Today congress passed, 369-9, a resolution to reaffirm that The United States Of America's national motto is "In God We Trust."
For starters, there's the fact that this is unconstitutional. The first amendment BEGINS with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." What could be MORE against the first amendment than declaring that the national motto of this country should be "In God We Trust"?
Worse still, the representative who wrote the resolution, Randy Forbes from Virginia, said that his reason for doing so was that people, including President Obama, were mistakingly thinking that our motto was "E Pluribus Unum". Heaven forbid. It would be a national tragedy if Americans were to believe that "Out Of Many; One" was a better motto for our country. A message of unity is unfitting, thinks Randy Forbes. We need one that reinforces a divisive, slavish devotion to an ancient fictitious character.
Because clearly there's nothing else more important that Congress could be using their time for. Clearly, it is absolutely vital to remind people of the correct national motto (which was adopted in 1956, by the way). It's not as if we're fighting two wars, or facing massive unemployment, or if there are nationwide protests against corporate gluttony, or if the current state of the world economy exactly parallels the leadup to the Great Depression. It's not as if censorship, gay marriage and execution are controversial topics whose laws deserve to be reexamined. No. Congress has nothing better to do than this.
But beyond the hideous hypocrisy and stunning inappropriateness, this was an act of mean-spiritedness too. To claim that "In God We Trust" is an idea so important that we must cement it a credo that we hold above all else, is to spit in the faces of every American citizen who does not belive in "God". Not just atheists and agnostics, but people whose religions place their faith elsewhere. Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, American Indians and more have been insulted today. We've been told, 'You don't matter. You're not real Americans.'
By the way, the constitutionality of "In God We Trust" was challenged in 1970. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled: "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise."
Which proves that the Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals was composed entirely of people suffering from diminished mental capacity. I presume that, later that day, they also ruled that gravity has nothing whatsoever to do with objects falling.
By the way, the constitutionality of "In God We Trust" was challenged in 1970. The United States Cou
You know, I wonder how much they'd stick to the 'it's not sponsoring a religion' thing if it said, oh I don't know, 'In Allah we trust', or 'In Buddha we trust', or something like that. Be willing to bet a bitchslap to their heads that if someone suggested something along those lines, they would fall over themselves claiming that it would be unfair to sponsor another religion like that.
>Be willing to bet a bitchslap to their heads that if someone suggested something along those lines, they would fall over themselves claiming that it would be unfair to sponsor another religion like that.
>Be willing to bet a bitchslap to their heads that if someone suggested something along those lines,
I'm an atheist too. It is, however, technically true that Americans trust more than one god in total, therefore...
Of course, the better option is to drop the entire conceit of religion. I agree with Alex, 'E Pluribus Unum' is an excellent national motto, particularly for a diverse nation like America. Of course, I suppose that's the problem, isn't it? Diversity?
Eh, here's a secret: neither am I. Considered moving there, think it's a wonderful country. I see why people still stand by it even when batshit lunacy like this crops up.
Eh, here's a secret: neither am I. Considered moving there, think it's a wonderful country. I see wh
Seeing all the militant christians trying to make THEIR religion supreme pisses me off. We have separation of church and state for a reason.
Scarily, plenty of people seem to believe the Founding Fathers intended this to be a Christian county. The truth is the exact opposite. Do you know who said such blasphemous things as:
Scarily, plenty of people seem to believe the Founding Fathers intended this to be a Christian count
I no longer consider myself "Christian", though, and am VERY thankful that the founding fathers stood against organized religion. Crusades and/or witch hunts, anyone?
Fun fact, MENY of the founding Fathers Were into free masonry. Some would say in God we trust is a simple cover as the back of the one dollar bill is LOADED with Masonic Symbols. check it out some time =p
Fun fact, MENY of the founding Fathers Were into free masonry. Some would say in God we trust is a s
Why does our conty suck so much...why? First the republics make ass's of them selves and our economy is going to die soon then add in the fact that congress is bussy acting like 3 year olds in a slap fight and now this. Well time to get the nation -wide lube cause were going to get fucked
Why does our conty suck so much...why? First the republics make ass's of them selves and our economy
It probably is going to take some big crisis for us to wake up and change things, but it's good to keep in perspective that the U.S. is still a pretty decent county. My real frustration comes from the fact that we could easily be better, but we don't put in the effort. :/
It probably is going to take some big crisis for us to wake up and change things, but it's good to k
Congress is filled with nothing but well dressed monkeys slingging s#!+ tell their to old to think straight then they still old their sit until they die. Seriously can anyone think back to the last time they heard of one these monkeys LEAVING congress!!!
Congress is filled with nothing but well dressed monkeys slingging s#!+ tell their to old to think s
I'm guessing they hoped a good shot of patriotism would distract people from everything else. Apparently, either they're that stupid, or they think we are.
I'm guessing they hoped a good shot of patriotism would distract people from everything else. Appare
I actually think it's moving away from that. People in general are becoming less religious, and the religious people are freaking out and raising a stink about it. This is part of a backlash against atheism. I honestly think this is part of a death-spasm from the people who want this to be a Christian country. They're losing and they know it, so they're throwing as many tantrums as they can.
That's how it looks here in Australia. The "religious right" has been working at that for a few decades now. Their efforts to make America more religious coincide exactly with the decrease in America's education system, economic decline, and the steady increase in opposition to (and fear of) science in America.
That's because well-educated kids tend to grow up non-religious, or at least less religious. Especially if they are allowed to study science.
The question is if we're seeing a desperate last attempt to keep the old ways alive, or the first step towards a christian version of Saudi Arabia.
That's because well-educated kids tend to grow up non-religious, or at least less religious. Especia
I still have plans on leaving America eventually. The bureaucracy and absent-mindedness makes me physically ill. ><
I still have plans on leaving America eventually. The bureaucracy and absent-mindedness makes me phy
No no, those are good things, bureaucracy and absent mindedness keep these morons from getting anything done, it's only when they get off their asses and get on their high horses that this sort of crap happens.
No no, those are good things, bureaucracy and absent mindedness keep these morons from getting anyth
I would go for Germany. I was stationed there for a few years and found it to be a pretty nice place.
I would go for Germany. I was stationed there for a few years and found it to be a pretty nice place
Australia? I'd have to disagree there... From what I've heard, most of Alex's artwork would be illegal there.
Australia? I'd have to disagree there... From what I've heard, most of Alex's artwork would be illeg
I've actually heard a lot I like about Denmark, Sweden or Norway (though yeah, some of it comes from the webcomic Scandanavia And The World).
I've actually heard a lot I like about Denmark, Sweden or Norway (though yeah, some of it comes from
Wow, thanks for bringing this to my attention. All this time wasting, makes me annoyed. Everyone should find out if their Representatives even wasted time voting on it and then give them an ear-full. That reminds me, I need to post about something a little later myself. =o
Wow, thanks for bringing this to my attention. All this time wasting, makes me annoyed. Everyone sho
>Everyone should find out if their Representatives even wasted time voting on it and then give them an ear-full.
I would love to hear your opinion on the current Occupy America Protests. Down here in Phoenix somebody is passing around fliers instructing to shot any police, fire fighter, or government official.
I would love to hear your opinion on the current Occupy America Protests. Down here in Phoenix someb
Fucking love the hell out of them. They're long overdue. Shame on the news for downplaying them or acting like they don't understand the protesters' intentions.
>Down here in Phoenix somebody is passing around fliers instructing to shot any police, fire fighter, or government official.
Well, then that person is a retard, and acting against the aims of the Occupy group. And fire fighters!? What harm do they do!?
I agree that they are long over due, but stupid idiots like the one passing the fliers keeps me away. Plus that the job market here in Phoenix is so bad right now I can't even afford the Five dollar bus pass to go downtown.
I agree that they are long over due, but stupid idiots like the one passing the fliers keeps me away
At the time I posted this link, congressional job approval was 12%, and I'm wondering what kind of idiots these 12% must be.
The 12% that don't pay attention, the ones that aren't affected by them, or the ones that help those monkeys stay in congress.
Then again their are the dreams how think things will get better if they support them by doing nothing.
The 12% that don't pay attention, the ones that aren't affected by them, or the ones that help those
"In God we Trust" That would be a pretty ironic motto if they find out that their divinity seriously wants to lay the smack down on them.
God: "You've spit on my laws, profaned my message, made a mockery of me to all the nations, and you have the balls to enact a law saying you trust in me!?!? I'm gonna spill my grapes on you [insert divine expletive here]"
"In God we Trust" That would be a pretty ironic motto if they find out that their divinity seriously
Remember how Rick Perry led a massive public prayer to ask God for rain, and then not only did the drought continue, but pretty much the whole state caught on fire? Someone capable of examining the consequences of their actions might think that God was telling them to STFU.
Remember how Rick Perry led a massive public prayer to ask God for rain, and then not only did the d
Either congress is out of touch with reality or they hope the people are. Most likely both. They are lobby puppets and want to dumb down the populace even more.
Honestly, I am speechless. And considering that they try to get an ever thighter control of the internet I get really worried.
I am not going to say the politicians here in Europe are any better. The only thing that prevents such things in here is that the countries here are too small to build up that amount of isolation from outside influences though sheer size, by filling the entire horizon of the people with things generated within the country, there are enough close neighbours that are at least looked at and can call bullshit.
The USA spans the better part of a continent, with only two smaller neighbours that are often ignored and enough distance to the rest to ignore them as well, which allows this ideological isolation. And the resulting amount of ideological inbreeding results in the increasingly damaged ideology the government preaches.
Either congress is out of touch with reality or they hope the people are. Most likely both. They are
>And considering that they try to get an ever thighter control of the internet I get really worried.
Christ... now you've got me wondering if the In God We Trust thing was just a smokescreen to detract attention away from their vote to basically gut the internet at the whim of their corporate masters.
>The USA spans the better part of a continent, with only two smaller neighbours that are often ignored and enough distance to the rest to ignore them as well, which allows this ideological isolation. And the resulting amount of ideological inbreeding results in the increasingly damaged ideology the government preaches
You know, I'd noticed a while ago how amazingly self-centered the US is; how we accept virtually nothing from other cultures. Not unless we make it our own first. I think the fact that we can't release a really good foreign movie over here without having to remake it with white actors is proof enough of that. I'd been wondering how the hell this came about, and what you said makes a lot of sense.
>Christ... now you've got me wondering if the In God We Trust thing was just a smokescreen to detract attention away from their vote to basically gut the internet at the whim of their corporate masters.
Not only that it falls so closely together in time but also that it allows them to remove access to dissenting opinions and a platform to voice them, like they did in within the traditional media, bringing them a big step closer to re-establish their level of information control from pre-internet times, coupled with current surveilliance technology.
>You know, I'd noticed a while ago how amazingly self-centered the US is; how we accept virtually nothing from other cultures. Not unless we make it our own first. I think the fact that we can't release a really good foreign movie over here without having to remake it with white actors is proof enough of that.
Imo this is more a product of paranoia and of a marketing that is ultimately aimed at this paranoia.
The paranoia is most likely rooted on the one hand in the Red Scare and the fear of infiltration ingrained into the collective American psyche back then -with this fear being kept fresh for and by use by the politicians to distract the people-, and on the other hand in their horizon already being filled with their own country so they additionally on the one hand percieve the additonal outside impulses as an overload of information -which causes stress, so they do not want to be reminded- and on the other hand are so completely surrounded by American -or sold-as American- products that they percieve anything geniunely non-American as alien and therefore unsettling.
Something which in turn is increased by hurray-patriotism not only to keep them ideologically in line but also to create an artificially increased need for americanized versions of foregin products so the companies can sell more and look good and patriotic doing so.
Great, now it begins to sound like Brave New Word with the open sex replaced by hypocrisy and prudery to provide blackmail as another means of control.
The inbred ideology itself rather shows in the religious fundamentalism since there are not enough outside voices in hearing range to call bullshit and in the persistent stereotypes because the stereotyped are too far away to go there and correct them. Of course both of this allows for creating good scares so the politicians try to preserve it as a means of control instead of doing something about it.
>Christ... now you've got me wondering if the In God We Trust thing was just a smokescreen to detrac
>Not only that it falls so closely together in time but also that it allows them to remove access to dissenting opinions and a platform to voice them, like they did in within the traditional media, bringing them a big step closer to re-establish their level of information control from pre-internet times, coupled with current surveilliance technology.
I'm aware of this and terrified by it. Though on the other hand, I do have a bit of hope that the internet has simply been free too long to be contained now. Like, imagine a horse escaping from the barn, and the farmer tries to catch it when it's already twenty miles away. I've noticed that file-sharing has thrived in the face of relentless attempts to stop it. And illegal porn certainly isn't decreasing. I hope this ends up being the same story as when they tried Prohibition; people kept on getting drunk no matter what until the government gave up trying to stop them. (I think this is likely how the War On Drugs is gonna end, and the sooner the better.)
>The paranoia is most likely rooted on the one hand in the Red Scare and the fear of infiltration ingrained into the collective American psyche back then -with this fear being kept fresh for and by use by the politicians to distract the people-, and on the other hand in their horizon already being filled with their own country so they additionally on the one hand percieve the additonal outside impulses as an overload of information -which causes stress, so they do not want to be reminded- and on the other hand are so completely surrounded by American -or sold-as American- products that they percieve anything geniunely non-American as alien and therefore unsettling.
Fuckin' makes sense. Reminds me of a country boy who goes to the big city for the first time and his brain just can't deal with it.
>Great, now it begins to sound like Brave New Word with the open sex replaced by hypocrisy and prudery to provide blackmail as another means of control.
>The inbred ideology itself rather shows in the religious fundamentalism since there are not enough outside voices in hearing range to call bullshit and in the persistent stereotypes because the stereotyped are too far away to go there and correct them. Of course both of this allows for creating good scares so the politicians try to preserve it as a means of control instead of doing something about it.
No wonder they hate the internet so much. Never has it been easier for the people shouting, "IT'S ALL BULLSHIT!" to be heard.
>Not only that it falls so closely together in time but also that it allows them to remove access to
The problem is that the War on Drugs currently fuels the prison industry by providing it with cheap workforce they can then rent out. That is most likely the main reason they still keep it going. A war on "Internet Crime" or some such could easily do the same.
The only hope is that it is too late for them to get things airtight, as it was for China, and they abandon it halfway through. Which, considering the sheer size of things, is likely. In another decade a good share of the current old men are out of power and things look brighter anyway.
>The only hope is that it is too late for them to get things airtight, as it was for China, and they abandon it halfway through. Which, considering the sheer size of things, is likely. In another decade a good share of the current old men are out of power and things look brighter anyway.
<nod> I am very hopeful for this. The internet's already got a hell of a head start on freedom. The people trying to stop it are like farmers chasing after a runaway horse on tricycles.
"You know, I'd noticed a while ago how amazingly self-centered the US is; how we accept virtually nothing from other cultures."
Because multiculturalism (the idea that there is no difference between cultures) can take America back to the dark ages just as easily as religion (probably even more so, because there is no requirement to separate the two in the Constitution).
"You know, I'd noticed a while ago how amazingly self-centered the US is; how we accept virtually no
>Because multiculturalism (the idea that there is no difference between cultures) can take America back to the dark ages just as easily as religion (probably even more so, because there is no requirement to separate the two in the Constitution).
>Because multiculturalism (the idea that there is no difference between cultures) can take America b
You know, normally I'm not one for peppering my speech/typing with swearing, but in this case I just don't think anything else will do...
Given that, anyone who is offended by swearing really shouldn't read this reply, though if you do and honestly find it more offensive than the topic it's addressing, you really need to work on your priorities.
What the unholy hell are these dipshits doing?! Are they really that bloody bored, or so very insecure that they felt the need to give a big fucking middle finger to everyone not christian who happens to live in the U.S.? Were they really that terrified that people might, for one second, think that the country isn't a 'christian nation' like these fuckwits are always spouting about?
Honestly, I can only hope that someone challenges this and it gets slapped back in their collective faces so hard it bruises anyone who even thinks that they have the right to rub someone's face in a religion that isn't theirs.
You know, normally I'm not one for peppering my speech/typing with swearing, but in this case I just
After re-reading this, I realized it might be a /titch/ overboard on the anger. Not that the subjects don't deserve it mind, it's just that too much of that sort of thing tends to make people just ignore the reason for the anger, and assume the person is just being unreasonable, which tends to be rather counter-productive.
Ah well, a little venting now and then is harmless enough, and it's not like these people don't deserve to get more than a little anger tossed their way.
After re-reading this, I realized it might be a /titch/ overboard on the anger. Not that the subject
>Honestly, I can only hope that someone challenges this and it gets slapped back in their collective faces so hard it bruises anyone who even thinks that they have the right to rub someone's face in a religion that isn't theirs.[/q]
Maybe this will finally lead to a court ruling that produces the correct verdict; that this kinda thing is, and always has been, unconstitutional as fuck.
>Ah well, a little venting now and then is harmless enough, and it's not like these people don't deserve to get more than a little anger tossed their way.
Exactly. And anger is good. People like us need to stop treating things like this as trivial. We need to stop saying 'Oh well'. The Christians in this country see it slipping out of their hands, and they are throwing incredible temper tantrums now to try to get it back. They need to be fought against. They need to have their little grabby hands slapped like the spoiled babies they are. "NO! This country is NOT yours. You have to share it like everyone else. Stop crying and accept it like an adult."
>Honestly, I can only hope that someone challenges this and it gets slapped back in their collective
Ahh... gotta love when they hold something this idiotic over the masses heads to keep them entertained.. or enraged.
I will never accept "In god we trust" as a motto. based upon the sole fact that I am free.. well.. "Free" >.>;
Ahh... gotta love when they hold something this idiotic over the masses heads to keep them entertain
I'll never accept it for a variety of reasons, not least being that, considering my observations of how life on this planet works, I'd trust God about as much as Batman trusts the Joker.
Hah, I'd trust the joker over god anyday. At least the joker doesn't pretend to not be a total psychopath, he's blunt and honest that he's completely and totally nuts, and you can rely on him, to an extent, do act as such all the time. God on the other hand seems to have the mother of all cases of split personality, calm(ish) and kind one day, and gleefully killing off large chunks of the population the next.
You do have a point. I've learned through experience; I'll take a consistent opponent, even an evil-as-fuck one, over an unpredictable one any day.
You do have a point. I've learned through experience; I'll take a consistent opponent, even an evil-
Every time I think the Republican/Christian Political machine has done something so outrageous it makes satire irrelevant, they do something else. If I hadn't seen this on the evening news, I would've thought The Onion came up with this.
Every time I think the Republican/Christian Political machine has done something so outrageous it ma
This is just one small part of a larger problem, but it sums up the problem pretty well by itself. In the 1950s, paranoia over communism was in full bloom, and the people in power in our country decided to take measures to combat it. This included modifying the Pledge of Allegiance to include "under God" in its text, adding "in God we trust" to all of our money, and perhaps most insidiously, changing American Christianity itself. The religious leaders agreed to emphasize the portions of the Bible which support capitalism and to down play the portions of the Bible which support communism and socialism (most of the teachings of Christ), and to rigorously enforce this among their underlings; preachers who go against this don't hold their positions for long. All of this was to combat communism and its atheist leanings, and it ended up screwing up the minds of our people, and creating an incestuous relationship between our religion, our economic system, and our government.
This is just one small part of a larger problem, but it sums up the problem pretty well by itself. I
Wow. Thank you very, very much for this post, because I was just wondering why all this 'God' stuff started happening in the fifties. As a reaction to communism, it makes sense. Though it's hard to believe we were ever that terrified over an economic system. Hopefully, one day we'll look back on this time and wonder how we could have possibly hurt so many of our own citizens out of fear of terrorism and internet porn.
It wasn't "Real" communism. The early founders of Communism were militant atheists. Stalin on the other hand wanted Communism to be the state religion, with everyone worshipping the government he represented. Religion was therefore the opposite of the USSR style communism.
It wasn't "Real" communism. The early founders of Communism were militant atheists. Stalin on the ot
I normally don't comment in journals, but I couldn't let this one go by. Well done! To me, it's not enough for the government to refrain from endorsing a particular religion. The government shouldn't endorse religion, or lack thereof, at all.
Absolutely. It boggles my brain how no one in the Government can see how glaringly unconstitutional this is. <shakes head>
Absolutely. It boggles my brain how no one in the Government can see how ‌glaringly unconstitutional
You know, The word God is just another word for Deity.. For some reason somewhere along the lines of Politics and Correctness some Jerk decided to Just call the Christian God, God.. Granted in the Bible there is no name for the Deity other than being called the one and only god.. and as it says no one shall worship any other GOD.. Other Translations have called it Deity's or Idols..
O.o So in god we trust. What God are we speaking of? Remember folks it wasn't till the late '90-'00 did all the terminologies change.
To me I really don't care what the slogan of america is.. The things that I would concider is if there is a Religion enforced. For each should practice his or her own. Religion should and always remain seperate from Goverment.. Practice what you will but that shouln't influence ones choices in the political theater and law.
A simple slogan isn't effecting anyone. But I agree, There are several more important issues at hand that have been overlooked for way to long. This nation is in great peril and with growing crowds and anger built up. This nation will soon find its self divided amonst each other.
This nation, and the world is falling into a great deperesion. And things keep geting worse and worse and with the riots breaking out here and there. I wouldn't be at all surprised it this nation ends on a path the same as Egypt with a full out overthrow of the goverment.
The world is so bad that the EU (European Union) was turning against each other because of the mass debt each nation was in. Now I am not big on religion But in every one it all ends with nation turning agaist nation, brother agaist brother, sons killing fathers and so on.. O.o ............
Religion in no more than a moral compass. You don't need to belive in a god to know what is right and wrong and the world is in such chaos that it will fall if noting is done. Religion doesn't need to explain that.
So yes, Congress should be more focused on how to stablize the nation and bring back some ease to these troubling times.
You know, The word God is just another word for Deity.. For some reason somewhere along the lines of
>To me I really don't care what the slogan of america is.. The things that I would concider is if there is a Religion enforced. For each should practice his or her own. Religion should and always remain seperate from Goverment.. Practice what you will but that shouln't influence ones choices in the political theater and law.
The problem is, if it was only the motto, I'd probably just roll my eyes at it. But religion gets special treatment by the government. How much taxes do they pay? And when all the revelations about priests abusing children came out, was the church as an organization investigated and prosecuted, as any other organization would have been? I believe it's very important for citizens to chip away relentlessly at the idea that religious people and institutions deserve special treatment of any kind.
Sure it is. Language influences thought. This was very likely meant to be a rallying cry to other Christias who think this country belongs to them. "Don't forget, Christians! Never let them take anything away from you! It's ours, ours, ours! Not any smelly foreigners or atheist scum! We're the only TRUE Americans!"
>But I agree, There are several more important issues at hand that have been overlooked for way to long. This nation is in great peril and with growing crowds and anger built up. This nation will soon find its self divided amonst each other.
>I wouldn't be at all surprised it this nation ends on a path the same as Egypt with a full out overthrow of the goverment.
As much as I'd hate to see bloodshed, I can't help but think that a revolution would very likely do America a lot of good. Assuming it was carried out with the right goals. Not just random rioting, but going after people and companies that are genuinely making things worse.
Correction: Religion is a way to justify whatever your moral compass already tells you. Whatever you believe, that's what God wants too. How convenient. ;)
>So yes, Congress should be more focused on how to stablize the nation and bring back some ease to these troubling times.
>To me I really don't care what the slogan of america is.. The things that I would concider is if th
To me its like there saying what ever the hell happens its in gods hands to make it right.. A very Lazy way of doing anything.
In god we trust is to trust god with the decisions made in goverment. (which I can see some room for debate here) To me I don't see the significance in the statement. I am still free to practice what I choose. And So are many of the Muslims/Jews/ in office, In Congress. =/ So why is it a big deal?
If you Really,, AND I MEAN ReALLY thing that this is a rallying call. Then where the Heck is all the "Jewish", "Muslim" "Kwanza" "Hindu" "Buddist" and "Tao" Music during the "Holiday Season"?
We all are forced to listen to the Cristian Christmas Music and even though now the employees are FORCED to say Happy Holidays at wal-mart or get Fired. Any costomer asking for a Menorah is tossed out the store.. HMMM...
This goverment has not established a religion but I agree there is alot or religious Statements that all point to Christainity as being the religion. From the Flag's Pledge "Under God" to "In God we Trust" To the "Holiday Music" Indeed.. But I still am not effected by anyof it. The reason still standing, Untill they take away my power to practice what I hold dear, they I will fight. Till then I am just watching the cards unfold.
Just like Religion that is a moral compass, Everything is in shadow. They whole bible is in poetic form. Litteraly dividing the world into hundrends of parts because everyone has there own interpetation, thus leading to corruption. Same with the goverments Leagalize writings allowing loopholes for the CEO's to make more profit..
I say that this goverment needs major reform. Kill the 3way power of Capitalism and go with a True Democracy, Let the people have a voice instead of old geezers that are still stuck in the past that they cannot address properly to the changing times.
Establish a form of Communism. Equal rights and Shares. This will force the people in a state where there cannot be CEO's pocketing all the cash causing this great depression. (note the diffrences between Communism and Facisit)
The problems with Communism is the fact that everyone gets the same pay means that if one was lazy they can still get payed. Well I propose to build off communism but have it where you have to show your work, you don't work you don't get payed.
Imigration is another issue. Well here is something, COMMUNISM. now everyone is payed the same and noone can get away with the cheap labor of a Illegal foreigner watering down the economy and the availible jobs. Everyone in the USA is given a SSN and when you work you need 2 forms of ID right? Well this is something that is mannatory at places like Wal-mart and Target. Why not for farmer? If the farmer is making money and having to pay employees then don't they have to report this all into the Taxes? Why can't the goverment varrify that the workers are indeed legal to live here?
Why do thousands of mexicans even want to come here illigaly? well if they dont' want an honest living then they are living dishonestly by selling crack, meth, and commiting other crimes.. And we still want to say its alright for them to be here illigaly? Just because America doesn't want to get there hands dirty on a job, and all the empolers want cheaper labor so they can pocket all the profits..
You simply cannot make the argument that "In God We Trust" is not divisive. What if they tried to change it to 'In Republicans We Trust'? Or Democrats. No matter what you put in in place of God, it's saying that everyone is on board with that thing, and in doing so you tell anyone who doesn't that their views are ignored.
Or if your argument is that it no longer has its literal meaning, then why have it as our national motto!?
>To me I don't see the significance in the statement. I am still free to practice what I choose. And So are many of the Muslims/Jews/ in office, In Congress. =/ So why is it a big deal?
Flying the Confederate flag over the capitol dome wouldn't hurt anyone either, but can you imagine why some people would be offended by that?
>We all are forced to listen to the Cristian Christmas Music and even though now the employees are FORCED to say Happy Holidays at wal-mart or get Fired. Any costomer asking for a Menorah is tossed out the store.. HMMM...
>This goverment has not established a religion but I agree there is alot or religious Statements that all point to Christainity as being the religion. From the Flag's Pledge "Under God" to "In God we Trust" To the "Holiday Music" Indeed.. But I still am not effected by anyof it.
Yes, you are. There are still laws on the books that are based on nothing but religious morality. There is no rational reason why gays cannot marry. There is no rational reason why stem cell research should be hindered. There is no rational reason why a woman should be put in prison if her nipples are visible in public. There is no rational reason why churches should not pay taxes.
>I say that this goverment needs major reform. Kill the 3way power of Capitalism and go with a True Democracy, Let the people have a voice instead of old geezers that are still stuck in the past that they cannot address properly to the changing times.
>The problems with Communism is the fact that everyone gets the same pay means that if one was lazy they can still get payed. Well I propose to build off communism but have it where you have to show your work, you don't work you don't get payed.
>now everyone is payed the same and noone can get away with the cheap labor of a Illegal foreigner watering down the economy and the availible jobs.
That may be true, but if everyone is paid the same, there's no advancement. There's no incentive. There's no competition. And competition keeps the economy and technology progressing. Do you think computers would have become so advanced so fast without companies like Apple and Microsoft viciously trying to outdo each other?
Sorry, but I think capitalism's great. We just need to regulate the hell out of corporations. Corporations are like guard dogs. When trained, they can be of great benefit. When untrained, they kill people.
"Flying the Confederate flag over the capitol dome wouldn't hurt anyone either, but can you imagine why some people would be offended by that?"
Because some people are a bunch of pansies who need to grow up and stop getting bent out of shape over a piece of cloth.
">The problems with Communism is the fact that everyone gets the same pay means that if one was lazy they can still get payed. Well I propose to build off communism but have it where you have to show your work, you don't work you don't get payed.
None of those things give one a claim on the life and property of others, nor entitles one to a value without giving a value in return.
"Sorry, but I think capitalism's great. We just need to regulate the hell out of corporations. Corporations are like guard dogs. When trained, they can be of great benefit. When untrained, they kill people."
Capitalism calls for a strict separation between government and economics (or corporations, as it were); in capitalism, the only time government and economics mix is when the government is protecting the people from force or fraud (REAL force and fraud, by the way). Also, something people are quite upset about is the corporations buying the government (bribing would be more accurate), but tell me this; when the government holds you by the throat, does it not make sense to want to have their favor on your side?
>Because some people are a bunch of pansies who need to grow up and stop getting bent out of shape over a piece of cloth.
So by that logic, it should be equally okay to fly a Nazi swastika over the capitol, because it's only a piece of cloth, and symbols have absolutely no impact.
>None of those things give one a claim on the life and property of others, nor entitles one to a value without giving a value in return.
While that may be true in a cold, technical sense, I sure as hell don't want to live in any society that believes that.
Besides, it would result in a self-defeating system. A society taking basic care of its citizens is no different than a society spending money on infrastructure. When you keep the roads paved, you make distribution easier. When you give all citizens access to health care, the workplace is stronger as a result. A worker who is in debt up to his eyeballs because of his invalid mother is one who can neither advance or concentrate on his work. When the fuck are businesses going to realize that it's more profitable in the long run to take care of customers and employees? A business, or a government, that does not share any of the profits it makes leads to a bitter underclass with no loyalty to the company/government, and a stagnating economy.
>Capitalism calls for a strict separation between government and economics (or corporations, as it were); in capitalism, the only time government and economics mix is when the government is protecting the people from force or fraud (REAL force and fraud, by the way). Also, something people are quite upset about is the corporations buying the government (bribing would be more accurate),
>but tell me this; when the government holds you by the throat, does it not make sense to want to have their favor on your side?
Sure. But only to the extent that the will of the people allows. Government should not have the power to run business, and business should not have the power to run government. A constant commitment to balance is necessary.
>Because some people are a bunch of pansies who need to grow up and stop getting bent out of shape o
Today the flag is used in the North as White Surpremacy. In the south it is used somewhat in this manner though its more of the Southern Pride than White Surpremacy.
The original use of the Flag was used During the American Civil war. It was the Flag of the Confederate States, Which Did surport Slavery though was tired of the BS from the Union, (United States=Union)
The Flag can repersent Anarchy and Rebelion because of the Rebelion against the union, White Surpremacy because of the Confederate Supprot of the Nation as well as the Southern Pride. Sadly even though the Conferedate state rejoined the Union , The 13 states of the South is Not accepted as being of the true United states >.> don't Belive me? Go down to New Orleans. It still looks like crap. O.o The clean up for Andrew took what? Not more than a year to look half way decent.
But that isn't the true point. The confederate flag should take no offence to anyone unless used inproper, other wise it is no more than a symbol of the south. Take a look at the Flag of Georga. It has the Conferderate flag in it. And there are 2 forms. One with the confederate flag in the corner of it and another that almost mimics the 1st confederate flag which had the white and red stripes. So are you truely offended when ever you see someone from Georga or even to enter the state?
You make a good point here. If I had a job and could not work anymore then why not work a job to ones abilities? Not everything has to be labor intencive you can do other things with in the same workplace till you are able again.
I dont' find it right for someone not able to do anything to not be able to support themselves. One thing that should be keept with in goverment is the fact that as a nation that works to gether so does the goverment work for you. As the shares are divided amonst worker so does the goverment's shares divide theres amosnt thouse who aren't able.
Of course -.- like with america, goverment handouts lead to abuse of the system and thouse who need it to go though beaucratic BS just to get it. But hey I am still working out the quarks. XD
>Yes, you are. There are still laws on the books that are based on nothing but religious morality. There is no rational reason why gays cannot marry. There is no rational reason why stem cell research should be hindered. There is no rational reason why a woman should be put in prison if her nipples are visible in public. There is no rational reason why churches should not pay taxes.
All a good point, Laws are quite stupid indeed. In some places there are still laws that you can't kick a can on the sidewalk if it is a Sunday. How senceless is that?
But the laws you mentioned are not Religiously motivated. Morals differ from person to person and if the laws were Religiouly influenced then as I mentioned earlier wouldn't have other members of the senate of diffrent religions. The laws are Moral driven and Morals that have been in place from old customs since the dawn of the nation. Some Morals may be Religious driven though the Morals are the driving factors for the laws. When a group of people agree what is "decent" they all flock like Sheep to the head of the heard and is lead to all the same place.
Here is an example of sheep being lead astray. When someone goes into a highschool and has a mass shoot out, imediantly all guns are bad. Laws restricting the buying of guns are put in place and more and more it makes it harder for anyone to get a gun. But when a retired cop has his house broken into in the middle of the night and shoots the guy as he enters his daughters bedroom he is called a hero and guns are now good. And things like tax on bullets are cut , so on and so fourth
Point being that Religion isn't the only factor in creating law but the nation as a whole. When one leads the others soon follow. Hence why I said I would love to do away with this 3 ways goverment and Senate (old men in latin) and put some one in charge that can understand the people and the changing times as well as create a true democracy where we can speak for a change.
The problems with the senate is that infact it is a small house of men. and being as small as it is. It is easier to lead asray a small herd of sheep than a large one.
Competion in communism, Hmm It is true that competion lead to better technology and advancement. Heck WWII seen one of the greatist spikes just because of the need to stay ahead of the enemy.. Just as I said that the nation needs to be like a true Democracy so I said as a Comunist Country.. A nation cannot be of just one thing but needs to have the support of many.
If a person works he gets paid. The problem is that no matter how you look at an ecomomy somewhere along the line the nation will either always have the same amout of money or have to much money in which the ecomomy will be watered down. The only solution is the manufacturing in renewable materials that can be then sold off. Hence why now the price of Gold is going up. Its not renewable, our economy is based on precious metal, and it doesn't benifit anyone.. We pump out more green backs than have the gold to back it up all because we need to pay our workers.
O.o why not pay in something like Food and Clothes? Bartering systems to trade for what we need than want.
If everyone worked there own line of work, bussiness and prospered then that would lead to competionion. Though you will have a need to pay them for work but where is the cash coming from? Costumers? And where are they geting the cash? Either way some one has to be making money to be spending money on a very litteral sence. It would be the self employed that truly prosper for they are making products to trade for coin.. (in a basic sence, it takes money to make money) What if you were a farmer? How can you farm with out a hoe? You need to buy one first?
This is the problem with the Economy the way it is, the Richer gets Richer and the Poorer gets Poorer..
With the US too there are taxes, Though the state uses it more. If the tax was to take a percentage then divide that amost the working class then it would almost even out the economy like comunism? O.o and if you are working for someone (as employee) you are still making wage, allowing for independant bussiness, and prospering on the growing renewable resourses. Though in order for a nation to continue to prosper you need to increase steadly the amount of Renewable resourses. XD
Sorta why we are in peril now. Too relyant on oil. And if we were to go to farming well then we have the problems with demolishing the landscape. O.o though we have proposed to build farms upward and that isn't a bad idea. Especiall if we can go Bio-Dieasl
Oh, I don't know about that. I have no problem being offended by its old meaning. The South took up arms against their fellow countrymen in the biggest act of treason this country has ever seen. What's there to celebrate in that? If I was a southerner, I'd be as ashamed of that as a German would be of the 30s-40s.
>The 13 states of the South is Not accepted as being of the true United states >.> don't Belive me? Go down to New Orleans. It still looks like crap. O.o The clean up for Andrew took what? Not more than a year to look half way decent.
What the hell are you talking about!? Andrew hit Florida and Louisiana. Is that not part of the South? Or are we talking about the same storm?
>Take a look at the Flag of Georga. It has the Conferderate flag in it. And there are 2 forms. One with the confederate flag in the corner of it and another that almost mimics the 1st confederate flag which had the white and red stripes. So are you truely offended when ever you see someone from Georga or even to enter the state?
No, but only because I didn't know that fact about their flag until they told me. Not against the citizens of Georga, but their state government? Sure.
>You make a good point here. If I had a job and could not work anymore then why not work a job to ones abilities? Not everything has to be labor intencive you can do other things with in the same workplace till you are able again.
That's fine IF that's what a company does. My friend Zephon was working for a company in their warehouse. He got injured from literally working too hard, and instead of transferring him, they just told him to go home until further notice. Without pay.
>I dont' find it right for someone not able to do anything to not be able to support themselves. One thing that should be keept with in goverment is the fact that as a nation that works to gether so does the goverment work for you. As the shares are divided amonst worker so does the goverment's shares divide theres amosnt thouse who aren't able.
>Of course -.- like with america, goverment handouts lead to abuse of the system and thouse who need it to go though beaucratic BS just to get it. But hey I am still working out the quarks. XD
I guess the idea of 'government handouts' pisses me off because, when people talk about it, they're not talking about the people who are actually abusing the system. If someone commits welfare fraud, that may be a crime, but how much total harm does it actually cause? Compare that to huge corporations who use deductions and loopholes to essentially never pay any taxes. And then ask the government for money whenever they need some, and usually get it.
>>Yes, you are. There are still laws on the books that are based on nothing but religious morality. There is no rational reason why gays cannot marry. There is no rational reason why stem cell research should be hindered. There is no rational reason why a woman should be put in prison if her nipples are visible in public. There is no rational reason why churches should not pay taxes.
Yes, they are. I'm not sure how you can possibly say they aren't. The laws are based on morality, yes, but it is specifically Christian morality in each case I mentioned.
>Here is an example of sheep being lead astray. When someone goes into a highschool and has a mass shoot out, imediantly all guns are bad.
I'm still not sure what to think about gun control. I agree with the idea that people should have the right to protect themselves. But i do think the sale of guns should be intensely regulated. Unless something changes my mind, for now my position is that I think people should be able to own guns, but that it should not be easy to buy them.
>Oh, I don't know about that. I have no problem being offended by its old meaning. The South took up arms against their fellow countrymen in the biggest act of treason this country has ever seen. What's there to celebrate in that? If I was a southerner, I'd be as ashamed of that as a German would be of the 30s-40s.
I was born in the south but why should I myself be ashamed about the history of this nation? I am also part German by the blood of my GrandMother on my Mothers side, Why should I be ashamed? Every nation has a very very dark history and each part only forged the nation to what we see today. Every skimish, every life, was all in the creation of a nation. As poor as it may be..
The south didn't quite rebel in the way you may think. It was a long process of seperation though the inflicting laws of the union untill all thirteen states resided from the union. After this it wasn't imediant war. And by no means what so ever was it a Coup De'Tat against the Union. Many think the one and only reason for the Confederatcy is Slavery and that is pure wrong facts. It was many things, being from economy, to land purchaces and claims.
There is so much untold history that it depesses me when its just not teached in school. If I were to say, I would be greatly offended by the Union Flag that is now the flag of the USA for the slaughter of thousands of Native Americans. And the capture into slavery and relocation. O.o Again every nation has a dark history.. But they all did what they found was right during the times and the times were shure diffrent. But it only makes it stronger.
>That's fine IF that's what a company does. My friend Zephon was working for a company in their warehouse. He got injured from literally working too hard, and instead of transferring him, they just told him to go home until further notice. Without pay.
Yeah its companies like that what I hate, The goverment should regualte that issue so that "no worker left behind" a pun on the no child act..
>I guess the idea of 'government handouts' pisses me off because, when people talk about it, they're not talking about the people who are actually abusing the system. If someone commits welfare fraud, that may be a crime, but how much total harm does it actually cause? Compare that to huge corporations who use deductions and loopholes to essentially never pay any taxes. And then ask the government for money whenever they need some, and usually get it.
Welfare Fraud. Think about that, where is the money coming from? the Goverment? and that is coming from? The Tax Payers? and that is coming from? The workers that work and if that worker cann't work? Well then Someone is then taking the percentage from the savings from the goverment that person could be useing instead of someone who doesn't even need it. get it? It waters the system and gives less to the less fortunate and increaces the tax rates for all the people because the goverment is losing money shelling out all of it to thouse it things is "less fortunate" When in fact they are only taking avantage.
>Oh, I don't know about that. I have no problem being offended by its old meaning. The South took up
>Yes, they are. I'm not sure how you can possibly say they aren't. The laws are based on morality, yes, but it is specifically Christian morality in each case I mentioned.
When it comes to gay marriarge I can see that being Christianly motivate as well as Jewish, others may just see it as immoral/confusing it with discusting, and not be very religious. To me, Why should I care if two that are in love marry. It litteraly isn't doing any one harm what so ever..
Stem Cells is all Religiously as it is non. Many see it as a life being taking, and if you see it as a life then you dont' have to be religious to say that is murder. Stupidly enough when we find other ways of gathering stem cells other than a dead fetus we still dont' go forward. IE the Umbilical Cord. -.- What harm is it to take a cord that is thrown out anyway and can cure thousands of diseases? Again none..
As far as women and there nipples O.o I cann't say where that dirives from. Seriouly I find it stupid. Here is why. Belive it or not guys and girls. Guys them selves have dorment glands that can produce milk. Guys get away with going shirtless with out fear of prosecution and why? there flat chested? Hmm A girl goes out and because litterally she has a sack of fat behind her chest she is jailed? So if a female with a completly flat chest went shirless would she still be prosecuted and if a guy with as we say "Man Boobs" went into plubic shirtless will he be prosecuted? Its senceless.
When it comes to morality I hate when ever I speak with anyone and I ask "Why do you feel this is wrong" And they reply "Because It's just wrong" It doesn't explain anything or where they learned it was wrong. What influenced that too.
You do know this nation was founded by Christaians looking for Religious freedom ? I mean with martin luther causing the whole protestent rebellion and having hundrends of fleeing pilgrims leaving England looking for a land of opertunity. Perhaps like the Confederate Flag I dont' find it offencive because it does show the history outlining the nations birth. Even though you dispise Christains,from the tone in the debate. Its a major part in the history of its(the Nations) creation.
We are still very much free to practice what we belive in here in the States and because of that I think that the nation should show more tollerence towards anothers belives as well as race,sex, orientation, and lifestyles. Sadly we are all living under one roof and neither of us likes another. Its sad really and Its only through this tollerence in my idea that you may see the influence in laws get changed because instead of trying to slit anothers throat to silence the others own belives we are more open to listen to what the others have to say.
>Yes, they are. I'm not sure how you can possibly say they aren't. The laws are based on morality, y
>I was born in the south but why should I myself be ashamed about the history of this nation? I am also part German by the blood of my GrandMother on my Mothers side, Why should I be ashamed?
I'm half German myself. I may not personally be ashamed of the Nazi regime, but neither do I see it as a part of history worth celebrating. That's how I view the Confederacy; it's not something the South needs to keep apologizing for, but when they act like it wasn't really as bad as it was, that's tasteless.
>Every nation has a very very dark history and each part only forged the nation to what we see today. Every skimish, every life, was all in the creation of a nation. As poor as it may be..
That's very true. There's almost nothing good in life that doesn't have a little blood somewhere in its history. The best way to look at things is to acknowledge both the good and bad in our past, in complete honesty, and try to avoid the bad in the future.
>The south didn't quite rebel in the way you may think. It was a long process of seperation though the inflicting laws of the union untill all thirteen states resided from the union. After this it wasn't imediant war. And by no means what so ever was it a Coup De'Tat against the Union. Many think the one and only reason for the Confederatcy is Slavery and that is pure wrong facts. It was many things, being from economy, to land purchaces and claims.
All of that's true. But slavery still was a VERY big reason, and it shouldn't be trivialized. The South made a ton of wealth off slave labor, and of course they wouldn't want to give it up. Even if the North was imposing unfair rules on the south, it's still no excuse for not working out the problems between them with words instead of guns.
I hate the Tea Party. I think they're as misguided as a political movement can possibly be. But I can still respect the fact that they want to change America by getting into the White House, instead of shooting people who disagree with them.
>If I were to say, I would be greatly offended by the Union Flag that is now the flag of the USA for the slaughter of thousands of Native Americans. And the capture into slavery and relocation.
That is a completely valid point. 100% Someone in another conversation once told me, "Nothing in history could ever compare to the Holocaust!" and I replied that what the USA did to the Indians was just as bad, and I genuinely believe that.
Though it doesn't make the South's secession any better by saying, 'there were other things in history that were worse'. Both are still bad. I still think the Confederate flag is not a symbol that people should be proud of. But I also think that Indian reservations shouldn't be hellholes of alcoholism and poverty, that Andrew Jackson shouldn't be on the $20, and that the Cleveland Indians ought to be ashamed of their logo.
>Yeah its companies like that what I hate, The goverment should regualte that issue so that "no worker left behind" a pun on the no child act..
My friend is able to collect unemployment though, and that's good. Plus, he's using it for exactly what it's meant for. He wants to get a job, badly, and is using the Unemployment money to get by until he can find one.
>I was born in the south but why should I myself be ashamed about the history of this nation? I am a
>Welfare Fraud. Think about that, where is the money coming from? the Goverment? and that is coming from? The Tax Payers? and that is coming from? The workers that work and if that worker cann't work? Well then Someone is then taking the percentage from the savings from the goverment that person could be useing instead of someone who doesn't even need it. get it? It waters the system and gives less to the less fortunate and increaces the tax rates for all the people because the goverment is losing money shelling out all of it to thouse it things is "less fortunate" When in fact they are only taking avantage.
I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying that, someone who's taking advantage of Welfare is like a single mosquito. A corporation can commit 'welfare fraud' on a much more massive scale. It's like a six-foot-tall bloodsucking leech. If we imagine the American economy as a single consumer, he's got this giant life-draining leech on his back, but is being told by the politicians that what he really ought to care about is the mosquito. It's a matter of priority. If two people are committing a crime, it makes sense to prioritize stopping the one who's causing the most crime, and THEN go after the one who's causing less.
>Stem Cells is all Religiously as it is non. Many see it as a life being taking, and if you see it as a life then you dont' have to be religious to say that is murder.
It's still wrong though. You're right that you can take stem cells from an umbilical cord. But the stem cells that scientists want to use are ones that would be destroyed no matter what. During in-vitro fertilization, there always end up being more embryos created than can be used. These extra embryos are literally thrown away. Scientists want to use them instead for research. It's not, 'They're killing babies!' it's, 'These cells can either be thrown in the garbage or they can help save lives'. I can forgive someone opposing stem cell research because they don't know it. But if they know it and oppose the research anyway, I honestly think that's immoral.
To the best of my knowledge, it comes from ancient men wanting to have control over women. Women are forced to cover their breasts/genitals here for the same reason women in Islamic countries have to cover their hair/faces/whole bodies. It boils down to 'You women must cover yourselves, otherwise you will tempt men to rape you.' It's really sick, and it's embarrassing that we as a culture haven't outgrown it by now.
>So if a female with a completly flat chest went shirless would she still be prosecuted and if a guy with as we say "Man Boobs" went into plubic shirtless will he be prosecuted? Its senceless.
Absolutely. I saw a great image online that said, "If you photoshop a male nipple onto a female nipple, is it still obscene?"
>When it comes to morality I hate when ever I speak with anyone and I ask "Why do you feel this is wrong" And they reply "Because It's just wrong" It doesn't explain anything or where they learned it was wrong. What influenced that too.
I AGREE COMPLETELY!!! I can't stand this. I always make sure that I have a reason for everything that I believe. If you can't explain why you believe something, you shouldn't believe it.
Ehhh, that's technically true, but I'd say it's more true to say that this country was settled by Christians, but definitely not founded by them. The people who created our Constitution were almost all Deist, and a few were flat-out atheist. Deist means they believed in a God, but definitely not in Christianity. They in fact did everything they could to try to keep America from ever being run by the Church.
And while it's true the Puritans did flee England to practice their religion here, from what I understand they were practicing such a repressive form of Christian fundamentalism that England kinda wanted them gone. It'd be like if the Westboro Baptists all got in a boat and sailed to a new island.
>Even though you dispise Christains,from the tone in the debate. Its a major part in the history of its(the Nations) creation.
A major part, yes, but I believe the best things we as a nation have done, we have done in defiance of Christianity.
>Sadly we are all living under one roof and neither of us likes another. Its sad really and Its only through this tollerence in my idea that you may see the influence in laws get changed because instead of trying to slit anothers throat to silence the others own belives we are more open to listen to what the others have to say.
I very much agree. And I don't want to silence anyone. I'd much rather have everyone arguing, because we're better off when all viewpoints can get heard. If someone shouts something I don't like, I don't want to censor them, but I do want to exercise my right to shout just as loud that I disagree. ;)
"While that may be true in a cold, technical sense, I sure as hell don't want to live in any society that believes that.
Besides, it would result in a self-defeating system. A society taking basic care of its citizens is no different than a society spending money on infrastructure. When you keep the roads paved, you make distribution easier. When you give all citizens access to health care, the workplace is stronger as a result. A worker who is in debt up to his eyeballs because of his invalid mother is one who can neither advance or concentrate on his work. When the fuck are businesses going to realize that it's more profitable in the long run to take care of customers and employees? A business, or a government, that does not share any of the profits it makes leads to a bitter underclass with no loyalty to the company/government, and a stagnating economy."
Alex, there will always be people willing and eager to help their fellow man. The point is that their right to exist shouldn't be dependent on helping their fellow man, nor should anyone have the power to force them to do anything, for good or ill, against their will.
And most businesses do take care of their customers and employees to the point they are supposed to. They pay the person what his work is worth and respect his right to his person and property, and that's all they are logically required to do. They are under no obligation to provide him benefits, healthcare, or enough money to cover expenses they have no control over. Contrary to popular belief, a business is not a means to anyone's livelihood other than the person who owns the business; it's his way of taking responsibility for taking care of his needs. His employees' needs are not his responsibility because he has no control over what they consider needs; it's the individual's job to decide what his needs are and take the action necessary to have access to them.
As far as healthcare, the path to making that more available to more people is to back off and let those who provide it have the freedom to expand it. Nowadays, you need government permission for new drugs, new treatments, more money, etc; most of the time, getting that permission rests not on facts and logic, but on political pull and popularity contests. There's also the fact that our currency is nothing but paper and is constantly being devalued (something else we can thank the politicians for), which drives prices of goods and services through the roof. The government simply declaring healthcare a right and forcing people to buy health insurance by law is not the answer, because it does nothing for supply, which is the cornerstone of healthcare improvement.
"Sure. But only to the extent that the will of the people allows. Government should not have the power to run business, and business should not have the power to run government. A constant commitment to balance is necessary."
No offense, but I think it's been made clear time after time that "the will of the people" doesn't mean much to our elected officials, not to mention there's not a whole lot the people can do when their will is violated. And the best kind of balance is to keep the two separate.
"While that may be true in a cold, technical sense, I sure as hell don't want to live in any society
>Alex, there will always be people willing and eager to help their fellow man. The point is that their right to exist shouldn't be dependent on helping their fellow man,
Why not? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I'm saying that this isn't a fact; it's your opinion. From a biological perspective, an individual who is of no use to its group will sometimes crawl away and slowly die. It's a built-in self-destruct feature, and we have it too.
Every life ends, and none of us can be sure that there's anything beyond. What purpose is there to life but to work to make life easier for those who'll come after you, just like others did for you in their time?
>nor should anyone have the power to force them to do anything, for good or ill, against their will.
Why not? If parents never forced their children to do certain things, their kids would grow up spoiled and stupid. I agree that we have too many laws already, and the government criminalizes too many behaviors which cause no real harm. But I'd like them to be able to force businesses not to pollute anywhere they like. I'm glad that our freedoms have a few common-sense limitations to keep psychotics and con-men from doing whatever they want.
It all comes down to my Supreme Theory Of Everything: Extremes are very rarely a good idea. It's fine to have an ideal like 'no one should force anyone else to act against their will'. But it's impractical. A society cannot work if that ideal is interpreted literally. Every law needs limits. There should always be room for exceptions, because any rule will end up having them.
>And most businesses do take care of their customers and employees to the point they are supposed to. They pay the person what his work is worth and respect his right to his person and property, and that's all they are logically required to do.
Logically required to, sure. But if he wants to attract employees, shouldn't he be do whatever he can to keep them physically and emotionally well? Don't people who own racehorses pamper the heck out of them? And doesn't it make sense to do things for the customer which will make them happy? Trying to make people use your products is guaranteed to backfire eventually. Yes, you can give your employees and customers the bare minimum that you have to, but it doesn't make any sense to.
>Nowadays, you need government permission for new drugs, new treatments, more money, etc; most of the time, getting that permission rests not on facts and logic, but on political pull and popularity contests.
>The government simply declaring healthcare a right and forcing people to buy health insurance by law is not the answer, because it does nothing for supply, which is the cornerstone of healthcare improvement.
You're right. The solution is to call health insurance what it is: nothing but a scam. It's nothing but middlemen getting rich without giving anything back in return. Health insurance is "We'll help you pay for something that no civilized society would make you pay for. Except we'll do everything we can to avoid helping you." Obama's idea is a first step, nothing more. When people rejected the public option, they shot themselves in the foot. What we SHOULD have is government-run healthcare that everyone has a right to, no different from mail delivery, garbage pickup and protection by police and firemen.
>>No offense, but I think it's been made clear time after time that "the will of the people" doesn't mean much to our elected officials, not to mention there's not a whole lot the people can do when their will is violated.
That doesn't mean we should stop trying. What it means is that we need to try harder. The only reason we think we're powerless is that the powerful keep telling us that, and we keep believing it.
"Why not? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I'm saying that this isn't a fact; it's your opinion. From a biological perspective, an individual who is of no use to its group will sometimes crawl away and slowly die. It's a built-in self-destruct feature, and we have it too."
First off, you're not getting what I'm saying. A person who declares he doesn't exist for the sake of others is still useful to the "collective" (which, I will remind you, is not an objective entity, but merely a group of individuals, who neither lose nor gain rights in grouping together), he just makes it clear such usefulness is a benefit of his existence, not the purpose of it.
"Every life ends, and none of us can be sure that there's anything beyond. What purpose is there to life but to work to make life easier for those who'll come after you, just like others did for you in their time?"
The pursuit of one's own happiness. And it is such people who have made life easier for the future generations.
"Why not? If parents never forced their children to do certain things, their kids would grow up spoiled and stupid. I agree that we have too many laws already, and the government criminalizes too many behaviors which cause no real harm. But I'd like them to be able to force businesses not to pollute anywhere they like. I'm glad that our freedoms have a few common-sense limitations to keep psychotics and con-men from doing whatever they want."
That's because a child lacks the knowledge to make rational decisions to live their lives. A parent has a right and a duty to help their child develop into a rational, responsible person, but that right does not give them complete control over their child.
And define "pollute". You ask a radical environmentalist, he'll tell you that the hydroelectric dam providing power to thousands of people is pollution and should be scrapped.
"Logically required to, sure. But if he wants to attract employees, shouldn't he be do whatever he can to keep them physically and emotionally well? Don't people who own racehorses pamper the heck out of them? And doesn't it make sense to do things for the customer which will make them happy? Trying to make people use your products is guaranteed to backfire eventually. Yes, you can give your employees and customers the bare minimum that you have to, but it doesn't make any sense to."
That choice belongs to the business owner alone, and like it or not, people have the right to be stupid. It's his property, and he has the right to run it as good or as bad as he pleases, because he will ultimately reap the results of that treatment.
"You're right. The solution is to call health insurance what it is: nothing but a scam. It's nothing but middlemen getting rich without giving anything back in return. Health insurance is "We'll help you pay for something that no civilized society would make you pay for. Except we'll do everything we can to avoid helping you." Obama's idea is a first step, nothing more. When people rejected the public option, they shot themselves in the foot. What we SHOULD have is government-run healthcare that everyone has a right to, no different from mail delivery, garbage pickup and protection by police and firemen"
"Obama's idea is a first step, nothing more. When people rejected the public option, they shot themselves in the foot. What we SHOULD have is government-run healthcare that everyone has a right to, no different from mail delivery, garbage pickup and protection by police and firemen."
So you have no problem with the government forcing people to buy healthcare or be fined (healthcare the government dictates, without regard to how good it is)? Do you also support the government forcing you to buy a certain type of vehicle, regardless of how good or bad it is?
"Why not? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I'm saying that this isn't a fact; it's your opinion.
Do you support the government forcing you to join the military or go to jail? The public option was the government essentially declaring it has the right and power to dictate what a person can and can't do with their life, and once that door is open, it won't be easily closed.
I've noted in the past you've spoken out in support of abortion and gay rights. How can you say the government has no right to meddle in such things, but they do have the right to meddle in something as private as a person's health?
>The pursuit of one's own happiness. And it is such people who have made life easier for the future generations.
I don't think we're disagreeing then. I do think that, by demanding more for yourself, you create a higher standard of living for others who come after you.
>That's because a child lacks the knowledge to make rational decisions to live their lives. A parent has a right and a duty to help their child develop into a rational, responsible person, but that right does not give them complete control over their child.
Exactly. That's why balance is needed. The parent should neither have zero control or total control. Similarly, the government should have as much control as is necessary to keep its citizens as safe as can be reasonably expected.
When someone disposes of waste in a way that is harmful to living things, even though there are other alternatives to doing so. Especially if they're doing it to cut costs or simply because it's how they've always done things. Considering how much technology we have to either render waste inert, or turn it into something useful, I don't think many companies have any excuse at all anymore.
>That choice belongs to the business owner alone, and like it or not, people have the right to be stupid. It's his property, and he has the right to run it as good or as bad as he pleases
On that we agree. The only time I think the goverment should get involved is if the company has created a monopoly, so that employees/customers are forced to accept shitty treatment because there's nowhere else to go.
Sorry; I read that article and it didn't change my mind I saw them 1) point out a few laws with bad consequences, which ought to be changed. But that didn't prove 'the very idea of these laws are bad'. And 2) It made the point that Canadians have to wait a long time for medical care. If so, then why couldn't we create a system based on theirs that learns from their flaws? And also, having to wait a long time for care is better than not getting it at all because you can't afford it.
>So you have no problem with the government forcing people to buy healthcare or be fined (healthcare the government dictates, without regard to how good it is)?
No, that's an oversimplification. Since we've established that people pay taxes, and in return get police protection, mail delivery, garbage pickup, etc., I don't see how medical care shouldn't be on that list. I'd rather have to directly pay to get my mail than have to directly pay to get a heart valve replaced.
And also, why not a system where, if you have the money to pay for your own care, you can opt out of paying the tax? If you pay the tax, you can go to the hospital for 'free'. If you opt out, you get a deduction and the responsibility is yours. We'd have doctors who are paid directly and others who are paid by the government. Having more options is better than trying to get everyone to agree on one.
The military? No. Jail? If I have become a danger to other people, then yes. I do think we need a lot less laws against victimless crimes, and prisons should be reformed to put rehabilitation first, instead of just keeping all the criminals in a box for a while, as if that solves anything.
>The public option was the government essentially declaring it has the right and power to dictate what a person can and can't do with their life
The public option was an OPTION. It would have been government-run insurance that you could choose to buy. For some damn reason, people hated that idea, but were more okay with what eventually passed, even though it gave us less choice. I don't get it.
>I've noted in the past you've spoken out in support of abortion and gay rights. How can you say the government has no right to meddle in such things, but they do have the right to meddle in something as private as a person's health?
Because with abortion and gay rights, both are instances where a group is saying, 'Other people shouldn't have this right because we're uncomfortable thinking about it'. It's disgusting selfishness. I feel the same way about people who are against doctor-assisted suicide.
With social programs, I think the government should provide people the basics. No one should starve to death in this country. What kind of people are we if we accept that? 'Oh well. Some people die on the streets. It's unavoidable. Ho hum.' Why else should a government exist than to protect its citizens? I say, they should give people just enough to get them on their feet, but not enough for them to want to stay on the dole forever. Welfare should be adjusted so that it's just enough so people don't have to worry about basic survival, but at the same time they should be just uncomfortable enough to want more than what they have.
I support the basic idea of taxes. I like the metaphor of a society as an amusement park. Taxes are like the admission price. A park that can't collect ticket money can't maintain the rides. Then the park closes and no one's happy.
You know what I think? For people who can't stand the idea that their tax money might go to pay for someone else's medical treatment, or some kid's education, there should be a Total Tax Opt-Out Option. People could apply to not pay taxes anymore, and then they'd not receive any services. You won't be connected to 911 if you dial it. You'll have to pick up your mail at the post office yourself. You'll have to dispose of your garbage yourself. Pay for your own doctor visits. You'd be banned from libraries and visiting national parks (unless you pay directly for using them). Though I do think the firemen should still come out if your house is burning, since it might spread to someone else's. If people want to live like that, they can. And they can also switch back if they want to. I would be interested to see how many of these people who complain about taxes would stand by their principles and actually take this deal. And also, how many would keep on paying taxes while still bitching about the government, thereby proving that they just enjoy complaining. IMHO, people whose words and actions don't match ought to shut up.
Should also mention that a good many of those things you named can be provided by private businesses.
Should also mention that a good many of those things you named can be provided by private businesses
>Should also mention that a good many of those things you named can be provided by private businesses.
>Should also mention that a good many of those things you named can be provided by private businesse
Is their time, skill and energy not worth the same value they traded to acquire those skills and provide those services? Also, it is that desire for profit that will make them provide the best service possible
Is their time, skill and energy not worth the same value they traded to acquire those skills and pro
Do you really believe that? Because in the real world, I don't see it. I see companies that offer good service, sure. But there an awful of of huge companies that eliminate their competition one way another so they can get to #1. And then, they coast on name recognition forever. Disney has been shitting on its fans for decades now, and still they rake in money. Comcast has possibly the worst customaer service of any company anywhere, and still they rake in money. The airlines sexually humiliate their customers with security procedures that do not increase safety, and still they rake in money. And even though protests stopped Bank Of America's obscene $5 debit card fee idea, they're still in business, and still raking in money.
The desire for profit does not lead to good. It leads to the desire for more profit. If a company can make money by doing good, then they will. But if they can make more money by cutting corners, lying, putting their workers in danger, or making shoddy products, then they will do that instead, without hesitation. A corporation is an entity without a conscience. If we ignore that fact, we do so at our own peril.
"I don't think we're disagreeing then. I do think that, by demanding more for yourself, you create a higher standard of living for others who come after you."
True, but the key word is "yourself". A person can and should set higher standards for himself, but outside of respecting the rights of others, he has no right to set another person's standards.
"Exactly. That's why balance is needed. The parent should neither have zero control or total control. Similarly, the government should have as much control as is necessary to keep its citizens as safe as can be reasonably expected."
It already has that control. It has the powers of a police officer and should only be used in the same circumstances that a police officer is allowed to take action in (ie, when force is initiated against others outside of rational self-defense).
"On that we agree. The only time I think the goverment should get involved is if the company has created a monopoly, so that employees/customers are forced to accept shitty treatment because there's nowhere else to go."
Contrary to popular belief, that kind of monopoly is impossible without government help. Since the only way a company's competitors can be prevented from threatening its business outside of doing a better job is with the use of force, and the government is the only thing that has a legal monopoly on the use of force, it is only through government intervention that competition can be stifled.
"Sorry; I read that article and it didn't change my mind I saw them 1) point out a few laws with bad consequences, which ought to be changed. But that didn't prove 'the very idea of these laws are bad'. And 2) It made the point that Canadians have to wait a long time for medical care. If so, then why couldn't we create a system based on theirs that learns from their flaws? And also, having to wait a long time for care is better than not getting it at all because you can't afford it."
Did you catch the part where health insurance used to be used only for extreme emergencies and was then made to cover everything (from a simple checkup to a major surgery), which led to the current high price for it?
"No, that's an oversimplification. Since we've established that people pay taxes, and in return get police protection, mail delivery, garbage pickup, etc., I don't see how medical care shouldn't be on that list. I'd rather have to directly pay to get my mail than have to directly pay to get a heart valve replaced."
Because healthcare can only be provided by another person, and there can be no right to the time and effort of another person; that's slavery (did you read the link I sent you on the subject of healthcare being considered a right?)
"And also, why not a system where, if you have the money to pay for your own care, you can opt out of paying the tax? If you pay the tax, you can go to the hospital for 'free'. If you opt out, you get a deduction and the responsibility is yours. We'd have doctors who are paid directly and others who are paid by the government. Having more options is better than trying to get everyone to agree on one"
And doctors are gradually refusing to accept government payments (Medicare/medicaid) because they are paying them less and less, forcing them to work at a loss.
"The military? No. Jail? If I have become a danger to other people, then yes. I do think we need a lot less laws against victimless crimes, and prisons should be reformed to put rehabilitation first, instead of just keeping all the criminals in a box for a while, as if that solves anything."
Actually, I was referring to the government forcing you to join the military and sending you to jail if you refused (ie, like it was with the draft). I fail to see the difference between that and saying "Get health insurance or get fined". The government is essentially punishing you for inaction, which I don't see it having the authority to do so under the Constitution.
"I don't think we're disagreeing then. I do think that, by demanding more for yourself, you create a
"With social programs, I think the government should provide people the basics. No one should starve to death in this country. What kind of people are we if we accept that? 'Oh well. Some people die on the streets. It's unavoidable. Ho hum.' Why else should a government exist than to protect its citizens? I say, they should give people just enough to get them on their feet, but not enough for them to want to stay on the dole forever. Welfare should be adjusted so that it's just enough so people don't have to worry about basic survival, but at the same time they should be just uncomfortable enough to want more than what they have."
Government exists to protect the RIGHTS of its citizens, specifically their right to be free from force. It doesn't exist to protect them from the responsibilities of their existence, because food, clothing, medical care, etc can only be provided by another person, and as I've already said, there can be no right to the time and effort of another person.
"I support the basic idea of taxes. I like the metaphor of a society as an amusement park. Taxes are like the admission price. A park that can't collect ticket money can't maintain the rides. Then the park closes and no one's happy."
I support paying for legitimate government services (ie, police, military, courts, etc). I don't support being taxed against my will to pay for things our government has no business doing (wars that don't involve the US, aid to foreign dictatorships, political wet dreams).
"You know what I think? For people who can't stand the idea that their tax money might go to pay for someone else's medical treatment, or some kid's education, there should be a Total Tax Opt-Out Option. People could apply to not pay taxes anymore, and then they'd not receive any services. You won't be connected to 911 if you dial it. You'll have to pick up your mail at the post office yourself. You'll have to dispose of your garbage yourself. Pay for your own doctor visits. You'd be banned from libraries and visiting national parks (unless you pay directly for using them). Though I do think the firemen should still come out if your house is burning, since it might spread to someone else's. If people want to live like that, they can. And they can also switch back if they want to. I would be interested to see how many of these people who complain about taxes would stand by their principles and actually take this deal. And also, how many would keep on paying taxes while still bitching about the government, thereby proving that they just enjoy complaining. IMHO, people whose words and actions don't match ought to shut up."
You know, if people did have a choice, you might be surprised how many of them would voluntarily pay for such things. It's the fact that they aren't given a choice that upsets them.
"With social programs, I think the government should provide people the basics. No one should starve
>True, but the key word is "yourself". A person can and should set higher standards for himself, but outside of respecting the rights of others, he has no right to set another person's standards.
That's not what I was saying. I was just saying that when we insist on a better life for ourselves, the improvements we accomplish can be enjoyed by future generations.
>It already has that control. It has the powers of a police officer and should only be used in the same circumstances that a police officer is allowed to take action in (ie, when force is initiated against others outside of rational self-defense).
>Contrary to popular belief, that kind of monopoly is impossible without government help. Since the only way a company's competitors can be prevented from threatening its business outside of doing a better job is with the use of force
WHAT? Companies also have the option of buying out their competition. They merge and merge, and then there's fewer options for consumers. Right now, if I remember correctly, virtually all TV channels are owned by five parent companies. That's horrifying.
>Did you catch the part where health insurance used to be used only for extreme emergencies and was then made to cover everything (from a simple checkup to a major surgery), which led to the current high price for it?
Yes, and I thought that was just one more reason why it's a useless middleman that should be phased out.
>Because healthcare can only be provided by another person, and there can be no right to the time and effort of another person; that's slavery (did you read the link I sent you on the subject of healthcare being considered a right?)
Yes, and I didn't find it worth mentioning. You say there can be no right to the time and effort to another person. Why not? You say that as if it's a fact. And it's not even slavery: slavery is forced labor without compensation.
Maybe your problem is with the word 'right'. Maybe that's not the best word. But in nature, species whose individuals live in solitude have short, miserable lives, usually in constant near-starvation. Species who cooperate create better lives for each other. A single bee can live on its own, but it cannot build a hive. So if we want to live any better than we do, we ought to think of lifting one another up whenever we can as our responsibility. It's in our own best interest.
>And doctors are gradually refusing to accept government payments (Medicare/medicaid) because they are paying them less and less, forcing them to work at a loss.
Good. I'm hoping that as more of them do refuse, it'll ease the burden on the governement, and they may be able to pay more to the doctors who do accept medicare/caid. Again, it looks the situation is not 'one or the other' but 'both in balance'.
>Actually, I was referring to the government forcing you to join the military and sending you to jail if you refused (ie, like it was with the draft). I fail to see the difference between that and saying "Get health insurance or get fined". The government is essentially punishing you for inaction, which I don't see it having the authority to do so under the Constitution.
Look, I'm not arguing in favor of the 'insurance or else' plan. It's a whittled-down, ineffective version of the original plan. But that's typical of congress: argue about an idea so much that what eventually gets passed is something nobody wants.
What I want to see is a system where the government provides health care as a guaranteed service, paid for by taxes. If you don't like that, you can opt out of the tax and pay for your own care. But nowhere do I see a need for insurance companies.
>Government exists to protect the RIGHTS of its citizens, specifically their right to be free from force. It doesn't exist to protect them from the responsibilities of their existence,
Why not? You're stating your belief as its own argument. And I disagree as well. In nature, the reason individuals cooperate is to create a better quality of life. That is the root of all government. A bunch of individuals sharing ability and resources so that all of them are safer from danger and starvation.
Protect from force? Isn't nature a force? Do we have a choice to not become sick, or not require food, or not grow old?
>because food, clothing, medical care, etc can only be provided by another person, and as I've already said, there can be no right to the time and effort of another person.
WHY NOT? You can't state that as if it's a scientific fact. It's your opinion, and I understand it, but you can't treat as something fundamental.
>I support paying for legitimate government services (ie, police, military, courts, etc). I don't support being taxed against my will to pay for things our government has no business doing (wars that don't involve the US, aid to foreign dictatorships, political wet dreams).
I understand and agree. But I think that's a price you have to either accept or decline; there's no middle place where you can have the benefits of both. In order to belong to a society, you have to accept that they're going to do things you won't like. And if you don't like it, saying 'they shouldn't be able to' doesn't change anything. Either run for office yourself, elect people who share your values, go to a different country, or live as a hermit. There's no feasible way (at least not now), where you can make goverment do everything you want.
>You know, if people did have a choice, you might be surprised how many of them would voluntarily pay for such things.
I would honestly like to see the U.S. Government give some land to both the Tea Party and to the Objectivists. They all get to move there and build their idea of a perfect society. They're given enough aid to get them on their feet, but from then on it's up to them. I wonder if either new state could survive.
I dislike Japan's extreme focus on the collective, and I dislike America's extreme focus on the individual. I believe that extremes tend to fail. I believe there has to be a middle ground, where citizens believe they have rights but also responsibilities. Where government gives help where help is asked for, and otherwise leaves people alone.
"Yes, and I didn't find it worth mentioning. You say there can be no right to the time and effort to another person. Why not? You say that as if it's a fact. And it's not even slavery: slavery is forced labor without compensation"
I'll leave you to find out the day someone in power decides your time and energy belongs to another person. Oh, and the men who were drafted to fight in Vietnam were paid, so does that cancel out the fact they were sent to fight in a war they knew nothing about and wanted no part of?
"Yes, and I didn't find it worth mentioning. You say there can be no right to the time and effort to
>I'll leave you to find out the day someone in power decides your time and energy belongs to another person.
<laughs> You phrase that like a threat. 'Oh no! I might be forced to help someone someday! Horrors!!'
If I'm not selfish in the fist place, I have nothing to fear from a properly-working system. The only reason I fear the system I'm in now is because I can see where it's broken. And I have far greater reasons to fear my government than what you're warning me of.
>Oh, and the men who were drafted to fight in Vietnam were paid, so does that cancel out the fact they were sent to fight in a war they knew nothing about and wanted no part of?
Of course not. Because you're distorting the definitions of what we're talking about. It is immoral for a government to force its citizens to fight in a war they do not want, because a government's decisions should come from the will of the people. If the people want the government to have the power to compel doctors to treat them, or to force polluters to clean up their messes, then there is a difference.
I have seen the way you argue many times before. You're smart and well-spoken, but you are wrong. You are wrong because you start with the conclusion of 'my ideology is correct' and never allow that core belief to be questioned. That is completely backwards to how a person should think. The ideas you have about rights and force and profit probably do all add up... on paper. Like a math problem, they have their own internal logic. But you can't subtract negative numbers of real objects. And you can't force an 'ism' to work if its core principles contrast with how the real world works. Communism failed because it didn't account for human corruption. Racism fails because it contradicts genetics. Creationism fails because it ignores facts it doesn't like. Your ideas fail because they do not reflect reality. You can look at the real-life results of the ideas you advocate, and see that they are far different than what you insist they should be. You are essentially adding two and two in such a way that they make five. And while your method may produce that result, reality doesn't.
The more you talk about how governments mustn't compel people to share resources, the more I look at countries who do that, yet have higher quality of life than us. The more you talk about how the desire for profit will lead to good behavior, the more I look at the impact deregulation has had on our current economy. You are saying that the cure for our disease is to add more of the cause. You are wrong.
Alex, you're not the first person to look at evil and say "it's not so bad" because you only examined it half way or didn't look past the temporary fact that it benefited you. I strongly suggest you look past the range of the moment in regards to what you support and see the potential for disaster such things have.
And as far as my views and reality, I'm content to let reality make the final decision...and I can say I've been proven right more often than my opponents.
Alex, you're not the first person to look at evil and say "it's not so bad" because you only examine
I'm sick of having to deal with people like you. You're the #1 most frustrating type of commenter, because you start out sounding polite and reasonable, then as you go on, you start ignoring more and more of my counterpoints, and your replies become smaller, until you're simply reduced to restating, "I'm right because I say so."
Reality supports your ideas? How about you SHOW ME EVIDENCE of that, instead of declaring it to be true? That's not a real argument. That's cowardice. Whichever one of us is right, the truth will gravitate to their side. Show me a society that adheres to your ideas, and that is doing better than the societies that aren't. That will convince me. Unlike you, I'm actually open minded, and I welcome being wrong. I admit, I don't really know much about economics. But I watch the news as often as I can, and I listen to people smarter than I am, and I take all that information and see which ideas support each other and which ones don't. Which patterns lead to harm and which ones lead to good. Nothing I have ever observed in reality can make your claims fit your conclusions. Maybe they make sense on a purely ideological level, but they belie a fundamental misunderstanding of how real people behave. Like plenty of other failed systems, yours is dependent on the idea that all human beings will act in a predictably rational way. And they fucking well don't.
Your argument is that the evil of government social programs outweighs the good they do. Nothing I have ever seen or read leads to that conclusion. Everything I have seen or read leads me to believe the opposite. Your argument seems to lead to the conclusion that inconveniencing the comfortable is worse than easing the suffering of the most afflicted. And while I could be wrong, your hollow threats of a dire future are not convincing. They are no more convincing than when a preacher tells me, 'Don't sin or you'll burn in Hell'. I see no evidence that hell could exist, so I don't fear it. I see no evidence that you are right, so repeatedly telling me that you are doesn't mean anything to me.
Show me a society that adheres to your ideas, and that is doing better than the societies that aren't. SHOW ME. AND IF YOU CAN'T, THEN LEAVE.
I'm sick of having to deal with people like you. You're the #1 most frustrating type of commenter, b
Are people getting so paranoid of their religion fading (or failing) that they have to anchor it to some "physical" object?
>Are people getting so paranoid of their religion fading (or failing) that they have to anchor it to some "physical" object?
Yes. It's kind of a good sign, actually. These temper tantrums Evangelicals are throwing show that they're finally acknowledging atheists as an enemy capable of doing them harm.
Reminds me of Penn Jilette saying that the surest way to turn someone atheist is to have them read the Bible cover to cover.
Reminds me of Penn Jilette saying that the surest way to turn someone atheist is to have them read t
That just gave me the frightening realization that there are very likely Christians who are actually incapable of reading the book they claim to live their lives by.
That just gave me the frightening realization that there are very likely Christians who are actually
Problems with reading long texts is a general problem nowadays, since the Internet offers Information predigested in easy to eat parts.
Many also lack the patience to read through something that long that isn't about sparkly vampires or magician boys saving the world ^^
Problems with reading long texts is a general problem nowadays, since the Internet offers Informatio
hear hear! i agree with everything. based on history, humans get more progressive in thinking. Thank mother nature these old fogies will die off in half-century and less :)
hear hear! i agree with everything. based on history, humans get more progressive in thinking. Thank
Yup, to an extent, one of the things necessary for social progress is for the crusty old fucks who oppose everything to finally cack out.
Yup, to an extent, one of the things necessary for social progress is for the crusty old fucks who o
Perhaps one should ask why they oppose it instead of just pushing progress for the sake of progress?
Notice I said 'who oppose everything'. There's absolutely nothing wrong with opposition. But reflexively hating the new because you're more comfortable with the old is foolish.
Being a Virginian, I had to look up Mr. Forbes just to make sure he isn't my congressman (and yes, I am embarrassed that I don't know my own congressman's name off the top of my head*). He isn't; he's my uncle's. Some of the other things this dip has tried to pass are frightening. From Wikipedia:
To declare religion a prerequisite for freedom and reject "the notion that the laws and Constitution of the United States require the exclusion of God from matters of government".[8]
To prevent the IRS from assisting the federal government in an "invasion into the health care lives of American citizens".[9]
Considering that, I suppose we should be thankful that this motto business is the worst he's succeeded at.
Being a Virginian, I had to look up Mr. Forbes just to make sure he isn't my congressman (and yes, I
Hey Alex, I really believe that whatever my nation does for it's motto is fine by me. I mean if It were to bother me too much I would move away. It seems like a rather small thing... when you take other things into consideration.
Example of something else more important to take into consideration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDK-ja8PLgg&feature...
(On a sidenote I have just seen this video, so I am not too informed on the subject as of this moment, but I do plan to look into it.)
Hey Alex, I really believe that whatever my nation does for it's motto is fine by me. I mean if It w
That's kind of the point. This is unthinkably unimportant, and the anger is partly that Congress actually bothered to spend any time at all on it. Though now that I've read some of the other shit Randy Forbes has tried to pass, maybe this was just their way of tossing him a bone to get him to shut up.
Thank you for that link. I heard about that, and it was heartening to see someone say what needs to be said about it. Gretchen Whitmer has my vote forever.
>(On a sidenote I have just seen this video, so I am not too informed on the subject as of this moment, but I do plan to look into it.)
From everything I've heard, it sounds like she has it dead-on. Further proof that, to some people, making sure that religious people are never offended is a bigger priority than anything else. Who cares if gay kids are driven to suicide? We must make sure that religious people are never told 'you can't do that'.
Maybe I stand alone but I believe in God, and not because some law says to. I just do. Always did. Always will. Not going to force others to believe not going to be forced not to believe. What we believe MUST be from the heart not from a law. So either way this issue went we would have lost. You cannot be forced. You have to follow your heart. Believe how you will. I CHOOSE to believe in God.
Maybe I stand alone but I believe in God, and not because some law says to. I just do. Always did. A
I've thought myself that a lot of 'Christians' I see in the headlines are flaunting the rules of their own religion. If someone does nothing to follow the commandments of their God set forth in his holy book, and yet calls themselves Christian, then they're liars. Their actions show them to be as atheist as me. You've demonstrated one quality I virtually never see from these people: true faith.
The problem is while "God" is a innately biasing word in the same way that totalitarianism, justice, ownership, and rights are it's one that IS part of western civilization for better or for worse. Even most materialists \have a stronger emotional believe in the falseness of a creator more strongly then say the falseness of the power of calling on the spirits of nature. Centralized creation and authority with endowed purpose is almost a default assumption in our culture and language. It's really quite natural that most people are delusional cruel idiots who you can't really do much with without harshly manipulating or exploiting them.
The problem is while "God" is a innately biasing word in the same way that totalitarianism, justice,
He's walking a thin line. This was probably as much as he could get away with ridiculing it. I do like that bit about "God would rather we solve our own problems". Nice preemptive strike against idiots who'd declare him an atheist heathen for opposing the bill.
Well Jesus himself said it was to be from inside yourself. That means you cannot be forced to believe. Let it come from inside you and let no one make you believe or not believe. That is what true faith is IMO.
Well Jesus himself said it was to be from inside yourself. That means you cannot be forced to believ
"In God We Trust" truly is a shitty motto. You can make it null and void if you tell every religious person "but not in yours." There is nothing you could not name "God" since there is no definition on what he/she/it is.
"In God We Trust" truly is a shitty motto. You can make it null and void if you tell every religious
ok i can understand the in god we trust thing to some degree but i am confused on one important detail..... which one? is to god of the christians? yahew for the jews? jahova? krishna? what about alla? hmmm what others can i think of off the top of my head.... oh oh i know its ra isnt it? or is it osirus.... zeus? hmmm.... pluto or mars maybe.... cant be solarius he is a bastard and nocturna well she is nice but a bitch at times.... hmmm i cant think of which GOD to trust in..... and yes i understand i am sure to piss someone off out there but maybe not for what i said here but rather the spelling of it.... hmm.... normally this sort of things does not bother me but still the fact of the matter is that the trust in god has led to lots of people being killed over whose god is the real one..... now then here is the thing cant they all be one in the same? same god just lots of names for him her hir nutured or it? oh thats in interesting thought isnt it? maybe god is really a godess or neither maybe he is everyone and no one..... maybe he is a dream a construct of humanity to explain things or we could be the construct of god hell he could be sleeping and we are but charaters withing that dream? thinking that we are real when we are not? meh oh well OH OH what about lucifer? i mean for the satanists out there? wait shit.... there are two types of those though.... those that believe in him and those that believe in ones self.....hmm oh well
ok i can understand the in god we trust thing to some degree but i am confused on one important deta
An excellent point. Of course, there's some people that would rather you believe in ANY god, just so long as you're not a <shudder> atheist. As if belief itself is more important than what you believe. I've never understood that.
>and yes i understand i am sure to piss someone off out there but maybe not for what i said here but rather the spelling of it....
<chuckle> True. Or the fact that ellipses only have three dots, and you need more capital letters. ;)
>normally this sort of things does not bother me but still the fact of the matter is that the trust in god has led to lots of people being killed over whose god is the real one.....
Absolutely. And people really do need to be constantly reminded of that. Believing you have some kind of ultimate truth leads to the belief that everyone who denies your truth is wrong. And it's easy to go from 'those people are wrong' to 'those people are bad'.
>oh thats in interesting thought isnt it? maybe god is really a godess or neither maybe he is everyone and no one..... maybe he is a dream a construct of humanity to explain things or we could be the construct of god hell he could be sleeping and we are but charaters withing that dream? thinking that we are real when we are not?
>meh oh well OH OH what about lucifer? i mean for the satanists out there? wait shit.... there are two types of those though.... those that believe in him and those that believe in ones self.....hmm oh well
I've always thought that was weird. Why call yourself Satanists if you don't believe in him? I guess it's just to sound badass and kinda scary.
>I'm half German myself. I may not personally be ashamed of the Nazi regime, but neither do I see it as a part of history worth celebrating. That's how I view the Confederacy; it's not something the South needs to keep apologizing for, but when they act like it wasn't really as bad as it was, that's tasteless.
Heh, The part about the south having to keep apologizing, I AGREE! I remember living in Alabama and hearing over the news about the blacks and white southerners having a convention/gathering just so the white southerners could stand in front of the blacks and quite literally apologize for slavery and the civil war and all sparked because of a letter written by some kid in high school.
(face palm) what? Seriously you want people not having to do with any thing with the past to apologize for something they never even done? Much less know about because of the high level of illiteracy in the south? To me its stupid! One Blacks have more rights than ever in the USA, Two Blacks were not the only slaves: Jews, Native Americans Indians, Whites, Asian and Middle Eastern men all were slaves at one time or another. And the USA was not the only country to have slaves! No one person should apologize for the past when the past is long gone.
>All of that's true. But slavery still was a VERY big reason, and it shouldn't be trivialized. The South made a ton of wealth off slave labor, and of course they wouldn't want to give it up. Even if the North was imposing unfair rules on the south, it's still no excuse for not working out the problems between them with words instead of guns.
You do know the Union still had slaves? It was slave labor but the slaves were called "Indentured Servants" These were people of every race that was in debt and the only way to pay there debts was to sign a contract and being forced to work for a set amount of time. After which they were free to go. Most of the conflict between the two sides during the war was due to the definition of Slavery. Again the war was not immediately after the Confederacy was formed. As tension grew so did the the nations become closer to war. By no means is war purley Black and White (good vs evil)
>I hate the Tea Party. I think they're as misguided as a political movement can possibly be. But I can still respect the fact that they want to change America by getting into the White House, instead of shooting people who disagree with them.
You know, I haven't even heard of the term Tea Party until the talk between the candidates in the 2012 elections. From what I understand, the tea party was a group of people that tossed a bunch of tea into the Boston harbor to protest against England for high taxes on tea and goods. SO what does it mean I don't know? To protest against something? From what I now understand is the term is being used as another word to "Politically correctness" to just say "Liberal" Which means to be all for everything and lenient towards everything..
>To the best of my knowledge, it comes from ancient men wanting to have control over women. Women are forced to cover their breasts/genitals here for the same reason women in Islamic countries have to cover their hair/faces/whole bodies. It boils down to 'You women must cover yourselves, otherwise you will tempt men to rape you.' It's really sick, and it's embarrassing that we as a culture haven't outgrown it by now.
That I can actrully sorta belive.. But it still makes me wonder. How is it that the European Counties cloth themselves and women can show there faces, muslims have tobe completly coverd, and tribes that live in New Gunea and Africa are ok with being pure naked? The power over women I can see But look at also religion. The influences seem to sorta not be there with tribal areas where clothing is just optional rather than forced..
>I'm half German myself. I may not personally be ashamed of the Nazi regime, but neither do I see it
I brough up the point, why is it that we as a nation find that its wrong for a woman to go topless and not a guy?
He stated that it was because we are more Developed as a Socity. Developed how? This is were the convosation really got to a point were as I stated earlier (beacause it is) He tried to make the point that our socity takes itself to a higher standard to look civilized instead of looking like barbarians/ or underdeveloped. I tried to see where he was going and he put to Development as in Education, writing, communications.. I explained that main people in Africa and New Gunea have systems of writing, they learn through there elders and the suroundings as well as communicate by walking and traveling by waterways..
So really? This is just a case of "its wrong because it is?" Is because someone is diffrent we see it as 'unnatrual' and "
>Ehhh, that's technically true, but I'd say it's more true to say that this country was settled by Christians, but definitely not founded by them. The people who created our Constitution were almost all Deist, and a few were flat-out atheist. Deist means they believed in a God, but definitely not in Christianity. They in fact did everything they could to try to keep America from ever being run by the Church.
XD So who is to say that "In god we trust" is a christian slogan? Again god could mean any god.. if the slogan was "In deo speramus" Would it make a diffrence as it still isnt defining any one god?
>And while it's true the Puritans did flee England to practice their religion here, from what I understand they were practicing such a repressive form of Christian fundamentalism that England kinda wanted them gone. It'd be like if the Westboro Baptists all got in a boat and sailed to a new island.
The Puritans were Protestant that founded Puritanism.. Major influence on the sterotype of christainanity.. They wanted to purify the religion and themselves and were devout follwers. Hence the major cause of the Salem Witch Trials that killed hundreds of inocent men, women and children. All to Purify.. Twisted isn't it?
>I remember living in Alabama and hearing over the news about the blacks and white southerners having a convention/gathering just so the white southerners could stand in front of the blacks and quite literally apologize for slavery and the civil war and all sparked because of a letter written by some kid in high school.
>One Blacks have more rights than ever in the USA, Two Blacks were not the only slaves: Jews, Native Americans Indians, Whites, Asian and Middle Eastern men all were slaves at one time or another. And the USA was not the only country to have slaves! No one person should apologize for the past when the past is long gone.
I very much agree with that last sentence. But the rest of this is unnecessary and feels like that tastelessness I just mentioned.
>You do know the Union still had slaves? It was slave labor but the slaves were called "Indentured Servants" These were people of every race that was in debt and the only way to pay there debts was to sign a contract and being forced to work for a set amount of time. After which they were free to go. Most of the conflict between the two sides during the war was due to the definition of Slavery. Again the war was not immediately after the Confederacy was formed. As tension grew so did the the nations become closer to war. By no means is war purley Black and White (good vs evil)
I know. On the other hand, I've never heard a Northerner try to say that indentured servitude 'wasn't so bad'. I also don't ever hear them bragging about beating the South. Whereas it seems like there's still a deep vein of defensiveness running through the South about that time period.
>You know, I haven't even heard of the term Tea Party until the talk between the candidates in the 2012 elections. From what I understand, the tea party was a group of people that tossed a bunch of tea into the Boston harbor to protest against England for high taxes on tea and goods. SO what does it mean I don't know? To protest against something? From what I now understand is the term is being used as another word to "Politically correctness" to just say "Liberal" Which means to be all for everything and lenient towards everything..
Actually, the Tea Party is a specific group of modern protestors that are ultra-conservative, and one of the things they protest is high taxes. However, it's been alleged that the movement was started by a small group of rich Republicans as a way to make their own policies seem to be coming from the common people. It certainly seems likely, considering that a lot of the policies the Tea Party supports directly contradict what they actually want (e.g. Saying they want smaller government, while pushing for policies that give the government even more power, or wanting to fix the economy while supporting policies that would keep making the rich richer at the expense of the poor).
>That I can actrully sorta belive.. But it still makes me wonder. How is it that the European Counties cloth themselves and women can show there faces, muslims have tobe completly coverd, and tribes that live in New Gunea and Africa are ok with being pure naked? The power over women I can see But look at also religion. The influences seem to sorta not be there with tribal areas where clothing is just optional rather than forced.
The European countries insist on clothing because a lot of them, especially Britain, have a deep cultural need to pretend that they are more evolved than 'savages' of other countries.
Muslim countries are far more strict because the whole Middle East was swept by a wave of radical fundamentalism back in the 50s, and now they're likely more repressive than they ever were in ancient times.
Primitive tribes have fewere nudity taboos simply because they haven't convinced themselves that they need any. ;)
>I remember living in Alabama and hearing over the news about the blacks and white southerners havin
>He tried to make the point that our socity takes itself to a higher standard to look civilized instead of looking like barbarians
Exactly. And really, this Victorian-type attitude is just us pretending that we humans are separate from nature. Therefore, any kind of behavior that's natural, we see it as lowly and rude. Even when there's a reason we evolved to be that way. So we act all repressed, and stifle our natural impulses, as if that means we're not really animals.
The stupid thing is that plenty of things we call unnatural are actually found all over the place in nature. Homosexuality, for instance. And if things that are unnatural are wrong, then does that mean medicine, motor vehicles and clothing are wrong? ;)
Because Christians were the ones who implemented it. It first started appearing on money during the Civil War, as a way to remind people that 'whether North or south, we all worship the same God'. Later, after the Red Scare of the 50s, politicians went apeshit adding In God We Trust to a lot of things, specifically to emphasize that this was a good, moral Christian country. So there is every reason to think that In God We Trust is a thoroughly Christian slogan.
>Again god could mean any god.. if the slogan was "In deo speramus" Would it make a diffrence as it still isnt defining any one god?
Yes, it would. Because it is still excluding people who don't believe in any god. And it is still saying that belief in a god is more important than any other value in our culture.
>The Puritans were Protestant that founded Puritanism.. Major influence on the sterotype of christainanity.. They wanted to purify the religion and themselves and were devout follwers. Hence the major cause of the Salem Witch Trials that killed hundreds of inocent men, women and children. All to Purify.. Twisted isn't it?
Without exaggeration, I think I can say that the 'pure' in Puritanism is the same kind that Hitler liked so much. 'Purity' is a damn scary word sometimes.
>He tried to make the point that our socity takes itself to a higher standard to look civilized inst
As in that is Bullshit someone would force an Apology or a Bullshit story? you can always look it up if you don't believe me but yeah its BS to apologize for something done years earlier and has always been dealt with.. Hence the statement I made..
>>One Blacks have more rights than ever in the USA, Two Blacks were not the only slaves: Jews, Native Americans Indians, Whites, Asian and Middle Eastern men all were slaves at one time or another. And the USA was not the only country to have slaves! No one person should apologize for the past when the past is long gone.
>I very much agree with that last sentence. But the rest of this is unnecessary and feels like that tastelessness I just mentioned.
Although a bit tasteless indeed I made the point, Why apologize for a world of darkness and turmoil of the past when the Present is so much better and free? Its not perfect indeed but why apologize for what your ancestors didn't have when you already have so much..? Stop dwelling on the past and look towards the future.
>I know. On the other hand, I've never heard a Northerner try to say that indentured servitude 'wasn't so bad'. I also don't ever hear them bragging about beating the South. Whereas it seems like there's still a deep vein of defensiveness running through the South about that time period.
The north brags all the time , heck they still do .. Ever since the wars end we never truly unified again..The north will always defend its sides reasons, and the south will too.. The war on slaves is much like the war on immigration.. Cheap labor and working half to death. Difference are the Immigrants aren't property and get paid.. (cheaply) But with many workers living in shacks on the farmers land and being cramped with 30+ in a plywood shack.. There treated pretty much the same and live the same as slaves did.. And even though not as bad, still are poorly mistreated.
>The stupid thing is that plenty of things we call unnatural are actually found all over the place in nature. Homosexuality, for instance. And if things that are unnatural are wrong, then does that mean medicine, motor vehicles and clothing are wrong? ;)
Medicine, allot of old folks still refuse to see a doctor over a cold.. Motor Vehicles, Look at the Amish, Clothing, XD I sorta do.. But heck with out it in the winter time, being bare naked apes we would freeze.
>Yes, it would. Because it is still excluding people who don't believe in any god. And it is still saying that belief in a god is more important than any other value in our culture.
So because it may include all religions except the ones that has no established deity O.o its wrong? I will agree on the fact that religion shouldn't be the number one thing we value.. I think the Soviet Union got it right, "Hammer and Sickle" Industry and Agriculture. But if we today made that the slogan, we may be taken as communists, -.- like capitalism is better.
>Without exaggeration, I think I can say that the 'pure' in Puritanism is the same kind that Hitler liked so much. 'Purity' is a damn scary word sometimes.
Agreed..And its sad that it continues on and onward. From, the civil rights movements to the whole war on communism (cold war, korean war, vietnam war) From the raids in the 50' and 60's on Homosexuality and having them locked away because of it. And today it still continues.. What got any one anywhere was when the people that was being pushed started to push back. Through protests and war.. And the tension is riseing again.. Look at wall street today.. Someone is going to go to far and it will be chaos.
I believe you and I'm agreeing. A forced apology is meaningless. Likewise an apology from someone who didn't do the the thing they're apologizing for.
>The north brags all the time , heck they still do .. Ever since the wars end we never truly unified again..The north will always defend its sides reasons, and the south will too..
Ehhhh... That may be true, but it's always that south that brings the topic up in the first place. Just based on what I've seen, I'm saying.
>The war on slaves is much like the war on immigration.. Cheap labor and working half to death. Difference are the Immigrants aren't property and get paid.. (cheaply) But with many workers living in shacks on the farmers land and being cramped with 30+ in a plywood shack.. There treated pretty much the same and live the same as slaves did.. And even though not as bad, still are poorly mistreated.
Agreed. They may be here illegally, but that doesn't mean they're inhuman and deserve inhuman treatment. I'm always suspicious of any political argument where someone's trying to put all the blame on the lowest, weakest people. When people get enraged about illegal immigration and treat it like it's the country's most critical problem, part of me wonders how much they're simply opposed to "those people" coming over here, period.
>So because it may include all religions except the ones that has no established deity O.o its wrong?
>I will agree on the fact that religion shouldn't be the number one thing we value.. I think the Soviet Union got it right, "Hammer and Sickle" Industry and Agriculture. But if we today made that the slogan, we may be taken as communists, -.- like capitalism is better.
I do think capitalism is better. I've seen proof enough that some of the best innovation comes from vigorous competition between countries or companies. But I'm not one of these guys that think capitalism is a perfect system and we should let the free market decide everything. A corporation is an entity with no conscience. Its sole motive is profit. It can produce amazing things, but without some regulation, it can also really hurt people.
Capitalism without a little socialism thrown in for balance is like a diet where you only eat from one food group. ;)
>Agreed..And its sad that it continues on and onward. From, the civil rights movements to the whole war on communism (cold war, korean war, vietnam war) From the raids in the 50' and 60's on Homosexuality and having them locked away because of it. And today it still continues.. What got any one anywhere was when the people that was being pushed started to push back. Through protests and war.. And the tension is riseing again.. Look at wall street today.. Someone is going to go to far and it will be chaos.
Something you just said I think was incredibly important and true: "What got any one anywhere was when the people that was being pushed started to push back." I could not agree more. You have basically just described the entire history of human civilization in one sentence. We've always had people who want to keep everything the same as it's always been. There's always people who are afraid that any kind of progress or change will lead to the downfall of society. Yet trying new things has pretty much always been good for us. Even if we fail, we learn and are better for it. Not trying and not failing gets us nothing.
first: http://www.islandpacket.com/2011/12/01/1882395/uscb-st... Since we disscused much about this.
That is the problem.. With religion you either belive in a god or not.. What if the motto was in Faith we trust? Wouldn't that then include everyone because ones faith belives in a god while the others may not?
I'm glad he gets to put it back up. There's a world of difference between a government displaying a symbol, and a citizen.
>That is the problem.. With religion you either belive in a god or not.. What if the motto was in Faith we trust? Wouldn't that then include everyone because ones faith belives in a god while the others may not?
Not really, because faith is still a really bad thing to trust in. In fact, faith itself is the root of the problem. People in our culture are raised to believe that it's okay to believe in something simply because you really, really want it to be true. That's not how reality works. I still say In Truth We Trust would be better. Or maybe In Each Other We Trust?
>I'm glad he gets to put it back up. There's a world of difference between a government displaying a symbol, and a citizen.
Indeed the fact being that a goverment is the group of people that controls the citizens. While the citizen has to adhear to the government. Sadly there are still confilting intrests when the government are in fact citizens themselves practice there belifes and are swaded from doing so because of there part in government,,,
>Not really, because faith is still a really bad thing to trust in. In fact, faith itself is the root of the problem. People in our culture are raised to believe that it's okay to believe in something simply because you really, really want it to be true. That's not how reality works. I still say In Truth We Trust would be better. Or maybe In Each Other We Trust?
How about Faith in each other (as in to belive in the other man) or In Faith of Goverment we Trust (as into belive in your goverment is doing the right thing)
>I'm glad he gets to put it back up. There's a world of difference between a government displaying a
>How about Faith in each other (as in to belive in the other man) or In Faith of Goverment we Trust (as into belive in your goverment is doing the right thing)
(Sorry I took so long to reply.) The first one, fine. Really, the only thing in my life I have true faith in is my friends. Faith in government? Ehhhhh, no. Having faith in government is like having faith in a pet python. In theory, it's there to protect you, but it's just as likely to eat you as an intruder if you don't keep a close eye on it.
Actually, I remember hearing a ton of people say that all over FurAffinity, so I'm honestly surprised Inkbunny doesn't do that. Maybe suggest it to the site staff?
*sigh*... I agree with you. If the motto was as the government acts, then it would be, "For the People, of the People, By the People, Against the People."
Reminds me of V For Vendetta: "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." That's not only true, it's what the founders of this country intended.
In Judaism, any printing of a deity's name - especially on something as mundane as money - is sacrilegous, yet the same people who claim the USA is a 'Judeo-Christian' nation keep pushing for stuff like this.
That's why I hate terms like 'Judeo-Christian.' Judaism and Christianity are so different. You never see Jews using the term, just Christians trying to 'ride the coat tails' of Judaism. Why not 'Judeo-Chrislam' if they want to be so all-inclusive?
In Judaism, ‌any printing of a deity's name - especially on something as mundane as money - is sacri
>In Judaism, any printing of a deity's name - especially on something as mundane as money - is sacrilegous, yet the same people who claim the USA is a 'Judeo-Christian' nation keep pushing for stuff like this.
I was not aware of that. Thanks! I love examples of religious people being ignorant of their own history and scripture.
>That's why I hate terms like 'Judeo-Christian.' Judaism and Christianity are so different. You never see Jews using the term, just Christians trying to 'ride the coat tails' of Judaism. Why not 'Judeo-Chrislam' if they want to be so all-inclusive?
Because Muslims are brown, which means they's obviously ain't nothin' like us REAL God-fearin' peoples, y'hear?
>In Judaism, ‌any printing of a deity's name - especially on something as mundane as money - is sacr
>I was not aware of that. Thanks! I love examples of religious people being ignorant of their own history and scripture.
That's why Jews write 'G-d' instead. But I think most of the problems with religion come from Christianity's side. They're responsible for the Crusades, Puritanism, televangelism, and basically turning 'religion' into a synonym for 'Christianity' in most people's minds.
Judaism is much more traditionally liberal and merciful. Like, you don't have to be Jewish to be a good person; there's seven basic rules like not murdering or stealing that anyone could do to be good. And even if you slip up on them, Hell isn't a place of eternal damnation but of rest and purification - for up to a maximum of one year - before you go to Heaven anyways. The emphasis is to be a good here and now not for the rewards or punishments but because being good is just what you should do.
>Because Muslims are brown, which means they's obviously ain't nothin' like us REAL God-fearin' peoples, y'hear?
I've seen so many Christians squirm over the fact that Jesus was a Middle Eastern Jew. :P I hate it when they portray him as a lily white, fair-haired caucasian who just somehow poofed into existence in the middle of a big desert.
At least here, yes. Still, faith is, in general, a bad thing to found a culture on. However, I do really like that the Jews aren't all crazy about recruiting like a lot of other religions. Now if they'd just stop cutting of babies' bits, I'd be pretty down with them.
>Hell isn't a place of eternal damnation but of rest and purification - for up to a maximum of one year - before you go to Heaven anyways.
>The emphasis is to be a good here and now not for the rewards or punishments but because being good is just what you should do.
>I've seen so many Christians squirm over the fact that Jesus was a Middle Eastern Jew. :P I hate it when they portray him as a lily white, fair-haired caucasian who just somehow poofed into existence in the middle of a big desert.
The brit milah has always been a controversial thing, even within the Jewish community. Some members of the more progressive branches completely replace it with a symbolic act.
Judaism also states that life begins at first breath (making abortion a 'body modification' instead of 'murder'), that evolution makes sense from a biblical standpoint (with lower forms of life appearing and later becoming higher forms), and the biblical bans on homosexual acts were aimed at coercive things like raping prisoners. Of course, the religious views on such issues get routinely dominated by Christianity, so most people don't know about how greatly Judaism differs.
Since reading up on it, I always imagined that the one 'heavenly' ending for Sweetiepie involves Judaism. It certainly seems to be the sort of faith that would let a vorephiliac squirrel girl become an angel. ;3
It is as the title says; I'm looking to learn how to draw better. My anatomy and proportions are TERRIBLE. I need a lesson on... everything. Head, hair, face, neck, shoulders, arms, hands, torso, hips, legs, and feet. And posing. I don't even know where to begin with posing x_x
I've been drawing for years but haven't improved a bit. Everybody has a different style and I know that, but as you teach me I'll adapt my own style.
My reason for asking is because one of my dreams is to write and draw a popular webcomic, but if my drawing doesn't improve.. I'll never reach that goal.
What you'll do is draw something on livestream as I watch, and tell me what you're doing as you do it, giving me tips as you go.
After you finish drawing, you give me an assignment; tell me to draw something using what you just taught me. I have a scanner now, so I can upload stuff with better quality.
And after I show you my assignment, you grade it and tell me to either try again or go on to the next lesson. Anyone up to the task? It would really help!