American, What Makes You Proud To Be One?

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

some new lyrics to the old Lee Greenwood song perhaps? LOL

For shame. I know of several Gulf War I veterans that would give you multiple knuckle sandwiches for even suggesting the thought

[Montrose1100]

For shame. I know of several Gulf War I veterans that would give you multiple knuckle sandwiches for even suggesting the thought

taking it back to 54' are we moon man?

[TheNiche]

I apologize for now knowing how to play the banjo or being over the age of 30, so forgive my ignorance when I ask this... but who is Lee Greenwood?

He's the guy that wrote and sang the song "God Bless the USA". An elementary school principal of mine used to play it over the PA system once per day, so it is sort of etched into the deep recesses of my brain.

[woolie]

He's the guy that wrote and sang the song "God Bless the USA". An elementary school principal of mine used to play it over the PA system once per day, so it is sort of etched into the deep recesses of my brain.

Not sure if that's illegal under the separation of church/state, the eighth amendment, the UN declaration of human rights, or all three....

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Not sure if that's illegal under the separation of church/state, the eighth amendment, the UN declaration of human rights, or all three....

I dont if i should laugh or just be ashamed for you........

[woolie]

I dont if i should laugh or just be ashamed for you........

One of my pet issues is having "Under God" removed from our currency and pledge. They were added in the 50's as an anticommunist tactic. The heart of the matter is that the US is supposed to be a totally secular nation and I intend to fight any encroachment of religion into public policy.

Of course my post was in jest, but I'm dead serious about separation of church and state, and any mention of god or any deity as part of required public speech.

Edited April 18, 2007 by Ian Rees

[musicman]

One of my pet issues is having "Under God" removed from our currency and pledge. They were added in the 50's as an anticommunist tactic. The heart of the matter is that the US is supposed to be a totally secular nation and I intend to fight any encroachment of religion into public policy.

Of course my post was in jest, but I'm dead serious about separation of church and state, and any mention of god or any deity as part of required public speech.

since you're so active in the community, we can enjoy the language for years to come!

[TJones]

One of my pet issues is having "Under God" removed from our currency and pledge. They were added in the 50's as an anticommunist tactic. The heart of the matter is that the US is supposed to be a totally secular nation and I intend to fight any encroachment of religion into public policy.

Of course my post was in jest, but I'm dead serious about separation of church and state, and any mention of god or any deity as part of required public speech.

YYYYYAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWNNNNNNNNN......good luck with that chief.

[woolie]

since you're so active in the community, we can enjoy the language for years to come!

It's time will come, the religious right and those who wish to transform this country into a theocracy are losing more and more power and influence every day.

[webdude]

One of my pet issues is having "Under God" removed from our currency and pledge. They were added in the 50's as an anticommunist tactic. The heart of the matter is that the US is supposed to be a totally secular nation and I intend to fight any encroachment of religion into public policy.

Of course my post was in jest, but I'm dead serious about separation of church and state, and any mention of god or any deity as part of required public speech.

Many ppl unfortunately do not know about the 50s part where it was added in. but 'under god' was in coins long before that though.

I don't know why ppl use the word 'religion' in separation of religion and state. Only one religion tries to do that. Why don't ppl just use christianity. Its not like buddhism or muslim or any other religion tries to sneak their policies into our state affairs.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

One of my pet issues is having "Under God" removed from our currency and pledge. They were added in the 50's as an anticommunist tactic. The heart of the matter is that the US is supposed to be a totally secular nation and I intend to fight any encroachment of religion into public policy.

Of course my post was in jest, but I'm dead serious about separation of church and state, and any mention of god or any deity as part of required public speech.

Amazing. If you are going to fight against something, it is wise to have atleast a fundamental understanding of what you are fighting against. According to what you have stated above, you are very disadvantaged.

It's time will come, the religious right and those who wish to transform this country into a theocracy are losing more and more power and influence every day.

What went wrong in your life to put you on this course?

[woolie]

Many ppl unfortunately do not know about the 50s part where it was added in. but 'under god' was in coins long before that though.

I don't know why ppl use the word 'religion' in separation of religion and state. Only one religion tries to do that. Why don't ppl just use christianity. Its not like buddhism or muslim or any other religion tries to sneak their policies into our state affairs.

OK, here is my "Proud to be American."

Our country is more or less secular, and has withstood many challenges to remain this way. There have been inroads by religious radicals to turn this around, but they've been largely unsuccessful except for the words on the pledge, currency, etc. Roe v Wade still stands. It's only a matter of time before we have civil unions, and probably also euthanasia as well.

Amazing. If you are going to fight against something, it is wise to have atleast a fundamental understanding of what you are fighting against. According to what you have stated above, you are very disadvantaged.

What went wrong in your life to put you on this course?

I became an atheist over many years of studying about physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, etc, and contemplating the nature of the the universe and human behavior. To me, it is the only belief system which is completely self-consistent and can withstand outside criticism without resorting to faith in some scripture. This is an informed decision I've spent all of my adult life considering. I think it's silly for you to think some catastrophic event had to occur, that I had to be abused in some way, to reject blind faith in some religious customs as the guiding principle in my life. Do you have the same condescending patronizing tone for people who are muslim, jewish, etc.?

Why do you think I am disadvantaged? My life is very rich intellectually, very fulfilling, and my work is rewarding. Materially I'm not doing so bad either.

Edited April 18, 2007 by Ian Rees

[webdude]

OK, here is my "Proud to be American."

Our country is more or less secular, and has withstood many challenges to remain this way. There have been inroads by religious radicals to turn this around, but they've been largely unsuccessful except for the words on the pledge, currency, etc. Roe v Wade still stands. It's only a matter of time before we have civil unions, and probably also euthanasia as well.

I think the some of the ones you listed are worth fighting for, but under god in our currency seems more like a symptom and removing does not really help to remove the ingrained influence. Some have claim that it helps distribute religious propaganda but it actuality it doesn't. Its definitely not like prayers in schools.

[WesternGulf]

Its not like buddhism or muslim or any other religion tries to sneak their policies into our state affairs.

That's what happens in any country where a religion makes up atleast 60% or more of the nation and most people see their views as universal and make a "secular" reason to try to justify it. It is the same reason why you hardly see any Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist televangelist. I am not saying ALL television ministers take advantage but there are too many that take advantage of this nations demographics. That's why if I am a majority of any group, I still try to cherish diversity. The lack thereof breeds ignorance and supremacy.

[woolie]

I think the some of the ones you listed are worth fighting for, but under god in our currency seems more like a symptom and removing does not really help to remove the ingrained influence. Some have claim that it helps distribute religious propaganda but it actuality it doesn't. Its definitely not like prayers in schools.

Yeah, yeah.. It's just the words "God Bless the USA" -- in particular that song, ugh, it wraps religious fervor up in nationalism, and we know what happens when those two things meet -- and "One Nation Under God" are just phrases that send me off the deep end (isn't there a thread about this?). I think secularism can win any fights on any terms, it benefits everyone, including people who are religious, and makes the country a magnet for the best and brightest from all over the world. It's just in the past couple decades with the ascendancy of the religious right and their political attack machine, it's been very difficult to organize to promote secular messages. Obviously my frustration at the situation showed through in a couple of the replies I just made, which I don't take back even if they were more ranting than the more balanced arguments I typically like to engage in -- but I do have hope for the future, as it seems many mainstream religious groups are realizing the importance of human rights and public secularism, and are moving their agendas back in this direction instead of trying to have overt control to create and enforce religiously-motivated laws.

Edited April 18, 2007 by Ian Rees

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Do you have the same condescending patronizing tone for people who are muslim, jewish, etc.?

Why do you think I am disadvantaged? My life is very rich intellectually, very fulfilling, and my work is rewarding. Materially I'm not doing so bad either.

Hilarious. Thanks for your assistance in helping me decide if i should laugh or not

Yeah, yeah.. It's just the words "God Bless the USA" -- in particular that song, ugh, it wraps religious fervor up in nationalism, and we know what happens when those two things meet -- and "One Nation Under God" are just phrases that send me off the deep end (isn't there a thread about this?). I think secularism can win any fights on any terms, it benefits everyone, including people who are religious, and makes the country a magnet for the best and brightest from all over the world. It's just in the past couple decades with the ascendancy of the religious right and their political attack machine, it's been very difficult to organize to promote secular messages.

Absolutely hilarious

[woolie]

Hilarious. Thanks for your assistance in helping me decide if i should laugh or not

Absolutely hilarious

Am I supposed to be angry and upset, or just think you're an asshole?

[Montrose1100]

Am I supposed to be angry and upset, or just think you're an asshole?

No, be dissapointed that someone is actually like the way he is. I'll concour with the last thing you've said. And I agree with your thoughts, and I'm glad you stand you ground.

[woolie]

No, be dissapointed that someone is actually like the way he is. I'll concour with the last thing you've said. And I agree with your thoughts, and I'm glad you stand you ground.

It usually indicates a weak position when you ridicule the presenter of an idea instead of the idea itself. Blah. I'm going to just stick in the "on topic" forums from now on, better quality waste of time than banging my head against the wall.

[WesternGulf]

I don't get what was so funny with it either. I will admit Ian's thought are very cliche and most people try to find a middle ground, so I am trying to find out what amusement "Moon" gets out of it. All I have to say is, what if "Moon" was in a more developed civilized Muslim nation such as Egypt, would he feel the same way about religous tolerance or does he see a convenience factor of calling America home and "everyone else" just has to deal with the feelings of the majority? With that said, I do not know "Moons" religous persuasion.

Edited April 18, 2007 by WesternGulf

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

It usually indicates a weak position when you ridicule the presenter of an idea instead of the idea itself. Blah. I'm going to just stick in the "on topic" forums from now on, better quality waste of time than banging my head against the wall.

Thats what happens when you go off topic with the stuff you were preaching.

No, be dissapointed that someone is actually like the way he is. I'll concour with the last thing you've said. And I agree with your thoughts, and I'm glad you stand you ground.

WHAT?!?!

I don't get what was so funny with it either. I will admit Ian's thought are very cliche and most people try to find a middle ground, so I am trying to find out what amusement "Moon" gets out of it. All I have to say is, what if "Moon" was in a more developed civilized Muslim nation such as Egypt, would he feel the same way about religous tolerance or does he see a convenience factor of calling America home and "everyone else" just has to deal with the feelings of the majority? With that said, I do not know "Moons" religous persuasion.

WHAT?!?!?!

[WesternGulf]

WHAT?!?!?!

Houston1stWordOnTheMoon=Moon

Too long to type out. You may not agree with it or think it is worthy of discussion and too many people try to make it an ugly word but I guess you do not understand the idea of a secular government. It is not intolerance. It's common sense and affects us all and one of the many reasons why i love this country. With that said, I will do you a favor and just shut up.

Edited April 18, 2007 by WesternGulf

[TheNiche]

...the US is supposed to be a totally secular nation....

Totally secular government. The nation is supposed to be fundamentally free.

[TJones]

Let's say Moon or Ian were in a Muslim dominated country, how fast do you think Ian would have his tongue cut out for denouncing Allah out loud ? How soon would Moonman be drawn and quartered for preaching the word of GOD and claiming Jesus to be his savior in a town square ? America will tolerate the atheists, because that is what America does, we take in the weak , the hungry, the oppressed masses. America will listen to Ian's beliefs and take them into consideration, America loves to pander to the minority, but the "issue" of In God We Trust, It's been around since the 50's on our currency, and "God Bless The USA" has been out for about 20 years or so. Yet, I haven't seen any Brownshirt rallies at a Lee Greenwood concert, nor have I seen the spread of any type of Facism growing across this country in that time. Ian, are you afraid that overnight, every christian will have an "epithany", and decide that we need to run out all the "nonbelievers", and people who pray different from we, who believe in God, will just automatically come for you in the middle of the night ?

Respect works both ways, our elected leaders decided to change the currency in that manner, they also decided to remove prayer from school, yet there are some teachers teaching kids how it's like to be a Muslim or an atheist, but they can't show the atheists or Muslims how it's like to be a Christian. Is that fair ? Is that respectful ? I don't mind you being against having GOD on our money, I just don't think your pet project has a snowballs chance in Hell, or wherever the hottest place it is your beliefs lead you to acknowledge .

So, don't be upset Ian, if someone doesn't agree with your thinking, and finds your posts to be comical to them. Their beliefs find them to be totally opposite of you, and just like you find it appauling that even the mention of the name GOD in any form is bad, some folks just find it a reminder as to why our forefathers broke away from a tyrannical Govt. to form a new nation. Perhaps you could show that you have no representation in our current Govt. I don't know, IS there any atheists in the House or Senate ? Remember, the Constitution is a living document, it can be changed to suit our democracy, and our democracy dictates that MAJORITY RULES. Perhaps you would do better by creating converts to your beliefs and then have all of them go out and vote to get the leaders who would change such documents without hesitation.

Edited April 18, 2007 by TJones

[nmainguy]

It usually indicates a weak position when you ridicule the presenter of an idea instead of the idea itself. Blah. I'm going to just stick in the "on topic" forums from now on, better quality waste of time than banging my head against the wall.

Stick to your guns. My experience with him has ranged from suggestions that I kill myself, mocking my AIDS/cancer status and thinly veiled gay bashing. I find it best not to enable him. That's another great thing about being a US citizen: You, I and others can choose to be atheists while others are free to be "asshole"s as you so succinctly put it. See? I stayed on topic!

Edited April 18, 2007 by nmainguy

[millennica]

It usually indicates a weak position when you ridicule the presenter of an idea instead of the idea itself. Blah. I'm going to just stick in the "on topic" forums from now on, better quality waste of time than banging my head against the wall.

I agree with Ian Rees. This kind of argument is known as an ad hominen argument, argumentum ad hominem ( from the Latin meaning "argument against the man"). The term is most commonly used to refer specifically to kind of argument made when one attacks the person making the argument in an attempt to discredit that argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument.

[TJones]

I agree with Ian Rees. This kind of argument is known as an ad hominen argument, argumentum ad hominem ( from the Latin meaning "argument against the man"). The term is most commonly used to refer specifically to kind of argument made when one attacks the person making the argument in an attempt to discredit that argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument.

Millennica, I think you are gonna have to be penalized for the over use of the word "Argument." Now, you want to argue about that ? Because, we can argue about the arguers arguing about the argument of "In God We Trust" that apparently is so argumentative to both sides that the subject has been argued about for what seems forever, but that to can be argumented because when you argue about arguments, the arguers tend to go on for days and days about how their argument is better, but I really don't want to argue about that arguable topic.

Edited April 18, 2007 by TJones

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Let's say Moon or Ian were in a Muslim dominated country, how fast do you think Ian would have his tongue cut out for denouncing Allah out loud ? How soon would Moonman be drawn and quartered for preaching the word of GOD and claiming Jesus to be his savior in a town square ? America will tolerate the atheists, because that is what America does, we take in the weak , the hungry, the oppressed masses. America will listen to Ian's beliefs and take them into consideration, America loves to pander to the minority, but the "issue" of In God We Trust, It's been around since the 50's on our currency, and "God Bless The USA" has been out for about 20 years or so. Yet, I haven't seen any Brownshirt rallies at a Lee Greenwood concert, nor have I seen the spread of any type of Facism growing across this country in that time. Ian, are you afraid that overnight, every christian will have an "epithany", and decide that we need to run out all the "nonbelievers", and people who pray different from we, who believe in God will just automatically come for you in the middle of the night ?

Respect works both ways, our elected leaders decided to change the currency in that manner, they also decided to remove prayer from school, yet there are some teachers teaching kids how it's like to be a Muslim or an atheist, but they can't show the atheists or Muslims how it's like to be a Christian. Is that fair ? Is that respectful ? I don't mind you being against having GOD on our money, I just don't think your pet project has a snowballs chance in Hell, or wherever the hottest place it is your beliefs lead you acknowledge .

So, don't be upset Ian, if someone doesn't agree with your thinking, and finds your posts to be comical to them. Their beliefs find them to be totally opposite of you, and just like you find it appauling that even the mention of the name GOD in any form is bad, some folks just find it a reminder as to why our forefathers broke away from a tyrannical Govt. to form a new nation. Perhaps you could show that you have no representation in our current Govt. I don't know, IS there any atheists in the House or Senate ? Remember, the Constitution is a living document, it can be changed to suit our democracy, and our democracy dictates that MAJORITY RULES. Perhaps you would do better by creating converts to your beliefs and then have all of them go out and vote to get the leaders who would change such documents without hesitation.

Very good. To add, none of this discussion would be occuring if he didnt stray off topic to begin with. Its ok if you like to hold company with a small fraction of nuts here that constantly add religious insults and stuff about thier lifestyle in the most oddest of threads. Just dont be shocked when you get a response in opposition to it.

Ian if you would like to call me an asshole, i take no offense to it. I never take offense to the truth.

I agree with Ian Rees. This kind of argument is known as an ad hominen argument, argumentum ad hominem ( from the Latin meaning "argument against the man"). The term is most commonly used to refer specifically to kind of argument made when one attacks the person making the argument in an attempt to discredit that argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument.

WHAT?!?!?!

[musicman]

I agree with Ian Rees. This kind of argument is known as an ad hominen argument, argumentum ad hominem ( from the Latin meaning "argument against the man"). The term is most commonly used to refer specifically to kind of argument made when one attacks the person making the argument in an attempt to discredit that argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument.

how many times can argument be used in one sentence?

[TheNiche]

I agree with Ian Rees. This kind of argument is known as an ad hominen argument, argumentum ad hominem ( from the Latin meaning "argument against the man"). The term is most commonly used to refer specifically to kind of argument made when one attacks the person making the argument in an attempt to discredit that argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument.

In all fairness to moonman, he doesn't do a very good job at actually forming an argument, as an argument must have one or more premises supporting a conclusion. He tends just to state the conclusion. Therefore, it seems like the ad hominem fallacy would not apply.

Instead of making an error, he has just stated nothing of consequence.