Why do Liberals typically attack and pervert Christianity?

[sangha]

Because I'm not going to go back through 98 pages to find it? How hard is it to paste a link?

If you don't want me to know what you are talking about, fine.

Why do you need to go back? Why didn't you read it the first time?

Someone wanted you to know what we are talking about, but we can't make you read anything. But if you don't want to know what the people you are talking to are saying, fine

 

[mac]

Why do you need to go back? Why didn't you read it the first time?

Someone wanted you to know what we are talking about, but we can't make you read anything. But if you don't want to know what the people you are talking to are saying, fine

I don't know why I didn't read it the first time, that's the point. I work, I have kids....what are you looking for here? I missed it, sue me.

 

[sangha]

I don't know why I didn't read it the first time, that's the point. I work, I have kids....what are you looking for here? I missed it, sue me.

If you want, you can spend your time paying attention to what others are posting, or you could spend your time posting. If you don't want to know, fine.

 

[mac]

If you want, you can spend your time paying attention to what others are posting, or you could spend your time posting. If you don't want to know, fine.

Well, then, I guess we'll just assume some kid got "fussed" at and go from there. So what? Someone allegedly got punished in that last 200 years for not saying the pledge of allegiance, I bet they moved past it.

 

[Thunder]

or didn't.

are you saying God does not exist, or America is not under God?

or are you just saying I am a hypocrite and a liar?

 

[Geo Patric]

Words have the meaning we give them.

you related to the Red Queen?

I made it through Les Miserables too, Don Quixote was easy compared to that.

foof.... Les Miserable m'a laissé misérables!

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

Then you are far more superficial in your understandings than you give yourself credit for.

thank you ... i will try to keep that in mind.

It can just as easily be argued that all means nothing. Giving credit and credence to such dissenting view not only diminishes the symbol, but diminishes what is symbolized. Just as in the case of the swastika.

oh, crap... solipsistic and trite.

p'raps in my desire to be generous i have been affording your thinking greater credit than it merits. we can amend that.

your disinclination to give credence to dissent tells a great deal. i expect King George would have approved of your 'idealism'. The symbol of a nation struggling for freedom from an oppressor and the symbol of a nation oppressing a people struggling for freedom do not say the same thing. yes, they still identify the same temporal entity, but they do not carry the same message. you are willing to swear that you will support whatever actions are taken by whatever government holding power over that temporal entity decides. i do not.

Sovereigns is taking it to the extreme, and this is where you loose the plot.

sovereign: one possessing or held to possess supreme political power or sovereignty

i do not 'loose' anything. that citizens in a liberal democracy are the supreme power is exactly as it is supposed to be. under a monarchy, it is the monarch. in a government by the people it IS the people. that you cannot accede to the sovereignty of the individual in making her own political decisions or of the people to govern themselves, again, says a great deal about your political stance.

And here we have freedom of speech, which we are both exercising, undisturbed.

and we have that 'freedom of speech' specifically for the purposes of dissent. there was no need for it otherwise. one's allegiance to the powers that be is not restricted by the powers that be.

Indeed. So?

again, that you see as valid and purposeful a practice that is clearly prejudicial against those with whom you disagree tells a great deal about your political perspective and your ethical sensibility.

geo.

 

[mac]

you related to the Red Queen?

No, but am a fan of the back to front world.

foof.... Les Miserable m'a laissé misérables!

Me too, and it made my head hurt to boot.

geo.

 

[mac]

p'raps in my desire to be generous i have been affording your thinking greater credit than it merits. we can amend that.

I have been guilty of this, as well.

your disinclination to give credence to dissent tells a great deal. i expect King George would have approved of your 'idealism'. The symbol of a nation struggling for freedom from an oppressor and the symbol of a nation oppressing a people struggling for freedom do not say the same thing. yes, they still identify the same temporal entity, but they do not carry the same message. you are willing to swear that you will support whatever actions are taken by whatever government holding power over that temporal entity decides. i do not.

The point is not the feelings associated with the entity that the symbol represents. The entity is no different regardless of the point of view of the observer. In both cases, the flag represented the US, how one felt about the US in the separate occasions is a separate issue, besides, the US was attempting to protect South Vietnam from Communism (which they did not want).

sovereign: one possessing or held to possess supreme political power or sovereignty

A sovereign is not subject to authority. As an American you are subject to authority despite participating in the empowerment of that authority.

i do not 'loose' anything.

No, but you did lose the plot regardless of my typo.

that citizens in a liberal democracy are the supreme power is exactly as it is supposed to be. under a monarchy, it is the monarch. in a government by the people it IS the people. that you cannot accede to the sovereignty of the individual in making her own political decisions or of the people to govern themselves, again, says a great deal about your political stance.

They are not the supreme power individually and are subject to the authority of the United States and it's laws.

and we have that 'freedom of speech' specifically for the purposes of dissent. there was no need for it otherwise. one's allegiance to the powers that be is not restricted by the powers that be.

It is not my intention to to suggest that all dissent is inappropriate....just that it is often senseless.

again, that you see as valid and purposeful a practice that is clearly prejudicial against those with whom you disagree tells a great deal about your political perspective and your ethical sensibility.

geo.

That's an extremist view of the situation and clearly defines your political perspective. The practice obviously has a purpose...to instill allegiance and patriotism, two things that are not harmful. However I agree that forcing it is counterproductive, to say the least.

 

[Geo Patric]

The point is not the feelings associated with the entity that the symbol represents.

??? who said anything about 'feelings'?

The entity is no different regardless of the point of view of the observer. In both cases, the flag represented the US, how one felt about the US in the separate occasions is a separate issue, besides, the US was attempting to protect South Vietnam from Communism (which they did not want).

the United States was engaged in an imperialist action to preserve an oppressive government easily as bad as that of the one they fought. again. who gives a **** about 'feelings'? support of that action was either a result of the conclusion that denying a people the right to govern themselves is a perfectly valid course if you think it suits YOUR ends or an unthinking 'allegiance' to whatever the Unites States government did.

A sovereign is not subject to authority. As an American you are subject to authority despite participating in the empowerment of that authority.

As an American citizen YOU are the authority who extends the expression of that authority to others, just as the owner of you car, you extend the expression of ownership to the person who must have it in order to fix it when it is not working. The People are Sovereign. If that is not how it actually works it is because he have abandoned our responsibilities as Sovereigns.

dissent is rarely more senseless than allegiance with tends to be deaf and blind.

extremist. to oppose the imposition of prejudice.

why would an individual brought up in Liberty and Justice need to have his love of a nation based in Liberty and Justice 'instilled' in him at an age when he was incapable of understanding what 'patriotism' OR 'allegiance' actually mean? well, maybe because understanding is not the intent. Obedience is the intent.

have you any idea how many other nations in the world are so afraid of their own people's disloyalty as to feel the need of a 'pledge of allegiance'? and how many pander to what Jefferson called "the blindfold of fear' that they include kowtowing to a religion to lend it support?

answers: one and one. and that one, the same one in both cases, was an a 'property' of an imperialist, religionist oppressor a the time. guess who?

geo.

 

[mac]

??? who said anything about 'feelings'?

Feelings, perceptions...:shrug:

the United States was engaged in an imperialist action to preserve an oppressive government easily as bad as that of the one they fought. again. who gives a **** about 'feelings'? support of that action was either a result of the conclusion that denying a people the right to govern themselves is a perfectly valid course if you think it suits YOUR ends or an unthinking 'allegiance' to whatever the Unites States government did.

That is clearly one way to look at, the other is that the US was defending the South from communist incursion from the North. Regardless, the US was the US despite the direction you looked at the issue from.

As an American citizen YOU are the authority who extends the expression of that authority to others, just as the owner of you car, you extend the expression of ownership to the person who must have it in order to fix it when it is not working. The People are Sovereign. If that is not how it actually works it is because he have abandoned our responsibilities as Sovereigns.

The people (as a whole of American citizenry) are sovereign, the individual is not, clearly.

dissent is rarely more senseless than allegiance with tends to be deaf and blind.

The two are about equal in all sensory respects, as far as I am concerned.

extremist. to oppose the imposition of prejudice.

No, to assume that that that is the intent and that it is somehow a malicious intent.

why would an individual brought up in Liberty and Justice need to have his love of a nation based in Liberty and Justice 'instilled' in him at an age when he was incapable of understanding what 'patriotism' OR 'allegiance' actually mean? well, maybe because understanding is not the intent. Obedience is the intent.

For the same reasons that all things must be taught to everyone as they grow to adulthood.

have you any idea how many other nations in the world are so afraid of their own people's disloyalty as to feel the need of a 'pledge of allegiance'? and how many pander to what Jefferson called "the blindfold of fear' that they include kowtowing to a religion to lend it support?

And these nations typically outlaw political opposition, rule through force, and stifle the press. This is not what America is or does.

answers: one and one. and that one, the same one in both cases, was an a 'property' of an imperialist, religionist oppressor a the time. guess who?

geo.

If you think only America and one other nation encourage a "Pledge of Allegiance" or something very similar, you are not looking very closely.

 

[Geo Patric]

The people (as a whole of American citizenry) are sovereign, the individual is not, clearly.

yes, clearly my impulse to generosity led me into error. if the individual within a sovereign groups is not sovereign herself, to whom is she subject?

only the Phillipines has a pledge of allegiance for its own citizens. it was written while the phillipines was a U.S. colony.

geo.

 

[mac]

yes, clearly my impulse to generosity led me into error. if the individual within a sovereign groups is not sovereign herself, to whom is she subject?

only the Phillipines has a pledge of allegiance for its own citizens. it was written while the phillipines was a U.S. colony.

geo.

If you are subject to authority, as all US citizens are, then you are not A sovereign.

Quite a few countries have national pledges, Geo, not just the US and The Phillipines.

 

[Geo Patric]

The people (as a whole of American citizenry) are sovereign, the individual is not, clearly.

truly, my generous impulse led me astray. a group of people can only have attributes of the people that make it up. there is no other source. where else can the citizenry get it sovereignty except from the citizens that make it up? Oh... yeah... i was forgetting.

GAWD!

only the phillipines has a pledge of allegiance for its own citizens. it was written in the last days of its durance as an American colonial property.

the american pledge was written by a baptist minister and socialist who though that a "democracy like ours cannot afford to throw itself open to the world where every man is a lawmaker". a real egalitarian, he left out the words 'equality' and 'fraternity' because, well, that might be thought to include blacks and women. In his considered opinion, "every dull-witted or fanatical immigrant admitted to our citizenship is a bane to the commonwealth". He feared a nation "where all classes of society merge insensibly into one another". just THINK of it!

He wanted to "protect" the "insufficiently patriotic" from themselves by pounding it into them with a ball peen hammer. How patriotic is sufficiently patriotic or how it could be measured... he didn't say.

the words "under God' were sponsored by a 'patriotic' religious fraternity who, having failed to get Congress to pay any attention, tried Truman ('thanks, but, no thanks') and finally succeeded with Eisenhower who had recently converted to his wife's religion.

this same 'fraternal organization' recently 'repledged' their pledge in an expartite brief before the Supreme Court saying 'our national ethos has held that we have inalienable rights that the State cannot take away, because the source of those inalienable rights is an authority higher than the State."

gee... i wonder who they meant?

this is depressing. i am going home and mumble magic words over a bowl of Udon.

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

Quite a few countries have national pledges, Geo, not just the US and The Phillipines.

if it is true, you can show it.

geo.

 

[mac]

truly, my generous impulse led me astray. a group of people can only have attributes of the people that make it up. there is no other source. where else can the citizenry get it sovereignty except from the citizens that make it up? Oh... yeah... i was forgetting.

GAWD!

only the phillipines has a pledge of allegiance for its own citizens. it was written in the last days of its durance as an American colonial property.

the american pledge was written by a baptist minister and socialist who though that a "democracy like ours cannot afford to throw itself open to the world where every man is a lawmaker". a real egalitarian, he left out the words 'equality' and 'fraternity' because, well, that might be thought to include blacks and women. In his considered opinion, "every dull-witted or fanatical immigrant admitted to our citizenship is a bane to the commonwealth". He feared a nation "where all classes of society merge insensibly into one another". just THINK of it!

He wanted to "protect" the "insufficiently patriotic" from themselves by pounding it into them with a ball peen hammer. How patriotic is sufficiently patriotic or how it could be measured... he didn't say.

the words "under God' were sponsored by a 'patriotic' religious fraternity who, having failed to get Congress to pay any attention, tried Truman ('thanks, but, no thanks') and finally succeeded with Eisenhower who had recently converted to his wife's religion.

this same 'fraternal organization' recently 'repledged' their pledge in an expartite brief before the Supreme Court saying 'our national ethos has held that we have inalienable rights that the State cannot take away, because the source of those inalienable rights is an authority higher than the State."

gee... i wonder who they meant?

this is depressing. i am going home and mumble magic words over a bowl of Udon.

geo.

geo, this is not difficult, a sovereign entity is not subject to any outside authority. The usg gets it power and authority from the citizenry, this is true, but it does not make individual citizens sovereign. Every citizen is subject to the authority and laws of the united states, and the state and locality in which they are present.

The pledge of allegiance of the united states and of the Philippines are national pledges, similar in purpose and scope to many other national pledges throughout the world.

 

[mac]

if it is true, you can show it.

geo.

I'd link them, but I'm on my iPad. So, if you'll be so kind to google "national pledge of" and see what you get. I think you'll like guyana's.

Jamaica's is pretty cool too, in a different way.

 

[Geo Patric]

Every citizen is subject to the authority and laws of the united states

and law is decided BY the citizenry. government OF, FOR and BY the People. in a democratic republic, national sovereignty is derived from individual sovereignty. i will no bother to cite the long list of political philosophers to whom we are indebted for this essential premise. if you cannot see that a sovereign people MUST, as a matter of simple logic, be comprised of sovereign people, nothing is gonna make it make sense.

as a conservative, your fear and mistrust of goverment obliges you to see government as "THEM" rather than "US" and i doubt THAT is subject to change either.

The pledge of allegiance of the united states and of the Philippines are national pledges, similar in purpose and scope to many other national pledges throughout the world.

if any but those two nations have a pledge of allegiance for their own citizens, you can show it.

geo.

 

[mac]

and law is decided BY the citizenry. government OF, FOR and BY the People. in a democratic republic, national sovereignty is derived from individual sovereignty. i will no bother to cite the long list of political philosophers to whom we are indebted for this essential premise. if you cannot see that a sovereign people MUST, as a matter of simple logic, be comprised of sovereign people, nothing is gonna make it make sense.

All right....any particular individual us citizen may withdraw his consent to be governed by the united states as he/she wished and would no longer be subject to it's laws. Is that true?

as a conservative, your fear and mistrust of goverment obliges you to see government as "THEM" rather than "US" and i doubt THAT is subject to change either.

I am not a conservative, Geo.

if any but those two nations have a pledge of allegiance for their own citizens, you can show it.

geo.

I did. Google national pledge of Guyana.

 

[Thunder]

if you live within the legal and sovereign borders of the United States of America, hell if you're even just on vacation in the USA.....you are under the jurisdiction of American law, and have NO choice in this matter.

if such a situation bothers you, then you should not be here.

 

[sangha]

I'd link them, but I'm on my iPad. So, if you'll be so kind to google "national pledge of" and see what you get. I think you'll like guyana's.

Jamaica's is pretty cool too, in a different way.

Neither Guyanas' nor Jamaicas' are a Pledge of ALLEGIANCE which is what was asked for.

 

[mac]

Neither Guyanas' nor Jamaicas' are a Pledge of ALLEGIANCE which is what was asked for.

Really, do you think that because they don't use the word allegiance? Why don't you go on and read guyana's....for a start.

 

[sangha]

Really, do you think that because they don't use the word allegiance? Why don't you go on and read guyana's....for a start.

You're the one claiming it is a pledge of allegiance. If you won't defend your own words, why should I?

 

[mac]

You're the one claiming it is a pledge of allegiance. If you won't defend your own words, why should I?

Guyana's National Pledge to the Flag

Guyana's National Pledge to the Flag



I pledge myself to honor always the Flag of Guyana

and to be loyal to my country

to be obedient to the laws of Guyana

to love my fellow citizens

and to dedicate my energies towards

the happiness and prosperity of Guyana.

:shrug:

 

[sangha]

Guyana's National Pledge to the Flag



:shrug:

So where does it use the word "allegiance"??