The dark age is coming back

[VON_CAPO]

The theocratic State. This is happening in America right now!

Superstition in the american population is rampant.

Check this out: ---> http://www.pistolwimp.com/media/51635/

[Ducimus]

At work right now, can't exactly watch the video.

Religion has been on an upswing here for awhile now. I don't quite understand why. Im theorizing that religious revivalism comes and goes. Problem is it takes awhile for it to go. Generally speaking i find chrisitanity in the US, as a whole, the most hipocritical "organization" known to man; and i resist their efforts and intrusions into my life whenver i can. Theres alot of freaks out there. Again, i dont understand the ferver.

Some of these people make very large assumptions. LIke, "i thought such and such was a christian (insert noun here)". Just down the way where i live we had a "Christian family" move in. OHHHHH.. their christian........ The fact that they have to distinquish / seperate themselves by their beliefs is disturbing. Its tantamout.. no its worse then hyphinated Americans. Far worse.

Whats shady is how they effect the system and policy change within our country. Many people i think, want the division between church and state removed. The church takes in millions (if not billions) of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they effect our goverment via their congregations who vote. Backdoor government i think. Church isnt supposed to get involved yet i've heard in some ares in one of the bush elections that the local religious chapters were advocating that people should , "vote for morals".

My fear is sometime in the next decade, we wont be that much different then Iran, the only difference being, our religous organaiztions wont have an offical tie to goverment like iran does, but the tie will be just as strong and prevaliant, and the president as much as a puppet to the pulpit.

[August]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

My fear is sometime in the next decade, we wont be that much different then Iran, the only difference being, our religous organaiztions wont have an offical tie to goverment like iran does, but the tie will be just as strong and prevaliant, and the president as much as a puppet to the pulpit.

The country has been far more religious from the beginning of the 20th century all the way back to the Continental Congress than any time since, yet that never happened so I think your fears are completely groundless.

[TteFAboB]

There was an interesting poll some months ago, you need to Google for it, stating that just as many Americans believed in God as Iranians.

The difference was: Americans feared God and thought to be on his bad boy list while Iranians believed God to be on their side and on his approval list.

[kiwi_2005]

I already live in the darkages When i voluntared here to track bugs for subsim, about 6months ago Mr Stevens PM me asking to text him when a problem pops up. Ahh okay but i dont own a cell phone Never have and probably never will. Im a 56ker with landline phone only man, im rolling in it! :rotfl:

Hey but i have sky! :p

[VON_CAPO]

Restore the "Pledge of Allegiance"


from ---> http://www.restorethepledge.com/

"""
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Above is the version of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America first approved by the Congress in 1942.
It evokes feelings of patriotism and unity, and brings together the vastly different cultures, ethnicities, languages and backgrounds that form the common experience called America.

It reaffirms our commitment to the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution, and reflects the foundation of that amazing document: that diversity is a blessing which only strengthens our nation.
This is especially true concerning religion, which the Framers recognized as uniquely divisive, causing them to set forth that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

We have done well since those first ten words of the Bill of Rights (i.e., the "Establishment Clause") were written in 1789, and generally held true to that principle.
Yet, in 1954 - fueled by the Cold War and blinded by McCarthyism - Congress violated its oath.

After sixty-two secular years, the Pledge - first introduced by a private magazine in 1892 - was changed.
Our elected officials felt it necessary to inject religion into the Pledge, and "under God" was interlarded into that promise which had previously embraced all Americans.

Currently there is a legal drive to remove those words.
"God" in the Pledge has caused the divisiveness, discrimination and exclusion that the Framers specifically sought to prevent.
Yes, the majority of Americans believe in God, and they nearly unanimously find no objection in the Pledge's current rendition.

But that is precisely why we have a Bill of Rights - to prevent tyranny by the majority, and to protect the rights of minorities.
Our Constitution forbids government from endorsing religious views, and those who choose not to believe in a deity should never be made to feel like "outsiders," as is now the case.

The words are "liberty and justice for all."
The Pledge should be a unifying experience for every citizen.

Placing a religious ideal into its midst is not right, and serves no purpose except to alter a purely patriotic tradition into one that satisfies the religious bent of the majority.
That is exactly what the First Amendment was written to preclude. """

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by VON_CAPO

Currently there is a legal drive to remove those words.
"God" in the Pledge has caused the divisiveness, discrimination and exclusion that the Framers specifically sought to prevent.
Yes, the majority of Americans believe in God, and they nearly unanimously find no objection in the Pledge's current rendition.

But that is precisely why we have a Bill of Rights - to prevent tyranny by the majority, and to protect the rights of minorities.
Our Constitution forbids government from endorsing religious views, and those who choose not to believe in a deity should never be made to feel like "outsiders," as is now the case.

Since I've been alive, "God" in the pledge has never been an issue until recently. Those of you who lived in the 70's and 80's know what I'm talking about. It has not prevented any civil discourse or caused any divisiveness whatsoever. The only difference now is that we have a very vocal minority of rabble rousers causing it to be an issue with their anti-"everything" agenda. These people can't let people be happy and choose to live as they see fit. They can't allow people in a city or town choose what they want to display. And now this minority wants to tell people how they should say the Pledge of Allegiance.

I personally don't care if they say..."God is now officially out of the pledge". I will still say "God" in it. And that's how my kids will learn it. And many Americans feel the same way. Also, "Merry Christmas" was never a problem until these agenda driven leftitsts began their quest to shape American society to their own distorted liking. A society which is antithetical to what most people want. Everything was fine until the whiners came out and started their anti-"everything" quests. You don't want a tyranny of the majority. That's fine. But we should not have a tyranny of the minority either.

[August]

Two words. So what?

Congress has begun every session since George Washingtons time with a prayer.

"In God we trust" adorns our money.

US Presidents swear to uphold and defend the constitution "so help me God" when they take the oath of office.

Christmas is a national holiday.

In the US Senate Chamber, over east doorway are written the words "Annuit coeptis" (God has favored our undertakings), over south entrance: "In God we trust". In the Prayer room (yes there is such a room in the Capitol building) "Preserve me, O God: for in thee do I put my trust.", in the Congressional complexes corridors: "America! God shed his grace on Thee, and crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea!"

The word "God" appears in the preamble in eight state constitutions. In four states, the "Supreme Ruler of the Universe" is used instead. By far, the most popular divine reference in a preamble is "Almighty God." This appears in the preamble of 30 state constitutions.

Given all that i hardly see where two words added to the Pledge of Allegience over 50 years ago indicate some kind of heinous shift to religious tolitarianism.

[Sea Demon]

Well said August. *loud applause* We weren't a theocracy back then...and we aren't heading for one now. My point is that it's the lefty-secularist who disturbed the peace here with all the whining. It is the people who complain about "God" in the pledge and such who are creating all the divisiveness and anger. Instead of respecting the people around them, they only seek to cause angst and discord to try and force everyone to bend to their own minority views. They want a society that is at odds with America itself, and at odds with how America historically has been defined. So we hear the hysterical and immature "Theocracy" stuff being thrown around.

[Onkel Neal]

I agree with August and Sea Demon. Religous people in the US, by and large, are normal people. With the demise of the NPT, rise of Islamic terrorism, genocide in Africa, I hardly think the Methodists are a clear and present danger.

[TteFAboB]

So this is about Newdow? I didn't recognized his voice. This is the guy who said he was raped by the mother of his daughter then went on and pledged in the name of his daughter, saying she was uncomfortable with the oath at school untill she and her mother came to public to state that they were Christians, had no problem with the oath and wanted to maintain it? In other words, a liar?

Google links:

Funny one here. Since Obi-Wan is mentioned: who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him? http://www.opinionet.com/article.php?id=398

More serious one here. www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28160

And this one is full of quotes from American politicians displaying all their totalitarian, theocratic and tyrant views: http://michaelnewdow.com/

Check out this one VON_CAPO, seems like America is a theocracy since 1974, we're three decades late here: "Without God there could be no American form of government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first - the most basic - expression of Americanism. Thus the founding fathers of America saw it, and thus with God's help, it will continue to be." Gerald Ford - December 5, 1974.

Anyway, finally had the time to watch the video. He equated Islam with Christendom. Good one. When equating the unequal, the worst is benefitted. In this case, Christianity is thrown to the pile of religoiusly motivated terrorism and Islam is spared from being specified, if any Muslim commits an act of terror, he's only a generic religiously motivated fanatic. Jihad has nothing to do with it. How many Christian terror attacks do we have on a daily basis again? And since 9/11?


I wonder, since the Vatican has been a theocracy from birth, why aren't they impaling the atheists over there? Could it be that the principles of the Catholic Church are superior to the intolerant men and thus outlived their reign? Where is it safer for an atheist to live: the Vatican or Kabul?

Nothing can be more false. I don't know who's been been following Abdul Rahman's case, but when you reject Islam in the Muslim World you are sentenced to death. Apparently there isn't any other theocracy in the world as benevolent and tolerant as the USA, unless Newdow has been recently sentenced to death and had to seek asylum in Italy and I missed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_(convert)

[Neutrino 123]

As an atheist, I certainly don't think the U.S. is turning into a theocracy. I do believe that religious groups are becoming more vocal, but this is matched by more vocal atheist groups. There are some things many atheists whine about that are really not important, like the "merry Christmas" things. What the hell is their problem? Keep in mind that while people in religious groups can be associated with their religious, the only way that atheists are associated with is lack of something, so atheists themselves are quite varied.

Others things mentioned such as the pledge are not too critical either. I don't see where it is "required" to say the full pledge. Cannot an atheist can simply pledge alliegance to the country during a pledge, instead of our country under god?

Some things are worrying, however, such as the increased "creation science" in school curriculums, which have no basis in actual science, and are quite, shall we say, misrepresentative of many science aspects.

Also a legitimate grievance mentioned in the movie was the fact that in some states, atheists can't hold public office or testify in court (I think these were the things, though I was eating when watching, so I might have misread something). Isn't this unconstitutional? What happened to "no taxation without representation"? Of course, this isn't to say atheists would actually be elected to anything beyond the local level, at least not anytime soon.

The court testimony ban strikes me as "red flag", however. Even in the most religious of states, there are a fair number of atheists. It is extremely likely that many of these have been called to court over the years. Have their testimonies really been rejected, or is this another archaeic, non-enforced law?

Finally, a few other comments:
Why must people continually refer to the founding fathers and their intent when dealing with many things such as religion? There are often many arguements and quotes to both sides, but they don't add up to anything. It is the constitution itself that actually matters. Unfortunately, the constitution is often unclear, and the supreme court uses this alot, which I would think is somewhat beyond what they should be. Unclear things should be really clarified by wording amendments, unless we "like" playing the interpretation game, which seems retarded.

I noted in the video that the main referances to violant religion were to Islam, which is satisfactory as it produces the most religious violance by a great margin.

Finally, I would like to reaffirm that while many atheists are stinking hippies, many are also regular people! Please focus critisism on the damn hippies. They are actually alot worse then you think! You imagine the horror of solstice celebrations, or mindlessly repetitive nature camps. I have seen these! But you do not acknowledge your own worst enemy, yourselves! By being anti-atheist, you force atheists to combine together, preventing other good atheists from properly dealing with the hippies from within!
Okay, sorry for that paragraph. I accidently started the Ur-Quan theme, so I had to write something relevant...

[Safe-Keeper]

Richard Dawkins eat you all for breakfast.

Since I've been alive, "God" in the pledge has never been an issue until recently.

Which does not make it more right. Physical punishment, global warming and pollution are other issues ignored for the longest time and then suddenly surfacing.

Just that something has been widely accepted for a long time does not justify it.

The only difference now is that we have a very vocal minority of rabble rousers causing it to be an issue with their anti-"everything" agenda. These people can't let people be happy and choose to live as they see fit. They can't allow people in a city or town choose what they want to display. And now this minority wants to tell people how they should say the Pledge of Allegiance.

*

Fallacies are cute.

Also, "Merry Christmas" was never a problem until these agenda driven leftitsts began their quest to shape American society to their own distorted liking.

"Distorted"? I thought America was supposed to be secular from the beginning.

And, of course, America's a multi-ethnic country. When government institutions use the term "Merry Christmas", it shows that they favour Christians, in stark contrast of what they're supposed to do.

There's this document called the "US Constitution". Read it some day.

Congress has begun every session since George Washingtons time with a prayer.

"In God we trust" adorns our money.

US Presidents swear to uphold and defend the constitution "so help me God" when they take the oath of office.

Christmas is a national holiday.

In the US Senate Chamber, over east doorway are written the words "Annuit coeptis" (God has favored our undertakings), over south entrance: "In God we trust". In the Prayer room (yes there is such a room in the Capitol building) "Preserve me, O God: for in thee do I put my trust.", in the Congressional complexes corridors: "America! God shed his grace on Thee, and crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea!"

The word "God" appears in the preamble in eight state constitutions. In four states, the "Supreme Ruler of the Universe" is used instead. By far, the most popular divine reference in a preamble is "Almighty God." This appears in the preamble of 30 state constitutions.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Or six, for that matter. Or, come to think of it, since we're talking about US government religious acts, a billion wrongs don't make a right.

Another fallacy.

Oh, almost forgot: Appeal to Common Practice, Popularity, and Tradition! Silly me.

Anyway, finally had the time to watch the video. He equated Islam with Christendom. Good one.

Indeed. Two nearly identical religions, when it comes to scripture, history, and violence all. The only difference is that when Muslims do something, it sparks tonnes of Islamophobia and mosque leaders are forced to publicly distance themselves from the act - but when Christians do something wrong, the fact that they're Christians is at best only mentioned, at worst ignored.

How many Church leaders publicly stood up to distance their Church from Timothy McVeigh or Paul Hill's acts of terrorism? None that I ever heard of. How many were even asked to? I'm not aware of any.

[...]if any Muslim commits an act of terror, he's only a generic religiously motivated fanatic. Jihad has nothing to do with it.

You make it sounds as if that's unique to Islamic terrorism.

How many Christian terror attacks do we have on a daily basis again? And since 9/11?

That the Christian media in the USA is reporting? Very few.

In reality? Plenty (<-- clickie!). Look into the militant groups in Africa. Look into the militant groups in India. Look into the abortion clinic bombings. The courthouse bombing in Oklahoma.

And, of course, while not all examples of terrorism, Bush's many policies during his adventure in the White House ought to be mentioned as well:
Torture,
white phosphorous over Fallujah,
starting a war based on lies,
and attacking homosexuality.
And more.

Check the site out and... Well, it's no worse than the other hate sites I've been to all over the Web. At least the Web Design's better than God Hates Fags'.

Finally, I would like to reaffirm that while many atheists are stinking hippies, many are also regular people!

I don't even get into discussions on how atheists are. Maybe it's because I'm from the "Atheist Bloc" of Scandinavia - in Norway only 19% believe in an after-life - but it seems wrong to me either way. It's like asking what blondes or left-handed people are like.

Re' movie: Bah, it's still illegal for stores in Norway to be open on Sundays. Can you believe it?
Fantastic film.

So this is about Newdow? I didn't recognized his voice. This is the guy who said he was raped by the mother of his daughter then went on and pledged in the name of his daughter, saying she was uncomfortable with the oath at school untill she and her mother came to public to state that they were Christians, had no problem with the oath and wanted to maintain it? In other words, a liar?

And this one is full of quotes from American politicians displaying all their totalitarian, theocratic and tyrant views: http://michaelnewdow.com/

More poisoning of the well. Cute.

"Without God there could be no American form of government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first - the most basic - expression of Americanism. Thus the founding fathers of America saw it, and thus with God's help, it will continue to be." Gerald Ford - December 5, 1974.

Nonsense. America was founded as an Atheist State. "Without God there would be no American form of government"? The Christians invented the Republic? That, friend, is bull-droppings.

*Pictures courtesy of the late WinAce.

[TteFAboB]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

Indeed. Two nearly identical religions, when it comes to scripture, history, and violence all. The only difference is that when Muslims do something, it sparks tonnes of Islamophobia and mosque leaders are forced to publicly distance themselves from the act - but when Christians do something wrong, the fact that they're Christians is at best only mentioned, at worst ignored.

How many Church leaders publicly stood up to distance their Church from Timothy McVeigh or Paul Hill's acts of terrorism? None that I ever heard of. How many were even asked to? I'm not aware of any.

Christianity and Islam are not two nearly identical religons, that's a no on three accounts:

1. Scripture: The Christian Bible is a historical narrative constructed by collecting, debating and approving or rejecting scriptures. This slow process delayed the creation of the Church's doctrine. The Koran is the direct word of God dictated through Muhammad all at once, thus Islamic moral only took a short amount of time to form and may never be touched again as that would be violating the word of God. Islam intends to supercede Christianity so you couldn't have thought of a better insult to Islam than reject Sharia as the Islamic innovation by saying that it is nearly identical to the doctrine of the Church or the teachings of Jesus Christ.

2. History: Only by closing our eyes and ignoring reality can we pretend that there is no historical difference. The difference in scriptures themselves ought to produce different historical outcomes. Under Christianity Europe advanced. Under Islam the Greater Middle East stagnated and in some cases regressed. As the world created by Allah was perfect at the time of Muhammad's revelation, anything that distanced the world from that point would distance Muslims from the will of Allah.

http://people.freenet.de/Skybird/His..._1_Forword.doc
http://people.freenet.de/Skybird/His...uranHadith.doc

3. Violence: Extremely unequal, here you are being outright dishonest. Comparing couldn't be more simple: while there is a separation of Church and state in every European Country in the Middle East you have both theocracies and secular governments among many Mullahs sentencing apostates to death and unwanted critics too. You always have to look back into the past to denounce the violence of the Church, however, the violence of Islam is present in our time. The view of the Church today is to condemn the violence of the past, the view of ME Imams today is that the violence is completely within Islamic moral if conducted through Jihad, another particularity of Islam. So the point is: when a Christian commits an act of violence he is violating the Church's doctrine, God's will or Jesus teachings. Very few will justify his action. Now to a violent Muslim it's the reverse, his family might even get awarded or rewarded though the greatest reward is joining the afterlife after fulfilling Allah's wish.

I believe I have indirectly answered the second question at least in part. I don't have the slightest idea of how many Church leaders publicy stood up against the two or how many were asked to, but if you are so aware of logical fallacies then you have just let one slip through: argumentum ad ignorantiam. A deep Google research should give us the required information to comment upon it without falling for this fallacy, unfortunately I have no desire to do so. I deem myself satisfied with the contrary example of not distancing, but closing together, supporting and approving terrorist actions by Muslim Imams which only a superficial Google search will suffice since all the links will be recent, fresh out of their mouths.

Anyway, let's carry on and to your benefit assume both religions are exactly the same, then it becomes a matter of body-counting and adding the numbers.

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

But when a Christian committs an act of terrorism, such as when Timothy McVeigh blew up the courthouse in Oklahoma, all the media outlets call it "Christian terrorism". Right

I have no idea, all the media is a very broad category. Some probably do. But since we're playing your game now and equating everything, do they say it is a Crusade against the target? So in the case of Muslims, do they call it a Jihad? I don't know about all of them. Some don't.

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

That the Christian media in the USA is reporting? Very few.

In reality? Plenty (<-- clickie!). Look into the militant groups in Africa. Look into the militant groups in India. Look into the abortion clinic bombings. The courthouse bombing in Oklahoma.

Christian media? Can you be more specific or do you refer to the entire American media as Christian? Who's reporting them then? And what happens if I find all these cases reported on American media outlets through a Google search?

Ok I've got your link, let's add the numbers.

Abortion clinic attacks since 1977, source National Abortion Federation: 2673 plus one from Australia (2674).
I have excluded trespassings for the time being since I wouldn't consider it "bombing" (though everything else is included).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

India: 44 -> 2718
Centennial Park: 1 -> 2719
North Dakota: 2 -> 2721
Ireland: over 3000 -> 5721

I can't find numbers for Africa, if you have links I'm grateful.

Alright, let's subtract Ireland's 3000 with the 9/11 attacks which also killed over 3000 people, back to 2721 then.

Remember the number of Islamic attacks only since 9/11 (not all the way back to 1977):


If you look here: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#attacks, you'll see that there is at least one death on each attack, when not much more. Therefore, simply by pretending tha each Islamic attack killed only one victim, we still have more than twice the number of deaths from Christian terror attacks. Now the real number of deaths is much higher since many attacks have more, in some cases far more, than just one victim.

For equal religions, they are very unequal on the whole violence part.

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

And, of course, while not all examples of terrorism, Bush's many policies during his adventure in the White House ought to be mentioned as well:
Torture,
white phosphorous over Fallujah,
starting a war based on lies,
and attacking homosexuality.
And more.

Let's make a deal, I ignore Bush's not all examples of terrorism during his adventure in the White House and you ignore Saddam's and Turkish Armenian/Kurd genocides. I ignore Bush's torture and you ignore Saddam's torture. I ignore white phosphorous over Fallujah and you ignore Saddam's gassing of the Kurds. I ignore a war based on lies and you ignore the UN mandate and Saddam's violation of such. I ignore Bush's attack on homossexuality and you ignore that homossexuality is repress all over the Muslim World, practically non-existence.

And more.

EIDT: It appears you have edited your post. Responding to what changed: "Poisoning the Well" - I can delete my entire comment on his person if you wish as it doesn't affect my main argument by an inch. "Nonsense" - talk to the man, that's not my opinion but it shows that Christian politicians are nothing new. "You make it sounds as if that's unique to Islamic terrorism" - it isn't, if I make it sound like that then I need to improve my communication skills, I wanted to say that when Jihad is forgotten then the terror attacks look like independent actions, just like the McVeigh case. It sure is interesting that the US with all these politicians is still a better place for an atheist to live than Iran.

[VON_CAPO]

Religious american society's point of view about atheists: --->