General Knowledge 78 replies

Please wait...

NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#71 9 years ago
Reldorage;4958993But if you ever treated your slave poorly, you were usually stoned, and vice versa.

You mean if your slaves treated you poorly, they were stoned? :confused:




Crazy Wolf VIP Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#72 9 years ago

People might have come over here to seek religious freedom from a government that ran the church, so wouldn't it be honoring them to make our government as secular as possible? Our government promises both freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

I'm sure there were atheists, but they probably kept their mouths shut, Europe wasn't very kind to nonbelievers, you might recall. The bit about slavery: yeah, I know, just an example of a "principle" in the Bible that wasn't exactly endorsed by the founding Fathers (they practiced it, but they basically agreed to talk about it in 20 years after the founding, and never got around to it. If you read Jefferson, you might get some good insights on how difficult this issue was.) Also, "whatever you regard "god" as" is a bit of a copout, it's still suggesting that there's some omnipotent force. I don't call chance and history "God" just because I think they're what most shape what we are today.




Reldorage

Alert and FULLY AWESOME

50 XP

3rd June 2008

0 Uploads

3,328 Posts

0 Threads

#73 9 years ago
NiteStryker;4959001You mean if your slaves treated you poorly, they were stoned? :confused:

Lol, no, if you mistreated them, you were usually killed.




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#74 9 years ago
Its not just the "its a piece of cloth like a sweatshirt". Men have fought and died for the symbolism the flag represents. Its like a picture from a camera. Its not "just some ink on paper", it is a representation of a memory.

Except the idea that is behind the flag is not readily apparent to anyone who sees it. And men have fought and died for gold. Why is that not worshipped so ostentatiously in the States?

Oh does it? And where exactly does it say that?

I think it says the government will not force a religion on its citizens. "Seperation of Church and State" is not mentioned in that wordage anywhere. That was merely a paraphrase from Thomas Jefferson.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Even if it doesn't explicitly say that there should be a separation of church and state, the implications of that sentence should be pretty clear. It means that on no account should Congress pass any bill which allows preferential treatment of any religion over any other. It means that there can be no official state religion. It means that, in effect, Congress and religious institutions are to be kept separate.

Of course, I don't know exactly how your government works, so I don't know if Congress plays a big part or not in creation of laws. But the principle of the statement in the constitution seems pretty clear to me. It's an idea. Just like your vaunted flag, as a matter of fact. If people are so attentive to the idea behind the flag, why are they so much less attentive to the idea behind the Constitution (or at least the first amendment)?

Im pretty sure "Sepration of Church and State" was ment to mean you will not receive government-sanctioned punishment for not going to church on Sunday. It has been stretched and distorted horribly in this politically correct climate to mean "no government location or official shall make mention of the word 'god'".

Of course not. It's right there in the Pledge of Allegiance, for goodness' sake. I smell a Straw Man here.

Why cant other people do this?

If including "under god" in your P.o.A is Christianity being forced on an athiest, wouldnt removing it be athiesm forced on a Christian?

Like it or not this country was founded on religious principles. You cannot undo that. Accept it and get on with life.

Is it? What about all those other religions that don't believe in a single God, or don't believe in an all-powerful deity?

Well "Under God" really isnt needed anyway, they didnt HAVE to add that in. But it doesnt bother me enough to create a ruckus about it.

It is an oath. Seeing as I don't believe in God, then by pledging the Pledge of Allegiance as it is means that I'm either not bound by the Pledge, or that I've already broken it. Which means it is worthless. If you are so intent on your ideas, then why not stand up for the ones that count? And this is one of them. I would rather have the pledge mean something for the people saying and hearing it, rather than a formality to be dutifully followed through. But it can't be that while you still have the "Under God" clause, because that invalidates the rest of the Pledge.




Reldorage

Alert and FULLY AWESOME

50 XP

3rd June 2008

0 Uploads

3,328 Posts

0 Threads

#75 9 years ago

Mr. Pedantic;4959152Except the idea that is behind the flag is not readily apparent to anyone who sees it. And men have fought and died for gold. Why is that not worshipped so ostentatiously in the States?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Even if it doesn't explicitly say that there should be a separation of church and state, the implications of that sentence should be pretty clear. It means that on no account should Congress pass any bill which allows preferential treatment of any religion over any other. It means that there can be no official state religion. It means that, in effect, Congress and religious institutions are to be kept separate.

Of course, I don't know exactly how your government works, so I don't know if Congress plays a big part or not in creation of laws. But the principle of the statement in the constitution seems pretty clear to me. It's an idea. Just like your vaunted flag, as a matter of fact. If people are so attentive to the idea behind the flag, why are they so much less attentive to the idea behind the Constitution (or at least the first amendment)?

Of course not. It's right there in the Pledge of Allegiance, for goodness' sake. I smell a Straw Man here.

Is it? What about all those other religions that don't believe in a single God, or don't believe in an all-powerful deity?

It is an oath. Seeing as I don't believe in God, then by pledging the Pledge of Allegiance as it is means that I'm either not bound by the Pledge, or that I've already broken it. Which means it is worthless. If you are so intent on your ideas, then why not stand up for the ones that count? And this is one of them. I would rather have the pledge mean something for the people saying and hearing it, rather than a formality to be dutifully followed through. But it can't be that while you still have the "Under God" clause, because that invalidates the rest of the Pledge.

Good thing you don't live here then...




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,545 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,159 Posts

6 Threads

#76 9 years ago

Professor Dr. Scientist;4954822A democracy depends on an informed citizenry. When the general population is ignorant of the manner their government works then they allow themselves to be taken advantage of. By lacking general knowledge of their country the gp cedes control to those in power whom, without anyone to stop them, are free to do as they wish, a situation that will result in the powerful taking advantage of the ignorant. An informed citizenry, one that knows its rights, knows the principles those rights were founded on, and the history that led to the development of its rights is better prepared to protect itself from losing those rights.

I’m reminded of the book, Animal Farm, where the animals began with one set of principles that were slowly corrupted by the leaders. Their lack of attention to their principles resulted in the loss of the privileges they had attained. When a person is only narrowly concerned with their job, or their personal life, or whatever you will, and ignores the larger environment in which they exist and which affects them even though they don’t pay attention to it, they risk having that environment changed without their input and therefore put themselves at risk to be negatively affected by any changes that occur.

By being knowledgeable about rights, founding principles, and the history behind those rights and principles, people are better able to retain their rights.

Thomas Jefferson has a lot of good quotes on this subject, including one that influenced the first line of this post. Here’s a good one:

It's impossible for the people to be informed. Democracy only ever makes good decisions when the concept of sovereign power is limited to small groups of people who understand the issues at hand and are capable of making specific decisions in regard to those issues. Which of course no one man can because we are expected to exercise universal sovereignty on all the issues at once, by voting for a party, rather than on the issue at hand.

We have created a general system, and from the creation of that system arise its limitations: chiefly that it supplanted specific ideas; such as what the duty on fuel should be and whether cops should carry tasers; with increasingly general ideas, like what party to vote for. Even among the intelligent it is not possible to have anything other than a general application of sovereignty for you simply cannot know about the many issues at hand. An expert in a certain issue is not an expert in the others he is made to decide upon.

The ultimate failing of universal democracy is that it is blind to the application of wisdom to actual issues; it has to be, such is the nature of a general system. So we allow people to decide on issues they know nothing about, and who in many cases are not even aware the power of decision rests with them. We elect not the best people to rule in a specific area, because we’ve no idea what a good decision on the issue would be anyway or who the good people are; we vote for the advertising, for the party; at the most general level.

Even for the character of the leaders. We have leaders who are driven in cars that cost more than many peoples’ houses, who spend on makeup in a week more than I will spend on my entire education. They live in an entirely different world than we, a world upon which the policy they foist on the rest of us will only ever have the most limited of effects. The exercise of power for these people is a pathologically unsound exercise in social responsibility.

Informed, uninformed. In general terms that's not really what the system is about. It’s about power: who has it and how they keep it. You see the system of universal democracy innately ensures that even if someone is an expert on an issue they will be forever outnumbered by the people who are not; just as on another issue they number among those who are not experts. And those who are not are always easily influenced by those with access to the appropriate forms of media to inform them of what they should know. The press, the lobbying, the studies that companies have made up to support their point of view. So you've got a system of power wielded by the rich, and it will always be that way as long as the money in a man’s pocket determines the reach of his voice. Now when you give people a vote they don’t change things themselves as readily, they just wait until the next election comes around and vote again; accomplishing the same thing they did the first time – only a very general application of inherently uninformed power, generally in line with the wishes of those who tell them how to vote.

An informed citizenry beyond a certain size is essentially an oxymoron. Democracy is a special interests system; and as long as the money in your pocket determines the reach of your voice those special interests will be those of the people with money. The point of animal farm was that the creatures did know their rights, that's the irony of it; it was the erosion of those rights beyond anything but symbolism people could claim victory in the name of by a hierachial information power system.




Ryuukotseiz_SITHLORD

Darth Never

50 XP

9th February 2008

0 Uploads

129 Posts

0 Threads

#77 9 years ago

What I think should be general knowledge is how big of a liar the media is. Believe it or not there is a ton of people who believe what the media says, a good example is the whole Muslim charade.




Noxstant

Physics is my salvation

50 XP

11th June 2008

0 Uploads

352 Posts

0 Threads

#78 9 years ago
Ryuukotseiz_SITHLORD;4959652What I think should be general knowledge is how big of a liar the media is. Believe it or not there is a ton of people who believe what the media says, a good example is the whole Muslim charade.

Yeah and the fact that terrorists wouldn't want us all dead if we weren't funding tons of money to Israel.




NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#79 9 years ago

Reldorage;4959131Lol, no, if you mistreated them, you were usually killed.[/QUOTE] But you said vice versa, so the vice-versa of you being stoned if you didnt treat slaves well, would be them being stoned if they didnt treat you well.

Mr. Pedantic;4959152Except the idea that is behind the flag is not readily apparent to anyone who sees it. [/QUOTE] Then you are not looking hard enough.

Mr. Pedantic;4959152 And men have fought and died for gold. Why is that not worshipped so ostentatiously in the States? [/QUOTE] Have you seen the thousands of "cash for gold" commercials constantly running? I think it is.

And diamonds are fought and died over as well. Im not saying the only thing that has been fought and died for is our flag. I would fight and kill over my fucking playstation.

Mr. Pedantic;4959152 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Even if it doesn't explicitly say that there should be a separation of church and state, the implications of that sentence should be pretty clear. [/QUOTE] Implications are in the eye of the beholder. I can say the Second Amendment means that every person has a right to own a pair of bear's arms.

Mr. Pedantic;4959152 It means that on no account should Congress pass any bill which allows preferential treatment of any religion over any other. It means that there can be no official state religion. It means that, in effect, Congress and religious institutions are to be kept separate.

In the time and context it was mandated, it most likely ment you will not be subjected to punishment for your religious choice. It does not say Congress shall not speak the word "god".

Only the penitent man will pass...

[QUOTE=Mr. Pedantic;4959152] If people are so attentive to the idea behind the flag, why are they so much less attentive to the idea behind the Constitution (or at least the first amendment)?

Because only 15 % of our country is athiestic. So the minority is crying, whining and bitching to change the majority.

[QUOTE=Mr. Pedantic;4959152] Is it? What about all those other religions that don't believe in a single God, or don't believe in an all-powerful deity?

Then dont take it literally. Say "One Nation, under Gods". Or just take it to mean "One nation, under God (whomever you believe it to be)".

[QUOTE=Mr. Pedantic;4959152] If you are so intent on your ideas, then why not stand up for the ones that count?

Because I pick and choose my battles. And this does not bother me enough. I'd rather stand up and get passionate over black people crying "racism" all the time.

[QUOTE=Mr. Pedantic;4959152] And this is one of them. I would rather have the pledge mean something for the people saying and hearing it, rather than a formality to be dutifully followed through.

Well people are not really given a choice in grade school. I remember doing it every day.