EBSB52 0 #76 November 29, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteI'd call it more "a return to our beginnings".... Care to elaborate on those beginnings? What exactly to you mean by that? (the public in GENERAL, please- I am not talking about any individual posters here) "Look at the change in society over the last (roughly) 30 years. " The reinstatement of cap pun in 1976, 28 years ago.... ya, what a wonderful thing. That puts us with China and Middle Eastern countries. Oh, and the execution of people that commit 1st degree murder as children (16 or 17) is hled only by a small handful of countries, one of which is the US. Even Russia and most of Europe don't execute any longer, but we do. I agree, the degradation of the US over the last 30 years. "The loss of the concepts of personal responsibility, ..." And that is a secular thing, not religious? Please, don't make me cite the failure of the Catholic Church as a direct result of molest-related bankruptcies and corruption. "...honor, ..." And only religious people have honor.... what a joke. "...glorification of drug use, ..." Who glorifies it? I despise drug use and am woring on a second degree, but I don't need Jebus and friends to do so. At the same time, I think drugs should be legalized, as most, virtually all drug-related crimes occur as a direct result of obtaining money as opposed to be a result of being influenced by drugs. "...denigration of religious people as "fundies"..." Ok, all that means is that the secular crowd refers to them as fundamentalists. If that's the biggest thing you have to worry about, semantic rhetoric, then I would go relax. And the religios/Christian folks call the seculars a bunch of Godless peole without direction. They say believing there isn't proof of a God is purposeful ignorance, so the rhetoric runs bith ways, hardly worth worrying about. "... and the fact that people as a whole just don't give a shit about anything except themselves anymore (the whole "me" generation)..." Religious folks are some of the most business-successful people in the US. When you say seculars don't give a crap, which I believe is the inference there, I would draw it across the spectrum. I'm not sure of your argument here, it seems more of a general dislike for secular people. "Then tell me that we're so much better off as a society." We have evolved/progressed in many ways, regressed in many ways too, and most of the regressions seemed to be based around moral fear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #77 November 29, 2004 >Look at the change in society over the last (roughly) 30 years. History is rarely as rosy as it is portrayed in popular media. Personal responsibility? Google what caused the 1929 stock market crash. Honor? Google the reason we entered the Spanish-American War and the Vietnam War. (Hint - both reasons were even worse than "Saddam has WMD's!") >glorification of drug use Hmm. In 1933, the most-abused drug ever was legalized in the US. The 60's did a lot to legitimize drug usage; there was a big pushback in the 80's that made it less cool to be a pothead. >the fact that people as a whole just don't give a shit about anything >except themselves anymore (the whole "me" generation)... Our foreign aid programs, the EPA, the Endangered Species act, the development of hybrid cars, alternative energy power generation, the CARB - all of these (fairly expensive) programs are for the good of society and the ecosphere as a whole, and most have come into being fairly recently. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Clownburner 0 #78 November 30, 2004 Quote Almost four centuries ago, the Pilgrims celebrated a harvest feast to thank God after suffering through a brutal winter. Forgive my (squirrelly) ignorance here, but doesn't the harvest come BEFORE winter?7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez "I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #79 November 30, 2004 Yeah, and he's also giving far too much credit to the Pilgrims. Fall festivals to thank the gods for a bountiful harvest have existed since the dawn of the agricultural age. Druids, Pagans, Greeks, Romans . . . they all did it. It just so happens that this particular festival we celebrate each year is unique in American as the commemoration of a specific one. So, shall we now speak of Christmas and Easter?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #80 November 30, 2004 Quote Oh, the beginnings you refer to are 30 years ago. How about going back a little further, say 207 years: The following wording is from a treaty signed by President Adams and ratified by the United States Senate in 1797 ARTICLE 11. As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. As I am sure you are aware, treaties become the supreme law of the land according to the US Constitution. Ok... and we're again back the original question: Please explain how President Bush or any member of government mentioning God is equivalent to "MAKING A LAW CONCERNING ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION" . Someone please explain this to me - I must evidently be one of those "below 100 IQ conservatives"...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #81 November 30, 2004 "I must evidently be one of those "below 100 IQ conservatives"... " Don't worry, you're not alone.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #82 November 30, 2004 QuoteOk... and we're again back the original question: Please explain how President Bush or any member of government mentioning God is equivalent to "MAKING A LAW CONCERNING ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION" . Someone please explain this to me - I must evidently be one of those "below 100 IQ conservatives"... Show us where in this thread Kallend has said that mentioning God is equivalent to "making a law concerning establishment of religion". Go back and read post 35 ish onwards – you will see that there are a series of posts stating that no one is suggesting Bush’s speech violates the First Amendment – people are allowed to have problems with it outside of it’s constitutional correctness. There are half a dozen posts saying things like “just because something’s allowed doesn’t mean it’s a good thing”. The only person you've had that argument with is EBSB52. Kallend's point is merely that notwithstanding the fact that the constitution does not mention the point - it's a shitty idea. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #83 November 30, 2004 What he said!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #84 November 30, 2004 Quote"Lieutenant Harbord died a British citizen serving in the American Army.... She was then presented with her brother's flag the proper fashion. " Nice story, a classy and dignified tribute. A fitting tribute to a brave man. mh . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
