags above their schools. Bellamy's original Pledge read: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”.

Bellamy designed the Pledge it to be quick and to the point, to be recited in 15 seconds. As a socialist, he initially considered adding the words equality and fraternity but decided against it, knowing that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans.

In 1906, The Daughters of the American Revolution's magazine, The American Monthly, used the following wording for the pledge of allegiance, based on Balch's Pledge: I pledge allegiance to my flag, and the republic for which it stands. I pledge my head and my heart to God and my country. One country, one language and one flag.

In 1923, the National Flag Conference called for the words "my Flag" to be changed to "the Flag of the United States," so that new immigrants would not confuse loyalties between their birth countries and the US. The words "of America" were added a year later. Congress officially recognized the Pledge for the first time, in the following form, on June 22, 1942. “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”.

America introduced the phrase “one nation under God,” at the height of the Cold War in 1954, as the country tried to distinguish itself from “godless” communism. In doing so, they went against both the establishment clause ('No law respecting the establishment of religion'), and the right to free speech, by persecuting those who do not wish to recite the pledge because they are not religious. That doesn’t mean dissenters don’t support the rest of the pledge, but they’re harassed and persecuted for not reciting it. If students are coerced into pledging their allegiance as a blind expression of loyalty to a state, it violate the rights and freedoms of its citizens - it does not resemble freedom of thought and it’s not freedom at all:

Pledge Laws: Controlling Protest and Patriotism in Schools | Teaching Tolerance

‘In God We Trust’:

" In God We Trust " was not part of the American Constitution, and as with ‘One Nation Under God’ goes against the First Amendment. ", is the official motto of the United States of America and of the U.S. state of Florida. It was adopted by the U.S. Congress in 1956. It supplanting the non-religious motto ‘E pluribus unum’, in use since 1776 on the design of the Great Seal of the United States. The thirteen-letter motto was actually from an English magazine. At the time of the American Revolution, the phrase appeared regularly on the title page of the London-based Gentleman's Magazine, which collected articles from many sources into one periodical. Translated, it means "Out of many, one”. The inference of its use on the Seal being ‘many people united as one’.

Despite the high level of real or pretended religiosity in America, there will be many millions of non-religious Americans, just as there are in the UK who have no religion, and cannot recite the pledge in its entirety with any real conviction. The same applies to the British National Anthem. I Don’t recite the first word of the British National Anthem (‘God save our Gracious Queen) as I’m a humanist and don’t believe in the existence of any supernatural creator. I'm in the majority in Britain in that regard, but it doesn't mean I'm disloyal. (Like many who have given an oath of allegiance, Judges, Magistrates, Police Officers, Members of the Armed Forces, I ‘affirmed’ - I did not ‘Swear by Almighty God’).

Fifty-two percent of the public in Britain say they do not belong to any religion, compared with 31% in 1983 when the British Attitude Survey began tracking religious belief. The number of people identifying as Christian has fallen from 66% to 38% over the same period. Only 1% of people aged 18-24 identify as Church of England. Even among over-75s, the most religious age group, only one in three people describe themselves as C of E.

Posted for information - not argument.

 

[D_W]

Five people died including one policeman beaten to death. Let alone all the other details.
If it had been a small group of black, asian, muslim, etc. intruders with a fraction of the weaponry it would have been regarded as a major terrorist attack and ALL of them if not already shot would have been hunted down and arrested.
There's also mounting evidence of pre planning and collusion amongst republicans, police (hardly showed up) and others in security forces, and involvement of well equipped and prepared ex military (Ashli Babbitt for starters).
Not looking good, more to come I expect.

Fantasy, Jacob. If it had been any of the groups you mention and they'd publicly gone on and on about their votes not being counted, we would've considered them foolish for thinking their votes hadn't been counted.

Are you going to go out on a limb and say nobody has been arrested?

 

[gregmcateer]

In fairness, D_W, Jacob isn't talking about a different group going "on and on about their votes not being counted..." he is talking about the group storming, (or if you prefer 'gathering peacefully but insistently') in the Capitol building.

 

[D_W]

In fairness, D_W, Jacob isn't talking about a different group going "on and on about their votes not being counted..." he is talking about the group storming, (or if you prefer 'gathering peacefully but insistently') in the Capitol building.

We generally estimate or know the motive of someone when they "attack". In this case, an emotional mob went to the capitol, I guess four of them got killed and in one fight with one individual, an officer was killed.

I'm not a huge fan of people doing anything when they're emotional. I think if the mob intended to actual go to the capitol and seize something, they'd still be there. They went and they left.

If we had restrictions on religious freedom and muslims were all bottled up over it screaming "we want religious freedoms", they wouldn't be labeled as terrorists. When BLM rallies led to police shooting, I don't think 95% of the US saw the rally participants as domestic terrorists, we saw them as being upset with one video after another of poorly treated people of their own race ending up dead at the hands of police. Nobody here thought we were going to end up with a "Terroristic" threat (such as some long term intent to ambush police and eliminate them). Of course, there are fringe groups here who think there should be no police.

If the motive of the mob in general was to go, rush the capitol building to make a statement (misguided) and they came in and left, why would they be labeled terrorists if the BLM movement isn't? I think antifa and the far right fringe groups have already been labeled domestic terrorists. You can probably find people on the right fringe group as a small minority on the capitol protests, as well as antifa present at BLM movements. That doesn't mean BLM gets labeled as antifa, etc.

 

[D_W]

I don't want to engage in the discussion about events at Capitol Hill, save to say that despite the claims of those who engaged in the events believing they're 'True Americans' 'Defending the Constitution', I don't they've even read the Constitution. The First Amendment includes freedom of speech, freedom of peaceable assembly and the right to petition government for redress of government. But that’s not without limitation. Along with rights go responsibilities and no-one is free, nor should they be, to engage in the violent events on Capitol Hill.

The Constitution and 'God':

Many seem confused about what the American Constitution says, and assume that terms such as 'One Nation Under God' and 'In God We Trust' are part of it. The opposite is true. Neither ‘One Nation Under God’ nor ‘In God we Trust are any part of the constitution - they actually contradict the First Amendment and were not introduced until the 1950s.

Amendment I of the American Constitution made it clear that there was to be complete separation of State and Religion. It states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

There was an important reason for that – they didn’t want the State to impose any particular religion upon the people because it could put them in the same position as they were in in England, with one ‘brand’ or religion getting the upper hand over another (As in Protestants V Catholics), leading to the sort of persecution that they’d endured.

The Puritans who sailed from England to America did so primarily due to religious persecution. The non-separatist Puritans wanted to remain in the church and reform it from within. The separatist Puritans felt the church was too corrupt to reform and instead wanted to separate from it.

‘One Nation Under God’:

‘One Nation Under God’ goes against and contradicts the First Amendment in that by inference, it establishes religion and State. It was not introduced into the pledge until June 1954. During the Cold War era, many Americans wanted to distinguish the United States from the state atheism promoted by Marxist-Leninist countries, a view that led to support for the words "under God" to be added to the Pledge of Allegiance. Congress passed the necessary legislation and Eisenhower signed the bill into law on Flag Day, June 14, 1954 President Eisenhower said:

“From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.... In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war”.

That statement imposes religion by the State upon its people - by including it, America ceased to be a 'democracy' and became a 'theocracy'.

Pledge of Allegiance’:

Again, nothing to do with the Constitution – it first appeared in a popular American Children’s magazine. It was composed in 1892 by Francis Bellamy – a Baptist Minister and Christian Socialist. The Bellamy "Pledge of Allegiance" was first published in the September 8 issue of the popular children's magazine The Youth's Companion as part of the National Public-School Celebration of Columbus Day, a celebration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's arrival in the Americas. The event was conceived and promoted by James B. Upham, a marketer for the magazine, as a campaign to instil the idea of American nationalism in students and to encourage children to raise flags above their schools. Bellamy's original Pledge read: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”.

Bellamy designed the Pledge it to be quick and to the point, to be recited in 15 seconds. As a socialist, he initially considered adding the words equality and fraternity but decided against it, knowing that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans.

In 1906, The Daughters of the American Revolution's magazine, The American Monthly, used the following wording for the pledge of allegiance, based on Balch's Pledge: I pledge allegiance to my flag, and the republic for which it stands. I pledge my head and my heart to God and my country. One country, one language and one flag.

In 1923, the National Flag Conference called for the words "my Flag" to be changed to "the Flag of the United States," so that new immigrants would not confuse loyalties between their birth countries and the US. The words "of America" were added a year later. Congress officially recognized the Pledge for the first time, in the following form, on June 22, 1942. “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”.

America introduced the phrase “one nation under God,” at the height of the Cold War in 1954, as the country tried to distinguish itself from “godless” communism. In doing so, they went against both the establishment clause ('No law respecting the establishment of religion'), and the right to free speech, by persecuting those who do not wish to recite the pledge because they are not religious. That doesn’t mean dissenters don’t support the rest of the pledge, but they’re harassed and persecuted for not reciting it. If students are coerced into pledging their allegiance as a blind expression of loyalty to a state, it violate the rights and freedoms of its citizens - it does not resemble freedom of thought and it’s not freedom at all:

Pledge Laws: Controlling Protest and Patriotism in Schools | Teaching Tolerance

‘In God We Trust’:

" In God We Trust " was not part of the American Constitution, and as with ‘One Nation Under God’ goes against the First Amendment. ", is the official motto of the United States of America and of the U.S. state of Florida. It was adopted by the U.S. Congress in 1956. It supplanting the non-religious motto ‘E pluribus unum’, in use since 1776 on the design of the Great Seal of the United States. The thirteen-letter motto was actually from an English magazine. At the time of the American Revolution, the phrase appeared regularly on the title page of the London-based Gentleman's Magazine, which collected articles from many sources into one periodical. Translated, it means "Out of many, one”. The inference of its use on the Seal being ‘many people united as one’.

Despite the high level of real or pretended religiosity in America, there will be many millions of non-religious Americans, just as there are in the UK who have no religion, and cannot recite the pledge in its entirety with any real conviction. The same applies to the British National Anthem. I Don’t recite the first word of the British National Anthem (‘God save our Gracious Queen) as I’m a humanist and don’t believe in the existence of any supernatural creator. I'm in the majority in Britain in that regard, but it doesn't mean I'm disloyal. (Like many who have given an oath of allegiance, Judges, Magistrates, Police Officers, Members of the Armed Forces, I ‘affirmed’ - I did not ‘Swear by Almighty God’).

Fifty-two percent of the public in Britain say they do not belong to any religion, compared with 31% in 1983 when the British Attitude Survey began tracking religious belief. The number of people identifying as Christian has fallen from 66% to 38% over the same period. Only 1% of people aged 18-24 identify as Church of England. Even among over-75s, the most religious age group, only one in three people describe themselves as C of E.

Posted for information - not argument.

The point of contention about first amendment and religion is that there would be no state sponsored religion. That probably came out of English influence and other countries with an official church. My ancestors fled to the United States from Germany. They were relegated to an area of the country where subsistence farming was difficult and famine and death was common. Why were they sent to that region? Because they weren't Catholic. They came to the US partially to practice their religion, but much to avoid being pushed around by government. In our background are relatives (specifically named) who had to travel to Philadelphia prior to independence to assure the king of england that they wouldn't be separatists (their crime was printing a newspaper in german and refusing to use english day to day. When the revolutionary war occurred, they didn't want to fight for anyone- why trust a new government? Under threat of prison, they ended up being logistical support more or less (hauling supplies and staying away from active war).

I doubt they would've cared what the government language recited about "God" if they weren't forced to go to a state sponsored church or face retribution.

As far as the pledge and other such things (I mentioned earlier here that most of this kind of thing started in the early 1900s in the US, as a narrative). In the US, people view something like "pledging allegiance to God and country" far differently than they would pledging allegiance to the Pope, etc. I'd imagine less than half of the united states participates in any kind of organized religion at this point, but since the whole thing is toothless, nobody cares. It's not brainwashing anyone, and you don't get in trouble if you choose (even as a child) not to say the pledge. If they took the pledge away, only the older people would care. The same folks who think the draft should be reinstated because "that's the only way kids learn responsibility, and we had to do it, too".

Most of the people in the US have read the constitution. It's part of the school curriculum, and they'd have been tested on the content of it. Whether or not they remember later, most probably not. I'd bet also that a huge number of the people in the capitol last week had pocket constitutions or apps, though (I don't, and neither does most of the country who is more centrist or especially folks on the left).

Your statement about "being free to commit violent acts" is an implied falsehood. Nobody is free to do that. There is a freedom of assembly here, but that's not "freedom of assembly plus anything else that occurs during the assembly".

The FBI and capitol police will be free to charge anyone they can identify and I have yet to see an opinion that people who are being arrested shouldn't be arrested (though when it came to Kavanaugh or protesting health care bill modifications, the notion that people refusing to leave often complained that they shouldn't be arrested and that the police were too heavy handed). It's more typical in a peaceful protest for someone to be arrested and fined some minimal amount ($50 or so).

I think one of the points of contention in the first amendment have been your interpretation (that the government would never have anything to say about religion or as you're contending, be able to even recognize that it exists) because the amendment prohibited the government from putting up hurdles to establishing religion or practicing religion. Nobody in the US wants to see a state sponsored religion, but there's a faction of folks who contend that the first amendment says exactly what it does say, not that the government would never use the word "God" in anything. Such a thing could've been easily written in the amendment if that was the point. It's evolved from "religion" to "any use of the word God in anything taxpayer funded".

 

[Trainee neophyte]

Just for balance, wikipedia has this to say about the George Floyd riots:

As of June 22, 2020, police have made 14,000 arrests in 49 cities since the protests began, with most arrests being locals charged with low-level offenses such as violating curfews or blocking roadways.[3] As of June 8, 2020, at least 19 people have died during the protests.[148] The Los Angeles Police Department announced that "homicides went up 250% and victims shot went up 56%" from May 31 to June 6.[149] Several protests over Floyd's death, including one in Chicago,[150] turned into riots

When is an invasion not a riot, and when is a peaceful protestor not a terrorist?

Just for Jake, I think I may change my avatar, so everyone knows straight away that I am actually a Russian hacker.

 

[D_W]

Be interesting to see those arrested from the ‘invasion’ turn up in front of the judge and the defence lawyer mounts the defence they were loyally following the orders of their President, who has not been arrested for an indictable offence so the order must have been legal and their responsibility is diminished.

it's all fun and games at the "great trespass" event. If you go to actual courts in the US and make clown defenses like that, the court is insulted and any leniency you may have had is gone.

One of the problems here is actually that - that the court will often offer individuals a plea that's a tiny fraction of the max potential punishment. People who are otherwise innocent will take the plea upon legal advice that it's a safer bet than challenging based on the truth. The reason for that is simple - it takes almost no time to write a plea and keep the court docket clear for cases that need to actually appear, but it incents a lot of people who didn't do anything to be dumped in the same category as people who did and who are getting off easy on the plea.

In the event that a prosecutor really wants to get someone, then a plea isn't offered and the fight is on. Most of the trespassers here will be offered a fine and that's it (which is as it should be if someone was just flowing with the crowd and doing nothing violent). In most protests in the US, people assembling illegally usually aren't arrested, but someone taped inciting violence or carrying it out will be. We had a BLM protest here (that I didn't walk through) that did get violent, and my neighbor (a cameraman) was blindsided, knocked to the ground, knocked out and kicked. Literally saved by people who were watching a livestream from a local office and who ran out when they saw him getting beaten. At least one police car was burned and there was a fair amount of violence, but there weren't that many arrests.

So I hope we're spared of the nonsense after this that most of the capitol trespassers who did nothing other than go with the flow and then go out don't get arrested. It's generally the case for all protests here. Notable folks like the guy with the tadoos and horns, though, arrest came quickly. Same with anyone seen vandalizing or carrying things with them that they didn't own.