|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 372 responses total. |
jaklumen
|
|
response 200 of 372:
| 
Jun 12 07:46 UTC 2002 |
resp:195 that's not fair to all of us, is it? ;)
|
mary
|
|
response 201 of 372:
|
Jun 12 11:40 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 202 of 372:
|
Jun 12 11:42 UTC 2002 |
I wasn't addressing "all of us."
|
vmskid
|
|
response 203 of 372:
|
Jun 12 12:10 UTC 2002 |
There is a way to be honest without being insulting. If every time I mentioned
science I did it with a superior sneer and a "crossing myself" by ritually
condeming it as being for the immoral, spiritually bankrupt and weak, it would
get a little old with you, don't you think? And I think you will find about
the same proportion of non-religious who treat religious folk as scum as you
will who find religious folk who treat the non-religious as scum. As I alluded
to above, religion or non-religion seems to have very little to do with
decency.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 204 of 372:
|
Jun 12 13:53 UTC 2002 |
Religious folk run the country, and piss all over the non-religious. Look
at holidays. Look at Bush's post-9/11 rhetoric. Note the Pledge of
Allegiance. Note that every single President since way, way back has been
a Christian. The list goes on.
Suck it up.
|
md
|
|
response 205 of 372:
|
Jun 12 14:12 UTC 2002 |
So, unless religious people start hiding their holiday celebrations
from you and politicians never mention their religious beliefs in
public, you're gonna feel "pissed on"? Suck it up, indeed.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 206 of 372:
|
Jun 12 14:13 UTC 2002 |
attitudes like this almost inspire me to be ashamed.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 207 of 372:
|
Jun 12 14:16 UTC 2002 |
resp:205 slipped in, and precisely. Must I be ashamed of what I
believe? I am I forcing it on you? No. Go away.
|
md
|
|
response 208 of 372:
|
Jun 12 14:30 UTC 2002 |
207: He doesn't want you to be ashamed of what you believe, he wants
you to be ashamed of believing it in front of *him*. It makes him feel
pissed on.
The schools hereabouts all close on Jewish holidays. It's because so
many kids would be absent that the number who showed up wouldn't meet
the legal minimum set by the district. Same for Christian holidays.
Muslim holidays are next, I bet. Nobody feels "pissed on" except for a
few professionally peevish types like Joe, and nobody cares about them
anyway.
|
brighn
|
|
response 209 of 372:
|
Jun 12 14:45 UTC 2002 |
#204> CHRISTIAN folk run the country, and piss all over the non-CHRISTIAN.
Globally, there are more people who identify as "a religion other than
Christianity" than as "Christian." Get it through your skulls, "religion"
doesn't mean "Christianity."
Sheesh.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 210 of 372:
|
Jun 12 15:05 UTC 2002 |
It's true, though, that members of many other religions behave the same way
in places where they're the majority.
Actually, you're probably better off being outside the religious majority here
than you would be in a lot of other places. You're less likely to suffer real
harm on account of your religion, and more likely to run into a lot of
unpleasant dumbasses and well-meaning puzzled people.
And no, having Rane tell you you're childish is not suffering real harm.
Neither is hearing the word "God" in the pledge of allegiance -- it might be
unconstitutional to include "...under God," but it's not harming anyone.
Nobody has the right to be agreed with, or even to be humored.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 211 of 372:
|
Jun 12 15:28 UTC 2002 |
Having the word "God" in the Pledge is inappropriate. It means I can't say
it, and I'm a loyal US citizen.
Re #205-208: That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that, given all the
religion us non-religious folks have forced down our throats,
and given all the abuse non-religious people get in the US,
you guys should be able to handle it when Rane says you're
mistaken in your beliefs. We hear it every fucking day, from
everyone in power in our country.
Would it be better if everyone were polite and tolerant?
Absolutely. But given the tremendous pro-religion bias in
our society, you shouldn't be surprised if some non-religious
people aren't polite either.
Re #209: Yes, it's Christians who run the country. And some Jews. Both
of those religions are "respectable" in America, in a way that
yours admittedly isn't. These days, though, I think Hindus,
Buddhists, and (pro-US) Moslems get more respect than the non-
religious do, but you guys still get a raw deal.
|
brighn
|
|
response 212 of 372:
|
Jun 12 15:45 UTC 2002 |
#210> If it's unconstitutional to have "under God" in the Pledge, but it's
allowed anyway, then I disagree tht it's not harming anyone. It's sending the
message that the Constitution can be freely ignored.
Also, I didn't make any comments about how non-Christians treat anyone in
other countries. The comment I was referring to was how people are treated
*in this country.* In this country, the majority is clearly Christian.
#211> I wouldn't say that Hindus and Buddhists get more respect than atheists.
After all, the schools teach what the atheists want, even more than they teach
what the Christians want.
(Mm. Postscript on #210: It's not harm for Rane to call me childish. I don't
even agree with the sentiment that the Christians piss on the non-Christians
in this country, I was only correcting the poster who seemed to be confusing
"Christian" with "religious." I think Christians are frequently indifferent
or confused about the beliefs of non-Christians, so much that they earnestly
believe that all theists accept God as a singuler concept... I think they're
doing that out of ignorance and disinterest, not out of malice and
intolerance. In the same way, a growing number of Wiccans think that all
non-JCI religious folk, or at least all neopagans, worship the Earth and love
the Goddess... not because they maliciously wish to force everyone to conform
to their own way of thinking, but because they really haven't considered
positions which affect that way of thinking, because they're satisfied with
their POV and don't feel compelled to change it.)
|
jp2
|
|
response 213 of 372:
|
Jun 12 15:52 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
vmskid
|
|
response 214 of 372:
|
Jun 12 15:58 UTC 2002 |
Re: Having the word "God" in the Pledge is inappropriate. It means I
can't say it, and I'm a loyal US citizen.
So you want it to be taken out so that the majority will not be able to
say that they are loyal citizens? Some would object to the Pledge if it
weren't there.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 215 of 372:
|
Jun 12 16:24 UTC 2002 |
They would object to its removal, not so much as to its absence. It
wasn't there until 195X. The word is not in the US Constitution (although
I am sure some would like to put it in).
|
brighn
|
|
response 216 of 372:
|
Jun 12 19:29 UTC 2002 |
the word "Lord" is in the Constitution, though, in reference to Jesus. ;}
For the record, I have no beef with people saying "under God" during the
Pledge of Allegiance. For all I care, they could hum "Jesus Loves Me" while
someone's reciting it. It's when government officials start enforcing it that
I have a problem, because the First Amendment applies to government
enforcement, not private citizens.
|
slynne
|
|
response 217 of 372:
|
Jun 12 19:38 UTC 2002 |
I also think it is ok for folks to omit the "under god" in the pledge
if they want to. As far as I know, the phrase is totally optional.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 218 of 372:
|
Jun 12 20:10 UTC 2002 |
The pledge is totally optional, too (except for illegal pressure that
might be applied to kids - and applicants for citizenship?). It was
something adopted only by the US Flag Association.
The citation is only to "year of our Lord", which designated the Julian
calendar.
|
md
|
|
response 219 of 372:
|
Jun 12 20:38 UTC 2002 |
211: Well, we could recurse on this one forever, but just for the
record: Rane has the right to call peoples' beliefs stupid, and I have
the right to call Rane juvenile.
But I should add that whether you nonreligious folks have
religion "shoved down your throats every fucking day, from everyone in
power in our country," or whether in fact it hardly ever happens but it
just makes you feel good to whine about it, has nothing to do with
this. Rane has the right to call peoples' beliefs stupid, and I have
the right to call Rane juvenile, regardless of how often either of us
thinks we've been provoked.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 220 of 372:
|
Jun 12 20:46 UTC 2002 |
Fair enough. Actually, I think both Rane and you are correct. ;-)
Re #214: You actually think it's against someone's religion not to mention
God in the Pledge? Pull the other one...
|
eskarina
|
|
response 221 of 372:
|
Jun 12 21:13 UTC 2002 |
I've always been suspicious of what I think could lead to confusion between
patriotism, or party loyalty, and religion. Like people who think you aren't
a good Christian if you aren't a member of their pet political party.
As far as "under God" in the pledge... I'm not exactly sure what it means.
If it means we are under God as in following him as a nation, I would heartily
disagree. If under God just means that God is there watching over it,
controlling it as he controls everything else, well, that's just plain
self-evident.
Does anyone know why it was put there in the first place?
|
slynne
|
|
response 222 of 372:
|
Jun 12 21:18 UTC 2002 |
I dont think it is evident that God is watching over anything. I think
if that were the case, folks here wouldnt be having fits over the issue
since we would all agree.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 223 of 372:
|
Jun 12 21:53 UTC 2002 |
No kidding. That's anything but self-evident to me, as an agnostic, and Rane
would presumably say it's self-evidently wrong.
Re #221: My understanding is that it was added in the 1950s, in the throes
of McCarthyism, to distinguish us from the Godless Commies. (I'm
not kidding.)
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 224 of 372:
|
Jun 13 00:13 UTC 2002 |
When I first learned the Pledge of Alligence, it was 1951 or 52, and the
words "under God" were not in it. I had to relearn it, with those words,
during elementary school. By 1957 it was certainly there. So, sometime in
those 5 years it got amended.
|