The New Georgia State Flag

[NecronLord]

Split & HOS

[Darth Wong]

1) Stravo is hispanic, but he looks white. He probably gets treated like a white person. In fact, as a person who appears white and goes to church, he is basically part of the ruling majority.

2) The right of the majority to oppress the minority runs against the founding principles of the United States and many other first-world nations. The elimination of this "right" is the fucking REASON your founding fathers created the Constitution.

3) It is not "self-hate" for a white male to point out that white male Christians run the country, since this statement has the inconvenient attribute of being true. The truth or falsehood of a statement is not affected in any way by attacking the person's motivations or even more perversely, appealing to racial solidarity (ie- attacking the fact that he is a white person criticizing the actions of fellow white people).

[Darth Gojira]

Maybe we should torch Atlanta all over again. Sherman, You da MAN!!!!

[Stravo]

1) Stravo is hispanic, but he looks white. He probably gets treated like a white person. In fact, as a person who appears white and goes to church, he is basically part of the ruling majority.

I don't go to church, haven't gone since my friend's wedding five years ago. I am a non practicing Catholic who simply believes in God. Belief does not automatically denote church going.

Look white? Hispanics run a gamut of colors and looks, we are not a monolithic race - we're not all brown and talk like dis. I'm not even going to go down this road, I don't agree with it but others have voiced similair opinion in the past. I am very proud of my heritage and culture I just do not make an issue out of race. Its not Important to me, I view myself as an American first above all else. First generation immigrant menatality kicking in, we tend to be rabidly patriotic.

As someone who is a minority on this board by being a believer I understand that there are certain things that I have to accept BECAUSE I am a minority. That does not mean that my views should be cast aside or ignored, but in a democracy there is a majority whose will wins out over a minority. We make a compact when we're in a democracy to accept the will of the majority. Why do you think Bush is so hated and despised by a certain portion of the country, because many feel that in some way that compact was broken when he was declared president by the Supreme Court.

The In God we Trust phrase I was not debating because I find it a moot point, it is a phrase that the Supreme Court has said does not show support for religion in violation of the Amendment therefore not a violation. The phrase itself does not support a single religion, what God do you trust in? The separation of Church and state does NOT mean that Government must hate religion or blot out ANY religious refrences, it means that it cannot sponsor a state religion. City halls can have a christmas display as long as there are hanuakkah displays alongside of it. Government does not have to be religion free - just religion neutral. So if it is legal it can be voted on, if you're in the minority you lose. I was supporting the rights of the people of that state to vote on what their flag looks like.

Just as segragation CANNOT be voted on whether 80% of Miisssipians are in favor of it because it is illegal.

[jegs2]

Maybe we should torch Atlanta all over again. Sherman, You da MAN!!!!

Maybe we should string you up on an old oak tree...

[Darth Wong]

I don't go to church, haven't gone since my friend's wedding five years ago. I am a non practicing Catholic who simply believes in God. Belief does not automatically denote church going.

Look white? Hispanics run a gamut of colors and looks, we are not a monolithic race - we're not all brown and talk like dis. I'm not even going to go down this road, I don't agree with it but others have voiced similair opinion in the past. I am very proud of my heritage and culture I just do not make an issue out of race. Its not Important to me, I view myself as an American first above all else. First generation immigrant menatality kicking in, we tend to be rabidly patriotic.

Nothing wrong with any of that. I'm just pointing out that you're exaggerating your minority status in America by jumping on Durandal for assuming you're defending the white male Christian status quo. In America, you do not stand out as a minority. In fact, the light-skinned person who believes in God but rarely goes to church is a huge demographic in America.

As someone who is a minority on this board by being a believer I understand that there are certain things that I have to accept BECAUSE I am a minority.

There are limits, however. It's one thing for people to express opinions and debate back and forth in the site itself, but if the site mainpage banner read "Christians are stupid" instead of "Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people", I don't think you'd be too impressed, nor would any reasonable person expect you to be. Making people salute a flag that says "In God We Trust" is ridiculous.

That does not mean that my views should be cast aside or ignored, but in a democracy there is a majority whose will wins out over a minority. We make a compact when we're in a democracy to accept the will of the majority. Why do you think Bush is so hated and despised by a certain portion of the country, because many feel that in some way that compact was broken when he was declared president by the Supreme Court.

True, although that's not the only reason people don't like him. Enron, the ANWR, and the Patriot Act are others.

The In God we Trust phrase I was not debating because I find it a moot point, it is a phrase that the Supreme Court has said does not show support for religion in violation of the Amendment therefore not a violation.

That only proves the Supreme Court is populated by idiots.

The phrase itself does not support a single religion, what God do you trust in?

Bullshit. It supports all monotheistic religions over polytheistic or non-theistic religions, never mind atheism.

The separation of Church and state does NOT mean that Government must hate religion or blot out ANY religious refrences, it means that it cannot sponsor a state religion.

Or a state-approved family of religions, which is what happens when you officially promote fucking monotheism. And no, I don't give a shit that a dozen old people on the Supreme Court disagree with me; they can go fuck themselves.

City halls can have a christmas display as long as there are hanuakkah displays alongside of it.

And as long as they let me add a Satanic inverted pentagram, burning cross, traditional statues of naked orgiastic Greek gods and goddesses, and Santa Claus to the display, I have no problem with that. Of course, if they refuse the alternate religious and secular symbols, then I would have a problem.

Government does not have to be religion free - just religion neutral.

Which is NOT the case if it officially promotes monotheism. What part of this do you willfully refuse to understand?

So if it is legal it can be voted on, if you're in the minority you lose. I was supporting the rights of the people of that state to vote on what their flag looks like.

You were supporting the rights of the people of that state to piss on the principle of religious equality.

Just as segragation CANNOT be voted on whether 80% of Miisssipians are in favor of it because it is illegal.

"In God We Trust" should be illegal, even though the Emperor and his cohorts made it legal.

[Joe]

Maybe we should torch Atlanta all over again. Sherman, You da MAN!!!!

Maybe you should remove your head from your ass.

FYI, the city of Atlanta is actually quite progressive. It's the gay center of the South.

[Stravo]

Wong, I do fully undertsand your point about promoting monotheism. Yes I can see where that would offend an athiest, but if the vast majority of the nation IS religious, religious references permeate our founding fathers documents, after all our CREATOR imbued us with inalienable rights and all, what's to be expected? The vast majority of people are religious, whether they're church goers, white, what have you. They have a voice and in a democracy that voice equals power. Certain protections have to be in place to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority - I whole heartedly agree with that. But by not having state sponsored religion we are protecting BOTH believers and athiests.

But we cannot ask a nation that was founded by believers and religious men and steeped in religious refrences to just give it all up because a small minority is offended by it. Monotheism promotes positive social ideals, despite what you may trot out with Leviticus. No one in their right minds (read non Fundies) wants to STONE anybody for being gay, adulterers or anything. Christianity, Islam, Judiaism, Buddhism all promote certain universal ideals - no killing, no stealing, obedience to the authority.

And you may not agree with what 9 judges (several women and a black man) may say but their word is the final arbitor of American law or otherwise the system simply does not work. This same instituion helped abolish segregation and gave a woman a right to choose. We have to accept the good with the bad.

I am not avoiding the issue, I understand it, I just don't agree with it.

[Durandal]

Wong, I do fully undertsand your point about promoting monotheism.

Obviously you don't.

Yes I can see where that would offend an athiest, but if the vast majority of the nation IS religious, religious references permeate our founding fathers documents, after all our CREATOR imbued us with inalienable rights and all, what's to be expected?

Translation, "Yeah, you're an atheist, and your rights are being violated, but who gives a fuck?" "Creator" is an ambiguous term, unlike "God," which is never mentioned in the Constitution. I suggest reading up on quotes from the founding fathers regarding religion, especially those from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

The vast majority of people are religious, whether they're church goers, white, what have you. They have a voice and in a democracy that voice equals power. Certain protections have to be in place to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority - I whole heartedly agree with that. But by not having state sponsored religion we are protecting BOTH believers and athiests.

But we do have state-sponsored religion, because the government officially looks down upon atheism, and it grants special privileges to Christianity, such as the right to beat their children without legal repercussions, using its holy book to swear presidents in, officially endorsing the Christian God in the Pledge of Allegiance and currency, et cetera. If that's not a state-sponsored religion, then what is? You and every other Christian would certainly bitch and moan about religious bigotry if US coins had "In Satan We Trust" inscribed on them. Don't pretend that atheists are making unreasonable demands. A demand which forces people to get their heads out of their asses and end religious bigotry isn't unreasonable; it's simply difficult.

But we cannot ask a nation that was founded by believers and religious men and steeped in religious refrences to just give it all up because a small minority is offended by it.

Appeal to tradition. For the last fucking time, this is not about offending people. It's about certain people being relegated to second-class citizen status because the government officially sponsors religion while these people are non-religious.

Monotheism promotes positive social ideals, despite what you may trot out with Leviticus. No one in their right minds (read non Fundies) wants to STONE anybody for being gay, adulterers or anything. Christianity, Islam, Judiaism, Buddhism all promote certain universal ideals - no killing, no stealing, obedience to the authority.

Monotheism promotes nothing positive that secularism does not. It is a completely replaceable idea. It contributes nothing unique aside from fantasies about invisible men in the sky. Furthermore, look at the "good" Islam promotes by watching the tapes of the September 11th attacks again. Monotheism is not intrinsically good, and even if it was, that doesn't change the fact that you're violating the establishment clause by supporting it.

And you may not agree with what 9 judges (several women and a black man) may say but their word is the final arbitor of American law or otherwise the system simply does not work. This same instituion helped abolish segregation and gave a woman a right to choose. We have to accept the good with the bad.

Appeal to authority. I love how logic just goes completely out the window when it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. You're completely ignoring the fact that religion has become a sacred cow in America that it completely untouchable and that there exist very powerful women's rights lobbyist groups who helped fund Roe vs. Wade. There are no groups with such astronomical amounts of power specifically for atheists or secularists.

The only defenses you've presented for keeping religious overtones in the government have been logical fallacies, and you haven't addressed the issue of atheists being of lower status in the eyes of the government because of those overtones.

[Darth Wong]

Wong, I do fully undertsand your point about promoting monotheism. Yes I can see where that would offend an athiest, but if the vast majority of the nation IS religious, religious references permeate our founding fathers documents, after all our CREATOR imbued us with inalienable rights and all, what's to be expected?

The word "God" does not appear once in the Constitution. "Nature's God" is only referenced in the declaration of independence.

The vast majority of people are religious, whether they're church goers, white, what have you. They have a voice and in a democracy that voice equals power. Certain protections have to be in place to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority - I whole heartedly agree with that. But by not having state sponsored religion we are protecting BOTH believers and athiests.

Correct. Now we just have to implement that constitutional principle to the letter, instead of skirting around it with bullshit, like claiming that making people salute God is not religion-specific.

But we cannot ask a nation that was founded by believers and religious men and steeped in religious refrences to just give it all up because a small minority is offended by it.

Just as we cannot ask a nation that was founded by slavers and white supremacists and steeped in slavery to just give it all up because a small minority is offended by it? Go back a century or two, and your argument leads to a rather disturbing conclusion.

Monotheism promotes positive social ideals, despite what you may trot out with Leviticus.

Bullshit. There is nothing intrinsic to the principle of monotheism which leads to positive social ideals. Some monotheists are good people, some are evil.

No one in their right minds (read non Fundies) wants to STONE anybody for being gay, adulterers or anything. Christianity, Islam, Judiaism, Buddhism all promote certain universal ideals - no killing, no stealing, obedience to the authority.

Blind obedience to authority is fascism. As for the "no killing, no stealing" ideals, they are found in all societies regardless of whether they are monotheistic or theistic at all, so it is ridiculous to claim that they are somehow connected with monotheism.

And you may not agree with what 9 judges (several women and a black man) may say but their word is the final arbitor of American law or otherwise the system simply does not work. This same instituion helped abolish segregation and gave a woman a right to choose. We have to accept the good with the bad.

That institution was positive because it was progressive in those cases. It is not being progressive now.

I am not avoiding the issue, I understand it, I just don't agree with it.

The constitution is clear on this, and the Supreme Court has violated it. The principles laid down in that constitution have been ignored in favour of "tyranny of the majority".