Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

I can appreciate and even sympathise with your point of view on that one, Dys. I was less alarmed at it after reading what the Colorado State Board included in their resolution that the placard was to be an illusration of the nation's religious heritage and the sentiments of the founding fathers' belief that our inalienable rights come from God and it would be taught in that way.

Personally, I think that really crowds the line, however, and I suspect it will be reversed at some time if many Coloradians (is that a word?) object or if the ACLU files suit.

0 Replies

Nice to see Dys say something serious!

I'll pull a Fox. I've already explained several times how I am injured. Furthermore, I'm sure Ike knows better than me how I am injured. He's the one trying to injure me, by his own words, after all, by adding the phrase. Ask him.

0 Replies

The bottom line is that inclusions of lines like "...one nation, answering to no gods..." or "...one nation, primarily caucasian..." or "...one nation, with men dominating..." or anything like that WOULD be gratuitously insulting to many people...and would trample on rights.

Each of us has the right to expect its government to be inclusive...not to favor one philosophy over another...just as we expect and demand it not to favor one religion over another.

People who cannot see that "...one nation, under god..." is a gratuituous insult to many people; is an example of the government unnecessarily and inappropriately favoring the philosophy of one group over the other; and for certain is trampling on the rights of people not to have the government discriminate against them...simply do not understand the principles under which this nation operates.

On this issue..."the rights of the majority"...is a red herring. A strawman.

But as I have said a couple of times now...this Republic has survived the insensitive, unthinking people willing to condone personal rights outrages in the past...and it will survive the insensitive, unthinking group who think those of us outside the superstition known as "religion" can be treated as second-class citizens.

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

Nice to see Dys say something serious!

Accidents happen frequently in my neighborhood.

0 Replies

Frank:-

What's a full buzz then?

spendius.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Frank:-

What's a full buzz then?

spendius.

Take two half buzzes...and put 'em together.

That's a whole one.

By the way, Spend...that technique works with things other than "buzzes" also.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

This topic has turned into a very interesting one to watch. Whatever happened to "hyper", the member who started this topic?

hey, I am only on pg. 7, trying to catch up. This thing has gotten out of my hands over Christmas. When I catch up, I will join back in.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And Wande, I think Hyper finished his school assignment and has moved on.

Hey, i resent that, like I said, I will be there in a min. I am a busy "girl"

0 Replies

hyper426 wrote:

hey, I am only on pg. 7, trying to catch up. This thing has gotten out of my hands over Christmas. When I catch up, I will join back in.

hyper,

glad you came back. our discussion of your topic never went beyond the u.s. system of democracy. mostly people have been debating "under god" in the pledge.

0 Replies

that's all I have been getting so far, sounds like more fun ahead. On pg. 10 now.

hey everyone else, wandel has a good idea, let's leave America, and talk about something else?

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

The phrase is declaring factually, There is a god.

This directly denounces all persons who believe otherwise as incorrect.

I know I am still far behind, but I wanted to address my way of thinking on this. I currently don't have a religion, but I still agree with Fox. In my mind, because I don't believe in God, the phrase is addressing our heritage, which was even more predominately Christian than at present. Our nations was founded by people who recognized the importance of religion to a overwhelming majority, and we are pledging to their legacy, not the religion itself.

0 Replies

Wow Hyper, way to go. Three-dimensional thinkers are in short supply here.

I bet you can even memtally translate words like "mankind' into 'humankind' without being traumatized or feeling victimized.

Personally I think the ACLU and some judges have way exceeded their constiutitonal authority in their attempt to enforce a mythical separation of church and state. The founders never intended that government should have the power to ban religious expression anywhere. They really wouldn't like what has been happening here for the last couple of decades.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Wow Hyper, way to go. Three-dimensional thinkers are in short supply here.

I bet you can even memtally translate words like "mankind' into 'humankind' without being traumatized or feeling victimized.

Personally I think the ACLU and some judges have way exceeded their constiutitonal authority in their attempt to enforce a mythical separation of church and state. The founders never intended that government should have the power to ban religious expression anywhere. They really wouldn't like what has been happening here for the last couple of decades.

TRANSLATION: F..k those people who are not superstitious like us. We want our country to kiss some god's ass...and who really give a shyt about a bunch of heathens. They'll do things our way and like it...no matter how arbitrary we are being.

"Three dimensional thinking" my ass.

Luck for this Republic that people who think like you have not prevailed regularly...or we would still have slaves...and women would still not be able to vote. You are a sad, myopic bunch trying to pretend intellectualism.

0 Replies

Frank, I am sorry, but I am only on pg.17, and I still find you a DA, because you are so indignant Evil or Very Mad

that you will not listen with an open mind either.
THEY ARE NOT ASKING YOU TO KISS ANY GOD'S ASS!!!!!!!

If there was a smoking gun pointed at my head, or yours, it would be different. And think about this....the people who believe in a god need that belief, athiests don't. Can't you see that because of this, the athiests should have the strength to ignore that phrase, because the religious people don't have the strength to be without it?

0 Replies

Quote:

hyper writes
....the people who believe in a god need that belief, athiests don't. Can't you see that because of this, the athiests should have the strength to ignore that phrase, because the religious people don't have the strength to be without it?

Well I probably wouldn't have put it exactly like that, I think, but the point is excellent Hyper. What is tolerance anyway but noninterference with another's preference, action, condition, or situation? And while I think there are times when tolerance is not called for, I would be just as adament about defending your right to not believe, with no fear of retaliation or repercussion, in whatever is not believable to you. That costs me nothing no matter how much I might disagree.

0 Replies

Frank:-

Hopeless definition.

Take four 1/4 buzzes or 7 1/7 buzzes.or !0 to the power of minus X buzzes put together 10 to the power of X times.

What's a full buzz.I don't like doing empty ones.

spendius.

0 Replies

hyper426 wrote:

Frank, I am sorry, but I am only on pg.17, and I still find you a DA

What is a DA?

Quote:

...because you are so indignant that you will not listen with an open mind either.

I am listening with a VERY OPEN MIND.

Quote:

THEY ARE NOT ASKING YOU TO KISS ANY GOD'S ASS!!!!!!!

I did not say they were asking me to do it. I merely said they were doing it!

Quote:

If there was a smoking gun pointed at my head, or yours, it would be different.

Wake up! The phrase "..one nation, under god..." is ABSOLUTELY NOT NEEDED IN THE PLEDGE. It is there gratuitously. One can feel as much loyalty to his/her country without it being a nation under any gods.

If you don't like standing up for your rights...don't. But to advise other not to also...is presumptuous.

If everyone caved into the whims of the majority...this would be a nation dedicated to white Christians.

Where the hell is the your sense of indignation at this kind of thing.

If our founding fathers had taken the same cavalier attituted toward this kind of thing....we'd still be singing "God Save the Queen!"

Quote:

And think about this....the people who believe in a god need that belief, athiests don't.

Who cares if they have their beliefs...or their guesses...or their superstitions?

I don't.

But they should not intrude their simplistic beliefs in things that belong to the general public....like the pledge of allegiance.

Quote:

Can't you see that because of this, the athiests should have the strength to ignore that phrase, because the religious people don't have the strength to be without it?

I don't care what athesits feel about it. I am not an atheist.

And if it became necessary for the sensitivities of the majority Christians to include a phrase like "...one nation, under Jesus Christ..." would you councel people to ignore that also? Because they need it!

If it baecame necessary for the sensitivities of the majority caucasians to include a phrase like "...one nation, predominantly white..." would you councel people to ignore that also. Because they need it.

Instead of telling others to open their minds, Hyper...perhaps you ought to open yours.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Frank:-

Hopeless definition.

Take four 1/4 buzzes or 7 1/7 buzzes.or !0 to the power of minus X buzzes put together 10 to the power of X times.

What's a full buzz.I don't like doing empty ones.

spendius.

What the hell are you talking about?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
hyper writes
....the people who believe in a god need that belief, athiests don't. Can't you see that because of this, the athiests should have the strength to ignore that phrase, because the religious people don't have the strength to be without it?

Well I probably wouldn't have put it exactly like that, I think, but the point is excellent Hyper. What is tolerance anyway but noninterference with another's preference, action, condition, or situation? And while I think there are times when tolerance is not called for, I would be just as adament about defending your right to not believe, with no fear of retaliation or repercussion, in whatever is not believable to you. That costs me nothing no matter how much I might disagree.

Yeah...sure you would. Talk is cheap.

0 Replies

train of thought
alright, so a democracy is a form of government by the people, whether directly (pure democracy) or indirectly (republican democracy). it cannot be said that one is better than another. in a direct democracy, majority must rule, even if it's very close. in a republican democracy, the effect is pretty much the same, only more qualified people are representing the majorities adn minorities. anyway, the crux of this is that a separation of church adn state is not inherent in the idea of a democracy. if the majority wants a national religion, then it is so. problems arize when minorities disagree with this, so it is good to have a separation of church and state because then the minority religions are not upset, right? but does that have anything to do with how good of a democracy it is? define: strict. a moderate separation of church and state might be good, but what if it goes too far? is not establishing a national religion a 'loose' separation, but then public govt branches cannot express religion, they must remain neutral, is this 'strict'? which best serves a democracy? does the latter have anything to do with a democracy? or is that rather human rights??.... but then isn't a democracy where the people are endowed with 'formal equal rights and privileges? therefore a separation of church adn state re-inforces the tenets of a good democracy. so then is the question between a 'good' democracy and a 'better' democracy?

a democracy represents and excecutes the people's wishes, yes? alright, so if the people wish a national religion, then they should get it. is a democracy founded on majority rules, or in equal representation. the latter. ok, so everyone should be equal. which means neutrality. so no religion. ...

any comments are welcome, my mind is jumbled.

0 Replies

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know