FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-27-2002, 05:39 PM   #431
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 704
Post

This makes me think of a line in REM's "Hope":

"You want to bridge the schizm/ the built-in mechanism to protect you"

As well as the whole of "New Test Leper" of course.

"Call me a leper!"
-Kevin

The Defenestrator is offline  
Old 06-27-2002, 05:46 PM   #432
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Gatorville, Florida
Posts: 4,334
Talking

Quote:
Originally posted by Jarlaxle:
<strong>What does that phrase "one nation under God" mean anyway? </strong>
That phrase merely contrasts the United States with that other nation, ruled by Satan.....

== Bill
Bill is offline  
Old 06-27-2002, 05:47 PM   #433
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: New Almaden, California
Posts: 917
Post

Mr. Sauniere said:
Quote:
The only remedy from this situation is the complete and utter destruction of Christianity. Believe me, that will come in due time.
IMO, human history tells us that when one theistic belief dies, it is replaced with another. Unless science can come up with an explanation that is understandable by the uneducated masses, gods will still be the explanation for everything.

I can see some fundy cutting and pasting this statement on the BBB, justifying their hateful threats and sometimes violent tactics, especially towards people like Dr. Newdow.

Gilly
gilly54 is offline  
Old 06-27-2002, 05:57 PM   #434
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Gatorville, Florida
Posts: 4,334
Angry

Quote:
Originally posted by One of last of the sane:
<strong>I never thought of it this way before, but maybe it means that if you're not under God, you needn't consider yourself part of the nation? </strong>
President Bush the Elder <a href="http://www.skeptictank.org/gbush.htm" target="_blank">said the same thing back in 1987</a>. He said:
Quote:
I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
So, you see how this all feeds upon itself. The religious bigots pass a law adding "under God" to the pledge, and then Bush uses the pledge phrase, "one nation, under God," as justification to exclude atheists from begin citizens. Talk about bigotry.......

== Bill

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Bill ]</p>
Bill is offline  
Old 06-27-2002, 05:57 PM   #435
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 891
Post

gilly54:

Good point.
BibleBelted is offline  
Old 06-27-2002, 07:09 PM   #436
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: gone
Posts: 3,953
Post

WFMY2 was unable to deliver poll results due to technical difficulties.

Shucks.
Chuck is offline  
Old 06-27-2002, 07:40 PM   #437
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Reverend Mykeru:
<strong>Jarlaxle


Well my fellow heathens, I was watching something on Fox (oh, excuse me, "faux") channel that made the whole thing clear to me. Some bozer was filling in for Bill O'Reilly on The O'Reilly Factor and the first segment dealt with "THe Pledge" issue, the second with a muslim woman who did not want her face exposed for her driver's license photo.</strong>
I saw this too.

<strong>
Quote:
The first segment has the surrogate O'Reilly, a Ms. Khan from People for the Separation of Church and State and some right-wing human weasel.</strong>
That would be Jay Sekulow from the American Center for Law and [Christian] Justice. Those strings protruding from his head and back were manipulated by Pat Robertson since Mr. Sekulow clearly has no fucking brain.

<strong>
Quote:
Ms. Khan explained quite simply that the ruling was about not complelling children who may not be monotheists to either protest or participate in the pledge. The Surrogate O'Reilly and the weasel were having none of it, asking "what harm" it would do to have the kid recite the pledge anyway , what harm could it do to force their religious beliefs on children. The Surrogate O'Reilly loved using phrases like "the tail wagging the dog" and "tyranny of the majority" which, I guess, reflects the frustration of powerful Christians when they are temporarily thwarted in forcing their views on other people, even if these people are children.</strong>
Good analysis. They had the typical, "well Yahweh is the one true god so why should anyone be offended anyway" arrogance about them.
Philosoft is offline  
Old 06-27-2002, 07:49 PM   #438
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: I`ve left and gone away
Posts: 699
Question

Does anyone know what Star Jones had to say about this?

I don`t usually catch her dumb little show,but her two ton ass must have gone apeshit when she heard that a dirty atheist tried to take god out of the pledge.

Lets not forget that she recently said she would NEVER vote for an athiest,but might *possibly* let one babysit her kids.

Lets also not forget that during the Florida voting fiasco her and her think tank of ladies were discussing what they would ask Bush or Gore if they had the chance.
The other ladies had somewhat decent questions,but Star Jones felt it was most important to ask Dubya about his relationship with Jesus.

On second thought maybe we *should* just forget about the dumb bitch.
Anunnaki is offline  
Old 06-27-2002, 08:51 PM   #439
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 1,358
Post

FYI, As reported in Australia:

<a href="http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/06/27/1023864631698.html" target="_blank">http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/06/27/1023864631698.html</a>
Arrowman is offline  
Old 06-27-2002, 08:55 PM   #440
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
Question

Quote:
Originally posted by Arrowman:
<strong>FYI, As reported in Australia:

<a href="http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/06/27/1023864631698.html" target="_blank">http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/06/27/1023864631698.html</a></strong>

Quote:
The ruling also puts at risk the patriotic songs God Bless America and America the Beautiful, both of which contain references to God
At risk for what? Making the Congressional bean brains stop singing it on the steps of Capitol Hill immediately after 3000 people die in terrorist attacks? Where do I sign?
Philosoft is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:33 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.