NationStates Jolt Archive

This an essay i just wrote for school, it basically sends my view point across and wasnt really ment to be posted on this forum but i decided to. Keep in mind that this is not the final copy while your reading it and leav emy grammar alone.
Id like to hear your view points and opinions on this controversial issue

God Must Stay

The phrases “under god” and “in god we trust” are an inherent part of American history and society as we know it today. Any attempts to have these phrases removed from our pledge or currency should be met with firm opposition and the people who push for the removal should be viewed as un patriotic and un American.
“Under god” and “in god we trust” are historic to our country and have been in place for many, many years. “In god we trust” was first placed on American currency in 1909 almost one hundred years ago while “under god” was put into our pledge in 1954 by president Eisenhower over 50 years ago. The removal would mean the loss of American history and the displeasure of the far majority of citizens in our great country.
Adversary’s of this issue would say that this violated the constitution because the first amendment of the constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” They will dissect this sentence and come to the conclusion that government can not honor, respect, or even mention the word god at all. However. The conclusion that I reach when I read that sentence along with the interpretation of many other prominent people including but not limited to Sean Hannity and Oley North is that it means that there can be no state religion. An example of a country with a state religion is the United Kingdom with their church of England also known as the Anglican church. In present day America there is absolutely no chance of that happening, if it were to happen at all it would of occurred a couple hundred years ago when the people of our country were far more religious than they are now. Another way that opponents of freedom and justice might try to have these phrases removed would be by saying god has no reason to be in school and forcing their children to say “under god” during the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional. Very true, but because in 1943, 11 years before “under god” was placed into the pledge, congress ruled that school children could not be compelled to recite the pledge of allegiance. Destroying their argument and limiting them to secular whiners.
On December 21, 1620, the pilgrims landed in the United States of America. Why you may ask did they leave England, Ireland, and France to come here? Because they wanted to be able to practice religion, no matter which it may be, freely and without the fear of being persecuted for what they said, wrote, or believed. If William Bradford or any other pilgrim were around today to see that some people are trying to get “under god” and “in god we trust” removed form our currency they would go insane with anger because it would be against their entire reason for coming to America. The same goes for George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton and all the other founding fathers of our country. If they were alive today they would be greatly disrespected that people could interpret their words in such a way as to keep god out of our country.
Another thing to be worried about is what could follow suit if these phrases were removed. Would it then become illegal to utter the words “god bless you” upon the sneezing of an individual? If these phrases were to be removed then in the foreseeable future I wouldn’t be surprised if “god bless you” was banned from all areas outside of a church.
The removal of “under god’ and “in god we trust” will be a sad day in American history and must not be allowed to occur. Several reasons for which I have just stated above but there are really thousands of great arguments for keeping them. Il end this with a quote by Thomas Jefferson, “A morsel of genuine history as a thing so rare as to be always valuable.”

Yay! Hooray for revisionist history!

you should have ended with this Thomas Jefferson quote:
"I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature.....Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make half the world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world."

Honestly, I HIGHLY doubt the words "under God" would seriously offend anyone reading it.

Keep it ... don't keep it ... I don't care. I don't say the Pledge. I'm Muslim and only swear allegiance to Allah.

Keep it ... don't keep it ... I don't care. I don't say the Pledge. I'm Muslim and only swear allegiance to Allah.

It's not asking you to swear allegiance to a deity, just to a country.

Honestly, I HIGHLY doubt the words "under God" would seriously offend anyone reading it.
It doesn't offend me. Too much. What offends me is the social ostracism that comes from not saying the pledge as well as the inherent unconstitutionality of the words "under God".

It's not asking you to swear allegiance to a deity, just to a country.

Actually, it says it is swearing allegiance to a flag. A piece of cloth. That's not the point, though. Allegiance should only be to Allah, not to a country or to any of its symbols.

It's not asking you to swear allegiance to a deity, just to a country.
Which is just as abhorrent.

It doesn't offend me. Too much. What offends me is the social ostracism that comes from not saying the pledge as well as the inherent unconstitutionality of the words "under God".

Yes, since it's supposedly illegal to say anything religion-related in anything Government-related.

Face it, the only way to have complete seperation of church and state is to ban religion completely. And that won't happen.

Face it, the only way to have complete seperation of church and state is to ban religion completely.
Might you explain how that is? I can't see the logic there...

Face it, the only way to have complete seperation of church and state is to ban religion completely. And that won't happen.

Nah ... just keep them separate. I don't want the government telling me that I can't buy whiskey on Sundays (not that I would, but the choice should be mine) just because the Christians say so any more than the Christians want the government telling them they have to break for prayer 5 times a day just because Muslims say so.

Government and law should be secular. If you cannot find a secular reason to keep a law, then get rid of it.

Originally Posted by Haloman
Face it, the only way to have complete seperation of church and state is to ban religion completely.

In a Republic it is basically inevitable that people of faith vote. It is likely that when they vote they will vote for somebody or similar faith. Unless you propse to outlaw all religion and religious sentiment (which is highly impractical and virtually impossible), disenfranchise faithful voters (but that constitution gets in the way again, doesn't it?), or move to a country peopled entirely by atheists (which doesn't exist as of 8:24 EST on February 14, 2005, the Feast of St. Cyril, not Valentine), there is no way to remove religion from the process.

The difference between that and having the word God on money is a big one, but Haloman is right. Incedentally, despite being a patriotic american Catholic, I don't say the pledge either, because if an american flag ever told me to do something, I'd probably seek powerful anit-psychotics, which is hardly a sign of alliegence.

In a Republic it is basically inevitable that people of faith vote. It is likely that when they vote they will vote for somebody or similar faith. Unless you propse to outlaw all religion and religious sentiment (which is highly impractical and virtually impossible), disenfranchise faithful voters (but that constitution gets in the way again, doesn't it?), or move to a country peopled entirely by atheists (which doesn't exist as of 8:24 EST on February 14, 2005, the Feast of St. Cyril, not Valentine), there is no way to remove religion from the process.
Short of having a law against religion affecting government or vice-versa.
I don't mind that people of religious faith are elected, that's cool by me, but when they start trying to legislate in a direction based on the assumption that their religion is absolutely true, that's when there becomes a problem. If one simply said, as Keruvalia mentioned, "If you cannot find a secular reason to keep a law, then get rid of it," you could fix the problem in all respects I can see.

I'm sorry, but your essay has major problems.

Example you state it that anyone trying to get rid of 'under God' and similar is un American and un patriotic. I suggest that many people who hold American citizenship and who love America also wish to get rid of 'under God' references such as you refer to. As a matter of fact your assertion simply isnt true, and further the only reason I can see for such untrue and inflammitory comments, is a misguided attempt to inject emotionalism. As hoc attacks are counterproductive to good essay writing.

You then note the length of time that the references have been in place.

“Under god” and “in god we trust” are historic to our country and have been in place for many, many years.
Well so is crime (something that is historic to the US and has been in place there for many many years), but I dont see any reason to not attempt to eliminate it...your argument is invalid. It is simply not true that if something has been in place for many many years, that this is either a reason to keep it in place, or a counter argument to suggestions that it be removed.

You state that adversaries would come to one conclusion, then state that the conclusion does not match your own, yet you offer no good reason why anyone should find your conclusion meritous, much less correct.

Destroying their argument and limiting them to secular whiners.
This is probably the most ill-concieved line in your essay. Ad hoc attacks are counterproductive to good essay writing.
Evidently your counter argument to it being unconstitutional, is not complete. Such objectors I have encountered, have argued that it is unconstitutional because their children are either forced to say it or forced to be excluded, that is they are forced to participate in what is clearly a religious based reference and endorsement of certain religions, or to accept a lesser participation in their educational experiance.

You have failed to prove why the Pilgrims you referred to came, you have also failed to prove why those pilgrims' intentions are more significant than those who came to America before and after them. You have also failed to establish that the assertions you made about 'all the founding fathers' are true of even one of the founding fathers, much less all of them.

You have failed to show that anyone is attempting to interpret the words of the founding fathers to keep God out of the country.
Another thing to be worried about is what could follow suit if these phrases were removed. Would it then become illegal to utter the words “god bless you” upon the sneezing of an individual? If these phrases were to be removed then in the foreseeable future I wouldn’t be surprised if “god bless you” was banned from all areas outside of a church.
Do you know what a slippery slope fallacy is, how to recognise one, and why you shouldnt use them? If not, I suggest you find out before you hand in your essay (I believe there is a good link about this and similar fallacies in the general forum, I think it might be stickied).

Your closing paragraph is poor, as is your opening paragraph. The closing should summarise the points you have made and posit your conclusion accordingly. The opening should basically 'map out' what you will say in the rest of the essay.

Good Luck with your essay.

OK, you want to know how I would critique it?

I could answer with one word: harshly.

However, if you want specifics:

First, if you want to express an expert opinion on the intent of the First Ammendment, try picking a Constitutional lawyer who has expressed a matching opinion. Hannity and North may be "prominent people", however careers as pundits and soldiers do not equate to relevance on this particular issue

Second, equating those who wish those phrases removed to being "opponents of freedom and justice" is... well... how the heck do you make THAT leap? Will the people be enslaved and the court system collapse without those words?

Third, you are arguing why those phrases should stay and bring up the Church of England for no particular reason that is apparent to the reader. Those who want those phrases removed are not accusing anyone of creating a Church of America. It's irrelevant.

Fourth, the pilgrims and the forefathers "going insane" is over the top rhetoric unless you can demonstrate that they had those phrases on their currency or in their pledge. Frankly, the pilgrims left Holland because it was TOO permissive. And given that you have already demonstrated that these phrases were put in place hundreds of years AFTER the founding fathers, clearly they did not have a strong feeling about putting those references in place at the time.

Perhaps though, you could ask if you could have just one slave to keep another fitting morsel of Jefferson's valuable history intact.

Sorry, but this ranks as about the least compelling argument I've heard on this issue. Full of passion to be sure, but short of relevant facts.

Not only have you not destroyed any arguments from "secular whiners", you haven't made your argument either.

Just because something has existed does not mean that it should continue to do so.
And Jefferson was a diest, and damn close to a secularist, and today I'm sure he'd fight tooth and nail to get these things out of our pledge and our money. They are the product of poor, paranoid times, and need to be eliminated so that we can move forward.
Also, you are a very poor writer.
Another thing to be worried about is what could follow suit if these phrases were removed. Would it then become illegal to utter the words “god bless you” upon the sneezing of an individual? If these phrases were to be removed then in the foreseeable future I wouldn’t be surprised if “god bless you” was banned from all areas outside of a church.
This is, to this day, the STUPIDEST argument I've ever heard. Ever. In my life.
wow, that was stupid. I feel stupider just from having read it.

It would not become illegal to say "God" because we are protected by the SAME first amendment that protects us from being forced to go to church, or being forced to say prayers in school.

Honestly, I HIGHLY doubt the words "under God" would seriously offend anyone reading it.

It's tacky. It's stupid. It shows how pathetic and feeble minded Americans are. At least with the queen there's some proof of existence and reason to show respect.

For someone who believes in gods, you really should use the capital G for your stupid Judeo-Christian diety.

For someone who believes in gods, you really should use the capital G for your stupid Judeo-Christian diety.
It is in the coded form.

For someone who believes in gods, you really should use the capital G for your stupid Judeo-Christian diety.

*applause*

P.S., you should remove the "Merry Christmas" from your sig.! :D

Now, onto the essay:

Bad. I'd give it, probably 30% at best.

Less fallacies, more [valid] points, more structure.

I received more critisizm then i ever could of imagined when i made this thread. When i poste dthe essay on nation states i shouldve known that most of the critisizm would be from people who believe "under God" and "in God we trust" should be removed from our pledge and our currency. Now where to start responding to your rude critisizms? Il start with the "God bless you" part of my essay. The intention of writeinig that was for it to be an example of who ludicris this idea is to me and was suppos eto be a little light humor in the essay. Also with the questioning of my refering to the founding fathers, i agree that i have no proof of exactly what they would of thought, but this is my essay and i incorporated my oppinions into it along with my interpretation of the constitution. I also found the attacks on my writing highly uneccesary and driven only because of your unagreement of my view points. And with the capital G in God i know i shuoldve but when writing i didnt. Stay to the topic htough of somehting that matters.

I received more critisizm then i ever could of imagined when i made this thread. When i poste dthe essay on nation states i shouldve known that most of the critisizm would be from people who believe "under God" and "in God we trust" should be removed from our pledge and our currency. Now where to start responding to your rude critisizms? Il start with the "God bless you" part of my essay. The intention of writeinig that was for it to be an example of who ludicris this idea is to me and was suppos eto be a little light humor in the essay. Also with the questioning of my refering to the founding fathers, i agree that i have no proof of exactly what they would of thought, but this is my essay and i incorporated my oppinions into it along with my interpretation of the constitution. I also found the attacks on my writing highly uneccesary and driven only because of your unagreement of my view points. And with the capital G in God i know i shuoldve but when writing i didnt. Stay to the topic htough of somehting that matters.

I don't mean to critisize you in that way, I'm just pointing out that you use a lot of fallacies and your structure is quite weak. Nothing personal, just a thought from a person who gets 100% on English ISUs (not bragging, just pointing out my "credentials", so to say ;) ).

Hmmm, well if you don't want criticism - don't post something as a school essay and ask for opinions.


Because around here people have them!

Now, you can take the criticism as a "rude" personal attack, or you can try and consider if their might be something to them regarding the way you presented your case.


However if you want to dismiss criticisms of the way you present an argument as being only driven by a disagreement with the point of view expressed in your esay, then I think you are missing an opportunity to improve your skills. Because if you read most of the points given you will note that they primarily critique your style - not your content.

I received more critisizm then i ever could of imagined when i made this thread.
So things worked out better than you had expected, or was your intention something other than an attempt to get constructive feedback that would help you to hand in a better essay than that you had already writen?

When i poste dthe essay on nation states i shouldve known that most of the critisizm would be from people who believe "under God" and "in God we trust" should be removed from our pledge and our currency.
Really, you should have known that those who would attempt to help you most, would be those who dont share your veiw points? I'm a bit confused because the most substantive and criticisms dont appear to state the poster's views either way.
I'm beginning to suspect that your intention wasnt to seek genuine constructive feedback at all. I dont see a single word of thanks from you for the posters who took time out their lives, to give to you free of charge, services that people normatively expect to pay for. Perhaps rather than wanting genuine feedback, you just wanted some pats on the back? If this is so, I suggest your grades should be more important to you than your ego.

Now where to start responding to your rude critisizms?
Not a single one of my criticisms was rude. Certainly few of the posts are so rude as to state that people who have opposing views (to the poster's own), are not citizens of their own countries, have no patriotism, and are 'whiners'....if you think that such responses as you have recieved are 'rude' in the context of an informal internet forum, what exactly do you imagine the essay marker will think of you referring to those you disagree with as being non-citizen, unpatriotic whiners?

Il start with the "God bless you" part of my essay. The intention of writeinig that was for it to be an example of who ludicris this idea is to me and was suppos eto be a little light humor in the essay.
If you are referring to the slipperly slope (we wont be able to say god bless if someone sneezes) nonesence, it isnt humourous, nor does it appear to be an attempt at humour, from the point of veiw of a casual reader. Your intentions do not matter nearly so much as the impression your words create in the mind of the essay marker. The only thing the statement gives the appearence of being ludicrous to, is your reasoning. If you insist on including a badly presented, slippery slope argument, there's not a lot I can do to help you except reiterate that it is a silly argument, that makes you look at least a little silly, and it's inclusion is utterly discrediting to any point you are trying to make.
Also with the questioning of my refering to the founding fathers, i agree that i have no proof of exactly what they would of thought, but this is my essay and i incorporated my oppinions into it along with my interpretation of the constitution.
The problem is an essay isnt an editorial. An essay should present an examination of facts. Yes your opinion certainly should come into it, but your opinion should be about the facts, not in place of the facts. A good essay doesnt offer any opinion on anything except facts established in the essay (including citations of properly referenced facts proven elsewhere). Furthermore no opinion that isnt substantiated by a sound argument belongs in an essay. Just like any facts you bring up, you need to demonstrate the logical rationale which led to your opinions. You dont do so with regards to your interpretation of the founding fathers' thoughts, nor with regards to your interpretation of the Constitution. If word count is limited, I would suggest removing the slipperly slope argument about sneezing and god bless, and instead inserting some explanation as to how you arrived at your opinions, and why we should consider arriving at the same opinion. The point of an essay is not merely to communicate your opinions, but rather to demonstrate how and why your opinions should be considered. The point is to convince others that your opinions have merit, even if you cant convince them to share your opinions.

I also found the attacks on my writing highly uneccesary and driven only because of your unagreement of my view points.
Then I suggest your intention in posting wasnt genuine, I was under the impression that you wanted help in the form of feedback, that enabled you to directly identify any weaknesses in your essay so you could improve it before handing it in. Clearly if this is your response to well intentioned and freely given help, your intention was something other than I had credited with you. I can assure you that the intention you are positing certainly wasnt mine when I posted. If I wanted to behave biasly due to some disagreement with your opinions, I wouldnt have given you constructive advice that I genuinely believe could help you to improve your essay...

And with the capital G in God i know i shuoldve but when writing i didnt. Stay to the topic htough of somehting that matters.
I really dont care how you spell God, but it concerns me that you appear to believe 'unagreement' is a word. It isnt. This makes me wonder if you are aware of several other unsound word usages that I had supposed were draft errors you would pick up on your own. If you cant identify several instances of using the wrong word in your essay, then I suggest you have someone (who's opinion you trust), and who you know to be good at written English, go over the essay and at least help you to edit out incorrect English.

Personally I think you should reconsider some of the criticisms offered in this thread. A few of the posts are definately constructive criticisms of a type, that if you allow them to, could lead to an improved essay and a much higher mark as a result.

Once again (although you appear to have overlooked it last time), I wish you good luck with your essay.

Pfft.
I can't think of anything that should be kept around simply because it's tradition. A vast number of traditions are cruel, reactionary, discriminatory bullshit.
Must also mention, for about the 400th time that "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God we trust" on money are very recent "traditions."

Yes, since it's supposedly illegal to say anything religion-related in anything Government-related.

Face it, the only way to have complete seperation of church and state is to ban religion completely. And that won't happen.

No, it isn't, because then state would be getting involved with church by DESTROYING it.

"Under god" was put into the pledge as a part of the red scare, a part of history that I don't think most Americans are proud of. The pledge was, originally, a part of a Columbus Day ceremony (a holiday we have now renounced) and was adopted as part of a scheme to sell more flags. A silly idea, that.

I'm aware that God had a place in our history- in, say, the Declaration of Independence.

However, we have now moved on into an age where we are not trying to preserve old ways but improve our country and set an ideal for the world, which is what our forefathers expected to be done.

I find all of this rather suspect. This essay reeks of pretense. Including the Bush-ian verbiage.

"Under god" was put into the pledge as a part of the red scare, a part of history that I don't think most Americans are proud of. The pledge was, originally, a part of a Columbus Day ceremony (a holiday we have now renounced) and was adopted as part of a scheme to sell more flags. A silly idea, that.

"In God We Trust", too. People seem to forget we have a much older and totally secular -- one might even say liberal, in the modern sense of the word -- national motto: E Pluribus Unum. That one dates back to the very founding of the republic, and was not supplanted until what, 1954? So political correctness isn't trying to crowd out some tradition of religion in public life; it's the other way around! Secularism is the REAL "traditional value", at least in terms of the state.

I'm aware that God had a place in our history- in, say, the Declaration of Independence.

Or rather "Nature's God," which is really just a Deist code word. Even in the 18th century, they were taking pains to avoid identifying with any particular set of religious beliefs.

I have an uncle who is a WWII vet and an atheist. It was really a blow to him when "under God" was inserted into the pledge and he was ostracized from the country he'd fought for.
Up until 1954 the pledge was inclusive. It then became a pledge excluding those who don't believe in the supernatural.
Basically the words "under God" nullified the following term, "indivisible". Those words were put there to exclude atheists, polytheists, anyone who doesn't accept monotheism.
Now we've pretty much decided to deny legal rights for homosexual couples. Who are the christians going to exclude next? Maybe the monotheist religions that aren't the true followers of God? We've now switched from a country in the process of giving more civil rights to people to one where they're being taken away.

by the way, it was '54 and '57, not 1909 and 1954.

Second: the treaty of Trafalgor: America is not in any way a Christian nation. (yes, I paraphrased, get over it)

Third: Jefferson was an atheist, most of the rest were diests.

Well if Sean Hannity and Oliver North think so... :)

Wow. -- an interpretation of the 1st Amendment, based on a raving lunatic and a disgraced military criminal.

I think that the sort of people who are in agreement with this crap about the U.S. needing to be a Christian nation are, in fact, BAD AMERICANS. Revisionist historical recaps are the lousy crutches they use to hobble from one stupid assertion to another.

Here's the deal: The Pledge of Allegiance is SUPPOSED to be about national solidarity. In America, we have hundreds of relgious traditions and more and more people have none.

Sticking "under god" in the pledge is wrong because it is an attempt to fashion a common faith where there is none, thus puting our common citizenship in conflict with our specific points of difference.

The people shout the loudest in favor of "under god" are only about one thing: defining nationality and citizenship on their own narrow cultural terms. It's cheap, petty, and ultimately self-defeating because America is growing more diverse, not less.

It would be better if we started finding more things to agree on rather than making others feel less a part of our society.

Now, if anyone doesn't get this, go turn on Sean Hannity so that you can feel better about yourselves. :gundge:

I received more critisizm then i ever could of imagined when i made this thread. When i poste dthe essay on nation states i shouldve known that most of the critisizm would be from people who believe "under God" and "in God we trust" should be removed from our pledge and our currency. Now where to start responding to your rude critisizms? Il start with the "God bless you" part of my essay. The intention of writeinig that was for it to be an example of who ludicris this idea is to me and was suppos eto be a little light humor in the essay. Also with the questioning of my refering to the founding fathers, i agree that i have no proof of exactly what they would of thought, but this is my essay and i incorporated my oppinions into it along with my interpretation of the constitution. I also found the attacks on my writing highly uneccesary and driven only because of your unagreement of my view points. And with the capital G in God i know i shuoldve but when writing i didnt. Stay to the topic htough of somehting that matters.

I agree. The rude attacks are not needed, but that happens when you call somebody Anti-American just because you disagree with some people.

I'm not here to grade your essay. I just want to point out some of my disagreements with your essay. I'm not un-American because I disagree with you. I serve in the Military to protect this country! How can I be un-American???

1."Under God" should be removed because that part was added in and it offends me because I believe in Satan. It should be "Under Satan". Haha, just joking.

I thought of a replacement saying. It should be "Under the sky of Freedom". That would work with everybody! Now say it in the pledge. It fits!

2."In God we trust" should be removed. I also have thought of a replacement saying to takes it's place.

It should be "In America we trust". It fits! I much rather see "In America we trust" and it woundn't offend anyone!

So I ask everyone here, what do you think of my replacement sayings???

Posted by Satanist, Lord Medivh

First, I don't have a problem with "under god" in the pledge and "in god we trust" on our currency.

Second, to say those who do object to those statements are "un-american" is a logical fallacy of the worst kind

Third, many of the posts here don't attack your opinion, they decry your lack of logic to support it.

Fourth, those who do attack your opinion, for the most part, point out the errors in your logic in support of their attacks.

Fifth, a disagreement or attack on your position is not the same thing as a personal attack, nor is an attack on your logic an attack on your conclusion. Again, I have no problem with your conclusion, I do have a problem with how you get there.

Sixth, Sean Hannity and Col. North are not the most authoritative of sources to support your conclusions with either.

Benjamin Franklin... Known for his association with the notorious Hellfire Clubs, a Christian? Ha! Come to think of it... Let me share with all of you, namely the author of the original post, a link to an article that should be thoroughly read and contemplated thereafter. All that is required is an open mind, and an acception of reality. Now, whether some of you are capable of doing the latter, or have the former, is a dispute that I cannot solve or offer any help for. Nor would I wish to do so. Regardless, here is the link.

http://fcos.us/america.html

Best of pleasures in reading this,

In Darkness

Benjamin Franklin... Known for his association with the notorious Hellfire Clubs, a Christian? Ha! Come to think of it... Let me share with all of you, namely the author of the original post, a link to an article that should be thoroughly read and contemplated thereafter. All that is required is an open mind, and an acception of reality. Now, whether some of you are capable of doing the latter, or have the former, is a dispute that I cannot solve or offer any help for. Nor would I wish to do so. Regardless, here is the link.

http://fcos.us/america.html

Best of pleasures in reading this,

In Darkness

At last I see more people who know the truth besides just me!!!

Yes, I know all about Benjamin Franklin and his association with the HellFire clubs. I just never said it out loud because I know it can me very depressing when you find out someone who you repected is a Satanist. It's just like when a parent tells their kid that the kid's favorite superhero is gay. It can be oh so very sad, but people must know the truth! And once you know more about real Satanism, it isn't bad or evil at all!

Also I never said it before because I know millions of Christians would come yelling at me claiming it's not true.

Posted by Satanist, Lord Medivh

Yes, since it's supposedly illegal to say anything religion-related in anything Government-related.
No it's not, it's illegal to mandate how people worship unless that worship directly harms others.

Do people even know how to properly write an essay anymore?

Yes, since it's supposedly illegal to say anything religion-related in anything Government-related.

Face it, the only way to have complete seperation of church and state is to ban religion completely. And that won't happen.

That's just the usual bullcrap the right tries to scare people with. I've actually come across dimwits who think the left has caused prayer to be outlawed in school. Not giving something encouragement is a long way from banning it.

So things worked out better than you had expected, or was your intention something other than an attempt to get constructive feedback that would help you to hand in a better essay than that you had already writen?


Really, you should have known that those who would attempt to help you most, would be those who dont share your veiw points? I'm a bit confused because the most substantive and criticisms dont appear to state the poster's views either way.
I'm beginning to suspect that your intention wasnt to seek genuine constructive feedback at all. I dont see a single word of thanks from you for the posters who took time out their lives, to give to you free of charge, services that people normatively expect to pay for. Perhaps rather than wanting genuine feedback, you just wanted some pats on the back? If this is so, I suggest your grades should be more important to you than your ego.


Not a single one of my criticisms was rude. Certainly few of the posts are so rude as to state that people who have opposing views (to the poster's own), are not citizens of their own countries, have no patriotism, and are 'whiners'....if you think that such responses as you have recieved are 'rude' in the context of an informal internet forum, what exactly do you imagine the essay marker will think of you referring to those you disagree with as being non-citizen, unpatriotic whiners?


If you are referring to the slipperly slope (we wont be able to say god bless if someone sneezes) nonesence, it isnt humourous, nor does it appear to be an attempt at humour, from the point of veiw of a casual reader. Your intentions do not matter nearly so much as the impression your words create in the mind of the essay marker. The only thing the statement gives the appearence of being ludicrous to, is your reasoning. If you insist on including a badly presented, slippery slope argument, there's not a lot I can do to help you except reiterate that it is a silly argument, that makes you look at least a little silly, and it's inclusion is utterly discrediting to any point you are trying to make.

The problem is an essay isnt an editorial. An essay should present an examination of facts. Yes your opinion certainly should come into it, but your opinion should be about the facts, not in place of the facts. A good essay doesnt offer any opinion on anything except facts established in the essay (including citations of properly referenced facts proven elsewhere). Furthermore no opinion that isnt substantiated by a sound argument belongs in an essay. Just like any facts you bring up, you need to demonstrate the logical rationale which led to your opinions. You dont do so with regards to your interpretation of the founding fathers' thoughts, nor with regards to your interpretation of the Constitution. If word count is limited, I would suggest removing the slipperly slope argument about sneezing and god bless, and instead inserting some explanation as to how you arrived at your opinions, and why we should consider arriving at the same opinion. The point of an essay is not merely to communicate your opinions, but rather to demonstrate how and why your opinions should be considered. The point is to convince others that your opinions have merit, even if you cant convince them to share your opinions.


Then I suggest your intention in posting wasnt genuine, I was under the impression that you wanted help in the form of feedback, that enabled you to directly identify any weaknesses in your essay so you could improve it before handing it in. Clearly if this is your response to well intentioned and freely given help, your intention was something other than I had credited with you. I can assure you that the intention you are positing certainly wasnt mine when I posted. If I wanted to behave biasly due to some disagreement with your opinions, I wouldnt have given you constructive advice that I genuinely believe could help you to improve your essay...


I really dont care how you spell God, but it concerns me that you appear to believe 'unagreement' is a word. It isnt. This makes me wonder if you are aware of several other unsound word usages that I had supposed were draft errors you would pick up on your own. If you cant identify several instances of using the wrong word in your essay, then I suggest you have someone (who's opinion you trust), and who you know to be good at written English, go over the essay and at least help you to edit out incorrect English.

Personally I think you should reconsider some of the criticisms offered in this thread. A few of the posts are definately constructive criticisms of a type, that if you allow them to, could lead to an improved essay and a much higher mark as a result.

Once again (although you appear to have overlooked it last time), I wish you good luck with your essay.


YAY!!! That pretty much summed up exactly what i was thinking(more or less) :cool:

*applause*

P.S., you should remove the "Merry Christmas" from your sig.! :D

Now, onto the essay:

Bad. I'd give it, probably 30% at best.

Less fallacies, more [valid] points, more structure.

While I agree with the essay that the terms should say.. i also agree with this fellow.. your essay is poorly structured and beggs a failing grade. To suggest those who oppose the usage of these terms as unamerican is hateful at least and is unamerican at its core.. America is about the expression of oppinions, weather you agree or not.. And how is someone opposed to these words against justice ?? You are the reason religious people are seen as finatical... learn to write more persuasivly, Add in the argument against the words and try to understand it.. pull it apart at its weak points..

And i will belive the government was meant to be secular the day it is deemed unconstitutional for the Supreme court to recite the phrase "may god save this court" as they do at the beginning of every . Until then it is clear to me the usage of god in governmental purposes is clearly out of tradition and is not advocating religion...

Pfft.
I can't think of anything that should be kept around simply because it's tradition. A vast number of traditions are cruel, reactionary, discriminatory bullshit.

being English, i would also like to point out that we find it highly amusing that you can call anything which is less than 100 years old a 'tradition'.

being an agnositic/not giving a monkies, i really dont care if you have 'in god we trust' scralled about all over the place. in our school system, you have to attend religious assemblies from the age of about 4 - 18 (when you can opt out, as our age of maturity is 18).

people of many different faiths attend these. sure, some peoples parents exempt them from attending the religious parts, but that is thier chioce (and i would feel fairly dim, as whats from stopping the child from simply not singing the hym, and not saying the prayer... which is what i did during my whole time at school).

as is the same with your 'plege of alegiance'. if you dont want to say 'in god we trust' (or whatever it is), simply dont say it. what is wrong with that?

for the same reason TV's have off buttons for when there is nothing on you want to satch, so too your mouth can close for those few short words of the plege.

having said that, i can also see why people would want to remove it. i dont actually see it happening, since i would say that 'america' is a county which justifies about 98% of what it does as a nation on christianity. even when what it does is to wizz the rest of the world off.

Do people even know how to properly write an essay anymore?

I do. That's why you don't see my stuff here. I prefer to submit my stuff to magazines, newspapers, and national journals.

"Under god” and “in god we trust” are historic to our country and have been in place for many, many years. “In god we trust” was first placed on American currency in 1909 almost one hundred years ago while “under god” was put into our pledge in 1954 by president Eisenhower over 50 years ago. The removal would mean the loss of American history and the displeasure of the far majority of citizens in our great country.

The phrase "shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" was added to the Constitution as part of the First Ammendment in 1789 over 200 years ago. The removal of which would mean the loss of American history and the displeasure of ALL citizens in our great country.

It takes precedence over any stupidity or gladhanding done in 1909 or 1954.

Yes, since it's supposedly illegal to say anything religion-related in anything Government-related.

Face it, the only way to have complete seperation of church and state is to ban religion completely. And that won't happen.
I call bullshit on that. The only way to have complete separation is for government to simply not mention god and religion. That's it. Then the faithfull can practice what they want in their own homes, temples, mosques, synogogs, churches, whatever, and no government endorsement or discouragement of religion will exist.

The phrase "shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" was added to the Constitution as part of the First Ammendment in 1789 over 200 years ago. The removal of which would mean the loss of American history and the displeasure of ALL citizens in our great country.

It takes precedence over any stupidity or gladhanding done in 1909 or 1954.

*enthusiastic standing ovation with flowers and panties flying at the stage*

YAY!!! That pretty much summed up exactly what i was thinking(more or less) :cool:

So, If I understand correctly, you more or less know exactly what you think but you're not sure. :)

So, If I understand correctly, you more or less know exactly what you think but you're not sure. :)

All I know is that my gut says "maybe".

*enthusiastic standing ovation with flowers and panties flying at the stage*

Wow...It looks like all of my rhetoric practice in highschool is finally paying off.

Wow...It looks like all of my rhetoric practice in highschool is finally paying off.

Sources tell me the panties were for your use of the term "gladhanding".

Sources tell me the panties were for your use of the term "gladhanding".

So, then I should thank my vocab teachers.