Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on July 06, 2006, 08:53:00 pm
-
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/07/04/us/05liberty.large1.jpg)
discuss..
-
"...one nation, under God, indivisible..."
That is all I have to say. Take it as you will.
-
thats it, i think im gonna move.
it really isnt safe here anymore
-
Free speech. Regaurdless of it being in bad taste. But if flag burning is legal (I assume you thinks thats ok), then I am not sure why you would take offense to this.
-
I see it as a protest.
And Sandwich, for the record - that "Under God" line was added in the 1950s to distinguish us from the "Godless Communists" - it wasn't in the original pledge.
-
I didn't say it was or should be illigal, nor did anyone else, actualy I didn't say anything realy, though I don't realy think I need to, my opionion is known.
-
Sorry, that was directed at Turambar.
-
theyre completely within their rights to do it, no question about that. i just wonder where they are, so that i can not be near them. (and they'd wonder the same as me if they had a photo of me at one of my bi-weekly flag torchings)
no, i dont burn a flag twice a week, but if i did, i'd burn everyone's flag, in alphabetical order, to show my contempt for the concept of nations
-
Maybe if America actually behaved like a Christian nation, that might be appropriate...
-
theyre completely within their rights to do it, no question about that. i just wonder where they are, so that i can not be near them. (and they'd wonder the same as me if they had a photo of me at one of my bi-weekly flag torchings)
no, i dont burn a flag twice a week, but if i did, i'd burn everyone's flag, in alphabetical order, to show my contempt for the concept of nations
I was trying to prove a point though, I think you got it though. The main idea I was trying to communicate is that others might find flag burning to be in bad taste, just like some one else might think that the Statue of Liberty holding a cross is in bad taste as well. Point is show a little bit of respect towards one another.
-
Maybe if America actually behaved like a Christian nation, that might be appropriate...
We're not purely a Christian nation to begin with, there are lots of other folks here you know.
-
that immage may fill my little heart with malice, but it never crosses my mind to try and get a law passed makeing that activity banned and made illigal, I think that makes me a good American :)
-
I really don't find anything truly horrible about this. I do a lot of driving down in the southern half of Indiana, and it seems that every house I pass on the way has a flag and a cross in the yard.
If people are allowed to burn flags and make posters that make Bush look like Hitler, I think a group of Christians should be allowed to use this as a symbol for their beliefs. Where was this picture taken anyway? If it's somewhere rural and in some out-of-the-way church courtyard, especially in the more conservative areas of the country, there's not really a whole lot wrong with it.
-
Maybe if America actually behaved like a Christian nation, that might be appropriate...
qft.
-
Oh God, it's not that Christo guy again, is it?
This level of debate, and I don't mean here but rather the "statement" presented by the picture, far from being all sophisticated and intelligent, is not worthy of a five year old. Pretentious assholes.
-
"...one nation, under God, indivisible..."
That is all I have to say. Take it as you will.
yes. the pledge violates the constitution and should be restored to it's original form - which didn't have "under god" - those were added in 1954
the original version, written by a minister, lacked those words - however he had considered them - he felt them INAPPROPRIATE for the pledge of allegience since the united states had the seperation of church and state
-
Maybe if America actually behaved like was a Christian nation, that might be appropriate...
but it isn't one, it's a secular state that is being coopted by theocratic totalitarians in alliance with corporatists
-
Maybe if America actually behaved like a Christian nation, that might be appropriate...
Well, they're busy killing Muslims in the Middle East, howzat?
-
Maybe if America actually behaved like was a Christian nation, that might be appropriate...
but it isn't one, it's a secular state that is being coopted by theocratic totalitarians in alliance with corporatists
Funny, the people you want to criticize say pretty much the same thing about athiests etc. And for proof they point to forcing of boyscouts off of military bases etc.
-
touche aldo :D
oh btw christian supremacists who think "under god" belongs in our pledge - let's subject it to the lemon test
does the insertion of "under god" into the pledge fit the following three critereon
1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test#The_.22Lemon_test.22
Fails 1 - "under god" is explicitly religious, impossible to have a secular purpose
Fails 2 - saying that the nation is under god patently advances religion
Fails 3 - "under god" is government forwarding religion (we know by implication it is christianity), this is entangling government and religion especially since little children are often forced to participate in displays of reciting the pledge [even if they're allowed to be silent they are there in the presence of agents of the government promoting religion]
then by the established supreme court standards for whether or not something violates the establishment and free exercise clauses "under god" in the pledge is in violation of the 1st Amendment to the US Consitution
-
Funny, the people you want to criticize say pretty much the same thing about athiests etc. And for proof they point to forcing of boyscouts off of military bases etc.
(http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/7479/americanchristianopression7ug.gif)
Edit: Wait a minute... didn't I get this off HLP like a week ago?
-
Funny, the people you want to criticize say pretty much the same thing about athiests etc. And for proof they point to forcing of boyscouts off of military bases etc.
yes, they do attempt to say the same thing - however established case law weighs against them 100% without question.
The Boy Scouts of America explicitly require members to affirm belief in god, and they descriminate against homosexuals. Thereby they establish themselves as a sectarian group.
The government gives them money
Shall we apply the Lemons test?
Fail 1 - Almost passes critereon 1, there is a legitimate secular purpose to promoting the boyscouts, but since they descriminate against people not of their religious group and they descriminate against homosexuals based upon religion that outweighs any secular purpose
Fail 2 - Advances religion by funding a sectarian group
Fail 3 - Entangles government in religion by funding a sectarian group
(Re Mefustae: yes, i posted it)
-
Found a NY times article on it. Ofcourse you have to be registered to actually read it since it's in the archives now :sigh:
From what I recall, the statue is located in Memphis. Alton Williams is the name of the guy thats responsible for it. the NY times article didn't exactly paint a much better image of him than say.. Pat Robertson .
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/05/us/05liberty.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Can't seem to find a copy of that article anywhere else, but maybe someone here has access.
-
oh - as for the modified statue
it's disrespectful to what the real statue of liberty stands for, and disrepectful to this countries heritage and founding - but it is their right to free speech and it is on their private property
-
touche aldo :D
It's not a touché, since it underscores my point. :)
yes. the pledge violates the constitution and should be restored to it's original form - which didn't have "under god" - those were added in 1954
I'd say the pledge itself violates the Constitution, as it is the state encouraging people to pledge allegiance to it. It should be the other way around; the state should pledge allegiance to the people. Get rid of the pledge altogether and the controversy goes away. :)
This level of debate, and I don't mean here but rather the "statement" presented by the picture, far from being all sophisticated and intelligent, is not worthy of a five year old. Pretentious assholes.
I agree with the basic sentiment here. Christians (and any other religion, for that matter) should "show, don't tell". Or, telling is fine, as long as showing takes precedence. If you have to wear a T-shirt or put up a statue that says "I am a Christian" in order for people to know that you are, then guess what -- you're probably not.
Putting up the statue is rather arrogant; it strikes me as very much like the passage in Jeremiah (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=30&chapter=7&version=31) where ancient Israel protested "This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD!" -- claiming themselves to be favored by God, while doing nothing to merit it.
-
yes. the pledge violates the constitution and should be restored to it's original form - which didn't have "under god" - those were added in 1954
I'd say the pledge itself violates the Constitution, as it is the state encouraging people to pledge allegiance to it. It should be the other way around; the state should pledge allegiance to the people. Get rid of the pledge altogether and the controversy goes away. :)
Yeah, but that one (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights) is a whole lot more difficult to recite verbatim, isn't it? :D
-
touche aldo :D
It's not a touché, since it underscores my point. :)
no, it doesn't
it's a reference to the crusades - them being a "christian behavior" involving killing muslims in the mideast in a holy war
I'd say the pledge itself violates the Constitution, as it is the state encouraging people to pledge allegiance to it. It should be the other way around; the state should pledge allegiance to the people. Get rid of the pledge altogether and the controversy goes away. :)
there is nothing in the constitution that says so, but in concept i agree with you - the state serves the people in a representative democracy with gauranteed rights (esp. for minorities) than the people serving the state
-
Funny, the people you want to criticize say pretty much the same thing about athiests etc. And for proof they point to forcing of boyscouts off of military bases etc.
yes, they do attempt to say the same thing - however established case law weighs against them 100% without question.
The Boy Scouts of America explicitly require members to affirm belief in god, and they descriminate against homosexuals. Thereby they establish themselves as a sectarian group.
The government gives them money
A. There is no reason they should be forced off of federal lands because they discriminate against homosexuals. Now if they violated a Title VII provision... Last I checked homosexuals are not a protected class.
B. The government doesn't give them money in the case of the military bases. Or at least I don't think they do. (If they did, I might be inclined to agree with you) They only allowed them to use public facilities IIRC.
C. 'Establishment Clause' or not, it doesn't neglect the fact that both sides of this stupid argument are claiming there is a conspiracy about. Hell, they even can claim that the conspiracy affect the courts and thus the interpretation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Both claim that the other is trying to stack the courts against them etc. (Also God is a generic term and doesn't give preference to any one religion) Ultimatly, you shouldn't claim the other have no valid compliant or argue based on your interpritation the constitution; especially when the constitution can be interpreted in as many ways as this whole argument is stupid. Unfortunatly, we will continue to see this stupid tit for tat **** that has been going on since the 50s.
-
Bah. They've got the statue all wrong.
That cross should be on fire!
-
touche aldo :D
It's not a touché, since it underscores my point. :)
no, it doesn't
it's a reference to the crusades - them being a "christian behavior" involving killing muslims in the mideast in a holy war
I'd say the pledge itself violates the Constitution, as it is the state encouraging people to pledge allegiance to it. It should be the other way around; the state should pledge allegiance to the people. Get rid of the pledge altogether and the controversy goes away. :)
there is nothing in the constitution that says so, but in concept i agree with you - the state serves the people in a representative democracy with gauranteed rights (esp. for minorities) than the people serving the state
The Crusades were not as one sided and some think.
Karajorma, umm I hope that was a joke.
-
A. There is no reason they should be forced off of federal lands because they discriminate against homosexuals. Now if they violated a Title VII provision... Last I checked homosexuals are not a protected class.
you ignored the other part - they descriminate on the basis of religion to. Which makes giving money to them, or contributions in kind, violate the lemon test.
If they would simply renounce requiring their members to be religious, and stopped descriminating, I would have no problem with them.
Gays may not be listed in Title VII, but supporting a group that descriminates against gays fails to pass the lemon test and the Equal Protection Clause dictates gays be treated like any other citizen
B. The government doesn't give them money in the case of the military bases. Or at least I don't think they do. (If they did, I might be inclined to agree with you) They only allowed them to use public facilities IIRC.
The Pentagon gives them $2m/year for the jamboree, allowing them to use government facilities free-of-charge is a contribution-in-kind
(Also God is a generic term and doesn't give preference to any one religion)
false, read up on your case law
it gives preference to religion over non-religion ("it forwards religion" and thus violates The Lemon Test)
Ultimatly, you shouldn't claim the other have no valid compliant or argue based on your interpritation the constitution;
I don't have to claim that don't have a valid complaint - i can demonstrate such by citation of clearly established case law
especially when the constitution can be interpreted in as many ways as this whole argument is stupid. Unfortunatly, we will continue to see this stupid tit for tat **** that has been going on since the 50s.
no, the constitute is quite clear on the subject of the seperation, only peolpe who fail to acknowledge it are those who have an agenda of mixing religion and government - they simply IGNORE it and play semantic games
-
The Crusades were not as one sided and some think.
i never said they were, however the christians did start them
oh.. and karajorma's point stands - the church that erected this are bigots if you investigate them
they're anti-non-christian, anti-gay, anti-anyone-not-them bigots
-
Karajorma, umm I hope that was a joke.
Why should it be? If the point of art is to provoke thought then I see no reason why someone else shouldn't parody that statue and make it reflect the attitude of the vocal minority of the Christian Right
-
A. There is no reason they should be forced off of federal lands because they discriminate against homosexuals. Now if they violated a Title VII provision... Last I checked homosexuals are not a protected class.
you ignored the other part - they descriminate on the basis of religion to. Which makes giving money to them, or contributions in kind, violate the lemon test.
If they would simply renounce requiring their members to be religious, and stopped descriminating, I would have no problem with them.
Gays may not be listed in Title VII, but supporting a group that descriminates against gays fails to pass the lemon test and the Equal Protection Clause dictates gays be treated like any other citizen
Do they say they discriminate based on religion? Or is it a matter of safty.
B. The government doesn't give them money in the case of the military bases. Or at least I don't think they do. (If they did, I might be inclined to agree with you) They only allowed them to use public facilities IIRC.
The Pentagon gives them $2m/year for the jamboree, allowing them to use government facilities free-of-charge is a contribution-in-kind
Has any other organization wishing to use military facilities been revoked?
(Also God is a generic term and doesn't give preference to any one religion)
false, read up on your case law
it gives preference to religion over non-religion ("it forwards religion" and thus violates The Lemon Test)
Case law that can be determined to be erroneous, flawed, biased and can be ultimatly overturned.
Ultimatly, you shouldn't claim the other have no valid compliant or argue based on your interpritation the constitution;
I don't have to claim that don't have a valid complaint - i can demonstrate such by citation of clearly established case law
Case law that can be determined to be erroneous, flawed, biased and can ultimatly be overturned. Or even up to the interpretation of another judge.
especially when the constitution can be interpreted in as many ways as this whole argument is stupid. Unfortunatly, we will continue to see this stupid tit for tat **** that has been going on since the 50s.
no, the constitute is quite clear on the subject of the seperation, only peolpe who fail to acknowledge it are those who have an agenda of mixing religion and government - they simply IGNORE it and play semantic games
Not really, those few words can be read many different ways. You choose to interpret it in a way that suits your underlying
philosophical beliefs and so do the people you want to criticize. A clear clause would be the use of go a little more in depth.
The crusades started with a speech made by the pope at the time. This doesn't mean that the cause is the 100% blame of the christians, or even mostly. It is not that simple.
-
Longest quote ever...........Why are we arguing about someones point of view anyway?
-
Karajorma, umm I hope that was a joke.
Why should it be? If the point of art is to provoke thought then I see no reason why someone else shouldn't parody that statue and make it reflect the attitude of the vocal minority of the Christian Right
Ok, fine. It is just that most people in the US cringe at that sort of thing because of the antics of the KKK. It is a very tough historical issue that no really likes to talk about it unless they think they are the master race.
-
Longest quote ever...........Why are we arguing about someones point of view anyway?
Because I would like to make the point that you shouldn't marginalize someone else's point of view with the same exact means that they are using and then act like you are superior.
-
I agree, i just cant be arsed to comment more though :pimp:
-
Do they say they discriminate based on religion? Or is it a matter of safty.
YES, that's pretty well established - they REQUIRE members to affirm a belief in God (any god) - that is exclusionary to non-diety based spiritualities AND to atheists and agnostics
thereby funding them fails the lemon test
Has any other organization wishing to use military facilities been revoked?
yes
Case law that can be determined to be erroneous, flawed, biased and can be ultimatly overturned.
"can" and "Will" are two COMPLETELY different things. The only type of judge that would overturn Lemon is an activist more interested in theocracy than democracy as there is NO constitutional basis to override Lemon
Not really, those few words can be read many different ways. You choose to interpret it in a way that suits your underlying philosophical beliefs and so do the people you want to criticize. A clear clause would be the use of go a little more in depth.
No, i interpret them the way the FOUNDING FATHERS EXPLAINED THEM in every single shred of supporting documentation in existance on the subject - and in context.
assert all you want "the case law may be flawed!!!!" but you're grasping at straws and YOU KNOW IT. There is NO REASONABLE WAY to say that asking christians to keep government and religion seperate, and them failing to do so, is oppressing them.
There is NO REASONABLE WAY to say that asking christians to follow the constitution and keep government and religion seperate and forcing them to comply is opressing them - they're not prevented from engaging in their beliefs. The government isn't discouraging them from believing, it's just refusing to encourage them.
There is no reasonable argument in existance to claim that christians are the persecuted in the united states, and a preponderance of evidence supporting that christians are the persecutors
(http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/7479/americanchristianopression7ug.gif)
The crusades started with a speech made by the pope at the time. This doesn't mean that the cause is the 100% blame of the christians, or even mostly. It is not that simple.
contrary to your assertions - it is that simple
the christians started it.
-
Because I would like to make the point that you shouldn't marginalize someone else's point of view with the same exact means that they are using and then act like you are superior.
I'm going to make the point that you're being disingenious in claiming that I am doing so
I am demanding that the governemnt comply with it's own constitution and remain neutral on religion - neither encouraging or discouraging it
They are demanding that th government ignore it's own constitution and continue to promot their religion - violating the rights of everyone not of their religion
if you don't see the difference then you are being obtuse
spare me your straw man arguments
-
Obtuse,? He's being more than 180' degrees on an angle of geometry? :wtf:
-
ob·tuse Audio pronunciation of "Obtuse" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-ts, -tys, b-)
adj. ob·tus·er, ob·tus·est
1.
1. Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.
2. Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity: an obtuse remark.
3. Not distinctly felt: an obtuse pain.
2.
1. Not sharp, pointed, or acute in form; blunt.
2. Having an obtuse angle: an obtuse triangle.
3. Botany. Having a blunt or rounded tip: an obtuse leaf.
when used in the context i used it in it implies the person is intentionally ignoring the subtlies of a situation to be able to construct a straw man argument
-
Because I would like to make the point that you shouldn't marginalize someone else's point of view with the same exact means that they are using and then act like you are superior.
I'm going to make the point that you're being disingenious in claiming that I am doing so
I am demanding that the governemnt comply with it's own constitution and remain neutral on religion - neither encouraging or discouraging it
They are demanding that th government ignore it's own constitution and continue to promot their religion - violating the rights of everyone not of their religion
if you don't see the difference then you are being obtuse
spare me your straw man arguments
I am not using that as an argument as why your wrong about the "establishment clause" but that your general attitude towards any one who disagrees with you sucks. And the two sides of this stupid argument are pretty much equal as far as their argogance and general immature nature.
-
I am not using that as an argument as why your wrong about the "establishment clause" but that your general attitude sucks.
so you actually have nothing against my argument and you recognize the validity - you're just trying to cause a problem because you don't like that I am angry that certain christians refuse to respect my rights?
Just because you don't give a rats ass about your rights doesn't mean i'm going to stand by quietly while my rights are trampled. I take the path of the founding fathers - to kick and scream when my rights are violated; to refuse to shut up and be polite to the people who are oppressing me.
I have the right to think of them as mindless backward ignorant fools who have no right to speak on any subject with authority. Be my opinion of them as it may be, I still defend their right to belief whatever arrogance-laced superstitution they arbitrary are born into and indoctrinated to believe.
You get me?
I disagree with them, quite strongly, but I will still defend their right to believe what they do. They don't respect my rights however.
Say whatever you want about my distaste for religious lunacy - the fact remains I will defend their right to be religious even when they don't respect my right to not be religious.
I'd say that makes me better than them - especally since I merely think of them as arrogant fools, not as evil people like they think of anyone who doesn't believe in their god.
-
ob·tuse Audio pronunciation of "Obtuse" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-ts, -tys, b-)
adj. ob·tus·er, ob·tus·est
1.
1. Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.
2. Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity: an obtuse remark.
3. Not distinctly felt: an obtuse pain.
2.
1. Not sharp, pointed, or acute in form; blunt.
2. Having an obtuse angle: an obtuse triangle.
3. Botany. Having a blunt or rounded tip: an obtuse leaf.
when used in the context i used it in it implies the person is intentionally ignoring the subtlies of a situation to be able to construct a straw man argument
There ya go, section 2 subsection 2, i'm glad i remembered something from school... :nod:
So by the way..........@ no one in particular.....
(http://images.google.co.uk/url?q=http://kojisama.anberu.com/images/Satan.jpg)
-
If the Phelps and Anne Coulter are the bottom rung of bat**** crazy conservatives, Kazan surely must be their left-wing counterpart.
-
If the Phelps and Anne Coulter are the bottom rung of bat**** crazy conservatives, Kazan surely must be their left-wing counterpart.
yes becuase I have the lie and plagerize to make my point just like Ann, and I have to say that america's going to hell for allowing differences of opinion like Phelps
woops.
Seems you just tripped over your own comment.
A) I don't have to make things up, or lie, to make my point
B) I'm not condeming america to burn in hell for having diversity
C) I don't blindly support any specific political party (i support a specific one, but definantly not blindly)
yup. i'm just like them
They rate +9.0 to the right on the left/right political compus scale and I rate about a -5 tword the left.
yup, i'm COMPLETELY their opposite.
-
If the Phelps and Anne Coulter are the bottom rung of bat**** crazy conservatives, Kazan surely must be their left-wing counterpart.
Hardly. Kaz gets bat**** passionate about what he's talking about, yes, but he tends to be right about these kinds of things, too. There's no question that some people can be at odds with for the kinds of things he says (read: me), but he doesn't make this stuff up either.
-
thank you nuclear
i used to be a lot calmer abuot this.. but it's kinda the back-a-dog-into-a-corner effect going on
-
On the topic at hand, if there's one thing I believe about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is that, with the exception of slavery clauses, the Founding Fathers wrote what they ****ing meant to say and that's that. "No establishment of religion" means "no establishment of religion." Fundies can argue that the country was based on Judeo-Christian values all they'd like, but the law says that no religion will be respected by the government as a religion to base its law off of. The Founding Fathers were smart and looked back in history and saw how well Theocracies had gone over.
Still, the Founding Fathers also said that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, and if these Christians want to exercise that by making a Statue of Liberty with a cross in it, then they should be free to do it. Christians can live by the Bible if they like, but their right to exercise religion stops at the point where they begin to infringe on human rights and cross the line too far into politics. The Bible's got plenty of good common sense laws to live by (the 10 Commandments, respecting your neighbor, respecting the government), so I don't see why the Christians all have to flock to the one part of the Bible that says "no homosexuality." Preaching that essentially leads into breaking a whole number of other commands; they disrespect the government's authority by attempting to get legislation such as the homosexuality ban through and hate their neighbors if they're gay.
-
With Christians, it's usually all or nothing. If it's just a little of the Bible here and listen to a little of God's word there, they wouldn't feel like, nor be, true Christians (to what the Bible lays out anyway).
-
Still, the Founding Fathers also said that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, and if these Christians want to exercise that by making a Statue of Liberty with a cross in it, then they should be free to do it.
I don't think anyone on this thread has said they couldn't :) Anyone who has needs a good smack in the mouth.
-
Still, the Founding Fathers also said that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, and if these Christians want to exercise that by making a Statue of Liberty with a cross in it, then they should be free to do it.
I don't think anyone on this thread has said they couldn't :) Anyone who has needs a good smack in the mouth.
Not saying they didn't, just stating the same opinion that's been stated a hundred times, as I usually do. :p