Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

The words are not appropriate to you Frank, but you are not the majority. And it is strictly your opinion. Others have a different opinion. When everything is equal in a democracy and you have a difference of opinion or a difference of preference you take a vote. And the one with the highest number of votes wins. I know it is terribly closed minded to see it that way, but I won't change my mind and I sure you won't either. So there isn't much point in continuing a circular argument I guess.

0 Replies

First thing we gotta do is get a democracy, to hell with thosse fargin' bastiches that gave us the consitution and bill of rights only creating a republic.
One nation, under god, mob rules.(the devil take the hindmost).

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The words are not appropriate to you Frank, but you are not the majority. And it is strictly your opinion. Others have a different opinion. When everything is equal in a democracy and you have a difference of opinion or a difference of preference you take a vote. And the one with the highest number of votes wins. I know it is terribly closed minded to see it that way, but I won't change my mind and I sure you won't either. So there isn't much point in continuing a circular argument I guess.

But the thing you are unwilling to understand and accept, Fox (probably because of your closed mind) is that one of the functions of our laws is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

The phrase "...one nation under god..." is simply not appropriate for the pledge. It would not matter if the phrase were "...one nation under Satan..."...or "...one nation under Demoratic or Republican government..." or anything else of the sort.

The phrase is gratuitous.

It should not be in there.

This is not a question of whether the majority will prevails...but whether or not the majority can insist on something unnecessary simply because it is the majority.

And it should not be able to do so.

Listen...I am under no delusions in this.

The phrase is going to stay there...simply because people like you cannot see that it is wrong to insist that it be there.

I'll live with that.

And at council meetings...I will continue to substitute the word "Zeus" in place of "god"...and laugh at the people who are offended by it.

That makes it a win, win situation.

You people get to suck up to your barbaric god...and we get to laugh at you.

No problem!

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

First thing we gotta do is get a democracy, to hell with thosse fargin' bastiches that gave us the consitution and bill of rights only creating a republic.
One nation, under god, mob rules.(the devil take the hindmost).

Hey, Dys.

I've got no idea of why people like Fox want to live in a nation under that idiot god of theirs...but, they've got the votes and all we got is the right to protest.

I enjoy it.

I love watching these people delude themselves into thinking they are doing what they are doing because of "love" for the monster.

One good thing: Luckily, geography dictates that there are no volcanoes in Israel. If they did have volcanoes there back when they were inventing their god...people like Fox would probably still be explaining why virgins have to be thrown into them.

Wouldn't that be a pisser!

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

But the thing you are unwilling to understand and accept, Fox (probably because of your closed mind) is that one of the functions of our laws is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

YAY, me! My 'tyranny of the majority' reference a few pages back made it into one of Frank's answers.

:wink: Cool

0 Replies

Frank and Foreveryoung seem to think there should be a tyranny of the minority on their issues.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Frank and Foreveryoung seem to think there should be a tyranny of the minority on their issues.

psssssst: Foxfyre, you're just not getting it. Trust me.

0 Replies

then there's alway the thought of zero tyranny. may seem a strange idea to fox but a kindred few of us believe no man is wise enogh to rule another by means of coercion.

0 Replies

That's what I've been saying all along Dys, if anybody was paying attention. But some here seem to think any way but their way is coercive whether they be in the minority or the majority. I say there's a win win solution but it requires one side not insisting that the other give up everything.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

then there's alway the thought of zero tyranny. may seem a strange idea to fox but a kindred few of us believe no man is wise enogh to rule another by means of coercion.

I kinda think that's what Frank and I were getting at. :wink:

0 Replies

zero tyranny= you say whatever oath to god and country you like and allow others the same privilege.
tyranny= you will say (or keep your fringin' mouth shut) whatever the majority(minority) tell you to say.
seems pretty straight forward to me.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

zero tyranny= you say whatever oath to god and country you like and allow others the same privilege.
tyranny= you will say (or keep your fringin' mouth shut) whatever the majority(minority) tell you to say.
seems pretty straight forward to me.

Oops: I guess we aren't quite on the same page after all.

Your definition of zero tyranny would fit in an ideal world, however, in this world, there is still such a thing as coercion. That means 'allowing' others the same 'privilege' isn't actually zero tyranny, IMHO.

0 Replies

Yeah agreed, but I am the product of a liberal education. I got **** for brains. But yeah
"allow" a very poor choice of words.

0 Replies

Fox:
How bout not telling atheists what hurts their feelings, but rather asking them.

I can tell you that I feel for any atheist who has kids that are braving the public schools. You are probably unaware of the level of crap they take from others that know they are atheists. I wasn't about to be the only one that raised my hand when my 12th grade economics teacher asked if anybody didn't believe in god.

Even as you quoted, Eisenhower added those words as "spiritual weapons" during the era of McCarthyism. Spiritual weapons AGAINST the ATHEIST COMMIES. The words were added to attack communism, and particularly, the atheist aspect of communism.

Furthermore, the pledge factually states, as written, that the United States of America is one nation under god. This is a factual declaration that there is a god and that the United States is under said god. This pledge is written on paper, acknowledging a god, in the front of many classrooms across the US.

Furthermore, it is clear that the christian god is implied. Because if it were not, it would be blasphemy for the christians that proposed it to acknowledge said god. As you say, this is tyrrany of the majority. A particular, christian, majority. So the capitalized "God" implies the christian god, since the majority would be blasphemers if they meant anything else. This is the establisment of a religion--christianity--by the printing of materials acknowleging the christian god, the distributing of said printed materials to classrooms all across the country, and the teaching of children to recite this acknowledgment, or be drowned out by all their friends and considered inferior if they have been specifically instructed to be silent by their parents.

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

Fox:
How bout not telling atheists what hurts their feelings, but rather asking them.

I can tell you that I feel for any atheist who has kids that are braving the public schools. You are probably unaware of the level of crap they take from others that know they are atheists. I wasn't about to be the only one that raised my hand when my 12th grade economics teacher asked if anybody didn't believe in god.

Even as you quoted, Eisenhower added those words as "spiritual weapons" during the era of McCarthyism. Spiritual weapons AGAINST the ATHEIST COMMIES. The words were added to attack communism, and particularly, the atheist aspect of communism.

Furthermore, the pledge factually states, as written, that the United States of America is one nation under god. This is a factual declaration that there is a god and that the United States is under said god. This pledge is written on paper, acknowledging a god, in the front of many classrooms across the US.

Furthermore, it is clear that the christian god is implied. Because if it were not, it would be blasphemy for the christians that proposed it to acknowledge said god. As you say, this is tyrrany of the majority. A particular, christian, majority. So the capitalized "God" implies the christian god, since the majority would be blasphemers if they meant anything else. This is the establisment of a religion--christianity--by the printing of materials acknowleging the christian god, the distributing of said printed materials to classrooms all across the country, and the teaching of children to recite this acknowledgment, or be drowned out by all their friends and considered inferior if they have been specifically instructed to be silent by their parents.

Goddam you, Binny...I love ya, man.

Finally...we are shoulder to shoulder. (Except for that atheist stuff, of course...but you understand that.)

Fox will never get it.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

When everything is equal in a democracy and you have a difference of opinion or a difference of preference you take a vote.

We don't live in a democracy, we live in a representative democratic republic. And the first amendment supersedes the opinion of the majority.

You keep saying, "when everything is equal", but everthing is not equal, the law supersedes opinion. Even if you did have a majority, it wouldn't matter at all.

The only thing that matters is how the law is interpreted, and the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of that.

0 Replies

I try not to "get" what simply isn't so. Until the U.S. government refers to a Christian God or Jewish God or Judeochristian God or any other god, I remain convinced that the phrase is as generic as President Eisenhower stated it, and it is just as innocuous and harmless, and nobody.....do you guys get that.....NOBODY is required or expected to say the word if it offends them.

0 Replies

Nine goons (edited because I'm an idiot that thought there are twelve). But this question never made it to the US Supreme Court did it? Just a state supreme court where it got shot down? So you don't get to have a "final arbiter"'s infinite wisdom in this question if it never gets past Paw Tucket in the Alabammey Supreme Court.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I remain convinced that the phrase is as generic as President Eisenhower stated it

If that is so, why didn't they put, "under a god"?

Remember, if you "leave out" those "two little words", you are not reciting the official pledge of the United States.

You are failing to see that The United States government is putting in writing that there is a god. This is a conjecture the US government is making on religious matters (what can be more religious than that question?)
That means the US government has taken an official stance on a religious issue. It has DECLARED: THERE IS A GOD. It has an official position on a religious question that is in writing and in classrooms all across the country. This is to say, anyone who does not believe there is a god is in direct opposition to the officially endorsed and documented opinion of the State: There IS a god. I don't know how many times I'll have to rephrase this, but I'll try as many times as are necessary.

0 Replies

I think they should let those little words right there in the pledge to remind us we don't live in a democratic republic protected by basic concepts of law, privacy and human dignity. we do live in a capitalist theocracy in which the dominate religious nutjobs oppress everyone not to their conformity level. To think for oneself is blasphemy. Let mob rule-RULE!

0 Replies

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know