PDA

View Full Version : I pledge alliegance...



Matt Richard
26 June 2002, 02:10 PM
Everyone who hasnt heard, the 9th Circuit of appeals (located in California, where else?) has ruled that saying the pledge of alliegance is unconstitutional because of the phrase "under God." THey say it endorses a religion.

Well, Matt is not too happy about this and encourages everyone to contact the judges that made this deciscion and tell them how they feel. I am glad to anounce that the Senate has just passed a resoulution (Im a political freek, so I watch C-Span:D ), condeming the rulling. Three cheers for the Senate!

The 9th Circuit covers 13 or 15 (I cant remember) states in the western part of the us. I happen to be in one of those states, so I guess it is now a no-no for me to say the pledge. You know what... UP YOURS 9th CIRCUIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I encourage EVERYONE, especially those in the 9th Circuit region (if you live in the us of course) to say the pledge, and say it proudly. GOD Bless America.

I pledge alleigance 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.

Jaggard
26 June 2002, 03:39 PM
It's unconstitutional to make people say it or to have it be part of the a state run school function as most kids are required to do it. Some people were alowed to sit it out in my schools (J Witnesses mostly) but I got emarassed by my teachers saying now lets all say the pledge, oh but --- you don't have to because ----.
And it wasn't even me she was talking to.
It must be embarrasing to be treated like your a special case, or at worst unpatriotic.
That's one point.

the next one is a little harder to say without sounding like a villian; but here goes.
This is what I came up with when I was in third grade.
What is it you are saying when you do it.
I pledge alliegence (I sware to always support and ally myself)
To the flag (not to the country but the flag and anybody who waves it)
Of the united states of america (just to let you know who's flag)
And to the republic for which it stands. (Okay now it's to more then a symbolic banner)
One nation (Kinda, what about the Navajo and other native american Nations. Or those with dual citizenship, over here on visas or exchange programs or how about some who maybe hear but arn't citizens [I think the word alien is just to make them seem like a them and not people too])
Under god (atheist, what about goddess, or Ala [sp?], or anything else for that matter. It does strike me as odd that religion and state are to be seperated but this is here and for that matter why in god we trust on our money?)
Indivisible (not hardly, as long as we can say us and them when refering to fellow country people then there will always be a devision of sorts.)
With liberty and justice for all (I'll leave this alone because I happen to think this is a good thing to strive for as long as you don't get too carried away. Makeing laws that say things like this pledge is illegal anywhere or has to be said by citizens everyday.)

I find it kind of in bad taste that my schools made me commit myself to an oral contract with a nation, that requires me to support it even if what it might do is wrong, before I even know what I'm talking about or who Richard Stands is :D .
I don't take this stuff too seriously. Thinking about it as a contract you had to sign to get a job. I wouldn't sign it. YEAH I LOVE THE USA (just to mak that clear) but I wouldn't sign anything that I thought could be used against me or used to force me to do something I thought was wrong.
This however is just a matter of a technicallity. Where does it say the school has to do the pledge? They just always have. And while some may feel embarrased about being left out we don't usually cry about it or grow up to be sociopaths

Jaggard
26 June 2002, 03:53 PM
just playing devils advocate. I made valid points but don't assume that's how I feel.

Nova Spice
26 June 2002, 04:14 PM
Have no fears Jaggard, I believe most of the Holonetters are mature enough to respect others opinions. So I doubt you will get bashed for what you said. However, I'd like to argue a few points.

-First off, this is a tragedy. This is yet another example of liberalism stripping us of our rights. (Yes, I am a Conservative Republican which i've claimed on the boards before. I'm with you Rigil, go Rush! :p )
The fact of the matter is, our government is slowly stripping us, as well as the next generation of Americans, of our freedoms entitled by the Constitution.
-Second, the Pledge is not "unconstitutional", a word that has been grossly misused by your common left-wingers (Gravitas anyone?). Last time I checked, this country allows Freedom of Speech and Religion, right? This is why liberalism is eating away our nation. Our government is taking control of more and more things in our daily lives. That is a definition of socialism is it not? Something that thousands of our men and women in uniform fought and died to defeat.
-Third, we often forget why this nation was formed. Whether you are a Christian or not doesn't matter and you cannot ignore the facts. Well you can but that's an entirely different story! ;) This nation was founded in order to worship freely. The Church of England was dictating the way our founding fathers worshipped and they knew that as men created under God, they were entitled to certain unalienable rights. The Pledge of Allegiance is our link to the very freedoms that we have fought for since the Revolutionary War.
-And last, I fear that this is yet another sign of America unraveling at its roots, another sign that there are people (other than terrorists) who desire to completely erase this great nation from within.

I too am a political junkie, especially after 9/11 and I feel very strongly about this subject. I was pleased to see the Senate protest this resolution, it shows that at least some people have enough sense to realize that this ruling is what is unconstitutional, not the Pledge itself. Well, I'll step off my soapbox now. As Jaggard said, these are strictly my opinions and I do not mean to offend anyone with them. This is not the place to get into a heated argument. I'll save that for AIM! :p

proxima centauri
26 June 2002, 05:04 PM
As an atheist from a good catholic family, I feel the urge to comment :)

These are my opinions, please respect them as I respect yours.

I must salute the courage of the judges to confront a nation on a sensitive subject. I understand this oath is part of the tradition, but sometimes tradition needs to be shaken and challenged as time, people mentality changes.

God has no place in politics. I fell very uneasy when the president of a democratic and laic (non-religious) and law abiding country says "God Bless The USA". I always feel that he it is a way to have the blessing of the american people to do anything he wants, which is scary, espescially coming from the most powerful country in the world.
Look at what happens in countries who take their power from God and abide by the rules of a book interpreted by who knows what fool.

Now, I know that is not necessarely the intended use, but the doubt is still in my mind.

Changing the pledge doesn't mean you have to deny God if that entity is what you want to worship, but inclusiveness is the way of the future, and I'm glad to see the USA is willing to propel the country forward on that matter.

Now, coming from a commonwealth country, I swear oath to the divine and the next best thing:

"God SaveThe Queen"

;)

Happy Jubilee Lilibeth!

Nova Spice
26 June 2002, 05:36 PM
Look at what happens in countries who take their power from God and abide by the rules of a book interpreted by who knows what fool.

Hehe, well I believe America is one of those nations is it not? We derived our power by abiding by the rules of the Bible and you said it yourself, we are the most powerful country on earth. Look at Israel, surrunded on all sides by their enemies and they cannot be defeated. They derived their power by abiding the rules of the Bible. I'm just pointing these things out to you proxima because I fail to see what you mean? ;) :D

REG
26 June 2002, 05:37 PM
That begs a question: How does an atheist from Canada or UK acknowledge the divine right of king or queen when they don't believe in the Divine bestowing that right to a mortal leader?

I guess for me, a lapse Catholic, I take such thing for granted, the phrase "God Bless America" (don't laugh... but I finally got the lyrics pat down), the motto "In God We Trust." They don't strike me as being offensive to atheists.

So where do we go from here? Revise the whole Pledge of Allegiance? What's next? Review each and every historical landmark and monument that is protected under the government and remove every religious edifice?

Talonne Hauk
26 June 2002, 05:55 PM
First of all, our Founding Fathers did not follow the Bible in defining our government and society. In fact, our first three presidents, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, weren't even Christian. They were Deists. They did not believe in the Bible, and they didn't fight and found this country on its principles.
That's not to say that the principles espoused in the Bible are bad. They are, to a large degree, part of the bedrock of the nation we love. But so are many other books of faith. The 1st Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... " So pledge allegiance to the flag; it's your right. But respect the fact that others have the right not to.

proxima centauri
26 June 2002, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Nova Spice

I said:

Look at what happens in countries who take their power from God and abide by the rules of a book interpreted by who knows what fool.

You said:
Hehe, well I believe America is one of those nations is it not? We derived our power by abiding by the rules of the Bible and you said it yourself, we are the most powerful country on earth. Look at Israel, surrunded on all sides by their enemies and they cannot be defeated. They derived their power by abiding the rules of the Bible. I'm just pointing these things out to you proxima because I fail to see what you mean? ;) :D

That is if you consider that america was founded on the Bible, which it wasn't and you believe George W. and all your politicians are fools :D

Well, to see the Palestinians as the enemy is narrow minded and single tracked in my opinion. This conflict is much more complicated than that. It is Israel who invaded their territory in 1967 after all. But that is beside the point. Neither side is on the right track for peace as they each believe God is on their side...

Matt Richard
26 June 2002, 06:37 PM
Thanks guys for the discussion, and for acting mature. First, let me say I have great respect for those who have said they feel uncomfortable saying the pledge. It takes a lot to be in the minority and stand up for what you believe (a stat I heard was that 98% of america believes in some sort of God).

First, I must contradict what my fellowman, Talonne, said. The constitution was based on biblical principals (bankruptcy methods were based on biblical principals meant to help honest people who had trouble just as an example). In fact, Benjamin Franklin, a well known atheist (did I spell that right?), said: "I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs the affairs of men." He asked that a member of the clergy come in during the Constitution Conventions and pray over the procedings. It is written that when they would get in heated arguments, they would stop, and pray for divine wisdom from God. God and religion definetly DID have a role in the creation of our government, and for most people, atheist or not, that is an unarguable fact. "The Creator" is mentioned in the declaration of independance, written by Jefferson. Regardless of their religion, they recognized the fact that God must abide in a country or else the nation would fall.

Second, the phrase "under God" merely recognizes the fact that this country was based on biblical principles, and that our founding fathers DID seek divine help during the creation of the wildest idea, or experiment, of its time. So to say it pushes religion on people is outragous. It is a historical, undeniable proof, that we are based under the direction of God.

Third, the first ammendmant promises freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Putting a phrase like "in God we trust" does not mean that everyone must believe in God, it is simply that... we trust in God, again recognizing where we came from and what our founding fathers had in mind.

Fourth, Im sorry if anyone has been forced to say the pledge. THAT is unconstitutional, but for me personally, if you dont at least stand for the pledge, it is disrepectful. I am a devout Christian (yes, Christians like Star Wars too:D ), and if I ever went to a house of worship for another religion that I did not agree with, and they said a prayer to some god I did not believe in, the proper and respectful thing for me to do is to bow my head in respect to what they are doing. As is with the pledge, whether you like it or not, you really should stand, if not for respect of those around you, but for respect for those who have died to give you the right to object to saying the pledge.

Fifth, and finally. If you dont like the phrase "under God," then just dont say it. You are still an American, and should be ready to die for your country, and to simbolyze that, we say the pledge. Whether you die for a country "under God" or not, you still die for America. I encourage that anyone who does not believe in God to still pledge, just not say the words "under God." If people would do that and be a litlle more respectful, things like this wouldnt even come up.

And one more thing too. (OK I lied) If you AGREE (for some strange reason), with the ruling, stop using money, burn your 100 dollar bills, because they have "In God we trust" on them. Also, you might as well destroy the Capitol Building and every other building in DC, because they have God on them. Common sense, guys. You can legislate God out of our country's buildings, but you cant legislate God out of the people, or our heritage.

We ARE one nation UNDER GOD, regardless of anyone's ideas.

God Bless America. (I say this because I agree with Nova Spice, we are destroying America from within with our liberalism, God help us all)

proxima centauri
26 June 2002, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by REG
That begs a question: How does an atheist from Canada or UK acknowledge the divine right of king or queen when they don't believe in the Divine bestowing that right to a mortal leader?

I guess for me, a lapse Catholic, I take such thing for granted, the phrase "God Bless America" (don't laugh... but I finally got the lyrics pat down), the motto "In God We Trust." They don't strike me as being offensive to atheists.

So where do we go from here? Revise the whole Pledge of Allegiance? What's next? Review each and every historical landmark and monument that is protected under the government and remove every religious edifice?

About the "God Save The Queen", it was what some would call "sarcasm". As I myself do not agree with this saying, first because I do not believe in God, and second because I do not consider the Queen to be my sovereign. And it was also to mark the fact that my country (Canada) still has a lot of work to do to take away the church or other archaic symbols from politics.

About the sayings: They are not offensive... I don't care. The thing is that I believe it has no place in politics and thus should be used more carefully. That's all.

Now... about the landmark thingie... that is a typical reaction. Say that you take an inch and they'll say you've taken 10 miles! You can do whatever you want with the landmarks or whatever thing that you cherish, as you are under no obligation to even care about it. To say that the pledge is unconstituational... (I hate that word) is not to say it is invalid, it remains a good patriotic saying. Just don't impose it on others.

Matt Richard
26 June 2002, 06:50 PM
and if the quote from Ben Frank, the atheist, wasnt enough for you, I have plenty others if you want to read them.

Thomas Jefferson: "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the pople that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."

US Sepreme Court, Curch of the Holy Trinity v. US, 1892: "This is a religious people. THis is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.... These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons, they are organic utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people.... These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."

More later when I have time. :D

proxima centauri
26 June 2002, 06:57 PM
Ok, I feel the need to clarify something here.

When I say it was not founded on the Bible, I mean this:

USA is not a church state.

Canada, and espescially my province was probably the most catholic state on the surface of the earth (aside from Italy perhaps) before the 1960's. People actually live mostly on good principles that yes, do come from the bible, but our government has now managed to separate itself from a very conservative catholic clergy. All for the better if you ask me.

The government should be separate from the church and be a state of law, as religion has failed mankid throughout the centuries. Therefore, I believe these two entities should remain separate.

Have a good heart but a cool head is what I believe in.

Nova Spice
26 June 2002, 07:02 PM
I have but one thing to add Matt.

Amen.



That is if you consider that america was founded on the Bible, which it wasn't and you believe George W. and all your politicians are fools

I think Matt answered that question far better than I could. And I do believe George W. He is honest unlike our last president. :p


Well, to see the Palestinians as the enemy is narrow minded and single tracked in my opinion. This conflict is much more complicated than that. It is Israel who invaded their territory in 1967 after all. But that is beside the point. Neither side is on the right track for peace as they each believe God is on their side...

You may be right, but after 9/11, I have a hard time having sympathy for people who strap explosives to themselves and kill children. That's what I define as terrorism. Its just impossible for me to appreciate the Palestinians point of view after the way we were hit on September 11th. All I can say is go get 'em Israel! But like you said, that's another topic for another day. ;)

proxima centauri
26 June 2002, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by Nova Spice

[about Israel....]

You may be right, but after 9/11, I have a hard time having sympathy for people who strap explosives to themselves and kill children. That's what I define as terrorism. Its just impossible for me to appreciate the Palestinians point of view after the way we were hit on September 11th. All I can say is go get 'em Israel! But like you said, that's another topic for another day. ;) [/B]

Please, do not assume that since I do not condone one side, I must be with the others.

I do think suicide bombers do their people more ill than good as they lose all little credibility they have as a Palestinian state. You can call this terrorism, I call this war. So much for "peace" process.

The way Israel is handling things is very scary. Their shunt at the press and trying to control the information the way they try to make themselves look clean is BAD news.

People are getting killed. From both sides.

I do think both sides have their skeleton in their closet. They need to clean their act first before I go all the way for one side or the other.

That being said, good luck israelis and palestinians from the world, my heart goes with you all.

Moridin
26 June 2002, 07:44 PM
Isn't it always said that the two things you don't bring up in polite company are politics and religion? And we've managed to get both! Yikes.

Not shutting this down or anything, but be careful with this one guys. We don't want anyone getting mad or even banned, so play nice and discuss intellectually.

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
26 June 2002, 07:45 PM
I am glad that the court ruled the way they did, and I support them fully. Religion and government should be kept as far apart as possible. And about the palestinian thing, I hope they can get their own country and both sides can find a resolution, because as the warmongers on both sides try to kill each other, it's the average citizens that suffer.

Talonne Hauk
26 June 2002, 07:48 PM
The concept for a federal system of government came from the Iroqouis Federation, not from the Bible.
Deism, not atheism, is what Benjamin Franklin practiced. (As well as our first three presidents, as I stated before.) There is a difference. Deism is a belief in a creator, but not in the Biblical God. Deists admired, respected, even loved Christ as a teacher, ("Imitate Jesus.", Ben Franklin would remind himself.) Other than what was written about the life and teachings of Jesus, Deists had no use for the New Testament. Deists studied other religions and their teachers as well, such as Con×××ius, Zoroaster, and Mohammed. It mattered very little to them who said the article of truth, so long as it was said and appreciated. That is why a Deist would sit and listen to a religious sermon - ANY religious sermon - because there were truths to be revealed from it. Deism as a philosophy disappeared in the mid 1800's, when great religious Revivals were the rage. Whenever God, or a creator, is mentioned by a Deist or in his or her written work, it is a mistake to assume that they are talking about the Christian God.
As I stated before, the 1st Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law" - allow me to emphasize again - NO LAW - "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... " Say what you want Matt, but no law respecting an establishment of religion will be allowed in this country. Forcing schoolchildren to say something that violates their own religious freedom, that is, their freedom to not have a religion, is unconstitutional. Also, what if someone is religious but doesn't believe in God? Why should their freedoms and beliefs be pushed to the side? And why focus on the religious aspect of this issue at all? Suppose someone doesn't feel like pledging allegiance to the U.S.? That's certainly puzzling, and somewhat rude, but we shouldn't force them to do something they don't want. As much as dissidence can be disturbing, it should be remembered that our nation was founded by people willing to speak out against the King and the British Empire. If someone has a beef with the U.S., perhaps instead of being revolted by him, it might be in your best interest to discover why.
This issue is personal to me. I was raised in an agnostic household, where the existence of God was doubted. As a child I was encouraged to not say "under God" while reciting the Pledge. My best friend was a Jehovah's Witness, and he was often singled out because he wouldn't recite the pledge. Since, I've found my relationship with God, albeit in a quasi-Deist way. But I still believe that anytime a person wants to offer their allegiance to anything, it should be done on a strictly voluntary basis. Forcing schoolchildren to recite something that half the time they aren't even thinking about is wrong. But forcing them to recite something that they don't believe in isn't just wrong, it's close to evil. And that's not what the USA is about.

dgswensen
26 June 2002, 08:35 PM
First of all, just for the record; the Pledge of Allegiance itself has NOT been declared unconstitutional. The Pledge of Allegiance was originally written in 1892. It was ALTERED in 1954 by Congress (under the Eisenhower administration), which added the phrase "under God" to the original wording. As I understand it, it is that amendment, and the altering of the pledge, is what has been struck down, not the pledge itself. So, the pledge can continue to exist, albeit without that one line, "under God."


Originally posted by Nova Spice
-First off, this is a tragedy. This is yet another example of liberalism stripping us of our rights.


I'm curious to know what "rights" you feel you've been stripped of, and when defending constitutionality became "liberalism." I'm not being snide here; I honestly want to know, because I'm hearing a lot of this "freedom taken away" rap, and I honestly don't understand it.

What fundamental right has been taken away? If anything, children in school have more rights than they did previously -- the right <I>not</I> to be forced to pray aloud to a God they may not necessarily believe in. I don't believe children will be forbidden to speak God's name in school. Is that part of the repeal? If so, please tell me.


Second, the Pledge is not "unconstitutional", a word that has been grossly misused by your common left-wingers (Gravitas anyone?). Last time I checked, this country allows Freedom of Speech and Religion, right? This is why liberalism is eating away our nation. Our government is taking control of more and more things in our daily lives. That is a definition of socialism is it not? Something that thousands of our men and women in uniform fought and died to defeat.

No, you're right, the pledge isn't unconstitutional (see above), but I do believe (and have for a long time) that it puts the lie to the separation of church and state. How does no longer requiring children to publicly acknowledge the existence of a God take away a freedom? I think Freedom of Speech should also include the right <I>not</I> to be forced to say things by public institutions, a right that was denied me as a child, and has been denied thousands of children since then. In my opinion, the right not to worship is as important as the right to worship.


Third, we often forget why this nation was formed. Whether you are a Christian or not doesn't matter and you cannot ignore the facts. Well you can but that's an entirely different story! ;) This nation was founded in order to worship freely. The Church of England was dictating the way our founding fathers worshipped and they knew that as men created under God, they were entitled to certain unalienable rights. The Pledge of Allegiance is our link to the very freedoms that we have fought for since the Revolutionary War.

Agreed, but I don't believe the omission of that line from the Pledge diminishes any of that at all. The pledge still says a great deal, with or without the Christian element.

I believe that to force prayer from the mouths of children cheapens the prayer and demeans the children. I DO think that young people who do believe in God should still be free to profess their beliefs in public, and add that line to the pledge if they want to. <I>But</I> I don't believe it should be mandated by the state that they profess such beliefs whether they hold them or not. That, to me, is not really in the Christian spirit -- it is a lie in the heart and borders on idolatry.

Anyway, standard disclaimer -- these are just my feelings on the matter, I don't necessarily endorse them for anyone else. And of course, no personal attack intended or implied.

Rigil Kent
26 June 2002, 08:50 PM
Not a whole lot to add here; I'll just sit back and watch the fireworks. Suffice to say that I (as a non-practicing Catholic with a Lutheran father, Baptist mother, and nondenominational Christian sisters), I do not support the decision here. If this decision stands, will the swearing upon the Bible before testifying come next?

One thing I cannot let stand, however:


Originally posted by proxima centauri
It is Israel who invaded their territory in 1967 after all.

While this is technically correct, I think you really need to look at the reasons behind the invasion. The Six Day War is really the fault of Syria and the Soviet Union, as the Syrians held the Golan Heights prior to '67 and were constantly shelling Israeli farmers, then began screaming about an Israeli invasion when Israeli jets hit the responsible gun positions. When the Soviets warned that Israel was about to invade, all of the surrounding Arabic nations began to ramp up for an attack on Israel who decided the best way to avoid being destroyed was to attack first. Given that they are surrounded by...hostile neighbors (all of whom were screaming "war"), I can't say I blame them. The policy of "preemption" makes perfect sense if you are Israel: how many nations in the world can they truly call their allies?

As to how Israel is dealing with the media, there is an old axiom that I think applies well here: "The first casualty in war is the truth."

Hey Nova, glad to see that there are a bunch of Members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy floating around. :D

Jedi_Staailis
26 June 2002, 08:53 PM
First of all, I'd like to congratulate everyone on the civilized discussion. I read the news post on this on CNN.com a few minutes ago, and am trying to work through all of the consequences in my mind. This discussion is already helping me to do so, and is thankfully free of insults. That said, I'll be diving into the discussion!

I agree with the Court that the statement "under God" in the pledge is undeniably supporting religion over atheism. I am a devout Christian, but I also understand that I have no objective proof that my religion is correct and those of others are wrong. As a result, I feel that I must respect the beliefs of others as I respect my own. What if the pledge said "under Allah"? Think of how disgusted many Americans would be, especially after the events of September 11. You might say that we would never have a pledge like that with a predominantly Christian state, and you'd be right, but we cannot let our decision of right and wrong rely on majority opinion.


The fact of the matter is, our government is slowly stripping us, as well as the next generation of Americans, of our freedoms entitled by the Constitution.
Unfortunately, those freedoms are infringing on the Constitutional rights of others. You are free until you begin to injure others.


This nation was founded in order to worship freely.
Why should a lack of religion be considered different legally than religion? Placing governmental support on a particular form (or forms) or religion over other kinds is unconstitutional.


that there are people (other than terrorists) who desire to completely erase this great nation from within.
That's a little extreme. I don't think any of the judges are honestly trying to destroy America.


As is with the pledge, whether you like it or not, you really should stand, if not for respect of those around you, but for respect for those who have died to give you the right to object to saying the pledge.
Though I'm coming down on the other side of the argument, I agree wholeheartedly with this issue. I lived out of the US for two years and attended numerous school functions in which the foreign pledge was stated. I stood respectfully because I understand the feelings my classmates had for their country. I have the same feelings for my own.


If people would do that and be a litlle more respectful, things like this wouldnt even come up.
We shouldn't encourage the repression of what anyone believes is a moral inconsistency. Just because they can act respectfully and not say "under God" doesn't mean we should let the potentially biased line of the pledge go unchallenged.


Now... about the landmark thingie... that is a typical reaction. Say that you take an inch and they'll say you've taken 10 miles! You can do whatever you want with the landmarks or whatever thing that you cherish, as you are under no obligation to even care about it.
I agree with this analysis wholeheartedly. The pledge takes a much more prominent role in our society than the statements written on any landmark.


These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons, they are organic utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people
In my opinion, we should never even consider saying "the US people think that..." Each person is free to have his or her own opinion. 98% percent (whether that statistic is accurate or not) is not sufficient to qualify a belief in God to the "voice of the nation."


You may be right, but after 9/11, I have a hard time having sympathy for people who strap explosives to themselves and kill children. That's what I define as terrorism. Its just impossible for me to appreciate the Palestinians point of view after the way we were hit on September 11th. All I can say is go get 'em Israel!
I am wholeheartedly opposed to terrorism. It is an immoral and utterly unacceptable form of political pressure. Those who commit acts of terrorism, or conspire to commit such acts, should be captured and tried, or killed, if the previous is not possible. That said, Israel is not exactly blameless in the conflict. Palestine (individual elements thereof, I'm not saying Palestine as a whole) is not the only side intentionally killing civilians. This particular conflict has been marked with years of senseless violence and death. Tragically, it is being done in the name of God. I have a lot to say on the topic, but now is not the time.


Not shutting this down or anything, but be careful with this one guys. We don't want anyone getting mad or even banned, so play nice and discuss intellectually.
Always. I'm very glad we have a mod watching this one. As long as things are kept civil, we'll all be exposed to the points of view of others, and we might even learn a few things along the way. Personally, I'm much happier to have political opponents that genuinely think about the issues than masses that are apathetic. As a result, I have a lot of repsect for everyone involved in a discussion such as this, on both sides.

Superdog
26 June 2002, 09:45 PM
Why do we need God as an official part of our pledge? Not everyone is Christian. Nor does everyone even believe in a religion. Other than the fact that the inclusion of church with state violates people's rights and the constitution, and it forces religion upon people who don't want or need it, what good does it do? It does no good and serves no purpose. Think about this (if your a christian): What you would have to say on the matter if it said one nation under Buddha? Or Allah? Or Vishnu? Or Kali? It saddens me to see people who feel their religion is important enough that everyone should have to be exposed to it. There is a quote from Dune I like. I can't quite remember it, it goes something like: "When religion and politics ride in the same cart they think themselves invincible and ride faster and faster until they don't see the crevice opening up beneath them." Something like that.
I applaud those judges for standing up to the bias of this nation's public officials.

Matt Richard
26 June 2002, 10:05 PM
I am actually enjoying this debate quite a lot, and would be saddened if it was shut down, so good job on the maturity, and lets keep it up. I have more quotes since it appears that there is still objection as to how we were formed.

John Jay, First Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court: “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

George Washington: “No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency…. We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.” This was his inaugural speech, mind you.

Noah Webster: “The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws…. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.”

Abraham Lincoln: “…and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history: that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.”

Woodrow Wilson: “America was born a Christian nation.”

US Supreme Court, Zorach v. Clauson, 1952: “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”

Here’s one for all you liberalists who think the first amendment was for all religions. Judge Joseph Story, 19th Century Supreme Court Justice: “The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but [it was made] to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which would give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.”

United States Congress Public Law 97-280 96 STAT. 1211. October 4, 1982: “The Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation…. Deeply held convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the early settlements of our Nation…. Biblical teaching inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States.”

Calvin Coolidge: “The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to practically universal in our country.”

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania: “Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law.”

After all that, I hope you can believe that we were looking up to a higher authority, and for the most part, it was the Christian God.

Now, is this an issue of Church and state? No. I guess if we didnt have the separation of the two, we would not be as good as we are today. YET, it is still important to recognize our history. A history forgotten is a future damned. (wow, I should write that one down).

Senators, and others have already said it before, the mention of God can be any god that the American people believe in, so the argument on "How would you like it if it were one nation under Muhammad?" is totally moot. Besides, one of the quotes above already talked about the first amendmant.

I heard the stat about 98% on the fox news cable channel, so whether you trust them or not is how accurate it is. Even if it was not accurate, it is unarguable that the majority of america believes in some sort of God. Now, regardles if you believe we were formed on biblical principals or not, one thing you cant deny we were built on was this: the majority wins, but the minority is allowed to be in the minority. This means that the majority gets their way and in this case, it is "under God." The minority has the right to not say "under God." This is a key point that we have missed all along, and I should have said it earlier. THis should never have reached the ears of the Supreme Court. Because the daughter has the right to say: "one nation..., indivisible..." Yet, her father seems to have missed the concept of "majority rules." Whatever side you fall on, the fact is, "under God" is supported by the majority, and everyone in DC, even the Democrats, recognize this. This judgement is the most outragous and embarassing thing that has happened to america sence...NEVER. Nothing like this has ever happened. Again I stress, we are not forcing the religion on you by saying "under God." If you agree with the rulings, burn your money, burn all the flags you see, and live on the streets, because all that is the "American Dream" which was based on "in God we trust" so sense you dont want God anywhere in public, you might as well take everything you own and destroy it. If it werent for the people who founded this country under the direction of a higher authority, you wouldnt have the right to say: Im not saying the pledge.

Oh, and the entire pledge was considered unconstitutional, because of the phrase "under God" Mind you, I can almost guarantee that it will be shut down in the US Supreme Courts, and if it isnt, well then we are closer to the end than I thought.

I ecnourage all members who live in the area (mostly those in the pacific time and mountain time zone) to join me at 7:00am tommorow (8am mountain) in the saying of the pledge. God bless.

Matt Richard
26 June 2002, 10:12 PM
I dont want to edit my post because my computer does strange things when I try to, but when I said one nation under Muhammad, it should have been Allah. My mistake, sorry.

Matt Richard
26 June 2002, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by dgswensen

I'm curious to know what "rights" you feel you've been stripped of, and when defending constitutionality became "liberalism." I'm not being snide here; I honestly want to know, because I'm hearing a lot of this "freedom taken away" rap, and I honestly don't understand it.

What fundamental right has been taken away? If anything, children in school have more rights than they did previously -- the right <I>not</I> to be forced to pray aloud to a God they may not necessarily believe in. I don't believe children will be forbidden to speak God's name in school. Is that part of the repeal? If so, please tell me.

Kinda fielding the answer for Nova, since I agree with what she is saying, the right to our religion is being stepped on. Many times, we look at the 1st ammendmant as a defense from Christianity, yet it is meant for everyone to have equal chance for their religion to thrive (unless of course, you agree with the judge I quoted with the earlier post). We are therefore, being striped from our rights to thrive as Christians. I like what my pastor says: we dont want the rest of the world to turn their volume down, we just want to be able to turn ours up to match theirs. MEANING, dont limit Christianity, let us have the same rights that everyone else has. Dont treat the Christians like the old governments treated the atheists.

What right has been taken away? Liberty. The ability to acknowledge with one big voice that we are a nation "under God." The persuit of hapiness. For the 98% percent who agree with "under God," be any god they choose to worship, it brings comfort and happiness to them to say it.

I should really look into politics as a career, I love to debate stuff like this. In fact me and my friends did it earlier today, it was much fun, and highly exciting (we were sweating because we drank too many sodas and were bouncing off the walls in our seats trying to but in with our ideas:D )

REG
26 June 2002, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by dgswensen

First of all, just for the record; the Pledge of Allegiance itself has NOT been declared unconstitutional. The Pledge of Allegiance was originally written in 1892. It was ALTERED in 1954 by Congress (under the Eisenhower administration), which added the phrase "under God" to the original wording. As I understand it, it is that amendment, and the altering of the pledge, is what has been struck down, not the pledge itself. So, the pledge can continue to exist, albeit without that one line, "under God."
Curious. What is the original words to the Pledge of Allegiance written in 1892?

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
26 June 2002, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by Matt Richard
YET, it is still important to recognize our history.


Just because the founding fathers and famous people rattled about a Judeo-Christian deity, doesn't mean that this nation wouldn't be here without it, I fail to see what your trying to prove by dragging up all these quotes.

Senators, and others have already said it before, the mention of God can be any god that the American people believe in, so the argument on "How would you like it if it were one nation under Muhammad?" is totally moot.

Out of curiousity, if the pledge saud "under Shiva", what would you think and what would you do?


If you agree with the rulings, burn your money, burn all the flags you see, and live on the streets, because all that is the "American Dream" which was based on "in God we trust" so sense you dont want God anywhere in public, you might as well take everything you own and destroy it.

This is being really melodramatic.



What right has been taken away? Liberty. The ability to acknowledge with one big voice that we are a nation "under God."

Nobody has taken away your right to say that, say it right now if you want.

Matt Richard
26 June 2002, 11:04 PM
Last post tonight, I promise (maybe). Lets put ourselves in our founding fathers shoes. You have just one your indepence, and now are about to create a government, based on a system never down before on such a massive scale. Its an expirement that you doubt will last more than half a century. Do you really NOT want God's covering over your proceedings. Even if you are atheist, just WHAT IF there was a God, who you needed advice and guidance from. Dont you think you would want a clergy man to pray over the hearings.
Common sense again, guys. IT was something that had NEVER been done before. For a long time we said the pledge without under God, but Eisenhower (or however you spell it), realized the fact (after going through a depression, two world wars, etc.) that we needed to recognize that we had survived this long due to the fact that we were "under God," the covering which our founding fathers tried best to put over us. Thats why we put it in and thats why we still need it, now more than ever. Its not a matter of do you believe in God or not, its a matter of are you grateful for living in a country that aknowledges God or not.

And sense there have been references from Mr. Hauk (man talonne, your making me think too much:D ) to the first amendmant, lets take a look at what it says:

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.

The first lin says it all. "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" Now, all in favor of the courts outragous ruling today says that the 1st adm. does not respect any religion. WRONG!!! Look closer. It says, respecting AN ESTABLISHMENT of religion. Meaning that Congress cannot make a law that says: this is America's official religion. As it has been said by many officials, "under God" can be taken to mean any god which the people believe in (for the most part it is the Christian God), so it is not saying I pledge to God, the one and only God. It is saying that I pledge to the country covered by MY God, historically "MY God" is the Christian God, but it is not forcing the Christian God on anyone.

Also, Hauk said that when the Diests (I cant spell, Im sorry guys) refer to God or the Creator, it is not the Christian God. WRONG AGAIN!!! It is commonly accepted that when a reference is made to "THE Creator," it is meant to the Christian God. Jefferson, a Diest as you say, refers to THE CREATOR, therefore, it is THE Christian God.

Matt Richard
26 June 2002, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by ALFRED_THE_EWOK


Just because the founding fathers and famous people rattled about a Judeo-Christian deity, doesn't mean that this nation wouldn't be here without it, I fail to see what your trying to prove by dragging up all these quotes.

Out of curiousity, if the pledge saud "under Shiva", what would you think and what would you do?

This is being really melodramatic.


Nobody has taken away your right to say that, say it right now if you want. [/B]

I want to remain calm so I dont get this thread closed:D

Im trying to prove that we were based on Christian and Biblical beliefs, we cannot deny the fact that we were, and my opinion is we would not be where we are without his grace and direction. (thats my opinion and belief)

The question "under Shiva" is again, moot, because 1.) it doesnt say that, and 2.)we werent built on principles relating to Shiva.

If it is melodramatic, then all of our Senators (both Democrats and Republicans) should lose their jobs, because they made similar comments.

I meant, that we are no longer being allowed to say as a nation that we are one nation under God, although some would consider this a good thing, so I guess that was a bad argument on my part.

Keep the questions coming, Im loving them all.

Matt Richard
26 June 2002, 11:21 PM
and one more thing, if anyone, even if I dont agree with them, gets voted down for this, contact me and I will do my best to get you back up. NO ONE should be punished for their beliefs and opinions. Its unconstitutional:D (sorry, I couldnt resist)

BrianDavion
26 June 2002, 11:25 PM
the thing with this undergod idea (an idea that IIRC came about in the 50s with mcarthy decided if you where an atheist you hadda be a communist and christanaity is a good capitalist thing) is that it enforces the idea internationaly that the US is a christan nation.. which IT'S NOT! the US is a melting pot of many diffffrent religons,. from Atheism to Zne-Buddism. (not singling those two out for any special attention just used em cause they where an A-Z type dealie:)

the misconception that the US is a christan nation is a grave injustice to the true strenghts and beauty of the United States and has done the US more harm then good. I think that the US should work to reverse the pro-christan changes mnade in the 50s. Ditch "In god we trust" and bring back the original "from many are one" a motto that I think sums up the nature of the united states of american, which while I am not a resident think is a damn fine country really well.

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
26 June 2002, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by Matt Richard
Im trying to prove that we were based on Christian and Biblical beliefs, we cannot deny the fact that we were, and my opinion is we would not be where we are without his grace and direction. (thats my opinion and belief)


Three things about this, first I don't think there is anyway to prove that people sat down when making the Articles and the Constitution, opened up a Bible, and became inspired. Secondly, the Bible and it's beliefs are hardly originial, and most of it's "good stuff" is common sense that they could have come up with independently. Thirdly, they were deists, so they wouldn't sit down with the goals of making a nation based around Christian ideas.


The question "under Shiva" is again, moot, because 1.) it doesnt say that, and 2.)we werent built on principles relating to Shiva.

I know that, I'm just curious what you (and presumably other Christians) would do if it said that.


It is commonly accepted that when a reference is made to "THE Creator," it is meant to the Christian God. Jefferson, a Diest as you say, refers to THE CREATOR, therefore, it is THE Christian God.

Shouldn't that read the Judeo-Christian god?
Also, it's not like he's a unique figure. :rolleyes:

Superdog
27 June 2002, 12:34 AM
The Bible is neither a.) originial in it's concepts (all the good stuff is common sense) nor
b.)the goodie tooshoes book of goodness and happy rainbow fun time(:rolleyes: ) you make it out to be. This website (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/BiblicalMorality/index.shtml) is a little militiant in it's atheism, but it brings up some good points on some of the things the bible tells us to do that commen sense tells otherwise. I can't vouch for it's content entirely (I haven't been there for a while), but hey, it was made by a Star Wars fan!;)

And I'm editing this cause I found some interesting quotes on the Internet. Here goes.
---------------
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion; . . ." - Article XI, Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary (Treaty of Tripoli), unanimously approved by Congress and signed by President John Adams, 1797
--------------

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
-- Thomas Jefferson, third US President and principal author of the Declaration of Independence
----------------

Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform.
-- James Madison, the Father of the US Constitution and principal author of the First Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights)
---------------

A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.
-- Thomas Paine
---------------
and I found this too:
"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:425
---------------
Well, time for sleep. Or video games.

nightninja50
27 June 2002, 06:57 AM
Just one thing to say if you think our that the pledge is unconstitutional, Go join Osama in his cave, I'm sure American Airlines has a plane waiting for ya.

proxima centauri
27 June 2002, 07:03 AM
One thing about what you just said Night Ninja:

All too easy.

I find your choice of words disturbing.

nightninja50
27 June 2002, 07:15 AM
well, proxima, have you ever seen the Valley FOrge painting or heard about it, well, yep, it is old George Washington praying the clearing, how GODLY, our nation was founded under God, and that's waht we are about, you think that it is forced religion, I dont think so, it is what we want, what we need, Jesus is our Savior, yours to, and our country needs a Savior right now

dgswensen
27 June 2002, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by Matt Richard


Kinda fielding the answer for Nova, since I agree with what she is saying, the right to our religion is being stepped on. Many times, we look at the 1st ammendmant as a defense from Christianity, yet it is meant for everyone to have equal chance for their religion to thrive (unless of course, you agree with the judge I quoted with the earlier post). We are therefore, being striped from our rights to thrive as Christians. I like what my pastor says: we dont want the rest of the world to turn their volume down, we just want to be able to turn ours up to match theirs. MEANING, dont limit Christianity, let us have the same rights that everyone else has. Dont treat the Christians like the old governments treated the atheists.

What right has been taken away? Liberty. The ability to acknowledge with one big voice that we are a nation "under God." The persuit of hapiness. For the 98% percent who agree with "under God," be any god they choose to worship, it brings comfort and happiness to them to say it.

I should really look into politics as a career, I love to debate stuff like this. In fact me and my friends did it earlier today, it was much fun, and highly exciting (we were sweating because we drank too many sodas and were bouncing off the walls in our seats trying to but in with our ideas:D )

So, if people who don't believe in the Christian God are free to omit the "under God" at their leisure, and that's perfectly acceptable, why is it then a huge crisis for people who do believe in the Christian God to add it at their leisure?

And I honestly think that you're trying to have it both ways here, Matt. On one hand you're saying that 98% of Americans believe in God, that God is everywhere in our culture (on the money, etc.), and everyone who doesn't like it should either be happy with their minority lot or get out of the country -- while in the next breath you try to paint Christianity as a beleagured underdog trying to hold onto what few liberties it has left? Okay... which is it?

Anyway, I have long felt that the Pledge of Allegiance was kind of like an enforced pep rally at high school -- you're required to show up and mouth the words, regardless of what you believe. I still maintain that making it mandatory cheapens it. Nonetheless, lest someone think I am un-american; I will say that I think that if they're going to do this, they should just strike down the 1954 ruling that added the line "under God," and leave the rest of the Pledge intact. Better than abolishing the Pledge altogether.

I also don't feel that patriotic songs involving God, etc. should be banned from public performance, as so many people fear is going to happen now. I think the real issue here is the mandatory, enforced recitation of the Pledge by many schools. No one's being forced to sing the Star Spangled Banner at baseball games -- at least, not the last time I checked.

Anyway, it barely matters. George Bush has promised to appoint judges who will overturn these rulings, so I'm sure thing will be back to normal soon -- and probably everyone who agreed with this ruling in the first place will be profiled as a terrorist in the bargain.

Talonne Hauk
27 June 2002, 07:20 AM
It is accepted to say it's the Christian God when the Creator is mentioned? No. It is assumed. And assumptions are a luxury only someone in the majority of opinion can make. That doesn't mean it's right. It just means that those in the minority have a lot of educating to do.

When Jefferson mentioned the Creator, he wasn't speaking of the Christian God. He was speaking of the concept the Deists believed in, that of the Creator of all, inclusive of every religion. In fact, mentioning Jefferson in this frame of reference is completely wrong, as he believed very strongly in the separation of church and state. He was the author of the Virginia Constitution, which had a much more stringent guideline concerning religious freedom.

It should also be mentioned that the Pledge of Allegiance isn't unconstitutional. How could written or spoken verse be unconstitutional? Forcing people to recite it in a public place is unconstitutional. Words can never be unconstitutional; only actions are.

And an establishment of religion is simple. When a religious act or phrase is uttered in a public gathering (that is, on public grounds), it is an establishment of religion if it is tolerated. It does not mean only or simply that Congress can't make a law endorsing one religion. It means that government anywhere can not allow religion into its business in even the most minute form. Otherwise the rights of those who do not subscribe to that religious view are held in contempt.

Also, the rights of the minority are meant to be protected, not overlooked. If there is any doubt about that, simply look at Congress. We have a 435 member body in the House of Representatives, meant to reflect the majority opinion. If popular opinion has its sway, it is there. But we also have the 100 member august body of the Senate, where even the states with low population has equal say in matters. If our Founding Fathers had wanted to say that the majority wins all the time, the Senate would never have come into being. (And neither would the nation itself.)

Well, that's enough soapbox proselytizing for me for right now. I just got back from work, and I'm beat. Carry on with this debate; I think it's wonderful. As an American, I want everyoine to know that I'd be willing to fight and die for your right to have your opinion heard, even if it goes against my own. That's what makes the USA so very special.

nightninja50
27 June 2002, 07:24 AM
the pledge is not forced, it is asked to be said, no kid is forced to say it, but I say it proudly, with all my strength and love for my Lord

dgswensen
27 June 2002, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by nightninja50
the pledge is not forced, it is asked to be said, no kid is forced to say it, but I say it proudly, with all my strength and love for my Lord
Hahah... I don't know where you grew up, nightninja, but when I was a kid, it was mandatory... you stood up and you said the words. If you kept your mouth shut, or altered the Pledge to be funny, you were sent to the principal's office and maybe given a few with the ol' meterstick into the bargain.

I realize things have probably changed quite a bit since I was in grade school -- and thus perhaps my perspective is not quite accurate -- but nobody "asked" me anything when I was a kid -- I was TOLD.

nightninja50
27 June 2002, 08:01 AM
well, mr swensen I go to a Christian school, and went to the same one during elemtary school and they didnt make us, IN A CHRISTIAN SCHOOL, we wanted to, we wanted to show our appreciativeness for what the Lord has done for our country, He will not let us die by terror. Even our president says this stupid thing about not saying it and its "unconstitutional" is ridiculous,so why have you forsaken the Lord in our most desperate hours?

Jedi_Staailis
27 June 2002, 08:07 AM
Just a few minor comments.


Just one thing to say if you think our that the pledge is unconstitutional, Go join Osama in his cave, I'm sure American Airlines has a plane waiting for ya.
Please nightninja50. Every side agress that freedom of speech and belief is protected. The argument is how to fairly implement it. Just because others believe that the United States should be taking a different path than what you had in mind doesn't mean that they are automatically your enemies, or that they are somehow un-American.


The question "under Shiva" is again, moot, because 1.) it doesnt say that, and 2.)we werent built on principles relating to Shiva.
Both of your points are correct, but the example is there to put Christians in the shoes of the minority. In this respect, this sort of analogy is essential for Christians to understand what non-Christians are feeling. It's perfectly valid.

dgswensen
27 June 2002, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by nightninja50
well, mr swensen I go to a Christian school, and went to the same one during elemtary school and they didnt make us, IN A CHRISTIAN SCHOOL, we wanted to, we wanted to show our appreciativeness for what the Lord has done for our country, He will not let us die by terror. Even our president says this stupid thing about not saying it and its "unconstitutional" is ridiculous,so why have you forsaken the Lord in our most desperate hours?
I respect and admire your faith, nightninja, but I don't share it. That's about all I can say. To respond more specifically to your post, I feel, would probably just touch off a religious flamewar, and I like Holonet too much to get into that. So, i will just say that I appreciate your beliefs and the differences between us, and leave it at that.

Nova Spice
27 June 2002, 08:45 AM
First off, thanks Matt for explaining what I meant about the stripping of our rights. Second, I'm not a girl, Nova Spice is just the name of my PCs YT-1150 in our group. You're not the first one to make this mistake, Fred Getce did as well! :p


So, if people who don't believe in the Christian God are free to omit the "under God" at their leisure, and that's perfectly acceptable, why is it then a huge crisis for people who do believe in the Christian God to add it at their leisure?

This is the exact problem with liberalism. What you just said. If athiests don't want to say "Under God" then why do we have to have a FEDERAL ruling making it illegal? Why do we have to make a law saying it is unconstitutional? If you do not want to say it, don't. But don't try to impress upon the entire 9th district that its unconstitutional! That's socialism IMO.

Second, about the separation of church and state thing, which I might add is not mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, but was just a brief statement made by Jefferson in 1802 when speaking to a group of Baptists. People have blown this thing way out of proportion! Separation of Church and State has nothing to do with "Under God", absolutely nothing! What Jefferson was talking about was this: In Britain, the Church of England WAS the government and was oppressively ruling the populace. Jefferson was saying that a certain religion should not BE a government, not that government shouldn't be influenced by religion. ;)

And nightninja, I am a Christian too, but I want to add that it is very hard to influence people over the Internet as far as politics and religion because its not on a one-on-one personal basis. So just remember that prayer is as good a tool as any. ;)

dgswensen
27 June 2002, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by Nova Spice
[B]This is the exact problem with liberalism. What you just said. If athiests don't want to say "Under God" then why do we have to have a FEDERAL ruling making it illegal? Why do we have to make a law saying it is unconstitutional? If you do not want to say it, don't. But don't try to impress upon the entire 9th district that its unconstitutional! That's socialism IMO.

As I said before -- I don't think the Pledge should have been ruled unconstitutional. I believe that if anything (!), amending it might be the best answer. Banning it from public schools, I believe, is a bit much -- making it quite a bit more voluntary, I believe, would be a step in the right direction, however.

But this is irrelevant -- I'm convinced the Supreme Court will kick this one right out. They just approved the use of public funds to pay for religious schools -- that doesn't sound like the actions of a Christian-unfriendly court to me. They'll boot this one higher than a kite. So, I wouldn't get excited. Your "rights" are safe.

Anyway, I'm out -- political / religious discussions never sit well with me for very long. I'm going back to talking about Star Wars. Thanks for the discussion, guys.

proxima centauri
27 June 2002, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by Nova Spice

This is the exact problem with liberalism. What you just said. If athiests don't want to say "Under God" then why do we have to have a FEDERAL ruling making it illegal? Why do we have to make a law saying it is unconstitutional? If you do not want to say it, don't. But don't try to impress upon the entire 9th district that its unconstitutional! That's socialism IMO.
[/B]

I think you just put the foot in the wrong shoe here.

From the CNN website:



1892

The pledge, written by socialist editor and clergyman Francis Bellamy, debuts September 8 in the juvenile periodical The Youth's Companion. He wants the words to reflect the views of his cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of "Looking Backward" and other socialist utopian novels. It reads: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible, with liberty and Justice for all."

Source: The Associated Press and Encyclopedia Britannica Inc.


It is only much later than the pledge of allegiance included the word "under God" which I believe was in the years of McCarthyism in th 50s.

again a quote from the CNN website:



1954

Worried that orations used by "godless communists" sound similar to the Pledge of Allegiance, religious leaders lobby lawmakers to insert the words "under God" into the pledge. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, fearing an atomic war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, joins the chorus to put God into the pledge. Congress does what he asks, and the revised pledge reads: "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."

Source: The Associated Press and Encyclopedia Britannica Inc.


Is Socialism so bad if they wrote the first and original version of the pledge? ;)

Do you still fear communism?

dgswensen
27 June 2002, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by proxima centauri
It is only much later than the pledge of allegiance included the word "under God" which I believe was in the years of McCarthyism in th 50s.

Yes, the "under God" line was added specifically to promote Christianity above all other religions -- but most of all above atheists, who were mostly equated with the godless Communists who were such a menace at the time.

Okay, sorry I broke my own declaration -- I really am leaving now :)

Nova Spice
27 June 2002, 09:26 AM
First off, I do not believe I was discussing the origin of the pledge. I was referring to the concept of making it illegal, not who wrote it and why. Sorry if I misconstrued you. Second, its CNN, another prime liberal news network. You're from Canada, and I mean no offense by this, but what you said about socialism not being all that bad, slaps every American in the face who died on the beaches of Normandy, the foothills of Germany, the hedgerows of France, the jungles of Korea, the deserts of Iraq, and currently the mountains of Afghanistan.
Socialism did not write the first and second drafts of the Pledge of Allegiance, an American did.

"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."

That was not meant to slap anyone in the face. That was a point I was trying to prove. It makes no sense to make a law saying I cannot say those two words, because as an American the federal government cannot tell me what I can and cannot do. Too many people have died to preserve the freedom of this nation. :(

By the way, I hope no one slashes my rating because of this, it is directed at no one in particular. ;) And dgswensen, Under God, wasn't put in there to make Christians seem better than Athiests. Bush said it best, it was a confirmation that our rights have been endowed by our Creator, whether you are Christian or not. Besides, as a Christian, following the teachings of Jesus, we do not look down on those that are not Christians.

lrdgrifter
27 June 2002, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by nightninja50
well, mr swensen I go to a Christian school, and went to the same one during elemtary school and they didnt make us, IN A CHRISTIAN SCHOOL, we wanted to, we wanted to show our appreciativeness for what the Lord has done for our country, He will not let us die by terror. Even our president says this stupid thing about not saying it and its "unconstitutional" is ridiculous,so why have you forsaken the Lord in our most desperate hours?

nightninja - You are in something of a unique situation, as this law would and could never apply to you. You go to a private school, so the government has very little say over what goes on there. You can say the Pledge to a Strawberry Twinkie, if it was what happened to turn your crank.

On a different note, I'm not sure that this qualifies as the "stripping of rights" that was mentioned earlier in this thread. When I think stripping of rights, I think of the government telling me that I can no longer own my firearms, or that alcohol is no longer legal. That's the stripping of rights.
This new "law" is no such thing. The change is aesthetic in nature only, in my opinion. There is no difference in my mind as to whether the U.S. was based "under God" or not, because it can make no claim to still be. With indifference and elitism we as Americans look down our collective noses at the rest of the world, because many believe that we are the chosen of Jehovah. We defend Israel to the nines, because they are the children of God, never mind the humanitarian attrocities. We perpetuate the growing debt of third world countries. We stand by idlly and watch the growing AIDS epidemic in Africa, and we do nothing. For decades, we allowed terrorism to have it's way with the world, even supplying terrorists that happened to be enemies of our enemies. But when we get hit, we launch a massive military retalliation. Where were the US Armed Services during the terror of the Crimson Brigade? Khemer Rouge (sp?)? It didn't concern us one bit.
What happened to this little bit of scripture (Luke 6):
But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
And unto him that smiteth thee on the [one] cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not [to take thy] coat also.
Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask [them] not again.
And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise...love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and [to] the evil.
Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

Just keep this scripture in mind next time you say the pledge of allegiance. Do you think your God would like to have his name associated with the USA, when we have it in our power to alleviate the suffering of others, to be merciful and love our neighbor and enemy alike, but do nothing but hate and condemn our enemies, and allow the starving and destitute to live lives of misery, then die slowly of malnurishment and primitive diseases for which the cure is cheap and easy?
Thanks for listening, and I hope that I've caused you to think, yet not be offended.
By the way, I am a former Christian, Athiest, Agnostic, and have now found that none of them are correct. Follow the example of our founding fathers, and seek Truth.:D

proxima centauri
27 June 2002, 09:40 AM
You're from Canada, and I mean no offense by this, but what you said about socialism not being all that bad, slaps every American in the face who died on the beaches of Normandy, the foothills of Germany, the hedgerows of France, the jungles of Korea, the deserts of Iraq, and currently the mountains of Afghanistan.
Socialism did not write the first and second drafts of the Pledge of Allegiance, an American did.


Then why do you keep accusing liberalism and socialists ?

Second, Canada is a capitalist/socialist country and I do not see why it would be a slap in the face of americans who fought in any great war. Canada was present during the two first World Wars, even before the americans for your info...

And I do not see why anything I said has to do with american liberating countries from oppression.

Edit: When I say socialism, I think of the ideological concept of socialism, not the actual implementation in countries where one rule oppresses the people. Hope I makes it clear.

lrdgrifter
27 June 2002, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by Nova Spice
You're from Canada, and I mean no offense by this, but what you said about socialism not being all that bad, slaps every American in the face who died on the beaches of Normandy, the foothills of Germany, the hedgerows of France, the jungles of Korea, the deserts of Iraq, and currently the mountains of Afghanistan.

Socialism, in the form that was mentioned, has nothing to do with Normandy, Germany or France. The only major armed conflicts the US has had with a modern Socialist government or party in the last 100 years were in Korea and Vietnam.
If it weren't for McCarthy, Communism would be accepted in North America almost as much as say the Green Party. It's a perfectly rational alternative to Federalism (and I say Federalism, because it is NOT a Democracy. If you disagree, go read a book.).
It is NOT a slap in the face.

dgswensen
27 June 2002, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by Nova Spice

By the way, I hope no one slashes my rating because of this, it is directed at no one in particular. ;) And dgswensen, Under God, wasn't put in there to make Christians seem better than Athiests. Bush said it best, it was a confirmation that our rights have been endowed by our Creator, whether you are Christian or not. Besides, as a Christian, following the teachings of Jesus, we do not look down on those that are not Christians.

Please witness the following quote from the Congressional Record.


"Mr. Speaker... Dr. Docherty and I are not of the same Christian denomination, but I may say that in this matter he has hit the nail right on the head. You may argue from dawn to dusk about differing political, economic, and social systems, but the fundamental issue which is the unbridgeable gap between America and Communist Russia is a belief in Almighty God. From the root of atheism stems the evil weed of communism and its branches of materialism and political dictatorship. Unless we are willing to affirm our belief in the existence of God and His creator-creature relationship to man, we drop man himself to the significance of a grain of sand and open the floodgates to tyranny and oppression. An atheistic American, as Dr. Docherty points out, is a contradiction in terms. This country was founded on theistic beliefs, on the belief in the worthwhileness of the individual human being which in turn depends solely and completely on the identity of man as the creature and son of God. The fraudulent claims of the Communists to the role of champions of social, economic, and political reform is given the lie by their very own atheist [sic] materialist concept of life and their denunciation of religion, the bond between God and Man, as 'the opium of the people'... It is therefore, most proper that in our salute to the flag, the patriotic standard around which we rally as Americans, we state the real meaning of that flag. From their earliest childhood our children must know the real meaning of America. Children and Americans of all ages must know that this is one Nation which "under God" means "liberty and justice for all."

--Congressional Record, House, February 12, 1954, p. 1700

"An atheistic American... is a contradiction in terms." So, in the words of the legislators who put the "under God" amendment into place, if you are not a Christian, you cannot be an American.

It is that sort of attitude to which I object.

And Nova, I would never slash your rating for anything you said on this subject, and I hope I will get the same courtesy from others.

I have enjoyed many conversations with you regarding Star Wars, Nova, and I hope the fact that we don't quite see eye to eye on this issue won't change that.

Cheers.

Nova Spice
27 June 2002, 10:00 AM
I'm sorry proxima I did not mean to make it sound as if Canada was a Communist regime. In all seriousness, I am sorry. :(
My point was that at every country I mentioned above, Americans died to free people from socialism because socialism is bad. I didn't mean to offend you in any way, form or manner. I respect your posts along with many of the others who have posted on this board. Its just, I cannot fathom why people like to play "Blame America." I wasn't accusing socialism of the ruling, I was saying that the ruling was socialist in nature. My apologies proxima.
Now, Irdgrifter. I had to really sit back and think about what you said and try to refrain myself from blowing up. Haha, this is a great board and I love it to death so no need in getting banned as Moridin so eloquently put previously. However, I must inform you that America has done more for the world than any other nation that has ever existed. Sorry, its the truth and for our enemies that little fact irks them to death. America has defeated communism, fascism, nazism, and soon to be terrorism. On the topic of Israel, yes, we do support them and I do not see any atrocities they have committed. No offense, but if a person had strapped explosives to themselves and killed one of my cousins, I'd be damned if I wasn't going to hunt them down! Israel is not aggressing, they are defending and you mentioned another good point,they are God's chosen people and they are the only democracy in that region, another prime reason to support them. Second, why is it our problem to solve Africa's AIDS situation? We have bigger things to deal with and it is not OUR problem. And are you saying that we shouldn't be retaliating for 9/11? Look, I'll be honest with you, I wouldn't care if we wiped out the entire country of Iraq or Iran. Because I know that in war, there is a winner and a loser. Preferably I'd like to have children and see them grow up in this great nation. So I say, do WHATEVER it takes to win, that includes dropping nukes if it will save American lives. Sorry, this is IMO, but it is something that I feel strongly about.

*Huff puff* I'm out of breath. And I suppose I will retire from this thread. Its exhausting me to death. :p :D By the way, this is a GREAT debate! I will continue to monitor it closely, but I think I've said enough for a while and I'll let everyone else continue. Have a great argumentative day! B)

P.S. Wholeheartedly agree dg!

lrdgrifter
27 June 2002, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by Nova Spice
America has defeated communism, fascism, nazism, and soon to be terrorism. On the topic of Israel, yes, we do support them and I do not see any atrocities they have committed. No offense, but if a person had strapped explosives to themselves and killed one of my cousins, I'd be damned if I wasn't going to hunt them down! Israel is not aggressing, they are defending and you mentioned another good point,they are God's chosen people and they are the only democracy in that region, another prime reason to support them. Second, why is it our problem to solve Africa's AIDS situation? We have bigger things to deal with and it is not OUR problem. And are you saying that we shouldn't be retaliating for 9/11? Look, I'll be honest with you, I wouldn't care if we wiped out the entire country of Iraq or Iran. Because I know that in war, there is a winner and a loser. Preferably I'd like to have children and see them grow up in this great nation. So I say, do WHATEVER it takes to win, that includes dropping nukes if it will save American lives.

Excellent points! Please bear in mind that my post was not meant to be an attack of any sort, merely a theological statement.
The deal, from my angle, is that the above quote IS the problem. The majority of America, for argument's sake, a Christian state, has the same attitude. "It is our duty to defend ourselves against all aggressors, and if we have to wipe them off the face of the planet, we will!" "Why is it our problem? It has nothing to do with US!"
To be more Christlike, which should be the goal of every Christian, these values need to be examined. Defense does not mean nukes, and we must to EVERYTHING we can to help those less fortunate than us, and that does not just apply to other Americans or her allies (The Good Samaratin, mayhaps?).
Now, that doesn't mean that we just sit back and let people attack us. We have to defend ourselves. We have to make sure that they can never do anything like that again, but at what cost? Tens of thousands of lives? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? At what point does our aggression become the same as theirs, in the world view?
Just something to chew on for a bit!:)

By the way, it's refreshing to have decent conversation and debate without it turning into a flamewar. Thank you all.

proxima centauri
27 June 2002, 10:19 AM
This will be my last reply on the subject as:

1- I have a life other than this thread
2- I think all has been pretty much said



by Nova Spice
I wasn't accusing socialism of the ruling, I was saying that the ruling was socialist in nature. My apologies proxima.


Alright... no offense taken. See my comment on my definition of Socialism also... that might clear things up.

About the role of the USA in the world, I'm not saying it is a bad thing... like others said, sometimes the USA puts a blind eye on some matter that you yourself say is none of your interest. Whether it is good or wrong is subject to another debate.

Please, if you want to keep only one sentence of what I said all along in this thread is this:

"Please keep a watchful eye on the media and your government (be it any country) and take ANYTHING people say to you with a grain of salt and if they say they know the truth, it is probably because they are still seeking it."

Now back to the regular schedule...

Matt Richard
27 June 2002, 10:28 AM
Thanks everyone for the maturity. No one is a terrorist for not saying the pledge, adn neither is this Dr. Newdou or however you spell it. Couple things.

The reason why it is commonly accepted to mean God when you say The Creator is because Christianity is recognized as the faith that is the major supporter of Creationism. Besides, if Diests believe in a form of God but have no use for the New Testiment, then they still recognize the same God as the Christians.

We are a religous state. You know how I know? Because EVERYONE is DC is saying it, both republicans and democrats. Judges have said it. Jefferson, the one who came up with the idea of Separation of Church and State, recognized the need for a higher authority to take place in america (look at my example above).

Again, no one is allowed to force you to say the pledge. That is illegal.

For those who keep on saying that we are done with Communism and should take down "under God." Listen, we are still under the direct policy of "containment (stopping comunism at all costs)." Containment didnt end with the SALT treaties, the Cold War did. Dont confuse the two. We are still a nation dedicated to the elimination of communism, even though we arent as ambitious about it as we used to be.

One, the majority wins, the rights are protected of the minority. "Establishment" under the first ammendment means "government enforced religion." Utering a religous passage is not establishing a religion, or else no one would be allowed to hold office if they were Christians, and the publically proclaimed that they were.

Stop attacking this issue as if its Christians v. Atheists. Its not, as many have said: "under God" is meant to be a term that can mean any god you choose to worship, HISTORICALLY, however, it was meant to be the Judeo-Christian/Diest God.

Im glad to report that the Elk Grove school district has defied the new ban put on nine Western US states to say the pledge. In fact, they said it twice in defiance. It was heart warming to see the Senate and House say the pledge and have a member of the clergy come in and pray LIKE THEY ALWAYS DO over the meetings.

I continue in my civil disobediance by saying the pledge at 7 am and pm every day. All who wish to join are welcome to.

Matt Richard
27 June 2002, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by lrdgrifter


Excellent points! Please bear in mind that my post was not meant to be an attack of any sort, merely a theological statement.
The deal, from my angle, is that the above quote IS the problem. The majority of America, for argument's sake, a Christian state, has the same attitude. "It is our duty to defend ourselves against all aggressors, and if we have to wipe them off the face of the planet, we will!" "Why is it our problem? It has nothing to do with US!"
To be more Christlike, which should be the goal of every Christian, these values need to be examined. Defense does not mean nukes, and we must to EVERYTHING we can to help those less fortunate than us, and that does not just apply to other Americans or her allies (The Good Samaratin, mayhaps?).
Now, that doesn't mean that we just sit back and let people attack us. We have to defend ourselves. We have to make sure that they can never do anything like that again, but at what cost? Tens of thousands of lives? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? At what point does our aggression become the same as theirs, in the world view?
Just something to chew on for a bit!:)

By the way, it's refreshing to have decent conversation and debate without it turning into a flamewar. Thank you all.

On the note about the verses and what the Christian thing to do is. In the Old testiment, God wiped thousands at his hand in protection of Israel. On the issue of turning the other cheek, we cannot act like wild animals in revenge. Killing thousands is like animals, you might say. BUT, notice that Jesus, the prime example of Christianity, turned tables in the Church because they were using it for the wrong purpose. He didnt act like an animal, he was firm, and effective, as should we be when we retaliate agains terroists. We shouldnt however, attack the citizens of the nations, THAT is being like animals.

I know what your all about say: Hiroshyma. That was a time when civilian loss wasnt considered that much of a bad thing, and a freaky thought: the US is the ONLY country to ever use an atomic device to kill inocent civilians.

Keep debating, Ill be here!

nightninja50
27 June 2002, 11:11 AM
From what I see, some of you are saying that socialism ( a form of communism and branches for Nazism) is good, socialistic governments have oppressed many people, and as I have read and heard, an extreme socialist is a Communist, and I am with you Nova Spice, because, i just think we should adhere to our Constitution, not argue on its principles and I'm not accusing anyone of being a terrorist, its just, if you are not with the country, you are against it! i bet about everyone ('cept Nova Spice) hates me right now because you are not a CHristian, and I also think that you should all pick up a book I like to call the Bible and think about it!

-This is the Nightninja, telling you all that God loves you, and you are all in my prayers-

God Bless America

lrdgrifter
27 June 2002, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by nightninja50
From what I see, some of you are saying that socialism ( a form of communism and branches for Nazism) is good...

Yep. That's pretty much my take on it, nightninja. Every type of goverment has the chance and the possibility of working for the people. Socialism, as a political model works. People are the ones that screw it up and make it look bad.
Also, you're a bit off base with your comparisons. Modern socialism resembles Naziism about as much as my boots resemble a holstein. Hitler and Stalin perverted the ideals of social reform (which is, at it's root, what socialism is all about). They should NOT be the idea you get in your head for socialism, but for totallitarianism.

Well, I think I had better actually get some WORK done here, but it's been wonderful to hear some of your viewpoints on this issue. Again, thanks for the flame free debate!B)

BrianDavion
27 June 2002, 12:12 PM
"if you are not with the country, you are against it!"'
my my a rather inflamatory statement. NinjaNinja, tone down the rhetoric.

"hates me right now because you are not a CHristian"
not really no, I am NOT a Christan but if you are or aren't I couldn't really care less to tell the truth. frankly I couldn't care what your religon was so long as you don't try and force it down my throat.. (I am not saying the pledge of allegiance does that or doesn't. I'm a Canadian, realisticly speaking what do I care?:)

"I also think that you should all pick up a book I like to call the Bible and think about it! "
actually truth be told last time I was in a hotel I tried reading it.. I hate to say this and mean it as no offeense against your religon, It's simply the truth but I found it so boreing it put me to sleep.

Reverend Strone
27 June 2002, 12:32 PM
Gentlemen you need to all calm down a bit. I have refrained from joining this discussion until now because if there is anything that polarises and upsets people faster than you can blink, it is this kind of discussion.

However, the extreme points of view being expressed here are beyond comprehension. Please lets all think very carefully before making blanket statements and slandering anyone with slightly different religious interpretations or spiritual philosophies.

There are plenty more nations in the world outside the US that have Christian founding principles and yet are able to differentiate spiritual beliefs from politics- a wise move in my esteem, as politics is all about compromise and religion is about absolutes. The too are not easily married. We would all be wise here to remember that, because when judging people (something the New Testament suggests not to do I might add) along spiritual beliefs, it is easy to make black and white claims. When those same judgements are made along political lines, as is being done here, exceptionally dangerous lines are being drawn. This sort of stuff starts wars people, and adhering to the extreme rhetoric being exposed above, some of the folks here would have the US go to war with many of her allies.

Christ preached tolerance and love for one another, not judgement. Lets all calm down gentlemen and relax a little before making inflamatory statements with repercussions beyond our own limited understanding of the world. The planet is a big place, and for any one of us to sit in our own little tiny corner of it and pronounce judgement on places we only know the tiniest thing about is just plain ignorant and irresponsible.

So I plead again, lets tread careful folks- there are friendships being endangered here, and it would be a shame to injure the sense of goodwill and comraderie that we all love here on the Holonet arguing about issues we cannot hope to resolve.

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
27 June 2002, 12:56 PM
I just have a few things to say, in response to different portions of this conversation:
1). Can you not realize that America is part socialist?
2). We are no longer trying to contain communism, there is about 1 communist country left, and we would rather be their friends than their enemies.
3). Like somebody already said, there is nothing inherently wrong w/ socialism or communism, it's when oppressive dictators warp it to their own ends that we have problems. I still believe that their has never been a true communist country, rather than a dictatorship posing as communist.
4). Last time I picked up a bible, I laughed my arse off. That part about Angels and people having sex and producing giant babies, that was rich!
5). Somebody please answer my "under Shiva" question. What would you do if it said that, keeping in mind that it doesn't, can't, and never will happen, but theoritically.
6). For whoever it was that said we should invade Iraq and Iran, Iran is one of our allies, even though we label them as evil, and plus, you can't invade soveriegn countries just cause you feel like it, we would need a very good reason, otherwise the U.N. would probably have to intervene against us.

That's all for now.

Gray Area
27 June 2002, 01:18 PM
Guy's this is not the forum for this type of discussion, this site is about SWRPG and associated subject matter. This can only end in tears for all, don't let polilitical and religious believes mar this great community. take it up in the appropriate chat rooms, there are a huge swag of them on the net go there. The opinions voiced here are intelligent and heart felt for the most part but this is not the place for them, please don't bring the troubles of the world in here!!!

dgswensen
27 June 2002, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by Gray Area
Guy's this is not the forum for this type of discussion, this site is about SWRPG and associated subject matter. This can only end in tears for all, don't let polilitical and religious believes mar this great community. take it up in the appropriate chat rooms, there are a huge swag of them on the net go there. The opinions voiced here are intelligent and heart felt for the most part but this is not the place for them, please don't bring the troubles of the world in here!!!

Well, actually... isn't Chaos and Miscellanea the ONE forum where we can talk about things that are not related to Star Wars?

Or have I been operating under a gross misconception all this time?

Not that I'm cheerleading for more political / religious debates, of course. 8o

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
27 June 2002, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Gray Area
Guy's this is not the forum for this type of discussion, this site is about SWRPG and associated subject matter. This can only end in tears for all, don't let polilitical and religious believes mar this great community. take it up in the appropriate chat rooms, there are a huge swag of them on the net go there. The opinions voiced here are intelligent and heart felt for the most part but this is not the place for them, please don't bring the troubles of the world in here!!!

I find it interesting how my fellow SWRPG fans feel about these issues, that's why I think these kinds of discussions pop up .

Gray Area
27 June 2002, 01:33 PM
Ewok, you might find it interesting, but for others it lies closer to tthe heart than that, people will be angered and offended by the comments of others where these subjects are concerned. I feel that relationships will be affected bt this thread, as I said you can find other sites dedicated to this kind of debate, it's better held there.
I'm just looking to be a voice of reason, people have a great thing going here I don't want to see it jepordised.

Love and Hugs Gray Area

Nova Spice
27 June 2002, 02:24 PM
Last time I picked up a bible, I laughed my arse off. That part about Angels and people having sex and producing giant babies, that was rich!

Could you point out what part of the Bible this is in? I know it fairly well and I must say I don't recall this every being in it.


Can you not realize that America is part socialist?

No I cannot, Alfred please elaborate because in all honesty I want to hear why you believe America IS what it HATES. Can you give me some reasons for why America is part socialist? Thanks ;)

Im actually out of this debate to be honest. I just want to hear what you have to say. :p


For whoever it was that said we should invade Iraq and Iran, Iran is one of our allies, even though we label them as evil, and plus, you can't invade soveriegn countries just cause you feel like it, we would need a very good reason, otherwise the U.N. would probably have to intervene against us.

I believe I brought this up earlier. Basically Iran isn't an ally, they'd just as soon nuke us behind our backs. I know, my uncle served in a certain U.S. Special Forces unit (Delta Force) and from his experience Iran is a HUGE threat to this nation. I know in today's world the U.N. controls all aspects of invading foreign nations. And the U.N. would probably TRY and intervene against us. Hehe, we are America, we ARE the U.N. If we invade Iraq (and I believe we will soon), the U.N. will probably give the U.S. the standard line: "We condemn these attacks. You must pull out." Oh my, how intimidating.......whoops, did we fire that Tomahawk Cruise Missile into Saddam's Palace? Our fault.....we'll clean it up. :p

Superdog
27 June 2002, 02:40 PM
I honestly don't see how any reasonable, intelligent person could support the official governement pledge making references to the Christian God. Some people may claim that it means whatever god you want to mean, but it doesn't. It was made to discrimanate against atheists and promote christianity throughout the country. Somebody already posted a quote to that effect. I heard quotes from Bush saying he wished to replace those judges with ones who were christians and would promote christianity. The people in the senate said that those judges will never get a promotion. The republican party told people to DEFY the judges. Ya, that's a good idea. Let's defy the courts on anything we don't agree with.Those judges just ruined their careers. It's a sad day for religous equality...:( But a happy one for people like nightninja.:(
It is my sincerest hope that one day this will be compared to Brown vs. Board of Education, for I feel they are similiar, although I don't admit to this case being as important.

Matt Richard
27 June 2002, 02:56 PM
I DONT want this thread closed, so nightninja, please refrain from further coments like your previous one. Superdog, were you alive in the 1950s? Did you make a vote on it? How about the Senator Byrd who was a live then, who was in congress, and voted for "under God" who is a Constitutional Scholar, and to top it all of is a Democrat. I have great respect for him, so please, watch what you say, they added it in to acknowledge the fact that we needed the presence of a higher authority.

Gray Area, I must disagree with your thoughts. This is a topic that SHOULD be discussed, it should get people thinking because it is something that affects us all, and brings up good questions about the stability of our constitution.

Nova, I might have to disagree with you on your remarks to Alfred, adn Alfred, here are your answers:

1.) I totally agree, we are part Socialist due to union workers, and mostly welfare. besides the fact that we dont have lezay faire or whatever its called.

2.) If the need where to arise, we are still under Containment, no one has said its over.

3.) Youre right, on paper, Communism and Socialism are the perfect plans, but there doesnt appear to be any one intelligent enough to run them.

4.) Ive never read that passage of scripture.

5.) Shiva is not a vague term, nor can it be considered a vague term. God on the other hand, HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS to represent a vague term, if you so choose to make it. THerefore, you cant compare the two. BUT, just for your sake, as a human, no I wuld not like it.

6.) I didnt say that, so I dont know what you mean.

Later.

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
27 June 2002, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Nova Spice Could you point out what part of the Bible this is in? I know it fairly well and I must say I don't recall this every being in it.


I understand my bible may be a different translation than yours, but it says Good News Bible on the front, and I shall now quote from it:
Geneis 6:1-4
When people had spread all over the world, and daughters were being born, 2 some of the heavenly beings saw that these young women were beautiful, so they took the ones they liked. 3 Then the Lord said, "I will not allow people to live forever; they are mortal. From now on they will live no longer than 120 years." 4 In those days, and even later, there were giants on the earth who were descendants of human women and the heavenly beings. They were the great heroes and famous men of long ago.


No I cannot, Alfred please elaborate because in all honesty I want to hear why you believe America IS what it HATES. Can you give me some reasons for why America is part socialist? Thanks ;)

No problem, ;) . It's a fact that America has a capitolist/socialist economy. The socialist part of our economy are the parts that allow the governemt to get involved in business, regulating standards, busting up monopolies, havig Social Security, and things like that.



I believe I brought this up earlier. Basically Iran isn't an ally, they'd just as soon nuke us behind our backs.

Actually, nowadays young Irainians are getting sick of the oppressive, strict regime they live under, and would just as well become allies with the U.S, or atleast that's what I've heard. And on Iraq, I agree that Sadaam is a bad guy, but they didn't have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, and it would be a little rash to just up and invade them. What's next? Nuke every country that disagrees with us?

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
27 June 2002, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by Matt Richard
BUT, just for your sake, as a human, no I wuld not like it.


That's my point, imagine how a hindu, buddhist, or anyone else who is a member of a polytheistic religion would feel.

P.S. Matt, looking forward to playing some fantasy football w/ you!

Talonne Hauk
27 June 2002, 05:00 PM
America's economic model comes from John Maynard Keynes, who advocated a mixed economy. Actually, our economy is still slanted towards capitolism, but we have been enlightened enough to provide for worker's rights and protections. If anyone thinks that's horribly socialistic, try working a 12 hour day in boilermaker hot conditions with no safeguards or breaks of any kinds on a consistent, day in, day out basis. Then give thanks to organized labor for the fact that you don't have to.

I'm amazed that anyone feels this decision by the judges was an attack on religion. It wasn't. You all have the right to assemble in whatever place of worship you desire. You may recite the Pledge of Allegiance there, in its entirety, if you so choose. This decision wasn't entirely about religion. It was about protecting people from being forced to express ideas that they do not subscribe to. There are foreign nationals living in this country, attending our schools. Why must they be forced to recite a pledge that allies themselves against their own sovereign nation? Now they don't. And before anyone argues that foreign nationals don't have the rights we do, let me say this; we have always treated visitors with the same accord as one of our own. It would be hypocritical for a nation that prides itself on free speech and free thinking to force others to say what we want.

Anyhow, Matt, if you want to recite the pledge, feel free. You won't be breaking any laws unless you force others to do so in a space provided and paid for by taxes. And they would be guilty of giving tacit approval to your activities.

Nova Spice
27 June 2002, 06:21 PM
There are foreign nationals living in this country, attending our schools. Why must they be forced to recite a pledge that allies themselves against their own sovereign nation?

Who says they were being forced? That was my whole point, this decision was all-in-all ludicrous because no one was being forced to say anything. That little girl didn't have to say "Under God." There was no need to create a law saying "Under God" was unconstitional because if someone doesn't want to say it, they won't, and we DO NOT need a law to tell them they do not have to. Its ludicrous, insane even! ;)
"Under God" isn't forcing anyone to believe in anything. Its a simple statement in reverence to our forefathers who trusted in God.

P.S. I keep saying I'm out of the debate, but I find myself drawn back in. Scary isn't it? :p

lordbynight
27 June 2002, 06:29 PM
Its funny how much this post has generated today and being what else a politics thread. I am only gonna say that I think it is a fair decision to get rid of the word and that getting rid of it on money should closely follow. I wont get into my socielist views cause it will cause outrages. But I do believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion and do respect everyones.

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
27 June 2002, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by Nova Spice
Who says they were being forced?


School children all over the country were being forced to say it, wether they wanted to or not. When I was in Elementary school, we didn't get a choice, you said the pledge.



"Under God" isn't forcing anyone to believe in anything. Its a simple statement in reverence to our forefathers who trusted in God.


Here's what the judge said, which ties back into my "under shiva" arguement:


"A profession that we are a nation ‘under God’ is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation ‘under Jesus,’ a nation ‘under Vishnu,’ a nation ‘under Zeus,’ or a nation ‘under no god,’ because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion," Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote for the three-judge panel.

Nova Spice
27 June 2002, 06:41 PM
"A profession that we are a nation ‘under God’ is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation ‘under Jesus,’ a nation ‘under Vishnu,’ a nation ‘under Zeus,’ or a nation ‘under no god,’ because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion," Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote for the three-judge panel.

That is his opinion though and even though he is a "high" judge, he doesn't have the right or the common sense to realize that "Under God" forces no one to BELIEVE in anything. I mean c'mon, Alfred, if you do not believe in God, then saying "Under God" isn't going to change your views on religion. Its two little words that symbolize respect for our heritage. The words are not forcing anything down anyone's throats.
If you were to say the Pledge before this ruling took place, no one would have stopped you from not saying "Under God." But now, the judge is stopping people from saying "Under God", and this is the difference and the reason why this decision is wrong. Before, people could say what they wished, now they cannot.
Chalk a small victory up for socialism. :( Account for yet another thorn in freedom's side.

lordbynight
27 June 2002, 06:45 PM
Nova socialism is a system of equality no need to thrash it. I know certain religions that belive the word god should not even exist for spelled backwards it means dog. Now to me that sound silly but to others it does not. So I do think that if this country runs as its suppose to then it should be removed so chalk a victory up capatilism were its not in God we trust but money.
And I fully agree with Grey on this one this topic should be closed.
Any one have the stats for Imperial credit chips??? :D

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
27 June 2002, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by Nova Spice
That is his opinion though and even though he is a "high" judge, he doesn't have the right or the common sense to realize that "Under God" forces no one to BELIEVE in anything. I mean c'mon, Alfred, if you do not believe in God, then saying "Under God" isn't going to change your views on religion.


Maybe not, but either way it sounds as if your favoring monotheistic religions.



Its two little words that symbolize respect for our heritage. Before, people could say what they wished, now they cannot.

This countries heritage? I find it hard to believe that Christianity had as large of a part in establishing this country as you make it sound, in fact there is little proof that the Bible or Christianity helped to shape the ideas in the Articles or the Constitution. And people can still say the Pledge!!


Chalk a small victory up for socialism. :( Account for yet another thorn in freedom's side.
What's your beef w/ socialism? DId you read mine and other people's post about the socialistic aspects of this country and how we are better because of it?

Matt Richard
27 June 2002, 06:50 PM
Im going to enhance what I said earlier about the Shiva argument.

im not changing my answer, I wouldnt be happy, BUT I would not try to make a public spectacle out of it, and would actually probably leave the country, making the question again, moot.

To quote the Distinguished Senator Bird: "If your an atheist, and you dont like the phrase "under God," then you can go, you dont have to be here." I didnt say this, mind you, just quoting a Constitutional Scholar who happens to believe that "under God" is correct.

Nova Spice
27 June 2002, 06:53 PM
Nova socialism is a system of equality no need to thrash it.

Haha...well the reason why I thrash it lord is two-fold:

1. Millions of Americans have died trying to destroy it and prevent its ideals from taking root in our lives. Socialism's branches resulted in fascism, communism, and nazism. Too many of our boys never came back from the wars spawned by these ideals, so I see no reason to like it or respect it at all.
2. The very freedoms we enjoy would not be possible if socialism was the establishment rather than capitalism. Its the American dream of living a happy, prosperous life that we hold dear and I will give my life to protect our rights from socialist views, just as my great grandfather did in World War I and my Great Uncle in World War II. Anything worth having is worth fighting for and it will be over my dead body before socialism becomes America's ideals.

God Bless America

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
27 June 2002, 06:54 PM
If your an atheist, and you dont like the phrase "under God," then you can go, you dont have to be here.

I think it's absolutley childish to say this. The great thing about America is that I can disagree w/ it, and not have to leave. America is a better place because people disagree w/ it and are constantly trying to change things and make them better.

lordbynight
27 June 2002, 06:56 PM
Your right millions of boys have died to destroy communism. For what to prove it doesent work cause the boys never gave it a chance. The minute someone becomes part of that system they are considered evil. Why cause the black man and white man are equal. cause medicine and education should not be paid for. It is a system the that frown upon explotation of man by man like fidel said.

Matt Richard
27 June 2002, 06:57 PM
Now two more things, experts have said that if we had never instituted the socialist aspects of our country (mostly welfare and the unions), our economy would be in much better shape than it is.

Next, this topic SHOULD NOT be closed, because as I said earlier, it affects EVERYONE. the only time this thread become "borderline" was when people compared others to terroists and others tried to make this out to be a Christians v. Athiests debate. Also, there happened more often than not a criticism on some of the most obvious, most commonly accepted ideas, which surprised me (like, it is commonly accepted that we have biblical principals in our nation), but thats ok to have an opinion. Also, some near-slanderous remarks towards Christians didnt make this thread easier to read. BUT, for the most part we handled this topic with maturity and intelligence, and I hope it remains.

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
27 June 2002, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Nova Spice
Millions of Americans have died trying to destroy it and prevent its ideals from taking root in our lives. Socialism's branches resulted in fascism, communism, and nazism.

Flagrant abuse of something is no arguement against it use.
Commmunism and Socialism are constantly being abused by dictators, who don't give a rats about it, and just want more power.


Now two more things, experts have said that if we had never instituted the socialist aspects of our country (mostly welfare and the unions), our economy would be in much better shape than it is.

But the working class would be suffering, the reason the economy would be better is because you could pay 10 cents a day and work people 16 hours a day and they couldn't do a thing about. Therefore company profits would be skyrocketing, stock would go up, better economy.

P.S. As I mentioned before, the socialistic portions of our country are operating quite well and we are a better place w/ them.

Matt Richard
27 June 2002, 07:00 PM
I STRESS that I did not say what was above, it came from a man who has lived a long time, and knows enough, that even if you disagreed with him, he would be someone you would be afraid to try to correct.

nova, socialism is totally the opposite of facism and nazism, although they lead towards the same or similar ending.

Talonne Hauk
27 June 2002, 07:03 PM
The words "under God" in any official capacity implies a support for that thought. While that poses no problem for you, Nova, it does pose a problem for many Americans with a different philosophy of life. And their rights are important, too. Anytime someone elses rights are encroached upon, even if it benefits you, makes your rights all the easier to be encroached upon in the future. The stronger we make our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the more freedoms everyone can enjoy.

Socialism is an economic policy. It is not a political form of government. You can have an entirely democratic form of government and have a socialistic economy. In fact, many of our staunchest allies in western Europe have done so. What you are afraid of, Nova, is totalitarianism. A decision to protect the 1st Amendment is a step away from totalitarianism, not towards it.

People are still free to say what they wish. This decision did not outlaw the Pledge of Allegiance. It forbade those in a public capacity from organizing a recital of it on public land. no policeman will issue you a citation for participating in the Pledge, nor will you be locked up. If you force someone else to say it, though, that's where a problem may arise. I think we all can agree that forcing someone to do something against their will is not a good thing.

On that note, no one is forcing you to read this thread, Lordbynight. If it disturbs you, you certainly have the option of turning elsewhere. but we are Americans (mostly) participating in one of our most important freedoms; free speech. And I don't think anyone should condone limiting it by closing this forum merely because the topic is uncomfortable. I like how civilized everyone has been so far, and I find my esteem of several members of the Holonet has risen, regardless whether I agree with them or not. Keep it up, people. Enjoy what our Founding Fathers fought for!

Matt Richard
27 June 2002, 07:03 PM
alfred, Ill look forward to playing fantasy football with you too. EXPECT TO LOSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! j/k:D

OK, so that didnt really fit with the discussion, but we all really needed to take a breather for one second.

Nova Spice
27 June 2002, 07:06 PM
Flagrant abuse of something is no arguement against it use. Commmunism and Socialism are constantly being abused by dictators, who don't give a rats about it, and just want more power.

Thanks Alfred you just proved my point! Look at what has happened to two of the most powerul countries who have fallen sway to the socialist ideals.

1. Germany-last time I checked Hitler's Nazism resulted in the death of 6 million Jews, a second World War, and the loss of hundreds of thousands of American lives. Germany is still trying to catch up economically over fifty years later.
2. Russia-communism caused this nation to become one of the largest and poorest countries in recorded history. All because Stalin wanted everyone to be equal. Well its my right if I want to be wealthier than my neighbor or more successful, because I live in a capitalist society and I can pursue those dreams. Socialism doesn't work....its been proven time and time again. Its a flawed concept. People do not want to be average. Every person has a burning desire to become something and I will be damned if the government is going to tell me how much I can earn and how much I will eat......I will fight to prevent this from happening as I have said before.

Talonne, Alfred, you guys are wearing me out! *Huff puff* :p

Matt Richard
27 June 2002, 07:09 PM
Hauk, you have brought up a point that no one will ever be able to persuade anyone of, its all a matter of belief. I totally disagree with you and think you are totally far from the truth, but I greatly admire your ability to defend it and defend it well, and I hope you have found the same level of intelligence in my posts.

Matt Richard
27 June 2002, 07:14 PM
Since some people dont like us debating this, lets take a vote. Vote YES, if you want to end this discussion. Vote NO if you want this discussion open. This poll will close around the same time tommorow, and only those who have posted something will have their votes counted. In between the time of voting, keep debating this issue at will, and put your vote for this topic.

NO
I wish for this debate to keep going.

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
27 June 2002, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by Nova Spice


Thanks Alfred you just proved my point! Look at what has happened to two of the most powerul countries who have fallen sway to the socialist ideals.

1. Germany-last time I checked Hitler's Nazism resulted in the death of 6 million Jews, a second World War, and the loss of hundreds of thousands of American lives. Germany is still trying to catch up economically over fifty years later.
2. Russia-communism caused this nation to become one of the largest and poorest countries in recorded history. All because Stalin wanted everyone to be equal. Well its my right if I want to be wealthier than my neighbor or more successful, because I live in a capitalist society and I can pursue those dreams. Socialism doesn't work....its been proven time and time again. Its a flawed concept. People do not want to be average. Every person has a burning desire to become something and I will be damned if the government is going to tell me how much I can earn and how much I will eat......I will fight to prevent this from happening as I have said before.

Talonne, Alfred, you guys are wearing me out! *Huff puff* :p
Nazism and socialism are two entirely differnent things, nazism was built around the ideals of racism and other bad, unrelated stuff. What they called it didn't make any difference, it's not socialism.
And Stalins's regime resembled fascism more than communism, he didn't want eveyone to be equal, he wanted to be in charge and have absolute power, once again, call it whatever you want, it's not communism.

Nova Spice
27 June 2002, 07:18 PM
NO
I wish for the debate to continue, just as long as I can have an oxygen mask for a breather or two. *Cough* *Wheez* :p


Nazism and socialism are two entirely differnent things, nazism was built around the ideals of racism and other bad, unrelated stuff. What they called it didn't make any difference, it's not socialism.

Oh I know they are two separate things, and if you look at my initial comments on the subject a page back, you will see that I referred to communism and nazism as branches of socialism, which they are.

Sil7
27 June 2002, 07:20 PM
I haven't replied to this so far - just been taking it all in and learning a lot. I would like to address a few things. First: can we bring this discussion about the ruling on the pledge down to its simplist terms? Was the objection to the words "under God" in the pledge or the right to not say the pledge?
If the phrase is the objection then remove it. If we need to quantify our position as being under divine direction instead of letting our actions prove it then it is wrong. (If other nations can't determine the beliefs of the people inhabiting America unless we state it then we probably aren't what we are trying to say we are ). I believe God has only one chosen nation - Israel. But he has a vast array of people who are His. Jesus didn't come to save America but Americans (and everyone else) - on a person by person basis. .
A nation can have a heritage but in America we are goverened by the people of today with guidance from the past based on the principles (wherever they were derived) set forth in the constitution. Why else would these founding fathers have made the provision for more laws and changes. They knew it was necessary to form a "social contract" to maintain order. Since all the people cannot spend their time maintaining order, they must choose a few of thier number to act as a governing body. The men who govern are appointed by the people to carry out the people's orders. The government is merely the agent of the people who control it. And those people change. Their ideas and philosophies change. That is what makes our nation work. It is by the people, of the people, for the people.

Matt Richard
27 June 2002, 07:24 PM
Just as clarification, only nine states will be affected by this apperant ban of the pledge, and it is only unconstitutional because of the phrase "under God"

Sil7
27 June 2002, 07:24 PM
Continued from above

If the issue is the right NOT to say the pledge in a school setting then I would have to concur under some clarifications. If you are merely having a child recite the pledge as one would any piece of literature for the mere learning of recitation just as say "The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere" , I can understand.
If it is rote repetition for the purpose of making an impact on ones
thinking then I can't endorse it. Schools should be teaching youngsters how to think not what to think. Patriotism is one thing, an allegiance to a country totally different. What can a young child know of the responsibilities and duties involved in the taking of such an oath (Some adults don't even fully understand all involved in being a citizen).
And in closing:
I may not believe in what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it.

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
27 June 2002, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Nova Spice
NO
I wish for the debate to continue, just as long as I can have an oxygen mask for a breather or two. *Cough* *Wheez* :p


Ya, I am going to step back for a bit, but I do want this debate to continue.

Matt Richard
27 June 2002, 07:33 PM
So far we have a majority of 3 to 0 in favor of keeping this thread alive. I think you guys just are competeting to see who can get post #100. ADMIT IT!!! :D Have fun guys, I think Im done for tonight.

Superdog
27 June 2002, 07:43 PM
Thank God for Atheism.:D

Reverend Strone
27 June 2002, 08:02 PM
I'm not going to take part in this debate, but if I were you guys, I would step out and cool down a while guys.

Sooner or later something is going to be said that is strong enough to get this thread shut down by a Moderator, and then there'll be a whole pile of angry people all hacked off at eachother and the said Mod because they weren't able to resolve the discussion. I'd submit to you guys that this is an unresolvable topic, and the wise thing to do would be to voluntarily retire it from public discussion before it gets closed on you by someone else. You can always carry on privately between yourselves, but there are folks out there that could be very upset by some of the generalisations being espoused here.

I value the Holonet for what it has been to me since I began visiting here, and it concerns me greatly how potentially devisive this discussion is. There's no harm in voluntarily giving this a rest, especially when folks start saying things like that:

Thank God for Atheism.

lordbynight
27 June 2002, 08:12 PM
My Vote is to shut it down. But its great to se that at least most people can carry on an adult conversation. Thanks guys I love this community. See you all at the newest hottest craze were the artist are pouring out there hearts my favorite swag....:D

SeaTurtle
27 June 2002, 08:24 PM
I fail to understand some of this
If you are an atheist, you do not believe in a greater power.
If you do not believe in a greater power that creates a universal meaning then you must accept that there is either no meaning in life, or that the only meaning in life is the meaning you, personally, give it.
If you, personally, are offended by the words "under God," then it is your choice to give the words meaning to offend you. If you do not chose to give the words meaning then they do not have it. So, to make a large disturbance to fix something that you chose to bother you, is either to not realize that the words can be meaningless to you should you simply accept what you say you believe...or to do something irrational in destroying something that works to recreate something that works. Without expanding your thought to what you profess you might think that you will improve it, but expanding to fill the gaps you can see it will not.
Further, should you not be able to accept what I said above, you can easily appreciate that comparitively as many or more people are bothered by what you're trying to repair as were bothered in the first place. Not to mention they are practicing what they profess to believe where as you are not taking into account your own faith, or in a sense, lack of it.

Jedi_Staailis
27 June 2002, 08:34 PM
My vote is to keep the thread open. It's been a good way for me to see what others think about the issue. Since school is out for the summer, my usual forums for debating such issues are gone, and this is the only place to find an intelligent, mature discussion.

However, just one gripe on the voting process. Restricting the vote to those who have posted comments almost ensures that the vote will be to keep the thread open. Those who object to the discussion won't have posted comments, and their votes won't be counted.


Sooner or later something is going to be said that is strong enough to get this thread shut down by a Moderator, and then there'll be a whole pile of angry people all hacked off at eachother and the said Mod because they weren't able to resolve the discussion. I'd submit to you guys that this is an unresolvable topic, and the wise thing to do would be to voluntarily retire it from public discussion before it gets closed on you by someone else.
In my opinion, this thread will eventually burn itself out. Many of us are already deciding that we're done with the thread. Admittedly, there is always a risk of starting a flame war, and in a discussion such as this, the odds are higher than most. However, I think this can come to a good conclusion if everyone is careful about what they say.

And if we can get through this without it blowing up, we'll owe the mods a big "thank you." They're probably sweating about now. :)

Sil7
27 June 2002, 08:36 PM
In the end, the fate of the world will not be determined by our view of things, but instead by the truth of things. We do not judge the truth-it always judges us.

I think the debate could continue, if we could get back on topic and remain civil and respectful. Barring that, it would not be a good idea.

Sil7

Superdog
27 June 2002, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by SeaTurtle
Not to mention they are practicing what they profess to believe where as you are not taking into account your own faith, or in a sense, lack of it.
Hmmm... So, I'm not taking into account my own lack of faith? Wow. That sounds like a really inteligent comment, too bad I don't understand it.
Mind giving me the Cliff Notes version, it is pretty late.:)

******(No, I'm not being sarcastic, I don't understand what the fellow is trying to say)

SeaTurtle
27 June 2002, 10:43 PM
A common definition of faith I see is faith as refering to the belief in a type of divinity. I was referring to the larger implications of what you say when you say that there is no great power. If so then there is no universal meaning or truth governed by that divinity. It seems to me that many people who have posted thus far haven't considered these possibliities.

Edit: I was referring to Atheism, sorry it's getting late for me too now and I'm forgetting things...When you say you are an Atheist it has much greater implications that you should take into perspective on your life; some atheistic people I know simply cast away religion as a crutch for people who are afraid of death, but it encompasses much more.

Matt Richard
27 June 2002, 11:14 PM
Being the creator of this somewhate "borderline" thread, I must say this. It should not, repeat SHOULD NOT be brought down for my previous reasons. For the most part, barring two people who we know, but no need to mention names, we have all acted in a mature fashion. It was also inevitable that someone would bring this up, and I am proud to say that I brought it up, adn that it is still gone strong for over 100 posts, and almost 1000 views, with only minor problems in it. There are three things that made this thread close to shut down, which we need to fix if we want to continue this discussion: 1.) Out of nowhere, it appeared as if we were going into a Christians v. Atheists debate, but I thank those who were mature enough to end that. 2.) Comments were being made that could have been considered flaming (a reference comparing those who dont say the pledge to terrorists). 3.) Continuous remarks which could be taken as slanderous towards Christianity ("Thank God for atheism") from a person who just didnt seem to get it taht we were not in a holy war between Christians and Athiests.

We have 4 to 1 in favor of keeping the thread alive, but a good point was made, now the general viewers will also be counted when they vote, but they will be required to say why the voted this way in order to be counted. No "You guys suck for starting this thread," I want intelligent answers for why we should stop intelligent arguments. No "it hurts my feelings" either. As stated earlier, this is the C and M forum, meaning that total randomness occurs and should be allowed. wE are following all rules under the holonet code, so if you dont like it, dont view it.

IF for some strange reason we get shut down, and you still want to vent, contact me and the others by pm who have debated well here, and tell them what you think. I will gladly debate a topic with you, regardless of what the subject is.

Is there anyone who actually likes debating issues other than me? If so, contact me, I would love to debate something.

Matt Richard
27 June 2002, 11:26 PM
One more thing...
Regardless of whether or not this thread shuts down, let me say I greatly appreciate the work of the HoloNet webmasters and moderators for their hard work in creating such a wonderful community. I know all the mods probably have their mouse icons over the "admin options," just waiting for the signal to shut it down, but before you do, I plead that you take a look at EVERY POST that was written. Im afraid that in the extreme popularity that this thread had, some posts may have gone overlooked. For the most part, youll see, we made pretty intelligent arguments and we held great respect for others adn their feelings. When someone would get into a heated match with another, it was peacfully resolved a few posts later with words like "no harm meant," etc. I realize that some posts should never have been posted, but overall, this thread has done more good than bad. I listened and tried to understand the other side, to better research my side. Countless times, Talonne hauk would have me searching my books on law and the constitution, which made me think, which was a good thing.

We all agree that regardless of what we believe or what happens regarding this case, we all love America, our country, home of the free.

Please, dont shut us down.

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
28 June 2002, 04:10 AM
Wether the decision to declare the pledge unconstitutional was right or not, and wether it will be overturned or not, I think we can all agree that this is probably the death knell of the pledge, and that further down the road it will probably be a memory.

Nova Spice
28 June 2002, 06:03 AM
Wether the decision to declare the pledge unconstitutional was right or not, and wether it will be overturned or not, I think we can all agree that this is probably the death knell of the pledge, and that further down the road it will probably be a memory.

I certainly hope your wrong Alfred because the day the Pledge dies is the day America begins to fall apart. :(
These same and IMO absurd rulings plagued the Greek and Roman Empires and we all know what happened to them. This type of ruling, that claims that part of our OWN Pledge is unconstitutional only makes America weaker, not stronger. We can salvage a bit of that by debating, but in the scheme of things America will be weaker because of this. The good news is that the Senate and House (Republican and Democrat, the latter being a big surprise to me) are absolutely in an uproar over this which shows that even our leaders on both sides agree that this is completely ridiculous. And I saw a report on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and apparently 90%, 90% (That is a heck of a lot) of their decisions are overtuned! 8o Anyone want to read anything into that? If not I'll gladly explain. :D

Rigil Kent
28 June 2002, 06:36 AM
Count my vote for not shutting down the thread; it'll eventually fade away as each participant says what he wants.

I've been reading the posts and the varied opinions with interest; it is always fascinating to read the thoughts of people outside my immediate circle. I do find the support for socialism more than a little disheartening, however, especially given the supposition that it hasn't worked in the past because it was applied wrong. The definition of insanity is to doing something the same way and expecting different results; this is the same problem with many of the institutions in the U.S. like the screwed up school system. Instead of fixing the problem at its core, too many people just want to throw more money at it and leave it as is.

IMO, the nature of socialism is diametrically opposed to the American work ethic which effectively translates to "Work Hard and Get Rewarded"; the socialist mantra of "To Each According to Need" encourages a lack of hard work whether you want to admit it or not. I think everyone would agree that most People are lazy and if someone can do his job half-assed and get the same money as the guy who is busting his butt, why work hard? Taken one step farther, the whole concept of a community determining who "needs" what offends me to my very core; what business is it of ANYONE to determine what I need? That is between me, my work ethic, my desires, and my God (if I'm religious.) Would you like it if your community suddenly contacted you to inform you that it has been decided that you don't "need" Internet access? Or you don't "need" your car?

Equating socialism to Nazism is incorrect, however, as Nazism is a branch of Fascism which is Far, Far Right on the political spectrum; despite being the National Socialist Party, the Nazis weren't socialists. In fact, their party grew out of a fear of Socialists and Communists. Wow, History of World War II actually helped! :D

Love the debate though as a seriously harcore Republican, I cannot fathom how anyone can support socialism. Heck, I want to hit some of my party for not being more conservative! :D

nightninja50
28 June 2002, 06:48 AM
I have a quick question, In my book, the Pledge of Allegiance is on the same page as the Star Spangled Banner, so do you all think the star spangled banner is not American? I think the Pledge is just as patriotic and true to our nation as the star spangled banner. You people are only complaining about the Pledge because it refers to who founded our nation, God, people did not found our nation, God used them to found it. The Banner does not refer to who founded our nation, but just about how God's Men secured our nation for him. I also have two words for some of you: Red Skelton. He predicted how some wahoo would declare the "under God" part unconstitutional. God spoke through him to try and prevent this, but we still have some different ( I say strange) beliefs on how our country was founded.

---------------And remember------------------------

GOD BLESS AMERICA, MY HOME SWEET HOME

nightninja50
28 June 2002, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by Superdog
Thank God for Atheism.:D

Sorry Superdog, but I find your choice of words, both not funny, and disturbing that you can not believe in YOUR CREATOR and our nations creator, you people actually kinda make me angry

Talonne Hauk
28 June 2002, 07:08 AM
NightNinja, that was a well thoought out post, much better than your past postings. I want to say that you are entitled to your beliefs, just as every US citizen is entitled to theirs. No one is questioning the patriotism of the Pledge, or of those who wish to say it. No one should question the patriotism of those who feel that the addition of the words "under God" are an affront to the 1st Amendment, though, either. Whether you agree with it or not, there is a separation of Church and State in this country. Perhaps it was only meant at first to keep all factions of Christianity on an equal basis. Be that as it may, the United States is now a haven for people of many different life philosophies, and some of them do not believe in God. There are some religions that look at clouds as divine beings. They do not believe in God, and they should not have to be told to say "under God" while pledging their allegiance, and yes, their love for our country. Religion and patriotism are mutually exclusive. By necessity.

There was, by the way, an avowed atheist who signed the Declaration of Independence. There were also at least two Jews who did the same. I think they would take exception to the idea that the Christian God was working his will through them to found our nation.

dgswensen
28 June 2002, 09:05 AM
For those of you who may not have heard yet, the Ninth Circuit Court (due to massive outrage and public opinion) has decided to hold off on its ruling making the Pledge unconstitutional.

Which means they will probably re-vote with a larger panel, overturn the ruling, and the whole issue will vanish. I predict that in six months the whole nation will forget it ever happened.

So, no need to worry, America will not come apart at the seams, the earth will not crack in half, and tsunamis of molten lava will not overcome us all, etc.

I heard a comment on the radio this morning from a fellow -- he said that after witnessing Congress gathering around to sing "Star Spangled Banner" and so forth in protest, that he wished that our chosen representatives were as passionate and dedicated about all the other issues facing our nation. I tend to agree.

Nova Spice
28 June 2002, 09:08 AM
Whether you agree with it or not, there is a separation of Church and State in this country. Perhaps it was only meant at first to keep all factions of Christianity on an equal basis.

Well Talonne, you are correct in that there is a separation of Church and State. Unfortunately you, along with many others forget exactly what Thomas Jefferson meant by saying the state and governent should be separated.
The idea of the Chruch and State being separated came up at a conference Jefferson had in 1802 with a group of Baptists. Separation of Church and State is not found in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights and the only recorded adherence to it was at a speech Jefferson made.
What Jefferson was saying, was the Church and State should be separated because in England at the time, the government WAS the Church. Jefferson was explaining to the Baptists that a religion should not be a government, NOT that a government shouldn't believe in a religion. "Under God" is not a violation of Church and State. The following example would be:

Government claims that all laws will adhere to the Bible and those who do not adhere to Biblical principles will be punished. This is a violation, not the uttering of two words in our Pledge.

Again, this ruling is ridiculous. :raised:

Talonne Hauk
28 June 2002, 11:46 AM
The 1st Amendment makes a pretty clearcut case for a separation between church and state.

But let's take this to a higher source - Jesus. He clearly wanted a separation between church and state, as he is quoted in Matthew 22:19-22, "Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.
Note that Jesus didn't say give to God what is Caesar's. He very clearly felt that government was man's domain, and worship was God's.

But let's take this one step further, shall we? This is Jesus, on the matter of public prayer; "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (Matthew 6:5-6) So do you think Jesus looks down on us in pride when we invoke God in a pledge of allegiance to our nation? My take is no.

But back to the mere mortals. What did George Washington, that old scallywag, think? "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Treaty of Tripoli, 1796
That wag! What a hoot! He's crazy, huh?

And that other Virginian goofball, Thomas Jefferson, what's his take? "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Sounds as if it's not the governments business to decide if there's a God for its people to follow.
But wait, he had more to say, "I consider the government of the U.S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises... civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U.S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." So perhaps George W. Bush is overstepping his executive mandate when he promises to install more "Christian" friendly judges.
Perhaps Jefferson's most telling remark was this, "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

Others have made hay of Supreme Court quotations. Well, I have a few, too. "The day that this country ceases to be free for irreligion, it will cease to be free for religion." Justice Robert H. Jackson
"The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." Justice Hugo Black
"The aim of the law is not to punish sins." Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

The Constitution is a document designed to keep the government out of our personal lives. Religion is the largest component of many peoples personal life. Would you want the government to tell you where to worship, what to worship, and how to worship? The government has no more right to tell me to say "under God" if I don't want to say it than it does to tell me who I can date. That's my personal business. And the 9th Circuit of Appeals wisely thought so, too. As to why its decisions are overturned on a high margin; every Supreme Court Justice presides over a Circuit Court of Appeals. Either Rehnquist or Scalia presides over the 9th. They pick and choose what decisions from the Appellate level go before the Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit benches are widely held by more liberal judges, so they make more liberal decisions. Rehnquist and Scalia are very conservative justices, and they are very well educated, too. They pick their cases that will further their agenda (Something justices aren't supposed to do.) and will also give them a good chance of overturning past liberal decisions.

Superdog
28 June 2002, 11:55 AM
Apparently no one liked my joke.:( What was so offensive about it? I thought it was kinda funny when I heard it.:)
Anyway, I don't see what the problem would be if we changed back to what it was before McCarthyism (sp?),in it's infinite wisdom/hysteria figured that two words added to the Pledge of Allegiance would help us defeat the Reds and the devilry of the Godless Communists. Now, I don't know about you, but if those two words spoken over and over again can defeat a country as large as the Soviet Union, we got some other problems, you know what I mean?:raised:

Nova Spice
28 June 2002, 12:47 PM
The first two Presidents of the United States were patrons of religion--George Washington was an Episcopal vestryman, and John Adams described himself as "a church going animal." Both offered strong rhetorical support for religion. In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, "a necessary spring of popular government," while Adams claimed that statesmen "may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand."

This excerpt can be found at http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html

I am not sure where you found those quotes Talonne for I have never seen nor heard of either one of them. That is not to say they weren't said, I am just mildly curious with your source. The Founding Fathers indeed layed the foundation of this great nation on the principles of Christianity, but it was a country designed to offer freedom to all religions, because Christianity is tolerant of other religions (Athiests included Superdog :) ).

Here are few more as I depart, mind you this is from the Library of Congress homepage. ;)


The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."



On July 4, 1776, Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams "to bring in a device for a seal for the United States of America." Franklin's proposal adapted the biblical story of the parting of the Red Sea (left). Jefferson first recommended the "Children of Israel in the Wilderness, led by a Cloud by Day, and a Pillar of Fire by night. . . ." He then embraced Franklin's proposal and rewrote it (right). Jefferson's revision of Franklin's proposal was presented by the committee to Congress on August 20. Although not accepted these drafts reveal the religious temper of the Revolutionary period. Franklin and Jefferson were among the most theologically liberal of the Founders, yet they used biblical imagery for this important task.


Congress proclaimed days of fasting and of thanksgiving annually throughout the Revolutionary War. This proclamation by Congress set May 17, 1776, as a "day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer" throughout the colonies. Congress urges its fellow citizens to "confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his [God's] righteous displeasure, and through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness." Massachusetts ordered a "suitable Number" of these proclamations be printed so "that each of the religious Assemblies in this Colony, may be furnished with a Copy of the same" and added the motto "God Save This People" as a substitute for "God Save the King."


Congress set December 18, 1777, as a day of thanksgiving on which the American people "may express the grateful feelings of their hearts and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor" and on which they might "join the penitent confession of their manifold sins . . . that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance." Congress also recommends that Americans petition God "to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.'"

I once again reiterate that these quotes and paragraphs come from the Library of Congress homepage and show irrevocable proof that our Founding Fathers established this nation on the principle of Christianity. I am really sorry for the length of this post, but I just found something I know many of you will find interesting. Read and enjoy: :p


Anytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today people cry, "Separation of Church and State". Many people think this statement appears in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced. However, the words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:


I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. (1)


The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture. The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs. Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government


There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another. Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity.


Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.(3) We can go back in history and look at what the founding fathers wrote to know where they were getting their ideas. This is exactly what two professors did. Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible. The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government. If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government. An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..." The founding fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial, legislative, and executive. As mentioned earlier, the founding fathers strongly believed that Man was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary to separate the powers of the government. For instance, the President has the power to execute laws but not make them, and Congress has the power to make laws but not to judge the people. The simple principle of checks and balances came from the Bible to protect people from tyranny. The President of the United States is free to influence Congress, although he can not exercise authority over it because they are separated. Since this is true, why should the church not be allowed to influence the state? People have read too much into the phrase "separation of church and state", which is to be a separation of civil authority from ecclesiastical authority, not moral values. Congress has passed laws that it is illegal to murder and steal, which is the legislation of morality. These standards of morality are found in the Bible. Should we remove them from law because the church should be separated from the state?

*Huff Puff* I am so done.........this is enough.........need oxygen mask.......must have air. Eagerly await your.......reply. *Drops face first*

P.S. the last few paragraphs can be found at

http://www.no-apathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
28 June 2002, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Talonne Hauk
So perhaps George W. Bush is overstepping his executive mandate when he promises to install more "Christian" friendly judges.


Especially considering the constitution says this:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Maybe someone should point that out to him?

SeaTurtle
28 June 2002, 12:55 PM
It is simply unrealistic to try to logically fault either side of this because it comes down to a matter of opinion where the opinion is based largely off of speculation involving religion. Religion in itself is a belief, some people believe, others do not, because we currently cannot completely falsify the existance or completely affirm that existance of a god or gods we cannot influence this opinion. The opinion I'm talking about is the opinion on the exact definition of the two words "under God." Truth be told, those two words mean something to you that is unique to you: there is no exact definition, only a relevant one. To some religions those two words are offensive to others they are not; you are presented with* what is essentially a paradox if you look at both points of view.

The entire issue was a mistake, no matter who wins this argument, they will not be right in the eyes of everyone, and the forthcoming of the issue itself has already caused very obvious problems in unity which faults the Consititution at its definitive task.

* = Edits

Superdog
28 June 2002, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by nightninja50


Sorry Superdog, but I find your choice of words, both not funny, and disturbing that you can not believe in YOUR CREATOR and our nations creator, you people actually kinda make me angry
Oh, come on. It wasn't THAT bad of a joke. :) Oh, and for future reference it's not polite to inform people what religion they are by telling them who THEIR creator is. If I accused you of refusing to believe in YOUR CREATOR, say Cthulu, that would be darn right rude wouldn't it?

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
28 June 2002, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by nightninja50

Sorry Superdog, but I find your choice of words, both not funny, and disturbing that you can not believe in YOUR CREATOR and our nations creator, you people actually kinda make me angry

I don't know about you, but my nation was created by people, and I guess you could I say I "believe" in them, for they seem like decent people. Though I'm guessing you were trying to insinuate that GOD created this country, for which you have no proof.

Nova Spice
28 June 2002, 03:32 PM
I think nightninja was insinuating that this nation was created by men through God. And there is proof of that. If you will go back to the previous page in this thread Alfred I provided irrevocable proof of that. I also provided links for you to see for yourself. Go on, have a look, it should be fairly near the bottom of the previous page. I encourage you to read the quotes before going to the links I have placed. ;)

Superdog according to Christianity God created all men and created them equally. So nightninja was just informing you that in the Bible it says God created us. I know you don't believe that, but it isn't rude for him to inform you of that. ;)

Matt Richard
28 June 2002, 04:31 PM
5 to 1in favor of this thread. I agree though that this will probably fade away soon, as it appears that the right thing is being done (in my opinion at least).

Again guys, we are starting to stray into a Christian v. Atheist match, which is not what this is. Again I stress this is not a Separation of Church and State because "God" is the vague term representing a religion of your choice, so government is not imposing a religion on you.

this debate is still good to talk about but I said quite a lot in my previous arguments, so Im pretty much dried out, unless you want to hear the same thing over and over-over-over-over, oh sorry:D

Keep going guys, Ill be checking in, and if someone says something that I must object to, Ill post something. And now ladies and gents, we return you to your lives and your SWRPG.

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
28 June 2002, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Matt Richard
Again I stress this is not a Separation of Church and State because "God" is the vague term representing a religion of your choice, so government is not imposing a religion on you.


This only applies if your a member of a monotheistic religion.


P.S. I still don't think that America was founded around Christian beliefs or as a Christian country, but even if it was, does that mean that it can't evolve and change to be more friendly to groups that weren't around in sizable numbers back in that day? One of the great things about this country is that it can evolve and change, and I think this is just another step in that direction, which I think is the right direction.

Superdog
28 June 2002, 06:32 PM
Someone explain to me ONE problem with reverting it to what it was ORIGINIALY. It's not like those two words are part of our culture, it was added in the 50's for god(;) ) sake. For the sole purpose of endorsing Christianity, or at the very least monotheism. What problem is there with reverting it to it's original form? I fail to see one.

Nova Spice
28 June 2002, 06:41 PM
The problem is that the words were added to convey the nature of our heritage because the original FAILED to do that. That's the whole problem with the issue and you need to understand that this is not a promotion toward Christianity because 1. I am a Christian and I realize that it isn't forcing my religion down anyone's throat and 2. the words are a link to the pride that our Founding Fathers shared.

If you don't believe this nation was founded on Christian principles, then Superdog I urge you to go to the previous page in this thread and read my post near the lower half of the page. I have set up two links that PROVE this nation was founded on Christian principles and that our Founding Fathers were indeed God-fearing men. Please give a read and perhaps you will have a change of opinion. ;)

Matt Richard
28 June 2002, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by Matt Richard
Again I stress this is not a Separation of Church and State because "God" is the vague term representing a religion of your choice, so government is not imposing a religion on you.

If I may, I would like to recant this statement. Government officials are saying this, not me. To me, it means my God, the Christian, Judeo, Diest, etc. God. Just as a clarification. IT is a simbol of our heritige.

Looks like people want this thread going.

Superdog
28 June 2002, 07:08 PM
But you see, Nova Spice. You've posted that "irrefutable" evidence. Other people have posted other stuff that directly contradicts. It's all basically a big contradiction, and no matter what side your on, you'll be able to find something to support you. And, I don't know what all this heritage talk is, most of the founding fathers were NOT Christian, they were Diest. There's a difference.

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
28 June 2002, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Matt Richard
Just as a clarification. IT is a simbol of our heritige.


Wether it's a symbol of our heritage or not (I disagree), it still is saying something about non-monotheistic peoples that live in this country. Why can't they make the pledge voluntary, drop the religious connotations (wether that's what you think it is or not, that's the effect it has, the intent is irrelevant) and no-one will have to keep re-suing (which is what's going to happen if this gets overturned.)

Matt Richard
28 June 2002, 09:37 PM
It feels like Im answering the same question over and over again.

1.) The pledge is already voluntary, and it is illegal to force someone to do it

2.) Deist, Christian, Jewish, all follow under the same God.

Talonne Hauk
28 June 2002, 10:30 PM
Actually Matt, I thought I made this point before; Deists do not believe in the Christian God. They believe in a creator, not The Creator. And Jews differ too, they don't believe in the Holy Trinity. The basic concepts are similar, but they are not the same.

The pledge is not truly voluntary to a grade school age child who is under tremendous peer pressure to fit in. It's somewhat naive to think a six year old understands and will stand up for his rights. But in reality, there is nothing that we as adults can do about the cruelty of children to other children when they are out of our sight. The only thing we can do is to make the environment that they are in comfortable enough that they won't feel tremendous pressure to have to fit in when it conflicts with their beliefs. From a humanistic point of view, this decision sets out to do that.

Keeping the phrase "under God" by justifying it to represent any religion is still wrong. Because there are people in our society who don't subscribe to any religion. Their rights need protecting too. If it is important to you to say "under God", say it, but don't include it in the official wording of the pledge to coerce others to say it, too. That's wrong.

And contrary to what others have insinuated, the Pledge doesn't reflect our Founding Fathers points of view. It wasn't written when our nation was founded, it was written nearly 50 years later. It survived without the phrase "under God" for over 125 years, when the aforementioned ohrase was included as an incredibly doltish method of battling the dirty godless Reds. (Not the baseball team, although they beat up my Cubs earlier this week. Grrrr. :mad: ) The pledge would undure as long as our nation even if that phrase were removed, and there wouldn't be any damage done to the nation as a result.

It's somewhat scary that those of you who cling so fiercely to this phrase in the name of your faith don't have enough faith to overcome this decision. Divinity will inspire people, especially in the hardest times. People will seek solace in their philosophies when the need arises. Forcing them to recite a phrase to the point of banality will not turn them spiritually any quicker. It might in fact drive them away.

Emperor Xanderich II
29 June 2002, 06:14 AM
Firstly Socialism is not "evil" or a failure. To dismiss it as such is rather shortsighted. The governing Labour Party in my country is socialist. This doesn't mean we are living in tyrannical regime. The Labour Party claims to be trying to improve the country by trying to create a more equal society i.e. take some of the money from the fabulously rich ‘upper class’ and give it to the much poorer ‘lower class’. They are not trying to dictate wages (other than the minimum wage). Just as an aside, I don’t actually support Labour but I don’t hate them either.

Secondly can people please refrain from posting comments such as “God Bless America” in very large letters and claims such as “America has done more for the world than any other country ever”. Not all members of the Holonet are American and may find this kind of posting a tad offensive.

I found it quite interesting reading all 9 pages of this discussion; keep up the sensible comments.

Nova Spice
29 June 2002, 07:09 AM
Emperor I believe I was the one that said America has done more for the world than any country in the history of the world. I stand by it, because if it wasn't true you and every other European country would be speaking German right now. ;)
I understand people may find this offensive but personally, if someone finds the truth offensive, then I'm sorry, there really is nothing I can do. :p Because as an American I would find it offensive to know that people would be ungrateful for the sacrifices this nation has made which include saving the world at least three times and after this war on terrorism, you can tally up four.

This isn't a flame or anything, my great uncle died on the beaches of Normandy and I just wanted to remind you why I made this staetment. :D

Agreed keep up the sensible statements because we are at around one hundred and thirty posts and we've yet to get into a heated argument yet! Congratulations everyone! :D

Emperor Xanderich II
29 June 2002, 07:25 AM
Yes, but just because you perceive it to be the truth doesn't mean it has to be - and it doesn't mean you have to say it

Some historians would say that if Britain had been conquered in 1940 then most of the world would be speaking German including the USA right now - so you could say Britain saved the world.

You could say anything, but you don't in this already potentially explosive environment.

If you see what I mean:)

Interestingly what would you consider to be those 4 occasions (PM me if you like)?

Sil7
29 June 2002, 08:02 AM
I found an interesting article in todays paper concerning the origin of the pledge. Written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy , it's original wording was : "I pledge allegiance to my flag, and to my country, for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." His great grandson explained that Mr. Bellamy protested even the addition of "the United States of America" on flag day 1924, believeing the pledge as he wrote it did not need changing so he probably wouldn't mind the removal of the words "under God" because if he didn't want 'the Unitied States of America' in the pledge he wouldn't have wanted "under God".
The article goes on to explain that in 1892 Mr Bellamy (a socialist editor and Baptist minister) was an associate editor of <i>Youth's Companion</i> magazine and was chosen to prepare an official program to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Columbus's arrival in America. Mr Bellamy said president Benjamin Harrison asked him to write his proclamation for this national celebration in which he put the words 'On that day let the national flag float over every schoolhouse in the land and the exercises be such as to teach patriotism". If flags were to fly over the schools, he felt the official program should include a salute to the flag.
Mr Bellamy in defending his original wording said he felt the flag stood for the republic, which he described as "one nation, indivisible" by the Civil War and the closing illustrated the idea that united Americans - "liberty and justice for all."
Where is the unifying " liberty and justice for all" if we can't even decide on what to say in a salute to the flag or who is to say it when and where under what conditions?

proxima centauri
29 June 2002, 08:26 AM
Sorry, had to jump in on this one...


Originally posted by Emperor Xanderich II
Yes, but just because you perceive it to be the truth doesn't mean it has to be -


Exactly. Like I said in another post on this thread, "when you say you know the truth, it is probably because you are still seeking it". Please, Nova, be humble enough to admit you don't know the "truth".

These are only your opinions. You can feel great pride in your family being involved in great liberating wars, but that does not have to be done by diminuishing other's contributions. Pride should never take over reason.

Comments like this just feeds the general feeling that the USA has a superiority syndrom. That's not exactly the best way to get new friends.

Ok. I'm shutting up now. Don't want to go over this over and over again. Stubborness gets boring after a while. ;)

Nova Spice
29 June 2002, 08:57 AM
Hehe...well unfortunately guys being arrogant comes with the flag. If you live in this nation long enough, you can taste the greatness, hear the whispers of pride in the wind, and can feel the sacrifices of past heroes passing over you like a cloud on a sunny day. Its hard for people who don't live in this nation not to feel this way and I understand that because you two have your own flags you live under (Two great nations themselves, I view the three nations as the Triangle of Freedom).
Americans are known for their extreme national pride and its that same pride that drives us to become not good, not great, but the best. I'm sorry that I stepped on you guys feet because I really love this board and the people on it, but its impossible for me to apologize for having pride in this nation. Like my grandfather says: "Americans know that this nation is the greatest and we know its a truth. To Non-Americans, its an arrogant opinion."
I think I'm done in this thread, I don't want any hard feelings with ANYONE on the Holonet because this place is just too cool for dissention. See ya around on the boards and God Bless America. :)

Sil7
29 June 2002, 09:05 AM
The entire issue was a mistake, no matter who wins this argument, they will not be right in the eyes of everyone, and the forthcoming of the issue itself has already caused very obvious problems in unity which faults the Consititution at its definitive task.
-SeaTurtle

It's all basically a big contradiction, and no matter what side your on, you'll be able to find something to support you.
-Superdog

Like I said in another post on this thread, "when you say you know the truth, it is probably because you are still seeking it". Please, Nova, be humble enough to admit you don't know the "truth".
-Proxima centauri

I would have to dissagree with the general implication in these posts. What I see being said is: We cannot resolve this issue because we cannot discern the truth.

What I would say to that is: There is a discernable truth, that you can be sure of, it's true whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not, it's just true. A view that lines up with the truth is right and a view that contradicts the truth is wrong. So Nova (or anyone for that matter) could be correct and know the truth, it has nothing to do with humility. We can find the truth in this matter, though it may not be easy. Everyone might not accept it, but that does not stop it from being true.

Sil7

Talonne Hauk
29 June 2002, 10:35 AM
Nova, how can you profess to be Christian, with all its trappings of humility, and then speak of being arrogant as a source of pride? I am an American, and I don't take claim to the arrogance that you believe Americans have the right to possess. Especially since I do prescribe to a great many tenets of the Christian faith. Christ wanted men to check their egos and treat each and every individual with respect. If you take a call to nations pride before his words, what do you truly believe in?

Nova Spice
29 June 2002, 10:57 AM
Talonne, I tried to leave this thread and would really like to, but I keep getting thrown on the defensive.

-First off, I am a Christian and it is kinda hard to make the type of judgements you have made(which Christ teaches is wrong I might mention) on someone over a computer screen.

-Second, you asked how I can profess to follow Christ yet not show humility? If you look into the Old Testament you will see that God himself encouraged Israel to uphold the pride of their nation because they were His Nation. It pained him when they completely abandoned him and discarded the pride that had once marked them as His people. Since I firmly believe this nation was founded on Christ's principles I believe it is my duty to take pride (bordering on sheer arrogance) in my country and what it stands for.

-Jesus himself ruined the temple where the money changers had set up shop because it was His Father's House and it was holy. He wasn't prideful, but he was proud (there is a difference) of His Father's temple and it pained him that men would not respect it.

-God blessed this nation and to me, it is a slap to His face if we do not appreciate it and reflect how truly blessed we are. God loves that we are proud of this nation. However, He doesn't love it when this nation does something that disrespects Him and we take pride in that.

-America was meant to be a religious safe-haven for Christians and Jews originally because of the religious persecution in Europe. It has slowly molded into a melting pot of dozens of religions, overshadowing its original intentions to the point to where saying His Name is illegal. That has been my whole point the whole time and I hope that I will not be drawn back into this discussion.

-I am a Christian and I am VERY arrogant when it comes to how great this nation is. But like I've said to my friends and close relatives, if we do not "wake up" everyone will be humbled by God. Its predicted in the Bible and so far, everything written in that book has come to pass. God is batting a 1000, no reason to think he's going to miss one now. ;)

And with that I hope to bid you adieu! God Bless America

Superdog
29 June 2002, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Nova Spice
Emperor I believe I was the one that said America has done more for the world than any country in the history of the world. I stand by it, because if it wasn't true you and every other European country would be speaking German right now.
Actually, most of Europe would probably be speaking Russian, if we assume a conquering country would force their language upon the country they conquer. (which they usually don't) If the US wasn't in the war to help the allies and add support, who knows how much of Europe they Russians would have grabbed after taking Berlin. And if America hadn't been in the war, there might be no nuclear weapons, so Russia could invade whoever they wanted if they knew there was no threat of Nuclear retalition. So there.:)

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
29 June 2002, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by Nova Spice
Hehe...well unfortunately guys being arrogant comes with the flag.

I would like everyone to realize that not all Americans are arrogant flag wavers, shouting "God Bless America" at evey oppurtunity (I for one, am not like that :) .)


Emperor I believe I was the one that said America has done more for the world than any country in the history of the world.

What about the Romans? If it wasn't for them, the world would have been dominated by Asians instead of Europeans, and I'm no historian, and correct me if I 'm wrong, but they seemed to do alot of other important stuff..



I stand by it, because if it wasn't true you and every other European country would be speaking German right now.

If it wasn't for Britian, there would be no America.


P.S. I am also interestd in hearing how America saved the world 4 times.

Nova Spice
29 June 2002, 02:24 PM
I would like everyone to realize that not all Americans are arrogant flag wavers, shouting "God Bless America" at evey oppurtunity (I for one, am not like that .) \

Well Alfred if America isn't good enough for you, that's fine, I'm sure Russia will suit your interests. ;) And I would like everyone to realize that I am an arrogant flag waver because if it wasn't for the freedoms we enjoy in this nation BECAUSE of the people like me who take pride in their nation, we wouldn't be having this discussion would we? There wouldn't be a Holonet or Star Wars or computers. Think twice before bad-mouthing your nation, especially considering everything its given you.


If it wasn't for Britian, there would be no America.

Exactly, and they are our ally, our best friend. Britains and Americans are of the same crop. That's a truth.


Actually, most of Europe would probably be speaking Russian, if we assume a conquering country would force their language upon the country they conquer. (which they usually don't) If the US wasn't in the war to help the allies and add support, who knows how much of Europe they Russians would have grabbed after taking Berlin. And if America hadn't been in the war, there might be no nuclear weapons, so Russia could invade whoever they wanted if they knew there was no threat of Nuclear retalition. So there.

This was meant to be a figure of speech. I was simply informing everyone that if it wasn't for the sacrifices of "The Greatest Generation" then Europe would be under German rule or Soviet rule whichever one you choose, my point still stands and is valid. ;)


What about the Romans? If it wasn't for them, the world would have been dominated by Asians instead of Europeans, and I'm no historian, and correct me if I 'm wrong, but they seemed to do alot of other important stuff..

I don't think that Empire exists anymoe does it? :p

First, you wanted the four examples of America saving the world, fine here they are:

-World War I: I believe this war came to an end once we became engaged in it and it came to an end quite quickly. American resolve for you there.

-World War II: Need I say anymore? We freed the ENTIRE European continent, bashing the hell out of the Nazis and defeating the Japanese single-handedly in the Pacific. American resolve.

-Cold War: Ronald Reagan helped bring down the Berlin Wall and started the quick collapse of the Soviet nuclear threat. I do not believe a nuke war would have been very healthy do you? American determination.

-War on Terror: History will show as it has before that once America is attacked (treacherously) we wipe 'em all out! This will be number four and there is no where the terrorists can run because we will track them down and punish them for the evil they bring to the nations of the world. American vengeance.

Last guys, I would like to say that his debate has really got me involved in the Holonet on a deeper level and I thank everyone for that. Those who agree with my point of view and of course those who don't because without people to disagree with, it wouldn't be any fun! :p
And may I say for the third time I've proved my point and would like to get back to other matters on the Holonet. I hope that I am not thrown back on the defensive and to the dogs because I'd like to exit this debate. Thanks. B)

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
29 June 2002, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Nova Spice
Well Alfred if America isn't good enough for you, that's fine, I'm sure Russia will suit your interests. ;) And I would like everyone to realize that I am an arrogant flag waver because if it wasn't for the freedoms we enjoy in this nation BECAUSE of the people like me who take pride in their nation, we wouldn't be having this discussion would we? There wouldn't be a Holonet or Star Wars or computers. Think twice before bad-mouthing your nation, especially considering everything its given you.

First of all I never bad mouthed America, I think it's probably the best country to live in (it has it's faults, though, just like anyplace.). And just because I'm not an arrogant flag-waver, doesn't mean I am any less patriotic than you. And I know, you were joking w/ that Russia comment (I think), but it's childish to tell people to move if they disagree w/ the American government, the whole point of America is I can say whatever I want and not be punished for it.





I don't think that Empire exists anymoe does it?

If your talking current countries than America has contributed the most but you said:
America has done more for the world than any country in the history of the world
which is entirely different.



-World War I: I believe this war came to an end once we became engaged in it and it came to an end quite quickly. American resolve for you there.
The war just about over by the time we joined, I don't think America was the major power that decided it, if that's what your trying to say.


-World War II: Need I say anymore? We freed the ENTIRE European continent, bashing the hell out of the Nazis and defeating the Japanese single-handedly in the Pacific. American resolve.
Correction: America helped to free half the European continent, and we didn't defeat Japan singlehandedly, the Aussies, Britian, France, and Russia all contributed.


-Cold War: Ronald Reagan helped bring down the Berlin Wall and started the quick collapse of the Soviet nuclear threat. I do not believe a nuke war would have been very healthy do you? American determination.
The Soviet Union crumbled in on itself without our help(If I recall, when the Berlin Wall fell, we were surprised as hell), and if it wasn't for us, there wouldn't have been a Cold War (though that might not have been good.)


-War on Terror: History will show as it has before that once America is attacked (treacherously) we wipe 'em all out! This will be number four and there is no where the terrorists can run because we will track them down and punish them for the evil they bring to the nations of the world. American vengeance.
There is no way in hell we will ever rid the war of terrorism, it's simply impossible.

SeaTurtle
29 June 2002, 05:12 PM
Sil7, the truth that many people seem to be looking for in this matter lies in the words and psychology of dead people. With so many words that have multiple definitions and our very limited understanding of psychology, which itself seems to be to some extent unique person to person, finding the truth to this matter relating to the original intentions of the authors is at best going to be subject to speculation for a very long time. And for the same reasons trying to form a flawless truth to this is again unrealistic and in all probability impossible.

Nova Spice
29 June 2002, 05:13 PM
I'm just going to correct a few things and then we can agree to isagree and stop this back and forth gibberish. Oh and yes I was kidding about you moving to Russia. ;)

-Yes the war(World War I) only lasted another two years once we got involved, but that was because of us. You can ask any veterans from any nation that was on the Allied side (albeit most are dead) that without America the war would have dragged out for a decade, no question.

-Correction: Great Britain, France, and Russia did NOT contribute to the war in the Pacific.....Australia did, correct, but they were boggled up with the Japs near Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, and those islands close to Australia's mainland, so they did not engage in the naval warfare that crushed the Japanese. And actually we did free the entire continent of Europe because if we had not commenced with Operation: Overlord and Operation: Husky, the rest of the European countries that had yet to fall to Hitler would have.

-In all fairness, we actually were the nail in the coffin for the Soviet Union because of the tension we were causing them. They spent so much of their money with the nuclear arms race that their economy collapsed. If we had not challenged them, though, we might have had a nuke war on our hands (you're right there that it was a good thing we did initiate the Cold War).


There is no way in hell we will rid the war on terrorism.Its impossible.

-I hate to inform you, but you will eat those words. All I can say is just squat and watch. ;)

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
29 June 2002, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by Nova Spice

you will eat those words

I hope so.

Matt Richard
29 June 2002, 08:55 PM
Well, my own commentary on this issue that was brought up. America is probably the most advanced considering it has been around for only a short amount of time, yet we probably have the biggest flaws out of the "Democratic nations." My opinion at least.

World War 1: It probably ended as soon as it did because of America, yet its not like we triumphantly came into the war expecting it to end the week after we arrived. In fact, we were reluctant, due to our Monroe Doctrine that kept us away from Europe. If it werent for us braking teh Monroe Doctrine, we would never have become allies with britain. Without Britains help, we wouldnt be where we are today.

World War 2: We saved some of the European Continent, Britain saved the rest. Britain saved not only France and others, but itself from the Nazis.

Cold War: We "thought" we were helping the world out by containing communism. We really brought the world this close to the end of the world.

Terror: We have never faltered against terrorism, yet terroism never really took place on US soil (dont get me wrong, there were plenty of incidents, but the bulk usually took place somewhere else) until 9/11. That is the time when we really took an active role in the elimination of terrorism.

lordbynight
29 June 2002, 09:13 PM
The world is like Star Wars so to speak there will allways be the Empire and a Rebellion. Never the time will come when a people are totally satisfied with their way of life. Its like human nature to want to try to improve. I guess that is why socialism and communism came about to unite people and have them be as one. The truth is I believe no one is truly right or wrong. I mean there will always be people fighting for what they believe to be right wheather it be from religion, politics or someone takeing your seat on the train when you dropped the newspaper and got up to pick it up. Terrorism is best described as accomplishing a goal by inspiring fear. The bad thing is that alot of times people get hurt. In Columbia the FARK fight for what they believe is right as the president of that country. To the FARK the political structure is the terroist. Im not saying it is right because on both sides people are being hurt. To many people Castro in a is considered a Terroist yet to many others he is a hero and to many there The United States is the Terroist for holding the embargo. Agian this is not necessary true but the people as a whole believe it to be so they fight for that cause. In the middle east many believe the united state and the isrealies to be the terroist. They grow up being shot and attacked by American weapons and hurt by its power. so they believe us to be the terroist thats what they believe. Again on both sides people get hurt its been that way since the begining of time if your christian cane killed his brother able. yet to cane he had a reason he was jealous and felt like he was treated like second best he believed that and killed his brother for it. So in closing people will never all agree there could only be a majority that does and as long as people dont all agree there will be terroism in one form or an other and people will be hurt. So ill have to agree with Alfred The Ewok on that one. I wish It wasent that way and who knows maybe one day things will change but it would have to be done as a whole not only as a majority.
Just my thoughts.

Moridin
29 June 2002, 09:57 PM
I'm going to post something here that I always do when I see pro-/anti-American arguments spring up. I think it sums up a lot of how I feel about America, and is a good reminder of some things people tend to forget.

June 5, 1973, by Gordon Sinclair of the CFRB radio station in Toronito:


This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth.

Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it. When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped.

The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans. I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States Dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar, or the Douglas 10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American planes?

Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - - not once, but several times - and safely home again.

You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the American who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.

I can name you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those.

I just think it is a very good read. Now back to you rampant political debating.

-Moridin, who thinks that being a flag-waving "God Bless America"-singing patriot is a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

Kobayashi_Maru
29 June 2002, 10:13 PM
I just wanted to say I've heard a lot of hoop'la about what it would take to change the words. I'm not stating whether I'm for it or against it but in 1892, 1923, 1924 and 1954 Americans felt concerned enough about the words of the pledge that each time the necesary changes where made. This just might (key words) be one of those "crazy" times. :raised:

Emperor Xanderich II
30 June 2002, 05:06 AM
Yes the war(World War I) only lasted another two years once we got involved, but that was because of us. You can ask any veterans from any nation that was on the Allied side (albeit most are dead) that without America the war would have dragged out for a decade, no question

I hardly think so. In WWI the main weight of the Entente fighting fell on the French army in the first two years and the British Army in the remainder. Germany bore the brunt of the fighting for the Aliied armies. That does not mean, of course, that the other participant's contributions were not of a great effect.


World War II: Need I say anymore? We freed the ENTIRE European continent, bashing the hell out of the Nazis and defeating the Japanese single-handedly in the Pacific. .


WWII, the main effort of the European war fell on the Red Army who had by far the largest impact against the German Army. Of course Britain and the US played vital roles, but one can not dispute that without Russia, Normandy could not have taken place.

In the Pacific, yes the US did play the main role, but other nations played major parts as well. Think of the British 14th army under General Slim fighting for Burma, or the Russian advance into Manchuria. Even at the end of the war Japan had more troops on the Asian mainland facing China than defending their homeland.


Some would say I'm a flag-waving Brit, but I would always check my facts before I belittled the contribution of others to a world cause.

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
30 June 2002, 06:23 AM
3 cheers for Emperor for being the third person to point out the errors in the save the world examples (can't think of another 3...)
Is there a purpose to this post other than my "three-ing"? Oh yes, here is an article on this topic I spied at MSN.com: Click-tastic! (http://slate.msn.com/?id=2067499)

Nova Spice
30 June 2002, 06:55 AM
Like I told nightninja long before in this thread, you can't change people's minds over an internet screen. First off, I'm glad you so cleanly erased the American involvement in World War I to a "contribution." My great grandfather certainly is rolling in his grave on that one.

And no, I did not forget the Russian advance or the British 14th.....but you know what, those two armies were very far away from the naval fighting. America won the Pacific single-handedly on the seas and that was what broke the Japs back. And wasn't there a little thing called the A-bomb that defeated the Japanese too?

And I think Moridin made his case. It seems that you do not want to admit that America saved Europe twice. No offense Emperor but we have bailed you guys out twice, funded your nation to rebuild London from the Luftwaffe raids, and are your main trade partner, even aftr you guys tried to defeat us twice in the RevolutionaryWar and the war of 1812, we were still there to assist you. Sometimes I wonder if our involvement was worth it because no one seems to be very grateful or realize that America WON both World Wars and without our help, Europe would be just an extension of the Soviet Republic. I grow damn sick of people (even some Americans)belittling my country especially when it comes to the World Wars. The French certainly are not very grateful, hell we only retook their country and funded the reconstruction.

The fact of the matter is this and I've read dozens of Military History books and such and the authors always come to the same conclusion. Many other nations do not appreciate or refuse to remember that America has saved them at one time or another whether it be economically, militarily, or just sheer peacekeeping. This will ultimately ensure that America will always be the most powerful nation in the world.

I sincerely urge you to read D-Day by Stephen Ambrose. In it, the book explains that America was going to land at Normandy whether the Soviets success continued or not.

Now, as I have stated for the FOURTH time. I DO NOT wish to have to come back and defend myself. Lets let this topic go away please because it gets really old telling everyone the same thing over and over again. Thank you and have a wonderful day. ;)

P.S. No hard feelings, I'm just frustrated. ;)

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
30 June 2002, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by Nova Spice Lets let this topic go away please because it gets really old telling everyone the same thing over and over again.

If you want to gracefully withdraw from this thread, you might want to stop saying things that have a good chance of being disagreed upon.

Nova Spice
30 June 2002, 07:11 AM
Okay, this thread has gotten way off topic. It was originally meant to discuss the Pledge of Allegiance and now we're fighting over World War I and World War II.
-First I think this thread should be closed, its starting to get out of hand and the last thing we need is for someone to get overheated and banned! 8o
-Second, I want to wrap up by saying that I apologize if I made anyone angry, it wasn't my intention I assure you.
-Third I want to thank Matt for starting this great debate and I want to thank everyone that contributed to the thread, its been fun and its been something I think we all needed.

See ya around on the boards. :D

Emperor Xanderich II
30 June 2002, 07:29 AM
Nova Spice I am not saying that I am not greatful for the help your country gave to mine (and Europe) after WWII. But think of the context. Europe was one huge bombsite, America had not been touched, your standard of living increased during the War, ours fell. The US had two choices, let Western Europe get back on its own feet and risk Soviet domination in Europe, or give them a helping hand, thus guarnteeing their support in international relations.

As for WWI, Britain spent more than the USA and, say, Italy combined, France had 17 times as many casualties as the US.

Yes the US won Midway and Coral Sea but the Pacific War was more than just these battles. And Japan was long defeated before the two (IMO unnecessary) A-bombs were dropped.

Normandy, without the Soviet Union fighting up over half of the German army in the East would have failed without a doubt. It was a close run thing as it was!

As for trying to defeat you in WoI and 1812, the US was the agressor in both.

I don't mean to drag this on, I just feel obliged to present a more unbiased (and truthful) version of history.

And yep, this 'war of history' should end here.

Tally Ho! :)

Kobayashi_Maru
30 June 2002, 10:01 AM
I was watching CNN's Talkback Live and they had they guy, who brought this to the courts, on there. He said that his daughter was ostersized (sp?) for not saying the pledge. That I believe is the problem. I don't think the pledge in itself is unconstitutional but ostersizing one who will not say it or force everyone to say it is unconstituional. It's like I don't mind if you want to pray in school just don't make me do it.

And come on guys, it doesn't matter if we are British, French, German, American or Japanese; we are all humans. Let's drop the natiaonalism BS and move forward. Stop looking back. You guys are beter than this, come on.

Superdog
30 June 2002, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by Kobayashi_Maru
And come on guys, it doesn't matter if we are British, French, German, American or Japanese; we are all humans. Let's drop the natiaonalism BS and move forward. Stop looking back. You guys are beter than this, come on.
Agreed. Most countrys (including America), has committed their fair share of evil, but most countrys (like America, and England) do much good in the world, which I believe overshadows any evil. We're all nice people, there's no need to argue specifics on this war and that, (here's my major point) no World War could have been won by just ONE country, that's why they're called the Allies. ;)
Back on topic, there is quite a bit of precedent going in this man's favor. The Supreme court ruled it is illegal to pray at football games and other public events, and that you can't force people to say the Pledge. Add those two rulings together, and viola!
Also Moridin is completely right.:)

Matt Richard
30 June 2002, 02:19 PM
Im pretty much done with this thread, not because im frustrated, but because this is quickly becoming old news. It does look like that with continual pressure from the senate and the pres., the Supreme Court will probably turn down this vote. So, how bout lets agree on this: Stop talking history of wars, stop debating on the subject for a little bit, and then when something happens regarding this ruling (either it is turned down or accepted), we comment on that. We have already exhausted all of ourselves trying to proove our point. Now all we can do is watch. When a deciscion is made, thats when we should start debating again (if there is anything to debate about).

Agreed?

Oh and Nova, ALFRED, Kobayashi, and the others (if your watching this), Ive gotten all of your responses and am glad you are interested in the SFP (the thing i pm you about). Ill get working on that right away.:D

ilyssa
1 July 2002, 04:53 PM
Having read excerpts from George Washington's diary which has been published I must disagree with the statement that he was a deist. He most certainly was not. His diary reveals such. He was a Christian. He was not perfect (and neigther is any Christian) but he did worship God and more importantly Jesus. Here is a quote from his diary:

"I thank my God daily that His grace covers a multitude of sins. For I am in need of that grace constantly."

"My goal is to know more of Jesus Christ each day that I live that I may serve him better."

These are not the quotes of a deist but a devout follower of Jesus Christ.


Now having said all of that, I agree that noone should be forced to say the pledge of allegience. However neither should the right of people to say it be taken away either.

Moridin
1 July 2002, 05:01 PM
I actually think everyone should be required to say the pledge of allegiance because it is a statement of your personal commmitment to America. I also think that we should remove the "under god" part, not because I don't believe in what it is saying, but because I believe in the separation of church and state. History has shown me too many examples of how the two don't mix, and I'm perfectly content to use my personal religous values in making my decisions as to who to vote for, but I don't think that there should be anything legal involving religion besides saying you can practice as you wish. But if you're not willing to say the pledge of allegiance, if you're not willing to live in this country and do your best to make it a better place, if you're planning on doing something contrary to what's stated in the pledge, then get the hell out of my country because you're not wanted. But hey, I'm just an old-fashioned red-blooded American with too many family members who have been in wars and fought and died for our freedom. If you can't promise to uphold the values they died for, then by all means hop a boat, plane, or bus and find somewhere else to live.

I swore I was staying out of this one, but let me say this: the opinions I express in no way affect the way the Holonet is administered or operated. This is just my personal opinion, and shouldn't frighten people away.

Matt Richard
1 July 2002, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by Moridin
I swore I was staying out of this one, but let me say this: the opinions I express in no way affect the way the Holonet is administered or operated. This is just my personal opinion, and shouldn't frighten people away.

oh no Moridin, Im leaving, you scared me off. Watch me leave...:D

Talonne Hauk
1 July 2002, 07:42 PM
Deists respected, admired and loved Jesus Christ. They believed he taught people how best to live and treat others. It's no surprise to me that Washington would have Christian leanings, as that was his greatest religious contact, but he confided to many that he was a Deist. He believed God had better things to do than to look over the affairs of man. Also, he wasn't a Deist all his life. In his early adult years, he was a Christian. But when he became acquainted with Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and others of the Deist movement, he regularly attended philosophical "discussions" and meetings with them. Perhaps those quotes are from his early adult years.

ilyssa
3 July 2002, 08:44 AM
I know I am opening myself to flames from all over but here goes:

The term or idea of the separation of church and state is not present in any of our early government documents! Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the US Constitution contains the words or idea of separation of church and state. Those words and the concept are in the personal correspondence of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine.

What the Constitution does say is that "Congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion nor shall they make any law preventing the free excercise thereof." (That may not be exact words)

The Founding Fathers of our country very much believed that religion had a place in government. They did not believe that there should be a state church supported by tax dollars. They believed that religious persons were the best able to make decisions concerning the governing of free people. God gave the rights to the people and the government was there to protect those rights. The very system of laws that we have can be directly traced back to the church and from their to the Jewish laws handed down by Moses. We were established as a Judeo-Christian nation. We do not prevent the free excercise of any religion whether Christian or not. We do not require persons to pay a tax to support any religion.

But....get over it people! This country was established by Christians. And if we choose to acknowledge God's help that is our perogative as a nation. I certainly have nothing against atheists or persons of other religions but I will not apologize to them for our nations acknowledgement of God.

Now sits back and prepares to be flamed :P

Matt Richard
3 July 2002, 09:19 AM
Naw, dont worry about getting flamed, for the most part, the people who have taken part in this debate have been mature.

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
3 July 2002, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by ilyssa
The Founding Fathers of our country very much believed that religion had a place in government.

Well good for them, most all of them also owned slaves and were Freemasons. Does that mean we should all elect and be freemasons and enslave people? NO. We don't live in the 1700's, we live in the 21st century. We need to have laws and regulations that will work with 21st century Americans, not 18th century Americans. Thus, we need to keep church and state seperate.


They believed that religious persons were the best able to make decisions concerning the governing of free people.
Once again, old fashioned thinking that not only doesn't apply to the 21st century, but it is also illegal to employ someone just because they are religious.


God gave the rights to the people and the government was there to protect those rights.
I'm not sure wether you were stating this or saying that that's what the founding fathers would say, but either way it's an opinion that can't be proved.


We were established as a Judeo-Christian nation.
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." George Washington, Treaty of Tripoli, 1796


This country was established by Christians.
Most of the founding fathers were deists.

Superdog
3 July 2002, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by ilyssa

Those words and the concept are in the personal correspondence of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine.

The Founding Fathers of our country very much believed that religion had a place in government.
These two statements appear to be in contradiction. Maybe that's just me.

ilyssa
3 July 2002, 05:41 PM
The two quotes are not in contradiction. The first one refers to the words and ideas of separation of church and state. They are not in any of the government documents at all. They are only in personal correspondence. We do not base our laws on personal correspondence.

However maybe I should have said the majority believed that religion did have a place in the government just not a state supported church.

Also here is what the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The Founding Fathers whether they were deist or Christian (there were some of both) acknowledge God as the source of our rights. So it is only fitting that we acknowledge such in our pledge. It is also the right of individuals not to recite the pledge as well. So to each there own. But dont ask those of a "theist" persuasion to apologize for the focus that our founding documents also maintain.

The quote from George Washington earlier about being a secular nation is correct. THat is why we do not have a state supported church. And I for one would never support one anyway (my denomination has a history of rebelliousness towards anything like that).

As for the idea being outmoded or passe. That would be a matter of opinion. The concept of a Creator does not seem to me to be anything of the kind. In fact this Creator has a very significant effect on me everyday of my life.

I hope this has been helpful for someone. :)

dgswensen
3 July 2002, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by Moridin
But if you're not willing to say the pledge of allegiance, if you're not willing to live in this country and do your best to make it a better place, if you're planning on doing something contrary to what's stated in the pledge, then get the hell out of my country because you're not wanted. But hey, I'm just an old-fashioned red-blooded American with too many family members who have been in wars and fought and died for our freedom. If you can't promise to uphold the values they died for, then by all means hop a boat, plane, or bus and find somewhere else to live.

Yet, this country was founded precisely because a group of people could not and would not support the policies of their country (England) any more, because they felt they were wrong. That is the problem I have with this "if you don't like it, leave" attitude.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Don't get me wrong, I love America, and have no intention of leaving -- nor do I condone anti-American activities in the least -- but I'm wondering where the Declaration of Independence fits into your "love it or leave it" generalization.

I am not saying that the American government as it is now is necessarily endangering the freedoms outlined in the Declaration; but nor do I think it inconceivable that things could one day turn that direction. Does the Declaration have no meaning beyond its one application? Is there no obligation by the people to speak out against policies they feel are oppressive or wrong?

Because it seems to me that if the Founding Fathers had thought that way, they may have just shrugged, pulled up stakes, and moved to Brazil -- and we might very well be buying our Star Wars merchandise with pounds sterling.

I'm not trying to start a flame war here, I'm just honestly curious. Thanks.

Kobayashi_Maru
3 July 2002, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by ilyssa
........ the words and ideas of separation of church and state. They are not in any of the government documents at all.

In a way it is, the American constitution is a division of powers. Out of all the divisions made, not one is for the church. Therefore the American constitution does separate State Power and Church Power. And remember the American founders did not beleive in unwritten constitutional law, so there is no under lying definition (beyond freedoms) to give the church power.

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
3 July 2002, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by ilyssa

The Founding Fathers whether they were deist or Christian (there were some of both) acknowledge God as the source of our rights. So it is only fitting that we acknowledge such in our pledge.
I am confused about what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that by saying "under God" we are acknowledging that the founding fathers acknowledged God, or are we saying that God gave us our rights and that the founding fathers also thought so. Because if it's option #2, your forcing people to acknowledge a creator they may not neccessarily believe in.






As for the idea being outmoded or passe. That would be a matter of opinion. The concept of a Creator does not seem to me to be anything of the kind. In fact this Creator has a very significant effect on me everyday of my life.

I'm not trying to say that the idea of a creator is outdated, I'm saying that this:
The Founding Fathers of our country very much believed that religion had a place in government.
represents outdated thinking, more applicable to American life in 1776 then in 2002. Now, our countrty contains many more people, and thus many more religions and ethnic groups than it did in 1776. You cannot give a religion a place in government, because not everyone in this country will agree on one, and therefore you are singling out the religious minorities.


Also, it would be illegal lto make the pledge voluntary. A similar situation arose for a case involving prayer at football games. The school said that not all students had to participate, but the courts said that this unfairly singles them out and leads to other problems, mocking, and such things. I have also heard that some kids are made fun if they choose to not say the pledge (this may have even been the case for the lawsuit that resulted in the ruling we are discussing.)


P.S. For those who are saying that God and the Bible helped to form America, one of the world's first modern democracies, here (http://www.religioustolerance.com/imm_bibl2.htm#demo) is an interesting link from religioustolerance.com. (http://www.religioustolerance.com)

ilyssa
4 July 2002, 03:35 AM
Actually I guess I am saying that both options are acceptable, thanks for helping to clarify my thoughts.

ALso for years the Jehovan's Witness have refused to recite the pledge of allegience citing that they can take no oaths or allegiences other than God. And I fully support their right to do so. THe same would be true of atheists who do not support "under God". I actually defended such students when I was in school when they were harassed for not reciting the pledge. So I know how children can be when misinformed and ignorant.

But again I wonder why atheists feel threatened by reciting the pledge of allegience. If they are right and there is no God, then the words are meaningless anyway (and its just two words). THe only reason I can think of for them to feel threatened is that in their hearts deep inside they may think there is a God and they simply do not wish to be reminded of such----aka GUILT.

Also if they believe that atheism is a viable belief system that can hold its own in the public arena then why feel threatened. I am fully comfortable pitting my belief system against Atheism, Humanism, Buddhims, Islam, Judaism, etc etc. The reason for that is I believe Christianity is a viable belief system and has answers.

Now putting myself in the shoes of the atheist who does not wish to have the words "under God" in the pledge I would say that if the pledge said under Buddha, Allah etc. then I too would refuse to say those words. But I would faithfully recite the rest of the pledge because I support this country. Is it too much to ask them to do the same?

ilyssa
4 July 2002, 08:21 AM
Go here and listen to the message. :)

The Pledge (http://home.att.net/~poofcatt/july.html)

Nova Spice
4 July 2002, 09:13 AM
That a boy Red........incredible that he predicted that. And may I add one word to Red Skelton's message:

Amen

God Bless America on this July 4th

Talonne Hauk
4 July 2002, 09:40 AM
So now Red Skelton is considered a more prescient sorce than George Washington or Thomas Jefferson? Any port in a storm, huh?

MassassiC
4 July 2002, 12:35 PM
Just my reply to all that's been going on, especially considering my spouse is a pagan and I am a Buddhist (and both living together in harmony :) )
I've only read up to this point (over several hours due to not looking in this area much at all), but I will not be reading any more. I just want to throw a non-Christian/non-American view on all that has been posted here...



Do you really NOT want God's covering over your proceedings. Even if you are atheist, just WHAT IF there was a God, who you needed advice and guidance from. Dont you think you would want a clergy man to pray over the hearings.
I wouldn't want something I didn't believe in being pressed into my life. It is an invasion of civil liberties.


we had survived this long due to the fact that we were "under God,"
So the actual efforts of American citizens and military was unnecessary?


Just one thing to say if you think our that the pledge is unconstitutional, Go join Osama in his cave, I'm sure American Airlines has a plane waiting for ya.
Well, a nice tolerant Christian here... giving the actual nice Christian's a bad name :(


I'm not accusing anyone of being a terrorist
You just did...


Sorry Superdog, but I find your choice of words, both not funny, and disturbing that you can not believe in YOUR CREATOR and our nations creator, you people actually kinda make me angry
I believe in MY CREATOR... it just so happens I do not believe that we envision the same "being"/"force" behind creation.


the day the Pledge dies is the day America begins to fall apart
From what I've seen and my American spouse has seen, it already is falling apart.


every other European country would be speaking German right now.
As has been commented before, it would more likely be Russian if anything.


being arrogant comes with the flag
And the arrogance is one of the things that hurts America's relations with other countries (Same thing is happening here with England and most of Europe, so don't feel alone on that one :) )


Many other nations do not appreciate or refuse to remember that America has saved them at one time or another
This one covers most of the War debates; America refuses to see any other nation's efforts as equalling it's own, and so any war that America is involved with becomes twisted so that only Americans are remembered as having any significant role... Hollywood exemplifies this especially with the recent spate of WWII films and especially U571 (or whatever) where they wanted to turn the British forces that captured the Enigma Machines into Americans.


To sum up... there needs to be equality in this issue. Religion is a very touchy subject (just like the racial tensions still in effect in America), and even more so at the moment thanks to September 11th. This is not the best time to discuss about the validity of Religion in much of anything, especially in the Pledge. The simple answer is to say that those that do not wish to say certain words do not have to, and those that do, can. It will never happen like that, that's for sure. Politicians are only human (trust me, most are :) ), and they will be swayed by their own beliefs. The fact that the majority of Americans are Christians (I find it hard to believe the 98% figure that's being bounded about... I see a lot of those as being people who, if asked, will say that they are Christian, but probably haven't been in a Church since being baptised) will, by default, mean that most politicians and judges are Christian and their rulings and laws will be slanted in that direction.

I will just say one more thing; someone kept asking (and from what I can remember, never got a solid reply) about "What if the word God was replaced with Vishnu (sp?) or another diety/s? My response to this would be as I have outlined above. It should be in every person's choice whether they say a relgious statement or not. I myself would never (If I was American) say God, Vishnu, Buddha, Jehova, or any other religious figure in a pledge to protect a country.

If anyone wishes to discuss my views, then they are free to message me in any context. As long as GMT time zones are taken into account, I would be more than happy to talk to almost anyone who has posted on this subject via either ICQ or AIM.

This is my one and only post on this subject in a forum.

- Definately not proud of England, but what choices are there :)

Superdog
4 July 2002, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by Nova Spice
That a boy Red........incredible that he predicted that. And may I add one word to Red Skelton's message:

Heck, I could have predicted that. (and did) Even when I was like 13 or so I still thought that was a really obvious violation of Religous freedoms. When I heard about the court decision my first thought was: Finally! I was wondering how long it would take someone to figure this out.

nightninja50
19 July 2002, 07:04 AM
Some people dont want this brought up, but I thought I would share an email with all you people:

Since the Pledge of Allegiance

and

The Lord's Prayer

are not allowed in most

public schools anymore

because the word "God" is mentioned....

a kid in Arizona wrote the attached

NEW

School

prayer.

I liked it.... Now I sit me down in school

Where praying is against the rule

For this great nation under God

Finds mention of Him very odd

If Scripture now the class recites,

It violates the Bill of Rights.

And anytime my head I bow

Becomes a Federal matter now

Our hair can be purple, orange or green,

That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.

The law is specific, the law is precise.

For praying in a public hall

Might offend someone with no faith at all.

In silence alone we must meditate,

God's name is prohibited by the state

Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice

We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,

And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.

They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.

To quote the Good Book makes me liable.

We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,

And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.

It's "inappropriate" to teach right from wrong,

We're taught that such "judgments" do not belong

We can get our condoms and birth controls,

Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.

But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,

No word of God must reach this crowd
It's scary here I must confess,

When chaos reigns the school's a mess.

So, Lord, this silent plea I make:

Should I be shot; My soul please take!

Amen

If you aren't ashamed to do this,

please pass this on.



Jesus said,

" If you are ashamed of me,"

I will be ashamed of you before my Father."

IM NOT ASHAMED, YOU SHOULDNT BE EITHER

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
19 July 2002, 02:17 PM
[i]
IM NOT ASHAMED, YOU SHOULDNT BE EITHER [/B]

Don't tell me what to think.

Grimace
19 July 2002, 04:23 PM
Alright people, it seems that some cannot post without attempting to stir up trouble. I'll put this plain and simple. If you're going to post in this thread, talk about the subject matter ONLY (The pledge of alliegance and whether or not it should be allowed). Remember that other people will have differing opinions that may be contrary to yours. If you can't say something constructive concerning the discussion, DON'T POST!

If I see anyone else posting anything that is inflammatory towards another member (something that *I* will decide), I'll close the thread. Let's handle this in a civilized manner or the privelage of discussing non-star wars related material will be limited.

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
10 September 2002, 05:57 PM
Coming up here, I'm going to come into contact with the pledge of allegiance, and I figured this might be a good place to find some thoughts (Grimace, If you don't want this old thread to be ressurected, feel free to do what you must.) Anyhoo...

Tomorrow is the 11th, and at my school (I'm a junior...) we are encouraged to wear red, white, and blue, and the entire school is going to recite the pledge of allegiance. I'm not going to wear red, white, and blue because I think it's tacky and the school does entirely too much of telling people what to wear (with theme days and the whatnot.)
Now, with the pledge, I don't know what to do. I don't want to say it. Don't get me wrong, I like America and all, but I don't feel like my school should tell me when and where to pledge my allegiance to. I thought of doing some sort of protest, but being I live in a small mostly Christian community, I'm betting that wouldn't go over too well (I was thinking of "baa-ing" like a sheep during the pledge, but that would probably do more harm than good.) Then there's just not participating at all, but I know I would get hassled by people, maybe teachers and probably some rednecks, and that's not exactly what I want either.

I don't want to do the pledge, I can't put my finger exactly on all the reasons why, and I don't know what to do about it. For some reason I seem to be dreading tomorrow.

Thoughts?

evan hansen
10 September 2002, 07:17 PM
Interesting situation, and precisely an example of why this type of conversation will continue to be prevelant in communities across the nation.

Without question, the issue which you posit is difficult, and I almost hesitate to say anything because who am I to have a truly meaningful opinion on this matter? But you've asked for thoughts, so I have to assume that you're willing to sort through the bad ideas to get to what suits you the best.

In terms of not being able to quite articulate why you feel uncomfortable reciting the pledge, I think there be a lot of people who can empathize with that. You won't be alone tomorrow. Some people feel the best way to remember the events of last year is to cover themselves in American colors, do the best they can to be patriotic, and be perhaps a bit more civil than normal. Others might go out and fire off a couple rounds into the side of a shed to simply remind themselves of a right they want to have -- and do because of where they live. Some folks might joke about it and make crass comments that offend most people and make others laugh -- because it lightens the mood. Ultimately, there is no correct way to respond.

There's only what makes you feel comfortable -- or uncomfortable.

If being forced to recite the pledge strikes you as hypocritical, rather than patriotic, and it seems to be more burdensome than the possible mocking of classmates and locals, then just don't say it.

If, on the other hand, there are some things you don't wish to put up with, maybe you can take a tardy and show up late. (I certainly am not condoning anything I write here -- merely offering possibilities. The last thing I need is to have someone knocking on my door telling me that I told kids to avoid school on the 11th. *grin*)

There are lots of options. Pick whatever feels the most comfortable or, more likely, the least uncomfortable. You have to do what you have to do, and I put forth to you that making sure you're OK with what you're doing is probably more important in the long run than what others might think of you.

Just some thoughts. Best of luck to you.

Jedi_Staailis
10 September 2002, 07:42 PM
This is definitely a touchy subject, and as evan hansen mentioned, you should not take our opinions to be right, just look at them as possibilities, and think about what we've said. Whether you believe it or not is for you to decide.

That said, I think that if you feel uncomfortable saying the pledge, don't say it. Don't mock it, there's no need for that, and would just be stirring up trouble needlessly. If not saying the pledge earns excessive abuse and disrespect from your classmates, take it to the administration, if only to find a refuge. This will draw attention to your issue in a legitimate way. It works very much like the US court system (and many other legal systems, for that matter): problems are addressed when there is a real injured party (yourself in this case, unfortunately).

I should hope that no teachers attempt to force you to say the pledge, or verbally attack your action afterward. It's unprofessional and shows a startling lack of respect for the opinions of others. If it happens and grows to be severe, contact the higher levels of administration about it.

The best thing to do (in my opinion) is to stick to your beliefs, but do so in an unobtrusive way. Tensions will be running high tomorrow, so don't create a stir. If you don't wear red, white, and blue, and don't say the pledge, but are simply and quiet and respectful about the feelings of others, you have a decent chance of getting through the day without a conflict. You will have shown that, in fact, the school's policies in this case are voluntary (your goal), and everyone else gets the comfort of patriotism which may help them (their goal). Everyone wins.

BrianDavion
10 September 2002, 10:35 PM
*buries this topic*

dang it... let's not bring up THIS debate again... please...

Iris
11 September 2002, 05:01 AM
I can understand where you are coming from.

The best suggestion I can make to you is to be respectful to those around you who DO wish to say the pledge. "Baa-ing" or some other protest is not being respectful. To be respected for our opinions we must be respectful to others for theirs.

Perhaps when they say the pledge you can stand and say your own prayer or memorial to yourself.

Good luck.

Grimace
11 September 2002, 07:39 AM
So far all of the comments on this have been well thought out and have stayed away from any sort of personal attack. Please keep it that way. If this thread devolves into an arguement, or if someone launches a personal attack, I'll close the thread and the offending person will suffer the consequences.

For the time being, however, I'm going to keep this thread open. Please don't attack any other nation, or any person, in this thread. Offer suggestions, and if you can't suggest anything helpful, don't bother replying.

Thank you.

evan hansen
11 September 2002, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by BrianDavion

dang it... let's not bring up THIS debate again... please...

Well, first, I have to say that I hadn't read any of this until yesterday. It was actually fairly interesting for a while. Then it looks like things went haywire. :-)

But, more importantly, I'd like to say that, in some ways, this isn't even the same topic anymore. Discussing the court's ruling and discussing a user's pending personal decision at school are different. Hopefully you won't find yourself put off by this kind of offshoot conversation.

I, for one, am curious to see, when Alfred The Ewok returns from school, how things were handled today.

nightninja50
11 September 2002, 02:47 PM
Hmmmmm....now u all may not like me for what i am about to say..quote me on it i dont care but on this day....September 11, I want u all to know that I am praying for all the victims exactly a year ago today, and I am praying for every single member of this holonet.

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.

Amen

Reverend Strone
11 September 2002, 02:50 PM
Please people, let's exercise a little maturity and give this a rest, today of all days when emotions are running so high. We're all friends here, so let's respect eachother's divergent views and tread with sensitivity and humility.

Nova Spice
11 September 2002, 05:22 PM
"What the terrorists started.......we will finish."-President George W. Bush

Remember 9/11

It has been one year to the day since we were attacked, since we were brutally assaulted, since we became a changed nation. It has been one year to the day since I have become a changed person. No longer can I sit back and allow tolerance to compromise common sense. I don't see in shades of gray anymore; black and white are the only shades that I see, they are the only shades that can be seen anymore.

As I watched live, the second plane impact upon the World Trade Center, the plane strike the Pentagon, and the towers collapse, I realized right then and there that those responsible, those that feed the ones responsible, those that house the ones responsible, must be dealt with in the only manner necessary: annihilation.

Images of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry flooded into my mind that day one year ago. I could see them sitting in that hot room in Pennsylvania, crafting what would later become, the Constitution of the United States. I could clearly see who we were as a people, who we have become, and who we will need to be to defeat terrorism.

If there is one thing to always remember about 9/11, remember that there are people that hate Americans, that hate the Western World (that includes Canada, Great Britain, Israel, etc.), and that will stop at NOTHING to destroy us.

Well, I'm done, no more ranting and raving about the Pledge and no flaming of anyone. I just though I'd share my point of view with the great members of this board.

God Bless America

;)

evan hansen
11 September 2002, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by nightninja50
Hmmmmm....now u all may not like me for what i am about to say..quote me on it i dont care but on this day....September 11, I want u all to know that I am praying for all the victims exactly a year ago today, and I am praying for every single member of this holonet.


Good. :-) I don't believe in a god, and I don't particularly care for faith-related language in official documents.

But...

I find it very comforting that folks can have differing viewpoints and still find it in their hearts to pray or have positive wishes on the others' behalf. So I thank you. And I'm sure others do as well.

I wasn't intending on ressurecting any of these conversations when I first replied to Alfred The Ewok, but I'm sure most folks, including me, would say thanks for the good thoughts.

Rogue Janson
12 September 2002, 11:38 AM
I remember seeing this thread around the time I joined up to the holonet and I know now is not a good time to start getting involved (if anyone
wants an argument, they can talk to me elsewhere).

On the 11th I thought about the thousands killed when the Trade Centre was destroyed. I remembered the thousands of Afghani civilians killed in the war in that country, by both sides. The hundreds of Africans killed when Al Qaeda attacked US embassies. And I remembered the thousands of Sudanese who died from lack of basic medicine after the US bombed the country's main pharmaceutical plant in response to these attacks. The tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by sanctions in the last decade. The hundreds of Israelis and thousands of Palestinians killed in the ongoing intifada.

I can't really say I've made an effort to make this post directly relevant to the thread, but I couldn't pull myself away without saying something.

dgswensen
12 September 2002, 12:35 PM
I didn't know anyone who died on September 11, but I have friends who lost friends, and I don't mean to belittle their tragedy, certainly.

However, when I saw the news on September 11, sadly, my first thought, before anything else, was "well, here comes the police state."

I don't feel particularly proud of that, nor do I feel the need to proclaim that sentiment loudly (for obvious reasons), but it's the truth.

I am, to this day, more afraid of the direction our government is taking than I am of terrorist acts. And believe me when I say I'm not happy about that, either. I'd like to feel this surge of patrioric pride and unswerving belief that wiretapping, confiscation of personal property at the airlines, and the PATRIOT act are wise, benevolent, well-thought-out actions that our government is taking to protect us and nurture democracy. Unfortunately, I don't feel that way at all. These measures frighten me a great deal.

Moreover, I am afraid to even say so, because I wonder if the day when feeling like this become sedition is really as far off as I'd like to think.

I truly envy those people who can slap a plastic flag on their SUV, crank up a couple Lee Greenwood songs, and feel totally at peace with themselves and their country. I really do.

Not an attack on anyone here, just my personal feelings on the matter... thanks.

Matt Richard
12 September 2002, 03:40 PM
i told myself not to get involved again, but here it goes. Im sure that this thread will be gone soon, so hopefully it can be taht i had the responsibility for starting this thread, and i can have the honor to end it.

September 11th woke us up to the fact that this type of stuff happens all over the world, everyday, and to others accross the world, it is a normal everyday occurance. Not to us, we were caught by surprise.

But on this day, we can stand together, as Patriots and say with one loud voice: God Bless America!!! Or, for those who dont want to say that, a simple Long Live America!!! will do. But do something, because this is your country, and it is good to be proud of it, no matter where you stand religously or politically.

Now, I am a Christian, and one that also enjoys the game of politics. In the Bible, it says that Christians are supposed to be actively involved in the govenrment, so it strikes me as odd that politics is usually something not talked about too often from the pulpit.

Having said that, the Bible also says, nightninja, that we are to follow the laws of the land. And in this case, the land is the HoloNet, and when you continue to <b>provoke</b> the anger of those who do not believe as you, you are not acting like what you say youre doing. I thank you for your prayers, but a simple: Im praying for every victim and their faimilies, and all of you too. God Bless." would have been more elequent, mature, and the Christian thing to do.

But unfortunately, you didnt do the Christian thing, so I see the end of this thread coming soon. It was a good debate, I had fun, it was fun for those who watched, and one of the longest threads ive been apart of, if not the longest. Alfred, Im sorry if you were pushed into saying something you didnt want to, but I hope you are proud of your country, and did something, and i really hope you didnt baww during the pledge (that would be equally imature).

Thanks for the discussion, it was really fun, no matter where you stood, God bless.

nightninja50
12 September 2002, 04:06 PM
sorry if i sounded immature,,,,its just, I cant believe some things im hearing and it awes me about this pledge junk, so im sorry, God bless you all, and thank you.

evan hansen
12 September 2002, 04:29 PM
Well, think about it like this, if you'll indulge me.

Just as some people are fans of d6 and will swear by it and others will swear by d20, just like some favor one interpretation of the Force and others favor something else, and just like some like the Phantom Menace and some don't, some people have one opinion on how our country should be run and other folks have vastly disparate opinions.

Here's an example:

I've been studying science my whole life. For a while, I did a lot of pretty extensive research on proteins responsible for chemotaxis in E. Coli and Rhodobacter, two strains of bacteria. I was about an inch away from graduating with a degree in microbiology and launching myself into a PhD program with two years of actual lab experience (and possibly my name on a published paper) and coursework at one of the top three public universities under my belt. (On a side note, I abandoned it all at the last minute for a degree in English and a looming career in marketing, but that's neither here nor there. *grin*)

Needless to say, I was a pretty hardcore proponent of evolution, scientific theory, etc...

Then, one day, I read about evolution being kind of tossed out the window in Kansas. And it FLOORED me. I had to really step back and realize that the values of people there simply differ from mine. My faith in evolution and science has never evanesced, but I've learned to accept that others do not feel as strongly about it as I do.

Much the same, your values differ from others. If it were up to me, I'd strike the word "god" from every government document there is. Period.

But it's not up to me. It's something that people will continue to discuss and the courts will determine that somewhere down the line -- maybe next year, maybe 10 years from now, maybe 100 years from now, maybe never.

But it really just boils down to a difference of how certain things are percieved -- based on education, upbringing, commonplaces, religion, priorities, experience, reading, and a million other things.

In short, I think what Matt is saying is that it's to be expected that you'll have a different opinion, and it's to be expected that it'll ruffle a few feathers but that keeping those differences in mind and accepting them as an acceptable truth would be appropriate. Regardless, no harm done. :-)

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
12 September 2002, 07:53 PM
What happened to alfred_the_ewok (not that anyone cares):

The intercom was to lead the school in the pledge and this was to come during 2nd hour, chemistry. For some reason, the chemistry teacher doesn't have a seating chart, so since I'm one of the last in the room, I end up sitting in a different seat every day. Today, I ended up sitting in the very back corner. So all my fears were unfounded as no-one saw me peacefully sit there. A few friends questioned me about it later, but I was pleasantly surprised. I guess people aren't as big of pricks as I thought...

Now may this thread fade off in peace...

Iris
13 September 2002, 04:20 AM
Originally posted by ALFRED_THE_EWOK
What happened to alfred_the_ewok (not that anyone cares):


Well I still care. :)

I'm glad the situation went as smoothly as it did. I think you handled it in a very mature manner. My hat's off to you. :D

Iris
13 September 2002, 04:21 AM
Originally posted by dgswensen
I am, to this day, more afraid of the direction our government is taking than I am of terrorist acts. And believe me when I say I'm not happy about that, either. I'd like to feel this surge of patrioric pride and unswerving belief that wiretapping, confiscation of personal property at the airlines, and the PATRIOT act are wise, benevolent, well-thought-out actions that our government is taking to protect us and nurture democracy. Unfortunately, I don't feel that way at all. These measures frighten me a great deal.

dgswensen, I agree with you and concur with your fears. I've been doing a research paper for the past 4 weeks on Privacy vs. Security and centering on the FBI's Carnivore, the "National ID" that many want, and the reaction of privacy groups.

What the government has the right to do in this post-9/11 world is SCARY! It makes you wonder where the line is between our 4th Amendment Rights start and the Government's need (Local, State and Federal) to provide for our security (also something guarenteed in the Constitution; see the Preamble) ends. The line is VERY fuzzy.

However, this doesn't change the fact that I still love my country. I love the fact that I can educate myself on what the government is doing (admitedly only to the point of publically avaialble documents - though FOIA helps in that regard). I love the fact that I can speak out against it through my congressmen. Yes, the US has it's problems; every country does... but I'd still rather be here than anywhere else.

(To my friends from other countries, please take no offence. I'm sure you feel similarly about your homeland as well. :))

BrianDavion
13 September 2002, 07:29 AM
living in Canada I've managed to get a look at what the US is doing without nationaluism clouding my views and I agree.. it's down right scary. hel it almost reminds me of Palpatine's rise to power.


hmmm Darth Duyba.... :)



P.S.
No I am not saying George Bush was the evil mastermind BEHIND all these however if the US citizens are not vigilant you could be living in a "temperorary dictatorship.. for the duration of the emergency"

FlipDog 2000
13 September 2002, 07:38 AM
Well, I guess that's why it seems that every Earth Sci-Fi Movie is coming true. Unfortunately, we seem to be in the B-Movie area right now.

Kobayashi_Maru
13 September 2002, 08:00 AM
Now if you are a suspected terrorist, it's legal to snatch you and your possessions up, with out any type of due proccess.

Here is the US PATRIOT ACT at the Thomas Legislative Database. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107TO6FN1::)

Suposedly the US Government is holding some 2,000 people, since 9/11/01, without any Miranda rights.

evan hansen
13 September 2002, 09:45 AM
Actually, what's fascinating about that act is that the government gets to define what terrorism is. If they consider Greenpeace to be terrorists, anyone who has ever donated to Greenpeace can be considered as having abetted terrorists.

Crazy, eh?