NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is an accurate scenario for the conclusion of the "Under God" debate.
"One nation... under God... indivisible..."
:) :) :) :) :)
:) :) :) :) :)
:) :) :) :) :)
:) :) :) :( :)
:) :) :) :) :)
*takes everyone to court, saying "Under God" is unconstitutional and using his daughter to justify his views*
"One nation... indivisible..."
:( :( :( :( :(
:( :( :( :( :(
:( :( :( :( :(
:( :( :( :D :(
:( :( :( :( :(

Here's a accurate summary of racial rights, circa 1950:

"Black people should be kept seperate and not be allowed to trespass in whitey's world."

:) :) :) :) :)
:) :) :) :) :)
:) :) :) :) :)
:) :) :) :( :)
:) :) :) :) :)

"Black people are citizens, too, and deserve the same rights and privaledges as white people."

:( :( :( :( :(
:( :( :( :( :(
:( :( :( :( :(
:( :( :( :) :(
:( :( :( :( :(

It's called "tyrrany of the majority," and America's government was founded in a way specifically designed to protect against it. deal, or leave the country.

Hmm...

I note a bias from the poster of this. Fair enough. We all have biases.
Hard to say if it's "accurate", though, until the poll is complete.

I'm happy that courts allow you to swear on other holy books or merely to affirm if you wish it (i.e. if you've no belief or are agnostic).
If that is allowed, then surely the same liberty should be allowed, even
if only as a trial in certain circumstances.

I'm undergoing something similar here in New Zealand.
I'm a citizen of another country, looking to become a New Zealand
citizen. They allow you to choose whether or not you wish to swear
an oath, or merely to affirm (affirmation does not require a pledge to
any concept of deity, but both are legitimate).

The best- in fact only- argument I have heard for keeping under god in the pledge is the one that will absolutely never work. "We should just leave it alone, who cares whether it's there or not, if you don't like it don't say it, there's no reason to change it, it's tradition, we don't need more government regulating this kind of stuff- we need less"
You can't use the momentum argument for this issue- the momentum has already been disrupted. That's WHY "under god" is there at all.
Reminds me of the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act. If anyone protests "under god" they're obviously a commie, if anyone protests the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act they're obviously a terrorist.
Brilliant, really

Here's a accurate summary of racial rights, circa 1950:

"Black people should be kept seperate and not be allowed to trespass in whitey's world."

:) :) :) :) :)
:) :) :) :) :)
:) :) :) :) :)
:) :) :) :( :)
:) :) :) :) :)

"Black people are citizens, too, and deserve the same rights and privaledges as white people."

:( :( :( :( :(
:( :( :( :( :(
:( :( :( :( :(
:( :( :( :) :(
:( :( :( :( :(

It's called "tyrrany of the majority," and America's government was founded in a way specifically designed to protect against it. deal, or leave the country.

Sort of like South Africa under times of Apartheid.
Only not everyone got the opportunity to "leave the country" in either
situation.

The best- in fact only- argument I have heard for keeping under god in the pledge is the one that will absolutely never work. "We should just leave it alone, who cares whether it's there or not, if you don't like it don't say it, there's no reason to change it, it's tradition, we don't need more government regulating this kind of stuff- we need less"


yeah, and the only problem with that is that the original pledge DIDN'T HAVE "UNDER GOD" IN IT. "Under God" was added during the Cold War in an political manuever to distinguish the wonderful virtuous Americans from the evil Godless Russians.

What I was trying to get across to all of you with this post is that religion is a subject that the government can't not take a side on. If you are for religion, the athiests complain. If you aren't everyone else does. The government is going to have to take a stance on it sooner or later.

I don't see these athiests complaining whenever "goddamn" is used by Hollywood. They only whine when religion is protrayed in a positive manner.

I think it is shameful to compare this whining over the pledge with the Civil Rights Movement. Are athiests forced to sit at the back of the bus? Have they been terrorized by lynch mobs?

Nothing good can come from the "Under God" debate, because no matter what, somebody's going to be unhappy at the end of it.

"Black people are citizens, too, and deserve the same rights and privaledges as white people."
:( :( :( :( :(
:( :( :( :( :(
:( :( :( :( :(
:( :( :( :) :(
:( :( :( :( :( By the way, there were many whites that supported the civil rights movement. However, when it came to documenting the movement, that little fact was swept under the rug. Not all white americans had a robe and hood hidden in the back of their closets.

This is a more accurate representation:
"Black people are citizens, too, and deserve the same rights and privaledges as white people."
:( :( :o :) :)
:shock: :) :) :) :wink:
:) :( :) :) :)
:? :) :? :D :)
:) :) :o :) :)

Well, since you took god... then ummm..

Canada one nation under the tooth fairy.. well or Santa Claus.. they're both as real as god (is not) :P

Well, since you took god... then ummm..

Canada one nation under the tooth fairy.. well or Santa Claus.. they're both as real as god (is not) :P

Woohoo! The tooth fairy gives cash!

Mind you... presents...

tough choice.

They both also are renowned B&E experts who stalk children looking for spare body parts or to pass judgement on their "goodness".

Hmm - in that respect Santa seems more like God. Judgmental.

The tooth fairy it is!

:lol:

It's called "tyrrany of the majority," and America's government was founded in a way specifically designed to protect against it. deal, or leave the country.
Protect the minorities, but don't let them rule the majority.

What I was trying to get across to all of you with this post is that religion is a subject that the government can't not take a side on. If you are for religion, the athiests complain. If you aren't everyone else does. The government is going to have to take a stance on it sooner or later.


No. The only position the government needs to take on religion is "if you want it, go ahead and enjoy it, and we won't let anyone else deny you that right". Beyond that, what possible "side of religion" do they need to take?

I think it is shameful to compare this whining over the pledge with the Civil Rights Movement. Are athiests forced to sit at the back of the bus? Have they been terrorized by lynch mobs?


No. The pledge just insists that in order to pledge alleigance to your country using the standard wording you must also pledge alleigance to a God you may not believe in. This forces people to be hipocrites in order to express patriotism with the rest of their countrymen, or forces them to exclude themselves from that expression of patriotism to keep true to their beliefs.


Nothing good can come from the "Under God" debate, because no matter what, somebody's going to be unhappy at the end of it.

So why bring it up then? Just get your view in and then state that it's not really worth debating?

That's an interesting debating technique.

-Z-

I don't see these athiests complaining whenever "goddamn" is used by Hollywood. They only whine when religion is protrayed in a positive manner.


most atheists tend to also be on the more liberal side of the political spectrum, and hence are fond of freedom of speech. whether or not people chose to use religiously-based curse words is not a matter for the government to deal with. atheists tend to be more concerned about God being imprinted in government, through things like the pledge...there's a big difference in the issues, one which i am surprised you are unable to see.


I think it is shameful to compare this whining over the pledge with the Civil Rights Movement. Are athiests forced to sit at the back of the bus? Have they been terrorized by lynch mobs?


yes. despite making up only about 2% of the American population, atheists and "firm agnostics" make up almost 10% of hate crime victims. in fact, the current president of our country has specifically stated that he isn't sure atheists should even be considered citizens. i would say that's a serious problem, wouldn't you?


Nothing good can come from the "Under God" debate, because no matter what, somebody's going to be unhappy at the end of it.

fortunately our system of law isn't about making people happy, it's about making people equal. many people were unhappy when segregation was ended, but that doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do or that "no good came of it." plenty of good can come without everybody being happy, and many times you know you're on the right track specifically because a bunch of people are mad.

It's called "tyrrany of the majority," and America's government was founded in a way specifically designed to protect against it. deal, or leave the country.
Protect the minorities, but don't let them rule the majority.
it's not the minority ruling, it's the LAW. equal rights and justice should rule, not one group or agenda. the majority shouldn't win just because it's the majority, nor should the minority get special treatment just for being the minority.

"Black people are citizens, too, and deserve the same rights and privaledges as white people."
:( :( :( :( :(
:( :( :( :( :(
:( :( :( :( :(
:( :( :( :) :(
:( :( :( :( :( By the way, there were many whites that supported the civil rights movement. However, when it came to documenting the movement, that little fact was swept under the rug. Not all white americans had a robe and hood hidden in the back of their closets.

This is a more accurate representation:
"Black people are citizens, too, and deserve the same rights and privaledges as white people."
:( :( :o :) :)
:shock: :) :) :) :wink:
:) :( :) :) :)
:? :) :? :D :)
:) :) :o :) :)

doesn't matter though, right? because it was still a minority of people. and since some people were unhappy that means no good came of the civil rights movement or equal rights for blacks, right? that's what you claim, after all.

It's called "tyrrany of the majority," and America's government was founded in a way specifically designed to protect against it. deal, or leave the country.
Protect the minorities, but don't let them rule the majority.
it's not the minority ruling, it's the LAW. equal rights and justice should rule, not one group or agenda. the majority shouldn't win just because it's the majority, nor should the minority get special treatment just for being the minority.

I believe the Supreme Court told its opinion on that matter in the Michigan U case.

i want jack chicks opinion of the majority of the debates on NS

It's called "tyrrany of the majority," and America's government was founded in a way specifically designed to protect against it. deal, or leave the country.
Protect the minorities, but don't let them rule the majority.
it's not the minority ruling, it's the LAW. equal rights and justice should rule, not one group or agenda. the majority shouldn't win just because it's the majority, nor should the minority get special treatment just for being the minority.

I believe the Supreme Court told its opinion on that matter in the Michigan U case.

quite possible, i seem to remember something along those lines. i totally agree with you that minorities shouldn't be allowed to dominate just because (after all, i'm opposed to many "minority-friendly" things like affirmitive action), i simply think that the "Under God" case isn't an example of minorities versus majorities...i think it is a case of blatant political pandering becoming a devisive force in America for no reason other than a few people's misguided belief that their religious feelings are more important that others'.

Yeah and besides.. god doesn't give you money OR presents.. god sucks..lol :mrgreen:

and vengeful at that

and vengeful at that

I mean I have heard of a family grudge before.. but 6000 years.. like so get over it! :lol:

like dude, god sucks

like dude, god sucks
hey now, God's a lot of fun. he's got some killer houses all over the world, and he sure knows where it's at when it comes to raining down sulfur or eradicating heathen non-believers. and if you wanna see a dude barbeque...well, i don't need to tell you that He's got skills.

What I was trying to get across to all of you with this post is that religion is a subject that the government can't not take a side on. If you are for religion, the athiests complain. If you aren't everyone else does. The government is going to have to take a stance on it sooner or later.

I don't see these athiests complaining whenever "goddamn" is used by Hollywood. They only whine when religion is protrayed in a positive manner.

I think it is shameful to compare this whining over the pledge with the Civil Rights Movement. Are athiests forced to sit at the back of the bus? Have they been terrorized by lynch mobs?

Nothing good can come from the "Under God" debate, because no matter what, somebody's going to be unhappy at the end of it.
Huh...I didn't realize that the government was making these movies with the word "god" (in any form) in it. Not to mention, opening nearly every class in the public schools in the country with a viewing of these movies

you have to admit, he knows how to extract vengence

you have to admit, he knows how to extract vengence

and what about the children? All those starving babies.. you'd of thunk some one would of sicced child services after god by now.. but noooooo! He must be a Republican.. in fact I'm sure he is.. LOL

omg! god is a republican!

What I was trying to get across to all of you with this post is that religion is a subject that the government can't not take a side on. If you are for religion, the athiests complain. If you aren't everyone else does. The government is going to have to take a stance on it sooner or later.

I don't see these athiests complaining whenever "goddamn" is used by Hollywood. They only whine when religion is protrayed in a positive manner.

I think it is shameful to compare this whining over the pledge with the Civil Rights Movement. Are athiests forced to sit at the back of the bus? Have they been terrorized by lynch mobs?

Nothing good can come from the "Under God" debate, because no matter what, somebody's going to be unhappy at the end of it.
Huh...I didn't realize that the government was making these movies with the word "god" (in any form) in it. Not to mention, opening nearly every class in the public schools in the country with a viewing of these movies

haven't you heard? any time anybody asks that Christianity be kept seperate from government in any way that constitutes "anti-Christian bigotry." it's the Christians who are really being oppressed in America, so we need to keep God in the Pledge and in the government to ensure that the horrible liberal gay atheist hippies don't lead all our children into Hell.

I like "under God" because it lends humility, it says the nation is NOT supreme, that it stands UNDER some othe authority.

But when I tried to lower the height of the flagpole in my old church in order to symbolize this humility I nearly got crucified.

I like "under God" because it lends humility, it says the nation is NOT supreme, that it stands UNDER some othe authority.

But when I tried to lower the height of the flagpole in my old church in order to symbolize this humility I nearly got crucified.

i like that sentiment, but i would prefer that we find an authority that all citizens can agree our nation is "under." i am not under God, nor do i believe my country is, and i certainly don't think the laws of my country should be humbled before superstition. i'm not alone in this feeling, and i am concerned at how devisive a force this "under God" is, considering that it is a part of what should be one of the most unifying rituals in America.

Yeah and besides.. god doesn't give you money OR presents.. god sucks..lol :mrgreen:

Well I got presents from God, so you must have just been very naughty. :P :wink:

Maybe something that says that we are part of a greater whole, like "one nation, part of this world." Though I'm sure there are people who would disagree with that too.

Just a side question for Bottle, where did Bush say that he wasn't sure if athesists should be considered citizens? I'm not doubting you. I just hadn't heard that one and I'd like to see the context and what else he was running his mouth about at the time. Thanks.

i want jack chicks opinion of the majority of the debates on NSMichael Newdow is defending his case to the Supreme Court. Actually, he's screaming his case. His face is all distorted and wrinkly and the spit is spraying from his mouth. He says that God is a hoax, that anyone who believes in God is stupid, and that only atheists should be allowed to hold public office. Clarence Thomas says that belief in Jesus is the only way to get into Heaven. Newdow cries, gets on his knees, begs God for forgiveness, and says he wants to accept Jesus into his life. And his face returns to a more natural shape

edit: I realized that my spoof of Jack Chick is too close to how some people describe Newdow so I need to clear something up. According to summaries and commentaries made by people who watched the oral defenses, Newdow and Thomas didn't say or do anything even remotely resembling any of the things in that Jack Chick spoof

Interesting article re. the Pledge deliberations:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040412&s=wieseltier041204

Everyone knows that "Under God" is one and the same as racial oppression. Sheesh. :roll:

Everyone knows that "Under God" is one and the same as racial oppression. Sheesh. :roll:

well, yes and no. it certainly represents the interests of one group being placed above those of a minority, and it is a senseless and artificial division between otherwise equal citizens of America. racial oppression took many forms, some of which were about on par with the "Under God" problem. other forms of racial oppression were more or less severe. you've got to be more specific with your terms.

So bascially the argument is, "We might as well leave it in because there are going to be people upset either way."

Then, I assume you also feel this way about that little girl and the book, "King and King" or whatever it's called. We might as well leave it in the library because, either way, someone's gonna get their knickers in a twist.

I also assume that you were against the war in Iraq. I mean, we should have just left him in because, no matter what we did, someone was going to be upset.

Golly, how nice that you've absolved yourself from any moral responsibility.