[quote]Originally posted by TheSaint:
[BThe Rupture can kiss my Pikachu-tailed agnostic butt, I think the world will not be such a bad place if couple million Christians just disappeared one night.
You had my attention, consideration, and some respect until that... More foolish statements and gross generalizations.
If someone had the courage and showed the disrespect to say something like that to my face and roll their eyes, which I doubt, it would take every little bit of good Christian in me not to deck them.
It is intolerant to force your beliefs onto others.
I do not subscribe to the Judeo/Islamic/Christian interpretation of God, but I respect the beliefs of those people.
Most practitioners of ANY given religion are good people. The zealots like Khomani, Falwell, etc. are the ones who give the rest a bad name.
------------------
AnlaShok, Captain of the Gray Hand of Fate Squadron
Sidhe-1
Wielder of the Big Heavy Hammer of Obvious Truth
"FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!"
[quote]Originally posted by AnlaShok:
[b]This is all about tolerance.
Most practitioners of ANY given religion are good people. The zealots like Khomani, Falwell, etc. are the ones who give the rest a bad name.
[/b][/quote]
Its the extremists of any religion that give the rest a bad name, Do you judge all Christians by what falwell does? or all Muslims by what Bin Laden does?
The Zealot mentality of some people makes them no better than bin laden, claiming that their god is better than your god. and willing to do ANYTHING to prove it.
Uh Saint, what you said about God, not having anything to do with anything, the Romans thought the same way that you do now. They became arrogant, pompous, etc. and their faith in Jupiter and the rest diminished. All of a sudden, they were surrounded by the people that still had faith. These were the Christians. Whereas the the Romans fell due to their lack of faith, the Christians propsered through their unbending faith.
As for your comment about Christians; don't quote me on this but didn't Hitler say something along similar lines regarding the Jews?
And once again, for the umpteenth time, no one's rights were infringed. Please people, read what I'm posting!
Sanfam, by posting that statement, you have proven to be the most tolerant person in this ongoing debate. My hat's off to you.
A2597, Muhammed is not a god, The Muslims believe in the same god that Jews and Christians do.
OK, sooo...your going to let the sevear minority that belives in NO god, rule? Seriously, how many people on this planet don't belive in some kind of God? If we let the minority rule...well, things would get messed up.
(DoM, Whoever that paster was, he needs a fwapping,Mother Therisa was most definetly not the devil, but hes right about works not getting you to heaven. I do think that Mother Therisa was a christan though (Meaning only that she believed in christ saving us, not implying that she wasn't really catholic. Most of my family is catholic BTW) [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
------------------
[b]whitestar90: [/b]"it would give the computer a heartattack just looking at it" -
[b]Sanfam: [/b]"And Drazi didn't like it one bit.-
[b]Mr.Bungle: [/b][i]"So that's where the forum went..."[/i]-
---
[b][i]ahhh, the good old days of HTML.[/i][/b]
[quote]Originally posted by TheSaint:
[b]The Rupture can kiss my Pikachu-tailed agnostic butt, I think the world will not be such a bad place if couple million Christians just disappeared one night.
And when the Rapture happens we'll be just as glad to be rid of your antagonistic asses and watch in amusment as you try to prove you have all the answers as well...
[quote]Originally posted by rcmodels:
[b]my opinion: who cares.[/b][/quote]
Agreed. I'm athiest and I could care less if its in there or not.
------------------
"Isn't the universe a wonderful place? I wouldn't want to live anywhere else! Love to stay! Can't! Have to go. Kiss kiss, love love! Bye!" - G'Kar
My appologies regarding the comment about Christians disappearing and Americans. First, when I say millions of Christians disappearing, I meant it in the context that it was assuming only Christians who forsake things like good deeds and fellow people in the worship of god's name are right, and they are the only ones saved. If those more hardcore Christians are right, then not all Christians are going to be zipped off to heaven. And the Jews are going to be in big, big trouble.
As for the American part, that wasn't meant in spite or anything, I just like making fun of Americans. It's a Canadian past time.
------------------
"God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
According to my Daddy (and my Daddy is always right!) the Pledge is nothing more that a commercial. Way back when in the 1800's a flag making company had a contest for a slogen of somekind. Basically this company wanted to get their flags into the schools. The slogan (which was something like: "I pledge allegiance to MY flag, and to the republic for which it stands, with liberty and justice for all.") became the pledge. And A2597, if it wasn't for the atheists, we would still have prayer in public schools.
Okay, I dont care whether you guys have the "under God" part in there... but I dont think prayer should be in public school. Private schools, okay... most of those are based on religion anyways. But public schools? Why? That would be forcing one specific religion on others.
Croxis, the original Pledge was written by Francis Bellamy, a former minister to the Bethany Baptist Church in Boston and vice president for the Society of Christian Socialists in 1892.
Also, from what I've read, religious instruction in public schools was considered okay because it was voluntary. Of course, that was until the 1960s where it was expelled.
Canuck, the Pledge isn't a prayer it is a national oath to the country, and even if it was, to what religion would the prayer be endorsing?
[This message has been edited by Admiral Andy (edited 06-29-2002).]
What I said about prayer in school wasn't about the pledge, I know thats not prayer... I was talking about Croxis' statement:
"if it wasn't for the atheists, we would still have prayer in public schools."
And when I was in school, before they stopped prayer in school, they had us saying the Lords Prayer, and others that I know have had the same experience, from both Canada and America.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
In NZ, some public schools are catholic and some arn't. Some private schools are catholic and some arn't. Some schools are Jewish. You have some choice in which one to send your kids to (there are some zoning restrictions, but they're constantly being argued about). If you want your kid to go to a catholic school, you send them to a catholic public one (or a private one if you want to spend that much money).
------------------
[b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
Just to respond to the criticism of Communist ideology, and its role in the last century - just when were these murders carried out by Communists?
You're falling into the grave trap of assuming Stalin's bureaucratic despotism is, in some way, a line of Communism - wrong. Completely, utterly, without even a hope of being anything other, wrong!
If you'd like to discover what Communism is, talk to someone who knows something about it - talk to me; after all, I am one.
Also, I feel it's an incredibly poor justification for the McCarthy period - you simply have to face up to the fact that the actions of this period put question on the whole integrity of the American constitution; thankfully the US hasn't seen the likes of it since, but it shows what a manipulative demagogue can do within such a framework.
Oh, and since this is mainly being directed at Admiral Andy, why didn't you pick some better examples - the Cultural Revolution? Which one - China's or Russia's? Maoiost or Leninist? The Bolshevik revolution - just that; and [i]not[/i] Communist, hence the Menshevik divide, or are we just forgetting the rising of the Krondstadt sailors? The Great Purge - Stalinism; better yet, no difference between the US and Communists? Try wrapping your head around freedom of speech, freedom from oppression, and widespread democracy and political representation and involvement...
... am I talking about the US or Communism?
I'll let you figure that one out for yourself [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
Mr_Bungle, (with the greatest respect of course) if your post isn't supposed to be some attempt at humor, please forgive me when I ask "what the hell have you been smoking?"
This is absurd and outrageous.
Definition of Stalinism:
"The bureaucratic, authoritarian exercise of state power and mechanistic application of Marxist-Leninist principles associated with Stalin."
Definition of Leninism:
"a form of communism based on the writings of Marx and Lenin."
Definition of Marxism:
"The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which the concept of class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society."
Definition of Communism:
"A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat."
Definition of Bolshevism:
"Soviet Communism."
Definition of Maoism:
"a form of communism developed in China by Mao Zedong."
All definitions are from [url="http://www.websters.com"]www.websters.com[/url]
By listing the Cultural Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution, Great Purge, etc., you seem to have answered the question of when the mass murders were carried out. I don't know why you need me to answer that.
Oh and another thing, the ruling bodies of both China and Russia were CCP (Chinese Communist Party) and CCCP (Central Committee of the Communist Party and its Politburo), so its pretty difficult to say they weren't communist.
And please, not to defend Joseph McCarthy, but how can you possibly equate him with Josef Stalin? Whatever his sins, McCarthy didn't wipe out nearly three times as many people as Hitler did like Stalin committed.
And please explain what you mean by no difference between the US and Communists.
Admiral Andy, are you completely missing the point?
You can spout off every definition under the sun to try and back-up your argument - the simple fact is that you're quoting from sources without a sufficient grasp on the subject.
So, here's what I'm going to suggest you do before you take another swipe at someone who knows more on the topic than it's been evident you do - go and read Marx.
So, how then was Stalinism 'communist'? And Maoism?
The simple answer being that, regardless of your incorrect definitions, they weren't - hence the phrases Maoism and Stalinism.
When you've read Marx I'll probably take what you're saying seriously; but when you're so blatantly off-kilter it's simply looking like a bad hack job a discrediting us. I find it quite easy to slate those regimes as being non-communist, due to the the simple fact that they weren't following communist thinking - how could they have been?
And the final point as to the lack of differences between the US and communism - read Marx, again. Put simply, communism isn't the final threat to democracy and freedom, but a mode of thinking that seeks to elevate both into something more tangible, with a good deal of egality thrown in [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
Still, go read Marx - you've got a lot to catch up on.
This is such baloney it's not even funny. Those definitions came straight from Websters dictionary website at [url="http://www.websters.com"]www.websters.com[/url] and offer the closest thing to an unbiased view of communism. To say that a dictionary doesn't have sufficient grasp of the meaning of a word is completely ludicrous.
Besides that, you are arguing from a pro-communist standpoint. How am I supposed to get an unbiased definition from someone who advocates a pro/con position?
To say that Stalinism, Leninism, and the rest are in no way tied to Communism is imagined fantasy.
Discrediting Communism?
It has already been proven it doesn't work!
Have you looked at how every Communist country's government has absolute power that has virtually no checks and balances?
Do you know that Communism prohibits the free exercise of religion because the state establishes atheism as the dominant faith as stated in the Communist Manifesto?
Do you know that the State can take away land from its owner without any compensation?
Do you know that the United States of America is not in anyway founded on the belief of Equality of Condition or Equality of Result, but on Freedom?
Jefferson's famous line "All men are created equal" pertains to the concept that everyone had the right to life, liberty, property and must all be judged equal under the law. That means that everyone is entitled to the same opportunities as everyone else, not that they must be confined to one economic or social class.
Again, I don't mean to be a jerk, but if anyone's argument should not be taken seriously, it isn't mine.
In any event, I am not going to debate imagined fantasy as if it were an actual fact. The afore-mentioned Pledge topic has ended, this thread should be closed.
I've invited you to pick up the information you need, and you've only managed to come up with more misguided ramblings.
You're right; this is a load of baloney. And, yes; it's not funny. Either study the facts or drop out of the argument, as you're wasting my time, and anyone else who might drop by and actually bother to look at your posts.
[quote][b]Those definitions came straight from Websters dictionary website at [url="http://www.websters.com"]www.websters.com[/url] and offer the closest thing to an unbiased view of communism. To say that a dictionary doesn't have sufficient grasp of the meaning of a word is completely ludicrous.[/b][/quote]
They're quite right in being 'unbiased', where you take 'unbiased' to refer to a lack of understanding of the matter in question - I didn't think much of them, and nor did Callinicos and Bonefeld, my tutors, and also leading world experts in the field of Marxist thought. They're cute; they're misleading; and they're no use for dealing with the subject on any intelligible level.
Put simply, if I used them in any of my degree work, I'd take a kicking on my final marks.
[quote][b]Besides that, you are arguing from a pro-communist standpoint. How am I supposed to get an unbiased definition from someone who advocates a pro/con position?[/b][/quote]
Erm... I thought a Communist would have been the ideal person to have consulted with regards to coming up with a definition as to its nature and workings; it certainly would have defeated by earlier objection as to the validity of your initial definitions. Instead, you've turned from definition, [i]per se[/i], into the realm of pro/con style definitions - which sadly doesn't work, and is easily open to criticism and rejection. All definitions are unbiased; and if they include bias, then they cease to be relevant.
Which would be fair enough, if I were trying to interject some degree of bias into the debate - sadly, for you, I'm not. I'm simply saying you're wrong; and, to be brutally honest, I'm in a much better position to be able to say so.
[quote][b]To say that Stalinism, Leninism, and the rest are in no way tied to Communism is imagined fantasy.[/b][/quote]
I didn't say they weren't connected - but I did deny that they were Communistic.
[quote][b]Discrediting Communism?
It has already been proven it doesn't work!
Have you looked at how every Communist country's government has absolute power that has virtually no checks and balances?[/b][/quote]
[quote][b]Do you know that Communism prohibits the free exercise of religion because the state establishes atheism as the dominant faith as stated in the Communist Manifesto?
Do you know that the State can take away land from its owner without any compensation?[/b][/quote]
Which is quite amusing, as in Communism there [i]isn't[/i] a state [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/tongue.gif[/img]
I think you've misread, or misquoted the point you wished to make; if you give me the passage number, I'll post the relevant section in for people. It's probably better to discuss it in context - mind you, are you only using the Manifesto?
If so that's like taking a book and reading the first page, and then deciding the entire book is poor - the Manifesto is an incredibly simple piece of political thinking, mainly as it was written as a small pamphlet to be read by men of little education. Yet again I'd say go back and read more of Marx - tackle some of his more detailed works, and then comeback when you know something about the topic you're trying to discuss.
Read Marx, and then try some of his contemporaries and influences - try Hegel if you can manage it. That should give you a nice insight into the workings of dialectic, and also a new perspective on some of the more spiritual aspects of Marxs theory.
With regards to the state taking property away without compensation - well, so can the US government; in fact, pretty much any state can do that. Wow. Woop.
Marx was more refering to the redistribution of the means of production, to better reflect a more evenly distributed society.
[quote][b]Do you know that the United States of America is not in anyway founded on the belief of Equality of Condition or Equality of Result, but on Freedom?[/b][/quote]
Freedom? I don't think you know what that is - between an increasingly security conscious government, religious, political and material lobbies, I don't think that the US knows freedom; nor ever, truly, has done.
[quote][b]Jefferson's famous line "All men are created equal" pertains to the concept that everyone had the right to life, liberty, property and must all be judged equal under the law. That means that everyone is entitled to the same opportunities as everyone else, not that they must be confined to one economic or social class.[/b][/quote]
A common misunderstanding - in Communism there simply wouldn't be any economic stratification of society, and so the argument is rendered moot. People aren't pushed into one bracket or another, as all brackets would cease to be.
If the point was that you were trying to show the differences between Communism and the US, then I can understand the direction of the comment - still, Marx doesn't deny property, [i]per se[/i] - but all shall have a share in the means of production, and have a right to that.
The rest of it - the equality of oppurtunity, and representation, you'll find apply under Communism, and all forms of socialism.
[quote][b]Again, I don't mean to be a jerk, but if anyone's argument should not be taken seriously, it isn't mine.[/b][/quote]
What argument? For the most part you've lacked argument... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/rolleyes.gif[/img]
[quote][b]In any event, I am not going to debate imagined fantasy as if it were an actual fact.[/b][/quote]
Well, all I can say is go f*ck yourself, if you want to be negative about something someone else holds dear - put simply, I will [i]not[/i] have my belief system insulted by someone with no grounding to make such a judgement.
To be fair, we've never seen a Communist state - and I don't think we will, for some time, not until the material requirements are met; it simply couldn't be done.
But, with the growing debate over the future of capitalism, people are starting to come back to the subject - capitalism had often been touted as the end process of social evolution - hence "The end of history".
However, capitalism seems to be struggling with present social forces - just where will the next evolution take modern society?
It's an interesting question - socialism is gaining in popularity, as the post-modern paradigm shifts.
Who knows? I still think Communism is a workable solution for an advanced society - maybe not now, but certainly someday [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
I've spotted a load of errors in my reply, already, but I still thik it's covered most of what you objected to - and I can't say better than that with my current blood alcohol level.
Oh, and since I'm doing a degree in this subject, I wouldn't mind if you don't treat me like a complete idiot. You can rest assured that I, at least, have been doing my reading [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/tongue.gif[/img]
I'm lazy, I'm a freeloader when I can be. I rufuse to take out the trash for anyone else and be railroaded into manual labor or unsanitary jobs. I'm the kind of person that makes communism fail and there are millions like me!
Thank God for Human Nature!
Small societies are the only place where communism works. Even if we were talking about small groups of people where I could motivate myself to work hard and group regulation would be possible because of the close nature of the society (eg the shakers, quakers, some indian tribes) how miserable would my life and life expectancy be?
If we are talking about a large society, well a leader would have to help us with setting prices and getting us ready for the goverment to HAHA whither away. Who's smart enough to control all? Who has the perfect formula for who does what job, and how much everyone gets and how much they produce? What happens when god or fate throws in a few variables. I'm an economist I'll tell you right now NO ONE CAN PLAN PERFECTLY. On that note, even if they could absolute power corupts absolutly. Do I trust MR_Bungle with abosolute power? Where's my rifle?
(The edit was I deleted some inflamatory comments that didn't serve my cause)
[This message has been edited by Konrad (edited 07-01-2002).]
John 1:1-14 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
ADD TO
John 3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
ADD TO
John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
From this I gather the following:
14:6 - Jesus is truth and YHWH, Jesus' father; therefore, YHWH is the father of truth
3:6 - Flesh is made of flesh and spirit of spirit and the threshold between flesh and spirit cannot be crossed therefore...
1:1 - In the nature of truth YHWH created everything and a will to truth became flesh.
Summation: Jesus is the embodiment of truth. Therefore Jesus' pre-Earth existence was as truth. In other words a spirit - the definition of which is a motivating law or principle. Moreover, I would submit that this spirit is holy - the definition of which is pure - because nothing is more pure than the fundamental nature of truth, e.g. black/white, true/false, 0/1.
Back OT: I'll respond after I've read the rest of this thread.
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 07-01-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 07-01-2002).]
As a fellow member of society also, like Konrad, afflicted with the terrible disease known as [i]Chronic Laziness[/i] I have to say there needs to be some reason to get up in the morning - a painful one like a day job, explicitly: status in a reward based system. Still, this doesn't rule out Communism. In fact, if you collectivize like the Spanish revolutionaries you can have Communism AND Capitalism IN ONE. It wouldn't be hard, just make it so people could decide via referendum the policies of the state. This was going to be Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia but the United States put an end to their evil machinations post-haste and the populous now suffers in the basking glory of glorious, glorious economic freedom!
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
Quoting from the bible often doesn't move atheists is what I’ve learned... ...however you’re preaching to the choir in my case (HarHarHar).
As for the Vietnam Cambodia Laos comments, I didn’t know that. Seeing as how the evil US government put a stop to them long before I was born there wasn’t much I could do anyway if it is true what you said. However I am interested in the details of the idea.
This is specifically to Faylorn only: As you understand it how would wages and production be set through referendum under that system? (I love referendum societies like the Swiss by the way.)
What about property ownership? Means of production? What is produced when? What is the monetary system like, if any? How is unemployment dealt with? Do you get voted into the best job for you?!? Court system, national defense? Is there any central planing government at all?
Ack! I’m asking too much, just give me a little more info, or a source on the idea.
Edit: Wait, I just reread all that, the way I understand you is that all your suggesting is a Democratic Communism, not Capitalistic Communism, that's impossible.
People:
Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism are ECONOMIC ONLY!
Monarcy, Democracy, Dictatorship... are POLIITCAL SYSTEMS ONLY.
It's apples and oranges, you can't have Capitalism AND Communism!
The idea still intrests me but...
EDIT #2!!! I've got one more:
Mr_Bungle Said:
To be fair, we've never seen a Communist state - and I don't think we will, for some time, not until the material requirements are met; it simply couldn't be done.
Interesting and very correct point, My question to you is when will the material requirements ever be met? It's true that scarcity is the enemy of Communism. If there was a state of plenty I would run quickly to join you in your utopia. However, I can't imagine scarcity going away soon if ever, IMO when there is scarcity Markets are the best way to dole out what we have. While I know it leaves some behind it does keep the human race and science moving forward toward that wonderful day when there will be no scarcity and we will not leave anyone behind.
I wish you had said no Communism today, but maybe tommorow from the start. I would have taken it better.
[This message has been edited by Konrad (edited 07-01-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Konrad (edited 07-01-2002).]
Konrad, your objection on the grounds nf chronic laziness was answered by Marx and others some [i]150[/i] years ago - pick up the pace, will you?
You remember the quote that they're fond of giving with regards to Marx - from each according to their means, to each according to their needs?
If you don't work within the framework, then you don't get anything out of it - Marx admits that there will still be [i]necessary[/i] labour under Communism, much as there is in capitalism; and just as under capitalism, whilst you may not want to do it, you still have to do it.
It's a gross simplification, but it's a simple answer anyway - you could use the objection on capitalism, but no one bothers, just to see how absurd it is; apparently it's some magic way of singlehandedly refuting Marxist thinking. Wrong [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
I've noted from both of your posts, Faylorn and Konrad, that you seem to be thinking of Communism from the modern perspective - in essence from the Western liberal democratic tradition, with a good chunk of capitalism thrown into the mix; which is probably the wrong way to view the theory.
If you're looking for a wage, or some kind of reward system - then you're not going to find one, as you might currently understand one. You don't need a wage - no one's paying you for your labour; you own it yourself! No one's skimming off the product of your labour, and giving you a wage in return - you directly receive your product, which in turn is collectivised to suit the needa of the entire of society.
You need a reward system then? You want for nothing and have no debt... can't say better than that [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
Also Konrad, your objection about absolute power corrupting absolutely - funnily enough you could apply that to any government body; funnily enough you chose not to. If you want to make that objection, then you might as well apply it to any governmental framework - it doesn't apply simply in this case.
Much like the objection is overcome in other governmental bodies, I see no reason not to have it overcome in the transitional state.
A lot of the question is one of mindset, and this ties in with your question of 'when' Konrad - the simple answer being, when we're ready for it. It's a system requiring a good deal of maturity - the power really is in [i]your[/i] hands, and the decisions really do affect the individual. Much like the French Revolutionaries suggestion, education is the key; not some kind of brainwashing process, as I'm sure someone would be quick to suggest, but a simple opening up of oppurtunities, of showing people what they can achieve.
Another reason for delay would be that of the mode of production - I don't think Communism could work if there didn't exist the means to provide for every member of society. Once we can comfortably provide for ourselves, then certainly, we could start considering the matter more seriously. A lot of people pick up on this, which is why you see a lot of egalitarian societies in books concerning the future development of mankind. Marx recognised that the material fetters had to be broken; he just misjudged his timing, and who can blame him with the rapid progress of the industrial revolution? It must have seemed to him that production was increasing exponentially, without bounds.
Still, we're thinking along the same lines:
[quote][b]IMO when there is scarcity Markets are the best way to dole out what we have. While I know it leaves some behind it does keep the human race and science moving forward toward that wonderful day when there will be no scarcity and we will not leave anyone behind.[/b][/quote]
There you have it [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
Oh, I backed your comment up, Andy, that maybe this thread was in danger of wandering - and I got the comment back that if we can't handle the replies, then we shouldn't be making them [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/rolleyes.gif[/img]
I'm disappearing for three months, so anyone wishing to apply the smackdown to myself has a wait ahead of them - just so I don't leave with some bad karma, no offence meant gents; I'm just defending my own, as I'm sure you can appreciate [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
Personally, I completely agree with the ruling. The US constitution specifically calls for a seperation of church and state, which the pledge clearly does not allow. As many have said, "under God" was added during the 50's to make America seem like the "good guys" in the cold war (I'm not saying they weren't the good guys, lol). The pledge should be put back the way it was.
A2597: Anytime you have the majority of a group deciding the rights of a minority, you're getting into Communism. The whole "good of the many" argument. The United States is based upon personal freedom and personal rights, which means that my rights are just as valid as the rights of 10,000 Christians. This is how the country was formed, and this is how it should be run.
As to the argument that "no one is forced to make the pledge", that is completely untrue. This whole thing started because kids are required to speak the pledge in school, despite the beliefs that their parents chose to raise them on. Sure, the child has the option of not speaking the pledge, but they may not know that, and if they don't, they would obviously feel like an outsider because of their beliefs.
The Constitution is not something that can be cut up and pasted together again, containing only the parts that you like. It must be taken as a whole. The US government has no right to impose ANY kind of moral or religious guidelines on law abiding Americans. This freedom is the founding ideal of the country, and should be upheld.
------------------
[url="http://slade__tek.tripod.com/"]Alec McClymont[/url]
3D Artist - GVFX
"Something is only impossible until it's not."
Konrad: The part about combining Capitalism was to make the factories of the Spanish Revolutionaries part of companies. These companies would also be run by the workers of the factories via referendum and compete with other companies. Although, just as I'm typing this I'm realizing the Democracy could become a forum for rival companies to legislate against eachother.
Mr_Bungle: Given the definition provided by Dictionary.com I think so.
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 07-01-2002).]
Comments
[BThe Rupture can kiss my Pikachu-tailed agnostic butt, I think the world will not be such a bad place if couple million Christians just disappeared one night.
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/rolleyes.gif[/img] Americans. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/rolleyes.gif[/img]
[/B][/quote]
You had my attention, consideration, and some respect until that... More foolish statements and gross generalizations.
If someone had the courage and showed the disrespect to say something like that to my face and roll their eyes, which I doubt, it would take every little bit of good Christian in me not to deck them.
It is intolerant to insult another's beliefs.
It is intolerant to force your beliefs onto others.
I do not subscribe to the Judeo/Islamic/Christian interpretation of God, but I respect the beliefs of those people.
Most practitioners of ANY given religion are good people. The zealots like Khomani, Falwell, etc. are the ones who give the rest a bad name.
------------------
AnlaShok, Captain of the Gray Hand of Fate Squadron
Sidhe-1
Wielder of the Big Heavy Hammer of Obvious Truth
"FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!"
[b]This is all about tolerance.
Most practitioners of ANY given religion are good people. The zealots like Khomani, Falwell, etc. are the ones who give the rest a bad name.
[/b][/quote]
Its the extremists of any religion that give the rest a bad name, Do you judge all Christians by what falwell does? or all Muslims by what Bin Laden does?
The Zealot mentality of some people makes them no better than bin laden, claiming that their god is better than your god. and willing to do ANYTHING to prove it.
As for your comment about Christians; don't quote me on this but didn't Hitler say something along similar lines regarding the Jews?
And once again, for the umpteenth time, no one's rights were infringed. Please people, read what I'm posting!
Sanfam, by posting that statement, you have proven to be the most tolerant person in this ongoing debate. My hat's off to you.
A2597, Muhammed is not a god, The Muslims believe in the same god that Jews and Christians do.
(DoM, Whoever that paster was, he needs a fwapping,Mother Therisa was most definetly not the devil, but hes right about works not getting you to heaven. I do think that Mother Therisa was a christan though (Meaning only that she believed in christ saving us, not implying that she wasn't really catholic. Most of my family is catholic BTW) [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
------------------
[b]whitestar90: [/b]"it would give the computer a heartattack just looking at it" -
[b]Sanfam: [/b]"And Drazi didn't like it one bit.-
[b]Mr.Bungle: [/b][i]"So that's where the forum went..."[/i]-
---
[b][i]ahhh, the good old days of HTML.[/i][/b]
[b]The Rupture can kiss my Pikachu-tailed agnostic butt, I think the world will not be such a bad place if couple million Christians just disappeared one night.
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/rolleyes.gif[/img] Americans. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/rolleyes.gif[/img]
[/b][/quote]
And when the Rapture happens we'll be just as glad to be rid of your antagonistic asses and watch in amusment as you try to prove you have all the answers as well...
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/rolleyes.gif[/img] Foreigners. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/rolleyes.gif[/img]
[This message has been edited by JackN (edited 06-29-2002).]
[b]my opinion: who cares.[/b][/quote]
Agreed. I'm athiest and I could care less if its in there or not.
------------------
"Isn't the universe a wonderful place? I wouldn't want to live anywhere else! Love to stay! Can't! Have to go. Kiss kiss, love love! Bye!" - G'Kar
As for the American part, that wasn't meant in spite or anything, I just like making fun of Americans. It's a Canadian past time.
------------------
"God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
Also, from what I've read, religious instruction in public schools was considered okay because it was voluntary. Of course, that was until the 1960s where it was expelled.
Canuck, the Pledge isn't a prayer it is a national oath to the country, and even if it was, to what religion would the prayer be endorsing?
[This message has been edited by Admiral Andy (edited 06-29-2002).]
"if it wasn't for the atheists, we would still have prayer in public schools."
And when I was in school, before they stopped prayer in school, they had us saying the Lords Prayer, and others that I know have had the same experience, from both Canada and America.
------------------
[b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
You're falling into the grave trap of assuming Stalin's bureaucratic despotism is, in some way, a line of Communism - wrong. Completely, utterly, without even a hope of being anything other, wrong!
If you'd like to discover what Communism is, talk to someone who knows something about it - talk to me; after all, I am one.
Also, I feel it's an incredibly poor justification for the McCarthy period - you simply have to face up to the fact that the actions of this period put question on the whole integrity of the American constitution; thankfully the US hasn't seen the likes of it since, but it shows what a manipulative demagogue can do within such a framework.
Oh, and since this is mainly being directed at Admiral Andy, why didn't you pick some better examples - the Cultural Revolution? Which one - China's or Russia's? Maoiost or Leninist? The Bolshevik revolution - just that; and [i]not[/i] Communist, hence the Menshevik divide, or are we just forgetting the rising of the Krondstadt sailors? The Great Purge - Stalinism; better yet, no difference between the US and Communists? Try wrapping your head around freedom of speech, freedom from oppression, and widespread democracy and political representation and involvement...
... am I talking about the US or Communism?
I'll let you figure that one out for yourself [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
This is absurd and outrageous.
Definition of Stalinism:
"The bureaucratic, authoritarian exercise of state power and mechanistic application of Marxist-Leninist principles associated with Stalin."
Definition of Leninism:
"a form of communism based on the writings of Marx and Lenin."
Definition of Marxism:
"The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which the concept of class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society."
Definition of Communism:
"A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat."
Definition of Bolshevism:
"Soviet Communism."
Definition of Maoism:
"a form of communism developed in China by Mao Zedong."
All definitions are from [url="http://www.websters.com"]www.websters.com[/url]
By listing the Cultural Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution, Great Purge, etc., you seem to have answered the question of when the mass murders were carried out. I don't know why you need me to answer that.
Oh and another thing, the ruling bodies of both China and Russia were CCP (Chinese Communist Party) and CCCP (Central Committee of the Communist Party and its Politburo), so its pretty difficult to say they weren't communist.
And please, not to defend Joseph McCarthy, but how can you possibly equate him with Josef Stalin? Whatever his sins, McCarthy didn't wipe out nearly three times as many people as Hitler did like Stalin committed.
And please explain what you mean by no difference between the US and Communists.
You can spout off every definition under the sun to try and back-up your argument - the simple fact is that you're quoting from sources without a sufficient grasp on the subject.
So, here's what I'm going to suggest you do before you take another swipe at someone who knows more on the topic than it's been evident you do - go and read Marx.
So, how then was Stalinism 'communist'? And Maoism?
The simple answer being that, regardless of your incorrect definitions, they weren't - hence the phrases Maoism and Stalinism.
When you've read Marx I'll probably take what you're saying seriously; but when you're so blatantly off-kilter it's simply looking like a bad hack job a discrediting us. I find it quite easy to slate those regimes as being non-communist, due to the the simple fact that they weren't following communist thinking - how could they have been?
And the final point as to the lack of differences between the US and communism - read Marx, again. Put simply, communism isn't the final threat to democracy and freedom, but a mode of thinking that seeks to elevate both into something more tangible, with a good deal of egality thrown in [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
Still, go read Marx - you've got a lot to catch up on.
Besides that, you are arguing from a pro-communist standpoint. How am I supposed to get an unbiased definition from someone who advocates a pro/con position?
To say that Stalinism, Leninism, and the rest are in no way tied to Communism is imagined fantasy.
Discrediting Communism?
It has already been proven it doesn't work!
Have you looked at how every Communist country's government has absolute power that has virtually no checks and balances?
Do you know that Communism prohibits the free exercise of religion because the state establishes atheism as the dominant faith as stated in the Communist Manifesto?
Do you know that the State can take away land from its owner without any compensation?
Do you know that the United States of America is not in anyway founded on the belief of Equality of Condition or Equality of Result, but on Freedom?
Jefferson's famous line "All men are created equal" pertains to the concept that everyone had the right to life, liberty, property and must all be judged equal under the law. That means that everyone is entitled to the same opportunities as everyone else, not that they must be confined to one economic or social class.
Again, I don't mean to be a jerk, but if anyone's argument should not be taken seriously, it isn't mine.
In any event, I am not going to debate imagined fantasy as if it were an actual fact. The afore-mentioned Pledge topic has ended, this thread should be closed.
You're right; this is a load of baloney. And, yes; it's not funny. Either study the facts or drop out of the argument, as you're wasting my time, and anyone else who might drop by and actually bother to look at your posts.
[quote][b]Those definitions came straight from Websters dictionary website at [url="http://www.websters.com"]www.websters.com[/url] and offer the closest thing to an unbiased view of communism. To say that a dictionary doesn't have sufficient grasp of the meaning of a word is completely ludicrous.[/b][/quote]
They're quite right in being 'unbiased', where you take 'unbiased' to refer to a lack of understanding of the matter in question - I didn't think much of them, and nor did Callinicos and Bonefeld, my tutors, and also leading world experts in the field of Marxist thought. They're cute; they're misleading; and they're no use for dealing with the subject on any intelligible level.
Put simply, if I used them in any of my degree work, I'd take a kicking on my final marks.
[quote][b]Besides that, you are arguing from a pro-communist standpoint. How am I supposed to get an unbiased definition from someone who advocates a pro/con position?[/b][/quote]
Erm... I thought a Communist would have been the ideal person to have consulted with regards to coming up with a definition as to its nature and workings; it certainly would have defeated by earlier objection as to the validity of your initial definitions. Instead, you've turned from definition, [i]per se[/i], into the realm of pro/con style definitions - which sadly doesn't work, and is easily open to criticism and rejection. All definitions are unbiased; and if they include bias, then they cease to be relevant.
Which would be fair enough, if I were trying to interject some degree of bias into the debate - sadly, for you, I'm not. I'm simply saying you're wrong; and, to be brutally honest, I'm in a much better position to be able to say so.
[quote][b]To say that Stalinism, Leninism, and the rest are in no way tied to Communism is imagined fantasy.[/b][/quote]
I didn't say they weren't connected - but I did deny that they were Communistic.
[quote][b]Discrediting Communism?
It has already been proven it doesn't work!
Have you looked at how every Communist country's government has absolute power that has virtually no checks and balances?[/b][/quote]
[quote][b]Do you know that Communism prohibits the free exercise of religion because the state establishes atheism as the dominant faith as stated in the Communist Manifesto?
Do you know that the State can take away land from its owner without any compensation?[/b][/quote]
Which is quite amusing, as in Communism there [i]isn't[/i] a state [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/tongue.gif[/img]
I think you've misread, or misquoted the point you wished to make; if you give me the passage number, I'll post the relevant section in for people. It's probably better to discuss it in context - mind you, are you only using the Manifesto?
If so that's like taking a book and reading the first page, and then deciding the entire book is poor - the Manifesto is an incredibly simple piece of political thinking, mainly as it was written as a small pamphlet to be read by men of little education. Yet again I'd say go back and read more of Marx - tackle some of his more detailed works, and then comeback when you know something about the topic you're trying to discuss.
Read Marx, and then try some of his contemporaries and influences - try Hegel if you can manage it. That should give you a nice insight into the workings of dialectic, and also a new perspective on some of the more spiritual aspects of Marxs theory.
With regards to the state taking property away without compensation - well, so can the US government; in fact, pretty much any state can do that. Wow. Woop.
Marx was more refering to the redistribution of the means of production, to better reflect a more evenly distributed society.
[quote][b]Do you know that the United States of America is not in anyway founded on the belief of Equality of Condition or Equality of Result, but on Freedom?[/b][/quote]
Freedom? I don't think you know what that is - between an increasingly security conscious government, religious, political and material lobbies, I don't think that the US knows freedom; nor ever, truly, has done.
[quote][b]Jefferson's famous line "All men are created equal" pertains to the concept that everyone had the right to life, liberty, property and must all be judged equal under the law. That means that everyone is entitled to the same opportunities as everyone else, not that they must be confined to one economic or social class.[/b][/quote]
A common misunderstanding - in Communism there simply wouldn't be any economic stratification of society, and so the argument is rendered moot. People aren't pushed into one bracket or another, as all brackets would cease to be.
If the point was that you were trying to show the differences between Communism and the US, then I can understand the direction of the comment - still, Marx doesn't deny property, [i]per se[/i] - but all shall have a share in the means of production, and have a right to that.
The rest of it - the equality of oppurtunity, and representation, you'll find apply under Communism, and all forms of socialism.
[quote][b]Again, I don't mean to be a jerk, but if anyone's argument should not be taken seriously, it isn't mine.[/b][/quote]
What argument? For the most part you've lacked argument... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/rolleyes.gif[/img]
[quote][b]In any event, I am not going to debate imagined fantasy as if it were an actual fact.[/b][/quote]
Well, all I can say is go f*ck yourself, if you want to be negative about something someone else holds dear - put simply, I will [i]not[/i] have my belief system insulted by someone with no grounding to make such a judgement.
To be fair, we've never seen a Communist state - and I don't think we will, for some time, not until the material requirements are met; it simply couldn't be done.
But, with the growing debate over the future of capitalism, people are starting to come back to the subject - capitalism had often been touted as the end process of social evolution - hence "The end of history".
However, capitalism seems to be struggling with present social forces - just where will the next evolution take modern society?
It's an interesting question - socialism is gaining in popularity, as the post-modern paradigm shifts.
Who knows? I still think Communism is a workable solution for an advanced society - maybe not now, but certainly someday [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
Oh, and since I'm doing a degree in this subject, I wouldn't mind if you don't treat me like a complete idiot. You can rest assured that I, at least, have been doing my reading [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/tongue.gif[/img]
Thank God for Human Nature!
Small societies are the only place where communism works. Even if we were talking about small groups of people where I could motivate myself to work hard and group regulation would be possible because of the close nature of the society (eg the shakers, quakers, some indian tribes) how miserable would my life and life expectancy be?
If we are talking about a large society, well a leader would have to help us with setting prices and getting us ready for the goverment to HAHA whither away. Who's smart enough to control all? Who has the perfect formula for who does what job, and how much everyone gets and how much they produce? What happens when god or fate throws in a few variables. I'm an economist I'll tell you right now NO ONE CAN PLAN PERFECTLY. On that note, even if they could absolute power corupts absolutly. Do I trust MR_Bungle with abosolute power? Where's my rifle?
(The edit was I deleted some inflamatory comments that didn't serve my cause)
[This message has been edited by Konrad (edited 07-01-2002).]
John 1:1-14 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
ADD TO
John 3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
ADD TO
John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
From this I gather the following:
14:6 - Jesus is truth and YHWH, Jesus' father; therefore, YHWH is the father of truth
3:6 - Flesh is made of flesh and spirit of spirit and the threshold between flesh and spirit cannot be crossed therefore...
1:1 - In the nature of truth YHWH created everything and a will to truth became flesh.
Summation: Jesus is the embodiment of truth. Therefore Jesus' pre-Earth existence was as truth. In other words a spirit - the definition of which is a motivating law or principle. Moreover, I would submit that this spirit is holy - the definition of which is pure - because nothing is more pure than the fundamental nature of truth, e.g. black/white, true/false, 0/1.
Back OT: I'll respond after I've read the rest of this thread.
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 07-01-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 07-01-2002).]
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
As for the Vietnam Cambodia Laos comments, I didn’t know that. Seeing as how the evil US government put a stop to them long before I was born there wasn’t much I could do anyway if it is true what you said. However I am interested in the details of the idea.
This is specifically to Faylorn only: As you understand it how would wages and production be set through referendum under that system? (I love referendum societies like the Swiss by the way.)
What about property ownership? Means of production? What is produced when? What is the monetary system like, if any? How is unemployment dealt with? Do you get voted into the best job for you?!? Court system, national defense? Is there any central planing government at all?
Ack! I’m asking too much, just give me a little more info, or a source on the idea.
Edit: Wait, I just reread all that, the way I understand you is that all your suggesting is a Democratic Communism, not Capitalistic Communism, that's impossible.
People:
Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism are ECONOMIC ONLY!
Monarcy, Democracy, Dictatorship... are POLIITCAL SYSTEMS ONLY.
It's apples and oranges, you can't have Capitalism AND Communism!
The idea still intrests me but...
EDIT #2!!! I've got one more:
Mr_Bungle Said:
To be fair, we've never seen a Communist state - and I don't think we will, for some time, not until the material requirements are met; it simply couldn't be done.
Interesting and very correct point, My question to you is when will the material requirements ever be met? It's true that scarcity is the enemy of Communism. If there was a state of plenty I would run quickly to join you in your utopia. However, I can't imagine scarcity going away soon if ever, IMO when there is scarcity Markets are the best way to dole out what we have. While I know it leaves some behind it does keep the human race and science moving forward toward that wonderful day when there will be no scarcity and we will not leave anyone behind.
I wish you had said no Communism today, but maybe tommorow from the start. I would have taken it better.
[This message has been edited by Konrad (edited 07-01-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Konrad (edited 07-01-2002).]
You remember the quote that they're fond of giving with regards to Marx - from each according to their means, to each according to their needs?
If you don't work within the framework, then you don't get anything out of it - Marx admits that there will still be [i]necessary[/i] labour under Communism, much as there is in capitalism; and just as under capitalism, whilst you may not want to do it, you still have to do it.
It's a gross simplification, but it's a simple answer anyway - you could use the objection on capitalism, but no one bothers, just to see how absurd it is; apparently it's some magic way of singlehandedly refuting Marxist thinking. Wrong [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
I've noted from both of your posts, Faylorn and Konrad, that you seem to be thinking of Communism from the modern perspective - in essence from the Western liberal democratic tradition, with a good chunk of capitalism thrown into the mix; which is probably the wrong way to view the theory.
If you're looking for a wage, or some kind of reward system - then you're not going to find one, as you might currently understand one. You don't need a wage - no one's paying you for your labour; you own it yourself! No one's skimming off the product of your labour, and giving you a wage in return - you directly receive your product, which in turn is collectivised to suit the needa of the entire of society.
You need a reward system then? You want for nothing and have no debt... can't say better than that [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
Also Konrad, your objection about absolute power corrupting absolutely - funnily enough you could apply that to any government body; funnily enough you chose not to. If you want to make that objection, then you might as well apply it to any governmental framework - it doesn't apply simply in this case.
Much like the objection is overcome in other governmental bodies, I see no reason not to have it overcome in the transitional state.
A lot of the question is one of mindset, and this ties in with your question of 'when' Konrad - the simple answer being, when we're ready for it. It's a system requiring a good deal of maturity - the power really is in [i]your[/i] hands, and the decisions really do affect the individual. Much like the French Revolutionaries suggestion, education is the key; not some kind of brainwashing process, as I'm sure someone would be quick to suggest, but a simple opening up of oppurtunities, of showing people what they can achieve.
Another reason for delay would be that of the mode of production - I don't think Communism could work if there didn't exist the means to provide for every member of society. Once we can comfortably provide for ourselves, then certainly, we could start considering the matter more seriously. A lot of people pick up on this, which is why you see a lot of egalitarian societies in books concerning the future development of mankind. Marx recognised that the material fetters had to be broken; he just misjudged his timing, and who can blame him with the rapid progress of the industrial revolution? It must have seemed to him that production was increasing exponentially, without bounds.
Still, we're thinking along the same lines:
[quote][b]IMO when there is scarcity Markets are the best way to dole out what we have. While I know it leaves some behind it does keep the human race and science moving forward toward that wonderful day when there will be no scarcity and we will not leave anyone behind.[/b][/quote]
There you have it [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
Faylorn, aren't you discussing syndicalism?
Personally, I completely agree with the ruling. The US constitution specifically calls for a seperation of church and state, which the pledge clearly does not allow. As many have said, "under God" was added during the 50's to make America seem like the "good guys" in the cold war (I'm not saying they weren't the good guys, lol). The pledge should be put back the way it was.
A2597: Anytime you have the majority of a group deciding the rights of a minority, you're getting into Communism. The whole "good of the many" argument. The United States is based upon personal freedom and personal rights, which means that my rights are just as valid as the rights of 10,000 Christians. This is how the country was formed, and this is how it should be run.
As to the argument that "no one is forced to make the pledge", that is completely untrue. This whole thing started because kids are required to speak the pledge in school, despite the beliefs that their parents chose to raise them on. Sure, the child has the option of not speaking the pledge, but they may not know that, and if they don't, they would obviously feel like an outsider because of their beliefs.
The Constitution is not something that can be cut up and pasted together again, containing only the parts that you like. It must be taken as a whole. The US government has no right to impose ANY kind of moral or religious guidelines on law abiding Americans. This freedom is the founding ideal of the country, and should be upheld.
------------------
[url="http://slade__tek.tripod.com/"]Alec McClymont[/url]
3D Artist - GVFX
"Something is only impossible until it's not."
Mr_Bungle: Given the definition provided by Dictionary.com I think so.
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 07-01-2002).]