Before I get going I want to apologize for the extreme length of this post.
I was reading through the Kayla's Massachussetts thread and noted that Chaeron said that this country was founded on secular ideals, and that it is not a Christian country. I was immediately reminded of a discussion I had with a friend of mine about a month ago.
As some of you may know, I occasionally write an editorial and post it to my web site. Last year, I wrote one about the Pledge of Allegiance. My friend had just gotten around to reading it, and this was the conversation that ensued (my apologies for the length of the quotation, but I couldn't find a good way to cut it down):
quote:Dude: I don't know if you're inclined to amend your editorials, but if I were you I'd edit out the sarcastic remark about "E Pluribus Unum" since you're incorrect and it leaves you kind of open saxon: It's my understanding that E Pluribus Unum translates to "From Many, One." Dude: yeah, but it became part of our nation's history from it's inclusion in the great seal and was intended to symbolize one nation composed of 13 states saxon: Interesting. And here I figured this would be a Latin complaint. Dude: nah, people pretty much accept the "from many, one" thing, even though it's technically "from more, one" saxon: Anyway, I suppose I could be wrong, but I think the idea of unity of disparate parts is still applicable. Dude: but there's no reference to disaparate parts, my man saxon: You don't think "That despite our differences" implies that? Dude: yeah, that's *your* reference--I'm talking about in "E Pluribus Unum" Dude: it doesn't mean "that despite our differences, we can all be a part of something great" saxon: no saxon: although the concept of the federal government does entail the unification of the socially and politically disparate colonies. Dude: kind of a stretch--I guess it's not worth editing yourself over--I'm sure I'm the first complaint saxon: Indeed, you are. It's a valid observation, though. I'll think about it. Dude: I'd have to say that I also disagree with you pretty narrowly on your conclusion, too, but that's a longer discussion saxon: Additionally, I'm quite certain that I'm not the only person these days with such an interpretation of "E Pluribus Unum." saxon: Which conclusion, that taking "under God" out of the pledge is not taking something away from people, or that the fact that Americans have differences is a strength? Dude: you may not be the only person with that usage--but that brings up the question of whether or not common usage can really change the founding principles of a nation saxon: Good point. Dude: the "under God" part, not the other part saxon: I suppose we can just chalk that one up to me being a damned bleeding-heart and let it lie until another day. Dude: well, I think I'm more inclined to chalk it up to you being an [atheist], since I agree with all your bleeding-heart arguments, just not your [atheist]-bent conclusion (thus my narrow disagreement) . . . saxon: In any case, I do acknowledge that it's a complex issue and I am very much against government stifling of religion. The editorial was sparked by me reading a news article that basically said I should be considered neither a patriot nor an American if I don't believe in God. Dude: yeah, that's . . . retarded Dude: my conclusion is that atheists should replace the "under" with "with no" saxon: Well, we're all entitled to an opinion. Dude: yes, but my opinion propagates the belief that we're all entitled to an opinion saxon: Here's the thing: it boils down to whether you believe that the official wording of the pledge is either a personal or a public endorsement of religion. saxon: In the former case it should be offensive to no one. saxon: And in my opinion, in the latter case, it should be offensive to everyone. Dude: yeah--it'd be nice if it had never been officially recognized by the govt saxon: The complexity arises not out of what the proper conclusion should be, but out of the impossibility of getting everyone to agreeing what the situation is. Dude: I can't agree with that--no decision on what the situation is could lead to a simple conclusion saxon: Probably true, but it would be much less complex if people were only arguing about conclusions and not premises. Dude: I think the thing to observe is that the two main options presented (keep the "under god" or discard it) are completely unacceptable and that we really need to find a more creative solution Dude: my "with no god" solution is mostly just a humorous attempt at such a solution saxon: I figured. Dude: although, I contend that it's better than either of the other two saxon: Although in all honesty I would be just as upset if that were the official wording. Possibly more so Dude: do you believe that people in a nation can't have conflicting views about that nation's identity? . . . saxon: I think that a nation founded on principles including religious freedom shouldn't take any stance whatsoever on the presence or absence of a deity. Dude: if you're actually going to appeal to the foundational principles, you can't just ignore the fact that it was founded on *Christian* religious freedom and not religious freedom in general saxon: And yet, that was not the wording used. Dude: and yet nothing--you're appealing to the founding principles of the nation and we both know very well what they were Dude: this nation has had a Christian bias in every aspect but it's constitution since it was formed saxon: I know very well that the Founding Fathers were all Christian and intended religious freedom to mean that not everyone needed to be Catholic, yes. Dude: People shouldn't be forced to believe in god, period. But it's also wrong to strip the nation of it's christian identity if the people still want it.
I've been grappling with the implications of this conversations ever since. I have always considered myself a good American, both a citizen and a patriot. I take a lot of pride in my American heritage. I feel more kinship with Thomas Jefferson than I do with Tokugawa. And I am an American citizen. I was born one, and I will remain one. So what difference should it make that there's the implication that, because we live in a country with a deep-seated Christian identity, I'm not really a part of this society? I have friends, I have a job in which I contribute to this country, and I do everything I can to be a model citizen and member of whatever communities I am a part of.
But it does matter. Because among the people that hold such an opinion are some people that are close to me, people whose opinions matter to me.
Is this really a Christian country? I did a little research, and in 2002, 53% of Americans belonged to a Christian denomination of 5000 or more members. So, a majority, but not an overwhelming one. But, what about using monotheistic morality as a basis of law? Throw in Jews and Muslims, and the percentage grows to the high 60s or low 70s. Granted, Christians, Jews, and Muslims are far from seeing eye to eye on the question of morality, but on a number of topics they do agree. Do the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faiths agree on things like the Pledge of Allegiance, homosexual marriage, general church/state affiliation? I don't know for sure. But if they do, and America is a real democracy, then isn't that what America is? And if that is what America is, am I really an American, at least in the eyes of the people that agree with this?
I've been wrestling with my own place in the scheme of things for the past month. Not just as an American, but as a friend. None of you have ever known me to judge religions or religious people harshly. I admit I did when I was younger. But for quite some time now I have tried very hard to be respectful of everyone's beliefs. But if I'm being honest, it does bother, and sometimes even horrify me that some of my friends hold the beliefs that they do. Am I ignoring the parts that I don't like? That feels dishonest, even rude. As though by just ignoring those few pieces I'm not ignoring something fundamental about these people. Or am I just being tolerant? And if that's what it is, should I really be tolerant of beliefs that I feel are morally wrong? But if I shouldn't, how do I get past the fact that I genuinely care for these people, for their feelings, and for what they think of me? How can I reconcile my belief in tolerance and relativism with my problems with intolerance and my desire to maintain these relationships?
There really isn't a right answer, I don't think. But it weighs on me, nevertheless.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
a minor point -- the founding fathers were NOT all christian. Most of them espoused the benefits of christianity in their public papers, yes, but several of them were vocal deists, and others were closet deists (notable George Washington).
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
(This is Pat...)
Leonide and I sorta had this discussion at Grenme.
It depends. Anyone that does something that willingly hurts another on a consistent basis I cannot willingly call a friend.
But I will always look to those who are different from me to be friends regardless of their beliefs, persuasions or what have you. This is frankly the reason why I post here and not at www.nauvoo.com. The friends I have here are nothing like the environment I live in, and I love it. If anything, it broadens my view of the world, and in many cases, wakes me up to things I've never thought of before.
I'm not sure if this answers your question or not....
Posted by Dag (Member # 5128) on :
Anything to keep christians out of American History right? Haha Its so great to watch them come up with these great facts.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I like having friends that I get along with and respect, but with whom I disagree.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
D'oh! fugu beat me to what I was going to say about deists among the founding fathers. I think some were even agnostic or atheist, though I would have to check that.
This is almost always over-looked by that minority of over-bearing Christians who stridently proclaim that all of our nation's founders were Christian, either purposfully or in ignorance.
I don't think it is a minor point. Freedom of religion is in the Bill of Rights and in 1000s of court rulings in American history. The reference to God should be removed from the pledge. Atheists, agnostics, and polytheists are citizens, too.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
As diests, didn't they believe in God?
As much as I appreciate my athiest and agnostic friends, I want to know the balance of it.
How much does the phrase, One nation under God, harm you?
How much would it harm (by offense or feelings of persecution) the 90% of people that like it there?
Would the line be drawn there, or would we start requiring any federally funded agencies to cease giving paid days off for religious holidays?
What about religious people going into public schools and having their beliefs ridiculed by professors, in front of the class, under federal funding?
I understand it does cause some discomfort for athiests. I wish I could do something for them. But I still I fail to see how taking the phrase "under God" out of the pledge of allegiance is going to heal more hurt than it will cause. And I think we should judge such things by their overall impact, not just the impact on minorities. Not to say that minorities aren't important, but the greater good must be served.
Of course, being human, we rarely know what the greater good is. I mean, maybe taking the phrase out would improve religious tolerance. But at this point, I don't think it would.
Okay, that said:
Being identified as American, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Atheist, or the sexy bald guy isn't as important as being a decent human being.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Being identified as American, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Atheist, or the sexy bald guy isn't as important as being a decent human being.
Apparently, to 90% of America (your number, saxon's is 70-ish%), being identified as Christian IS more important. That's why "under God" remains.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Here's what I don't understand:
Believing that you are not welcome in your own country -- a country under a certain form of God -- is an obvious harm.
Where is the obvious harm, for believers, in removing the phrase "under God?" Do they suddenly feel unwelcome in a country in which they're overwhelmingly dominant, just because they're not allowed to plaster their holy writ on public walls? Are believers that stupid and insecure?
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Also, the original pledge, although created by a Baptist minister in August 1892, did not include "under God". This was added in 1954 after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus. Interesting how important the pledge became around the time of McCarthyism. The fact that the pledge is also in verse form to give more aesthetic appeal and make it more palatable to us is worth noting.
Check out this site for the history of the pledge. This is just the first site I visited after googling. Please tell me if you find something inaccurate about it.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
This American Christian persecution complex is so completely absurd. Is the Christian faith in America so pitifully weak that it must use the state to institutionalise its beliefs in order to survive? If so, then maybe it's time it just withered and died. If not, then why are Christians complaining so vocally as of late?
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Ok, I admit that was unfair. I am not targeting all Christians, just those that wish for the state to support and entrench their beliefs.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dag -- what were you referring to? Would you care to dispute my point?
Also, the pledge of allegiance was modified for a very specific purpose: to make atheists feel not wanted. This was quite clear in the rhetoric surrounding its insertion.
Plus, I fail to see how it would hurt any theist to have it removed from the pledge -- it does not impinge on them for it to not be there. It certainly impinges on atheists by being there.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Tom, Johnny, and Chaeron--there are several answers to your questions about insecurity, because there are different reasons Christians feel insecure.
For one, a large number of conservative Christians believe that God will bring judgement on any country that abandons him. That judgement could take a lot of forms, but any of them would undoubtedly end up drastically reducing our freedoms, whether it were by (to name a few) conquest, economic collapse, or disease. Oh, they might still be in the law books, but if you can't pay to do something, you're not really free to do it. Myself...I don't know. Sometimes I'm afraid he will. Sometimes I'm afraid he won't.
More broadly, if we really have so much influence over the country, why do we keep losing? Bam!--free abortions for all. Bam!--Ten Commandments gone. Bam!--Bible club kicked out of school (by lower courts, anyway). Many Christians see these repeated losses as an indication that despite their majority status, they have somehow lost their influence over society. (The Supreme Court is an easy target, since they aren't elected and are prone not to turn out the way the appointer expected.) Moreover, they don't see most of the things they were doing as anything but their own free expression. If a secular group can get a message posted at the courthouse, if a secular club can meet in the school, if a secular charity organization can get federal funds--why can't we?
It's the suddenness of the losses. Whether they were deserved or not, they contribute to a feeling of disorientation and powerlessness.
Posted by Doug J (Member # 1323) on :
You also have to look at it this way. In the New York school system Jewish and Islamic holy symbols have been specifically asked to be brought in and displayed but Christian symbols have been specifically told NOT to be brought in. And this is happening all around the country.
No matter what you think about this either way you need to understand why people feel so insecure about this. Many times I’ve been told since I’m not black or female I can't see the sexism or racism so common in this country. Maybe you can't see the anti-Christian bias because you are not Christian.
Also, the whole "This country was founded as a Christian based nation" argument may sound absurd to you, just as "This country was built on the backs of slaves" argument sounds absurd to me. This argument isn't about facts but ideas and perceptions and maybe everybody is working off different perceptions while thinking they are all the same.
Posted by Dag (Member # 5128) on :
Fugu- This is hilarious. A modified version of what you said- "the pledge of alligeince was written to alliante all other religions and non religions so they would feel not wanted and leave. Thus downsizing our population and losing tax money and power. All in the name of bias" Do you think you can support and prove that statement of yours?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:But if they do, and America is a real democracy, then isn't that what America is?
Thankfully, it's not. I don't think a pure Democracy could function on this large a scale. It's more of a Constitutional Democracy or Parlaimentary Democracy.
If it were a true Democracy, we could pretty much just scrap the Constitution. Then it could be the old "two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner".
Yes, the majority rules, but not in the exceptions outlined in the Constitution.
The insertion of religious promotion in our oaths and on our coins is one of those exceptions, and no majority should be able to overrule that as long as we look to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. ____________________________________________
I think being tolerant of intolerance sets a good example, and will only help in the long run. If these people can set their beliefs aside in order to be your friend, it's only fair to do the same for them. Your beliefs probably horrify them as much as theirs do you.
And if they can be tolerant of you, I think they have potential to progress to a higher tolerance.
[tangent]"Tolerance"is one of those words that looks really weird after you type it a dozen times.[/tangent]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think I will start ignoring you soon, Dag, you did not respond at all to my question as to your rather insulting comment, and you did not respond civilly. You are a troll.
I will, however, answer your question. Yes, I can show this.
Particularly choice are Mr. Eisenhower's words: "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."
I also like the motivation as expressed by the preacher whose sermon got eisenhower interested: "Apart from the mention of the phrase 'the United States of America,' it could be the pledge of any republic. In fact, I could hear little Muscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow."
Ooh, and then there's a quote by Ferguson (guy who introduced the bill): "I believe it to be of great importance that we as a Nation recognize a higher power than ourselves in the guidance of our existence. This joint resolution recognizes that we believe there is a Divine Power, and that we, our children, and children's children should always recognize it, as we do also in engraving the words "In God We Trust" over the principal entrance to this Chamber. "
And then there's the wonderful Mr. Brooks of Louisiaina: "One thing separates free peoples of the Western World from the rabid Communist, and this one thing is a belief in God. In adding this one phrase to our pledge of allegiance to our flag, we in effect declare openly that we denounce the pagan doctrine of communism and declare "under God" in favor of free government and a free world. "
Note: the above quotes are all taken from the links. The first link is the canonical story of the knights of columbus -- note how it skirts the issue. Oddly enough, the KoC were likely the least motivated by hatred of communism and atheism. Catholics (such as the KoC) were often accused of being communist. The addition of the words under god to their recitation of the pledge was largely a political move to avoid persecution as communists, and to emphasize what they felt was the difference -- communists were atheists, to them.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Fugu, you say these statements reflect bias, and I think I must agree with you. But I notice something else--they consistently associate Christianity and freedom. Perhaps this too is bigoted, but it does suggest that in some way the speakers believed they were working toward goals most of us would consider appropriate. They sound as though they really believe that a Christian nation is a free nation and a non-Christian nation is or will become unfree.
Curious, isn't it?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
<tongue-in-cheek>Yes, it is. How amazing that christians with a political agenda suggest that a christian nation is superior to a non christian nation, particularly when they are combatting a non christian nation. </tongue-in-cheek>
The speakers were working towards positive goals? Well, somewhat. The anti-communist witch hunts (which several of these people supported/took part in) were not positive goals. Those were evil and hateful goals. The attempt to suggest we're better than other republics because we believe in God and they don't was not a positive goal, it was an attempt to create the Other, a well known political tool bandied about for ages. I suggest 1984 for reading on that front.
If your argument is "Look! Christians did positive things! Isn't that remarkable!", then I'm surprised. My default outlook is that "Oh, isn't it wonderful how most people do positive things!" I can point out tons of instances of people from other religions doing positive things, and even (*gasp*) associating their religion with those positive things.
An attempt to argue that christianity is good because christians considered it to have positive connotations is not well-founded.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I apologize for the rather disrespectful tone in my previous post. I was reading it over and realized how it sounded. While I stand by its conclusions, I ask that people forgive my apparent tone, which was not at all my intent.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Saxon, I like this comment that you made in your cited discussion with "Dude."
quote:I think that a nation founded on principles including religious freedom shouldn't take any stance whatsoever on the presence or absence of a deity.
quote:Here's what I don't understand:
Believing that you are not welcome in your own country -- a country under a certain form of God -- is an obvious harm.
Where is the obvious harm, for believers, in removing the phrase "under God?" Do they suddenly feel unwelcome in a country in which they're overwhelmingly dominant, just because they're not allowed to plaster their holy writ on public walls? Are believers that stupid and insecure?
Bravo, Tom. Well said.
[ November 20, 2003, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: Ela ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
FWIW, I have no problem with taking the phrase out of the pledge. I also don't mind leaving it in. I don't think it makes any difference either way.
It seems like it bothers people more than it comforts people, so why not take it out?
[ November 20, 2003, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Dag (Member # 5128) on :
Fugu- Well before you start your terrible reign of silence let me just first apologize for whatever aagrivated you so. I know that being extremely smart and showing it can be tiring and ignorant people, such as myself, can be annoying. The question that bugs me however is why you calling me a troll is not as bad? Maybe its because im not as equal as you are. But thank you for your responce, it gives me some quotes to study. Yet even though they do show that the passing of the law to put "under god" in, it still dosn't prove your point that it was made to try and "smoke out" the atheist of the country and get rid of them. I already knew that the people who passed the law to put it in beleived it would be good for the country. I knew that they all beleived this country was based on Judeo-christian beleives and needed something to show this. I already knew all this because it passed. Why else would they try and do this? I haven't seen any quotes however that show a vibrant and open way to persicute athiest. This is Troll, signing out.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Kat, what does FWIW mean?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
For What It's Worth
The rare disclaimer on my opinion.
[ November 20, 2003, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The quotes definitely do show that those passing the bill thought atheists not wanted. They considered atheism and communism equal, and it is well documented what they did to communists (and many people who were suspected of being communist because they were atheists).
Your being a troll has nothing to do with your intelligence, it has to do with how you argue. You came onto this thread and made a snide remark completely derogatory of something I said. I asked you, in an attempt to be polite, to explain it. Instead of doing so you made another snide remark about another reply of mine, again with nothing to back up your position (other than an attempt to put words in my mouth). You posted merely to get me riled up, and did not respond to things I said to try to get you involved in the discussion. Those types of things (posting solely to get people riled up, ignoring attempts at discussion) are the hallmarks of (one kind of) troll. They are in fact almost synonymous with trolling.
Not that I don't think trolls can reform. Ryan Hart was a troll for a bit, but when he realized about what he was doing he stopped. He's a very nice and intelligent person. Which did not stop him from being a troll when he first arrived.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
My take is that any real friendship has to be a relationship between two people who are on more or less an equal standing in regards to their relationship. That is to say, there has to be a foundation of mutal respect. Otherwise, it's not really a friendship.
Respect doesn't entail agreeing with someone else's views. In fact, I'd say that respecting someone only because their views align closely with your own is an egotistical perversion of real respect. Respect, for me, entails an appreciation of the other person's abilities as they actually are. It is not necessary to agree with someone's ideas if you believe that they have a valid way of coming up with those ideas. You can respect someone's ways of thinking about their ideas, even if you don't agree with the ideas themselves. However, if you look with contempt on a person's ways of thinking, you're patently not their friend, even if you agree with everything they say.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Maybe start backing up your statements instead of merely telling people they're wrong (even after they've more than sufficiently backed themselves up), and your troll status will be removed.
But as long as you just laugh off information, make bold statements without support, and do so without respect or punctuation, we'll probably treat you like a troll.
[edit: yeah, what fugu said]
[ November 20, 2003, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by Dag (Member # 5128) on :
I can be called a Troll because of the few remarks I have made on this board but I can't say France has a short list of war heros even though its a common fact that can be seen by reading through history. Strange place this is...
edit- I beleive my biggest problem is that I don't take this as serious as others. There are many better and more organized forums than this that I could go to and I would show more respect. But this is a forum that is located on a website of an author. That is it. Its on a website that really isn't about what this forum is about! So i guess I need to find a more laid back place to talk. So pardon all my wrongs please.
[ November 20, 2003, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Dag ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Haha. We take our debate seriously, and our fun even more seriously.
[edit: new link due to the fact that I overlooked the insults in the previous post.]
[ November 20, 2003, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:I beleive my biggest problem is that I don't take this as serious as others. There are many better and more organized forums than this that I could go to and I would show more respect.
So go. Nobody's stopping you.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Firstly, you weren't being laid back, you were being insulting. I tell you this because if you go to other laid back forums (and we're quite laid back, thank you ) and act as you've been, you'll be labeled a troll as well. I visit a number of forums, and behavior like yours isn't tolerated.
Secondly, this forum is about anything. We have another side for discussions about OSC. This side is for everything else. Or at least it is in my head .
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dag, when you find a better and more organized forum than this one, please link to it. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
The "christian-persecution" complex is an interesting one. This is one of the things that has led me away from conservative christianity. I don't think they are actually being persecuted.
However, having grown up inside the culture, it becomes more clear why it exists. Jesus says that there will be extra rewards and spiritual benefits in heaven for those who are persecuted. This causes people to percieve themselves as "persecuted" because of all of the spiritual fringe benefits they reap. It also leads to the adversarial "us against them" ideas which help with the persecution complex. In a lot of ways they are perpetuating their percieved persecution by causing high visiblilty in the public. I think the majority of people in this country Christian or non-Christian have live and let live attitudes. But having a vocal minority complaining of persecution of Christians all the time causes much more friction and actual persecution in both directions than there would be otherwise.
AJ
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
(hiding out pooka)
"Under God" is what makes it possible for God-believing people to say the pledge. Otherwise it would be idolatry. It is why muslims believe it is wrong to enact a law protecting the flag from burning. I would not say a pledge of allegiance that didn't include "under God".
Now in a classroom if it is recited without "under God" and some kids say it anyway, what happens? Does it depend on if they are white Christians or non-white Christians or some other combination of belief and race?
Before muslims were cool, I remember someone got a license plate with the word "Jihad" on it. It was the driver's name, but some Jewish citizens thought it constituted a hateful remark. I think in consideration of it being his name, the state let him keep it. I don't remember if this was in UT or CA.
Will I still be your friend if I point out that (in the original post) you referred to yourself as "saxon"? Or are you not the one from among those who might be called saxon who dislikes that? Anyway, I guess I can't go so far as to protest that I'm your friend. For all I know, you get me mixed up with someone else or haven't ever stalked me.
(edited to fix some dangling thoughts- sorry if there still are some. I've been off hatrack for 4 days trying to write my landmark!)
[ November 20, 2003, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: skrika03 ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh my word, that NEVER occurred to me.
Where did the saxon75 handle come from?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, just to be clear, devout Christians are less patriotic than atheists? Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Christians for many years managed to say the pledge; I somehow doubt most of them found it to endanger their souls. Furthermore, it NOT being in the pledge doesn't prevent you from saying it, and believing it. Note: this is categorically different from the government including it in the pledge, as that amounts to an endorsement of a view by the government.
Interestingly, there are many christian groups that take the exact opposite stance, and allege that simply because it has them swearing an oath to anything besides God, even if under god, the pledge cannot be recited.
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
Possibly, Tom
Kat, are you being sarcastic? if so , "This little Piggy had Roast Beef"
The idea of any pledge being a problem... isn't that standard for either Jehovah's Witnesses or 7th day adventists? (the saxon confusion is clearly a feature of my brain and nothing to do with them).
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I don't think i quite understand you, pooka...I don't see how pledging allegiance to something (the flag, for instance, and our country) can be tantamount to idolatry. You're not worshipping the country, you're just saying that you think it's a good place that stands for something you believe in...freedom, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, DVDs, whatever. Idolatry is worship -- pledging your allegiance is not converting to a new religion.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Are you pooka? Roast beef? Piggies? Does that thread contain the answer? I didn't see the answer there. Are you sure it was in there?
I'm going to get myself a soda.
Yes, I was being serious. saxy calling himself after the Saxon tribe NEVER occurred to me. I thought it was after some obscure actor I'd never heard of before.
I'm occasionally sarastic, but I do it with much more finesse than that.
[ November 20, 2003, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
i'm pretty sure it is, since she prefaced her post with:
quote:hiding out pooka
and because it sounds just like her Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think it's both groups that have a problem with saying the pledge.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I thought it was possible the poster was, indeed, hiding pooka in the Secret Annex. pooka is clearly in the objective case in that phrase.
[ November 20, 2003, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I assumed that "Saxon" somehow derived from his last name.
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
I was using "hiding out" as a participle
"Roast Beef" is my new euphemism for "the bird".
The link referred to confusion between Storm Saxon and Saxon75. I'm pretty sure you (kat) had participated in such discussions before, but you know, I log off hatrack for 4 days and look what happens (to me).
Can't... stop... posting...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Are you serious? Did you just flip me off because I hadn't thought saxon75 took his name from the Saxon tribe?
Are you okay?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
pooka, I really have no idea what you're trying to say or ask.
quote:Will I still be your friend if I point out that (in the original post) you referred to yourself as "saxon"?
If you point out that I referred to myself as "saxon," then you will be pointing out the fact that I referred to myself using one of my common nicknames (both online and off). In what way would that determine whether or not you are my friend?
quote:Or are you not the one from among those who might be called saxon who dislikes that?
I can't parse this sentence at all. Are you asking whether I dislike being called "saxon"? I don't. If I did, it would be kind of a silly choice of screen name, don't you think? And what does that have to do with anything? I'm seriously confused here.
quote:Anyway, I guess I can't go so far as to protest that I'm your friend.
To the best of my knowledge, I've never called you my friend. I've also never said you weren't my friend. Are you somehow concerned that you are "Dude"? You're not. The conversation in my original post is a transcript from an actual IM conversation I had with my best friend.
quote:For all I know, you get me mixed up with someone else or haven't ever stalked me.
Um, are you suggesting that I have ever stalked you? Not only have I never stalked you, but I have never, to the best of my knowledge, stalked anyone, nor have I ever had any interest in doing so.
To clear up any possible confusion about the origins of my screen name:
In my freshman year of college, there were 12 people named "Mike" living in my dorm. Given the need to avoid confusion and my desire to stand out, I told everyone to call me "Sak," which is short for my last name: Sakasegawa. Most of my friends from college still call me that, or some variant. One of my good friends of the time (he's actually still my friend, and posts as "The Genuine" on Sakeriver) liked to come up with lots of variations on that nickname, so "Sak" became "Saxon." (That became "John Saxon" and eventually just "John.)
That friend came up with a number of nicknames for me. Another was "Three-Quarters Japanese Michael Sakasegawa." Not so much a nickname, really, as a ridiculously long, though accurate, description of me. That eventually shortened to "Jap-75."
Hence, the name "saxon75" is a synthesis of "Saxon" and "Jap-75."
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Out of curiosity, what are your feelings about the Germanic people known as the Saxons?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I have no particular emotion toward the Saxons. This probably stems from the fact that I know next to nothing about them.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
In any event, if my screen name had come from the Saxon tribe, what difference would that make? Would it make me a racist? Would it be offensive?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Racist? Offensive? I honestly don't know how it would be. The Saxons were merely a tribe in northern Germany that began invading Great Britain shortly after the Romans pulled out. Modern English derives from Saxon dialects, and pretty much everyone in England (meaning everyone in the U.S. with English heritage) has Saxon blood.
And anyway, my question was merely a lame attempt to be funny. I was just contributing to the thread derailment and general confusion.
[ November 20, 2003, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
The rare disclaimer on my opinion.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
Anyway, I guess I can't go so far as to protest that I'm your friend. For all I know, you get me mixed up with someone else or haven't ever stalked me.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Does that thread contain the answer? I didn't see the answer there. Are you sure it was in there?