Gaming Nut Posted June 29, 2002 Share Posted June 29, 2002 Acutlly no the banning of certain game isn't a majority rules thing It's an FCC thing If memory serves. People don't get that to run a goverment not ever thing can be put to a vote casue nothing would ever get done (Look at congress they could debate if a baby needs a new diaper for 10 hours ). Besides plenty would like porn, booze, tabacoo out lawed but that's not gonna happen so majority or large minoritys don't always rule. Beside this isn't over yet and large scale ingoring of this law will happen so their nothing to worry about. This is more of the govrments stacne on the issue then a don't do this it's illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hannibalscipio Posted June 29, 2002 Share Posted June 29, 2002 This'll get overturned and/or ignored. It'll never stand, not in a million years. Well, maybe in a million years we'll be stupid enough to do that, but not for a while, at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted June 29, 2002 Share Posted June 29, 2002 Originally posted by Gaming Nut Acutlly no the banning of certain game isn't a majority rules thing It's an FCC thing If memory serves. People don't get that to run a goverment not ever thing can be put to a vote casue nothing would ever get done (Look at congress they could debate if a baby needs a new diaper for 10 hours ). Besides plenty would like porn, booze, tabacoo out lawed but that's not gonna happen so majority or large minoritys don't always rule. That's exactly my point. In America the majority is screwed and the minority wins. Why? Because everyone is so paranoid about discrimination and that they are being treated unfairly. Just for once would i like to see the good of the country as a whole come before the good of a few. Have you ever really seen a case or decision when it was a majority group and against a minority group and the majority group won? Thats because minorties, in general, seem to think that because simply because they are minorties they need to be lifted up and cared for above everyone else. Why can't we just at least be equal, even though in democracy the majority should win? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaming Nut Posted June 30, 2002 Share Posted June 30, 2002 Because it's a quite a recent thing that minority don't need help to be equal to a point now they should slack off and are but still minorities will get pushed around and picked on if you don't stop people. Also as I said this is more of statement about where the government stands I don't think that they will stop you saying the pledge. Thou it wouldn't be a great lose they shouldn't do it just the same. It's like saying we don't lie what this country is doing but where not going to stop them. You can't not my your stance none but don't necessarily act on that stance either. I’d also turn your point on it’s head with this the clearly the majority of whites in the 1950 and 60 wanted blacks away from them one way or another. Was it then wrong that courts forced them to integrate? You can’t say that all different cause it’s not. Their has to be a way that a single person can take on larger group if it’s in the wrong or that person thinks it is. As long as that’s their it can be miss used but all things can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted June 30, 2002 Share Posted June 30, 2002 Originally posted by Gaming Nut I’d also turn your point on it’s head with this the clearly the majority of whites in the 1950 and 60 wanted blacks away from them one way or another. Was it then wrong that courts forced them to integrate? You can’t say that all different cause it’s not. Their has to be a way that a single person can take on larger group if it’s in the wrong or that person thinks it is. As long as that’s their it can be miss used but all things can. There isn't anything fundamentally wrong with separate but equal. i'm not saying we should go back to it, but it isn't bad. Actually, it happens still more than you might think. I go to a public high shcool that is about 90 percent white, 5 percent asian, and 5 percent black. Next year there could be even more whites and less blacks. On the other side, i know of schools that are almost completely black, but why does that matter? Both schools have equally educated teachers, both have the same programs, both have the same athletics. Its only natural that we form ourselves in groups where we feel most compfortable. Why not just be with your own race? If one group is really doing something criminal, then it is the governments job to interfere with law enforcement and maybe new regulations and laws. I'm talking about civil court cases, where either side could be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jatt13 Posted June 30, 2002 Share Posted June 30, 2002 i belive "under God" should be left in there. but i'm not posting to state my opinion. i just wanted to tell you that multiple senators said they would propose new legislation to keep "under God" in the pledge if it came to that, even if it meant an amendment to the constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted June 30, 2002 Share Posted June 30, 2002 Originally posted by Tie Guy There isn't anything fundamentally wrong with separate but equal. i'm not saying we should go back to it, but it isn't bad. Actually, it happens still more than you might think. I go to a public high shcool that is about 90 percent white, 5 percent asian, and 5 percent black. Next year there could be even more whites and less blacks. On the other side, i know of schools that are almost completely black, but why does that matter? Both schools have equally educated teachers, both have the same programs, both have the same athletics. Its only natural that we form ourselves in groups where we feel most compfortable. Why not just be with your own race? If one group is really doing something criminal, then it is the governments job to interfere with law enforcement and maybe new regulations and laws. I'm talking about civil court cases, where either side could be right. Okay now. Let me explain to you what's fundamentally wrong with separate but equal. It is an infringement of human rights to say "Oh, you can't go there, it's for whites only," because you're the wrong skin color. Why the hell should the school you go to be decided because of the color of your skin? What about people with mixed blood in them? There's also the fact that there isn't enough resources to build for example a school for every race, so someone is inevitably going to get screwed over. Wishing to separate people because of the color of their skin is an extremely deadly way of thinking. History proves that "separate but equal" does not work; it fosters hate and ignorance. What's inside your head should count, not the color of your skin! "Why not just be with your own race?" Why should you? This is America! We're supposed to have "liberty and justice for all". It isn't liberty to force someone to go to a certain school based soley on their race, something which has little to nothing to do with you as a person whatsoever. It's just wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted June 30, 2002 Share Posted June 30, 2002 Originally posted by Redwing Okay now. Let me explain to you what's fundamentally wrong with separate but equal. It is an infringement of human rights to say "Oh, you can't go there, it's for whites only," because you're the wrong skin color. Why the hell should the school you go to be decided because of the color of your skin? What about people with mixed blood in them? There's also the fact that there isn't enough resources to build for example a school for every race, so someone is inevitably going to get screwed over. Wishing to separate people because of the color of their skin is an extremely deadly way of thinking. History proves that "separate but equal" does not work; it fosters hate and ignorance. What's inside your head should count, not the color of your skin! "Why not just be with your own race?" Why should you? This is America! We're supposed to have "liberty and justice for all". It isn't liberty to force someone to go to a certain school based soley on their race, something which has little to nothing to do with you as a person whatsoever. It's just wrong... Why should you be with your own race? How about you have fundamental similarities that help you get along. You have people of the same culture and behavior, and thats makes everyone around you comfortable with actions based on those patterns. I'm not saying that we should force people to be separate, i'm just saying that it happens naturally. Why do you think they have places like China Town? There is nothing fundamentally wrong with separate but equal. As long as they are equal, why not let them be with the people they are most similar too? The problem with separate but equal was that they weren't equal, they were still discriminated against, which is wrong. That is what fosters hate. The other problem are the few people who just love to rebel. If the government puts them place, they automatically want to be another. These people stir up the rest to rebellion over nothing. They simply hate to be controled by anything, even rightful authority. These are the kind of people who brought the pledge case to the Courts. I think they know that the pledge is in no way corrupting to their children, and i seriously doubt that they thought for second about the rest of the country's children. Again, i'm not saying that i want all the minorities out of my school, or any other. All i'm saying is that if you let every student choose their school, the overwhelming number of whites would choose mine, and an overwhelming number of blacks would choose one or two others that are predominately black already. We have a psuedo-choice plan in my school district, and that has already dwindled the diversity of the school to almost nothing. That clearly shows what i've been saying. Namely that separate but equal is not fundamentally wrong since it is the natural way in which we group ourselves and it discriminates against no one. IMO, forcing people to diversify causes many more problems that it supposedly solves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryllith Posted July 1, 2002 Share Posted July 1, 2002 Originally posted by Tie Guy Anyways....don't you guys feel mad that just because some atheists are worried that their children are being corrupted or something the rest of the country is denied a tradition long upheld. As often stated in cases of the Seperation of Church and State, the point of this is to keep it out of a government run program/facility/whatever. There is NOTHING stopping people from saying the pledge of allegiance right when they wake up, just before they go to bed, before they eat dinner, or whatever. It's the same thing with prayer in schools. There is plenty of time to pray (or say the pledge) outside of school time, so if children are being corrupted it certainly isn't a result not have a classroom led reciting. Kryllith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherack Nhar Posted July 1, 2002 Share Posted July 1, 2002 I just wanted to drop by to tell everyone to stay respectful of the others' opinions, even thought they might not be your own. Heavyarm, saying that you would "load up your .45 socom and knock on his door" is a total lack of respect toward atheists. Any more comments like that and I will have to act. That warning goes to everyone, including atheists (don't bash god just because you don't believe in it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer_20000 Posted July 1, 2002 Share Posted July 1, 2002 Originally posted by Artoo Yeah. The law that was supposed to make religion easier for people to practice, now makes it impossible in government organizations. Stupid Athiests. But the president is still allowed to pray on National TV. I happen to be an Atheist. How would you like if instead the pledge of alleigance said something that promoted Atheism? Would you think that that should be removed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted July 2, 2002 Share Posted July 2, 2002 Originally posted by observer_20000 I happen to be an Atheist. How would you like if instead the pledge of alleigance said something that promoted Atheism? Would you think that that should be removed? The governemnt is promoting Atheism. They are doing so by totally removing all references to any god or religion. Not saying the pledge is promoting atheism, and quite frankly, i want it overturned. The thing here is that if you compare the number of christians (and others who want the pledge) to atheists, you have a lot to a few. And since there is no law against it or anything specific about it in the constitution, if a lot of people want it kept, and a few want it thrown out, then the "a lot" should win, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer_20000 Posted July 2, 2002 Share Posted July 2, 2002 Originally posted by Tie Guy The governemnt is promoting Atheism. They are doing so by totally removing all references to any god or religion. Not saying the pledge is promoting atheism, and quite frankly, i want it overturned. The thing here is that if you compare the number of christians (and others who want the pledge) to atheists, you have a lot to a few. And since there is no law against it or anything specific about it in the constitution, if a lot of people want it kept, and a few want it thrown out, then the "a lot" should win, IMO. No, it would be promoting Atheism if it said God didn't exist, if it mentiones neither, it is religiously neutral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer_20000 Posted July 2, 2002 Share Posted July 2, 2002 Originally posted by Tie Guy Hmmm....Atheism is a religion too, so doesn't that mean by ridding the governement of religion they are actually establishing Atheism? Jesus Christ, enough with the strawman attacks already, people are being forced to recite religious propoganda whenever they recite the pledge of alleigance, if there is no mention of god, then it is religiously neutral, if it said something like "One nation indivisible, not under god, because there is no proof of his existence" then it would be promoting Atheism, but are Atheists asking for it to say something like that? No, they're asking for Church and state to actually be seperate, like they're supposed to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Ewok Posted July 2, 2002 Share Posted July 2, 2002 Originally posted by observer_20000 Jesus Christ, enough with the Red Herrings, people are being forced to recite religious propoganda whenever they recite the pledge of alleigance, if there is no mention of god, then it is religiously neutral, if it said something like "One nation indivisible, not under god, because there is no proof of his existence" then it would be promoting Atheism, but are Atheists asking for it to say something like that? No, they're asking for Church and state to actually be seperate, like they're supposed to be. UH OH!!! INTELLIGENT PERSON ALERT!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havoc Stryphe Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 Okay, I would have usually posted in a thread like this by now, but I was trying to stay out of the heat for once. But, I find myself a glutton for punishment once more... Let me be frank and upfront with you, I am a Christian, but that fact will have little, or no, bearing on what I am about to say. Conversly, I am an American and that will have everything to do with what I am about to say. As much as it pains me to say this, This issue is bigger than God, Or at least in the eyes of the public, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Presidency it is. The fact is, to remove the phrase, "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance would undermine the very foundation this country was founded on. The fact of the matter is, even though some find it hard to accept, this country was founded on, and with, the belief in God. And before you try to throw it in my face, yes, it was also founded on the belief and practice of freedom of Religion within this country. But, here's the catch, the citizens within the country can practice any religion they wish to, however, that does not change the fact, that this country, as a single entity and it's principles and government, believes in God. To put it bluntly, the Country of The United States of America, believes in God, it's people, however, do not have to believe in the same god or even in a god at all. That is the real beauty of our country. Our Forefathers wanted a Christian country just as their motherland England was, but they did not want to make the same mistakes that England made (at the time), which was forcing all citizens to be one denomination, or faith. Neither did they want to dictate how someone should carry out that faith (i.e. how to worship or when to worship etc.). So they founded this country in Christianity, but made an allowance for other religions to practice within this Christian Country. Do you see how that works? Having said all that, the Pledge of Allegiance is just that. It is the act of pledging your allegiance or your alliance, support, citizenship to this country. It is symbolic of your love and devotion to this great Country. No where in the Plege does it make anyone plegde their allegiance to God, or any other religion. Nor does it request that you believe one exists. It is an individual pledging their allegiance to this country, which in this case, the country believes in God, not the individual. Observe: I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for Which it stands. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all. Look at what it actually states. The Nation, not you, is under God. Again, it's not the reciter of the pledge. He/She merely pledges their Allegiance to this country, that is all. If you can't cope with this Country being "under God", I am sorry, but that is the reality of it. Check any denominaton of currency you have in your pocket if you have any doubts about that. If you love this country, athiest, buddhist, hindu, muslim, jewish etc. you still pledge your allegiance to it. And yet you are allowed to believe any religious belief you want, that's the law. ...*snip* removed to show that I don't mean to be inflammatory nor absurd, in other words, for those of you keeping score, I admit it was a bit too far... I'm saying this as an American, and it is the honest truth. If this country was exactly the same as it is now, but on our currency, or in our decleration of Independance, or in the constitution, or in it's pledge, it read "in Allah we trust" or "under Allah". I would as a Christian swallow those two words, and still pledge my allegiance/fealty/loyalty/devotion to such a great Country. Why? Because even if the country was inherently muslim, but allowed any, and all, religions to be practiced throughout the country by it's citizens, then I can still be Christian without a problem. And seeings this country is so beautiful, free, and still remains the land of oppurtunity, where democracy rules, then I would gladly swallow my pride and utter those two words to tell that country I love her, and I would gladly stand up for her! Don't you see, it's not about religion, or the lack thereof, it's about patriotism. Just because you don't agree with the Country believing in God, doesn't mean it should be changed. If someone was a staunch muslim and practiced the belief that women are possessions and should have no legal rights, found the words "for all" religiously offensive, does that mean we should remove that phrase? The fact of the matter is, not every citizen is always going to agree with our country, but it's the majority rules, or in politcal terms: a Democracy. And it's still the best country we've got. And wether the pledge mentions Buddha, Allah, Satan, Ra, Loki etc. the citizens of this country don't have to believe in that god now or ever! They can still believe in any faith or religion they choose to, or in some's cases, no god at all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 Force Long Post. Well I suppose u are right, because the original "Americans" came to the US to pray in peace.(BTW I know Vikings found America first, but I am on about something that is completely different) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paragon_Leon Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 I believe this entire 'problem' stems from the fact that people desperately seek to separate church / religion and government. The lessons from history have made a greater impact than anyone dares to admit. After all, if any aspect of faith is considered 'not done' statehood-wise, then you know the whole thing has turned 180 degrees. What you're seeiing right now is a symptom of this. We've experienced it in the Netherlands over the past eight years and most recently last month, when one of our ministers wanted to do away with 'religious' schools altogether and create one big standard school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherack Nhar Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 Originally posted by Havoc Stryphe If you can't say the pledge, than maybe, this isn't the country for you. Err...Maybe you're taking it a bit too far. Sure, maybe your country was founded on those beliefs, but for some 'outsiders' like me, pledging allegiance to a government seems very dumb and useless (no offense meant). As such, does that mean the United States are not a country for me? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havoc Stryphe Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 Originally posted by Sherack Nhar Err...Maybe you're taking it a bit too far. Sure, maybe your country was founded on those beliefs, but for some 'outsiders' like me, pledging allegiance to a government seems very dumb and useless (no offense meant). As such, does that mean the United States are not a country for me? I don't think so. That's the whole point, Sherack. I'm illustrating the point that those who wish the pledge to be changed or eliminated, are taking it just as far the other way. They as a person, whish to change/eliminate the national pledge which has stood for country for how long, simply because of two words. That's the irony, Sherack. It's too far to say "maybe this isn't the country for you", but it's not too far to change a national pledge which has stood for our country and the millions of citizens that make up that country, because of One man finding offense over two words that are in regards to the country not him. By the way, the Pledge is symbolic, not legally binding in any way, Sherack. It is to show your love and devotion to the country. Truth be told, a country cannot stand economically, socially, globally or militarily without the people caring for and showing pride and/or patriotism in that country. It will simply fall apart. EDIT: To be fair, I edited out the original comment in my first post. It probably was a bit harsh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherack Nhar Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 It seems like you think I'm for the removal of the pledge. I'm not. While I don't agree with it, it's not my business. At least not yet I think that the pledge is a cheap way to prove your love to a country. It's too easy. Participating in community efforts and volunteer work is the real way to do it. In fact, I'm pretty sure you're already doing that, huh? I think a country can survive without patriotism... it's just a way to encourage people to help each other. There are other means to do it, but that doesn't mean I'm against patriotism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havoc Stryphe Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 Nah, I don't think your for teh removal of the pledge. I just thought you were pointing out me going too far, that's all. Just keeping me in line By the way, in case you missed it, I edited out the original comment in my first post. In other words... I concede Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 Right on, Havoc. The country was founded on a firm belief in God. And nothing can change the fact that the country was and is "under God." Whether its citizens are or not makes little difference. Still, i don't think that the intentions of the forefathers are a good basis for things today. I know that they said "all men created equal," but if you put that into their context, they might as well have said "all white male landowners over the age of 21 are created equal." That is evident in both their culture and their laws. If you really look at it, the "forefathers" intened the country to be a place where everyone can be free to practice any denomination of Christianity they please. Really, everyone back then in Europe and America was a "Christian." The dispute came over which denomination was better/allowed. for instance, England was Anglican, and they didn't allow you to be anything else. So the pilgrims left to go to a land where all denominations would be accepted. In modern times everyone takes it to mean that all religions are accepted, which is fine, but its far from what the "forefathers" intended, i think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artoo Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 I know I said I wouldn't say anything else, I won't after this, I just believe this is owed. 1. I'm sorry if I offended any Atheists. It really wasn't my intention, it was just a bad comment that I said out of anger. 2. Thank you for saying what you said Havoc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havoc Stryphe Posted July 4, 2002 Share Posted July 4, 2002 Hey Sherack, this is a good example of taking it too far: and a Humorous example at that! DISCLAIMER: Havoc does not condone the use of such abrasive language or behavior, nor does he believe that any one who disagrees with the National Pledge as it is for any reason, wether Athiest or not, should have to leave the country or feel pressured to leave in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.