First, the problems are squarely laid to rest on Sadom. He was able to smuggle in weapons, materials to build several more palaces, cars, and other vehicles and smuggle out oil. Yet, it's our fault that he was a jerk and didn't do anything to smuggle in things he needed to let his people survive?
What about the food stores that sometimes rotted while he allowed his most loyal access and the genral public to starve. This our fault too.
You have some basic facts yet you don't seem to know how they apply, or worse, don't know the full story.
Basically, they've gone to a crap-hole, which existed before the war to a situation that improves on a daily basis. Most of the country now has power and clean drinking water. Most of the country has sanitation. Both or which are improvements from before the way. Things will only get better unless the people decide they need to destroy these things for themselves.
So, unless you have any information which conflicts with anything I've stated, I think I've made my point. Thus far, you've proved nothing except the fact that they've been under sanctions and that Sadam was a selfish idiot. Meanwhile, the people that are actually living there are seeing improvements on a daily basis. Their only significant complaints are, they want to completely govern themselves so they can start a civil war and they want more police. Police are being trained, as is their new military. Schools, hospitals, medical centers and churches are being restored and built. Social education has already started allowing women to take a social standing. Jobs are being created and workers are being paid. Replacement parts have been brought in for a lot of equipment that was failing and the US is actively working to bring in a whole new infrastructer.
To say things will not be better a year from now, is ignorance at its best. To say the people are
I really get the idea that you have no idea what is going on over there.
The 1991 Gulf War seems to show some relevance. They've done a couple of things here and there over the years, but you are right, there isn't a lot to bank on there.
I just clicked to the fact that you're French. I think you need to learn more about what you're country has been doing. Bash the US all you want, but it still doesn't change the facts. One, your government has been doing things far worse than people bash the US for, and two, it was very self serving in what they did, the rest of the world be damned. It's one thing to bash a country, it's another to bash the people. I'm not bashing the people, just the leaders (the country).
I've worked for and with French people before (Cap Gemini) and know the people mean well, just as American's do. Just the same, France has done some very bad things and lied about it. The bashing they get is well deserved.
You just seem to be proving that the US is acting like some sort of free world bully that the UN won't stop.
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. The simple fact is, the UN is the US. Which is to say, that is its power base. No bones about it. Stating fact, in no way feeds your comment that Americans have "a need" to be a world leader. Simple fact, we are. The more obvious argument is that France had "a need" to be a world leader and thus paved the road that led to all the bashing that France now suffers from.
Simple fact is, if France has honored it's position in the U.N., and honored the paper that it creates during its role in the UN, we would of been on the same page, acting together. That doesn't change the fact that Bush was an idiot in how he attempted to get support, nonetheless, France was selfish and less than honorable. Simple fact is, France did everything they could to ensure impotence of the UN in the eyes of every country. All to ensure it's Iraqi debt was protected and to ensure it's future business relationships which in turn, were illegal under the eyes of the UN.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Face it, France does not have *any* high morale ground to stand on.
You're right, the above could be rewritten to reflect any story you want. It's just that the way it's written happens to reflect the current world order and the reality as we know it today.
I don't think this pissing contest will lead anywhere anytime soon.
I didn't realize this was a pissing contest. That seems to assume we're both competing. I assure you, I am not. I simply offered the facts as they are. You're the one trying to debate and spin them.
Because the UN is impotent. They have been so for almost a decade now. Don't believe me? Go look up some history. They basically function as an inspection group and human rights auditors. They have no real power any more. Even a tiny country like Iraq laughed at them. So does most of the world. If you think the UN has any real power, aside from what the US grants it, other than figuring out what to order for lunch, you're kidding your self.
Fun and silly example to lighten the mood: (robber running from jewlery store with stolen goods)
UN: Stop! Or I'll say stop again!
Robber: LOL! (Runs into bank while shooting and shooting at US soldiers)
UN: Stop! Or I'll say stop again!
Robber: LOL! (Robber leaves bank with stolen cash)
UN: Fine! We have you know, we have this paper that says you have to stop!
Robber: LOL!
UN: Fine! We have you this time, we have this paper that says you have to stop, NOW! That means we have two pieces of paper that says you have to stop!
U.S.: We're tired of playing this game. (US Solder blows the head off of robber)
U.N.: See! I told you we have this paper!
France: NO!!!!! He owed us money!
Russia: But we wanted to sale weapons for the stolen cash and goods.
In a nut shell, the U.N. truly is a step away from becoming the next League of Nations. If you think the U.N. has any significant power beyond what the US grants it, I think you need to go do some more reading of history.
I always find it sad to see people bash the though of democracy at nation level.
I have no idea what that means or how it applies to what I've stated.
He argued the moon is made of cheese and that huge space mice will be eating it.
I said, he's an idiot for ignoring readily available facts. It's obvious that the moon is not made of cheese and that space mice don't exist.
You argue that can't attack his argument. Simple fact is, his (if, in fact they are not yours) statements were so obviously a troll, they are not worth addressing. If he knew anything at all on the topic at hand, he wouldn't be asking such questions. Since he is, he's trolling or completely ignorant of the topic at hand.
In other words, there was no argument to attack. Only a dolt or a troll would post such a thing.
What an idiotic troll you are. When you learn to read and can think for your self and actually bother to attempt to educate your self with something other than stupidity and rage, then you should come back and post. Until such time, your trolling will be ignored.
Classic; stupidity that is.
What is with./ and all the loser, brain dead dolts coming out today. Shesh.
Its "The Media's" fault for emphasising the WMD issue. Sorry but it was the Bush Administration who emphasised WMDs time and time again.
It's actually a symbiotic relationship. When you're the leader and you need public opinion, you feed what's getting press. WMD got press because most American's seemingly were content to allow our soldiers to be shot at daily and the Iraqi people to be murdered, en mass. The press quickly fixated on WMD because of 9/11 and the Whitehouse was happy to push it shortly after because it generated the public frenzy that they needed. One soon feed the other in an endless circle. Like it or not, that's how the press uses the Whitehouse and that's how the Whitehouse uses the press. It's fact. It made for good news numbers. As did feeding a war. Nothing makes for good ratings like a live-broadcast war. In the end, both parties got exactly what they wanted.
If you're realy hell-bent on tearing it up, please come with some fact in hand which clearly are contrary to the generally available facts shared by the US and the rest of the world.
In the mean time, I'm glad that you're able to laugh at your own ignorance. After you come back to reality, hopefully you'll be able to realize that your view is one from up your own arse.
I'm looking forward to having a good laugh. I can't wait. Before you bother to comment, I hope you actually know people that are in Iraq right now. In not, this will be doubly funny.
Simple fact is, the US is pretty much the leader of the world. No so much that what the US states becomes reality, but rather, most anything the US does creates ripples felt around the world. In some countries, the sphere of influence is lessor while others, it's felt like an earthquake. Nonetheless, the influenece is real.
Top that off that no matter what the US does, we will always be flogged in world opinion in some part of the world. Always! Much of the world wants us to stabilize their region of the world. Others want the instability (and lack of US involvment) because it further's their own political goals. So basically, if we do something, we're evil and if we don't, we're evil again. Likewise, most of these countries are happy to accept millions and billion from the US while teaching ignorance and stupidity to their people. Look, the US is evil...shhhh...don't mention that they just fed your family.
This really isn't about, "psychological need of the US to be the leader of the world", which IMO, doesn't exist. Rather, it's about the world's expectations of, "the US to be the leader of the world" and damning us for not meeting their expectations, no matter which side of the coin your on.
How those expectations play out on the world stage is what we all call politics and spin. It's just a matter of whos BS you're willing to buy into, and allow your expectations to be set accordingly.
Wow! What a troll. I can only hope a mod deals with your post accordingly. One troll after another. You're either insane and a troll through-n-though.
Here's an idea, why don't you do educate your self before you post further. Much, if not all of what I wrote is commonly available from any number of news outlets. You come across as an angry, bitter, ignorant, closed minded troll.
Go back to the bridge from which you came. If you can't answer all of the questions that you've asked, you're clearly just trying to troll.
Because after UN sanctions where placed on Iraq, France and Russia were still giving and selling dual-use and military goods to the contrary. Basically, both Russia and France, along with some middle eastern neighbors, became Iraq's weapon and technology smugglers. Russia sold GPS jammers, which were deployed in hopes that they would cause GPS bomb misses which, in turn, would hopefully create more anti-american sentiment. Pretty dang scummy for Russia to do. Likewise, France sold night vision gear, shoulder launched AAA-missiles (as did Russia), and other prohibited goods.
Slam the US all you want, just come back to reality when you're done and realize that France and Russia were far, far, far worse on the scum-o-meter. The **primary** reasons, in fact, once could argue the sole reasons, France and Russia did not want war with Iraq is because they both feared that Iraq would be relieved of the huge debt that Iraq owes both countries. Following a war, a significant share, if not all outstanding debt is often forgiven by all parties that participate in a war so as to allow the country to rebuild. See a pattern here?
Long story short, France is scum. You've been fooled and poised to be laughed at if you really believe that France can justly sit on a high morale pedestal.
That would be because the countries over there are forcing a shift. Even Saudi is greatly anti-America and has been growing more so for several decades. They unofficially indoctrinate their children that American's are evil and bad. With such a religion that easily lends it self to corruption and loud whispers in their ears, it's easy to see that our "long-term geopolitical strategy" was failing. And short of turning our backs on Israel, there really isn't a lot we could do. Of course, I welcome comments to contrary if your more learned on that facet that I.
If you look at what's being done, this war is actually creating a new window for a new long-term geopolitical strategy, while at the same time, creating a new oil supply, removing a horrible and cruel leader, modernizing a country, and creating a significant future for a whole country.
You really are far, far, off base. The poster, more than likely, does not set US policy. Just the same, I think he did factually and accurately answer the questions that were put forward. Answering those questions has zero to do with your ramblings.
Iraq is far better now than it was before the war. Better yet, this time next year they will be far, far better off than they are now. Additionally, they can more than likely expect the same trend to continue for years to come. For the first time in decades, Iraq's people truely has a future to look forward to. Remember, it was Sadam that was refusing to update and maintain Iraq. Many of the failures in the country that occurred during the war, was NOT from US bombing but rather, from very old equipment that was failing rapidly and people that did not show up to maintain it. The US is pledging significant funds to modernize it. Granted, that is a scam for the President's friends, but it doesn't change what's being done to rebuild the dilapidated country.
The biggest danger than Iraqies have right now is from the terrorists that run around their country right now. Most of which are from Syria and Iran. Heavily slanted toward Syria, which is exactly why the US has been thumbing their finger at them lately.
Or, has the history of Saudi Arabia escaped your selective historical memory?
Simple fact is, historically, we needed a foot in the door in that region of the world. We have shared interests over there and our presence does help create stability. Does that mean we endorce what goes on in Saudi? Contrary to your assertion, of course we don't. Nonetheless, we've had to pick the lessor of two evils. Traditionally, that has been Saudi. The government's anti-US position over the last decades has not been helping us.
If the US can educate and politically convert Iraq into a Pro-US country which respects human rights, I have no doubt that you'll see more flexing toward Saudi in the future. This is why it's called politics and why, generally speaking, people that see and deal with the world in a strictly black-n-white manner, have no business as politicians or world leaders. At some point in time, you have to look for the greater good. In this case, their job is to look for the greater good of our country. That's what they are paid to do. That's what's expected. Generally speaking, historically, that's what they've done.
Many of these middle eastern countries get very, very angry at the US for not having a single, stamped in stone, closed minded, iron-fisted foreign policy. What they fail to recognize is, if we were that narrow minded and stupid, most of those countries would of been nuked into embers decades ago.
First, let me say two thing. One, thank you for engaging in a debate with logic and reason. Second, I simply can not keep up writing these dang books as we go back and forth. I think it's pretty clear we're both beating a different drum and we're not going to change each other's mind. Just the same, thanks again.
Calling people names just because they hold different things important is a rather immature attitude.
I disagree. That makes me intolerant of stupid people.:)
Actually, taking it out is the cheapest solution.
That was my point exactly!
The "me" part of this is, of course, none other than the Old Testament God. To any non-Christian/Jew/Muslim, this is highly offensive.
Yes, but America is supposed to be about the majority and not the minority, selfish group over there. This also assumes that whoever is offended is very, very, selfish and intolerant.
Catholics (the largest religion in the world) have carved images of Mary, Joseph, Jesus, etc. Do you suggest that in order to be moral and ethical, Catholics should follow that commandment and remove all their carved images? Is keeping those images immoral and unethical?
Hehe. Well, fist, I don't consider Catholics to be Christians. They are their own cult with their own tenents and secret doctrine. Nonetheless, I'm happy to lump them into the same pot as the other three major religions as they clearly want to be there. Just the same, they believe in the 10c's and it's in their bible. So, I couldn't care less if they are offended by their own religion. Nor could I care if they are offended by breaking doctrine of their own religion even when their leaders are telling them it's okay. In a nut shell, I think those are a set of morals and ethics which are outside the bounds of this discussion. For now, I'll just toss them in with Christians/Jews/Muslim.
As I've demonstrated above, this isn't the case. Most Christians don't even accept at least two of those commandments.
You mean people used their own gray matter and decided they could filter out what they wanted. No....say it ain't so! Case in point. Thank you.
Calling people names only shows that you don't have much of an argument and have to resort to insults to hide this fact.
Not at all. If the name calling were the sole point of my statements, then you'd have a valid argument. Since they are not, they seem to indicate that you are unable to filter and process properly on your own. It really is that simple.
You're way off base with your numbers. 80+% of the world does work on Sunday. 80+% of the world has no problem with carved images. Why do you think these things should be in a court building? Is it simply because of your religion that you want them there?
Thanks again for making my point. So basically, you're saying that 80% of the world is able to think for themselves and filter content as they see fit. That leaves us with a whacky, much less than 20%, that are only concerned about themselves. America is supposed to be about majorities and not minorities. Obviously, some balancing has to be done to ensure all men are created equal under the law, just the same, the majority was not supposed to be and/or suffer for a minority group. Especially because of something so stupid.
Would you object to the following set of ethics being on display in court?
No idea why you keep asking this question. I've answered it several times already. Shesh.
Unless you have something earth shattering in a come back, I think we've pretty well beat the horse.
However, we don't see this. We see a constitution enacted specifically prohibiting any establishment of religion.
That's not true. It specifically is prohibiting any establishment of religion by government. If it prohibited establishment of regigion in general, the country would be drmatically different.
Oddly enough, the quote you offered forth actually supports my view rather well. Which is to say, they didn't want some zealot dictating some reglious tentent, script, book, etc., as a means to govern. Case in point, he didn't want state sanctioned, "burn[ed], tortured, fined and imprison[ment]", issues, because of whatever religion was in power at the time.
Does the phrase "In God we trust" apply equally to everyone?
Actually, it does. I think it says, "In God we trust", and not, "In God we trust, except for group a over there". The only question here is, does everyone *feel* like it applies to them? The answer. No, as clearly there are some religions that don't have the idiom of an all powerful entity.
Why does the money need to refer to a trust in God which a huge number of people do not have?
Good question. I don't have an answer to. Just the same, over the next many years, new moneies will come into print. Why didn't we see this up roar about it? Simple! It doesn't matter and only dolts and idiots want to fight the lame fight.
I think it should be phased out as it serves no purpose.
I agree. Since it serves no purpose, we might as well leave it be. Notice this is the other side of the coin which you tought, and oddly enough, is the easist and cheapest solution of them all. Leave it f-n alone because it's not hurting, harming, promoting, damaging, or preventing our government from working properly.
I'm sure you can find 10 Muslim or Hindu principles which are equally "good things".
I'm sure you can too.
Likewise, we can find many more than 10 things which are terrible about the Christian bible.
That, I have no doubt, however, you've changed the subject. This isn't about bad things being in Christian doctrine.
You seemed to of missed the point entirely. When you compare what's on the 10c against American values (that's everyone), you'll find that, everyone agrees they are a good thing. On the other hand, take many of the tenents of other religions, which many feel are a good thing and contrast them with American social values, you'll find that *some* of their good things are suddenly viewed as being bad, harsh, abusive, etc. If you have 10 good things form each of the other major religions, which pass American values, then I have no problem with them being in a court house. In fact, I think would be neat to remind people of morals and values and ethics (which is really what we're talking about here), representative views from around the world, as it relates to various crimes, or the things that often lead up to them.
So if it doesn't matter, simply remove the offending religious items and there's no more controversy. The fact that religious people are so up in arms over this means that, according to you, they are all small minded dolts.
Or, they can do the responsible thing and leave it be. The cheapest solution is to drop it. The better solution would of been for the dolts to not brought it up to begin with. Again, as if it matters. Seems like these people are afraid and/or hate religion. Removing them is supporting intolerance. Is that the goal? Say, "religion bad", "intolerance good". "It's all about me and my group, screw the majority."
Speaking of a majority, btw, the 10c's are generally accepted by the largest religions of the world. IIRC, that includes, Christians, Jews, and Muslims. When I say, accept, that doesn't have to mean in an exact religious context, rather, it means supported as good morals and ethics and a healthy society.
You are on crack! What are you talking about? Do you actually read and incorrectly process it or do you just make this stuff up as you go along?
Why do I have to support a position that you put forth? One, which I already stated can be ignored. You're unworthy of any more time as you are a split personality. Why would I argue to support a position I didn't put forth and disagree with from the beginning.
Can you say, mental defect???
Shesh! This is a very typical response of a crackpot: all assertion and no argument, and complain when the person you argue with doesn't defend a incorrect assertion you put forth. What a whack-job.
There's lots of good ideas out there. Why include only one particular religion's views on what constitutes a good idea?
I agree. Simple fact is, America was established as a Christian country and exclusion of such items were clearly NOT intended by the creators of our countries constitution. As such, the Christian view will be hard to escape in this country. This isn't justification, simply historical fact.
Should we remove the religous icons from our money too?
-1, Flamebait.:)
Yes, I see the smiley, but it wasn't meant as flaimbait. It was a rhetorical question. I obviously didn't expect you to disagree. Safe to ignore that poke!:P
How about letting the people decide? In communities where there is a large Hindu population, perhaps the courts can contain Hindu principles. In areas where there's a large Muslim community, Muslim principles can be displayed in the courts. After all, we're all perfectly capable of deciding which tenets are sound.
Excellent point! Very valid! My gut reaction is no, but simply because I profess ignorance about most religions and their tenents. Or rather, ignorance about the tenents contained within most religions. So, since the 10c's don't say something like, "cut your nuts off for looking at the face of they neighbor's wife", I don't have a problem with them. On the other hand, I have no idea what would show up in the other religions you put forth. Having said all that, from a pragmatic point of view, I don't have a problem with what you're saying. From a position of practical ignorance, I fear the possible results. Sad but true. This seemingly double standard (I guess it is), stems from the fact that the 10s are good ideas and very hard to corrupt; last I read them anyways.:) On the other hand, I do know enough about some of the other religions to understand that that some of their "good things" are very harsh, abusive, and horrible by American standards, religion not withstanding.
The issue isn't whether or not a court's judgments are affected.
I fully understand what the issue is. That's my point. The point is, since you've seemed to of missed it, it's very, very stupid that something as lame and generally meaningless IS receiving so much court time. Basically, it's some small minded dolt saying, "oh, I can't have that...it's all about me". When in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter. When our forefathers separated church and state, they meant it exactly as I spelled it out...not as it currently being addressed. In other words, is the church, directly or indirectly, dictating the outcome, or effecting the legal system? If the answer is no, then the people that are behind this are dolts, plain and simple. If the answer is yes, then I agree, we have a serious problem. Why? Because our forefathers never intended for art to be struck down because it held good and reasonable advice, wisdom, ideas, or whatever you want to call it. They NEVER intended for such a thing to happen. Don't believe me. Go look at some history.
That's not it at all. If there exists a law which says that government cannot promote religion, and you then stick a religious piece into a government building, then there's a problem.
But is it really promoting a religion? Does it talk to people is such a way? Or, is it something that closed minded people are using as an excuse because they secretly hate religion? If it's promoting it, does that mean that the halocaust exhibits are promoting natzism and the murder of millions? Or is it just a reminder? Either case, is it actively promoting people to become Jewish? Come on, this comes back to simply asking people to use their dang gray matter. This is stupid and the people pushing this are, well, just that. We have much more important issues to deal with.
Remember that the removal of these items is done through the court process. The judge
How is it that by connecting God to this nation--the nation you want people to have pride in, as you say--we make those who don't believe in him feel connected?
Interesting considering I never said that. I couldn't care less if the pledge is sans, "under God". I do care and think there should be a pledge. The whole point is to establish national pride and unity. I happen to believe that those concepts make for a happy society.
By your argument that we don't believe in God, so we should have no trouble mentioning him in this context...what if it were changed to, say, Zeus? Strange, sure.
Hehe. Strange, sure. Fine with me, nonetheless. Furthermore, law allows you to do it. I have no problem with it.
You're forgetting that nice little "thou shalt have no other gods" bit.
So, because it's on a statue, it prevents them from thinking and doing their job????? What???? If it's removed, suddenly all will be made right in the legal system? What??????
Or how about not making any statues or graven images? Should the courts be enforcing that law?
Interesting. You've seemed to of confused federal law with Christian law. Chances are, the courts are not. If they were, I'm fairly sure we would be hearing about.
So basically, you're saying, there is no room for art or even prestige in history.
Should we put all "pretty good ideas" in tablet form in front of the courts? Buddha's good ideas, Allah's good ideas, Vishnu's good ideas, etc.? How about a big banner saying "wash your hands before you eat"? That's a good idea which is medically sound. Or are the courts a forum for only Christian good ideas?
This is the first rational response I've read to my comments, thus far. Thank you for that.
Actually, I consider it all to be rather pretty and small minded. Who cares what religion it comes from. You have to be very, very, very small minded to care. Are they good ideas? Do you believe that having sex with your neighbor's wife and killing people make for a healthy society? If the answer is yes, then I don't think we have anything else to talk about. Just the same, I'll assume you're sane and assume you think they are bad ideas. In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter who's ideas they are? Are we so small brained these days that we can't decide for our selves which tenents make sense and which ones we each want to believe in? Does it really have to be all or none? If you're agnostic, doesn't that mean you believe they are the words of man anyways? I think this seems to come right back to just how small minded people can be. I don't like that, so they all have to go. Is there any proof that the statue is effecting judements in court? Isn't that what this should hing on? If there isn't any proof that it's effecting the court's ability to properly deliver law, I can't help but think that anyone who cares about this, is a dolt.
Basically, the argument all seems to boil down to the fact that people believe that as long as a work of art is in the building, judges and jurries are unable to properly perform their duties. Furthermore, they seem to believe that if it goes, everything will suddenly work better. If you believe that, pause a minute while I laugh and point. If you don't believe that, then I think we've reached the end of the conversation. It really is that simple.
As long as these people are properly and lawfully doing their job, who cares!?!?
Well, as usual, someone decided that they would pull something from their tail pipe and try to apply it to the many posters here.
Why can't you religious types just add them?
A, I didn't know I was a "religious types" and B, I have no problem with it being dropped. When I started school, it was, "...one nation, under God", then later it was, "...on nation". That lasted about a year. I was happy with either. After that, the pledge was not allowed. Basically the pledge was removed because of dolts that couldn't think for themselves.
Why would someone have to be stupid to object to not being allowed to worship whatever gods they want? To not being allowed to dislike their parents? To not being allowed to envy their neighbor's possessions?
LOL. I think the lameness filter should of caught that comment. LOL. No one prevents any of that. Just the same, they are all very bad ideas and are contrary to a healthy society. Christian commandment or not, they are good ideas to follow for anyone that believes in having a healthy society. Just the same, it being on a statue doesn't prevent you from doing them. Last I heard, people are still murdered...so on and so on....
I think you've done little for your position....lol..
But of course you didn't mention those commandments.
LOL., again, you do very poorly for your position. Frankly, I don't know all of the commandments from memory. I think, if you bother to seriously think about everything you just said, seriously, you'll find that you've not made a very good argument. Not one bit.
You're only argument seems to be that it's not the American way to be a good citizen or respect others. I'm sorry, but that's pethetic. History even proves your other comment wrong.
What's the big deal is. If you don't believe in God, what does it matter? If you're agnostic, etc., and this matters to you, I can't help but wonder what kind of loser you have to be. AFter all, you're swearing allegiance to something that, in your mind, you don't care about or believe in, so doesn't that cancel it self out? It's like saying, I promise to obey that "rock". Ideologically, isn't that the same thing to an agnostic? "One nation, under [a rock/a cloud/the sky/space/the sun/God]"...how and why could it possibly matter to these people. Why can't people simply ommit it when saying it?
What about people that believe in different names for God? Calling a dress a skirt is pretty much the same thing? So, why does it matter to them? Tomato, tomato. Seems like the same thing. Finally, could these people simply say, "one nation under Allah"...etc., who's going care one way or another.
I don't understand why courts have to have their time taken up with this. It's sad! Are our brains so small these days that they can't filter out something we don't believe in??? This is as stupid as the cases surround the ten commandments in that courthouse. Who f-n cares?!?! Even if you're not a Christan, you have to be pretty dang stupid to object to those. After all, there are some pretty good rules to get alone with each other in those. Things like, "don't murder", "don't hump your neighbor's wife", "don't hold false witness", etc, etc., all seem like pretty good ideas to me. Have people become so narrow and closed minded that they simply can't use their brain matter and decide for themselves the parts they can agree with and the parts they want to ignore?
To me, these cases say nothing about religion and everything about how petty, selfish and self absorbed most American's have become today. Remember when America used to be about "...we the people..." and not, "...what can America do for me and my group?"
I see nothing but narrow, tiny minds......and yes, I see national pride as being important and so, I see the need for a national pledge in schools. Nothing better than helping people feel like they belong to something...anything, to help outcasts and misanthropes of this world. Helping them, helps us help our selves!
Slashdot Mirror
Are you sure it has a 30-gallon tank? That seems huge! Where do they hide it at? In the passenger's lap?
I would of guessed a 20-gallon tank at most.
I can only laugh.
First, the problems are squarely laid to rest on Sadom. He was able to smuggle in weapons, materials to build several more palaces, cars, and other vehicles and smuggle out oil. Yet, it's our fault that he was a jerk and didn't do anything to smuggle in things he needed to let his people survive?
What about the food stores that sometimes rotted while he allowed his most loyal access and the genral public to starve. This our fault too.
You have some basic facts yet you don't seem to know how they apply, or worse, don't know the full story.
Basically, they've gone to a crap-hole, which existed before the war to a situation that improves on a daily basis. Most of the country now has power and clean drinking water. Most of the country has sanitation. Both or which are improvements from before the way. Things will only get better unless the people decide they need to destroy these things for themselves.
So, unless you have any information which conflicts with anything I've stated, I think I've made my point. Thus far, you've proved nothing except the fact that they've been under sanctions and that Sadam was a selfish idiot. Meanwhile, the people that are actually living there are seeing improvements on a daily basis. Their only significant complaints are, they want to completely govern themselves so they can start a civil war and they want more police. Police are being trained, as is their new military. Schools, hospitals, medical centers and churches are being restored and built. Social education has already started allowing women to take a social standing. Jobs are being created and workers are being paid. Replacement parts have been brought in for a lot of equipment that was failing and the US is actively working to bring in a whole new infrastructer.
To say things will not be better a year from now, is ignorance at its best. To say the people are
I really get the idea that you have no idea what is going on over there.
The 1991 Gulf War seems to show some relevance. They've done a couple of things here and there over the years, but you are right, there isn't a lot to bank on there.
Hehe. Thanks! Glad someone else enjoyed it. I found that I really enjoyed writing that silly thing. :)
I just clicked to the fact that you're French. I think you need to learn more about what you're country has been doing. Bash the US all you want, but it still doesn't change the facts. One, your government has been doing things far worse than people bash the US for, and two, it was very self serving in what they did, the rest of the world be damned. It's one thing to bash a country, it's another to bash the people. I'm not bashing the people, just the leaders (the country).
I've worked for and with French people before (Cap Gemini) and know the people mean well, just as American's do. Just the same, France has done some very bad things and lied about it. The bashing they get is well deserved.
You just seem to be proving that the US is acting like some sort of free world bully that the UN won't stop.
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. The simple fact is, the UN is the US. Which is to say, that is its power base. No bones about it. Stating fact, in no way feeds your comment that Americans have "a need" to be a world leader. Simple fact, we are. The more obvious argument is that France had "a need" to be a world leader and thus paved the road that led to all the bashing that France now suffers from.
Simple fact is, if France has honored it's position in the U.N., and honored the paper that it creates during its role in the UN, we would of been on the same page, acting together. That doesn't change the fact that Bush was an idiot in how he attempted to get support, nonetheless, France was selfish and less than honorable. Simple fact is, France did everything they could to ensure impotence of the UN in the eyes of every country. All to ensure it's Iraqi debt was protected and to ensure it's future business relationships which in turn, were illegal under the eyes of the UN.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Face it, France does not have *any* high morale ground to stand on.
You're right, the above could be rewritten to reflect any story you want. It's just that the way it's written happens to reflect the current world order and the reality as we know it today.
I don't think this pissing contest will lead anywhere anytime soon.
I didn't realize this was a pissing contest. That seems to assume we're both competing. I assure you, I am not. I simply offered the facts as they are. You're the one trying to debate and spin them.
Because the UN is impotent. They have been so for almost a decade now. Don't believe me? Go look up some history. They basically function as an inspection group and human rights auditors. They have no real power any more. Even a tiny country like Iraq laughed at them. So does most of the world. If you think the UN has any real power, aside from what the US grants it, other than figuring out what to order for lunch, you're kidding your self.
Fun and silly example to lighten the mood:
(robber running from jewlery store with stolen goods)
UN: Stop! Or I'll say stop again!
Robber: LOL!
(Runs into bank while shooting and shooting at US soldiers)
UN: Stop! Or I'll say stop again!
Robber: LOL!
(Robber leaves bank with stolen cash)
UN: Fine! We have you know, we have this paper that says you have to stop!
Robber: LOL!
UN: Fine! We have you this time, we have this paper that says you have to stop, NOW! That means we have two pieces of paper that says you have to stop!
U.S.: We're tired of playing this game.
(US Solder blows the head off of robber)
U.N.: See! I told you we have this paper!
France: NO!!!!! He owed us money!
Russia: But we wanted to sale weapons for the stolen cash and goods.
In a nut shell, the U.N. truly is a step away from becoming the next League of Nations. If you think the U.N. has any significant power beyond what the US grants it, I think you need to go do some more reading of history.
I always find it sad to see people bash the though of democracy at nation level.
I have no idea what that means or how it applies to what I've stated.
What a moron!
./ and all the loser, brain dead dolts coming out today. Shesh.
Summary for the brain dead to follow:
He argued the moon is made of cheese and that huge space mice will be eating it.
I said, he's an idiot for ignoring readily available facts. It's obvious that the moon is not made of cheese and that space mice don't exist.
You argue that can't attack his argument. Simple fact is, his (if, in fact they are not yours) statements were so obviously a troll, they are not worth addressing. If he knew anything at all on the topic at hand, he wouldn't be asking such questions. Since he is, he's trolling or completely ignorant of the topic at hand.
In other words, there was no argument to attack. Only a dolt or a troll would post such a thing.
What an idiotic troll you are. When you learn to read and can think for your self and actually bother to attempt to educate your self with something other than stupidity and rage, then you should come back and post. Until such time, your trolling will be ignored.
Classic; stupidity that is.
What is with
What an impish troll.
Really? I thought the UN was.
That's the funniest thing I've read here in such a long time. LOL! If you don't know why that's funny, well, you shouldn't really be posting.
LOL.
You're a very deluded person.
Its "The Media's" fault for emphasising the WMD issue. Sorry but it was the Bush Administration who emphasised WMDs time and time again.
It's actually a symbiotic relationship. When you're the leader and you need public opinion, you feed what's getting press. WMD got press because most American's seemingly were content to allow our soldiers to be shot at daily and the Iraqi people to be murdered, en mass. The press quickly fixated on WMD because of 9/11 and the Whitehouse was happy to push it shortly after because it generated the public frenzy that they needed. One soon feed the other in an endless circle. Like it or not, that's how the press uses the Whitehouse and that's how the Whitehouse uses the press. It's fact. It made for good news numbers. As did feeding a war. Nothing makes for good ratings like a live-broadcast war. In the end, both parties got exactly what they wanted.
If you're realy hell-bent on tearing it up, please come with some fact in hand which clearly are contrary to the generally available facts shared by the US and the rest of the world.
In the mean time, I'm glad that you're able to laugh at your own ignorance. After you come back to reality, hopefully you'll be able to realize that your view is one from up your own arse.
I'm looking forward to having a good laugh. I can't wait. Before you bother to comment, I hope you actually know people that are in Iraq right now. In not, this will be doubly funny.
Cheers.
Absolutely no idea why this was rated insightful.
Simple fact is, the US is pretty much the leader of the world. No so much that what the US states becomes reality, but rather, most anything the US does creates ripples felt around the world. In some countries, the sphere of influence is lessor while others, it's felt like an earthquake. Nonetheless, the influenece is real.
Top that off that no matter what the US does, we will always be flogged in world opinion in some part of the world. Always! Much of the world wants us to stabilize their region of the world. Others want the instability (and lack of US involvment) because it further's their own political goals. So basically, if we do something, we're evil and if we don't, we're evil again. Likewise, most of these countries are happy to accept millions and billion from the US while teaching ignorance and stupidity to their people. Look, the US is evil...shhhh...don't mention that they just fed your family.
This really isn't about, "psychological need of the US to be the leader of the world", which IMO, doesn't exist. Rather, it's about the world's expectations of, "the US to be the leader of the world" and damning us for not meeting their expectations, no matter which side of the coin your on.
How those expectations play out on the world stage is what we all call politics and spin. It's just a matter of whos BS you're willing to buy into, and allow your expectations to be set accordingly.
Wow! What a troll. I can only hope a mod deals with your post accordingly. One troll after another. You're either insane and a troll through-n-though.
Here's an idea, why don't you do educate your self before you post further. Much, if not all of what I wrote is commonly available from any number of news outlets. You come across as an angry, bitter, ignorant, closed minded troll.
Go back to the bridge from which you came. If you can't answer all of the questions that you've asked, you're clearly just trying to troll.
Grow up and get life.
Ahh! Someone gets it!
Two cheers....yip...yip...
Because after UN sanctions where placed on Iraq, France and Russia were still giving and selling dual-use and military goods to the contrary. Basically, both Russia and France, along with some middle eastern neighbors, became Iraq's weapon and technology smugglers. Russia sold GPS jammers, which were deployed in hopes that they would cause GPS bomb misses which, in turn, would hopefully create more anti-american sentiment. Pretty dang scummy for Russia to do. Likewise, France sold night vision gear, shoulder launched AAA-missiles (as did Russia), and other prohibited goods.
Slam the US all you want, just come back to reality when you're done and realize that France and Russia were far, far, far worse on the scum-o-meter. The **primary** reasons, in fact, once could argue the sole reasons, France and Russia did not want war with Iraq is because they both feared that Iraq would be relieved of the huge debt that Iraq owes both countries. Following a war, a significant share, if not all outstanding debt is often forgiven by all parties that participate in a war so as to allow the country to rebuild. See a pattern here?
Long story short, France is scum. You've been fooled and poised to be laughed at if you really believe that France can justly sit on a high morale pedestal.
That would be because the countries over there are forcing a shift. Even Saudi is greatly anti-America and has been growing more so for several decades. They unofficially indoctrinate their children that American's are evil and bad. With such a religion that easily lends it self to corruption and loud whispers in their ears, it's easy to see that our "long-term geopolitical strategy" was failing. And short of turning our backs on Israel, there really isn't a lot we could do. Of course, I welcome comments to contrary if your more learned on that facet that I.
If you look at what's being done, this war is actually creating a new window for a new long-term geopolitical strategy, while at the same time, creating a new oil supply, removing a horrible and cruel leader, modernizing a country, and creating a significant future for a whole country.
You really are far, far, off base. The poster, more than likely, does not set US policy. Just the same, I think he did factually and accurately answer the questions that were put forward. Answering those questions has zero to do with your ramblings.
Iraq is far better now than it was before the war. Better yet, this time next year they will be far, far better off than they are now. Additionally, they can more than likely expect the same trend to continue for years to come. For the first time in decades, Iraq's people truely has a future to look forward to. Remember, it was Sadam that was refusing to update and maintain Iraq. Many of the failures in the country that occurred during the war, was NOT from US bombing but rather, from very old equipment that was failing rapidly and people that did not show up to maintain it. The US is pledging significant funds to modernize it. Granted, that is a scam for the President's friends, but it doesn't change what's being done to rebuild the dilapidated country.
The biggest danger than Iraqies have right now is from the terrorists that run around their country right now. Most of which are from Syria and Iran. Heavily slanted toward Syria, which is exactly why the US has been thumbing their finger at them lately.
Or, has the history of Saudi Arabia escaped your selective historical memory?
Simple fact is, historically, we needed a foot in the door in that region of the world. We have shared interests over there and our presence does help create stability. Does that mean we endorce what goes on in Saudi? Contrary to your assertion, of course we don't. Nonetheless, we've had to pick the lessor of two evils. Traditionally, that has been Saudi. The government's anti-US position over the last decades has not been helping us.
If the US can educate and politically convert Iraq into a Pro-US country which respects human rights, I have no doubt that you'll see more flexing toward Saudi in the future. This is why it's called politics and why, generally speaking, people that see and deal with the world in a strictly black-n-white manner, have no business as politicians or world leaders. At some point in time, you have to look for the greater good. In this case, their job is to look for the greater good of our country. That's what they are paid to do. That's what's expected. Generally speaking, historically, that's what they've done.
Many of these middle eastern countries get very, very angry at the US for not having a single, stamped in stone, closed minded, iron-fisted foreign policy. What they fail to recognize is, if we were that narrow minded and stupid, most of those countries would of been nuked into embers decades ago.
First, let me say two thing. One, thank you for engaging in a debate with logic and reason. Second, I simply can not keep up writing these dang books as we go back and forth. I think it's pretty clear we're both beating a different drum and we're not going to change each other's mind. Just the same, thanks again.
:)
Calling people names just because they hold different things important is a rather immature attitude.
I disagree. That makes me intolerant of stupid people.
Actually, taking it out is the cheapest solution.
That was my point exactly!
The "me" part of this is, of course, none other than the Old Testament God. To any non-Christian/Jew/Muslim, this is highly offensive.
Yes, but America is supposed to be about the majority and not the minority, selfish group over there. This also assumes that whoever is offended is very, very, selfish and intolerant.
Catholics (the largest religion in the world) have carved images of Mary, Joseph, Jesus, etc. Do you suggest that in order to be moral and ethical, Catholics should follow that commandment and remove all their carved images? Is keeping those images immoral and unethical?
Hehe. Well, fist, I don't consider Catholics to be Christians. They are their own cult with their own tenents and secret doctrine. Nonetheless, I'm happy to lump them into the same pot as the other three major religions as they clearly want to be there. Just the same, they believe in the 10c's and it's in their bible. So, I couldn't care less if they are offended by their own religion. Nor could I care if they are offended by breaking doctrine of their own religion even when their leaders are telling them it's okay. In a nut shell, I think those are a set of morals and ethics which are outside the bounds of this discussion. For now, I'll just toss them in with Christians/Jews/Muslim.
As I've demonstrated above, this isn't the case. Most Christians don't even accept at least two of those commandments.
You mean people used their own gray matter and decided they could filter out what they wanted. No....say it ain't so! Case in point. Thank you.
Calling people names only shows that you don't have much of an argument and have to resort to insults to hide this fact.
Not at all. If the name calling were the sole point of my statements, then you'd have a valid argument. Since they are not, they seem to indicate that you are unable to filter and process properly on your own. It really is that simple.
You're way off base with your numbers. 80+% of the world does work on Sunday. 80+% of the world has no problem with carved images. Why do you think these things should be in a court building? Is it simply because of your religion that you want them there?
Thanks again for making my point. So basically, you're saying that 80% of the world is able to think for themselves and filter content as they see fit. That leaves us with a whacky, much less than 20%, that are only concerned about themselves. America is supposed to be about majorities and not minorities. Obviously, some balancing has to be done to ensure all men are created equal under the law, just the same, the majority was not supposed to be and/or suffer for a minority group. Especially because of something so stupid.
Would you object to the following set of ethics being on display in court?
No idea why you keep asking this question. I've answered it several times already. Shesh.
Unless you have something earth shattering in a come back, I think we've pretty well beat the horse.
Thanks.
However, we don't see this. We see a constitution enacted specifically prohibiting any establishment of religion.
That's not true. It specifically is prohibiting any establishment of religion by government. If it prohibited establishment of regigion in general, the country would be drmatically different.
Oddly enough, the quote you offered forth actually supports my view rather well. Which is to say, they didn't want some zealot dictating some reglious tentent, script, book, etc., as a means to govern. Case in point, he didn't want state sanctioned, "burn[ed], tortured, fined and imprison[ment]", issues, because of whatever religion was in power at the time.
Does the phrase "In God we trust" apply equally to everyone?
Actually, it does. I think it says, "In God we trust", and not, "In God we trust, except for group a over there". The only question here is, does everyone *feel* like it applies to them? The answer. No, as clearly there are some religions that don't have the idiom of an all powerful entity.
Why does the money need to refer to a trust in God which a huge number of people do not have?
Good question. I don't have an answer to. Just the same, over the next many years, new moneies will come into print. Why didn't we see this up roar about it? Simple! It doesn't matter and only dolts and idiots want to fight the lame fight.
I think it should be phased out as it serves no purpose.
I agree. Since it serves no purpose, we might as well leave it be. Notice this is the other side of the coin which you tought, and oddly enough, is the easist and cheapest solution of them all. Leave it f-n alone because it's not hurting, harming, promoting, damaging, or preventing our government from working properly.
I'm sure you can find 10 Muslim or Hindu principles which are equally "good things".
I'm sure you can too.
Likewise, we can find many more than 10 things which are terrible about the Christian bible.
That, I have no doubt, however, you've changed the subject. This isn't about bad things being in Christian doctrine.
You seemed to of missed the point entirely. When you compare what's on the 10c against American values (that's everyone), you'll find that, everyone agrees they are a good thing. On the other hand, take many of the tenents of other religions, which many feel are a good thing and contrast them with American social values, you'll find that *some* of their good things are suddenly viewed as being bad, harsh, abusive, etc. If you have 10 good things form each of the other major religions, which pass American values, then I have no problem with them being in a court house. In fact, I think would be neat to remind people of morals and values and ethics (which is really what we're talking about here), representative views from around the world, as it relates to various crimes, or the things that often lead up to them.
So if it doesn't matter, simply remove the offending religious items and there's no more controversy. The fact that religious people are so up in arms over this means that, according to you, they are all small minded dolts.
Or, they can do the responsible thing and leave it be. The cheapest solution is to drop it. The better solution would of been for the dolts to not brought it up to begin with. Again, as if it matters. Seems like these people are afraid and/or hate religion. Removing them is supporting intolerance. Is that the goal? Say, "religion bad", "intolerance good". "It's all about me and my group, screw the majority."
Speaking of a majority, btw, the 10c's are generally accepted by the largest religions of the world. IIRC, that includes, Christians, Jews, and Muslims. When I say, accept, that doesn't have to mean in an exact religious context, rather, it means supported as good morals and ethics and a healthy society.
Nothing prevents anyone from opening up an art ga
You are on crack! What are you talking about? Do you actually read and incorrectly process it or do you just make this stuff up as you go along?
Why do I have to support a position that you put forth? One, which I already stated can be ignored. You're unworthy of any more time as you are a split personality. Why would I argue to support a position I didn't put forth and disagree with from the beginning.
Can you say, mental defect???
Shesh! This is a very typical response of a crackpot: all assertion and no argument, and complain when the person you argue with doesn't defend a incorrect assertion you put forth. What a whack-job.
LOL.
There's lots of good ideas out there. Why include only one particular religion's views on what constitutes a good idea?
:)
:P
:) On the other hand, I do know enough about some of the other religions to understand that that some of their "good things" are very harsh, abusive, and horrible by American standards, religion not withstanding.
I agree. Simple fact is, America was established as a Christian country and exclusion of such items were clearly NOT intended by the creators of our countries constitution. As such, the Christian view will be hard to escape in this country. This isn't justification, simply historical fact.
Should we remove the religous icons from our money too?
-1, Flamebait.
Yes, I see the smiley, but it wasn't meant as flaimbait. It was a rhetorical question. I obviously didn't expect you to disagree. Safe to ignore that poke!
How about letting the people decide? In communities where there is a large Hindu population, perhaps the courts can contain Hindu principles. In areas where there's a large Muslim community, Muslim principles can be displayed in the courts. After all, we're all perfectly capable of deciding which tenets are sound.
Excellent point! Very valid! My gut reaction is no, but simply because I profess ignorance about most religions and their tenents. Or rather, ignorance about the tenents contained within most religions. So, since the 10c's don't say something like, "cut your nuts off for looking at the face of they neighbor's wife", I don't have a problem with them. On the other hand, I have no idea what would show up in the other religions you put forth. Having said all that, from a pragmatic point of view, I don't have a problem with what you're saying. From a position of practical ignorance, I fear the possible results. Sad but true. This seemingly double standard (I guess it is), stems from the fact that the 10s are good ideas and very hard to corrupt; last I read them anyways.
The issue isn't whether or not a court's judgments are affected.
I fully understand what the issue is. That's my point. The point is, since you've seemed to of missed it, it's very, very stupid that something as lame and generally meaningless IS receiving so much court time. Basically, it's some small minded dolt saying, "oh, I can't have that...it's all about me". When in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter. When our forefathers separated church and state, they meant it exactly as I spelled it out...not as it currently being addressed. In other words, is the church, directly or indirectly, dictating the outcome, or effecting the legal system? If the answer is no, then the people that are behind this are dolts, plain and simple. If the answer is yes, then I agree, we have a serious problem. Why? Because our forefathers never intended for art to be struck down because it held good and reasonable advice, wisdom, ideas, or whatever you
want to call it. They NEVER intended for such a thing to happen. Don't believe me. Go look at some history.
That's not it at all. If there exists a law which says that government cannot promote religion, and you then stick a religious piece into a government building, then there's a problem.
But is it really promoting a religion? Does it talk to people is such a way? Or, is it something that closed minded people are using as an excuse because they secretly hate religion? If it's promoting it, does that mean that the halocaust exhibits are promoting natzism and the murder of millions? Or is it just a reminder? Either case, is it actively promoting people to become Jewish? Come on, this comes back to simply asking people to use their dang gray matter. This is stupid and the people pushing this are, well, just that. We have much more important issues to deal with.
Remember that the removal of these items is done through the court process. The judge
How is it that by connecting God to this nation--the nation you want people to have pride in, as you say--we make those who don't believe in him feel connected?
Interesting considering I never said that. I couldn't care less if the pledge is sans, "under God". I do care and think there should be a pledge. The whole point is to establish national pride and unity. I happen to believe that those concepts make for a happy society.
By your argument that we don't believe in God, so we should have no trouble mentioning him in this context...what if it were changed to, say, Zeus? Strange, sure.
Hehe. Strange, sure. Fine with me, nonetheless. Furthermore, law allows you to do it. I have no problem with it.
You're forgetting that nice little "thou shalt have no other gods" bit.
So, because it's on a statue, it prevents them from thinking and doing their job????? What???? If it's removed, suddenly all will be made right in the legal system? What??????
Or how about not making any statues or graven images? Should the courts be enforcing that law?
Interesting. You've seemed to of confused federal law with Christian law. Chances are, the courts are not. If they were, I'm fairly sure we would be hearing about.
So basically, you're saying, there is no room for art or even prestige in history.
Should we put all "pretty good ideas" in tablet form in front of the courts? Buddha's good ideas, Allah's good ideas, Vishnu's good ideas, etc.? How about a big banner saying "wash your hands before you eat"? That's a good idea which is medically sound. Or are the courts a forum for only Christian good ideas?
This is the first rational response I've read to my comments, thus far. Thank you for that.
Actually, I consider it all to be rather pretty and small minded. Who cares what religion it comes from. You have to be very, very, very small minded to care. Are they good ideas? Do you believe that having sex with your neighbor's wife and killing people make for a healthy society? If the answer is yes, then I don't think we have anything else to talk about. Just the same, I'll assume you're sane and assume you think they are bad ideas. In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter who's ideas they are? Are we so small brained these days that we can't decide for our selves which tenents make sense and which ones we each want to believe in? Does it really have to be all or none? If you're agnostic, doesn't that mean you believe they are the words of man anyways? I think this seems to come right back to just how small minded people can be. I don't like that, so they all have to go. Is there any proof that the statue is effecting judements in court? Isn't that what this should hing on? If there isn't any proof that it's effecting the court's ability to properly deliver law, I can't help but think that anyone who cares about this, is a dolt.
Basically, the argument all seems to boil down to the fact that people believe that as long as a work of art is in the building, judges and jurries are unable to properly perform their duties. Furthermore, they seem to believe that if it goes, everything will suddenly work better. If you believe that, pause a minute while I laugh and point. If you don't believe that, then I think we've reached the end of the conversation. It really is that simple.
As long as these people are properly and lawfully doing their job, who cares!?!?
Well, as usual, someone decided that they would pull something from their tail pipe and try to apply it to the many posters here.
Why can't you religious types just add them?
A, I didn't know I was a "religious types" and B, I have no problem with it being dropped. When I started school, it was, "...one nation, under God", then later it was, "...on nation". That lasted about a year. I was happy with either. After that, the pledge was not allowed. Basically the pledge was removed because of dolts that couldn't think for themselves.
Why would someone have to be stupid to object to not being allowed to worship whatever gods they want? To not being allowed to dislike their parents? To not being allowed to envy their neighbor's possessions?
LOL. I think the lameness filter should of caught that comment. LOL. No one prevents any of that. Just the same, they are all very bad ideas and are contrary to a healthy society. Christian commandment or not, they are good ideas to follow for anyone that believes in having a healthy society. Just the same, it being on a statue doesn't prevent you from doing them. Last I heard, people are still murdered...so on and so on....
I think you've done little for your position....lol..
But of course you didn't mention those commandments.
LOL., again, you do very poorly for your position. Frankly, I don't know all of the commandments from memory. I think, if you bother to seriously think about everything you just said, seriously, you'll find that you've not made a very good argument. Not one bit.
You're only argument seems to be that it's not the American way to be a good citizen or respect others. I'm sorry, but that's pethetic. History even proves your other comment wrong.
What's the big deal is. If you don't believe in God, what does it matter? If you're agnostic, etc., and this matters to you, I can't help but wonder what kind of loser you have to be. AFter all, you're swearing allegiance to something that, in your mind, you don't care about or believe in, so doesn't that cancel it self out? It's like saying, I promise to obey that "rock". Ideologically, isn't that the same thing to an agnostic? "One nation, under [a rock/a cloud/the sky/space/the sun/God]"...how and why could it possibly matter to these people. Why can't people simply ommit it when saying it?
...and yes, I see national pride as being important and so, I see the need for a national pledge in schools. Nothing better than helping people feel like they belong to something...anything, to help outcasts and misanthropes of this world. Helping them, helps us help our selves!
What about people that believe in different names for God? Calling a dress a skirt is pretty much the same thing? So, why does it matter to them? Tomato, tomato. Seems like the same thing. Finally, could these people simply say, "one nation under Allah"...etc., who's going care one way or another.
I don't understand why courts have to have their time taken up with this. It's sad! Are our brains so small these days that they can't filter out something we don't believe in??? This is as stupid as the cases surround the ten commandments in that courthouse. Who f-n cares?!?! Even if you're not a Christan, you have to be pretty dang stupid to object to those. After all, there are some pretty good rules to get alone with each other in those. Things like, "don't murder", "don't hump your neighbor's wife", "don't hold false witness", etc, etc., all seem like pretty good ideas to me. Have people become so narrow and closed minded that they simply can't use their brain matter and decide for themselves the parts they can agree with and the parts they want to ignore?
To me, these cases say nothing about religion and everything about how petty, selfish and self absorbed most American's have become today. Remember when America used to be about "...we the people..." and not, "...what can America do for me and my group?"
I see nothing but narrow, tiny minds...