Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Flipside on March 24, 2004, 12:23:11 pm
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=US&cat=Church___State_Issues
I didn't say which fundementalists ;)
-
Good man
-
You would think that I would care, but not really. Say the Pledge if you want to, don't if you don't. That seems like a pretty common sense approach to me.
Here in Canada we've got "Prayer Rooms" in most Universities and Colleges. Most Highschools I thik have them too; mine did. They're non denominational, so that Muslims can pray right beside Christians and its a very tolerant environment. As long as its a positive thing, as it is meant to be, I don't see why people who want to should not be allowed to pray and worship in school.
-
I think you'll find it's more about who they are praying to and worshipping. If someone does not believe that they are 'under God', why should they have to proclaim that they are?
-
what about when courts tell people to swear to tell the truth with one hand on the bible? If I were religious and non-christian that would piss me right off.
-
Well, I don't know how it works in America, but in the UK, you can swear on any holy book, or even make an atheists oath on your honour.
-
Make the Pledge non-obligatory. Problem solved. If I were in the US, I would have more of a problem with the rest of the Pledge than with "Under God."
-
I pledge allegiance to the underworld
One nation under dog
There of which I stand alone
A face in the crowd
Unsung, against the mold
Without a doubt
Singled out
The only way I know
Green Day - Minority ;) ;)
-
Bah. As an atheist I think their are more important things to worry about. If you're a real atheist then pledging to God is actually a good thing to do. It gives you a get out of pledge free card if you ever need one (I don't believe in God therefore a pledge to him means as much to me as one to Father Christmas) :lol:
-
I just don't get the whole idea of a pledge of allegience in the first place. If you're loyal to your country and confident in that fact, you really don't have to remind yourself and others all the time. But if, on the other hand, you're not loyal but want to keep that under cover, guess who's gonna be reciting the pledge the loudest? Yup, the one to whom it means nothing.
Which kinda defeats the whole purpose of having a pledge of allegience in the first place, except for any indoctrination purposes for which I imagine it can be quite effective at a young age. That said, nothing wrong with saying it if you mean it, it just doesn't really serve any purpose.
-
it's totaly inefective at a young age, I remember haveing to recite the damned thing and everyone just thought of it as a waist of time we could be spending eating paste or pokeing the person in front of us.
-
Legally, any pledge or oath made to 'God' is binding in any court, even if you're an atheist or non-Christian.
It's basically a pseudonym for 'highest power'.
And what else are they going to pledge to/for? The law covers all the physical and financial penalties so the only thing which can be wagered against a pledge/oath is your immortal soul.
-
this is going to really **** things up on that side of the pond...
over here we have no religious, and very few political points in schools. hell, when we do discuss the government, the most likely points we'll discuss are how they ****ed up this time. The only time there even is a flag flying is during royal birthdays, and when royals die.
-
Pledge of allegiance to the country is good, but pledging it to God because the country asked you too is not exactly what god intended.
I say it shouldnt exist simply because it forces you to pledge something under someone you dont recognize as existing, therefore that persons pledge is meaningless.
The only way to make it mean something is to make it non-directional when spoken, like not saying under god, or on behalf of anyone, just pledging you love the US and swear on your head.
-
I sort of realised the other day how much the pledge'.. meaningfulness has degraded since, say, Kindergarten. Of course back then school was about drilling ideas into young minds (not that it's much different now, they just go about it a different way) but now, we only do it Mondays, Wednesdays, and Friday. Thing is, nobody recites the pledge, save for the girl saying it over the intercom.
All that aside, it's got to be a stretch to really be offended by that. I mean, unless you're Kazan, does it really matter if an apparently meaningless oath over the intercom at unholy hours of the morning mentions a god that may or may not exist?
Okay, I don't really know, but it doesn't bother me either way.
-
I think the problem is that it is so obvious no-one sees it.
As has been said, it doesn't mention the Christian 'God' or any other Religions 'God' it just mentions 'God'.
I suppose this could only really affect Atheists, but I can just hear certain corners of the church gnawing on the velvet about this one ;)
-
actually it's not as trivial as you think it is to be objecting to this.
any exposure to the ideas as something positive and _real_ weapons the barriers of reality that are present. - basically saying argumentum ad nauseum works with most people, even if it is a fallacy
------------
it should be noted; Rhenquist is a conservative, the entire 1954 SCOTUS was what we'd call a bunch of conservatives
they were all christians
-
I'm surprised the Americans in here aren't more interested in this. Your founding father's had the wisdom to realise religious policy (or rather the state's loyalty to a particular one) was a major cause of tension in the "old world" and managed to establish they were founding a free democratic nation. Until of course, some nutters came along and said "we must pretend believing in God makes us better than the commies!!!!111" and of course then it all went to ****.
Stand up for what your country really is. Please?
-
Strangely enough, this reminds me of the new 'Citizenship' pledge in the UK, the original wording involved swearing alleigance to the Queen, until it was pointed out that most of the people born and bred here didn't have any alleigance to the Queen ;)
-
Understand, the word that is causing Mr. Newdow, which BTW judging from the fact that he isn't married to his daughters mother is a Red Diaper Doper Baby, "god" is in the lower case. That tense of the word is a generic term refering to whatever higher power the reciter pays heed to. In Mr. Newdow's case probably his dope tree in his backyard.
Also, it was the removal of Christianity from the public mind that has resulted in a country of such low moral and ethical standing as we have now.
Before
children had respect for their parents and themselves
children weren't drugged to make them easier for lousy teachers to control and indoctrinate
the divorce rate was single digit or low teens
Now
teen pregnancy is at an all time high
one in two marriages fail
the abuse of chemical depressants on spirited children is ruining the next generation
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Understand, the word that is causing Mr. Newdow, which BTW judging from the fact that he isn't married to his daughters mother is a Red Diaper Doper Baby, "god" is in the lower case. That tense of the word is a generic term refering to whatever higher power the reciter pays heed to. In Mr. Newdow's case probably his dope tree in his backyard.
Also, it was the removal of Christianity from the public mind that has resulted in a country of such low moral and ethical standing as we have now.
Before
children had respect for their parents and themselves
children weren't drugged to make them easier for lousy teachers to control and indoctrinate
the divorce rate was single digit or low teens
[/b]
Children respecting their parents was more due to corporal punishment being accceptable, IMO.
Whoa, what do you think i've missed?
Yeah, well, was that for fear of being ejected from society or from love? Also, rape inside the marriage was a lot more acceptable....
Now
teen pregnancy is at an all time high
one in two marriages fail
the abuse of chemical depressants on spirited children is ruining the next generation
yeah, 'cause who's telling them about what happens when you put tab A in slot B?
People are just more williong to give up, since they know they can get out of an unhappy situations without being denounced from society
once, again, Woah dude, what's going on there? you mean sugar and sweeteners? that **** does make people go hyper, you know...
-
You say "generation of loose morals"
I say "open minded and tolerant of others"
Same difference. I do not see how respect for parents and teenage pregnancy are indicators of morality, and indeed how the first can be quantitatvely measured.
As for drugs, I would encourage you to please keep and open mind towards things which you do not know. To label them collectively as "evil" basically shows that you know next to nothing about them. "Drugs" such as marijuana are no more deadly than cigarettes, and the mind-altering effects are minimal. In addition, it does not build a chemical addiction, the same cannot be said for cigarettes. In every way that matter, marijuana is less evil than cigarettes.
The death toll from all illegal drugs is around 16,000 per year. For cigarettes, this is around 400,000 (not pinpoint numbers, but generally correct). Now you tell me, which is the greater social ill? Why are cigarettes legal and heroin is not.
In the end, no one can make that choice but the person themself. You can not legislate private morality. Look at Holland. They allow marijuana use, and their society is perfectly normal, and most likely a better place to live in than the US. People are too busy living life (did I mention the legal prostitution) to be hateful or intolerant.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
The death toll from all illegal drugs is around 16,000 per year. For cigarettes, this is around 400,000 (not pinpoint numbers, but generally correct). Now you tell me, which is the greater social ill? Why are cigarettes legal and heroin is not.
[/b]
Can someone look up the death toll for overweight, please?
In the end, no one can make that choice but the person themself. You can not legislate private morality. Look at Holland. They allow marijuana use, and their society is perfectly normal, and most likely a better place to live in than the US. People are too busy living life (did I mention the legal prostitution) to be hateful or intolerant.
Marijuana is indeed legal here. Not completely, and if you carry more then a few grams, or have more then 3 or 5 plants (i forgot) you still get busted. But not nearly a majority uses the stuff, as far as i can see. Even thos that occasionally do, most of them are no more addicted to it then to cigarettes and the envirment around the stuff.
Prostitution is legal here too, but i want to note that basic welfare makes sure that no one is forced to go that path.
Morals here are indeed not much lower then anywhere else, as far as i can determine. We have had a government stressing "Value's and Morals" the last couple of years. Not much has improved. Off course, we have a bit of street crime, and off course, there are some racial issues. But generally, most people are tolerant of anything that does not directly harm anyone, and teen pregnancy's are relatively low. Every high school students get's basic sex ed in second year (13-14). Everyone get's shown a condom, get's shown clear images in textbooks of reprodutive organs, and the exact way they work. There is also plenty of mentioning of alternative ways of birth controll, and of homo and bi sexual people. In the end, there is just as much a test on it as on the working of photosentyses. The chapter after that is a clear text on the effects of alcohol and drugs. both social and physioloical, and explenations of how they look. The "good" effects are mentioned right a long with the bad, and while there is off course a notion of moderation, there is nowhere near a constant yell of "SEX IS EVIL, DRUGS ARE EVIL, ALCOHOL IS EVIL, DO NOT TOUCH IT".
-
Damnit, if you guys had some more sun, I'de be there in a second. Oh and, there are government bikes that are free to use on the streets, as long as you return them, right?
Especially on the prostitution issue. Its legal if you want to, but the prostitutes are not forced into it by crap welfare. Where as in most other countries (including Canada to some degree), its the exact opposite. Low wages and welfare, and on top of that its illegal.
Legalizing prostitution benefits both parties. The prostitutes get organized unions, so that they have basic rights and are protected from abuse by pimps and assholes, while you get the advantage of them being tested for STDs so that you are better protected. And, you don't have to feel guilty that you are buying a prostitute, since you know that they are there by choice.
wait, this started as a thread about the Pledge of Alliegance, and now we're talking about Dutch prostitutes.
ok, yeah, this is more fun. :D:D
-
Marijuana has a greater concentration of cancer causing agents than raw tobacco.
I wasn't referring to reefer however, I was thinking of prescription meds like Ritalin.
-
But when is raw tobacco smoked? It's always mixed with endless other ****e.
-
And a lot of that ****e is far far more toxic than anything found in cannabis....
< Picks up his Golden Virginia packet >
Benzene
Nitrosamines
Formaldehyde
Hydrogen Cyanide
Yummy! :)
And that's rolling tobacco, which is usually 'cleaner' than the preservative treated, chemically dried tobacco they use in Malboro etc.
-
As for the Ritalin, I do agree with you. Though I would say that it is more the fault of lazy parents who want their kids sedated or otherwise engaged, so that they don't bother them. The tiniest deviation from the social norm is treated with the all-ecnompassing "here's some pills, that should help". Lets kids be kids, and if they turn out crappy, its the parents' fault.
-
Parents drug their kids in America?
Dear Lord, no wonder the amount of Heroin and Cannabis users in America is on the increase! Talk about 'Start em young!' :(
-
Mind you, Golden Virginia does smell very nice.
-
hehehehe And it's amazing how few people ponce cigarettes off you in the street ;)
-
I've never understood why people want to set fire to it. I was quite happy to sit at college sniffing at an empty Golden Virginia packet...
-
And this never prompted visits to see some nice people? ;)
-
I bet if equal amounts of people did heroin and tobbacco, the death toll would quickly stack up on the side of heroin.
Btw, doesn't US money say " In God We Trust" ?
-
Actually, I'd say that depends on dosage, there are people that have been Heroin and Opiate addicts for decades, and just not been stupid enough to OD. Put them next to someone who's smoked for decades and see who gets up the stairs first ;)
-
And if I had wings I could fly, but you know... I dont'.
It is very unlikely that were heroin (and extreme example) were to be legalized, anywhere near as many people would use it as use tobbaco. The fact is, people realize that it is a much more dangerous and mind-altering substance, so the vast majority of them stays away from it.
-
smoking should be banned - if you want to chew it fine, it's only affecting you
-
Meh... Home-made alcoholics are better than any drug...
Come in Sardinia and you will see (or better, taste) what i mean... :p
-
All I'll say to banning smoking is that you would do far far greater good by banning driving in cities. The pollution level in London, which, while being one of the more polluted cities, is not, I think, a terrible offender, is enough to equal 15 cigarettes a day for everybody. Secondary smoking adds up to about a quarter of a cigarette a day maximum unless smokers are putting themselves in close proximity. If that's the case, then I will agree that you do not deserve to be breathing their smoke.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Btw, doesn't US money say " In God We Trust" ?
Yeah, that was added during the cold war along with the "Under God"
Really, my issue with the "Under God" thing is how arbitrarily it was added in. It had nothing to do with spirituality, etc. it had everything to do with: "KILL THE COMMIES!!!1111oneoneone"
Anyways, Lib will you share some of that Jesus-dope you're smoking? It looks like it's potent mind-effecting stuff. :D (Quick! Someone photoshop a reefer with a halo!)
-
LOL I like being a smoker in Britain, in fact anybody who has had treatment from the NHS should like smokers in Britain, since massive amounts of money are fed into the NHS from cigarette sales. Or at least, that's what the government keep telling us it's for.
That's why I started, I wanted to help a good cause ;)
-
The best way to kill smokers is to hijack loads of incoming tobacco, poison it all, send it back into the black-market supply then ban tobacco.
Once a few thousand people had died, everyone would be too scared to buy any.
-
Nah, they would keep smoking until the last of them dies...
-
Give me about 30 years and you won't have to go to all that trouble ;)
Hey, Bill Hicks was Right :)
-
No no, you all took it the wrong way. Smoking should not be criminalized, everything else should be legalized.
I mean, red meat is bad for you. Chips are bad for you. Coca cola is bad for you. Alchohol is bad for you. You want all those banned? Do you wan't to live in a sterilized society? Fat free, sugar free, smoke free, salt free, pleasure free.
And everyone from Texas should be required by law to chew tobacco instead of smoke it. And of course, to use a spitoon :D:D
-
Red meat is NOT bad.
Alchohol is NOT bad.
You just need some moderation on them to get the benefits and not the bad effects of them...
-
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040324/hl_nm/health_smoking_ireland_dc_2
I give it 6 months.
-
Hamilton, a city on the outskirts of Toronto, has banned smoking on the street. Can you believe that? On the freaking street! Thats in addition to the fact that most bars and restaurants are smoke-free anyways.
-
LOL It may work, I'm all for banning smoking in restaraunts, and I smoke, but the chances are it won't, for one simple reason.
In America, the government gets only a tiny amount of the money that people pay for their cigarettes. In the UK, the government takes more than the cost of the pack itself. That's why the government hated us all going and getting duty free cigarettes.
The fact of the matter is that if all smokers suddenly quit, or reduced, their smoking, it would actually cost the government far far more than they are spending on cigarette related illnesses.
To be honest, I wish it had never been made legal in the first place, would have saved a lot of people, but it just irks me sometimes that the government have allowed this to continue until the last minute, and then point the finger at the addicts and say 'Don't blame us (the dealers), blame them!', and worse still people accept this at face value!
Ric : I see things eventually trying to go that way everywhere. It may be a cruel to be kind gesture, but it's also a despicable passing of blame from large pollution-creating corporations :(
-
[q]Quick! Someone photoshop a reefer with a halo!)[/q]
(http://www.swooh.com/peon/mattB/downloads/holy-toke.jpg)
Mibbe not exactly what u wanted.... ;)
-
i can smell a smoker 100 yards downwind _EASILY_, often further - and that's just cigarettes - minicigars and normal cigars are even worse
as for smog - that is a different think from a lot of standpoints - but EMISSIONS STANDARDS for vehicles and industrial plants tends to reduce and almost eliminate it. A correctly working car wiht an intact catalytic converter should release little more than C02 and H20 -- the petroleum-fueld transport should have been eliminated long ago
Smoking is an infringment upon other people's rights to make a health decision for themselves, it is an infringment upon their right to clean air. It is also abusing your child if you smoke around them.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
I think the problem is that it is so obvious no-one sees it.
As has been said, it doesn't mention the Christian 'God' or any other Religions 'God' it just mentions 'God'.
I suppose this could only really affect Atheists...
Well, if the athiests really want to, they can just say "one nation, under..." and insert whatever is the prevailing force or most important to them in their life. Whether it be their spouse, maybe their boss... their car... sex, whatever makes them feel better.
I think you all should be thankful. At least it's not "one nation, under Bush" or Clinton for that matter.
-
PS: God capitalized is very EXPLICIT - it is specifically the christian god
and yes it is a violation of the seperation of church and state - nobody can honestly deny that it was put in their by christians, for christians, as a mean to respect the religion of christianity
-
Originally posted by Kazan
PS: God capitalized is very EXPLICIT - it is specifically the christian god
nobody can honestly deny that it was put in their by christians, for christians, as a mean to respect the religion of christianity
Well yeah, since America's founding fathers were *gasp!* Christians!
-
Ulala: INCORRECT - the vast majority of America's founder fathers were *GASP* Atheists and Deists!
"under God" was added the pledge in 1954 - the origional pledge from the 1800s did not contain the reference
Same goes for money
Additionally - the founding fathers wanted to prevent government from meddling in religion and religion meddling in government - hence the 1st ammendment - this is for a variety of reasons including some of the colonies being founded by people who fled for religious persecution, and seeing the atrocities it [religious persecution] caused in the 'old world'
If you seriously thinkg most of the founding fathers were christians you're grossly misinformed
==============
[edit]
here's one i didn't know about before
[john] Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli (June 7, 1797). Article 11 states:
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
-
You understand WHY it says "in GOD we trust" on our money?
Cause the govt figured out they can't trust anyone else, Humans are too F'ed up!
-
star dragon: that was added on in the cold war
-
Man Kazan, you just love *****ing don't you. I mean, I love *****ing, but you, you have a deep love for complaining. Let the Christians think what they want. For that matter, let everyone think what they want.
The day that people around the world stop thinking each other luncatics for the opinions they hold is the day that humanity ceases to exist.
-
Rictor: letting people hold invalid opinions unchallenged is dangerous
-
There is a whole world out there that is misinformed on a whole range of issues. Everything from basic physics, to the Bay of Pigs, to advanced economic prinicples. If I were to spend my life sorting out everyone who I felt was misinformed, I would die a very tired and unhappy man. Not to mention unsuccessful in accomplishing my goal.
-
rictor: setup a priority queue based on danger - and set a min priority to have attention paid
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Ulala: INCORRECT - the vast majority of America's founder fathers were *GASP* Atheists and Deists!
"under God" was added the pledge in 1954 - the origional pledge from the 1800s did not contain the reference
Same goes for money
Additionally - the founding fathers wanted to prevent government from meddling in religion and religion meddling in government - hence the 1st ammendment - this is for a variety of reasons including some of the colonies being founded by people who fled for religious persecution, and seeing the atrocities it [religious persecution] caused in the 'old world'
If you seriously thinkg most of the founding fathers were christians you're grossly misinformed
:wtf:
~~~ James Madison, FATHER of the U.S. Constitution: "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
~~~ Thomas Jefferson, 1781: "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever"
~~~ George Washington: "You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention."
~~~ George Washington, October 3, 1789: "It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge THE Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and to humbly implore His protection and favor."
~~~ Samuel Adams: " Let...statesmen and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by...educating their little boys and girls...and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system."
~~~ Benjamin Franklin: "History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion...and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."
~~~ Benjamin Franklin, June 28, 1787, at the Constitutional Convention: "We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that 'except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel."
~~~ Alexander Hamilton's dying words, July 12, 1804: "I have tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty; through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me."
Patrick Henry's Last Will & Testament, November 20, 1798: "This is all the inheritance I give to my dear family. The religion of Christ will give them one which will make them rich indeed."
~~~ John Adams, 1756 (our 2nd President) -- "Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only Law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited... What a paradise would this region be!" ~~~
~~~ John Jay (original Chief-Justice U.S. Supreme Court) said it is the duty of all wise, free, and virtuous governments to help and encourage virtue and religion. He also said, "Only one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation."
~~~ John Quincy Adams: "The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent nation of Christians." ~~~
An early House Judiciary Committee affirmed: "Christianity ...was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants." ~~~ 97% of the founding fathers were practicing Christians and exercised their faith in public office, at work, at home, and had it taught to their children in their schools. ~~~
==============
[edit]
here's one i didn't know about before
[john] Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli (June 7, 1797). Article 11 states:
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen; and as the states never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of harmony existing between the two countries.
Please dont quote things out of contex....
-
did the thread get derailed or is it just me?
-
*sigh*
-
rotfl - PUT THOSE QUOTES BACK IN CONTEXT
pathetic - Jefferson being a DEIST is _ACADEMIC_
Franklin being an ATHEIST/AGNOSTIC is _ACADEMIC_
put all those quotes back into context
Jefferson is one known to put himself in the other persons shoes, franklin is a known smartass
-
Well, at any rate, I still say you should be thankful you don't have to say "one nation under..." whichever guy is running it (meaning the president, which everyone seems to hate and makes fun of regardless of who it is, anyway). Imagine having to say "one nation, under Bush..." I'd think you'd have an ulcer, where as saying 'under God" just induces complaining.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Damnit, if you guys had some more sun, I'de be there in a second. Oh and, there are government bikes that are free to use on the streets, as long as you return them, right?
the sun is shining right now, FYI.
And no, the government bike thing was done in the 80's by protesters in Amsterdam, but it's gone now in most area's. though some local governments have started it in some nature reservates. OTH, we do have some other advantages, like bicycle lanes nearly everywhere, reasonable to good health service and a fairly moderate climate.
-
[color=66ff00]Rictor, arguing to learn something is all good and well but I think that Kazan just likes to argue. Someone who puts so much effort into their argument must be getting a huge amount of satisfaction from the act itself. ;)
Sorry Kaz, just playing. :)
[/color]
-
Originally posted by kasperl
the sun is shining right now, FYI.
And no, the government bike thing was done in the 80's by protesters in Amsterdam, but it's gone now in most area's. though some local governments have started it in some nature reservates. OTH, we do have some other advantages, like bicycle lanes nearly everywhere, reasonable to good health service and a fairly moderate climate.
We have plenty of cycle lanes in the UK, no ever uses them :lol: :p
-
yeah, but here, it's all horizantal. Ever thought of riding a nice, straight Roman road in, nice, glowing hills?
And the cycle lanes that are in the countryside roads on that side of the pont are about 30CM wide, if the ones i've seen in Cornwall, Lake District and Scotland are any bearing.
-
Indeed they are, and they're always on the sides of raods where people park their cars, rendering them useless.
Not far from my home there is a cycle lane about 20m long...
-
and this is why i like England for holiday's, but not to live there untill i own a car/motorcycle.
Unless you give me an entire house in Scotland for free, plus horses. Horseriding is quite a fun way of transportation, IMO.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
rotfl - PUT THOSE QUOTES BACK IN CONTEXT
pathetic - Jefferson being a DEIST is _ACADEMIC_
Franklin being an ATHEIST/AGNOSTIC is _ACADEMIC_
Franklin was a deist actually.
But what about Roger Sherman, Benjamin Rush, George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, Fisher Ames or any of these guys? (http://www.federalist.com/histdocs/foundingfathers.htm)
To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference of all others—" ~ Jefferson
"I consider the doctrines of Jesus as delivered to contain the outlines of the sublimest system of morality that has ever been taught—" ~ Jefferson
"In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle have observed frequent instances of superintending Providence in our favor.... And have we now forgotten this powerful Friend? Or, do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?
I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing I see of this truth: "that God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without
His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his Aid?
We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without his
concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel; we shall be divided by our little, partial local interests; our projects will be
confounded; and we shall become a reproach and a byword to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing
government by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war, or conquest.
I therefore beg to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and it's blessing on our deliberation be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business." ~ Franklin
They were Deist's not atheists. Theres a difference. Deism was a popular belife in London at the time. Deists acknowloged God exists, but thought that God just sat back and wached the universe happen. Like he made the universe like a stopwatch, he was just watching it wind down. Anyway, Deism was a movment for natural morals and religion. It replaced God with living with high moral standards. Only a few of these guys were actually deists. The mojority of the founding fathers, and the population of the colonies were unarguably christain.
The Jefferson's documents were heavily based on documents the other founding fathers had written (eg. the virgina bill of rights) and many other christain documents throught history (magna charta, mayflower compact, the republic example in the bible)
He incoperated this things into his documents because they they had been working effectivly for the +100 colonists had been to America.
-
If the founding fathers were all such devout Christians, why were the words "Under God" in the Pledge and "In God we Trust" on the money, not originally used? Both were, if I heard right, put in during the Cold War, several hundred years after the founding father's deaths. Its seem logical that if they wanted them there, or even endorsed their use, they would have put them in themselves.
-
They did not want to even build a suggestion of a state religion.
One of the reasons the colonists moved over here in the first place was because of Britains persecution of non-state-churchgoers. Back then in Britain, if you did not go to state sanctioned churches you were usually thrown in jail. (reforms in britain after the revolution changed this)
This was a sesitive issue along with taxaton without representation etc.
Its well documented among all these founding fathers that they did not want a state run church. THats what they mean by "respecting the establishment of religion" (seperation of church and state isnt in the constitution, it was a scrapped line in a letter Jefferson(?) wrote to franklin (or a constituent i dont know the details)
about money. Rictor, the money your talking about didnt even exist at the time of the founding. Paper money was one of things the founders feard most. It allows for the quick inflation etc. In fact, the constitution only allows coin money. Paper money was created during the civl war, when both sides ran out of coins to pay soldiers. Even then, they didnt even mean anything, only that you could get your monys worth in coins later (untill the north orderd all paper money legal tender)
But earlier coins were not devoid of "relgious marks'
http://www.usgennet.org/usa/topic/preservation/misc/coins/coinz.htm ~ 1922
http://www.usgennet.org/usa/topic/preservation/misc/coins/stmt.htm ~ 1925
The pledge didnt exist intill the 50s IIRC
-
Uuuhm... I really liked the stoning scene in LOB...:nervous:
-
Kazan, while emission standards may reduce output from factories, I can assure you it is an incredibly long way from reducing it to anywhere near close to the amount of smoke smokers produce.
A smell won't kill you, and at the end of the day, many of the truly dangerous chemicals, such as Carbon Monoxide, you won't even smell.
If you find smoking anti-social, that's fine, I can buy into that, but it always annoys me to see people starting to blame smokers for non-smokers problems in this way, we may be an easy target, but we, quite frankly, are not the ones you should be gunning for ;)
-
hell, CO2 might kill me long term, but heavy smoking near me gives me a headache, throat complaints, sight problems and a voice like an old man. and this is by just being in the same room as 2 or 3 burning cigarettes for an hour or so.
-
That's ok Kasperl, I can respect that, it is antisocial, and the smell is unpleasant to most people. I think it is inconsiderate of your 'friends' to smoke around you in that way.
However, what annoys me is this assumption that stopping people smoking will somehow improve non-smokers health, because for the main part it won't.
I work downwind of an incinerator that burns hospital waste AND a Sewage Farm. The mixture of burning bandages and Sulphur Dioxide has actually caused me to vomit on occasion. If everyone in that part of London suddenly stopped smoking, I don't believe for one moment that anyones health would improve noticeably. If, however, those two buildings were dealt with, I'm almost certain it would, that's all I'm saying.
I'd like to quit, in fact, I am in the process of joining a quitting program, but that is for my own sake, anyone with any consideration shouldn't be smoking too close to non-smokers anyway.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
hell, CO2 might kill me long term, but heavy smoking near me gives me a headache, throat complaints, sight problems and a voice like an old man. and this is by just being in the same room as 2 or 3 burning cigarettes for an hour or so.
Then you should see a doctor because I can sit in a small room with three or four smokers for hours and come out fine (apart from the smell).
I have never smoked a cigarette or tobacco (aside from the occasional spliff) in my life and I think the tobacco industry is one of the most loathesome and vile scum producing industries on the planet. Yet I hate the attitudes of most non-smokers even more, ****ing whiny bastards.
-
I reckon smoking is just rude, anyways. i mean, if you want to smoke - fair enough - but why should I have to inhale it?
simple as that.........
-
i agree on the most part, Flip, but smoking should be banned in all area's were someone in that area could object. meaning most workplaces, schools and bars.
and it weren't my friends, it were the payed people from the local social workgroup, i was maintaining a 'net cafe, as a volunteer.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I reckon smoking is just rude, anyways. i mean, if you want to smoke - fair enough - but why should I have to inhale it?
simple as that.........
Which is fair enough but I hate stupid ****s who sit in the smoking section of a pub and then do that pathetic ****ing little *eh eh* cough that they do when someone lights a fag.
-
sitting in the smoking section is ones own choice, and yeah, they should shut the **** up.
-
Originally posted by 01010
Then you should see a doctor because I can sit in a small room with three or four smokers for hours and come out fine (apart from the smell).
ugh.
I am currently seeing more doctors then i would like. Mainly lung issues, that's what they expect is causing this ****. Anyway, the smell ain't even the worse. Cigarettes are terrible, Cigars are worse, but i quite like the smell of a pipe.
-
Originally posted by 01010
Which is fair enough but I hate stupid ****s who sit in the smoking section of a pub and then do that pathetic ****ing little *eh eh* cough that they do when someone lights a fag.
'Nasty cough you got there mate, funny that, I been smoking for years and haven't got a cough like that ;)'
-
Agreed. Fags and cigars smell awful, but pipe smoke is quite pleasant.
I suppose that's mainly because my dad used to smoke a pipe, so I grew up with the smell of it.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
'Nasty cough you got there mate, funny that, I been smoking for years and haven't got a cough like that ;)'
I don't even smoke (anything legal anyway ;) ) and it gets right on my tits.
-
I've been living with two smokers (parents) since I was born, and I've never had so much as a single illness or anything at all related to smoking. Maybe its just a habit, but I don't even notice when someone is smoking unless I'm literally a foot away from their mouth. See, part of the reason that I am not going to smoke, ever, is cause my parents both do and I get to see, or rather hear, the terrible morning coughing. That, and the fact that smoking more or less did my grandfather in.
However, I think there is a big consipracy in soceity to make smoking not illegal, but so inconvenient that people just won't do it anymore. Non-smokers who constantly complain really get on my nerves. Not anyoe here in specific, just people in general. Its just smoke, its won't kill you if you inhale it for a few hours or so. Even if I lifelong smoker were to quit, their lungs would be almost back to normal in a few months or years. So, unless you are constantly exposed to smoke, then its not going to harm you. To me, it just as simple as putting a smoking section in every restaurant and basically ever public space. If you want to smoke, go to the smoking section. If not, you go to the non-smoking section. Simple.
-
Couldn't have put it better myself Rictor. In fact, even the family history is scarily close to mine.
-
Flipside: as smell WILL kill you if that smell is the smell of something toxic
Let this be known: none of my real life friends smoke - if they did they wouldn't be my friend!
The very slightest bit of cigarette smoke in the air makes make lungs and throat hurt and it hard for me to breath - and I do not have asthma [sp?].
and my father was a smoker - i didn't notice it until i got until high school, got into athletics and the habit of locking myself in the computer room to stay away from the smell. Also my mum and i finally got it so we would kick him outside when he wanted to smoke. The healither/better in shape I got the more obvious it became and the easier it was to smell. You only fail to smell it if your senses have been deadend to it.
I gaurantee you have lung damage - you couldn't tell because the process of damage is gradual, to slow to be perceptable.
Saying "It's just smoke" is kinda like saying "it's just ricin" - it's just poisoning and is completely and totally unwelcome, but is being forced upon you by other people around you that in some situations you may not be able to get away from.
PS: saying "unless you are constantly exposed to smoke, then its not going to harm you" is very incorrect. Every single particle harms you, not perceptively to you, but the effects are CUMULATIVE - and any single particle has the ability to cause that "last bit of damage"
As for your proposal of a "smoking section" - they have to have completely seperate HVAC and air circulation systems otherwise the non-smokers will be able to tell.
-
Aw jeez. Fine, then every single time you take a step, you are getting slightly shorter. So watch it, you don't want to end up a midget. Marathon runners have been known to shrink percepitbly from running the 23 (I think) kilometers, you should be very careful not to take unnecessary steps. I mean it, its for your own good.
Yes, the crap in cigarettes is more or less poison. However, if you are not constantly exposed to smoke, I mean like every day for a significant period of time, nothing is going to happen to you. Unless of course you have some serious lung condition, then you have a right to complain.
Its like those people who count, and I mean literally count, their calories. So, tuna for breakfast, an organge for lunch, and some salad for dinner...OH NO, I've exceeded my daily calorie budget by 17 whole calories? Oh God, I feel fat already. I'll be socially ostracized! I'll never be able to wear shorts again, if I can even fit in them anymore. I'm so fat! Damn you 17 calories, DAMN YOU TO HELL!!!
**** man, live life. Living with the smoke from my parents, thats probably a year or two off my life right there. But really, who cares. You die when you die, and unless you do whatever the hell you want in the meantime, you might as well be dead right now. I'de hate to be your dad. He's the reason you're alive, and you kick him out of his own house to go smoke outside. :D:D
Alright, I'll stop preaching now.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Aw jeez. Fine, then every single time you take a step, you are getting slightly shorter. So watch it, you don't want to end up a midget. Marathon runners have been known to shrink percepitbly from running the 23 (I think) kilometers, you should be very careful not to take unnecessary steps. I mean it, its for your own good.
Actually that's a good thing since your body's energy requirements would be less and you don't need to eat as much food. That way there's more resources for everyone! :)
RUN COMRADES! RUN FOR THE PEOPLE'S STATE! RUN!
-
if you have to go into public you are exposed EVERY DAY - and the walking argument = pathetic, you know you're taller in the morning then at night? yes gravity does that, and it gets undone when you lay down and sleep.
Trying to make analogy to the calorie counters is yet another very poor analogy - 17 calories isn't going to do jack**** - 17 particles of a carcinogen CAN
I am LIVING LIFE, I want to LIVE MY LIFE AS LONG AS POSSIBLE and HEALTHY