Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

No problem Frank. I've been otherwise occupied today

Hi everyone, I am a new member here, also a novice debater. I have been reading arguements and opinions from this forum for the last couple resolutions. I think this resolution is an interesting one. But honestly most I see here is about the Pledge thing. I believe separation of church and state is more than just that. It also doesn't not only circle around the power of the Supreme Court and Congress over making laws. And you guys didn't mention much about democracy , how it work (best served) with/without the wall between church and state. Please, help !

Well then, using your own logic, Frank, who are you to say who is hurt by denying people their free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the Constitution? How are you in any way hurt by something "that is meaningless to you as you don't believe it exists and/or that doesn't need to be there" being on a coin or in a pledge when 90+% of Americans do want it there or don't care one way or the other? For many Americans it does mean something, but they neither force or require you to say it, believe it, or even read it.

And nobody yet has addressed my logic in this whole matter other than to build unrelated straw men, precisely:

When it is of a matter that violates nobody's rights but is purely a matter of preference, should not the majority opinion prevail?

And this has nothing to do with race, so let's not even visit that straw man.

The phrase is declaring factually, There is a god.

This directly denounces all persons who believe otherwise as incorrect.

That is to say, it creates a system in which all persons who believe a certain way on a religious question are publicly denounced as fools. After all, only a fool would believe a falsehood. If that is not religious discrimination, then there is no such thing as religious discrimination.

Furthermore, the phrase was added, specifically, and by your own quote, as a spiritual weapon. A weapon (if you know anything about it) against atheism. How could this weapon be used if not to HARM atheists and the atheist message? You use a quote that calls this addition to our pledge a weapon, but then claim it is harmless to everyone. Are weapons not harmful by design?

How does it denounce anybody Binny, if you are not required either to recite it, read it, or believe it?

As a matter of fact, many MANY students are forced to read it. It is plastered in writing in front of many classrooms all across the country. I volunteer in classrooms and I have seen it so don't go thinking otherwise.

And I notice you steer clear of the fact that Eisenhower called the addition a WEAPON, but that you say it harms no one.

Does one have to read recite or believe something for it to denounce them? Since when? George Bush is a jackass. Have I denounced him? Clearly. Has he read this? Clearly not. Has he recited this? I should think not. Does he believe this? Probably not. And yet I have denounced him as a big fat jackass. Try another angle, fox.

Naw, I'll stick with the angle I have since I believe it is the right one for all people, both religious and non-religious, who are rational on this issue.

What angle? I just showed that what you spouted was complete nonsense. If you're so reasonable, show where I'm wrong for all to see.

Nobody makes me read anything, believe anything, recite anything, or reject anything that I do not choose. I'm sorry if that isn't the way it is for you, Binny. Most Americans do exercise their constitutional right to be religious or not and the words in a pledge we are not required to say or engraved on a coin we are not required to read just aren't all that threatening to most of us.

Why would it be threatening to you? It is your weapon against us. It does sound logical, doesn't it? For us to think we are being threatened by your weapons?

Do you not see what you have done? Do you not see the imbalance of your position? You have taken something pure like a pledge to our country and alienated a segment of the population by adding a religious phrase as a weapon against them. Then you make it even worse by saying the whole pledge is optional just to keep your ridiculous phrase. Now the pledge leaves a bad taste in our mouths. It cheapens a country in our minds when that country is waging war on us because of our lack of religious conviction. The very country we're pledging loyalty to is denouncing us as fools in the very pledge it distributes and teaches. And you believe we're being irrational for protesting the presence of this phrase which is a weapon against us?

Irrational? Yes. Unreasonable? Yes. All these things because of what you presume to accuse "us" of. And some of us are simply tired of appeasing the most paranoid and self-serving of society and, unless you can show how your inalienable rights are in any way being infringed, we choose to let the majority rule as it should in any democracy.

You have waged a religious war on us with spiritual weapons through the use of religious phrases directed at the youth of america. And you're right to put "us" in quotations. Because you are not so numerous as you would like to think.

I have been busy stating how my rights have been infringed. And you have been busy ignoring me and plowing on saying that they are not being infringed.

How are you being denied the free exercise of your religion if the words "one nation, under god" is not included in the pledge of allegience? How are you being denied the free exercise of your religion if the words "in god we trust" is not included on our coins?



For the same reasons that I (and everyone) would be "hurt" if the majority of white people wanted the words "one nation, primarily white."

There is no reason for the words being there other than as an "in your face" kind of thing...because you superstitious people think you have to be protected from us non-supertititous people.




Then get it out of there. It is not necessary...and it is not appropriate.

Simply because the majority wants it there does not make it right...and it will never make it necessary or appropriate.





That is absurd. It does violate my rights. The government is as much my government as it is yours. And the "majority opinion" cannot prevail unnecessarily or in an unwarranted way.

It is not the government of the religious...any more than it is the government of the white race.




No...you do not want to visit this because then your specious reasoning would be shown for the nonsense that it is.

This is not a strawman. It is an example of why this crap about "nobody being hurt" or "the majority rules"...simply is inappropriate in this instance.

If a majority of Americans wanted "one nation, primarily white" in that pledge...would you still argue that since non-whites are not required to recite it and are, in your opinion, not hurt by it...it should prevail?

You're tired of appeasing the self-serving. Hmmmm. Your argument is that you have inserted a phrase in a self-serving way, but that it does not harm the minority. When we complain that we are being violated by your self-serving actions, you call US self-serving. We did nothing. We're pissed because of what YOU did to US. In a self-serving action, no less. And then you call US paranoid.

Answer me this:

By your standard (which I will of course hold you to), how could our right to freedom of religion possibly ever be infringed? In other words, by your standard, what good is it?

Welcome to A2K, homeless bird. I am sorry your post got lost among an ongoing dispute about "under god" in the pledge. So far we have not discussed democracy in general (only the U.S. system). As far as the U.S. system, the protection of minority rights can only be resolved by congressional acts and judicial review.

Okay Frank, Binny, and anybody else who cares to chime in, could you please explain:

1. How is race in any way a factor over whether a particular phrase "under God" or "In God we trust" appears in a pledge or on a coin. Please be specific.

2.. How are your rights in any way infringed by the presence of such phrases in a pledge you are not required to believe or say or in an inscription you are not required to believe or read?

And, should you decide that nobody's rights are infringed if the phrases are removed from public view, could you decide that nobody's rights are infringed if the phrases that nobody has to read, say, or believe are in the pledge or on a coin?

So doesn't it all come down to a personal preference? How you think about it? How you feel about it? And if it comes down to how Americans feel or think about something that does not involve their alienable rights, then how do we decide who gets to have their way?

The minority because the minority is you? Or the majority because most think that makes the most sense?

No one has said that it is.

You have said that the "majority" wants a particular phrase in the pledge...and that the majority should prevail. You indicated that the phrase should not hurt anyone, since no one was "required" to recite the pledge.

Using that logic...I am asking you: This is a majority white society. If the majority wanted to put "one nation, primarily caucasian.." into the pledge...would you still hold to that reasoning?

Stop trying to make it seem that I...or anyone else...is saying that "under god" is related to race.

Or for that matter...what if the "majority" wanted "one nation, mostly right handed..."would you still hold to that reasoning?

What makes you think that simply because you are part of a "majority" you can arbitrarily impose your will on this....WHEN THE PHRASE IS NOT NEEDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PLEDGE OR FOR OUR MONEY.

I don't expect you to ever GET this, Fox, because you obviously have closed your mind to the notion that this sucks.




For the same reason people of color would "have their rights infringed" by the presence of a phrase regarding color...or left handed people by a phrase regarding right handedness.

For the same reason it would "infringe on your rights" if the phrase were changed to "one nation, under no gods."

NO PHRASE REGARDING GODS OR COLOR OR CREEDS OR GENDER OR ANY OTHER GODDAM THING IS NEEDED in either the pledge or on our money. It is strictly an IN-YOUR-FACE kind of thing unthinking, supercilious people (of which apparently you are one) want in there to a) pretend they are better than those of us who are not superstitious...and b) to suck up to their barbaric god in hope that it won't condemn them to eternal, excruciating punishment for not kissing its ass enough.

I don't expect you to ever GET this, Fox, because you obviously have closed your mind to the notion that this sucks.







NO! AND I DO NOT THINK THAT "NOBODY'S RIGHTS ARE INFRINGED!" How goddam many times do I...and others...have to tell you this. OUR RIGHTS ARE INFRINGED.

I don't expect you to ever GET this, Fox, because you obviously have closed your mind to the notion that this sucks.






NO...it doesn't come down to a personal preference. Don't you ever listen...don't you use your brain? I've explained that several times...but you have a closed mind on the issue.

And while you are at it...try to understand the difference between "alienable rights" and "unalienable or inalienable rights."

Or, since you seem comfortable alienating us from our rights, was that a Freudian slip?




Once again...you seem to think that the majority can arbitrarily impose its will on the minority.

Why don't you deal with the question that has been asked three times now.

If the minority were not those of us who are not superstitious...but instead, those who are of color...would you still be arguing this way?

Would it still be okay with you if the pledge arbitrarily included the phrase "...one nation, primarily of the caucasian race...?

I am not an American, so my knowøedge of your government is not so great. I chose to ignore most news reports I get from TV, since they, are in the spirit of European thinking, self-glorifying. USA is often presented as the breeding ground of hellish invention. I do not believe that that is true. But anyway, I have a question:

I have heard that nearly half the states in Usa are not allowed to teach evolution theories because of christian lobbyists in the white house. Is it true? If so, how many human rights does that violate? Not just one, that I am sure of.

No, Cyracuz...things are not nearly that bad...

...YET.

I think every one of our states can teach evolution...but several now require that some "religious" explanations also be given.

I think Americans ought to worry less about "theocracies" in the Middle East...and worry more about the potential theocracy right here on our shores.

Although in truth, I think these folks are shooting their load with Bush. My guess is this is the beginning of the end for this kind of extremism.