Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

SON OF A $%&#$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I typed out a story for about two friggin hours and when I tried to submit it it took me to the log in screen. I logged in, and then expected it to submit. Instead it took me to a blank post page. I clicked back on the browser and got the login page. So I clicked back again and got another blank post page. #^&%.

Foxfyre wrote:

It really doesn't matter the rationale behind a slogan on a coin at the time it was first inscribed or why a phrase was inserted into a pledge more than 50 years ago. That was then. This is now. How it affects my rights now is all that matters, and I have no right to dictate to others what their personal preferences must be or how they must view a work of art or what they must believe.

I can only assume that this is what you think answers my unassailable claim that the intention of the addition of the phrase "under God" is religiously malevolent. That was then and this is now, you say. But guess what? If it was meant as a weapon, it was meant to be injurious. If it was injurious then, it is injurious now. It will continue to be just as injurious as long as it's there. It is injurious, just as intended, and it should be removed, so that it is not able to injure any more.

0 Replies

Quote:

SON OF A $%&#$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I typed out a story for about two friggin hours and when I tried to submit it it took me to the log in screen. I logged in, and then expected it to submit. Instead it took me to a blank post page. I clicked back on the browser and got the login page. So I clicked back again and got another blank post page. #^&%.

Laughing with you. Been there ... done that.

Now ... would you please explain how you are "injured" by the phrase, "under God"?

0 Replies

I wrote

Quote:

It really doesn't matter the rationale behind a slogan on a coin at the time it was first inscribed or why a phrase was inserted into a pledge more than 50 years ago. That was then. This is now. How it affects my rights now is all that matters, and I have no right to dictate to others what their personal preferences must be or how they must view a work of art or what they must believe.

To which binny replied

Quote:

I can only assume that this is what you think answers my unassailable claim that the intention of the addition of the phrase "under God" is religiously malevolent. That was then and this is now, you say. But guess what? If it was meant as a weapon, it was meant to be injurious. If it was injurious then, it is injurious now. It will continue to be just as injurious as long as it's there. It is injurious, just as intended, and it should be removed, so that it is not able to injure any more.

Like Tico, I cannot imagine any harm possible because of a slogan on a coin or a phrase in a pledge. I think anyone who would be harmed by such as that is a pretty fragile individual that is going to be vulnerable to just about anything he or she is exposed to. I would recommend developing a good case of agoraphobia and just stay home.

Okay that's a bit extreme and I really do appreciate the depth of feeling some of you have on this issue. But intellectual honesty requires that if you go back to the 50's or earlier when all this was initially decided and apply the intent as you interpret it from that time, then you also have to go back look at ALL the Federalist papers and the writings of the founders to fully understand their intent and thereby know if any decisions made later were inappropriate.

The founders had no problem whatsoever with those in government being religious or expressing their religious beliefs in or out of the offices they held; in fact that was encouraged. It is that history from our founders that Congress now uses to justify $100K plus salaries for the House and Senate chaplains that lead the legislative bodies in prayer before each session and provide spiritual ministry to those who want it. (And no, that was not a Republican invention. There have been chaplains for as long as I can remember. and yes, I do have some problem with that as a fiscal, not a religious concern--I think it is fine for the legislature to start a session with prayer if they wish to, but I can't believe they couldn't do that themselves or draft a volunteer.)

Where the founders drew the line was that you could neither be required to believe what they believed and/or you cannot be either rewarded nor punished in any way for what you believe or do not believe.

0 Replies

Ros writes

Quote:

Hi Fox, I do think we're repeating ourselves here a bit. You debate well, but I feel that your arguments are specious because they don't withstand the test of expansion to extreme cases.

I don't see that the situation as it exists to need any expansion to extreme cases because I don't see that happening. It hasn't happened in the last 5+ decades. Why should we assume that all of a sudden our governement is going to organize and launch a modern Crusade to evangelize the country? To me such an expectation would be quite a bit over the edge into irrational paranoia.

If we can't objectively analyze a situation as it is, I don't think it at all useful to sidestep the present reality and plunge into worst case scenarios that are not supported by our modern history and, to me, seem purely diversionary.

I did respond to your hypothetical metaphor of religious symbols being plastered everywhere and, while I do not think that would be illegal, I do think favoring any one religion would be inappropriate and I think the majority so many of you scorn would quickly demand that such an inappropriate situation be remedied.

You see any form of religious expression in government as illegal. I see denying religious expression to anyone, including those in government, as illegal. At some point the Supreme Court may have to deal with the issue. For now, it is my belief that nobody's constitutionally protected rights are infringed and we have no constitutional right to have it the way we want it when most people do not want it changed.

0 Replies

I think that this forum is getting to be stupid. Obviously this group cannot focus on the original idea of the forum and how it affects other aspects other than money and the pledge in the United States, but other countries around the world and in different instances. People here obviously cannot express their ideas clearly if nearly every post is defending what they have said two posts earlier.

And Frank, I think you're a jerk. I can say your language in this forum is foul and makes you out to be a loathsome cockroach. Now, if you don't mind, your foul language is to me as the words Under God in the pledge is to you. Offensive and unnecessary.

0 Replies

peachtree, why don't you offer a new thesis to move it along then? I agree we have exhausted our arsenals regarding the pledge and our coinage though these speak in a manageable way to the principles incorporation in the First Amendment.

But what do you want to talk about? Put it out there and, if it is interesting, I'm pretty sure somebody will take up the banner.

0 Replies

Peachy--pretty much everything said on this forum is offensive and unnecessary to someone. BFD, step in or step out but cut the self-righteous crapola. Jerk, indeed! you will find lots of jerks here (I'm one of them) and thats what makes this little forum go round. You would probably fit right in.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Ros writes

Quote:
Hi Fox, I do think we're repeating ourselves here a bit. You debate well, but I feel that your arguments are specious because they don't withstand the test of expansion to extreme cases.

I don't see that the situation as it exists to need any expansion to extreme cases because I don't see that happening.

Extremity is a test of the basic validity of the argument. It doesn't matter if it ever happens in reality or not, that isn't the point.

You continue to say that expressions of one religion over another is inappropriate, but you seem to ignore the same right to equality by those who are not religious at all. Why is that?

Foxfyre wrote:

You see any form of religious expression in government as illegal.

Almost. I actually agree with the supreme court, that the validity of religious expression of government is determined by its intent, not just by the words, or the images.

For example, if a religion develops which worships cement pillars, then we don't have to remove all the cement pillars in government buildings because the cement pillars were not put there as an expression of religion.

The words, "in God we Trust", and "Under God" were however, put there to impose a religious inference to our society. That's intent.

Foxfyre wrote:

I see denying religious expression to anyone, including those in government, as illegal.

People are free to express their personal views, just not to imply that those views are in any way sanctioned by the office they hold.

0 Replies

Ros writes

Quote:

People are free to express their personal views, just not to imply that those views are in any way sanctioned by the office they hold.

They could imply all they want, but it would be an incorrect implication as the government is not allowed by law to favor one religion over anothing. I have no problem with spiritual congresspersons and senators accepting invitation to speak to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes or for a president (Bill Clinton comes to mind) giving the morning sermon at the local Baptist Church.

Maybe I give more credit to people to be able to stand on their own two feet and learn and know the law and what their government is and is not allowed to do to them. I don't think of most Americans as children who are going to be easily coerced, threatened, or swayed if they happen to be exposed to a particular point of view. And I trust the strong to look out for the few that are that weak, gullible, fragile.

And so far as 'no provision being made for the non-religious', what would you propose? That in addition to a chaplain led prayer in the Senate chamber that they also have a statement from the Athiest manifesto? If we have any athiest members of Congress and they asked for it, I'm sure they could have that. Isn't it enough that the non-religious are accommodated by there being no requirement whatsoever to profess, believe, or adhere to anything religious? If the God in the Pledge is the Christian God to the Christian, it is Allah to the Moslem, Nivana to the Buddhist, the Hebrew God to the Jew . The athiest who does not believe in any God can just as easily think 'no god' or whatever pleases him/her.

In other words, until such time as somebody in government does something to us because of what we do or do not believe, and so long as we are not disturbing the peace, the First Amendment protects us all to exercise whatever religious faith we wish, where we wish, when we wish or be as nonreligious as we want to be.

0 Replies

I'll try this one more time Foxy, have you ever heard about, read about, known somebody, experienced any situation where (even the most diehard anti-christian such as myself) as suggested that you could not say anything (like "one nation under god") to your hearts content? Why do you find it necessary to add/sustain rules of conduct/behavior in the light that nothing is being detracted from you. I am beginning to think that you are the liberal you preach against wanting rules of conduct where none are needed and have a potential to harm others. Do you actually think that by having an official "one nation under god" pledge makes it so? I kinda operate under the premise that the more rules a society has the more corrupt it is to begin with (hence the need for more rules)

0 Replies

I don't find it necessary Dys, as I have said again and again. I have no problem with the phrase being in the Pledge and I'll have no problem if it is decided to take it out.

But if we take it out, it will be because most Americans want it removed, not because it is illegal for it to be there.

It hasn't corrupted anybody for more than 50 years now, and it just doesn't wash that suddenly in 2005 it is dangerous.

0 Replies

yeah I hear that and it's the "we" that scares me. I hear the "we" as the mob tampling the rights of the few. I don't tend to think of that as "american" and you do, so be it. I am perfectly content to have you say anything you please as long as you (the majority) don't request that I say the same (which you do)

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Ros writes

Quote:
People are free to express their personal views, just not to imply that those views are in any way sanctioned by the office they hold.

They could imply all they want, but it would be an incorrect implication as the government is not allowed by law to favor one religion over anothing.

We're going in circles Fox, just like your logic, which is self contained within the notion that words are mere scribbles without meaning. But words are not meaningless, they write history and teach children what to think. Words are elegant and powerful weapons.

0 Replies

When have I ever requested you say anything? Or does the metaphorical concept of 'we' escape you? I think of all Americans being in the boat together. Some just ride, some row, and there are differences of opinion on who should be captain and which direction we should go. And now I guess some will find the pronoun offensive along with my views on religion. Oh well.

Edited to post a salutation to Dys here.

0 Replies

To my dear friends:

I wanted to send out some sort of holiday greeting but it is so difficult in today's world to know exactly what to say without offending someone.

I met with my attorney today, and on his advice I want to say to all of you: Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, nonaddictive gender neutral, celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.

I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2005, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great (not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country or is the only "AMERICA" in the western hemisphere), and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, or sexual preference of the wishee.

By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms: This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher...

"HAPPY HOLIDAYS"

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

It hasn't corrupted anybody for more than 50 years now

I'm not so sure. Most people think that "in god we trust" has been there since the beginning. Most people think that the US was founded as a God fearing Christian nation, and it wasn't. And most people would not know that "under God" was placed there in the 50's unless people like us objected to it. The damage has been done, and continues to be done.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

To my dear friends:

I wanted to send out some sort of holiday greeting but it is so difficult in today's world to know exactly what to say without offending someone.

You're not the government Fox. It makes a difference.

Best Regards,

0 Replies

What it amounts to (as I see it) is that you (the majority) grant me permission to not say "under god" and I say who the frick are "you" to "grant me permission." In theory, at least, we are equally citizens, ergo I find it, at best, elitist, condescending and patronizing, for "you" to grant me permission to not worship your god.

0 Replies

I have no power to grant you permission or deny permission regarding anything other than my person and my property Dys. If you find it offensive that I draw conclusions about what is and is not legal via the law of the land, then you're too damn sensistive. And for that matter, who is anybody to say that I shouldn't have whatever words I want when I pledge allegiance to my country?

While I for the most part have appreciated Ros's courtesy and professionalism in this debate, and I accept that she feels and thinks exactly as she says, I disagree completely with the conclusions she has drawn and have explained that as well as I know how to explain it. I do not resent her or consider her elitist or patronizing or condescending when she gives her own explanation for why she feels as she does.

Maybe she feels the same away about me as you do Dys and is just more polite. But if none of us have been traumatized, harmed, or coerced in this discussion, as heated as it has been from time to time, how am I to believe that two words in a national pledge that nobody is required to say has harmed anybody.

I just think 'you people' need to get a grip.

0 Replies

"getting a grip" is exactly what we are trying to do. When we have legislative demands for "in god we trust" placards to be placed in public school classrooms (colorado) we can only operate with the understanding that the state is mandating that our children must (unless granted permission not to) accept "god" as a diety imposed by the state. I find this an egregious imposition of my rights to self-determination. Likewise, when the state (fed) says "one nation under god" is part and parcel to our oath of loyalty (pledge of allegiance) I find to be the antithesis of libertarian values.

0 Replies

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know