[RLeahey14]

I'm all for after all God rules

[VENTGtr]

[Merge]

You make some very good points, VentGtr. That was written very well.
_________________
Pour me another one, cause I'll never find the silver lining in this cloud.

[lonewolf]

[djlotus51]

I'm actually against the entire debate as a whole. Not this thread tossing around ideas and personal observations for conversation's sake, but I'm against taking a personal opinion and forcing that opinion onto others. The power of any given word is derived only by the person who is comprehending it. On some level, the words "under god" have a different meaning to each individual. It could mean God, Allah, Buddha, Mother Nature, etc. Or it could even mean nothing at all unless put into the context of the Pledge of Allegiance, which is my interpretation. The Pledge of Allegiance, imo, is simply a poetic version of "I like the USA...YAY!" It's just a jumble of words spewed out with the intention of stimulating people's patriotism. "Under god" just happens to be part of the rally cry. I think people should define/interpret words as they deem appropriate and take a look at the big picture as opposed to insignificant details...and maybe pick up a hobby because obsessing over a couple of words is a pathetic way to go through life.
_________________
"the music will be so dirty that if we moved in next door to you, your lawn will die." -Lemmy

[Hawk]

The context of "Separation of Church and State" Jefferson was responding to was to make it known that the Government will not choose ONE religion over others to be the "State" religion. That (State Religion) was common practice of most all governments. And still is with many today.

It did not mean that the Government was without God or separated from
God and religion. They were saying, "We don't want a State religion, we are separating ourselves from an established state religion". And no ONE religion will run our new country. (Also a common practice in some governments.)

Separation meant, The government will not run a chosen religion nor will a chosen religion run our government.

But it did not mean they would take away your freedom to express your religion.

Many came to the colonies because they were free to practice and establish there religions. The spin on separation of state and religion has come to differ with FREEDOM of religion, when it was originally meant to NOT ESTABLISH a State religion. But to allow many religions to keep from being persecuted.

Now it is being used to persecute those who want to FREEly express their religion. Like a simple Nativity scene on public owned property. That is NOT what Jefferson (or any founding father) meant. They WANTED you to be free to choose and express your religion.
_________________
www.showtimesoundllc.com
Flashpoint!
SKYE 2.0
Triple Threat

[VENTGtr]

Hawk,

True, there was never an intention to take away anyone's freedom to express
their religion. I wouldn't want that and God's as real as the Easter Bunny. Just
a thousand times more vindictive, mean, and destructive and not cute and fuzzy
in the least.

Someone has every right to stroll down the street in nothing but a cross if they
want (Granted, indecency laws...but if it's a big enough cross). But, if they're so
for religious freedom they better be ready to defend the Wiccan who's coming
down the street the other wearing a (Just as big) pine cone.

Too many out there are all for religious freedom as long as it's their religion that's
getting the benefit.

"They were saying, "We don't want a State religion, we are separating
ourselves from an established state religion"."

True. Endorsing no religion. Why should there be an acknowledgment of a
single religious deity? Are you intimating that when "God" is mentioned in the
pledge, which came about apx. 170 years after the Constitution, that it's meant
to imply ALL Gods?

The pledge was written by a Socialist and the "under God" bit was originally
added by the Knights of Columbus, because they wanted a mention of "God".
Having it added officially took a few years, but they found their way in.

"Now it is being used to persecute those who want to FREEly express their religion."

How in the world do you come up with that?

That's just making a of people whose religion is the most prominent be able to
feel like they're being persecuted. You hear this in chuches and it's pretty much
laughable that they have the gall to say it.

Tell me there are people terrorizing you because you have a Christmas tree.
Again though, I do think the tree is a secular thing. But, I'm more on the side of
those who see the Christmas tree Christmas and the celebrating Jesus' birth as
2 very different holidays. Jesus was a great human and, for those who see him
as a Saviour, I feel bad they're celebration gets overshadowed with sale flyers.

"Like a simple Nativity scene on public owned property."

If it's on PUBLICLY OWNED property, it' has no right to be there. That's not someone
expressing themselves on their property, it's making a public statement on everyone's
property. And it is exactly the kind of thing Jefferson didn't want. It's also a governmental
endorsement of a religious belief. You can believe in your God, Gods, etc. but I don't
have to be bothered by it. It's your relationship with your God. Let's keep it that way.

Now, would I be especially bugged by it? Not on a real visceral level, But, I am a
parent. Kids shouldn't have to tolerate someone's God-need or be made to feel
uncomfortable, and that happens all too much. Especially when most of the parents
who espouse this stuff don't practice what they supposedly believe.

How many people on here watch football Sunday? Sinning. Git yer drunk on?
Sinning. Turn your heat on on the Sabbath? Sinning. Matter of fact, you ask a strict
adherence Seventh Day Adventist and, if you're not eating "right" and go by Sunday
as the Sabbath...yerrrrrr sinnin'. Actually, going by the Bible, they're right. There's
nowhere in there the day was actually changed to Sunday. BUT, we're all worm food
when we die anyway, so I don't care when people go to church.

"It did not mean that the Government was without God or separated from God
and religion."

Of course it did. The founders saw what having official religion(s) had done in England
where, when there was a new ruler, there was violence between Catholics and Protestants.
ALSO, they were smart enough to know how having religion in a government could cause
it to be unstable. If they didn't even believe in the deity, it'd be pretty odd for them to base
their new government on it.

With the "Pledge" the words under God weren't even there until we turned into the total
insecure freaks we are now and thought it made us better than the Soviets. That's our
intelligence level nowadays, more than ever. Slap on a bumper sticker, you're a patriot,
a plastic flag and you're fighting terrorism, ignore reality and you're a self-made man
who's never needed anyone and just want to be left to your business. You just need to
make sure everyone believes the same or you're being oppressed,

YAYYYYYY US.


LOVE these discussions!
_________________
DaveP.

"You must be this beautiful to ride the Quagmire."

[songsmith]

Excellent, excellent post.

Persecution is a central tenet of Christianity, and indeed many religions... without a struggle against the "bad guy," the "good guy" has nothing compelling him. When you use that collective feeling that "they're all against us," you engender a devotion to the group, and that devotion is power to those who control the group. Devotion is what fills pews with the devoted, and what fills collection plates and tithe envelopes with tax-free cash.
I have laughed openly at the folks who think Americans don't want you to say "Merry Christmas"... that's just not true, outside a twisted little few. That's just a massive overstatement from people who want to anger the sheep enough to knee-jerk a little more reaction from them. O'Reilly says non-christians hate Christmas, and you love Christmas, so you listen to O'Reilly. Has anyone ever gotten pissed off because someone said, "Merry Christmas?" Seriously, do you know one single individual who actually chastened you for saying, "Merry Christmas?"
One needs to bear in mind that the "Under God" controversy was completely the invention of the conservative media. It was started when a nutjob in California decided to piss off his ex-wife in custody/divorce battle. Jeez, those never get ugly and unrealistic, right? At the time the case was brought up, the Neocons were making a case for a war we all knew wasn't quite right. They have consistently pushed B-grade human interest stories to the front of the line, to keep the Fox News-types from being branded as propagandists, and to refocus our attention away from administration screw-ups. Lacey Peterson. Natalee Holloway. The new one where the cop has a body count of wives. Sad stories, obviously, but hardly the only ones, and how relevant? Really, how is "Under God" relevant to the War On Terror? If I don't say "Under God," do the terrorists win? Really?--------->JMS

[VENTGtr]

[DirtySanchez]

This is why I worship the devil.
_________________
"You are now either a clueless inbred brownshirt Teabagger, or a babykilling hippie Marxist on welfare."-Songsmith

[lonewolf]

We Americans didn't have most of these kinds of problems before FDR introduced big government, by the government and for the government.

The U.S. didn't even have an official national pledge until Congress approved the Pledge of Allegiance in 1945.

The Constitution makes a simple and clear cut statement:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

And yet, in 1954, only 9 years after the pledge was approved, Congress passed a law respecting an establishment of religion (in general) by adding the words "under God" to this official national pledge.

All personal beliefs aside, this is just another example of big government sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong.

Officially removing these words will not diminish the greatness of the U.S., but it would go a long way towards reducing the divisiveness that plagues us. After all...

its a pledge to a country, not a prayer to a God.
_________________
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...

[VENTGtr]

[Hawk]

[Hawk]

[lonewolf]

[Hawk]

[VENTGtr]

[songsmith]

[VENTGtr]

[lonewolf]

During his first 8 years (during peacetime) FDR tripled the budget. It wasn't just that, his New Deal legacy continues to bankrupt the U.S.

This is the budget spending in millions during for the given years:

1932 4,659 (Hoover)
1933 4,598
1934 6,541 (FDR)
1935 6,412
1936 8,228
1937 7,580
1938 6,840
1939 9,141
1940 9,468
1941 13,653
1942 35,137
1943 78,555
1944 91,304
1945 92,712
1946 55,232 (Truman)
1947 34,496
1948 29,764
1949 38,835
1950 42,562
1951 45,514
1952 67,686
1953 76,101
1954 70,855 (Eisenhower)
1955 68,444
1956 70,640
1957 76,578
1958 82,405
1959 92,098
1960 92,191
1961 97,723
1962 106,821 (Kennedy)
1963 111,316
1964 118,528
1965 118,228 (Johnson)
1966 134,532
1967 157,464
1968 178,134
1969 183,640

Each president is stuck with the prior administration's budget for the 1st year of their term.

Source:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/hist.html

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/sheets/hist01z1.xls
_________________
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...

[VENTGtr]

LW,

That's not really a great indicator though. During the first years of FDR we were still
trying to dig out of the stock market crash (Really, until WWII). Much of the spending
to which you allude was getting people back to work and trying to make an economic
recovery.

Without the "New Deal", or some version of, we, as a nation, were done. We'd have
hit economic collapse beyond repair. Besides, a lot of the items in the first few rounds
of the New Deal were struck down for various reasons (Some were also expansions
on some of Hoover's policies). Those that stuck, Social Security, Labour reforms,
CCC, Infrastrucure repair/upgrades, even speeding construction on the Hoover Dam,
etc. added to the employment of millions who would've been broke, homeless, starving.
_________________
DaveP.

"You must be this beautiful to ride the Quagmire."

[lonewolf]

[DrumAndDestroy]

So everyone is gonna stop giving me shit now for believing in unicorns and leprechauns...right? Right?

Damn hallucinogens.

[VENTGtr]

Surviving the Depression (Which a lot of people didn't) and getting out of it are two
vastly different things. Would it have been better to do nothing and let things get
worse?

Didn't forget welfare at all. There are times that people going on welfare has been a
necessity. Has it ever been abused? Lord ya. But so have unemployment benefits
and everything else. Does it need revised? Ya. There were moves to do that in the
90s. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be there to help when necessary.

I grew up in a town where the a lot of the patriotic-God-believing-perfectly healthy-and
all-for-America men in the town couldn't wait until Thursday because that's when the
welfare checks came in and they'd have more to spend at the 2 bars in town.

Also, look at the employment rates, standards of living, wages earned, etc. after the
New Deal and you'll find that it did work.

"So everyone is gonna stop giving me shit now for believing in unicorns and leprechauns...right? Right?"

Depends. What kind of offer of Salvation have they promised?
_________________
DaveP.

"You must be this beautiful to ride the Quagmire."

[Soulseeker]