One Nation Under “Place idol here”
If you can believe it, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is at it again. This time, because they have had a hard time convincing the majority of this country that it is somehow wrong and violates the Constitution, that we say "One Nation Under God", they have decided that we should tell our children that they can "opt out" of pledging allegiance to their country.
Treason - the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
Someone... ANYONE! Please tell me how this "kindred spirit of perfidy" is allowed to exist in this country?!?! I for one, will not stand for these "half-baked nitwits" (one of the terms allowable by Congress, that won't offend anyone) telling my children that they can opt out.
Is it not enough, that we can no longer wish people a Merry Christmas? Is it not enough that we are being forced to take down the Ten Commandments from the halls of Courts that share the values upon which this country was founded?!?! Is it not enough that those of us who say "God Bless You" are looked at with condemnation?!?! I have conformed and stood by while you make less of my Christian faith, but I will be damned, if I do not expect, no, DEMAND that my children pledge allegiance to their country. If you don't believe that we are one nation under God, that is your right, but don't propagate your doctrine using the minds of our young, impressionable children.
To the ACLU and any of its advocates: STAY AWAY FROM OUR CHILDREN!!
September 16th, 2009 - 18:42
HALLELUJAH!!!!
And just so you know, I am not one of those that condemns you for saying ‘God bless you.’ It warms my heart that someone with true faith feels that much for me to wish me well. Its just other people (which shall remain nameless) who I dont feel are sincere that I tell to go to hell with their blessings. Kind of like only people of true faith can fend of a vampire with a cross, LOL. I know, silly, but works for this analogy.
September 18th, 2009 - 12:29
Great post Junior!
A break down of the Pledge we all repeated so many times as public school students in America.
Pledge – a solemn vow or promise, not to be broken.
Allegiance – devotion, loyalty, demonstrated by a willingness to sacrifice.
Flag – the “stars and stripes,” a collection of white stars on a field of blue represents the substance of our great nation. The red on white stripes represent the ultimate sacrifice that was made to create and to maintain it.
United – brought together in common cause.
Republic – our government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Nation – a body of people, united.
God – The creator who has endowed us with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Liberty – the condition of being free, with an implication of wisdom and voluntary restraint.
Justice – fair treatment for all in accordance with accepted ethical law.
All – everyone, without exception.
Teaching the pledge of allegiance and instilling reverence to its meaning has never been more necessary then in the times we are living in.
We not only as parents but as citizens can no longer blindly or idly sit by and assume that any system or program will teach our children those values once taught in our schools. Nor can we ever “opt out” as parents or American citizens when it comes to disussing or teaching the youth about the history of our nation; while it may be hard to look at sometimes it cannot be ignored or swept under the rug because it might “hurt someone’s feelings”.
There is a song and a old saying “You’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything” by erasing or pretending that things do not exist does not make it non existent nor does it change the fact that it is part of us, of our past of our future.
Come on – there is black and white, right and wrong, we do not live in a gray world!
Instilling respect for country should never be “optional”, ever.
September 18th, 2009 - 18:41
Thats ma girl!
September 25th, 2009 - 13:44
Here is a breakdown of your post and why your views on the subject make you look ignorant. It’s long to take go grab a snack before you start reading…
“If you can believe it, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is at it again. This time, because they have had a hard time convincing the majority of this country that it is somehow wrong and violates the Constitution, that we say “One Nation Under God”, [...]”
Interestingly enough The Pledge of Allegiance lived the first 62 years of its life without God. It wasn’t until 1954 that the addition of “under God” was approved by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Prior to this addition pretty much everyone in the country could say the pledge with conviction. However, because of the “godless-pinko-commie” rhetoric of that era, non-believers were unduly alienated. Ironically enough, the words were inserted right before “indivisible” which is exactly the opposite affect they had. The pledge should be something that brings us together as a country.
“they have decided that we should tell our children that they can “opt out” of pledging allegiance to their country.”
And why not? The Supreme Court ruled in 1943 that public schools cannot compel children to recite the pledge nor can they punish children who choose not to participate. In 1978 the Supreme Court also ruled that those children who chose not to participate cannot be required to stand at attention or leave the room. In 2003 a federal court found that a Pennsylvania law requiring schools to notify parents of children who did not say the pledge was also unconstitutional. So why not keep our children informed of their rights? Being a Libertarian I would like to think that something of this nature would be of the upmost importance to you.
“Someone… ANYONE! Please tell me how this “kindred spirit of perfidy” is allowed to exist in this country?!?!”
The ACLU is allowed to exist because this is a free country. Not just for you and people who think like you but also for those who have different views. I don’t under how someone who has claimed to be a Libertarian in other post can even say the above without being feeling awash with shame. Liberty is for everyone.
“I for one, will not stand for these “half-baked nitwits” (one of the terms allowable by Congress, that won’t offend anyone) telling my children that they can opt out.”
Well then maybe you should sit down for a minute and gather your thoughts BEFORE posting.
“Is it not enough, that we can no longer wish people a Merry Christmas?”
What makes you say that? Is it because some stores have switched to a more generic greeting? No one forced them to do that. They chose to because they thought it would be better for their bottom line. You’re a fan of capitalism right? Because that is the driving force behind decisions like these.
“Is it not enough that we are being forced to take down the Ten Commandments from the halls of Courts that share the values upon which this country was founded?!?!”
Only three of those 10 are considered crimes in the US. Killing, stealing and bearing false witness (in court at least) are pretty much universal in every society since the beginning of human history. We don’t need the 10 commandments to remind us that killing and stealing and lying are wrong.
“Is it not enough that those of us who say “God Bless You” are looked at with condemnation?!?!”
Oh, please! When does that ever happen? What a pitiful attempt at a Straw Man attack.
“I have conformed and stood by while you make less of my Christian faith […]
Well then, your faith must not be very important to you, if you think that pledging to a flag is more important than having some conviction when it comes to your religious beliefs. I’d venture to bet that you haven’t been to church or even so much as touched a Bible in years. Like most Christians you know very little about the religion that you claim to hold so dear to your heart. You remember the Sunday school crap about Noah and the Golden rule and you think that the entire Bible is like that. Crack open a Bible and read all of it. Once you figure out how to stay awake through all of the drone language and fluff, you will find that the Bible is full of some quite atrocious acts. God commits genocide on a massive scale several times over and specifically targets innocent women and children for no other reason than they are not members of the clan that comprises his “chosen children”. In this country such acts are considered appalling, reprehensible and inexcusable. Certainly not the kind of stuff our country is made of. And that is only scratching the surface of the horror that is to be found within the pages of the Bible.
“[…] , but I will be damned, if I do not expect, no, DEMAND that my children pledge allegiance to their country.”
*Sigh* I won’t even touch that one.
“If you don’t believe that we are one nation under God, that is your right, but don’t propagate your doctrine using the minds of our young, impressionable children.”
Funny how you feel that telling our children that they have the option to recite or not recite the pledge it’s “propagation of doctrine” but when Christians insert their beliefs into a previously secular pledge you completely ignore the indoctrination of others to your faith. As stated above what you call “propagation of doctrine” is actually educating our children of their constitutional rights.
“To the ACLU and any of its advocates: STAY AWAY FROM OUR CHILDREN!!”
Continue reading to find out why your “Atta-girl!” for Lauri was a bit premature.
And now for Lauri:
“A break down of the Pledge we all repeated so many times as public school students in America.”
It’s hardly a breakdown; you just posted definitions of key terms from The Pledge of Allegiance that are loose at best and completely inaccurate some cases. Although I can’t exactly blame you for their inaccuracy since you plagiarized it (http://www.gilroydispatch.com/opinion/33406-teaching-the-pledge-of-allegiance-and-instilling-reverence-for-its-meaning-falls-to-each-of-us) word for word from a Letter to the Editor post by Tom Drake on The Gilroy Dispatch website.
“Flag – the “stars and stripes,” a collection of white stars on a field of blue represents the substance of our great nation. The red on white stripes represent the ultimate sacrifice that was made to create and to maintain it.”
How can you sit here pretending to be a true blue patriot when you go around posting descriptions of the US flag that misattributes the meaning of its parts? We all learned at a very young age what the thirteen red stripes stand for. Or most of us did anyway.
“Teaching the pledge of allegiance and instilling reverence to its meaning has never been more necessary then in the times we are living in.”
Please tell me why it’s more important now than any other time. I would think that teaching the pledge and instilling reverence to its meaning would always be important every single day. However forcing children to recite it every single say does none of that. I only makes them memorize it and recite is in a meaningless robotic fashion.
“We not only as parents but as citizens can no longer blindly or idly sit by and assume that any system or program will teach our children those values once taught in our schools. Nor can we ever “opt out” as parents or American citizens when it comes to disussing or teaching the youth about the history of our nation; while it may be hard to look at sometimes it cannot be ignored or swept under the rug because it might “hurt someone’s feelings”.”
You should never “blindly or idly sit by” when it comes to parenting. Parenting is a time consuming and active process that requires your full attention at all times. This issue is not about “hurt feelings” it about people’s rights. If the pledge instead said Allah or Vishnu or Zeus then you would feel exactly the same as non-believers do every time you recited it.
“There is a song and a old saying “You’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything” by erasing or pretending that things do not exist does not make it non existent nor does it change the fact that it is part of us, of our past of our future.”
And pretending that something does exist does not make it so either. There is nothing particularly Christian about this country other than the fact that many of the early settlers were Christian. No one is trying to hide that. Since you seem to be such a big proponent of American history and heritage you should already know that the two people who authors most of our foundational documents (James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson) were strong proponents of church-state separation. Mostly because they knew firsthand what religious oppression felt like and knew that keeping religion and government separate not only protected people from religious persecution, but also protected religion itself.
“Come on – there is black and white, right and wrong, we do not live in a gray world!”
This is a very nice metaphor but I’m afraid you have things quite backwards. We actually live in a very gray world. While black and white are technically possible you would be hard pressed to find either on this planet or in the universe for that matter. Every object known to man either reflects some light and thus can’t be completely black, or absorbs some light and thus cannot be completely white. The same principles apply to just about everything else in this world. Is killing another person right or wrong? Well that all depends on the circumstances surrounding the killing. Did you kill the person in self defense? Then you did nothing wrong, and you get no punishment. Did you accidentally kill the person while doing something completely innocent? You might get a slap on the wrist. Maybe you killed someone while doing something totally careless and dangerous? Well you will probably do some jail time. Did you kill them on purpose, but in a momentary fit of rage, or did you kill them with carefully calculated intent? It’s important because it might mean the difference between many years of jail and a life/death sentence.
You only want things to be “black and white, right and wrong” because it’s easier for you to process. It means that you don’t have to think to hard. The truth of the matter is nothing in this world is ever that simple.
“Instilling respect for country should never be “optional”, ever.”
Again no one is saying that it’s optional to “install respect for country” only that the physical act of reciting the pledge each morning by students is. They are still required to learn about the pledge, and it’s meaning in history class. You cannot force reverence and respect; they must be earned and learned.
September 25th, 2009 - 14:35
My previous comment was made with the assumption that chino made this post. I did not realize that more than one person made post here. It shouldn’t have much impact on the content of my comment…
September 26th, 2009 - 11:05
Yes Nick, Junior was the ‘poster’ child for the religious right. Pun intended.
Now…
I am not a proponent of pushing ones beliefs upon others, in that way I am more of a libertarian but only that way.
I CANNOT argue with all your points, I agree with most of them. SURPRISE!!
What I will say is that you should not make assumptions as to someone’s faith or knowledge thereof, granted you thought it was me and knowing me, I dont know much about that stuff!
But you see, I can agree with someone of the opposite viewpoint if their points are valid. (It helps that I agree!) And we can have an open, honest, intelligent dialogue. Now……………
Where I disagree…. Whereas I agree with you in your view of organized religion, believe me, I DO, My atta girl came because of this, I wouldn’t use the term “plagiarize”, this is not a published entity in the classic sense, it is not a term paper or the New York Times. She found something pertinent and wanted to share it. To accuse someone of plagiarism is somewhat of an antagonistic comment that is common of liberals who disagree.
But (and I know you should never start a sentence with but or and, but) where I really come to an impasse with this topic is that I believe you are BOTH wrong!!!
Whereas I believe that no one need impose their personal beliefs on another, (abortion is a great example, both sides want to make it all or nothing, whereas I wish to leave it up to the states) I dont see why secularists and/or liberals see what is so wrong with it. Religion is a good thing as long as the radicals are kept in check. There are all kinds of radicals or kooks with or without religion.
What I think Junior’s point is that why is Christianity being eliminated from our country while Islam and Judaism cannot be touched? I remember being taught the song ‘Hava Nagilah’ when I was in elementary school, I feel that was totally inappropriate and didn’t want my kids learning it.
About black or white, it is black or white, if you think you live in a gray world that leaves room for stretching and bending rules. Killing another human being is wrong no matter what, cops face this all the time, killing is a last resort only when their life is on the line or get fired upon first. Its just survival, not right. Justified maybe, but then how many times are cops brought on trial for “wrongful death” suits? I’ll ask you just one question Nick, Is the death penalty ok?
September 28th, 2009 - 02:18
“I wouldn’t use the term “plagiarize”, this is not a published entity in the classic sense, it is not a term paper or the New York Times.”
I would because the term plagiarize mean exactly that, using someone else’s work with out permission, consent or attribution. You don’t have to be writing a thesis or for the New York Times for it to be plagiarism. I don’t think she did it on purpose, but it’s very important to distinguish your ideas from the ideas of others.
“She found something pertinent and wanted to share it.”
And failed to attribute it. If she can take the time to search for it, then why not take a few extra seconds at least say “found this online…”
“To accuse someone of plagiarism is somewhat of an antagonistic comment that is common of liberals who disagree.”
Really? First time I ever heard of that one. Care to cite that comment with some references to actual instances? It’s not antagonistic it’s just a matter-of-fact. I was initially going to go over each term and explain my points of contention. After researching the terms for my reply I discovered that she didn’t write them and thus it became less important. I pointed out the plagiarism because I believe it helps to illustrate a lack of effort on her part. She simply searched for something that supported her statements, and never bothered to consider whether any of it held any water.
“Whereas I believe that no one need impose their personal beliefs on another, (abortion is a great example, both sides want to make it all or nothing, whereas I wish to leave it up to the states) I dont see why secularists and/or liberals see what is so wrong with it.”
All-or-nothing in the abortion arena would be “everyone must have” or “no one can have”. The in-between is “everyone has a personal choice”.
The problem with leaving it up to the state is this. Predominately evangelical states would be allowed to force their religious beliefs on other people in the state. That is unconstitutional. If it were up to the states, places like Alabama and Mississippi would completely outlaw it even in cases where it might be medically necessary to save the mothers life and even when it is known ahead of time that the baby could never be saved.
“What I think Junior’s point is that why is Christianity being eliminated from our country while Islam and Judaism cannot be touched? I remember being taught the song ‘Hava Nagilah’ when I was in elementary school, I feel that was totally inappropriate and didn’t want my kids learning it.”
Christianity isn’t being eliminated from our country. Judaism and Islam are not trying to inject themselves into everyone else’s life, and thus less frequently find themselves targets of this. Although if you keep pace with whats happening in the United Kingdom you will see that there is a Islam is getting it much worse there specifically because they are trying to inject Islam in to government.
There is a difference between learning about the traditions of religions in school and forcing your beliefs on others. Taking a class that teaches about the history of Christianity is not the same thing as teaching Intelligent Design in science classes. Likewise learning Jewish folk songs is completely different from being told to say a pledge which contradicts your beliefs. “Hava nagila”, by the way is not a religious song.
Translation:
Let’s rejoice
Let’s rejoice
Let’s rejoice and be happy
Let’s sing
Let’s sing
Let’s sing and be happy
Awake, awake, brothers!
Awake brothers with a happy heart
Awake, brothers, awake, brothers!
With a happy heart
‘About black or white, it is black or white, if you think you live in a gray world that leaves room for stretching and bending rules. Killing another human being is wrong no matter what, cops face this all the time, killing is a last resort only when their life is on the line or get fired upon first. Its just survival, not right. Justified maybe, but then how many times are cops brought on trial for “wrongful death” suits? I’ll ask you just one question Nick, Is the death penalty ok?”
It’s not right, but it’s justified? I suggest you look up those terms, because there is almost no semantic difference between them. As far as I can tell it’s impossible for something to be justified but not right. I mean your pretty much making my point for me here. Killing = bad, unless you life is on the line and then it’s okay. Hell if you kill a crazed gun man who is shooting people indiscriminately it’s not only okay, but you are likely to cheered as a hero. It is very gray.
I’m not against euthanasia, but I think if we must do that then we should reserve it for only for cases in which there is clear irrefutable evidence. What I am against is keeping people convicted of murder in prison for life sentences where they become a leech on society. Either do away with them or put them to work. Anyone wanting to forgo their death sentence could opt to spend the rest of their life trying to repay society for their transgression by laboring for it’s benefit, all others could opt for euthanasia. As an added bonus, those wrongly convicted would be given all of the time they need to prove their innocence.
Everything is a balance, if you think that the liberal/conservative/libertarian/socialist/capitalist angle is best in every situation then your not really taking the time to examine the issue.
I consider this a constitutional rights issue and to me it is no different than if the pledge said “one white nation indivisible”. I believe it’s wrong and unconstitutional.
September 28th, 2009 - 08:20
Okay Nick, I have just one comment before I go on to respond/address your comments.
“Here is a breakdown of your post and why your views on the subject make you look ignorant. It’s long to take go grab a snack before you start reading…”. Your desire to enlighten us with your wealth of wisdom and somehow, in the process, make me appear ignorant is scarce to the point of this thread and thus in itself ignorant. Apparently you did not read my earlier comments about name calling. Surely a scholar such as yourself does not need to resort to writing with colloquial condescension (by the way, speaking of weakening your case… you might try replacing your with you’re in your previous comment).
September 28th, 2009 - 09:09
Man, oh man… I gotta say, that this guy had the same effect on me that Pablo had on your Chino. It is very difficult for me to not just give up and say… well… you know what…
“Check out the big brain on Nick (Brett)!” – Sam Jackson, “Pulp Fiction” – (1994) – Directed by Quentin Tarantino (You never know who’s watching)
Well congratulations Nick, you get my vote for atheist and anti-patriot of the year. As you can see, hardly an insult, especially given your principles which I judge based on what you have written here.
I guess I must be ignorant because I don’t even know where to begin. There is so much that you have spewed. Please forgive my scattered thoughts, but again, there was much to imbibe.
Let’s see… okay, I am aware of the history of the Pledge and when God was added, as well as judgments in favor of those wishing to have their children elect not to pledge allegiance. The fact that God was added did not unduly alienate anyone. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary Online, states one of the definitions of God as “a person or thing of supreme value.” Whatever value you decide God is going to hold for you, is up to you. There is no reason that God cannot mean Allah (which it actually does, in Arabic), or Vishnu or whoever or whatever you want it to mean. The point is that one of the reasons that we, as a nation have flourished, has been because of our faith. Our faith that we were endowed, by our Creator with rights of the land, and thank the Almighty Lord, not by assholes like you and ACLU (oops, one strike against me). I have no problem with Muslims, Jews or even atheists practicing their beliefs, so long as they don’t infringe my rights to do the same.
The timeliness of what happened late last week, could not have been better. Surely, you must have seen the video of kindergarten children at the B. Bernice Young Elementary school singing a song of praise to Barack Hussein Obama? I don’t want to cast undue aspersion here, so please tell us how you feel about this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aqMTD5UFmU. I want to make sure that you are not wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Is this the freedom you speak of when you say something like “The ACLU is allowed to exist because this is a free country. Not just for you and people who think like you but also for those who have different views.” Based on this statement, it sounds like you would be okay with this indoctrination to take place, so long as it is not God. I guess it’s okay to sing to Obama as if he were God, but not okay to use the word God. I think I have it now. I am hoping that you would read this and reply first, so that I know where you actually stand, in light of this nice example.
September 28th, 2009 - 09:24
i just think that Mother Theresa, Ghandi and MLK would agree that killing another human being is never justified.
October 2nd, 2009 - 11:55
“Well congratulations Nick, you get my vote for atheist and anti-patriot of the year. As you can see, hardly an insult, especially given your principles which I judge based on what you have written here.”
You are correct about me being an atheist. However you are wrong about me being anti-patriotic…or at least I think so. I take liberty and rights very seriously.
“I guess I must be ignorant because I don’t even know where to begin. There is so much that you have spewed. Please forgive my scattered thoughts, but again, there was much to imbibe.”
Maybe. Before you fly any further off the handle you may want to read my “ignorant” comment again. I probably could have worded it better but I this was about your views on this subject and was not a generalization about you.
“Let’s see… okay, I am aware of the history of the Pledge and when God was added, as well as judgments in favor of those wishing to have their children elect not to pledge allegiance. The fact that God was added did not unduly alienate anyone.”
It does, and it was meant to. It was thought (during that era) that atheist must be communist and because communism is un-American thus atheists must also be un-American. And so if the country was made to be more “godly” it would protect and set it apart from communism. I’m an atheist and I believe in liberty, justice and freedom. You will find that most atheist in American feel the same. Communism does not require that you be an atheist, only that you put your country before your god.
“Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary Online, states one of the definitions of God as “a person or thing of supreme value.” Whatever value you decide God is going to hold for you, is up to you.”
I love how to cherry picked the most generalized term in the Merriam-Webster dictionary to support your statements. When I checked the definition at Merriam-Webster’s website the first definition has specifies that when the word is capitalized is has a different meaning:
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
“There is no reason that God cannot mean Allah (which it actually does, in Arabic), or Vishnu or whoever or whatever you want it to mean. The point is that one of the reasons that we, as a nation have flourished, has been because of our faith. Our faith that we were endowed, by our Creator with rights of the land, and thank the Almighty Lord, not by assholes like you and ACLU (oops, one strike against me).”
Yes, and Allah is simply the Arabic word for god used by Arabic speaking Christians, Muslims and Jews to describe the god of Abrahamic faiths, but is not used to describe just any god, such as Vishnu or Zeus. But I’m sure you would feel different if the pledge said “under Allah” even though technically it is the same thing. This country flourished because of the stark religious oppression of state sponsored religion in Europe. People came here looking for freedom from religious oppression…both the religious and non-religious alike.
“I have no problem with Muslims, Jews or even atheists practicing their beliefs, so long as they don’t infringe my rights to do the same.”
Oh really? When was the last time that your rights as a Christian were infringed on by anyone in this country?
“The timeliness of what happened late last week, could not have been better. Surely, you must have seen the video of kindergarten children at the B. Bernice Young Elementary school singing a song of praise to Barack Hussein Obama? I don’t want to cast undue aspersion here, so please tell us how you feel about this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aqMTD5UFmU.”
Yes, I watched it, and read the lyrics. And no I don’t have a problem with it. I also wouldn’t have a problem with it if it was 4 years ago and it was a song about Bush protecting us from terrorism and fighting for our freedom. I also don’t have a problem with those same kids (or my kids for that matter) singing Christmas Carols, or putting on school plays depicting religious stories around their related holidays. There is a difference between learning about religion in school (such as a religious studies class) and teaching religious beliefs. Technically speaking my 4-year-ago-self might have had a problem with the Bush thing, but I my defense it was a terribly irrational and conspiratorial slump in my life that I am not proud of. Thankfully I was able to pull myself out of that pit and came to realize that just because I didn’t agree with some policies that Bush implemented didn’t mean that he had some evil ulterior motive for implementing them.
“I want to make sure that you are not wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Is this the freedom you speak of when you say something like “The ACLU is allowed to exist because this is a free country. Not just for you and people who think like you but also for those who have different views.””
Of the lyrics only one phrase from each of the two songs relates to actual policy, and I can see how you might view them as indoctrination. If I had wrote the songs I certainly wouldn’t have included statements about policy that hasn’t even been given a chance to play out yet. But there is a big difference between unethical and unconstitutional. I wouldn’t fire the teacher, but I would speak with her about what is and is not appropriate for class and I would keep an eye on her until I felt comfortable with her judgment again. I don’t think her intentions were indoctrination, she just got too wrapped up in herself to see ethics issues with this caused.
“Based on this statement, it sounds like you would be okay with this indoctrination to take place, so long as it is not God.”
I stand firmly against indoctrination of any kind, religious or otherwise. I’m a proponent of the scientific method and feel like it is the only objective way to make sound and unbiased judgments. Are you saying that you think “under God” in the pledge is indoctrination?
“I guess it’s okay to sing to Obama as if he were God, but not okay to use the word God.”
I don’t think anyone should be praised without question, people or gods. I also don’t think that those songs even come close to glorifying Obama as if he were a god.
“I think I have it now.”
I’m not so sure you do, but you will. That is what discussions are about…
“I am hoping that you would read this and reply first, so that I know where you actually stand, in light of this nice example.”
If you want to know where I stand on specific issues then simply ask. You might be surprised to find that I don’t fit neatly into any particular world view. I’m just as likely to completely agree with you on any particular issue as I am to partially or completely disagree. On this particular issue so far I haven’t found any agreement.
If you want me to understand your perspective then please address the issues I made with your post and why specifically you think that I’m wrong.
October 2nd, 2009 - 12:42
‘i just think that Mother Theresa, Gandhi and MLK would agree that killing another human being is never justified.”
While Mother Theresa and MLK might have promoted anti-violence I don’t think that either of them were against justified killings. Such as a police officer shooting a criminal to save others. But even if they were like Gandhi and supported complete and utter non-violence that doesn’t mean they were right, and our laws here in the US (and most places in the world for that matter) disagree wholeheartedly with those views.
October 2nd, 2009 - 18:31
MY BROTHA FROM ANOTHA MOTHA!!!!! nICE NICKY!
October 2nd, 2009 - 18:33
PRIDE OR PREJUDICE, OR ….PLEASE EXPLAIN .
October 8th, 2009 - 14:01
Once again my comments have been erased from this blog.
Odd.
All I said was, “Pride or prejudice… or please explain”
and Nick, nice job of breaking down the distortion which runs rampant here.
October 10th, 2009 - 13:26
distortion? like insisting that we erase your incoherent remarks?
October 10th, 2009 - 21:01
“Pride or Prejudice…or please explain.”
1. you need to explain. I don’t think anyone knows what your talking about.
2. Regarding your comment being deleted:
your comments aren’t being removed, you just don’t see them right away because they need to be approved by the admins of this blog. As you can see, they are now visible.
3. Do I know you?
October 11th, 2009 - 18:17
No you dont know me.
Funny, as soon as I responded to my remarks not “being approved”for several days, they were suddenly posted within the same day.
The meaning of my comment:
Either pride or prejudice is what has prevented Junior and Chino from taking into account certain data and/or picking at the smallest things to quarrel about. I think the site should read : “JunioryChino: because we love capitalism”
October 11th, 2009 - 19:07
Chino. I have been very coherent. Maybe you just don’t get it, or it is too much all at once (the latter I can understand). By distortion I mean exactly what Nick cited in his remarks as the problem with the arguments. Everyone that I have shown the chains agrees that Nick did a very good job of “tearing apart” the argument here.
I feel that it becomes distortion when one is not able to take a step back and question themselves, or even admit being wrong or just not looking at something a certain way. So either you guys are extremely proud or very prejudiced against “certain perspectives”. I for one think it is prejudice, and that is why my comments will not have to be checked for seven days when they are only a few lines long (And when in every instance they appear right away, and are gone just as quick. I never happened to me when I started posting. I guess I rang some bells. However, though you my not believe it I wish you guys well and hope you can broaden your perspectives. Good book: Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine: Disaster Capitalism. Hope the title doesn’t count it out for you. Good Fortune to you and yours.
October 20th, 2009 - 09:05
Pablo, please don’t go….. You are not coherent, as Nick pointed out, no one knew what you were talking about.
About distortion…. You keep citing your conspiracy theory on how you are being censored, LOL, that makes me laugh. I WANT people to read how “out there” you are. It only strengthens my position…. but unfortunately, I must apologize, I cannot speak for Junior, but I have been dealing with some personal issues in my life and have neglected the website. That is why your comments were not read, and or approved for several days.
And we love America because it does stand for Capitalism! That is what makes us great. I know commies like yourself wish it to stand for Mao & Che, but that is who Junior and I are trying to prevent from taking this country off the rails.
October 25th, 2009 - 08:53
Sure. Your explanation makes sense.
“My” theory isn’t about me though, and in reality the theory that the world is ruled by individuals who withhold information and distort history, and current events has been developed throughout the ages by a LONG LIST OF HISTORIANS, AND OTHER ANALYSTS. There is too much evidence for me to waste time trying to explain more.
I just don’t avoid that evidence and knowledge, I incorporate it into my world understanding instead.
I love America because to me it stands for democracy, that is, the people. I know that greedy and cruel individuals are conducting this train. I can see how these attributes are proliferated in the media.
Many are trying to prevent “the people” from understanding the true nature of the state of the nation and the world.
Their goal is to prevent altruistic, non-partisan, and knowledgeable people like myself from expanding the meaning of democracy and knowledge here.
Lastly, I have made it very clear: I am no communist/socialist. I believe that as humans we must take the good or positive attributes of civilization and apply them, while discarding the bad or negative.
The true quest is democracy, knowledge and brotherhood.
Farewell
October 25th, 2009 - 22:25
FIRST OF ALL, Pablo, there are many other topics to discuss. What is your opinion on them? This is old and tired.
2. YOU ARE NOT CLEAR, well, you were finally a little clearer this time, but you always claim what you ARE NOT, but it is also a distortion because you claim to NOT be a communist/socialist, but every idea you put forth comes from the book of Marx!!! You never really claim a philosophy or belief that we can reference. Duh, you are for truth, justice and the American way….. (which brings me to ..)
3. How many times, and how many uneducated people do I have to correct!?!? THIS IS NOT, NOT, NOT a democracy!!! Our form of government in the United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, “…and to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands, one nation, UNDER GOD….” We elect our leaders democratically, but we are not a democracy. If it were a true democracy every election would be strife with referendums with the people voting on every single issue out there, but alas, they are not. Our leaders make those decisions for us which make elections that much more important.
4. Comment on the MAO thing. If you make sense on SEVERAL topics, maybe you can win over some believers. You are 0-4 so far.
October 27th, 2009 - 14:27
Well…every open minded individual I have shown these posts thinks the opposite.
I do not HAVE to be referenced or placed into a category.
If you can not comprehend my points…well then it is either pride or prejudice.
I have put forth many ideas…few are socialist/communist.
I never claimed the U.S. to be a democracy…that would be uneducated (I’ll take it with a grain of salt and not shoot back).
However, our republic, as all republics ARE based in democratic ideals. Republics are just easier to control and give the illusion of democracy.
Within the walls of our governmental buildings, amongst out elected representatives, it is believed that democracy is what takes place between them.
Again, you are too quick to try to disprove and discredit me. I know that you know these things but this is why it is hard to get anywhere with you.
In our internet age it may actually be possible to vote on everything…but that idea is bad news to some.
The point is that capitalism is not what was infused into the constitution when “private property” was spoken about.
The Mao stuff is a distraction. The reality can be found in the documentary, Fall of the Republic available on You Tube.
Could you…would you post that so we can discuss it?
It IS anti-Obama.
October 27th, 2009 - 21:27
I cannot argue with anything you have said.
Whoah…. what does that mean. I will say, it may be a little pride, but not in the way you think. It is not prejudice, because I do read, listen and try to comprehend what you and anybody is trying to get across. I don’t automatically think that everything you say is crap.
Its a lot of the old arguments, and those I’ve heard time and again, so those have already been discredited (in my opinion). So, I do dismiss those as soon as I hear them. Only because I have heard them before and have already made up my mind on those. That’s where the “prejudice” comes in. For example, I am extremely prejudiced against redistribution of wealth (not saying that you are proposing that, just an example of my bias), therefore any arguments for the benefits of it I immediately dismiss and yes, try to discredit.
The PRIDE comes in the notion that I am confident and secure and even devout in my beliefs and what I have learned. As you are. You know what you have read or heard and vetted. So you, and I, will not let anything or any argument dispel what you already know.
Is that pride? IDK.
Do you watch baseball or football? Its funny, my brother is a super die-hard JETS fan and although I like the Jets and root for them, I watch them objectively. When there is a questionable call, like did the guy make the first down, or did he fumble or was he down, he will ALWAYS argue that his team should get the call. BUT, that is what HE sees and BELIEVES! He sees it that way, he is not lying and just trying to make a case for it, he believes that is what he saw. I am like, “dude, he didn’t make it.” but there is no convincing him.
My point is, You and I pretty much are on the same page as to how things occurred, (we saw the same thing) we are just diametrically opposed as to why they happened or what the solution is.
I believe wholeheartedly in capitalism. I BELIEVE the solution will naturally come out of it. I do not believe that forcing people (legislating) to do things one way ever works.
pssssst… up above, that’s me being crystal clear once again about where I stand. I am a Capitalist, unabashedly. If you are not, then what are you?
October 28th, 2009 - 18:21
I meant it exactly the way that you explained, and I am sure that you have heard the arguments before. I for one am always open to hear an argument that dispels something I believe. It has happened many times before, and is the reason my world view has changed over time. I have hated the idea of communism/ socialism in the past…I have changed my mind and supported it…and now I dismantle it and choose what I like from it. I have gone through the same transitions in regard to capitalism and religion. I have learned to always read the literature of “the other side” no matter how convinced I am of something. This is the only way to truly evaluate and understand the arguments. I have Marxist friends…and trust me I argue with them a lot.
There is no political or economic alliance in existence that is fully compatible with my analysis and evaluation of world history and current events. I think I have said this before, but redistribution of wealth does not work unless everyone works (still then it has kinks). Similar to the way capitalism does not work unless its inherent greed is curtailed. That is why there has been so much regulation of the market up to today (Trustbusters, minimum wage, etc)…because it doesn’t work (not for the majority). My main problem with Marxism is that it is just a theory, and it is a violent one at that. There has to be a middle ground. We just have not identified it. This is why I cannot say that I believe in either. I believe private property and the market can be good, but only if it serves the public good. Once corporations are allowed to wreak havoc upon the poor and weak we have gone too far. As far as Marxism, for it to work there cannot be an elite class as there was in Russia and many other places. We need a system based on developing communities so that everyone can have access to wealth; but not one like Marxism that believes in displacing and robbing the wealthy by declaring them the enemy. Or, that murders people and violates the natural rights of mankind. The system must be based on education and open dialogue so that people can see for themselves and enact change.
I guess you could say I am a humanitarian, first and foremost. I believe in democracy. As far as economics goes…. we need to explore new uncharted waters. Can you really support Capitalism wholeheartedly knowing all of the horrible things it has brought in history? It is a system based on the accumulation of wealth. Is that the best economic theory humanity has to offer? Therefore, it operates on a first come first serve basis: The earlier you get in, the more you can accumulate. However, if you are born at the bottom your chances are dismal. We need a system based on developing communities so that everyone can have access to wealth.
My political views can be summed up this way: If a particular ideology or policy brings about harm to communities, places people in distress, or in any way brings about a destructive effect, it is wrong. I will support any idea as long as it brings forth growth and development for all. And that IS possible. We just have to keep fine-tuning and remain open to ideas. Don’t you agree that we should stop exporting American jobs? Shouldn’t our people have full access to any employment we can produce? The problem is that since our major corporations are only concerned with wealth, they seek slave-wage labor. How do you dispel these truths?
As far as sports…. Let us go to the replay. Let us micro-analyze it (history), and if the play is visible from all angles, then I’m sure we can agree on the decision.