In Defense Of The United States Of America

[hobbes]

grrrr- crazy forum- see below

[j2k4]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@4 July 2003 - 09:46
it started off okay, but it quickly descends into something less than lucid. if i have time, i will parse in detail, but off the top: "dilute sovereignty" this appears specious, i have no idea how multicultural could dilute sovereignty, its far too vague to mean anything concreate;

"in god we trust" i guess the separation of church and state isn't as important to others as it is to me;

Myfiles-

On the point of dilution of "sovereignty":

You may regard the "melting pot" as an idea whose time has passed, but must we hasten it's exit with legislation?

Historically, the Irish, Italians, and Jews who emigrated to this country around the turn of the 20th century were regarded as being every bit as racially distinct as blacks, Asians, Hispanics and the various Muslims who populate our country today.

The brands of racism practiced at that time were far worse than those of today, yet the outcome of these paroxysms (the melting pot) was a country whose strength of character and unity in the face of external conflict carried the day in two World Wars.

This is the principle, I believe, which constitutes the sovereignty to which this correspondent refers.

Re: "In God We Trust":

The phrase, or some variation of it, appears in various documents of historical importance to this country.

The principle of separation is an appropriate method of simplifying and facilitating the conduct of law-making and government operations.

It's inclusion in the above statement, however, is entirely appropriate, as the author of the missive is not presuming to speak for the government; but merely exercising his right to free speech.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker+4 July 2003 - 16:54--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 4 July 2003 - 16:54)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@4 July 2003 - 09:46


I take it that anyone who doesn&#39;t want their photograph on their driving licence can now chose to wear a veil. Otherwise it would be discrimination, wouldn&#39;t it ?

The woman in Florida ( who&#39;s name I don&#39;t recall) lost her case.
No doubt there will be an appeal.

Till then she will be the veiled woman riding around Tampa on a donkey. [/b][/quote]
Help&#33;&#33;&#33;

My impression was that she lost her case initially( per Clocker), but reading J2s&#39; post, I got the impression that the decsion was overturned.

Clarification requested because I&#39;m getting very angry.

Remember, this particular lady was arrested for domestic battery, which she had attempted to coverup by veiling the child. She has also been photographed without a veil at least 1 time since her conversion to Islam.

Wouldn&#39;t that be great it all our prisoners converted to Islam, that way all of the mug shots we have on file would contain a picture of eyes and a veiled face.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@4 July 2003 - 15:46
it started off okay, but it quickly descends into something less than lucid. if i have time, i will parse in detail, but off the top: "dilute sovereignty" this appears specious, i have no idea how multicultural could dilute sovereignty, its far too vague to mean anything concreate;

"in god we trust" i guess the separation of church and state isn&#39;t as important to others as it is to me;

constant use of first person plural &#39;we&#39; as though this one voice speaks for all of america, which is just silly -- the point is, there IS NO single cultural identity in any modern open society....this is the basic flaw of the commentary, just as flawed and and inevitably extinct as slavery.

Myfiles,

I clearly understand the "dilute sovereignty" part. A country is as strong as the bonds that link the individuals. Here we are linked by the right of the individual to have freedom of speech and religion. Cohesion across our country is strengthened by a central language. Thus, everybody has the obligation speak English.

So in a time of crisis, this is the bond we fall back on. This is exemplified by the situation in Iraq. With Saddam in power, the different factions in Iraq were unified by a hatred for their dictator. Now that he is gone, this unifying thread has unravelled and the country has little common ground. Without Saddam, the different subcultures in Iraq look at each other and say, "You know, I really never liked you". Seems the only thing to unify them again, is resentment towards Americans. (Please look at this as an example- not a start off point about what is right or wrong in Iraq).

So in America, we enjoy the luxury of being strongly unified under a philosophy, not an individual. George Bush is just the monkey dancing to the organ grinder at the moment. Some of our monkeys dance better than others. Some of our monkeys, like to hump the organ grinders legs (cough-Clinton-cough).




Our country is deteriorated by cultures who come here and fail to intergrate. We don&#39;t need a "little China", "little Islam", "little Poland", or "little anything", within our midst. These insolubles dissociate the bonds that unify us.

So if you live here, you must abide by the laws which govern the land, and in return you are allowed your individual freedom of religious expression. As Jpaul says, you must first accept to rules of the "club" to join, then you play golf, however you wish.


So myfiles, I am just explaining to you what those words mean to me. As for the next part, I agree with you 100%- separation between the church and state. TBC

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by hobbes@4 July 2003 - 17:41
As Jpaul says, you must first accept to rules of the "club" to join, then you play golf, however you wish.

Do I always try to make my points by use of analogy ?

It&#39;s sort of like ..... oh never mind.

[j2k4]

Hobbes-

I&#39;m not sure of the date of my posted material, I just liked the content.

I did some googling and came up with the following:

WFTV in Orlando, Florida reports that an appeal is underway; "religious freedom", etc.

WFTV also conducted a poll as to whether or not the local populace thought she should be allowed to wear her veil in her Driver&#39;s License photo, with the following results:

Yes, she should be allowed: 133

No, she should not be allowed: 5338

Not sure: 19

That&#39;s 97% against, which is somewhat surprising, given Florida&#39;s large immigrant population.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by JPaul+4 July 2003 - 11:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul @ 4 July 2003 - 11:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@4 July 2003 - 17:41
As Jpaul says, you must first accept to rules of the "club" to join, then you play golf, however you wish.

Do I always try to make my points by use of analogy ?

It&#39;s sort of like ..... oh never mind. [/b][/quote]
I think you&#39;re both genuises.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by j2k4@4 July 2003 - 13:53
I know I am exhibiting an unhealthy and distasteful level of patriotism by posting this, but I am so twisted I couldn&#39;t help myself; I agree with the following 100%, so I will not attempt to dodge the slings and arrows I deserve for this post.


"In God We Trust" is our national motto. This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.

"In God we Trust" was added to coins in the 1860&#39;s at the urging of religious leaders who felt that people would view our country as heathen, if we did not recognize God in some way.

It is not our motto, our motto is "liberty and justice for all" or "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Here is the original pledge of allegiance:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.&#39;" He considered placing the word, &#39;equality,&#39; in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * &#39;to&#39; added in October, 1892. ]

The current version, which includes "under God" was added in the 1950s, in that delightfully McCarthyesque time, to separate us from those Godless Russians.

I am not sure that our founding Fathers would agree with this. From the Declaration of Independence:
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes"


It is true that the bulk of American law came from men of Christian philosophy and these morals are reflected in the laws we follow today, but the law has no role in telling us "which" God we are to trust.

"In God We Trust" is quite obviously a Christian slogan and, therefore; should be confined to Christian churches. Our nation was founded under the belief that individual rights were to be considered above all else and as an extension of these rights, the individual was allowed to pursue his own personal "God".


So, like Myfiles, I think the writer started off strong, but meandered off the path. Myfiles and I just disagree on the exact point in which he did this.

[denis123]

I agree.(They are both geniuses)

What&#39;s the point of a foto if one is veiled. I only hope she does not drive wearing a veil.

[3RA1N1AC]

"This idea of America being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Americans, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom."


america has never been a homogenous culture, and its identity has not weakened in the past century. in the early days of this country, the culture was composed of englishmen, germans, frenchmen, and more. they did not all speak english. the arrival of the irish and the italians did not weaken america&#39;s identity, nor did the rise of black culture in the 20th century, nor did the arrival of asians/arabs/indians/etc.

this country is the most prolific exporter of "culture" in the world, and you can ask any foreigner what american culture is, and they will absolutely have strong opinions about what it is and why it&#39;s different from theirs. if america&#39;s identity is nothing but mickey mouse, a greasy cheeseburger and a can of coca-cola... well, that&#39;s not the fault of immigrants, is all i can say. what do you expect from a 200 year old country founded and populated almost entirely by non-natives? (hint: in the history of the world, 200 years is a drop in the bucket-- prolly should be a clue as to why america has no deeply rooted sense of identity)

asking a 200 year old country to display a strong sense of national identity seems a bit like asking a newborn child to solve algebra problems.