Hey Shelby! How are you feeling? Your emails from last night have been trickling in all day. I'm not sure what's up with that, but I hope you're feeling better!

:)

Take care,
-Chris

I'm better than I was!! Today all the computers crashed in the office and I had my hands full!! Hopefully they will be running in the morning!! I got everything up but the server, I didn't want to wait around for it!! Thank you for caring, I will be fully better when I get some rest at my parents house...

Shelby :D

i know you didnt& i will never tell you what to believe in, its your right, l8ter:cool:

Cool. Too many people flying on autopilot! Have a great day, Marty. I'm done for the night.

Take care,
-Chris

Re: Re: hmmm...
 

I don't believe I ever pointed a finger or ever referred to you being a "lefty"...

Call me junior if you wish, but the fact is this country was founded "under God", and seeing how that's a fact, the phrase has every right to remain...

Re: Re: Re: hmmm...
 

I don't know why you thought it would turn out that way, I don't believe I've ever seen a "heated" issue remain friendly on ANY message board. If it doesn't stay civil on this board, it probably would be wildfire elsewhere.

That's why I pointed out Chris' post eariler saying it was "simple", and now calling someone "junior". Very unneccesary, and just infuriates people while clouding the issue. If that's the point, congrats. If not, well that's what happens when you condescend to others. Once that's done, you can forget about actually reaching an understanding because feelings are hurt and tempers flare.

Pkr: If you didn't want to join the thread (I totally understand why) then you should have stuck to the original plan ;)

Whoa!
 

Chris

Let's cool off.

No one called you a 'leftie'.

Don't erect strawmen such as claiming you 'never told anyone not to believe' when no one has accused you of doing any such thing. Your point is clear; you don't believe Under God should have been added to the pledge.

Others, including myself, have stated as to why we believe the words are perfectly justified and most Americans agree.

Fiveohboy01 stated what a lot of people feel, that the leftist, socialist agenda cloaked in 'PC' has been slowly squeezing the very mention of God's name in a public place - such as a school - out of existence. Schools are becoming liberal indoctrination centers where you can be taught how great and 'normal' homosexuality is but you can't mention God.

Guess what? A lot of tolerant folks are finally getting aroused enough to express their outrage over this nit-picky legalistic bickering over saying 'God' in a pledge of about 20 seconds length.

The ruling on this is a perfect example of the leftist mindset and Chris - while I know you're far from being a political leftist, when you keep claiming that 'Under God' should never, ever have even been in the Pledge it simply comes off as anti-God and one who doesn't know you in the slightest could assume you must be a 'Godless leftie'

In short; your POV is unpopular and seen by the uninformed as smacking of 'Godless Liberalism'. Sorry, but that's the perception.

It's a volitile issue but no need to namecall.

I have little left to say about it for now. Those who attack me are mostly incoherent anyway so I can ignore their rantings. I appreciate the opportunity to debate the issue with reasonable people but if the thread is going to degenerate into flames, it's going to be closed.

For the most part, I appreciate everyone's comments. Mustangbelle306 has shown great restraint here and I like the fact that she's seen how biting words lose your audience and your credibility. Always something to learn at Mustang Works.

Now, let's attempt a more adult discussion here and not get into name calling and wild charges that benefit no one and for those who don't want to participate, simply leave the thread and don't clutter it up with insults, complaints and accusations that make no sense.

Thanks.

This topic is a very touchy issue and is getting out of hand. When congress changes things like this, its kind of like when catholics change versus in the bible :confused: I really dont see the point.

If you truely believe in god noone is gonna stop you from saying it. So what does it matter if its in the pledge or not.

Im with Chris it never should have been altered in the 1st place.


Lets just agree to disagree........This is like debating if people are born gay, Everyone will have there own opinion and in the end we will have solved nothing.

Later

The value of debate
 

Dark_5.0:

Let me address some of your contentions.

As was stated in earlier posts, the Pledge of Allegiance is not an 'official' document, just a pledge written by a Baptist minister in 1892 and recognized by Congress as a national pledge during WWII when this country was about 100 times more patriotic than it is now. Wars have that effect.

The words 'Under God' were added by Congress in 1954. In the 48 years since, no one has objected much. Now, a half centruy later, it's a 'problem? Bull. It's simply some atheist making a (literal) federal case out of nothing. He wants 'God' out of schools. A Federal Appeals court agreed with the absurd contention that if a child simply hears the words 'Under God' she is deprived of her right to be an atheist. That's not a supportable argument and will be overturned by the Supreme Court.

The reason the words 'Under God' are in the Pledge have been articulated more than once in posts on this thread. Re-read them for edification on the subject, if you wish.

As for agreeing to disagree, of course we will. However, debate is healthy. We are required to explain and defend our various positions and others with no opinion can see both sides of the issue. I may not change your mind, but I may change someone else's reading the thread - or vice versa.

That's why name-calling and bumper-sticker slogans are so useless. They do noting but appeal to emotions and no point is made or any rational thought given to the subject.

'We' may not 'solve' anything, but we all get to use our First Amendment right and to debate this volitile issue openly. To simply say, "I have my opinion and you have yours" is true enough but misses the point. Debating the truth of those opinions is what helps us grow intellectually and possibly even learn something in the process. I recommend it.

That's what this forum was established to do. Be a place to discuss non-car issues if we want to and debate everything and anything. Many don't wish to debate but just say 'I'm right' - you're wrong' and name-call. That's juvenile and isn't tolerated for long. Reasonable people can disagree on anything but they can also talk about it and maybe, learn something.

Re: The value of debate
 

You are without a doubt older and wiser than me. I have a lot of respect for you, your arguements do have merit and I acknowledge that.

I'll admit some of you made some great points that were contrary to my opinion. I do feel somewhat enlightened on this issue because of this debate.

America is by far the best deal out there and I'm happy I live in a place where I can freely express my opinion. I was not aware that it was an atheist that wanted the word 'God' removed. I think that any atheist that got terminaly ill would no longer be an atheist before they died. I pray every day cause I know there is a God.

Atheists are un-American.

Later,

Re: Whoa!
 

I only know this from first hand experience. Everyone (as I have learned) should be concerned of "first impressions" when posting on a website. Remember my avatar, and newcomers assuming it was me? Same theory here...don't get offended when people get the wrong impression. If you don't care, ignore their comments. If you do, take the time to correct them.

With the hostility issue, I used to get all riled up over issues I felt strongly about, but I really don't care anymore. Someone doesn't agree with me? Who cares! :) I can still feel how I please on a matter, but I'm not really concerned over converting others, or repeatedly driving home my point, at least not on the board. Needless to say, my life is a bit more stress free because of it ;)

Advanced citizenship........
 

So I have been following this thread since the beginning and I have one final(maybe) thought to add. It is something that popped into my head around page 2 and I thought I would add it now.

Anyone remember that movie with Michael Douglas as president? I think it was called The American President, or something like that. Twoards the end, he goes off on this little rant about America. Allow me to attempt to quote it.

"America is advanced citizenship, it's not easy. Not only does the flag stand as a sybol of our country, but also one burning the flag in protest. You not only have to protect your First Amendment write to shout what you believe at the top of your lungs, but also protect the right of the person shouting beliefs that make your blood curl at the top of theirs."

Let me make it clear that I am in no way advocating flag burning or anything of that nature. My only point is to say that we should all stand up and defend everyones right to stand up and voice their opinion. If one only backs supports free speech and aknowledges our history when it is easy to do so, are we really free?:confused:

And following that speech, didn't he proceed to butcher the second amendment? That movie was entertaining except for that little political statement of Rob Reiner's.

That all depends on what you consider a "Well organized mailita."

Personally, some of the gangs in LA have more orginization than the Culpepper minute men ever did, but we don't need to start that argument.

And as far as the the first amendment goes, it depends on what "establish", "religion", and "free" mean. I suppose congress could legislate new meanings to those words and then strip us of those freedoms completely like they are doing with the second amendment. The fact is, though, that the founders knew exactly what those words meant which is why they used them. A clock that keeps accurate time is a well-regulated clock. You can find an example of the term being used in the Federalist papers.

Degree of perfection goes hand-in-hand with well-regulated. And as far as the sentence is structured, "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it is clear that the first part will be achieved by the second part being enforced. The first part by no means limits the second.

Second Amendment observations
 

Oh, why not?

First: Rob Reiner is a flaming liberal and has been for years. He doesn't try to hide it, he's proud of it. He hates the Second Amendment and probably a lot of other Amendments but let's concentrate on the Second.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

There are no constitutional rights for groups, only for individuals. Individuals may own guns and can be part of a 'militia' (citizen army). The term: 'The people' means what it says, citizens of the United States. The term 'citizens' is plural, meaning all that fall under that term, not simply military members. The framers recognized the right of self-defense as a preexisting right.

Congress may not infringe on that right and endless attempts by certain groups to take that constitutional right away through twisting the Second Amendment to say what they want it to say is troubling.

Reasonable people have no problem with gun laws that restrict ownership to non-felons, require criminal background checks and waiting periods. That's sensible - although it does little to deter criminals from obtaining weapons as far as I can tell.

It's the determined fight of the 'gun-grabbers' like multi-millionaire Rob Reiner who can hire armed bodyguards for his person and property but wants to ban ordinary citizens from owing a gun under penalty of law that disturb me.

I don't own a gun, never have and probably never wiill but that's my choice. My Constitution says I have the right to own a gun and I have no intention of giving up that right because the Rob Reiners of the world think I should.

Re: Second Amendment observations
 

Only because I thought a thread discussing God and our right to bear arms would cause a whole lot of trouble.

I grew up around guns and as a child could "out shoot" people two/three times my age. The second amendment is properly ranked in terms of importance to our freedoms. The right to speak our minds and the right to defend oneself, are the two cornerstones of a free society.

The idea that the government limit the type and number of weapons that the public have scares me. That is one of the first things a totalitarian society does. If you get the weapons, how can there be an uprising? Sticks?

If people know how to use, and store them, firearms are no more dangerous than a car. Consider, both operate by internal combustion propeling a steel object. I almost forgot, the same people who want guns gone, hate cars too.:rolleyes:

I'll leave the rest up to my uncle Mr. Wesson.;)

Second Amendment
 

Deuce:

Good observations on your part.

I have no fears of discussing God or the Second Amendment; I've done so many times with many different people that held many different views, both in person and on the web.

The key to a good discussion is to stick to facts, avoid cliches and don't personalize the issue. Because someone disagrees with me that doesn't mean that they're stupid, immoral or evil, they just disagree and I usually want to know why and on what basis. Maybe I can show them were they might be wrong, maybe they can show me where I could be mistaken. That's intelligent discussion, often beneficial.

Those who choose to come on internet threads with screaming accusations and name-calling, painting all who disagree as some kind of blithering idiot, immoral or otherwise unfit to live, waste everyone's time. That's just ignorance talking in most cases and those folks cannot sustain a valid argument except to name-call and scream. Ho hum.

Opposition to the Second Amendment (legal private citizen gun ownership) is often well-intentioned (stop crime and killings) but it never works in the real world. Most countries (i.e. Australia's gun buy-back) that disarm citizens see a rapid and deadly rise in gun crime by - surprise - criminals with guns! The gun ban is usually quietly overturned in time by public demand.

I doubt many folks really want a total gun ban or the politicians would have gotten it by now. They've been trying for decades. Even the apolitical understand that being disarmed by your government is dangerous to your liberty and the first step down the path of totalitarianism. Ask a citizen of Cuba, China or Iraq how many guns they own.

Case closed as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks again for your comments.

Too bad you've lost all of yours.:(

I surrender, I have been defeated by your superior intellect:(