Immigrants, Not Americans, Must Adapt

[JBMoney]

As of now, I do not know who the author of this is. I believe it was Warthog who originally passed it on to me, but he's not the author.
=====================================

IMMIGRANTS, NOT AMERICANS, MUST ADAPT.

I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Americans. However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the "politically correct" crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to America. Our population is almost entirely composed of descendants of immigrants. However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand.

This idea of America being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity.

As Americans, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.

We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!

"In God We Trust" is our national motto. This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.

If Stars and Stripes offend you, or you don't like Uncle Sam, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from.

This is OUR COUNTRY, our land, and our lifestyle.

Our First Amendment gives every citizen the right to express his opinion and we will allow you every opportunity to do so. But, once you are done complaining,whining, and griping about our flag, our pledge, our national motto, or our way of life, I highly encourage you to take advantage of one other great American freedom,

THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.

[Butterlugs]

I am so freaking sick of this balkanization that goes on in our nation as an outcome of diversity. Diversity police as enforced by the media and unversitatti assume that American culture and values are at best only equal to the values of other cultures let them be the first to leave.

I feel a rant comig on, so I'll sit down and be quiet and see if it passes.

[micron]

This is not unique to the states.
In Australia it has become a flaming plague.
e.g.In Melbourne they have Women only sessions at the city baths so as not to offend the moslem women.
We are officially not an Christian country so as not to offend other religions.
Schools have banned Christmas carols so as not to offend non christian cultures.
This is fair dinkum.:scary:

[Deamon]

I hate christianity, I hate the united states, I hate capitalism, I hate everything the majority of americans love, but I still believe, when in rome...

I'll bitch about it, but in private, I won't make a court case, I won't sing the national anthem sure, but I won't make a fuss about it. No country is perfect so they just need to stop complaining. Disagree with whatever the f*ck the goverment says, just don't force others to change because of it.

[scannady]

Here is a problem with the tripe contained in the above statement: asside from the isolationist dogma, it forgets that this is a country founded upon the Idea that church and state are seperate and that we have the right in this country to believe as we like including the right to disagree. If the author feels that these rights are not appropriate (which it seems he/she does) then maybe they should look for another place to live, like say China.

[Rguess21]

If you truely "hate" the USA, why in the world would you CHOOSE to stay. For, don't you see, this country that you professed to hate, still allows you the FREEDOM OF CHOICE to leave, unlike the communistic countries such as China, Cuba, etc. It seems to me that you might be just going for shock value, because alot of what you espoused in your second paragraph seems pretty contradictory to what you stated in the first. If this isn't the case, wouldn't you be happier if you did move to another county. And one other point to ponder, should you really disagree with whatever the government says, or just the part that you really don't feel is right, & work to change that part for the betterment of your fellow Americans.

As for myself, I will continue to pray for peace, global as well as inner. Never letting our guard down, but always willing to listen to varying opinions. In God We Trust.

:star: :star: :star: :star:

[Helja85]

Thank you so much - we're all descendants of immigrants and we've had to adapt - why on earth would people come here in the first place? It may be rough going at first but this is an equal opportunity country! If you live here and Don't believe that we trust in God - please never accept any U.S. currency!

[Pistol Pete]

I looked through my Word docs but couldn't find this piece, however I remember reading it from a news service. I believe it came from the editor of The Miami Herald. One other thing JB, your new text layout is GREAT!..underlines, italics and the whole business. Thanks. :D

[Deamon]

*reminds everyone that he intends to goto the ukraine when he gathers up enough money, but doubts china would allow him citizenship, so stop suggesting that :mad: *

[shotglass]

How much money does it take to go to the Ukraine?

And why would you think China won't take you? They'll let you in easily enough. Tell them you worked for Bill Klinton and you brought back the money they illegally funded Algore's campaign with. They'll love you!

[Bucko]

You know Deamon. I'd be happy to write you a check to pay for your ticket to the Ukraine. I'll even pay to have your capitalist goods sent over there so you can partially enjoy the lifestyle you're now accustomed to.

As long as you don't come back.

[Deamon]

I dunno how much it costs yet... but I'm going to england and france to mooch off some friends for a couple months first. It'll cost $500 or something dollars just to get to england and rent a car, but then I watch this show about russian jews going to israel for $350, and apparently thats their most cost effective way.. I still don't understand how it could cost that much, and I begin to think that these christians are keeping some money for themselves and decieving me! But it makes me wonder if my trip to europe will cost even more than that. Basically the plan is when I have a thousand dollars I'm leaving, and hey I never said life in a communist country was necessarily BETTER, just more convinient for a poor f*ck like me.

[Kimmy]

I'm not following what you're saying, Deamon. Are you saying that you think $350, 500 or 1000 dollars is a lot of money to get to the Ukraine and start a new life? Where do Christians come into the picture?

[Deamon]

It tried to make me figure how much it would cost to goto europe if it cost $350 minimum from russia to israel.
And to me 500 to 1000 dollars is alot.

[Kimmy]

Maybe instead of asking if you think that amount is a lot, I should have asked if you really think it is enough to travel and start a new life...but I'm afraid this is going entirely off topic.

[shotglass]

If a grand is a lot of money to you now, wait til you get to Europe. You will have to work 3 times harder for it because of the high taxation.

And once you settle into a communist nation, you will never see a grand again, because you will not be one of the political elites.

[Butterlugs]

If you haven't scraped up $500.00 in the time you've been posting here, then you must not work, which is often the cause of poverty,and directly related to not having the scratch to leave a country you dislike. Going to England to mooch off some friends sounds, puerile, obviously you don't intend to work. I'm sure you will be very welcome in their commune.

I still believe you are some other posters alter-ego and a put on ot all of us.

[micron]

Originally posted by Deamon
, and hey I never said life in a communist country was necessarily BETTER, just more convinient for a poor f*ck like me.
face it deamon it wont matter what country you reside in you will always be the loser in the corner whingeing because the world is unfair to you personally.In any given situation people will be supporting you and you will curse them all the way.
I would be embarrassed to be as hopeless as you even as an anonymous poster on the net.
Mao Tse Tung would despise you for your pathetic resignation to your intractable powerlessness.
Come on mate come good.

[jbrooks544]

Um... Your idiotic rant has more in common with the way communists ran their countries than with the spirit of the united states. I have some idea of what you are trying to say but you really put your foot in it. One of the most remarkable things about our country, culture and constitution is that we managed to keep religion SEPARATE from the government. One country that didn't do this was Afghanistan under the Taliban. Is that what you want us to be? It sure sounds like it. What you call for sounds more like a Taliban edict than something that makes our country great. Guess what? I'm an atheist. I'm every bit as patriotic as anyone else and I consider myself to have higher morals and less hypocracy than the majority of churchgoers. I think you should have the right to practice whatever religion you want, as long as you don't hurt anyone and don't try to impose it on me. Um,.. remember the f-in PILGRIMS that came here and started things? They were ESCAPING from an official, stifling government church. So were a lot of people that came here. You might be better off if you actually had an intelligent thought in your brain before proving to the world what an idiot you are...

[JBMoney]

Just as a heads up JBrooks, if that piece had actually been written by someone on this board you'd be getting a warning right now. We don't name-call on this board, or at least not if I catch it. We try to stick to attacking positions, not the person who expressed them.

However, I have no idea who wrote this and I posted it for the sake of discussion (high entertainment value), in the same way that I might post some left-winger article (although to be honest I'd probably do that less often, but it has happened).

Anyhow, just a heads up, not a rebuke. Either way though, calling the non-existent author an idiot will probably not be conducive to reasonable discussion. Wouldn't be the first time things got off topic though, in fact, I think it did before you got here. ;)

[wrecker05]

JB as best as I can tell, I believe a man named Gordon Watt wrote this. If I'm not mistaken it was a letter to the editor maybe a Tampa paper. I'm not 100% sure though.

[shotglass]

Originally posted by Deamon
...disagree with whatever the f*ck the goverment says, just don't force others to change because of it.

The problem, D, is that the government forces others to change all the time. Every time they pass a law, someone, or many someones, are forced to abide by the new law. Examples?

Tax increases: You now have less money after working all week, and you must adjust your lifestyle accordingly.

Environmental laws: Drop a teaspoon of water on your land, and some bureaucrat declares it a wetland, wiping out any value it had and they don't pay you for it. Piss off some enviro-whacko and they claim you have an endangered species of poop-eating bacteria. The feds kick you off your land and won't even let you cut the grass. Don't laugh, this has been done before.

Campaign finance reform: Eliminated free speech 60 days before an election. Of course, this one will be struck down when/if it hits the Supreme Court.

See what I mean?

[Eddy's Geist]

Hey, I'll leave th US and go to the Ukraine for 40,000 dollars. Anygot it? I'll even throw in a life time free pass to Ed's House of Ukraine Harlots. Oh yeah, I'll throw in a few drink vouchers too!

[Rguess21]

How bout 40,000 rupies, and do ya have any pictures of exactly what ya'd be gettin on those free passes ? Don't want ta be buyin a pig in a poke, ya know. Or is that bein a capitialist pig ?

[samm]

This is OUR COUNTRY, our land, and our lifestyle.

Our First Amendment gives every citizen the right to express his opinion and we will allow you every opportunity to do so. But, once you are done complaining,whining, and griping about our flag, our pledge, our national motto, or our way of life, I highly encourage you to take advantage of one other great American freedom,

THE RIGHT TO LEAVE. [/B][/QUOTE]

As an Australian who also lives in a very multi cultural society I couldnt agree more I am clueless to understand why ppl come to our countries they do everything they can to reproduce here exactly what they have come from. Mostly I feel sorry for the children who are then forced in this new country of freedom to live like there parents did in the old country.

[hobartimus]

Unfortunately, my cousin is circulating this same article. We ended having a pretty major debate over it. She was unable to defend her stance in any way. Pretty much to expected.

I am sure some of my thoughts are questionable, but I wanted to share anyway. The text in bold is their view--this includes my cousins comments. Mine are plain text.

<b>I happen to AGREE 100%...May the LORD Bless those whom stand by HIM and continue to choose America the Blessed Land of choice.</b>

America the Blessed Land of choice? Gimme a break!
Is this meant to imply that this God's chosen land and those who rightfully belong here have some special place in the kingdom of God?

<b>Will we still be the Country of choice and still be America if we continue to make the changes forced on us by the people from other countries that came to live in America because it is the Country of Choice ???????? Think about it...</b>

I'm pretty sure this country was built on people coming from other countries and forcing changes on the current inhabitants of the time.

<b>All I have to say is, when will they do something about MY RIGHTS? I celebrate Christmas, but because it isn't celebrated by everyone, we can no longer say Merry Christmas. Now it has to be Season's Greetings. It's not Christmas vacation, it's Winter Break. Isn't it amazing how this winter break ALWAYS occurs over the Christmas holiday ?? We've gone so far the other way, bent over backwards to not offend anyone, that I am now being offended. But it seems that no one has a problem with that.</b>

<b>This says it all!</b>

That winter break happens to occur about the same time as several other religious holidays (Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Ramadan, for example). Granted, most of us celebrate Christmas. Saying "Merry Christmas" should be perfectly acceptable, so long as you don't have a fit when some says "Happy Hanakkah" to you--which is what most so-called Christians I know would be apt to do. I think the key is not to restrict anyone's freedom of expression--until those expressions begin to oppress the freedom of others to express opposing views.

<b>After hearing that the state of Florida changed its opinion and let a Muslim woman have her picture on her driver's license with her face covered this is an editorial written by an American citizen, published in a Tampa newspaper. He did quite a job; didn't he? Read on, please!</b>

Agreed. That is a case of public safety--not personal freedom.

<b>IMMIGRANTS, NOT AMERICANS, MUST ADAPT. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Americans. However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the "politically correct" crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others.</b>

I believe the bigger concern is not in offending others, so much as the fact the many christians deemed the Koran a book of evil. Read the Holy Bible, there is just as much anger and hate in the old testament as in any other religious scripture. Yeah, the politically correct crowd is just as misguided the "compassionate conservative." But, I think there was more fuss over the fact that after 911 the government tried to tear down much personal privacy in the name of national security. And still, the Homeland Security Department is practically non-existent--except for those color charts.

<b>I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to America. Our population is almost entirely made up of descendants of immigrants. However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand. This idea of America being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Americans, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.</b>

<b>We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!</b>

I was with you up until the part of us having "Our own culture, etc." Consider that we got our culture by tearing down the one that already existed here. And we did it through violence and treachery. We destroyed an entire nation to build one which destroys itself more and more every day. Of course we want to maintain our own culture--that is human nature. I feel the same way about wanting immigrants to be the ones who adapt. But, my question is this, since we got where we are by forcing others to adapt, and there is a good chance those here before us did the same thing, who is to say that we are ultimately the "right" ones? Based on the tone of your article, I would think you believe God has granted us some sort of authority as Americans.

<b>"In God We Trust" is our national motto. This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.</b>

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
--George Washington

Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man.
--Thomas Jefferson

God grant that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man may pervade all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say: "This is my country."
--Benjamin Franklin

If you are one to force your religious views on anyone who wants to make their home here, then I suggest YOU find another part of the world in which to live. I suspect one without freedom of religion should suit you just fine.

<b>If Stars and Stripes offend you, or you don't like Uncle Sam, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. This is OUR COUNTRY, our land, and our lifestyle. Our First Amendment gives every! citizen the right to express his opinion and we will allow you every opportunity to do so. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about our flag, our pledge, our national motto, or our way of life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great American freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.</b>

Seems you are whining that others would like to be allowed to think for themselves. I'm absolutely certain that this country--this earth--would be a much better place without fascists such as you. You have proven in your little rant that you are about as anti-American as is humanly possible. Using the the First Amendment to claim that your beliefs are superior than those who oppose you? Claiming that in a system with ideal intentions, yet imperfect implementation, the "blessed few" can determine the rights of others. Please.

<b>If you agree -- pass this along; if you don't agree -- delete it!</b>

<b>I figure if we all keep passing this to our friends (and enemies) it will also, sooner or later get back to the complainers, lets all try, please</b>

<b>No God - No Peace. Know God - Know Peace.</b>

Hw dare you make any claim to knowing God. I am positive that if you had been alive in the time of Christ, you would have eagerly hammered the first nail. He did teach everything you seem to be opposed to. You are nowhere near peace. You promote separatism and are merely a self-righteous, propagandist.

Of course, I'm sure I have wasted my time with this reply. You are obviously incapable of reason.

:alien:

That's about it. I don't think my cousin will speak to me again. Probably a good thing.

[Sling Blade]

Ummm, I like god, UmmmmHmmmm.

[hobartimus]

Originally posted by Sling Blade
Ummm, I like god, UmmmmHmmmm.

Me too...except when those darned christians are involved. :hehe:

[Sling Blade]

Originally posted by hobartimus
Me too...except when those darned christians are involved. :hehe:

Ummmm, I like christians , UmmmmHmmm, they bring me Mustard samich's on sunday, UmmmmHmmm.

[jillamanda]

Alot of the stuff I'd like to say on this issue has been debated in this thread

http://bushwhacked.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5882

so I won't go over old ground.

During the 50s and 60s in Australia, Britons were given assisted passage to this country because we needed more people. 'Ten pound immigrants' they were known as. They are now known as 'whinging poms'. They complained about EVERYTHING!!! Now we have asylum seekers who do the same, only worse because the UN somehow feels it should be involved, just as they do with our internal politics. We had Vietnamese 'boat people' in the 70s and 80s - arriving by the thousands. Prior to that, we didn't have a significant heroin problem in this country.....now we have a major one. I've heard all the arguments about how they survive the best way they can etc, but it's all bullshit. We now have a special 'Asian Squad' attached to state and federal police forces, yet all the left wingers say that the Vietnamese haven't contributed to this. I've been to the Vietnamese suburbs in Melbourne - heroin dealers are EVERYWHERE,in fact they actually initiate contact. Along with corruption in the police force, it's a huge problem. We now have a generation of young Aussies who are heroin addicts, if they aren't already dead.
The current crop of middle eastern asylum seekers seem to feel that although they arrived here through the back door, they don't have to go through all the normal procedures. They are housed in 'detention centres' for processing and they are provided with everything - they even have computers so they can access the net. Last week, in one detention centre, some of the detainees decided to hold a protest by climbing onto the roof of one of the buildings there. Whilst doing this, the 16 year old son of one of them cut his face on barbed wire - and all of a sudden it's our fault. They've done stuff like sewing their lips together as a protest. This sort of action doesn't wash with most Aussies.
I don't care who comes here as long as they're prepared to assimilate and take up an Aussie lifestyle, after all, isn't that why they chose this country in the first place? Let them keep their religion, as long as it doesn't impinge on anyone else's right to theirs. As far as Muslims go, I'm sick of hearing Muslim women complain about people staring at them. Of course we stare, we never used to see people walking around in long flowing robes that cover their heads and faces. It's a normal human reaction. If I went to their country wearing the sort of clothes I normally wear, I'd probably be incarcerated. I think as a nation, we're bloody tolerant, but tolerance has a limit........

[hobartimus]

If that was in response to my post, then read my post again. I never said anything about "limits" on immigration and personal freedoms. I actually agreed with the stance on the driver's license issue, which was an issue of public safety--not personal freedom. I also admit that I too don't want to be forced to adapt or accomodate the cultural preferences of others--but that is human nature--animal nature too. My problem was with the selective truths (and some lies) the guy used to make his point--which is pretty typical of most radicals, left or right. All he did was fuel the the ditto-headed "saved" and white supremists. He has no grip on reality and his rant only serves to make things worse. If he had a real point to make, he would have attempted to do something productive for change. Instead, he chose to stir things up and get all his mindless comrades to spread a hate email which serves no purpose. Better to get viagra spam, in my opinion.

[jillamanda]

....are you talking to me?....

[hobartimus]

thought you were talking to me?

[jillamanda]

Originally posted by hobartimus
I also admit that I too don't want to be forced to adapt or accomodate the cultural preferences of others--but that is human nature--animal nature too.

I have to disagree with you there. Animals in the wild will not accommodate the 'cultural preferences' of others. They establish their own territories, friends and enemies, and fiercely guard and control their own 'patch' - for generation after generation....Think about this - maybe there are different 'species' of humans who just aren't meant to get along, and try as we might, it will never happen. In the grand scheme of things, it might be a survival of the fittest scenario - we let them in in vast numbers, they eat us...

[jillamanda]

Originally posted by hobartimus
thought you were talking to me?

No, I was just putting in my 10c worth...

[hobartimus]

Originally posted by jillamanda
I have to disagree with you there. Animals in the wild will not accommodate the 'cultural preferences' of others. They establish their own territories, friends and enemies, and fiercely guard and control their own 'patch' - for generation after generation....Think about this - maybe there are different 'species' of humans who just aren't meant to get along, and try as we might, it will never happen. In the grand scheme of things, it might be a survival of the fittest scenario - we let them in in vast numbers, they eat us...

Seems there is a serious miscommunication here. I said "I do not want to be forced to adapt to the cultural preferences of others--that's just human nature--animal nature too." People, by nature, act in much the same way as animals in the wild--only on a different level. I think you misread my statement--I said what you are saying.

The idea of different "species" of humans is an interesting way to put it. Never thought of it that way before, but it makes sense. Just like diferent species of snakes, or spiders, or canines. My only problem with that theory is in what drives us as humans. Most cultures are based--to some extend--in their religion. (or at least we tend to use our religion in our defense) And most scripture, regardless of how different in terms of "ritual", teaches the same or similar fundamental principles. Read the Christian Bible, the Toa de Ching, or the Koran--very different, but fundamentally similar. It is through personal interpretation that things get twisted. As in the original "IMMIGRANTS, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH..." article. That guy used God in his defense, and there is no evidence that his references had any historical background. Actually, he didn't have any references--he just said that's the way it is. Period. He also made it clear that he believes "American Christians" have some special superiority over those who disagree. So let's just say that we stole this land from the native Americans, who probably stole it from those before them, and so on. This is not to say I would not defend my home. But, how could I claim that I am ultimately the rightful inhabitant when those trying taking it away are doing exactly what "my people" did so long ago?

I agree that "survival of the fittest" is right on the money. But, I take issue with the how people tend to make a clear distinction between man and animal. I believe we do function in terms of survial, just as wild animals. But, I also believe that if humans are truly superior, we should be better equipped to reason for the good of the whole. After all, you can find the same traits in the animal world as in mankind (i.e., toolmaking, affection, war, rape, murder, politics, learning, etc.) It is merely on a diferent level. So, my question would be this: if we are superior, then why are we the ones who, in general, are incapable of reason and destroy everything around us? I think that animals would act in much the same way if they had the same capacity to do so.

Anyway, we are waaay off the subject now. The original article that has been circulating basically claimed that "American Christians" are ultimately right. The author even claimed that it is "clearly documented" that America was founded by Christian people, on Christian principles. That is historically incorrect. Most, if not all, of our founding fathers were Diests. They believed in Chrisitanity as expressed through the Bible in the teachings of Jesus. They did not believe in the perversions of those teachings as taught by the self-proclaimed "saved".

So anyway...:alien:

[Eddy's Geist]

What's really bad is that one would think that American Born Agains would have at least some embarrassment at these kinds of articles.

And I thought I should be slightly shamed for wanting a copy of "Triumph of the Will" on WIDE-SCREEN DVD...

(Damn, I STILL haven't gotten a wide-screen TV...hmm... )

[hobartimus]

Yeah, kinda like how George W specifically sez Jesus is his favorite philosopher. Yet, his every action would indicate he's never peeked into the new testament.

[gopsdragon]

Hobartimus-
I just have to ask Are you ignorant of American history? or are you just banking on the fact that most people are ignorant of American history and, therefore, won't be able to refute you?

Originally posted by hobartimus
Most cultures are based--to some extend--in their religion. (or at least we tend to use our religion in our defense) And most scripture, regardless of how different in terms of "ritual", teaches the same or similar fundamental principles. Read the Christian Bible, the Toa de Ching, or the Koran--very different, but fundamentally similar. It is through personal interpretation that things get twisted. As in the original "IMMIGRANTS, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH..." article. That guy used God in his defense, and there is no evidence that his references had any historical background. Actually, he didn't have any references--he just said that's the way it is. Period. He also made it clear that he believes "American Christians" have some special superiority over those who disagree.

Christianity basically says if you believe in anybody else you're going to hell. Pretty exclusive and this literal translation of the Bible is exactly what the Calvinists who populated this country believed in whether they were Congregationalists like Samuel Adams or Presbyterians like Patrick Henry.

So when one talks of the culture of the United States, it is replete with the beliefs of a strict Calvinism regardless of denomination. Regardless of the rhetoric of post supreme court decisions, that was the cauldron in which our culture was formed. That point is undeniable and overwhelming, so to say the author doesn't provide historical background is comparable to criticizing a sports columnist for praising Tiger Woods as an athlete when no attempt was ever made to prove golf is a sport.

Maybe you don't agree golf is a sport any more than you agree the Calvinists were right, but to pretend you don't understand the point the author is making reeks of pure propaganda and reliance on the reader's ignorance. And judging from another post you've made that is exactly what you do.

Originally posted by hobartimus
The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. --George Washington

Take this in context. The government of the United States at that time was not centralized the way it is today. The underlying premises were clearly the Calvinist and Whig beliefs of the day, which is why the government was so limited. The federal government wasn't given the power to deal with anything within the moral realm, which is where the no establishment clause came from- the federal government was specifically prohibited from enacting a religion so the state governments could continue to endorse theirs.

Originally posted by hobartimus
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man.--Thomas Jefferson"

It is well known that Jefferson didn't hate Christianity; he hated the way it was implemented by church structures. Taking the whole Jefferson and not one quote out of context (which many seem to do when they want Jefferson to do their work for them), Jefferson is talking of the way men have implemented Christianity such as the Anglican persecution of the Presbyterians, which is why he joined with Madison to write the religious freedom laws in the old commonwealth. I also notice you conviently left out Madison when dealing with Deism since it was the father of the Constitution that said the ability of our government to work relied on the ability of the people to govern themselves by the Ten Commandments.

Originally posted by hobartimus
The original article that has been circulating basically claimed that "American Christians" are ultimately right. The author even claimed that it is "clearly documented" that America was founded by Christian people, on Christian principles. That is historically incorrect. Most, if not all, of our founding fathers were Diests.

Simply not true. Thomas Paine, Post-revolutionary France Jefferson, and Ben Franklin don't make up the most.

On the other hand, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry and John Witherspoon not only were devout Calvinists, they had a great following and great control within their respective states and delegations.

[hobartimus]

It is well known that Jefferson didn't hate Christianity; he hated the way it was implemented by church structures.

I absolutely acknowledge that Jefferson believed in Christian principles as expressed in the Bible through the teachings of Jesus. But, I'm pretty sure he continuously expressed opposition to the way man has manipulated Christianity to serve his own needs through the church--as you stated. I guess I am at fault for not elaborating, though my intention was merely to make it clear that the author only wanted to see things from one angle and I tried to present the other.

The government of the United States at that time was not centralized the way it is today. The underlying premises were clearly the Calvinist and Whig beliefs of the day, which is why the government was so limited. The federal government wasn't given the power to deal with anything within the moral realm, which is where the no establishment clause came from- the federal government was specifically prohibited from enacting a religion so the state governments could continue to endorse theirs.

Yeah, but the guy who wrote the article would lead you to beleive that the government WAS centralized and that they DID dictate the religious values of the country.

Simply not true. Thomas Paine, Post-revolutionary France Jefferson, and Ben Franklin don't make up the most.

On the other hand, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry and John Witherspoon not only were devout Calvinists, they had a great following and great control within their respective states and delegations.

I guess I am wrong about the Diesm. But, at least I can admit it. Try to get that from someone who is circulating this article.

So, correct me if I am wrong, but I think Calvanism is a system of biblical interpretation that focuses on the supreme sovereignty of God, with the belief that salvation is the work of God and we are the mere recipients of His gracious election. If so, how does that make this guy's point any more valid? To me, he seemed to be speaking from a church standpoint and not that of the new testament (christianity if you believe it to be the teachings of Christ). I don't no much about Calvanism, but I would equate it maybe more to old testament than the new (where Christianity comes from) yet this guy specifically claims that as Americans we should be Christians. I think your point actually supports mine--which is simply that the author tries to make it seem that the "official" religion of America was dictated by the founding fathers. I was always under the impression that the country was founded at least partly for freedom of religion? Maybe just wishful thinking?

I also notice you conviently left out Madison when dealing with Deism since it was the father of the Constitution that said the ability of our government to work relied on the ability of the people to govern themselves by the Ten Commandments.

Geez. We could go on all day with details. And we could very well find proof of anything which might support most arguements. But, what does the ten commandments have to do with Christianity anyway? Wasn't it in the old testament? The Christian "church" maybe, but not Christian principles.

And, how does proving golf as a sport in any way align with the specific claim the author makes about the Christian foundation of America? The author attempted to state it as an absolute fact . Quite unlike the idea that golf may not be a sport because it is unproven. God may not exist because it is unproven. Me thinks this is way off-track.

I will willingly admit that I do not know everything about American history--some of the things I say may very well be inaccurate. But, unlike the author of that article, I am willing to question things and attempt to learn. In any case, my problem with the article is that the author makes it clear that he beleives every one has the right to express their opinion, but unless you are a Christian and an American your opinions do not count. He makes that point pretty darn clear. And that, in my opinion, is a truly anti-American point of view.

It's one thing to take issue with things such as the Florida driver's license case--a matter of public saftey. But, to say you're either with us or against with such bold generalizations as he did? That's pretty sick.

[jillamanda]

This is all a bit beyond me, with my rudimentary knowledge of American history - I just wanted to give my opinion on the refugee issue. But just for the record, as a devoted agnostic, I refuse to accept anything written in the bible (and I have read it, just so I could argue with Jehovah's Witnesses when they knocked on my door).

Here too, we're called 'invaders', we're presumably living on someone else's land etc. Well, we've paid our dues (and more than our fair share of rent), and as far as I'm concerned, this is my country, and I've paid for the privelege of owning it. I vote, I pay my taxes and I should have a say who moves into my house. Furthermore, I should be given the opportunity to question the reasons for people wanting to move into my house. AND if I don't get along with whoever it is who's moved into my house, I should have the right to ask them to leave. AND if they break the rules of the lease, I should have the right to send them back to from whence they came.......

[hobartimus]

No doubt...you have put it in better words than I did. I suppose my mistake was trying to make examples, for which there will always be an opposing example.

I think I made it clear that I too would not want to be forced to adapt to the "invading" culture--but that is a natural reaction--survival instinct, if you will. For example, as a business owner, I would not be willing to hire someone based on racial quota. I make no argument favoring forced cultural change. However, everything we have has been built through adaptation and change. So, my question to the author of the article is simply, "what is it in their beliefs that makes them so certain the American Christian has ultimate authority?" as he would have us believe?

To me, the email was just a good example of why there is so much hate--and was of no more value to me than porn SPAM in my inbox. The author, and those who circulate it, have no regard for the possibility that you are agnostic, or that I was raised Catholic, am surrounded by Southern Baptists, but I really just try to look at things for what they are and not for what any religion dictates.

[jillamanda]

Yep, I totally agree. I laughed the first time I ever had to 'swear on the bible' for something. I remember saying to the Clerk of Courts, that I could lie as much as I wanted to because it was just another book to me. He said it didn't matter, I still had to do it. Then he told me they use them as doorstops and in another country courthouse, the legs of the table were too short, so they used bibles to add a couple of inches......( and we're both still alive and kicking ,by the way - no hellsfire and damnation, no plague......nuttin':shrug: )

[gopsdragon]

Originally posted by hobartimus
I absolutely acknowledge that Jefferson believed in Christian principles as expressed in the Bible through the teachings of Jesus. But, I'm pretty sure he continuously expressed opposition to the way man has manipulated Christianity to serve his own needs through the church--as you stated. I guess I am at fault for not elaborating, though my intention was merely to make it clear that the author only wanted to see things from one angle and I tried to present the other.

Well trying to present the other side is different than saying that wasn't our culture. While you might believe the other side and even sympathize with it, the view of Thomas Paine was very much a minority in that day and time. (On the issue of Deism vs. a still involved God.)

It would be no different than if two hundred years from now someone were writing on the death penalty and showed how we had always been against it. I could find quotes against it, even from credible people with reputations, but that wouldn't mean that a majority of society of even a majority of politicians were against it. Clearly, two hundred years from now it would be incorrect to say we were anti-death penalty and completely correct for an author to say we were strongly in favor of the death penalty and that was a part of the culture of the time. So while there is dissent, there is definitely a consensus.

So while you may not agree with the consensus of the time, that is completely different than saying the author is historically incorrect when in fact he is correct.



Originally posted by hobartimus
Yeah, but the guy who wrote the article would lead you to beleive that the government WAS centralized and that they DID dictate the religious values of the country.

I guess I missed that part. I don't know he was talking as much about centralized government as much as the consensus of thought in all the states at the time. The main dissenters to our way of doing things (e.g. the revolution) were the Quakers in Pennsylvania which is why the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians along with some German Lutherans played the promenient role in Pennsylvania military affairs.



Originally posted by hobartimus
I guess I am wrong about the Diesm. But, at least I can admit it. Try to get that from someone who is circulating this article.


Originally posted by hobartimus
So, correct me if I am wrong, but I think Calvanism is a system of biblical interpretation that focuses on the supreme sovereignty of God, with the belief that salvation is the work of God and we are the mere recipients of His gracious election. If so, how does that make this guy's point any more valid? To me, he seemed to be speaking from a church standpoint and not that of the new testament (christianity if you believe it to be the teachings of Christ). I don't no much about Calvanism, but I would equate it maybe more to old testament than the new (where Christianity comes from) yet this guy specifically claims that as Americans we should be Christians. I think your point actually supports mine--which is simply that the author tries to make it seem that the "official" religion of America was dictated by the founding fathers. I was always under the impression that the country was founded at least partly for freedom of religion? Maybe just wishful thinking?

I wouldn't say wishful thinking, but that we are all educated in a post Darwinist interpretation of American history.

While we didn't have an official federal religion, we did have official state religions, which is one of the reasons why Virginia was so able to persecute Presbyterians with the means of state power, since Virginia was officially Anglican.

I don't know every theological point of Calvinism but it seems with one exception your above summary is correct.

Again, I think we are a victim of our times and to truly understand what they were thinking we have to look from their viewpoint and not ours. When you draw a distinction between Christianity and the Old Testament, that again is a product of today and certain Evangelical Christians trying to dump the old fire and brimstone God in order to get modern man to accept Christianity.

However, taking the New Testament in its entirety, evangelical Christians seem to overemphasize only certain parts of the New Testament (hence in this instance I'm with Jefferson on the damage organized religion does to Christianity). Lost in this interpretation (which was not likely a part of the old fire and brimstone Calvanism, but I could be wrong) is when Jesus said "I come not to destroy the law but fulfill it." He went on to say he brings a sword. The clear implication of that is a connection to the old testament that many modern churchgoers discount because of the grace doctrine of Christianity, but it is a lopsided view the old Calvinist wouldn't have shared. If anything, they were more lopsided to the fire and brimstone than the grace. Obviously if Jesus came to fulfill the law, the law would still be in order with only the amendments Jesus made. (Sacrifice, diet, etc.) If this is the case, then clearly it would consider the old testament as relevant as the new, which I think is your point. My point is if this is the understanding of the culture this guy had is that it's not so much incorrect as it is that you find it unpalatable. That however is a different and probably far more heated argument.



Originally posted by hobartimus
Geez. We could go on all day with details. And we could very well find proof of anything which might support most arguements. But, what does the ten commandments have to do with Christianity anyway? Wasn't it in the old testament? The Christian "church" maybe, but not Christian principles.

And, how does proving golf as a sport in any way align with the specific claim the author makes about the Christian foundation of America? The author attempted to state it as an absolute fact . Quite unlike the idea that golf may not be a sport because it is unproven. God may not exist because it is unproven. Me thinks this is way off-track.

For the ten commandments question I would refer you to the above and how they viewed things at that time. As for golf it was simply an analogy of your argumentation.

If I say Tiger Woods is a great athlete, you could easily dismiss the argument by not addressing it and saying there is no way Woods is a great athlete because golf isn't a sport. Even though by most categorizations golf is a sport, we could argue that but even then it wouldn't address whether or not Woods is a great golfer. I don't need to go back over that ground to prove golf is a sport because we know generally it is categorized that way. (By the way, for clarification, golf is not a sport it is a recreation.)

In the same way, you didn't address the merits of whether or not the author was right on the basis of his argument. You instead said the Christian climate that is a given was incorrect, when clearly it was. You would still understand the argument of Calvinism even if not stated, in the same way you would understand the argument for athlete even if sport wasn't stated.

Originally posted by hobartimus
I will willingly admit that I do not know everything about American history--some of the things I say may very well be inaccurate. But, unlike the author of that article, I am willing to question things and attempt to learn. In any case, my problem with the article is that the author makes it clear that he beleives every one has the right to express their opinion, but unless you are a Christian and an American your opinions do not count. He makes that point pretty darn clear. And that, in my opinion, is a truly anti-American point of view.

It's one thing to take issue with things such as the Florida driver's license case--a matter of public saftey. But, to say you're either with us or against with such bold generalizations as he did? That's pretty sick.

Well, let me hit you with an example then. Suppose a group in this country came in and said, "You not allowed to have free political speech, etc." Would you not think that is un-American? Yet that is exactly what is happening in this country. You can say anything you want except...except...except...except... This should be a troubling pattern. In this pattern is ok to offend Christians, whites, anybody who buys into the American culture. Part of attacking that American culture is attacking the ideals we built this country on (whether we slightly misinterpret the details or not, the basics are the same).

Why is it then so unthinking for someone to say, "If this culture and country are so offensive to you, go back to where you like it?" Is it unnatural for people who have built a way a life to give it up just because other people from other cultures come into our country and belittle ours? If we have no standards, balkanization is here. Without the ability to find common ground there is no country, and countries have always been founded on a culture, which is why we must defend ours. And every culture as you mentioned earlier is based upon a religion. Without a culture, we don't have a viable country. And then what would that make us - we'd just be Canada south at that point.

Maybe the guy didn't go through an extensive explanation, but in a letter to the editor you only have so many words the editor will allow.

[hobartimus]

Hey, you're pretty smart!

But, still as guilty as me or anyone else for selective reasoning. If you read my entire post, you would have seen my initial disclaimer...
I am sure some of my thoughts are questionable, but I wanted to share anyway.

You said:
Why is it then so unthinking for someone to say, "If this culture and country are so offensive to you, go back to where you like it?" Is it unnatural for people who have built a way a life to give it up just because other people from other cultures come into our country and belittle ours? If we have no standards, balkanization is here. Without the ability to find common ground there is no country, and countries have always been founded on a culture, which is why we must defend ours. And every culture as you mentioned earlier is based upon a religion. Without a culture, we don't have a viable country. And then what would that make us - we'd just be Canada south at that point.

But, if you read what I said here...
I think I made it clear that I too would not want to be forced to adapt to the "invading" culture--but that is a natural reaction--survival instinct, if you will. For example, as a business owner, I would not be willing to hire someone based on racial quota. I make no argument favoring forced cultural change. However, everything we have has been built through adaptation and change. So, my question to the author of the article is simply, "what is it in their beliefs that makes them so certain the American Christian has ultimate authority?" as he would have us believe?

...then, I think you'd see that we are in agreement on the general matter of immigration and protection of what one claims as their own. But, I simply don't believe this guy's rant was so much about protecting established culture as it was about spreading propogada endorsing authoritive control of American Christianity. I think he was playing on the people who like "them fightin' words" and prefer to spread something like this without question, rather than make any attempt to learn. --but that's just my take on it.

Maybe all my facts were not straight, but at least I make the effort to learn. I submitted the same post to a Christian bulletin board that was praising the original article. The moderator simply emailed me saying that there was no way those quotes could be real. He said, and I quote, "those men never said that, they were devout Christians." That is what I have a problem with. It is a far cry from the way you rightfully question the context of the quotes.

Also, the author said:
But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about our flag, our pledge, our national motto, or our way of life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great American freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.


Since you seem to be very well educated in history, am I really wrong in thinking that part of the freedom we fought for was religious freedom? And that if I choose to think for myself instead of buying into the American Christian way, then I should leave? That is essentially what I get from the article.

However, taking the New Testament in its entirety, evangelical Christians seem to overemphasize only certain parts of the New Testament (hence in this instance I'm with Jefferson on the damage organized religion does to Christianity). Lost in this interpretation (which was not likely a part of the old fire and brimstone Calvanism, but I could be wrong) is when Jesus said "I come not to destroy the law but fulfill it." He went on to say he brings a sword. The clear implication of that is a connection to the old testament that many modern churchgoers discount because of the grace doctrine of Christianity, but it is a lopsided view the old Calvinist wouldn't have shared. If anything, they were more lopsided to the fire and brimstone than the grace. Obviously if Jesus came to fulfill the law, the law would still be in order with only the amendments Jesus made. (Sacrifice, diet, etc.) If this is the case, then clearly it would consider the old testament as relevant as the new, which I think is your point. My point is if this is the understanding of the culture this guy had is that it's not so much incorrect as it is that you find it unpalatable. That however is a different and probably far more heated argument.


Regarding anything in the Bible, I haven't read all of it, but I've read enough to be pretty sure that for every point made there is probably a contradiction to be found within those same pages.

To get back to the point, I'm not certain about this, but I think "E Pluribus Unum" (Latin for "From Many, One") was the motto proposed for the first Great Seal of the United States to offer a statement of the American determination to form a single nation from a collection of states. Wasn't it changed to "In God We Trust" during the McCarthy "Atheist Commie Bastards" witch hunt? No doubt you will be able to prove me wrong. But, I am trying to find some evidence that the equality and freedom this country claims to represent actually exists.

The thing is, I can respect your arguments because you can back them. But, the people circulating that email--at least the ones I've received it from--simply don't want to be questioned. They have the "we're right, and if we're not, we're gonna make so we are" mentality.

[gopsdragon]

Originally posted by hobartimus
I simply don't believe this guy's rant was so much about protecting established culture as it was about spreading propogada endorsing authoritive control of American Christianity. I think he was playing on the people who like "them fightin' words" and prefer to spread something like this without question, rather than make any attempt to learn. --but that's just my take on it.

Food for thought since I hear that a lot. Since this theology is the basis for the religious freedom we have, does it necessarily have to be endorsing an authoritative control; or could it be part of stereotyping these people; or maybe it is simply something like these people are making an emotional argument rather than an articulate one?

Originally posted by hobartimus
Maybe all my facts were not straight, but at least I make the effort to learn. I submitted the same post to a Christian bulletin board that was praising the original article. The moderator simply emailed me saying that there was no way those quotes could be real. He said, and I quote, "those men never said that, they were devout Christians." That is what I have a problem with. It is a far cry from the way you rightfully question the context of the quotes.

:( It doesn't do much to advance good conversation. Frankly, I think people are so afraid if they were wrong on one thing, then all their arguments are invalidated. I think you're argument is strengthened by giving ground. I won't tell you every founder was a Christian just the way you are willing to admit maybe not every founder was a Deist. There were differences of opinion then the way there are now, so I can't really answer for those guys.


Originally posted by hobartimus
Since you seem to be very well educated in history, am I really wrong in thinking that part of the freedom we fought for was religious freedom? And that if I choose to think for myself instead of buying into the American Christian way, then I should leave? That is essentially what I get from the article.

No not wrong. We just have a different understanding now than then. For instance what they called "religion" then, many of us would call denominations now. So while you can read Jefferson and he goes all the way to freedom of religion for Mahometans (think that's the way he spelt it) a lot of founders did not. Specific states had restrictions on holding office if you didn't admit the trinity, etc.

For instance today I was looking at the original 1777 Vermont Consitution. Right #3 is "natural and unalienable right to worship ALMIGHTY GOD, according to the dictates..." but it goes on to say "nor can any man who professes the protestant religion, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right..." http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/organic/1777-vdr.htm

Obviously, this deprives Catholics of those protections. This constitution was written only three years after riots protesting the fact that the King had declared Catholicism as the religion of Quebec (right over the Vermont border.)

So while there was not a doctrine like we have in other countries of killing people of other denominations (that would be unChristian LOL) there was still a major distrust because Catholicism was associated with a top down structure like the English monarchy.

Because so many Calvinists came hear to be free they respected the idea of religious freedom and eventually all the states got rid of their official religions, but not the absolute version we recognize today. So the absolute "separation of church and state" doctrine that we know today is a creation of the Supreme Court taking a Jefferson letter out of context and not the original understanding of the Bill of Rights.

Nobody wants to be persecuted for their religion and I do believe that is one of the main reasons we fought. It gets tricky however when another religion mutually exclusive of yours comes in. How do two mutually exclusive religions exist in the same culture? Such as Islam and Christianity.

With as distasteful as it is to most Americans, you can't have two religions as the basis for your culture, which means even if by default one will get preferential treatment over the other.

For example, if you have a small school district with a limited budget and they serve pork chops, someone could file a lawsuit if he was an observant Jew. But should the school system them endanger its entire budget ? No. Should they then switch to all non-pork meals? Then the discrimination is against the religion that says not to call pork unclean. Then what happens when a Hindu kid shows up and says get rid of beef. At this point, it's not really unreasonable to say Our culture is one of Christianity, we have a limited budget, no one is preventing you from bringing your lunch. At some point something has to give because something will be served that somebody doesn't like.

I'm not trying to trivialize the debate. I'm simply trying to use a less controversial example to make the point.

So I don't think it is "think like us or leave" as much as "we created this great place don't now come in and tell we shouldn't be a part of it."

Originally posted by hobartimus
Regarding anything in the Bible, I haven't read all of it, but I've read enough to be pretty sure that for every point made there is probably a contradiction to be found within those same pages.

To get back to the point, I'm not certain about this, but I think "E Pluribus Unum" (Latin for "From Many, One") was the motto proposed for the first Great Seal of the United States to offer a statement of the American determination to form a single nation from a collection of states. Wasn't it changed to "In God We Trust" during the McCarthy "Atheist Commie Bastards" witch hunt? No doubt you will be able to prove me wrong. But, I am trying to find some evidence that the equality and freedom this country claims to represent actually exists.

Out of many one. Close enough. But out of many peoples comes one people when they share a common culture, so we are back to the original starting point on religion. That's why the "Americanization" process for Indians. The problem wasn't their skin (for some it was I'm sure) but the fact that they were from a "savage" culture. The idea was to enable them to exist in "civilized" society.

In God we trust is from the ?3rd? verse of the Star Spangled Banner. It was put on the money by Eisenhower, but created when Francis Scott Key wrote, "And this be our motto, In God is Our Trust."

As far as equality, you have hit on probably the most divisive political word in the English language. There is a difference between equality of opportunity (the British ideal) and equality of outcome (the French ideal). To save time since I must go soon, the French ideal is unattainable. Think about my cafeteria example. Not everybody can be made happy. Someone will always say they are not being treated equally because pork or beef is or is not being served. In that case equality is impossible to achieve, but we as Americans aren't trained to recognize that. Something in the end will always been unequal unless we are willing to have the government control every aspect of life and that above all other things would be the most unAmerican aspect of all. And even then it would be the government's definition of equality and not ours.

Originally posted by hobartimus
The thing is, I can respect your arguments because you can back them. But, the people circulating that email--at least the ones I've received it from--simply don't want to be questioned. They have the "we're right, and if we're not, we're gonna make so we are" mentality.

Well keep posting here then.

[hobartimus]

Food for thought since I hear that a lot. Since this theology is the basis for the religious freedom we have, does it necessarily have to be endorsing an authoritative control; or could it be part of stereotyping these people; or maybe it is simply something like these people are making an emotional argument rather than an articulate one?

I use the phrase "authoritative control" admittedly as a stereotype because the words and tone of the article express the same sort of superiority complex I see in so many "saved" people in my personal daily life. People who will lie and cheat to get their way, and then tell you what it means to be a good God-fearing American. I am surrounded by them. So yeah, I have my own issues driving my rants.

For example, if you have a small school district with a limited budget and they serve pork chops, someone could file a lawsuit if he was an observant Jew. But should the school system them endanger its entire budget? No. Should they then switch to all non-pork meals? Then the discrimination is against the religion that says not to call pork unclean. Then what happens when a Hindu kid shows up and says get rid of beef. At this point, it's not really unreasonable to say Our culture is one of Christianity, we have a limited budget, no one is preventing you from bringing your lunch. At some point something has to give because something will be served that somebody doesn't like.

Out of many one. Close enough. But out of many peoples comes one people when they share a common culture, so we are back to the original starting point on religion. That's why the "Americanization" process for Indians. The problem wasn't their skin (for some it was I'm sure) but the fact that they were from a "savage" culture. The idea was to enable them to exist in "civilized" society.


This brings me back to a point I made somewhere earlier--though I can't remember now 8^P

Of course we can't have a perfect culture--someone will always be offended or left out. And yeah, I know that this is essentially a Christian culture. But, let's say the Indians had their own culture and didn't want us to come changing it. Same as we feel today about immigration problems, right? But, maybe they stole it from someone before them. So, say we believe that we have built a great nation, and it is superior to the one that existed before we got here. But, the Indians and those before them felt the same way. I think the author clearly makes the point of not changing things because we have it the way it should be--even as God intended (though that part could have been thrown in by someone circulating the email)--those are statement of authoritative superiority (IMHO).

I know I've said this already, but I will say it again: I absolutely agree that I do not want someone to force me to change my ways to accommodate the "new guy," so to speak. I think this is only natural. But, doesn't it say somewhere that it is our civic duty to change the government when it no longer works? Not to say that I have any answers, but this guy is pretty blunt about dictating that it works for people who think as he does, and that it should not be questioned. Saying that if I question things, then I should leave? So, he can express his opinion, and I can express opposing views, but then I should leave. I know he says "THE RIGHT TO LEAVE" and not "YOU MUST LEAVE," but doesn't it seem he is saying that you can say what you want but you're opinion doesn't amount to anything? I am also aware that he makes valid points. But, I have searched this article online and the only places I can find support for it are on extreme conservative sites and openly racist sites. This leads me to believe that it is serving only to feed oppressive thought and not those willing to allow free thought. Or should I simply give in to the idea that as long as I live here, my life should be dictated by the self-appointed right? I believe America is the best thing going, but that doesn't mean it can't (or shouldn't) be improved, as he and his followers might suggest.

As far as equality, you have hit on probably the most divisive political word in the English language. There is a difference between equality of opportunity (the British ideal) and equality of outcome (the French ideal). To save time since I must go soon, the French ideal is unattainable. Think about my cafeteria example. Not everybody can be made happy. Someone will always say they are not being treated equally because pork or beef is or is not being served. In that case equality is impossible to achieve, but we as Americans aren't trained to recognize that. Something in the end will always been unequal unless we are willing to have the government control every aspect of life and that above all other things would be the most unAmerican aspect of all.

Yeah, I perfectly understand that it is the "pursuit" of happiness, and not the "guarantee" of "happiness." I only argue that when people mindlessly circulate articles like that, they are endorsing limited thought. If we have the right to vote, doesn't that mean we have the right to question the way things are?

Probably won't be around tomorrow. But, I look forward to learning more from you soon.


:rolleyes:

[gopsdragon]

Originally posted by hobartimus
Of course we can't have a perfect culture--someone will always be offended or left out. And yeah, I know that this is essentially a Christian culture. But, let's say the Indians had their own culture and didn't want us to come changing it. Same as we feel today about immigration problems, right? But, maybe they stole it from someone before them. So, say we believe that we have built a great nation, and it is superior to the one that existed before we got here. But, the Indians and those before them felt the same way.

We could probably go into infinite regress if we went into all the atrocities man has committed against man. I think if nothing else that is proof of the Christian premise of man's sin nature. But that is probably a different debate.

I would draw a distinction though between the immigration problem and the culture problem however. Maybe that is where you confuse some conservatives like me with the ones you are talking about. (Not that you've made that accusation, but just on my beliefs I am probably one of the bigger group you are envisioning.) In the past, nation states have preserved themselves by assimilating immigrants and making those immigrants their own.

So while some people may just hate people of a different color and are using an anti-immigration stance as an excuse, somebody like me thinks we need to have an immigration program that allows people to come here but also provides for an assimilation that allows them to take full advantage of the opportunities here so they become a part of the society and the culture and in the end become an asset, instead of that person over in the corner that will always be an outcast and a victim of de facto segregation because they can't get along in our society.

What is happening right now, is instead of immigrants learning how to become a part of society, Americans are now told they have to cater to the balkanization of their own country, and anytime we don't give in then we are against diversity, multi-culturalism, and humanity in general.

Is it any wonder these groups don't along when they have nothing in common and nothing on the horizon to indicate they ever will?

The Indians were exactly that way. It is not until now that they are viewed (falsely) as one people. They all had their own conflicts and wars. It was the Mohawks that exterminated the Adirondacks.

Originally posted by hobartimus
But, doesn't it say somewhere that it is our civic duty to change the government when it no longer works? ...Saying that if I question things, then I should leave? So, he can express his opinion, and I can express opposing views, but then I should leave. I know he says "THE RIGHT TO LEAVE" and not "YOU MUST LEAVE," but doesn't it seem he is saying that you can say what you want but you're opinion doesn't amount to anything? I am also aware that he makes valid points. But, I have searched this article online and the only places I can find support for it are on extreme conservative sites and openly racist sites. This leads me to believe that it is serving only to feed oppressive thought and not those willing to allow free thought. Or should I simply give in to the idea that as long as I live here, my life should be dictated by the self-appointed right? I believe America is the best thing going, but that doesn't mean it can't (or shouldn't) be improved, as he and his followers might suggest.

I think the point is that it is not working because we no longer stand by it and we need to get to that point where we can make it work again. I think this is where Madison comes in with the ability of the people to govern themselves by the Ten Commandments. Let's take a real life example. The Patriot Act has been passed so there is probably something in these conversations that some zealous official could try and use against us. Now our courts rely on a jury system as a check to governmnet power etc. What if I went into court and testified to the jury that we were friends and I knew you wanted to destabilize the US? If the jury convicted you, the system worked fine. It was the immorality of the liar that made the system not find justice in the end. That is the problem with representative government when people start taking lightly their roles as citizens and as moralists. In the end, without that cultural anchor, we end up with the same ends as the old Soviet Union even if we justify to ourselves that we are a "democracy." So I believe that is the whole point, the system is not working because we have abandoned the culture that made it possible. Now you don't have to be a far right Christian to understand the implications of perjury in a court room. With liars, in past days, blacks could be falsely accused of raping a white woman and be convicted because someone would say "yeah, I saw him do it." What happens now a days when a cop or DA lies? Bet every objective observer at that time wishes everyone was self-controlled by morality.

Also, I think there is a big difference between you and I having a disagreement on a political issue (we both believe in the basic tenants of self-government presumably) and someone else coming in and demanding that suddenly the entire country meet their expectations.

And in the worst case even if a citizen leaves (for instance Johnny Depp lives in France), is his freedom taken away. No. Johnny Depp realizes he hates the United States and feels better living somewhere else. Do I think he's a moron? Absolutely I think he is one of the typical Hollywood idiots who would have a far different view if he ever had to live in the real world. But his freedom isn't compromised because he chose to leave.



Originally posted by hobartimus
I only argue that when people mindlessly circulate articles like that, they are endorsing limited thought. If we have the right to vote, doesn't that mean we have the right to question the way things are?

Sure we have a right to vote, but that is very much a cultural thing so I presume you would want to preserve it.

It would be interesting to see what you mean by mindless. Not that I remember word for word the original letter, but I agree with the intent and I have thought through very much the implications of culture and the role religion plays in it.

Of course, if you mean the people circulating it couldn't have a discussion on the role of culture in society etc, then we probably discount 98% of the people on either right or left. And if that's the standard, do you want those people voting and what ramifications does that have for "we have the right to vote so should we question." Because in that case they wouldn't know the questions to ask.

[Spaz59]

Originally posted by shotglass
If a grand is a lot of money to you now, wait til you get to Europe. You will have to work 3 times harder for it because of the high taxation.

And once you settle into a communist nation, you will never see a grand again, because you will not be one of the political elites.

You have no concept of Europe do you?

It's just that funny place above where all the bad guys live.

I expect the French are really straining themselves with their maximum 35 hour week.:rolleyes:

[hobartimus]

I would draw a distinction though between the immigration problem and the culture problem however. Maybe that is where you confuse some conservatives like me with the ones you are talking about. (Not that you've made that accusation, but just on my beliefs I am probably one of the bigger group you are envisioning.) In the past, nation states have preserved themselves by assimilating immigrants and making those immigrants their own.

But the author does not draw a distinction between the culture problem and the immigration problem.

Regarding "conservatives like you," I'm sure that based on this discussion, you have already labeled me a liberal. But honestly, I do my best to take things issue for issue. This might sound silly, but once I took a test that was exactly that: taking a position issue for issue. The surprising result was that it landing me smack between Rush and Newt. I really consider myself an independent. I think (and I'm sure you will correct me) that extreme liberalism = socialism, and extreme conservatism = fascism. If you questioned me issue for issue you would probably find that I am pretty conservative in most of my views. But, if it came down to the extremes and I were forced to make a choice of the lesser evil, I think I would prefer the government control my money than my morals. Still, this is way off track from the issue of the original article.

It would be interesting to see what you mean by mindless. Not that I remember word for word the original letter, but I agree with the intent and I have thought through very much the implications of culture and the role religion plays in it.

When I say "mindless," I am not referring to the content of the letter. I am referring to the manner in which they chose to make their point--which I took to be very self-serving and feeding into the mindset of most of the hardcore conservatives I have ever tried to have a conversation with. And I will say this from the heart, you are actually the first hardcore conservative that has been able to earn my respect. I have a friend who can debate all night and back up every point he makes and he is an admitted bleeding-heart liberal. I like to discuss things such this because I think open discussions are how we learn and grow. I am surrounded by a pretty equality split community of democrats and replubicans, and all I ever see is broad generalizations of why their party of choice is right. If I express an opposing view to either side, I normally just get a "you're wrong and that's that" sort of response.

Anyway, I admit that I almost totally agree with the underlying intent of the article. However, to me, it serves exactly the same purpose as it pretends to be protesting. The author is exactly right about the whining politically correct. But, the author is just as guilty as those he/she is attacking--using extreme attitude and broad generalizations to make their point.

My point is this: as long as people spread one-sided propaganda such as this (regardless of which side they are on), then nothing will ever get accomplished. People like this (on both sides) serve only to feed their own ego. They are unwilling to accept any truths that might contradict what they want to believe. And rather than actually trying to make a difference, they resort to stirring things up. They too are merely whiners. Nothing gets accomplished. They resort to shock value, making them no better than the hollywood types who abandon the states for France. Why not circulate a petition or try to take some real action? That is ultimately my problem with the article and the people who are circulating it.

Anyway, much to do today. Probably won't hear back from me. But, I will try to check in soon.

[Eddy's Geist]

Ok, enough of all this talk...

We have to decide whether it's of any importance at all that some politicians 200+ years ago were Christian. If it is important then we can decide if America is a "Christian Country" or a country that embraces other religions. If it is to be a Christian country then you all have to decide what to do with those "other" people.

[hobartimus]

Back to the what started this debate...

I made the false assumption that most of the founding fathers were Deists, and you responded with the following:

Christianity basically says if you believe in anybody else you're going to hell. Pretty exclusive and this literal translation of the Bible is exactly what the Calvinists who populated this country believed in whether they were Congregationalists like Samuel Adams or Presbyterians like Patrick Henry.

My only problem with that statment is that the author of the article specifically said this:

Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation.

You're argument seems to be that it is all based on the Bible and that's that--regardless of denomination. Here is my problem: there are just as many ways to interpret the Bible as there are people who read it, and everyone wants to believe their interpretation is the right one, right? So, based on the authors exact statement, it seems to me that we should focus on the essential principles of Calvinism vs. Christianity: Calvinism being that it is by the grace of God alone that man will be saved, and that man is not capable of choosing salvation by his own will. On the other hand, Christianity teaches exactly the opposite: that we must repent and be saved, that we must choose to find salvation--I know this because Christians are always trying to save me 8^P

But all kidding aside, if we look at those basic principals, and you acknowledge that Calvinists were a big part of it, along with Deists, and maybe a couple of Unitarians (who I think deny the deity of Christ), and quite possibly many others, then the author's statement is at very least, misleading and self-serving. So, it cannot serve to defend fundamental Christian principles established by our founding fathers, as he/she claims.

The authors other major point is this:

We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change

But, things change every day and always have. The founding fathers even acknowledged that things would change and that their efforts were not "set in stone" So, again, isn't the article completely self-serving for the author and those who want things "their way". Just as you pointed out that my quotes were taken out of context, don't you think this article should not be taken out of context?

Keep in mind that none of what I am saying has anything to do with the Florida driver's license case, which is what this article was focused on. I believe that was an issue of public safety--not cultural diversity or freedom. But, I also believe the author used it to feed on those who I earlier referred to as "mindless," people who prefer to just stir things up with no intent to improve things--rather than attempt to consider other possibilities. This happens with both conservative and liberals, so I am not taking sides. I am only getting at the message that the article is shouting and how it seems to defeat it's own purpose. IMHO

[gopsdragon]

Originally posted by hobartimus
Regarding "conservatives like you," I'm sure that based on this discussion, you have already labeled me a liberal.

Actually, quite the opposite. The fact that you have been able to argue intelligently without descending into a tantrum of name calling means I've drawn the conclusion that maybe you and I just have a different opinion on certain parts of the argument because we seem to agree on the premise, but from different directions and a different view on how the guy presented his argument. You've been far too mature for me to label you a liberal.


Originally posted by hobartimus
And I will say this from the heart, you are actually the first hardcore conservative that has been able to earn my respect.

Thanks. I try anyway.

Originally posted by hobartimus
I am surrounded by a pretty equality split community of democrats and replubicans, and all I ever see is broad generalizations of why their party of choice is right. If I express an opposing view to either side, I normally just get a "you're wrong and that's that" sort of response.

Well, I think that's where we get a load of our problems. Parties aren't about right and wrong as much as getting your party elected. I'm with Washington that parties are a bad thing, but the question is how do you abolish them at this point?

Originally posted by hobartimus
My point is this: as long as people spread one-sided propaganda such as this (regardless of which side they are on), then nothing will ever get accomplished. People like this (on both sides) serve only to feed their own ego. They are unwilling to accept any truths that might contradict what they want to believe.

Well that's the nature of propaganda. It's not about truth but about spreading your message, which I'm sure you already know. But I think I would file this one more under an emotional rant than propaganda. After all, if the guy who put this out put it out in an unthinking manner, then it's hard to believe he's part of an organized propaganda campaign.

[hobartimus]

Well that's the nature of propaganda. It's not about truth but about spreading your message, which I'm sure you already know. But I think I would file this one more under an emotional rant than propaganda. After all, if the guy who put this out put it out in an unthinking manner, then it's hard to believe he's part of an organized propaganda campaign.

OK, that makes sense. I only refer to it as propaganda because it is being circulated by people with an specific agenda--organized or not. So, maybe the author's original intent was merely an emotional rant submitted to the editor of that newspaper. But, as the masses got there hands on it, things changed.

Anyway, enjoying this. But I should probably get back to earning my capitalist living. And I'm sure this topic is getting worn thin. Maybe when I get some time I will explore the rest of the forums...catcha later.

[gopsdragon]

Originally posted by hobartimus
You're argument seems to be that it is all based on the Bible and that's that--regardless of denomination. Here is my problem: there are just as many ways to interpret the Bible as there are people who read it, and everyone wants to believe their interpretation is the right one, right? So, based on the authors exact statement, it seems to me that we should focus on the essential principles of Calvinism vs. Christianity: Calvinism being that it is by the grace of God alone that man will be saved, and that man is not capable of choosing salvation by his own will. On the other hand, Christianity teaches exactly the opposite: that we must repent and be saved, that we must choose to find salvation--I know this because Christians are always trying to save me 8^P

I could explain that if you want me to take the time.

Originally posted by hobartimus
But all kidding aside, if we look at those basic principals, and you acknowledge that Calvinists were a big part of it, along with Deists, and maybe a couple of Unitarians (who I think deny the deity of Christ), and quite possibly many others, then the author's statement is at very least, misleading and self-serving. So, it cannot serve to defend fundamental Christian principles established by our founding fathers, as he/she claims.
Well, I guess it would depend on one's definition of fundamental. If you mean by fundamental being baptized down at the river, speaking in tongues, etc. Then I couldn't say with any certainty that they were fundamentalists. However, since the biggest denominations in the country at the time were Congregationalists and Presbyterian and the biggest difference between those two denominations were not theology, but country of origin (Presbyterians were mainly from Scotland while Congregationalists were mainly from England) they were in total agreement that God should rule and not government. So while many historians would divide these people because they were from different denominations, as far as their views on government go, they shared the same beliefs.

And even though the Lutherans weren't Calvinist (Obviously they followed Luther) Luther and Calvin were the two main agitators against organized authority. So I'm not sure of all the theological differences, but on views of government they shared much the same opinion. And the comfort level between the Presbyterians and Lutherans can be seen in their settlement patterns along southern and western PA and western VA. They had problems with the Quakers and fought together when the Quakers would not.

So I think if the evidence were weighed, that although the Constitution is not specifically a Christian document, there can be no doubt that the reformation beliefs of Calvin and Luther fueled the world view of the document writers. The separation of powers, the Bill of Rights, a confederation instead of a centralized government, all got a great backing because these men believed government was a dangerous thing and should not take over our lives.

So in meeting in the middle, the liberal is wrong when he says it's not a Christian motivated document and the conservative is wrong when he says it is a literal Christian document. The truth is there are several parts of the Constitution that cannot be understood without understanding the theology of the day, because the vast majority of the writers were Christians and did not separate their political beliefs from their religious beliefs.


Originally posted by hobartimus
But, things change every day and always have. The founding fathers even acknowledged that things would change and that their efforts were not "set in stone" So, again, isn't the article completely self-serving for the author and those who want things "their way". Just as you pointed out that my quotes were taken out of context, don't you think this article should not be taken out of context?

I think all quotes should be taken in context otherwise one can't understand their true meaning.

I will say however, that the founders believed some things changed and made accomodations in the Consitution for that, but other things they believed never changed.

For instance today, the Supreme Court has decided the Bill of Rights applies only to the states and not to the people. The founders believed that government would always be a means to evil because it is in human nature to want to dominate. That trait will never change. They clearly intended for the PEOPLE to be protected by the Bill of Rights. Once the supreme court realized its mistake, instead of going back and vacating the faulty decision they then went about labeling certain rights as "fundamental." So now when you hear about a fundamental right, it has a definite constitutional meaning the founders never intended. Remember the Constitution was not going to be ratified without the Bill of Rights, so obviously the anti-federalists viewed all the rights as fundamental. They were not things to be bequeathed by the Royal Supreme Court to the feudal peasants.

So while technology, etc. will move forward and those things need to be accounted for, the founders believed some things were forever, which is why they held out for a Bill of Rights. For instance, human nature will always be evil (definitely a Christian principal) and government will always be a necessary evil because it will reflect the evil of the evil men running it. Therefore, we will always need to protect free speech, we will need to enumerate the powers of the federal government to ensure it never steps out of its boundaries, we will need to separate powers so one faction of evil men can never gain promenience and control the government. Jury trial, not quartering troops in homes, etc. all also come from this belief, especially since during the French and Indian War these were all violated by the Crown.

So they were pragmatic enough to realize they couldn't account for all contigencies, but they were also realistic enough about human nature to guarantee certain prohibitions for all time.

[gopsdragon]

Originally posted by hobartimus
Anyway, enjoying this. But I should probably get back to earning my capitalist living. And I'm sure this topic is getting worn thin. Maybe when I get some time I will explore the rest of the forums...catcha later.

Always check out the other forums, but good debate never wears thin around here. :)

[Eddy's Geist]

I was under the impression that the original debate had to do with an article that was full of intolerance for anyone that didn't adhere to White, Christian America.

It's easy to sit back and debate the finer points of the religious beliefs of our founding fathers than to stand up and say articles such as the one posted are just plain unamerican.

By the way, about 6 weeks ago I received the same article in my email from a friend. The difference between the one I received and the original post is that the former had been amended to include a paragraph that stated a middle eastern woman in Florida had been granted the right to take her Driver's licence picture while wearing a veil. The problem here is that the lady went to court for this and she lost. Does that small fact stop nazi freaks who pose as republicans from spreading poison? Not in the least... Anyhow... back to the debate on deism.
:)


Originally posted by hobartimus
Back to the what started this debate...

I made the false assumption that most of the founding fathers were Deists, and you responded with the following:

[Eddy's Geist]

Hobartimus, take another look at the original post. The article doesn't mention the Florida DL case at all. Reason being that the original post was produced prior (July 02, 2002) to the Florida case. (June 10, 2003).

Keep in mind that the Judge turned down (rightly so) the woman's request for the veil in the picture.

If I remember correctly the "second generation" of this rant says that the Judge allowed the woman the right to wear the veil for the photo.

Does anyone have a copy of the email with the Florida info?



Originally posted by hobartimus
Keep in mind that none of what I am saying has anything to do with the Florida driver's license case, which is what this article was focused on. I believe that was an issue of public safety--not cultural diversity or freedom.

[STIBROKER]

Originally posted by gopsdragon
but good debate never wears thin around here. :)


except in the aussie thread.......oh you said good debate....

[hobartimus]

Geist,

After hearing that the state of Florida changed its opinion and let a Muslim woman have her picture on her driver's license with her face covered this is an editorial written by an American citizen, published in a Tampa newspaper. He did quite a job; didn't he? Read on, please!

That was in the copy of the email I received. And I have seen this version on some websites too. It is obviously not part of the original letter. I only acknowledged it because people are circulating that version, which I would think means they probably believe it to be relevant to the original email. Since it is present in many copies being circulated, I simply tried to make it clear that my opinions of the letter had nothing to do with that particular statement.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that statement is wrong. Didn't the woman lose the case and her attorney vowed to appeal? I might be wrong. Must look it up.

Anyhow... back to the debate on deism

I don't think there was ever a debate on Deism. Only that I referenced it in my original post and was proven wrong. But, no actual debate on Deism itself. Do you guys have a forum for religion? Or is this forum appropriate for such discussions?

[Eddy's Geist]

Yes, she did lose the case. I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if it is up for appeal though.

I'll check the posted rants to see what the gist of the addendum is. I hope they don't say that she won the case because that would make the nazi rant so pathetic that it borders on the pathological. It's kind of like saying Sammy Sosa is the best hitter baseball has ever had, ever will have, etc.. and then showing that he's the "best" through chicanery. Believing your way (speaking in the general) is the best way and having it based on a lie is just plain sad.

There was going to be a forum on religion but everyone just wanted to join the Geist clan and worship me. A bunch of "me-toos'" get's pretty boring after awhile. I gave JB permission to remove the forum after it grew to be too glorifying.

;)



Originally posted by hobartimus
Geist,



That was in the copy of the email I received. And I have seen this version on some websites too. It is obviously not part of the original letter. I only acknowledged it because people are circulating that version, which I would think means they probably believe it to be relevant to the original email. Since it is present in many copies being circulated, I simply tried to make it clear that my opinions of the letter had nothing to do with that particular statement.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that statement is wrong. Didn't the woman lose the case and her attorney vowed to appeal? I might be wrong. Must look it up.



I don't think there was ever a debate on Deism. Only that I referenced it in my original post and was proven wrong. But, no actual debate on Deism itself. Do you guys have a forum for religion? Or is this forum appropriate for such discussions?

[hobartimus]

This text is copied straight from the email I received:

"After hearing that the state of Florida changed its opinion and let a Muslim woman have her picture on her driver's license with her face covered this is an editorial written by an American citizen, published in a Tampa newspaper. He did quite a job; didn't he? Read on, please!"

I honestly have not bothered to check into it. I really just took issue with the overall tone of the email and a few specific points it made.

[Eddy's Geist]

Here's the "new" version that's floating around.

And the answer is "No", the state of Florida did NOT change it's opinion on this case.

After hearing that the state of Florida changed its opinion and let a Muslim woman have her picture on her driver's license with her face covered this is an editorial written by an American citizen, published in a Tampa newspaper.
He did quite a job; didn't he? Read on, please!



Sounds to me like the Right Wing nuts did NOT do "quite a job" Pretty damn pathetic.

This is almost as bad as that letter that was circulating around about the son of the army guy who got killed and the little speech he made as his father was buried. Except that the guy didnt have a son (he had a daughter) and the daughter was two years old.

[gopsdragon]

Originally posted by Eddy's Geist
I was under the impression that the original debate had to do with an article that was full of intolerance for anyone that didn't adhere to White, Christian America.

Except as president of the shadow government you should know by now there is no "white" mindset, that is merely a propaganda tool meant to generate division.

[Eddy's Geist]

Ja, verstehe ich den tadellos, aber es ist noch ein gutes Werkzeug!

[gopsdragon]

Originally posted by Eddy's Geist
Ja, verstehe ich den tadellos, aber es ist noch ein gutes Werkzeug!

See what I mean. I'm 100% white, O% Kraut, and understood 0% of that sentence.:rolleyes:

[Eddy's Geist]

Vell now, some of us are duetch, ja.. and das better for it!

;)

[hobartimus]

yes, understand self the faultless, but there is still one good tool!

Is that from a Tool song?

Seems to be saying something to me, in sort of a screwed up Shakespearian bastardization of Nazi talk. Not quite sure how to take it. Is it an attack or a defense?

Of course, it could be that my translation is wrong due to variations of dialect. But then, what the hell do I know?

:hehe:

[MrMagiccrpet]

Here is a problem with the tripe contained in the above statement: asside from the isolationist dogma, it forgets that this is a country founded upon the Idea that church and state are seperate and that we have the right in this country to believe as we like including the right to disagree. If the author feels that these rights are not appropriate (which it seems he/she does) then maybe they should look for another place to live, like say China.
It seems you have forgotten that NOWHERE does it imply seperation of church and state. The implication is that the state does not back any one religion. Look around D.C., there are many icons pointing to God in the founding of this great country, ie Moses the great lawgiver, the top of the Washington monument, and too many more to name.