Check out this E-mail

[Marauder692u]

Maybe you can look at the article in many ways. Maybe with enough lead way you could say the article was saying don't try and change our culture.

[SkinsNumberOne]

Originally posted by KTrainSkinsFan

Has anyone seen the South Park episode about the immigrants from the future???

THEY TOOK OUR JOBS!!!! hilarious

der der dobs!

[Stu]

Originally posted by docdru

Why do you have to remove Under God from the pledge? First because the pledge was unnecessarily changed to include it in the first place in a cheap political move. Second, because American government is based on the idea of separation of Church and State, which is why many Americans came to this country in the first place to leave England's Anglican Episcopalean church state. This has been backed up by the Supreme court several times (Lemon v Kurtzman). We Americans not only have freedom of religion but freedom FROM religion. If I am compelled to go to government provided schools, there should be no reading of the plege there. Even if technically kids don't HAVE to say it, how well receieved do you think that kid would be by the rest of class if they all notice that little Jonny doesn't say the pledge. Kids shouldn't be forced in that sort of situation in school: to choose between one's friends and peer groups and one's religious beliefs is a terrible thing to put on a little impressionable kid. Third, religion is a personal family thing, it should stay at home, and parents have the right to let their kids go to a school where they won't be proselytized and won't be outcast because they are atheist or polytheistic or whatever. If the pledge is designed to "provides elementary age kids as sense of patriotism and a sense of unity" then that has nothing to do with the phrase "Under God" its more effective without it. Religion in schools is a devisive issue (as demonstated by this particular forum).

The pledge without "Under God" has a much longer history than the plege with it so the argument that "the judges, politicians and governments going to stop changing what we have done for decades and even longer" is not applicable. That's what they did in the 1950's and removing "Under God" is simply undoing the damage that was done 50 years ago. Jefferson is turning in his grave.

Your post, while having some points, in no way stands with the historical context of the founding of this country. While you can certainly argue that the country has changed and so should the Constitution, the founding fathers all embraced the religious heritage that is woven into birth of our nation.

[The Evil Genius]

Let's just accept that the "Founding Fathers" were hypocrites. We could spend pages quoting their pro and anti quotes about religion.

[docdru]

Well Stu,

Thomas Jefferson didn't. And there was a huge fear of church-state interconnectedness in colonial America as such a thing was considered tyrannical because they feared anything that was similar to the English system (the English system of course had a government sponsored religion, the Anglican church). If you'd like to discuss the finer points of early colonial American history I'd be more than happy to. It's actually the concentration within my major (history) which I am currently studying at Stanford University.

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Thomas Jefferson

Notes [on the State of Virginia]

(Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, pp. 42-43. )

this means that he (a founding father) believed it was not in government's place to have anything to do with the matter of religion, which is why I previously stated that he was turning in his grave

[Stu]

Originally posted by The Evil Genius

Let's just accept that the "Founding Fathers" were hypocrites. We could spend pages quoting their pro and anti quotes about religion.

I guess we have been living a sham. Let's close up shop and quit.

[Stu]

Originally posted by docdru

Well Stu,

Thomas Jefferson didn't. And there was a huge fear of church-state interconnectedness in colonial America as such a thing was considered tyrannical because they feared anything that was similar to the English system (the English system of course had a government sponsored religion, the Anglican church). If you'd like to discuss the finer points of early colonial American history I'd be more than happy to. It's actually the concentration within my major (history) which I am currently studying at Stanford University.

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Thomas Jefferson

Notes [on the State of Virginia]

(Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, pp. 42-43. )

this means that he (a founding father) believed it was not in government's place to have anything to do with the matter of religion, which is why I previously stated that he was turning in his grave

As the earlier poster pointed out, we can trade quotes back and forth on the subject. The quote you provided in my opinion does not take away from his beliefs in God. Rather they speak to how most Americans feel on many issues; live and let live. Here are some other Jefferson quotes for instance that express his beliefs in God and His imporatance in our founding (not to mention the whole "Declaration of Independence" thing):

http://1faith.org/myth.html

The Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That is very specific as it only applies to Congress. Jeffereson had even stated that such decisions should be left to the states as was still the case at that time with several still maintaining state religions. Massachusetts for instance didn't abolish its state religion until sometime in the 19th century. It was only after the 14th Amendment (equal protection clause) that the prohibition on Congress was extended to apply to the states. While flawed in my opinion, this is currently the accepted law of the land. So while you can make an argument for today's postion of religion and government, there is no question that it was different story during our founding.

"Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God."

- G. K. Chesterton

American Genius

Christendom in Dublin, 1933

[Cskin]

I think a lot of this "we are losing our country" fear would cease if someone would finally takes steps to properly secure our borders. If immigrants are allowed in the country legally their numbers will not be so high that it creates a sense of being taken over.

Destino... I'm about this close to... this close to.... buying you a beer man. That's the crux of the issue right there. I think Americans in general would feel quite a bit better about immigration if there appeared to be some structure and organization to the immigration process. If there appeared to be some limits... some stop gaps... and safety values to the influx of illegals into this country.

I think these documentaries with "nightvision" camera angles of hundrends of illegals crossing the border..... the pictures of illegals amassing at the river to cross at night..... the video of truck loads coming to a stop and the people jumping off and running into the bushes..... this sensationalistic depiction of the problem makes it seem much more fearful.

Protect the borders and develop an orderly process for allowing people into this country to work, a comprehensive "guest worker" program with mechanisms to track workers, and I'll be a happy American.

[docdru]

Interesting you bring up the Declaratin of Independence Stu, which states that the PEOPLE are the basis for the legitimacy of Government, NOT GOD. A HUGE break in tradition, which was not accidental. And Jefferson was the one who coined the phrase "Separation of Church and State". Thanks for playing.

1faith.org???? that sounds credible, give me something that's .edu and maybe I'll take you seriously.

I won't deny that you can find quotes from Jefferson which sound religious, it wasn't necessary safe or a smart political move to come out as an atheist or agnositc in those times. The issue is whether the "ALL" the founders were for a Religious state, which is a claim you made earlier Stu. And they were not. It's an historical fact. There's very little dispute amongst real historians despite what you'll find on christianwackjob.com.

[Stu]

Originally posted by docdru

Interesting you bring up the Declaratin of Independence Stu, which states that the PEOPLE are the basis for the legitimacy of Government, NOT GOD. A HUGE break in tradition, which was not accidental. And Jefferson was the one who coined the phrase "Separation of Church and State". Thanks for playing.

1faith.org???? that sounds credible, give me something that's .edu and maybe I'll take you seriously.

I won't deny that you can find quotes from Jefferson which sound religious, it wasn't necessary safe or a smart political move to come out as an atheist or agnositc in those times. The issue is whether the "ALL" the founders were for a Religious state, which is a claim you made earlier Stu. And they were not. It's an historical fact. There's very little dispute amongst real historians despite what you'll find on christianwackjob.com.

Nice retort from the college boy. Do they teach the "attack and defame" method at Stanford? If so, you aren't getting your money's worth. Perhaps you would be better suited at a school run by Sally Struthers.

Fact: The Declaration of Independence acknowledges God. That in no way is in conflict with your point.

Fact: Jefferson made the statments at the link provided. Because the website has an agenda doesn't mean they are wrong. And if it is equivalent to "christianwhackjob.com" as you assert, your superior Stanford intellect which you were so quick to highlight should be able to refute them on content vice casual dismissal. Perhaps a "real historian" like yourself doesn't have the time.

Fact: I never claimed "ALL" the founding fathers.

Fact: Thomas Jefferson did coin the phrase "seperation of Church and state". But there is honest disagreement over the context of that statement. (Maybe if I went to Stanford, it would be so much more clear to me. Oh pity.)

Your point about not being "safe or a smart political move to come out as an aetheist etc" is ridiculous. It wasn't safe or a smart move to come out against England and they had no problem doing that. Thomas Paine, who perhaps should be better classifed as a deist, had no problem speaking out against Christianity as he saw it and he seems to have done alright.

[Bang]

As an atheist, i don't want my second grader indoctrinated into religious belief. The pledge, while first and foremost a pledge of duty to country, also throws that indoctrination in there.

I, being an atheist, do not feel it is my right to try to force my view on people who do believe in God, however, it doesn't go both ways.

When discussing this, I actually have had people tell me that maybe the best thing to do is to remove my child from the classroom when the pledge is spoken, so it won't be offensive.

And they are totally serious.

As i said, I don't try to force my views on others, in fact, I avoid most religious debates simply because i am just tired of it. I get tired of people telling me how the founding fathers steeped our country in religion,, etc. I get tired of having to remind people that the first whites who came to America did so to escape religious persecution, being forced to practice religion in a way they didn't like... and people just can't seem to understand that by forcing my kid to say those words is doing exactly the same thing.

I have folks tell me (and i am sure this thought is running thru some of your heads right now) to just tell my son not to say that part, as if a 7 year old is fully capable of understanding this issue. I can tell him all I want, but when the idea is force fed to him every single day, there's not a whole lot I can do about it.

Why can't it just be removed? Why can't I be free to raise my son without the idea of God in his life?

Are my rights somehow less than someone else's?

Someone asked "where does it all end". I have no idea, but I can tell you this,, I, for one, am tired of fighting over it. I teach my son what I teach him, and the funny thing is, most of what I teach him are values brought about in the bible,,, the ten commandments are good rules to live by... but I just wish more so-called Christians would bother to try to do it themselves.

Frankly, I think if Jesus could see how many many many people who supposedly follow his teachings actually lived,, I think he'd be furious.

I have no problem with the notion of God. I have no problem if you believe in it. Whatever gives you peace and strength, good for you. But somewhere along the line folks need to realize that what is good for them is not what is good for all.

The Pledge, in itself, doesn't just affect folks like me who think it's all hooey,, but America is so diverse now, what do you do with everyone else? What about all those taxpaying Buddhists, and Hindu, and everything else?

The thing that kills me is how some folks carry on as if removing those two words from the pledge somehow will change or undermine their lives. It won't. Your church will still be open. Your faith will still be strong. Your kids will still grow up being taught that faith as you see fit. Your life won't change one iota.

And the rest of us who don't subscribe to that particular ideal will be able to do the same.

~Bang

[Stu]

Originally posted by Bang

As an atheist, i don't want ...etc

I think your points are well stated. And though I think we wouldn't find total agreement on "where it should end" or where it would start for that matter I understand your points and could compromise with such sentiments.

I think for me, I just wish it was left up to local standards. Let individual towns and such decide what is good for them.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by docdru

"There is one thing I took from that article that i do agree with fully. I am sick and tired of PC talk. All of a sudden there are about 1000 more four letter words out there that I'm not allowed to say in case of offending someone. "

After all, isn't that what America is really all about? Freedom to say as many offensive things as we want about minority groups without having to say you're sorry :puke:

Funny how you are eating both ends of the twizzler.

"I support the removal of christianity from the American public"

Then

"I'm sick of PC!"

[The Evil Genius]

And yet, this form of PC'ness is ok huh?

I know, I am being unpatriotic...or is it un-american? I forget!

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by The Evil Genius

And yet, this form of PC'ness is ok huh?

I know, I am being unpatriotic...or is it un-american? I forget!

????huh???

[The Evil Genius]

Its the idea that anyone who questions the war effort or what the US is doing in xxx country is un-american or unpatriotic. It has been adopted by the Right as a tool to bash those who are against the war.

Its the form of pc'ness that is most prominent now, and yet, very few see it as pc'ness.

Go figure.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by The Evil Genius

Its the idea that anyone who questions the war effort or what the US is doing in xxx country is un-american or unpatriotic. It has been adopted by the Right as a tool to bash those who are against the war.

Its the form of pc'ness that is most prominent now, and yet, very few see it as pc'ness.

Go figure.

I'd say it holds true for the far right for sure, but can you really say that everyone with conservative values accuses anyone who questions the war effort as "unpatriotic" or :unamerican"?

I know that personally, I support both the war effort and your right to disagree with me on that.

Remember PC goes both ways by definition. You may feel that it's un-PC to feel anti-war people are less patriotic. Others may conversly feel that it's un-PC to be chastised for supporting the war.

2 sides to every story, but the bottom line is that the entire PC topic has gotten out of hand for liberals,conservatives,neo's,democrats,republicans, and the list can go on.

Let me ask this one clarifying question (please, it's not to question anyones stance on this topic) ((bow, I'm PC too!))

Is it PC to not allow a nativity scene at a public library?

[The Evil Genius]

Not, imho, if you believe in the court's definition of seperation of church and state.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by The Evil Genius

Not, imho, if you believe in the court's definition of seperation of church and state.

I think you are saying that it is considered PC (under your personal definition) to prohibit the nativity under these circumstances.

(please clarify if I misunderstood your post)

If that's the case, how does one explain PC to the local christians who want the nativity scene?

They would feel that it isnt politically correct.

My whole point is that the generally accepted definition of PC is that you need to show respect for all diverse peoples. It would then be not PC if the christian beliefs are not as equally respected as those of an atheist.

The separation of church and state is not really the issue, that's another whole topic. I just used an easy to reference hypothetical example to continue discussion.:2cents:

[Pete]

I'm late getting in on this one. I'll hit one topic from the original e-mail.

Language. I agree that if you chose to live hear, speak the language (English) in public. Speak whatever you chose at home, in the car, whenever in private.

As I see it, when this country had its largest immigration surge around 1900, the immigrants wanted to be Americans. They wanted to learn the language, and proud to have done so. They kept their culture, and embraced a second language. They insisted their children speak the language of the land, being it was the best way to get an education and fair employment. It generally made life far easier in every way.

Today, many, if not most immigrants want to have the American way of life without becoming Americans. They don’t care if they don’t become citizens, and insist their children speak their native tongue whenever with them, which counteracts what we spend millions on in school, teaching foreign children English. Why do we teach English to these children ? So they can get a proper education, and become productive adults.

Now the constitution may not say that you have to speak English, but a very old rule still stands true. To get along, you have to go along. In my world, I don’t have time to figure out what a non-English speaking person needs. Especially when they get annoyed I don’t habla. Time is money. When working in NYC, I learned a tiny bit of Spanish, enough to buy lunch at the corner bodaga, and that’s it. If I moved to another country, I would do everything in my power to learn the language to make my life easier. Instead we get immigrants ****in their not treated fairly, and we should change to accommodate them.

One poster stated that it’s our problem if the person at McDonalds doesn’t speak clear English, and I have to wait longer for my food because their fighting to make a living. ROAD APPLES! They have compromised the quality of service, and shouldn’t have been hired to deal with the general public. I’m late getting back from lunch, my employer doesn’t give a rats arse that some poor immigrant was slow to understand and delayed my order. I get docked pay, and last I checked I’m fighting to make a living like the majority of Americans. Just because somebody was born here doesn’t mean we all have the easy life.

My grandfather came here from Italia in 1905, he learned the language, and by 1922 owned business with his brother and prospered. He owned his own home, and raised 10 children through some of the hardest times this country ever saw. The immigrants today have far more advantages, and government support then he did. The difference, he wanted to be an American, not just the advantages of living here.

[Dallsux]

Originally posted by Destino

I think a lot of this "we are losing our country" fear would cease if someone would finally takes steps to properly secure our borders. If immigrants are allowed in the country legally their numbers will not be so high that it creates a sense of being taken over.

As for the christian thing I think certain groups have been using the law of the land to promote their movement against religion. The number of activist atheist is steadily growing and that is as much the fault of our decaying culture as it is those that use the pulpit to spread hatred.

100% :notworthy

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by Pete

I'm late getting in on this one. I'll hit one topic from the original e-mail.

Language. I agree that if you chose to live hear, speak the language (English) in public. Speak whatever you chose at home, in the car, whenever in private.

As I see it, when this country had its largest immigration surge around 1900, the immigrants wanted to be Americans. They wanted to learn the language, and proud to have done so. They kept their culture, and embraced a second language. They insisted their children speak the language of the land, being it was the best way to get an education and fair employment. It generally made life far easier in every way.

Today, many, if not most immigrants want to have the American way of life without becoming Americans. They don’t care if they don’t become citizens, and insist their children speak their native tongue whenever with them, which counteracts what we spend millions on in school, teaching foreign children English. Why do we teach English to these children ? So they can get a proper education, and become productive adults.

Now the constitution may not say that you have to speak English, but a very old rule still stands true. To get along, you have to go along. In my world, I don’t have time to figure out what a non-English speaking person needs. Especially when they get annoyed I don’t habla. Time is money. When working in NYC, I learned a tiny bit of Spanish, enough to buy lunch at the corner bodaga, and that’s it. If I moved to another country, I would do everything in my power to learn the language to make my life easier. Instead we get immigrants ****in their not treated fairly, and we should change to accommodate them.

One poster stated that it’s our problem if the person at McDonalds doesn’t speak clear English, and I have to wait longer for my food because their fighting to make a living. ROAD APPLES! They have compromised the quality of service, and shouldn’t have been hired to deal with the general public. I’m late getting back from lunch, my employer doesn’t give a rats arse that some poor immigrant was slow to understand and delayed my order. I get docked pay, and last I checked I’m fighting to make a living like the majority of Americans. Just because somebody was born here doesn’t mean we all have the easy life.

My grandfather came here from Italia in 1905, he learned the language, and by 1922 owned business with his brother and prospered. He owned his own home, and raised 10 children through some of the hardest times this country ever saw. The immigrants today have far more advantages, and government support then he did. The difference, he wanted to be an American, not just the advantages of living here.

Great Post!

I feel the same. While I have no problem whatsoever with an immigrant needing some time to learn the language, I do have a huge problem with someone who refuses to learn and expects me to compensate for their deficiency. I think that one big piece to maintaining a green card and ultimately, citizenship, should be to require continuous improvement in grasping the English language. It shopuld have a program of established comprehension and speach benchmarks to meet before they can progress to the next level. This, done farily and equitably, would ensure that eventually the immigrant would be a value rather than a continued hindrance to American society.

[KingJeremy]

Originally posted by RedskinsFanInTX

"In God We Trust" is our national motto. This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women,

on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented.

It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools.

If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world

as your new home, because God is part of our culture.

"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine." - George Washington

Jer

[Stu]

"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine." - George Washington

Speaking of the "Almighty Being" in his "first official Act"; George Washington. While Washington's views were not orthodox Christianity, his leanings were in that direction. I will never argue that we began as a Christian Theocracy, but our foundings are influenced by religion; which would also include tolerance of other religions for that matter.

http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/presidency/inaugural/final.html

Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station; it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration, to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either: No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency. And in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their United Government, the tranquil deliberations,

and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities, from which the event has resulted, cannot be compared with the means by which most Governments have been established, without some return of pious gratitude along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join me I trust in thinking, that there are none under the influence of which, the proceedings of a new and free Government can more auspiciously commence.

[Stu]

Originally posted by Stu

founding fathers all embraced the religious heritage that is woven into birth of our nation.

For docdru:

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

I realized I did say "all" in my post as you had asserted. That was inadvertant as sometimes my hands type faster than my brain can think.