one nation under god

[NotUrAverage_Si]

Originally posted by 94RedSiGal@Jun 16 2004, 12:20 AM
Don't pray for my soul either.

who said anyone was?

um 50 years of American hisotory isn't significant because America is only 228 years old? Yeah 228 years isn't all that much compared to some other countries that have been around for much much longer than that. So when we're talking about America I would have to say 50 years is very significant.

 

[Frankie P.]

Dude, they had no proof what so ever of Japanese-Americans aiding the Japanese government. If we were such a threat, why wern't the German-Americans rounded up or the Italian-Americans??? Oh yeah, thats right, because they were white.

Do you realize that the people that were interned got EVERYTHING taken from them. Their houses, businesses, and everything they owned....and then it was never given back. They were lated "repayed" by the US government but it never managed to cover all of the losses.

Did I justify it in any way? No, I codemned them for doing it, I am just stating that at the time it seemed like the right thing to do. Later they saw their wrong and looks like they tried to give them something in return for how they were treated. We did the same thing with Indians, at the time it seemed right to kill them all off for our __________ destiny, I can't think of the word right now. Now we are giving them back casino's, and they don't pay any taxes, also if you are as low as 1/4 Indian, like my fiance` you can get money from the government. She doesn't do it because she thinks the casinos are enough, but I think I got my point across.

 

[Citizen_Insane]

^^ "manifest" is the word I think your looking for in the "___________"

 

[Frankie P.]

Manifest, thank you very much.

 

[Guy]

Originally posted by Import Builders@Jun 15 2004, 02:04 AM
the reason they dropped the suit, is the surpreme court ruled the guy had no grounds because he was not even a legal guardian of the kid! The guy is sucha loser.

To call this man a loser for trying to secure an unbiased and secular education is absurd. Regardless of his legal position in relation to her, he is still allowed to desire her wellbeing. It is a Public school, and somewhere she is forced to go. To include any vestige of religion (any religion) in it from anything other than an analytical standpoint is unnecessary and unconstitutional.

Also, as far as the "under God" slogan. that does not refer to any 1 religion, although many people infer it to mean Jesus Christ/God. In the original Declaration of INdependence youll find a reference to a "god".

You will also find in our American constitution the establishment clause :"Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of a religion"

Nobody is arguing to remove that.

Its a historical document, it cannot be changed. Do do so would set precedence for revisionist historians (if revisionists can be called historians) everywhere who would jump at the chance to clean up America's sordid past.

The country was partially, not fully, founded by men who believed in a higher power, and its our tradition. I have read many books on the subject, and what I can show you to tally up the truth is that the USA is the best society BY FAR in the entire world, in the history of mankind.

well, here is a list big name Deists/Unitatians for you: Ben Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Washington, and Thomas Paine. Pretty big names. Now saying that they believe in a higher power is a bit misleading though. There is a difference between believing in a God who created everything and stoped intervening at creation (Deism) and traditional Christianity. Also note that While Christians base their morals on what the council of Nicea deemed was christianity, Many of the founding fathers were well versed in Locke and other political philosophers, which helped to shape our nation. More proof needed? here is a quote from the 1797 treaty of Tripoly: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

To address your issue of the "by far best society", ill ask what do you mean by best? This will always be a semantics game, but there will always be examples of countries with lower crime, more freedom, better gdp, higher literact rates, higher standard of living etc. In your opinion America is the best society ever, but bear in mind that is just your opinion.

What makes is the greatest is the freedom, granted from the values of the founding fathers who implemented guidelines based on their moral fiber. Which, for many of them were the belief in Jesus Christ. the Bible is responsible a great deal for the laws we now enjoy in this country, because of the founding fathers belief in freedom, etc. etc.

Again if you read locke (try "of civil government") or simply look at Utilitarian Philosophy you will see with more accuracy where our national ideals come from.

Also, if you study history, secularism is the best damn thing we have in our society. Whether you are an athiest, a liberal or whatever, Christian leadership in this country is VALUABLE and SUCESSFULL. Secular leadership is the most successfull type of leadership of the last 2 thousand years.

Though you dont intend to be, you are absolutly correct. Secular government is a boon to all of its citizens. I'll address your "proof" below.

To prove my point, look at athiestic type leadership.

Site example #1 Adolf Hitler. Was religious in his youth, then turned athiest, and then you know what happened. read his book.
Site example #2 Russia. Stalin. Same thing. When he turned athiest, guess what, a few million people started getting sent up the guloags (Sp).

You see secularism brings good things, whether you like it or not. It brings morals, order, structure, guidelines, promotes peace, and ethics. With athiestic societies, all history has shown it to do is be immporal, unethical, murderious, genocide, no freedom, mass graves...

See, its easy to say this from your perspective because you have always been in the majority. Christian countries are great (usually)... for christians. Do I really need to point out the murder/mass graves/war/slander/ruined lives that have been a result of Religion (christianity) being mixed with government? Ill point you in the direction of the crusades and let you go on from there. Also just as being a Christian in a Christian country is good, being a leninist/stalinist in a leninist/stalinst country is good.
To address your ideas about national socialist germany ill show you to point 24 of the 25 points of the national socialist party platform: 24. We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the moral and ethical feelings of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent recovery from within only on the principle: THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF-INTEREST. In addition to that Hitler was a member of the occult Thule society. Regardless
Im hoping that you can see that in the absence of religion it is possible to have morals, but instead of them coming from some obscure and interpreted through many mouths divine mandate, morals can come from reasonable thought and Philosophy.

A quick study of history will point anyone to want to live in a society run by a Christian based secular leader.

Of course, provided you are a Christian.

And without war, there would be no peace. The left wing people have no answer for what you do when the other side can't be reasoned with, can't be bargained with, can't be dealt with. they just have to be defeated/killed. That means war. That is the only option. period.

Yet again yet another general assumption. JFK, a democrat, started the Viet Nam war. FDR, another Democrat also took care of part of WWII. The problem with a lot of people in the right is that they always have one finger on the trigger and are anxious to show that they can use it. Personally I think that there is always a solution aside from violence, epecially with the economic clout a nation like the US has (total embargos, for instance).

He didn't understand the government is not supporting any 1 religion. there is NO state religion. Its supporting any/all you want to choose.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establisment of a religion". That extends to any and all religions, not just judeo/islamic/christian faiths.

 

[SolPWR]

Originally posted by ktanaka@Jun 16 2004, 07:32 AM
Dude, they had no proof what so ever of Japanese-Americans aiding the Japanese government. If we were such a threat, why wern't the German-Americans rounded up or the Italian-Americans??? Oh yeah, thats right, because they were white.

They are easier to pick out of the crowd.

im not racist but minorities play this shit out way to much. Dont pull this slavery shit on me cause these fuckers 200 years ago did it. Hell I am a first generation american so dont say cause they are colored and those fuckers from 200 years ago fucked you up that I have to treat you differently than other people


Black people: FUCK YOU
White People: FUCK YOU
Hispanic people: FUCK YOU
Asian People: FUCK YOU
Other: FUCK YOU

 

[ahedau]

certain things not being right, it isn't right until later determined.

for the most part Frankie, I agree with your sentiments. Here, I do not.

I think this doctrine is at the root of a lot of issues we are dealing with now.

Right is ALWAYS right and wrong is ALWAYS wrong. The problem is in finding the standard.

All major religions have a very similar standard for what's right and what's wrong. Have you ever said, "Hey! That's not fair!!"? Our sense of fairplay is based on an deep rooted knowledge of right and wrong.

Historical relativity is a cop out to me. Japan's unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor was wrong then and its wrong now. This nation's treatment of the original inhabitants of this land was wrong then and still wrong today. Slavery, McCarthyism, the Crusades, the Holocaust, all of Clinton's debacles, Enron, all of the L.A. Riots, the endless problems with B's getting the Sol up and running..... wrong, wrong, wrong....

 

[Import Builders]

Guy...

Jefferson and Washington in your point make no sense, they STRONGLY believed in GOD!?

Who wrote the declaration of independence? Do you know who?

If you can't even accept that Jefferson and Washington were God believers, then your beyond arguing against, your in denial.

"have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every from of tyranny over the mind of man"

Thomas Jefferson.

Looks like our boy who founded our country wants war with anyone who would impose constraints on free speech, or the way we think.

In other words, he is not a liberal.

Your still not getting it. The rule is the STATE can't IMPOSE A RELIGION. And they don't, they did away with that in the 1700's.

If they DO impose A (meaning 1) religion.

Can you tell me what religion the STATE imposses right now that is against your constitutional rights? And when you name it, how come nobody knows that except you?

Jeff

 

[Guy]

Originally posted by Import Builders@Jun 16 2004, 11:41 PM
Guy...

Jefferson and Washington in your  point make no sense, they STRONGLY believed in GOD!? 

Who wrote the declaration of independence?  Do you know who?

If you can't even accept that Jefferson and Washington were God believers, then your beyond arguing against, your in denial.

"have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every from of tyranny over the mind of man"

Thomas Jefferson.

Looks like our boy who founded our country wants war with anyone who would impose constraints on free speech, or the way we think.

In other words, he is not a liberal. 

Your still not getting it.  The rule is the STATE can't IMPOSE A RELIGION.    And they don't, they did away with that in the 1700's.

If they DO impose A (meaning 1) religion.

Can you tell me what religion the STATE imposses right now that is against your constitutional rights?  And when you name it, how come nobody knows that except you?

Jeff

Jeff...

If you cannot differentiate between a God believer and a Christian, then you are in denial. To believe in a God does not imply any sort of endorsement of the Christian system. I am not arguing that they did not believe in a God, what i am saying is that they were not christians, but instead Deists.

Ive got TJ quotes as well:

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -- Thomas Jefferson (letter to J. Adams April 11,1823)

Here is something i found that you should take a look at.

"The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."

--Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800. ME 10:173

... I think the full quote speaks for itself. Perhaps you should invest in reading the full quote before you take something out of context and contort the words of a great man like Jefferson to your own suit your own adgenda.

Does opposition to what would be considered the religious right of the time make him a liberal? How about his ideals of an Agrarian society? That seems pretty contrary to the rightwing ideal of corperate farms.

They do not impose on me any religion, but they are imposing upon me the existance of a God (with a capital G). And as our favorite giver of relevant quotes said in his letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1809 the constitution created a "wall of separation between church and state." That means any church. Beyond that Science has proven the ideas of the bible to be inaccurate (for instance, the age of the earth, dinosaurs, the duck billed platypus etc), and for us to cling to them beyond for historical reasons is absurd. In any case I appreciate you not simply disregarding what ive said, because in researching my rebuttals ive been able to solidify my stances on all of this.

P.S. I liked your earlier post that acknowledged me actually speaking what i believed in better.

P.P.S. http://www.deviantart.com/view/7031312/ is the letter to the editor i wrote last month and its somewhat on topic, and will address any posible future arguments from that position.

 

[Import Builders]

I see what your saying, but you have to step back and look at what is "actually says" It says the state can't impose a religion.

So I ask you again, what religion does the state impose? There is NO state religion, thus the constitution is not violated. End of story.

Your "implying" that "a religion" means christianity. Thats wrong. It does not. Simply believing in a higher power does not constitute a 'religion'. Its non-specific.

there is no religion like that. each religion is different, unique and purposefull in its regard. The state does not impose ANY 1 religion on anyone.

So again, when you see that point, youll understand why its not a violation of the constitution. it would HAVE TO FORCE IT ON YOU. IT DOESN'T.

If you cannot name 1 religion that is imposed on you, your right are OBVIOUSLY not violated. So you have no argument, you just hate religion and want to see it gone. I can understand that, people hate GOD, whether he exists or not!

Can we at least agree on that? Just saying it acknowledges a higher power is not a singled out religion.

Jefferson believed in a "higher" power, that was my point. He did not believe in say, Christianity, which was your point. You actually made my point stronger with your most excellent researched post.

until you can go to school and say "Dang, you know what, the state is imposing Christianity on me, my rights are violated. You have no argument. they are not imposing anything, on anyone specific to any 1 religion, which is what the constitution says they can't do.

And on top of that, you can go outside and hear none of it, adding 2 reasons why they are not violating your rights.

Bottom line, the pledge is constitutional. Read the above.

Sorry, I didn't like my post, I thought it was too agressive. Sorry. I am trying to give you respect.

Sorry if it doesn;t come off that way.

Sincerely,

Jeff

 

[xj0hnx]

I think the point is that it doesn't matter if it is Christianity, Buddism, Catholisism or whatever, a reference to religion whether it is a broadstroke, or pinpoint is the same in regaurds to church and state.

 

[TurboMirage]

Originally posted by 92b16vx@Jun 17 2004, 03:38 AM
Catholisism

"who's your buddy??"

 

[Citizen_Insane]

Originally posted by Import Builders@Jun 17 2004, 01:58 AM
I see what your saying, but you have to step back and look at what is "actually says" It says the state can't impose a religion.

So I ask you again, what religion does the state impose? There is NO state religion, thus the constitution is not violated. End of story.

Your "implying" that "a religion" means christianity. Thats wrong. It does not. Simply believing in a higher power does not constitute a 'religion'. Its non-specific.

there is no religion like that. each religion is different, unique and purposefull in its regard. The state does not impose ANY 1 religion on anyone.

So again, when you see that point, youll understand why its not a violation of the constitution. it would HAVE TO FORCE IT ON YOU. IT DOESN'T.

If you cannot name 1 religion that is imposed on you, your right are OBVIOUSLY not violated. So you have no argument, you just hate religion and want to see it gone. I can understand that, people hate GOD, whether he exists or not!

Can we at least agree on that? Just saying it acknowledges a higher power is not a singled out religion.

Jefferson believed in a "higher" power, that was my point. He did not believe in say, Christianity, which was your point. You actually made my point stronger with your most excellent researched post.

until you can go to school and say "Dang, you know what, the state is imposing Christianity on me, my rights are violated. You have no argument. they are not imposing anything, on anyone specific to any 1 religion, which is what the constitution says they can't do.

And on top of that, you can go outside and hear none of it, adding 2 reasons why they are not violating your rights.

Bottom line, the pledge is constitutional. Read the above.

Sorry, I didn't like my post, I thought it was too agressive. Sorry. I am trying to give you respect.

Sorry if it doesn;t come off that way.

Sincerely,

Jeff

However the state is acknowledging a higher power which all people may or may not believe in. I don't belive in god and don't think that it is appropriate for the government to support the idea of god. I'm not trying to bring down religion by any means, I just don't think that "Religion" as a WHOLE should be forced on those that are not religous. Its not a factor of one religion pusing their beliefs on annother, it is the idea of religion being pushed on those that are agnostic or atheist.

I understand what you are saying, but I think that the use of the word "God" by the governement implys a Nation wide monotheistic belief. By using the word "God" the state is excluding the beliefs of Polytheistic religions and agnostics/atehists.

 

[Guy]

You're entire arguement is hinging off of the use of the words "a" in the establishment clause. While we may not have A specific religion forced upon us (although, if you like, i could argue that the use of God with a capital G implies a Judeo/christian/islamic god) we are forced to acknowledge the existance of a higher being, this higher being which is both philosophically and scientifically unreasonable. While this may not to you seem offensive or even bothersome, I feel that for myself (when i was a child), as well as for my future kid(s), forced recognition of any higher "power" is antithetical to being a truly moral person.

To be honest, i don't understand why Christians have to get their collective frilly panties (believe me, they are frilly) in a bunch about removing the phrase from the pledge. Public school is a place all children have to attend, so why bother with any reference to god/God/Goddess/godess etc? It isnt necessary and it only makes us look retarded in the light of modern science. Of course i do know why Christians want it in there, because they know about which the god it refers to. They say that removing the phrase is taking God (bear in mind. their god) out of the classroom. That is the only reason that they are fighting for it. Of course you cant argue that given your awareness and apperant belief in the establishment clause and the notion of a seperation of church and state. So why again are you so against taking it away?

In regards to the constitutionality of 'under God' we cant really say yet. The case was voted out not because of the content of the case, but the fathers relation to the child. Rest assured that this is not the end, for if when my child is of school age, and if this archaic practice continues, Ill be the next one to be bringing this issue up and the supreme court (even with ultra conservative idealogues like that bastard anotonin scalia) will not be able to dismiss me because of my relation to my child.

In regarded to Jefferson, i have never said that he did not believe in a higher power and im not sure where you are getting that from. I never linked TJ to christianity and if i did so please quote it and prove me wrong, as discussing that is only a waste of bandwidth.

Bottom line: We dont know if the pledge is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court did not have the intellectual honesty to make a real ruling on the case and instead chose to opt out because of the father.

With all of my heart,
Jeremiah

 

[Import Builders]

Hi, again, respectfully.

You just said it yourself. your words:

"While we may not have A specific religion forced upon us "

exactly, thus nothing is unconstitutional in this case.

You will get worked 8-0 by the surpreme court because the #1 argument is going to be the question:

"What religion is being instituted onto you in school?"

Just saying "a higher being exists" is not a religion, thus your argument cannot stand. It has to be 1 specific religion. Like islam, per se. If you can;t name 1 religion, your argument is invalid. + you can go outside and hear nothing.

I also want to discuss with you, how you feel like you can talk your way out of ANY violent situation. Where did you learn that? You just think of it one day? Thats a completely illogical belief. easily, easily disproved, easily.

Are you willing to change your perspective at all? If you are, looks like we can have a little car party or something. Because I can prove your belief system is illogical. Heres the proof:

1) The people in the towers, in the office on the end, facing away from the window, a plane happened to hit him/her going about a good 500 MPH. He didn't have a chance to "talk" his way out of it. The terrorists just decided no negotiations and want us all dead. I guess you can't "talk" your way to peace to resolve that matter when your dead can you? Thats why your thought process is illogical. Because you cannot debate or negotiate for peace when the other side just wants you dead, no matter what. They have not asked for anything, they just want us dead. There is nothing you can do about it, except killing them.

Do you see that? Or am I wasting my time.

sincerely,

Jeff

 

[xj0hnx]

Arguing sematics is ghey. Saying god doesn't infer any one religion, but it does infer religion which at the center of all of them is a god.

Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective

 

[DarkHand]

I'm betting that the supreme court is eventually going to rule to keep 'under god' in the pledge, but officially make it optional. If a school forces it on a kid, it's the schools fault, not the governments.

I'm curious as to why hardcore athiests want to shelter their children from learning about other religions/cultures anyway. They're not trying to convert them or anything. The pledge is a part of the american history/culture, just like 'In God We Trust' on our money. It's not a freaking sermon, it's history/culture.

EDIT: Again, let me restate my generally agnostic opinion... I keep seeming to stick up for right wing soccer moms in this thread... I'm not, I just think the whole argument is dumb.

 

[xj0hnx]

It isn't culture, it is brainwashing.

And what would god think of our childern pledging to the flag?

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

 

[DarkHand]

Originally posted by 92b16vx@Jun 17 2004, 03:24 PM
It isn't culture, it is brainwashing.

Well most all religion is brainwashing , but legacy holdovers from an earlier time where the country was mostly one religion aren't... Most people don't go and try to wipe out buddist proverbs, or ban fortune cookies, or have the nazis removed from history books, or try to destroy anything they don't like or don't believe in. I can't figure out why people can accept most anything, but go apeshit when any kind of religion gets mentioned. I don't like Coca Cola, but I don't go around pulling down their billboards and trying to have the company disbanded.

Coca Cola will rot your teeth, give you diabetes, and ruin your health in general. But hey, if people want to drink it, and look at their ads, fine by me. Dosen't hurt me. Same with religion. If people want to believe in god and give churches their hard earned money and waste their Sundays, it dosen't hurt me. If one truly dosen't believe in god, why should religious 'advertisements' be treated any differently than the Coca Cola ads?

 

[NotUrAverage_Si]

Originally posted by Blanco@Jun 17 2004, 02:07 PM
If a person is athiest/agnostic/satanist/etc., you're forcing them to say "one nation under God". You are forcing religion on that person.

Atheism is considered a religion. Christianity, Catholisism and other religions have their own symbols (cross/crucifix) and so to do the Atheists, I have chart here where I work that lists all the symbols each RELIGION uses and yes Atheism is on there.