Billy Martin Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 Really Charles? Ever heard of somebody by the name of McCarthy? Funny ain't it, how much Senator McCarthy had it right? During that time frame the good ol' USSR was trying to conquer the world, not with the pen, mind you. It has been proven that they were indeed Soviet moles within the US government as it would appear to be so today, as well. I think I've read just about enough of the bullshit from the haters of religion, in general, and christianity in particular. Some of you wine about a few who claim what they did was in the name of Christ and dismiss the many that killed millions in the name of NO religion. Good God man, learn from the past. I like many of you, I will never live under a government that rules in the name of any religion, but if you want my respect, by god you better respect me and MY beliefs, or to hell with you! That's America. A few of you seem to hate America, but where in the hell would the world be today without her? Speaking German? Japeneese? Russian? Like it has been said by Sea Bird, yes, we have made mistake in the manner we have carried out our intent, but the intent was for good, not evil. They are indeed rude, smelly, stupid, and evil people here in the states just like in every other country on this planet. But by god we try. We try to be helpful. We send troops to feed the hungry after a hurricane. We send doctors to the jungles of Africa. We try to be the best we can. Yes, we fall. But we get back up and try again. As far as people cramming our faith down people's throat. Give me a break. Most spread two commandments. Love GOD with all your heart. Love your neighbor as yourself. What in the world is wrong with that? Yes. as gays we have been targeted by certain preachers and by old beliefs of another generation. But that's just here in America, right? No one gets hung in the middle east for being gay, right? No one in Russia is targeted by the government for being gay, right? *Shake my head* It seems some people believes the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. Go for it. People can say what they will about America, but there's no other place on earth I'd rather live. The good for sure out weighs the bad. Mark C. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rilbur Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 Billy, You clearly feel strongly on this topic. Unfortunately, the argument you support is unfairly conflating two critical items. You're saying that yes, some religious people commit wrongs, but so do some atheists. But the key difference is that those atheists don't commit those wrongs because of their atheism. Their atheism may allow their actions, but it does not cause those actions. Far, far to many of the wrongs committed by religious nuts are in fact rooted directly in their religion, a direct effect of their beliefs. "My God commands me to retake Jerusalem with fire and sword!" Also, McCarthy may have had some justification in his actions, but I don't think anyone can argue away that he was creating a witch-trial atmosphere, where justice took second place to jingoism and the blame game. Exactly the type of atmosphere that a clever Russian agent could use to advance his own position, by being amongst the loudest shouting down the 'red threat'. And whether he was justified or not, his actions trampled all over the first amendment in appalling and unacceptable ways. In many ways, the US is one of the best places to live, and we too love this country. But we aren't blind to the fact that it's been heading down hill for a long, long time. If something doesn't change, we're going to charge blindly ahead into 1984, and I'm not sure if we can stop that. Mark C. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zergrinch Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 You're steering very close to the spotlight fallacy here, Rilbur. As you say, they're nuts. And while religious nuts may use religion as justification for their actions, these actions are not representative of the entire population. Thus, it is not appropriate to conclude that the wrongs they do are rooted directly in their religion.It's indicative of America's tolerance that a country that was initially founded with Protestant ethics would enforce Freedom of Religion so much that people can feel free to advocate for prayer bans in public schools and call for the removal of the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Try that in other countries that had similar religious beginnings and see how far you go! Based on this perception, I agree with Billy Martin's sentiments that there's no cramming of religion down throats. If anything, I would be led to believe the opposite - that there is a coordinated attack on religion by atheists. Not saying that there is or isn't - I don't have sufficient information - but that's my perception.With that said, I don't share Billy's sentiment about living in the country itself, being a non-American myself. Mind, I like America and what she stands for, but she has way too many enemies compared to, say, Canada. These days, traveling as an American with an American passport can be quite risky in many places in the world. Plus FATCA pretty much ensures many foreign banks would NOT want to serve expatriate American citizens. And finally, taxation is quite onerous where you are required to pay income tax on income derived from America AND abroad... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denis_p Posted March 2, 2015 Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 Why can't someone from the US say this? Some people do... You just have to be open minded and read... even things that you may not agree with... For example... Heather Cox Richardson's piece on: "It’s worse than Scott Walker and Ted Cruz: Secrets of conservatives’ decades-long war on truth The right knows that facts and reason have a liberal bent. That's why their decades-long strategy is to lie" Posted today on the 'Salon' Web site... Though I agree with her viewpoint in the above article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rilbur Posted March 2, 2015 Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 You're steering very close to the spotlight fallacy here, Rilbur. As you say, they're nuts. And while religious nuts may use religion as justification for their actions, these actions are not representative of the entire population. Thus, it is not appropriate to conclude that the wrongs they do are rooted directly in their religion. I was mostly playing devil's advocate there. He had a major flaw, and I pointed it out. It's indicative of America's tolerance that a country that was initially founded with Protestant ethics would enforce Freedom of Religion so much that people can feel free to advocate for prayer bans in public schools and call for the removal of the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Try that in other countries that had similar religious beginnings and see how far you go! Based on this perception, I agree with Billy Martin's sentiments that there's no cramming of religion down throats. If anything, I would be led to believe the opposite - that there is a coordinated attack on religion by atheists. Not saying that there is or isn't - I don't have sufficient information - but that's my perception. Some of those actions actually make a degree of sense. Others... don't. Adding 'under god' was an addition made in the Cold War to help differentiate us from the 'godless' communists; it's one I'd rather see reversed. No aspect of our government should force any religious belief at people -- even one as innocuous as a singlular deity. (And that really is what upsets me; change it to 'under the higher powers that be' and I wouldn't have a qualm. Under God ties it specifically to a monotheistic religion, which generally means an Abrahamic religion) Banning prayer in schools... I will freely agree with choosing to ban having prayer as part of any official function on the part of the school itself or anyone acting officially on the school's behalf (faculty&staff; students acting in official positions like student president). Banning the ability of students to pray, assuming such prayer is done tastefully and in a manner that doesn't force it on others, is something I'd disagree with. And trust me, the attacks go both directions. Religion keeps trying to get its claws in places that Atheists consider sacred like ethics, philosophy, and science -- and out of that list, religion only has any business with the first two. Frankly, the issue is one that turns me off with most religions -- the attitude that I am right and therefore you are wrong. And therefore we should do everything exactly the way I want. And for whatever reason, religion -- in all it's forms -- seems to amplify that attitude. Which drives me insane. If nothing else, it blocks a good debate because it prevents people from even conceiving they could be wrong on something they're certain on. Which, given that my usual preferred method of debate is a no-holds-barred, bare-knuckle verbal brawl wherein you throw everyone's ideas in and see what floats to the top... Well, I'm sure you can see my problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zergrinch Posted March 2, 2015 Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 I don't see any hint of a Red Scare in the adoption of the two additional words in the relevant Wikipedia entry. If anything, it was added as a reference to Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. It is true that the Second Red Scare and the McCarthy era coincided with the adoption of the words, but correlation does not imply causation; I don't see any reference where it was a differentiating factor from "godless" communists. After all, many Russians belong to the Eastern Orthodoxy, which splintered off Roman Catholicism. Communism/Socialism is a socio-economic system of government and is not mutually exclusive with religion. Both can co-exist just fine (Chairman Mao's Cultural Revolution notwithstanding). And you know, I feel that "One nation, under the higher powers that be, indivisible..." isn't quite as catchy Some of those actions actually make a degree of sense. Others... don't. Adding 'under god' was an addition made in the Cold War to help differentiate us from the 'godless' communists; it's one I'd rather see reversed. No aspect of our government should force any religious belief at people -- even one as innocuous as a singlular deity. (And that really is what upsets me; change it to 'under the higher powers that be' and I wouldn't have a qualm. Don't forget that McCarthy also conducted a witch hunt against people of specific sexual orientation, reasoning that they were more susceptible to blackmail... Funny ain't it, how much Senator McCarthy had it right? During that time frame the good ol' USSR was trying to conquer the world, not with the pen, mind you. It has been proven that they were indeed Soviet moles within the US government as it would appear to be so today, as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rilbur Posted March 2, 2015 Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 I don't see any hint of a Red Scare in the adoption of the two additional words in the relevant Wikipedia entry. If anything, it was added as a reference to Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. It is true that the Second Red Scare and the McCarthy era coincided with the adoption of the words, but correlation does not imply causation; I don't see any reference where it was a differentiating factor from "godless" communists. After all, many Russians belong to the Eastern Orthodoxy, which splintered off Roman Catholicism. Communism/Socialism is a socio-economic system of government and is not mutually exclusive with religion. Both can co-exist just fine (Chairman Mao's Cultural Revolution notwithstanding). And you know, I feel that "One nation, under the higher powers that be, indivisible..." isn't quite as catchy Don't rely too much on Wiki, Zerg. It's a great first reference, but it's not perfect. False facts get edited in all the time. It's a good first resource, but only that. In this case, if you do a search for a 'under god red scare' you can find a number of results agreeing with my position. Most of them simply tie the timing together with McCarthyism, one or two directly connect them. It's possible the timing is coincidence, but I distrust coincidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfhighlander Posted March 4, 2015 Report Share Posted March 4, 2015 And you know, I feel that "One nation, under the higher powers that be, indivisible..." isn't quite as catchy Besides if they had put that in, it would have messed up the Chapter names for JFA. We wouldn't want that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.