BW: i like how you ignore my response entirely…
I am also a practising Christian, and I see removing the words as a protection of of my faith, not an infringement of it.
and i am an atheist, and i see this as irrelevent to my lack of faith.
Just look where the Christian Right is driving this country today (see my earlier reference to the 11 states passing gay bashing Constitutional Amendments last fall). Look at the states that now have compulsory “intelligent design” woven into their curricula for elementary school science. The Christian Right is having a field day, converting this country into a Christian Fundamentalist theocracy.
these are seperate issues. the fact that they are related in their connection to God is irrelevent. there are real threats posed by the forcing of intelligent design, the prohibition of gay marriage, etc. these are real moral questions, and ones which do potentially pose a threat to the seperation of church and state. “under god” in the pledge of allegiance is one mans personal crusade against some miniscule nothing. to continue to assert that this will lead to the complete violation of the first amendment is ludicrous, and your position reminds me of the radically conservative christians who argue that unmarried sex leads to violence, rape, sin, and general lawlessness, and other nonsensical arguments like that.
BW: i like how you ignore my response entirely…
and…
I am also a practising Christian, and I see removing the words as a protection of of my faith, not an infringement of it.
and i am an atheist, and i see this as irrelevent to my lack of faith.
Gee, I guess that means we disagree. However since you so desperately want a personal response I will reaffirm - yes - we disagree on this.
However, if the inclusion or exclusion of “under God” makes no difference to you then why are you even participating in this discussion?
On a side note - do you think blacks have a right to be upset when the Stars and Bars are flown over a courthouse they are entering to plead a case? Isn’t the flag just a meaningless little piece of cloth? Or do you think perhaps it might indicate a possible bias against someone of color seeking fair and equal treatment before the law?
Finally, you may think that the issue is petty and blown way out of scale. I would offer this bit of history as counterpoint:
In 1933 Hitler and company ran around breaking glass and burning books in Munich - just a bit of tomfoolery by those in charge, right??. But there was nobody there to tell them no, so by 11 short years later they believed they could get away with the murder of over 6 million people as part of legitimate state policy.
I don’t give a rat’s patoot how small an issue is - if a government thinks it can break its own laws, only the citizenry can tell them no, because the government has lost the ability to police itself. If no citizen will tell it no, then the government will take further steps to infringe on the rights of individuals. It is the nature of the beast, which can NEVER be trusted completely - it ALWAYS must be open to scrutiny and criticism.
God Bless America for still having a system that allows this suit to happen and for an individual to win it. When that is gone, we all will be much worse off.
BW
In 1933 Hitler and company ran around breaking glass and burning books in Munich - just a bit of tomfoolery by those in charge, right??. But there was nobody there to tell them no, so by 11 short years later they believed they could get away with the murder of over 6 million people as part of legitimate state policy.
comparing the pledge of allegiance to kristallnacht is a bit of a stretch, even for you
Isn’t the flag just a meaningless little piece of cloth?
no…
On a side note - do you think blacks have a right to be upset when the Stars and Bars are flown over a courthouse they are entering to plead a case? Isn’t the flag just a meaningless little piece of cloth? Or do you think perhaps it might indicate a possible bias against someone of color seeking fair and equal treatment before the law?
while personally, i think people offended by a confederate flag are too sensitive, i respect this much more than an atheist complaining about god. but lets get something straight: i am not disputing this mans right to bring suit, or their right to be offended. you absolutely have the right. im disputing the worth of doing so.
but back on your point, the confederate flag represents hatred and persecution to blacks. for some it merely represents southern pride. i think these people have the right to fly their flag, but hey, if its going to make many people upset, and cause such an air of tension and hostility, why push the envelope?
now, you might turn around and apply this to “under god” but i would counter that nowhere is someone required to say that phrase, or indeed the pledge at all. if we remove the phrase, some will continue to say it. so what if someone gets offended by that? are we to prohibit students from saying “under god”? we dont set aside prayer time because thats bringing in the church, but what if someone wants to pray? what about moments of silence? isnt that basically a moment for silent prayer? what do i do as an atheist? what if i dont want this period? hows it any different from a set aside period of time for prayer?
i notice ive gone off on a tangent here, oh well. my point is, the confederate flag is more than a piece of cloth. and its presence is more significant than the word god. the word God is so common in everyday language, you cant avoid it. the confederate flag is not. and while God may represent something unfavorable to some people, or something they dont believe in, it does not represent hatred and persecution, as does the confederate flag. religiously intolerant theists do not make the concept intolerant. most major religions are tolerant of others religions, and even those without religions, most preach love and understanding. maybe im going to hell according to your god for being a heretic, but i can live with that.
However, if the inclusion or exclusion of “under God” makes no difference to you then why are you even participating in this discussion?
im discussing the worth of having court time dedicated to this insignificant subject, not whether or not it should be in the pledge.
Just curious . . .
should we be banning the taking of God’s name in vain? I think this would be a good idea:
@cystic:
Just curious . . .
should we be banning the taking of God’s name in vain? I think this would be a good idea:
- this practice tends to offend Christians (and God)
- this practice is obviously offensive to atheists (or at least Christians bothered by the use of the term “under God” in the pledge of allegiance).
:P
Yes. Let’s ban blasphemy. lol
i say God more than many theists, im not bothered by the term at all. i dont care what you believe in, i just dont. and i use the term, cuz thats how i roll. im also quite drunk right now.
…In 1933 Hitler and company ran around breaking glass and burning books in Munich - just a bit of tomfoolery by those in charge, right??. But there was nobody there to tell them no, so by 11 short years later they believed they could get away with the murder of over 6 million people as part of legitimate state policy.
I hope the 1933 is just a typo, Hitler’s Munich times were 1923. There were people there to tell them “no”, but they lost because there were more who thought these no-sayers were only “panicking leftist” or even worse, “communists”. The genocide on the Jews has more than one date to link it to: In “Mein Kampf” from 1924 you find Hitler’s hatred on Jews, the persecution begins straight from 1933 with boycotts, the Nürnberg laws of 1935 are an “important” step, so is the progrome night of 1938, and from 1941 on the systematic genocide on an industrialised level.
For Janus: the term “Kristallnacht” was used by the Nazis and is a very bad euphemism as it was not only glass that was breaking that night. Progrome is the better word to describe that night (which was not in 1933, but 1938).
Although I wouldn’t have brought up all those instances to support the quashing of this gentleman’s arguement in court, I have not yet seen a proper response showing how they are unrelated, myself. But I’m going to try and keep an open mind about this, mainly because I find it difficult to compare Crystal-Night (sorry, I don’t want to screw up the spelling, so I translated to English - no offense intended or meant) to “Under God” in our pledge of alleigance.
CC: Believe it or not, I actually agree with you. I, personally, do not know of another 1st world nation that has a pledge of alliegance. What’s even more ridiculous is that this pledge isn’t manadatory thus making it completely extranious in the daily course of events.
What’s even worse is you are pledging your alliegance to a piece of cloth that represents a nation that resides under a supreme being. You are not pledging alliegance to God nor to your country but to a piece of stinking colored fabric that has to be torn down every now and again and replaced because it rips, tears or gets soiled!
Stuka: I agree in part. If we were in the Reagan years or Bush Sr. then I’d be more willing to hear this man’s case. However, and this is unconfirmed as of yet, if this is the same moron trying to protect his daughter from the pledge because he’s an athiest but she’s a christian, I’d think he deserves some hefty fines for wasting the people’s money - especially since he has no custodial power over the child. Not to mention, this case was already tried and refused to be heard by the Supreme Court.
… Crystal-Night (sorry, I don’t want to screw up the spelling, so I translated to English - no offense intended or meant)
I am irritated. The correct german spelling appears twice before your post.
Why not use it … yet stick to the meaning, even though it was mentioned once before that the term is a Nazi term.
They didn’t dare to call it “More than 100 Jews beaten to death by hordes of cowardous SA men”-night , so please don’t call it Kristallnacht or any translation of it. It was a progrome, it should be called as such.
@F_alk:
… Crystal-Night (sorry, I don’t want to screw up the spelling, so I translated to English - no offense intended or meant)
I am irritated. The correct german spelling appears twice before your post.
Why not use it … yet stick to the meaning, even though it was mentioned once before that the term is a Nazi term.
They didn’t dare to call it “More than 100 Jews beaten to death by hordes of cowardous SA men”-night , so please don’t call it Kristallnacht or any translation of it. It was a progrome, it should be called as such.
Because “Kristallnacht” is the official term listed in the history books in public record. While we all realize it was just more evidence of the National Socialists (NAZIs) establishing power and hurting/murdering others, doesn’t negate the name associated with the night in question. After all, if we said “That night when the nazi’s killed hundreds of jews” then we could have the night in question confused with thousands of other nights when the nazi’s killed hundreds of jews. But when we use “Kristallnacht” everyone knows, without question, what night we speak of.
Besides, I can’t find a definition for progrome. Is that spelled right? Is that a native word (ie German?) Better yet, could you post a definition for us so we don’t have misunderstandings over syntax?
Because “Kristallnacht” is the official term listed in the history books in public record.
So, if i find an official german book that says something about anything in US history, then that gives me the right to use that term… even if the whole of the US agrees that it is an “evil” and relativistic term?
Besides, I can’t find a definition for progrome. Is that spelled right? Is that a native word (ie German?) Better yet, could you post a definition for us so we don’t have misunderstandings over syntax?
Pogrom. My bad, a spelling mistake.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=pogrom&searchmode=none
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=pogrom
@F_alk:
Because “Kristallnacht” is the official term listed in the history books in public record.
So, if i find an official german book that says something about anything in US history, then that gives me the right to use that term… even if the whole of the US agrees that it is an “evil” and relativistic term?
No, because it is not only US History books that use this term to refer to that specific night.
And thanks for the links.
@F_alk:
Because “Kristallnacht” is the official term listed in the history books in public record.
So, if i find an official german book that says something about anything in US history, then that gives me the right to use that term… even if the whole of the US agrees that it is an “evil” and relativistic term?
Besides, I can’t find a definition for progrome. Is that spelled right? Is that a native word (ie German?) Better yet, could you post a definition for us so we don’t have misunderstandings over syntax?
Pogrom. My bad, a spelling mistake.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=pogrom&searchmode=none
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=pogrom
There are all sorts of euphemisms in American history. The Trail of Tears should probably be called “When we force-marched thousands of Native Americans to their death”. Have to agree with Jen on this one.
@F_alk:
So, if i find an official german book that says something about anything in US history, then that gives me the right to use that term… even if the whole of the US agrees that it is an “evil” and relativistic term?
No, because it is not only US History books that use this term to refer to that specific night.
Honestly: Have you ever seen a history book that is not from the US, or is this just an inspired guess?
Would you concede that GWB is an idiot, just because the world thinks so? Wasn’t it you to complain that the rest of the world doesn’t matter … why should i then give it any right to put a label on something? Especially, when obviously the world does not know where the word stems from. That’s where the “Trail of Tears” analogy fails, that label is a translation from Cherokee “Nunna daul Tsuny”. So using “trail of tears” is an argument FOR using the Jiddish Pogrom and not the Nazi Kristallnacht as a label.
@F_alk:
@F_alk:
So, if i find an official german book that says something about anything in US history, then that gives me the right to use that term… even if the whole of the US agrees that it is an “evil” and relativistic term?
No, because it is not only US History books that use this term to refer to that specific night.
Honestly: Have you ever seen a history book that is not from the US, or is this just an inspired guess?
Would you concede that GWB is an idiot, just because the world thinks so? Wasn’t it you to complain that the rest of the world doesn’t matter … why should i then give it any right to put a label on something? Especially, when obviously the world does not know where the word stems from. That’s where the “Trail of Tears” analogy fails, that label is a translation from Cherokee “Nunna daul Tsuny”. So using “trail of tears” is an argument FOR using the Jiddish Pogrom and not the Nazi Kristallnacht as a label.
Yea, it’s written into other European history books as kristollnacht as well as in the Russian texts. Changing it would have to be done by a general consensus of historians and even then might fail because everyone knows it by its German name, not its Jewish name.
I have no problem with children in schools being socialised to say the Pledge of Allegiance - I object vehemently to “under God” being included in the pledge
Why? This nation was founded by people who believed in God. Under God was instituted by Eisenhower to differentiate what our country stands for when we had the cold war with the aethiest Soviet Union. I think Under God works just fine. If this offends your sensitivities. Just don’t say it. Easy enough. Too bad some dummy always wants to get his 15 min. of fame by going to the courts. God help us all if we become a nation run by the courts. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
Rune Blade
“The Master of Debate”
@Rune:
I have no problem with children in schools being socialised to say the Pledge of Allegiance - I object vehemently to “under God” being included in the pledge
Why? This nation was founded by people who believed in God. Under God was instituted by Eisenhower to differentiate what our country stands for when we had the cold war with the aethiest Soviet Union. I think Under God works just fine. If this offends your sensitivities. Just don’t say it. Easy enough. Too bad some dummy always wants to get his 15 min. of fame by going to the courts. God help us all if we become a nation run by the courts. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
Rune Blade
“The Master of Debate”
It’s not so easy to “just don’t say it”. I’ve seen Jehova Witness kids ridiculed for not saying the pledge. Anytime you go against the majority, you set yourself up for ridicule, esp. among children. There is no reason to compell kids to say “Under God”. You’re pledging allegienace to America, not Jehova’s America.
Yea, it’s written into other European history books as kristollnacht as well as in the Russian texts.
Which countries apart from Russia ?
Changing it would have to be done by a general consensus of historians and even then might fail because everyone knows it by its German name, not its Jewish name.
Well, you now know both names. You can now decide which name to use: the name of the Nazis and murderers or the name Jews and victims.
You choice …
and the historians have made up their mind AFAIK, it is just that the inhabitants of some nations seem not to listen to what a majority of the rest of the world says.
@F_alk:
Yea, it’s written into other European history books as kristollnacht as well as in the Russian texts.
Which countries apart from Russia ?
Changing it would have to be done by a general consensus of historians and even then might fail because everyone knows it by its German name, not its Jewish name.
Well, you now know both names. You can now decide which name to use: the name of the Nazis and murderers or the name Jews and victims.
You choice …
and the historians have made up their mind AFAIK, it is just that the inhabitants of some nations seem not to listen to what a majority of the rest of the world says.
Your second statement could describe Germany as well as any other country, thus it is a bad statement, for your arguement.
Personally, I’ve always known it as Krystollnacht (or however it’s spelled) so I’ll refer to it by that name. At least I’ll know everyone I speak to knows what I am referring too, hardly anyone I’d actually talk to would know it by Progrome.
Krystollnacht (or however it’s spelled)…
As the spelling is correct here in this thread, and you were able to spell it correctly …. well …
Hooh Hah :).
