 | | real conspiracies?
|
|
Hi all, This may be old news, but have y'all read this? (URL) are some pretty nefarious connections suggested by the article. Chris (22 years ago, 30-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Troll Alert
|
|
(...) debate Richard was referring to you. Your posts seem to fit his definition well, HIS posts on the other hand have not fit that definition at all. However I am not sure I agree with his characterization of you (if that is what was intended by (...) (22 years ago, 30-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Troll Alert
|
|
(...) Helpful example: (URL) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Reading Suggestion for General Edification
|
|
In this thread I've seen a lot of "America has a special purpose, and therefore has become a special place...etc" here--so I'd suggest that anyone who's internalized that take a look at Anders Stephanson's _Manifest Destiny_--which really points (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | One nacho, underpants, with licorice and jugs of wine for owls
|
|
(...) "sesquipedalian" is hereby my Word of the Day. But I never knew you were missing half of one of your feet, Dave! (...) Besides, "Under God" was added in 1954, and has no place in the original Pledge. I've seen letters in local newspapers--both (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Thanks, Dave-- your command of the obvious is an inspiration. BTW, wasn't the DoI *ratified* by the congress? (...) My point was that they held certain views about God (that one existed and Created the universe), while not subscribing to any (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Because the Declaration isn't a document of law; it's a Declaration of Independence (that's why they call it that). (...) The Founding Fathers' position on the matter was that Congress shall make no law respecting religion. Again, the DOI is (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
Sure, it's irrelevant to you because you have no problem cramming it down other's throats. Repugnant. (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) All I am saying is that the phrase "so help me God" is a part of it. Whether one believes in God or not is irrelevant (to me at least). -John (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) you didn't but you seem to imply that if I don't believe in God, I shouldn't bother applying for citzenship...? Dan (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) What are you talking about??? Do you know what the oath naturalized citizens must take says? "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) You'd better elaborate on this, John, because the above statement makes you sound like a truly disgusting person without further expansion. It makes you sound like you're saying "if they don't say "under God", they shouldn't become citizens? (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Yes. I am trying to explain the use of such language as "the Creator" from our very first document as a nation which. Is that offensive to atheists? Why not? Should it be changed? Why not? (...) Well, that's my point. I think the FFs *did* (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Troll Alert
|
|
I think it is possible to discuss things and disagree in a civil manner. I do it in real life all the time. I think I have done it here before. I hate to use a pop psychology term here, but all I ask of other participants that they "fight fair." In (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) I read his statement and was at a loss for words. I interpret it exactly as you do. I had no idea how to respond. I guess you did a good job. I eventually came to believe (once more -- maybe I'll learn someday) that it is impossible for me (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Troll Alert
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes: <snip> Good advice but the problem I have is that you can (in this debate) apply that definition to a number of people... some more than others, maybe but we all have preconceived notions, ne? (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Troll Alert
|
|
Definition: troll (trol) verb To post a message in a newsgroup or other online conference in the hopes that somebody else will consider the original message so outrageous that it demands a heated reply. ~~~...~~~ For further consideration, the use (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
We have a disconnect here. There is something resistant to logical analysis in what John is saying. It just doesn't gibe with what the other side is saying, in that it shows a lack of understanding of the fundamental point. (...) And the above seems (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Now really, Larry, how wrong could it be for the entire population to be required to send in your love offering? That's like 280,000,000 bricks! ;-) Chris FUT -> .fun (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Say again? How can one worship the absence of God? or higher power? Higher Power, God. Semantics here? What then? You did not answer (...) Well, I happen to believe that establishing a religion entails a little more than that, and I think that (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) As I mentioned before, it is to me (and to Ike as well). Perhaps not to you. But the phrase in question is "under God" anyway, so the point is moot. (...) And even if you could, by your own assertion in (...) Not exactly. I said it would be a (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) What if one worships no god or higher power? What then? You did not answer that point yet. To say that the nation is under god (any god, your god, the hindu pantheon, the blue mud rubbers, Larritarianism, Mammon, whatever) is to establish (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Oh, please. "God The Almighty" is undeniably the God of The Bible, and if you claim otherwise then you're bearing false witness--two Commandments in one day, John--and still you cast stones? Point me to one other deity in the history of (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Under God? (What an amusing debate)
|
|
(...) god. (...) you (...) I don't assume god = God. But the PoA says "God" and not "god." So I can only assume that they meant Jehovah. And if you can make any case that God does not mean Jehovah (which I doubt) then you would still have to show (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Notice, however, the addition wasn't "in Jesus God" or "in Christ Almighty". That may be what Eisenhower had in his mind, but that isn't necessarily what it should mean to others. It is in the spirit of walking the thin line begun by our FFs. (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) I would say that it refers generically to God the creator, and if one is into polytheism, then I'd say it refers to the highest ranking god one worships. If all of those gods are exactly equal, then I guess one has a dilemma. -John (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Under God? (What an amusing debate)
|
|
(...) Yes (...) Why do you automatically assume god = God? (Or maybe I am taking your meaning wrong) Anything can be a god. Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (c) 1963 1 -god- 1: a being or object believed to have more than natural (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Again, the PoA was *changed* (corrupted during the Cold War). There is absolutlely no question as to who is rocking the boat, and it is the people who made and support that change. Bruce (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) From a previous thread. I'll dig it up, if you'd care to review it... (...) "God language" is an imprecise euphemism. If Congress enacts legislation saying "include 'under God' in the Pledge," then Congress has absolutely, unequivocally, and (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Under God? (What an amusing debate)
|
|
"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:GyFDrF.G02@lugnet.com... (...) you (...) But (...) important (...) I also agree that these fundamental freedoms are important. If an individual doesn't belong to any of the belief (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) You can say that Chris is wrong, but you're either lying, benighted, or simply misinformed. When he signed the Bill in 1954, President Eisenhower wrote that "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Can I deem it to be no one at all, that no such power exists? If not, then my religious freedom is abrogated by any such state sponsored statement referring to a god whether big or little "g" is used. I prefer the usage used in oaths now "do (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) assume, (...) -- (...) The capitalization indicates that it's a proper noun -- the name of a unique individual. Therefore, all gods are not God. Above, you say that I'm wrong, but without an explanation of it, I have to stick to my (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) You are very wrong. It is *intentially* vague. It is whomever you deem it to be. For *me*, yes, it is the God of Abraham and Jacob. -John (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
While you guys are making heat, I suggest reading the document: VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM (URL) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Under God? (What an amusing debate)
|
|
(...) Do you really? (...) I don't know what to make of such a statement. God can _not_ be "anything you want." You can call a duck, a chicken -- but you're just wrong. I occasionally wonder why teenage girls get so worked up over "nothing." But (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) If you can really believe this, then please explain who this God is. I assume, though correct me if I'm wrong, that the big G indicates the god of Abraham -- Jehovah (or whatever) and no other. I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean Ashur, Odin, or (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Under God? (What an amusing debate)
|
|
I think the girl interveiwed at school by my local news radio station had it completly correct. She stated: "What does it matter if the word god is in the pledge [of allegiance]. God can be anything you want, you can call money god. Why do adults (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Again you miss my point. The name of God is invoked by all, whether they actually believe in God or not-- it is a *cultural* thing. As to your first sentence, I'm not sure what that's about. (...) *a* religion. Using God language doesn't (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) I was responding to part of Richard's post: "I don't really care how this "bs" Pledge of Allegiance issue (bread and (...) He wrote that it was "painfully obvious"..."EXACTLY" what Jefferson felt about Christianity. I cited it to show that (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
