06-07-2002 08:08									#91
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

"One Nation, under Bob"

	06-07-2002 08:24									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Um, Lynchburg is named for a person with the last name Lynch, not the act.

Yes, but the city is named after the father of the man who gave his name to the custom of "lynching". Colonel Lynch made this part of Virginia safe for the revolution by subjecting tories to tar and feathers. He never hung anyone and his activities were strictly on the behalf of the revolution. The "Sons of Liberty" under Sam Adams did worse to some of their victims, they occasionally used hot tar. SO how did the custom become known as "lynching" and not "adaming" or "saming"?

	06-07-2002 08:26									#93
	Tired of ads?

I dunno, Dr Richard... how come I use the John, but don't turn on the Thomas? Or start the Henry?

	06-07-2002 08:29									#94
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov "One Nation, under Bob"

How about "one nation under Newdow"?

	06-07-2002 08:51									#95
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Sava The kind of redneck scum that want to keep "under god" in the pledge. The kind of redneck scum that want to make abortion illegal. The kind of redneck scum that want prayer in schools.... man I could go on all day.

How many rednecks do you know, Sava?

	06-07-2002 09:04									#96
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

As far as I am aware children aren't forced to say the pledge. They can simply stand and say nothing or leave the room. Those who want to say the pledge are free to do so. Why should the rights of the millions of American children who want to say the pledge have to be violated because one man in California doesn't want them to say it. That man sues in an attempt to remove the current pledge from the classroom, thereby forcing his view on millions of Americans. THAT sounds like intolerance to me, Sava. Your intolerance shows in all of your posts. How does it feel to be a hypocrite?

	06-07-2002 09:44									#97
	Get a bigger avatar today!

The classroom should be secular.

Children are free to say the pledge outside the classroom, so removing the pledge or changing it doesn't take away their rights. If children who want to say the pledge are allotted classroom time to do so, then children with other beliefs should be allotted time to express their own views in a public manner. These types of exhibitions are not what school should be about though, and just take away from time spent towards the real purpose, learning.

People can spout off about their beliefs on their own time.

	06-07-2002 16:38									#98
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by nationalist How many rednecks do you know, Sava?

My second cousins on my father's side are rednecks...

	06-07-2002 16:47									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove SO how did the custom become known as "lynching" and not "adaming" or "saming"?

Lynching just rolls off your tongue. lynching, lynching. Yep, much better than "adaming" which is too stuttered. (Uh, or something)

I need to get out more

	06-07-2002 17:09									#100
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Let's just suppose the decision manages to stick. When the court mandates that the pledge be said without "under God" what will happen ro those mischeivious little tykes who persist on keeping that phrase in the pledge when they recite it? I'm willing to bet that there will be school districts which will punish those kids.

	06-07-2002 18:30									#101
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov If that were true, how could the Founding Fathers have so carelessly omitted that phrase from the Constitution? Why not, "We the People, Under God..."? Because...that's hogwash. The Founding Fathers, be they men of religion or not, wanted a secular society and specifically created one in the Constitution. They specifically made the national motto "E pluribus unum," not "In God We Trust." You've got some bizarre notions of facts of history. We're secular, so get over it!

No, I think you have not studied the deliberations that went into the writing of the constitution and the bill of rights. If you had you would see that it is you that have some bizarre notions of what the founders intended. And I could just as easily ask; Why did the founders sign their names to a document that included the phrase "In the year of OUR Lord? And why did they not specifically refute the principles of the Declaration of Independance if they were refuting that document. And why did the Supreme Court in Holy Trinity v. The United States mention that document along with others that specificially include the name of Jesus Christ and God and Lord and conclude that "we are a Christian nation".

Please study some history before you answer.

	06-07-2002 18:42									#102
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Here are a few referrences that you can use to begin your study. The following is an excerpt from United States v. Holy Trinity Church decision by the Supreme Court in 1892:

But, beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation. The commission to Christopher Columbus, prior to his sail westward, is from "Ferdinand and Isabella, by the grace of God, king and queen of Castile," etc., and recites that "it is hoped that by God's assistance some of the continents and islands in the [496] ocean will be discovered," etc. The first colonial grant, that made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584, was from "Elizabeth, by the grace of God, of England, France, and Ireland, queen, defender of the faith," etc.; and the grant authorizing him to enact statutes of the government of the proposed colony provided that "they be not against the true Christian faith now professed in the Church of England."

The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I. in 1606, after reciting the application of certain parties for a charter, commenced the grant in these words: "We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of His Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet Government; DO, by these our Letters-Patents, graciously accept of, and agree to, their humble and well-intentioned Desires."

Language of similar import may be found in the subsequent charters of that colony from the same king, in 1609 and 1611; and the same is true of the various charters granted to the other colonies. In language more or less emphatic is the establishment of the Christian religion declared to be one of the purposes of the grant. The celebrated compact made by the pilgrims in the Mayflower, 1620, recites: "Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honor of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid."

The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government was instituted in 1638-39, commence with this declaration: "Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Almighty God by the wise disposition of his divine prudence [143 U.S. 457, 467] so to order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the River of Connecticut and the Lands thereunto adjoining; And well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of {515} God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require; doe therefore associate and conjoin our selves to be as one Public State or Commonwealth; and doe, for our selves and our Successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation together, to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus who we now profess, as also the discipline of the Churches, who according to the truth of the said gospel is now practiced amongst vs."

In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited: "Because no People can be truly happy, though under the greatest Enjoyment of Civil Liberties, if abridged of the Freedom of their Consciences, as to their Religious Profession and Worship; And Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits; and the Author as well as Object of all divine Knowledge, Faith, and Worship, who only doth enlighten the Minds, and persuade and convince the Understandings of People, I do hereby grant and declare," etc.

Coming nearer to the present time, the declaration of independence recognizes the presence of the Divine in human affairs in these words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare," etc.; "And for the [143 U.S. 457, 468] support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every constitution of every one of the 44 states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the well-being of the community. This recognition may be in the preamble, such as is found in the constitution of Illinois, 1870: "We, the people of the state of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations," etc.

It may be only in the familiar requisition that all officers shall take an oath closing with the declaration, "so help me God." It may be in clauses like that of the constitution of Indiana, 1816, art. 11, §4: "The manner of administering an oath or affirmation shall be such as is most consistent with the conscience of the deponent, and shall be esteemed the most solemn appeal to God." Or in provisions such as are found in articles 36 and 37 of the declaration of the rights of the constitution of Maryland, (1867):

"That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty: wherefore, no person ought, by any law, to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace, or safety of the state, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil, or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any place of worship or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness or juror on account of his religious belief: provided, he [143 U.S. 457, 469] believes in the existence of God, and that, under his dispensation, such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor, either in this world or the world to come.

That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office or profit or trust in this state, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this constitution." Or like that in articles 2 and 3 of part 1 of the constitution of Massachusetts, (1780 "It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the Great Creator and Preserver of the universe.

As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness, and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provisions shall not be made voluntarily."

Or, as in sections 5 and 14 of article 7 of the constitution of Mississippi, (1832 "No person who denies the being of a God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state. ... Religion {516} morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind, schools, and the means of education, shall forever be encouraged in this state." Or by article 22 of the constitution of Delaware, (1776,) which required all officers, besides an oath of allegiance, to make and subscribe the following declaration: "I, A.B., do profess [143 U.S. 457, 470] faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

Even the constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the first amendment a declaration common to the constitutions of all the states, as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," etc., - and also provides in article 1, § 7, (a provision common to many constitutions,) that the executive shall have 10 days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill.

There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Comm., 11 Serg. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that, "Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; ... not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men."

And in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294, 295, Chancellor KENT, the great commentator on American law, speaking as chief justice of the supreme court of New York, said: "The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of those doctrines in not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. ... The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious [143 U.S. 457, 471] subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right.

Nor are we bound by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama; and for this plain reason that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors."

And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard's Ex'rs, 2 How. 127, 198, this court, while sustaining the will of Mr. Girard, with its provisions for the creation of a college into which no minister should be permitted to enter, observed: "it is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania."

If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen;" the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe.

These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?

	06-07-2002 20:38									#103
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln No, I think you have not studied the deliberations that went into the writing of the constitution and the bill of rights.

Oh, I have. There is an advantage to having a mother who is an excellent American History teacher.

quote: Why did the founders sign their names to a document that included the phrase "In the year of OUR Lord?

This is a dumb argument. "In the year of our Lord" was standard phrasing back in those times. The only date notation they had were B.C. and A.D., and as we all know, A.D. means Anno Domini, "In the year of our Lord." That's like saying that since I used "A.D." in term papers, I ergo must be a Christian and writing the paper from a Christian perspective. Ludicrous.

quote: And why did they not specifically refute the principles of the Declaration of Independance if they were refuting that document.

Who said they were refuting that document? That's your own silly strawman argument in this thread. There wasn't any need to refute the document, as it wasn't a legally binding agreement, simply a declaration of independence. It created no laws, established no government. It was a middle finger to George III. The one reference to a Creator in it is not the focus of the document. Liberty is. How you can say that their not specifically refuting that in the Constitution, when in the Constitution they make no reference to God, is somehow an implicit endorsement of Christianity is baffling. It defies reason, and you're smart enough to know that.

quote: And why did the Supreme Court in Holy Trinity v. The United States mention that document along with others that specificially include the name of Jesus Christ and God and Lord and conclude that "we are a Christian nation".

The SCOTUS has made many wrong decisions in the past. Surely you wouldn't agree with Roe v. Wade, would you? The reasoning they gave then (in 1832, you note) is as fallacious as yours. The document that is only considered is the Constitution. None other have any legal bearing on the Constitutionality of an issue. I would ask you then why in subsequent decisions the SCOTUS has consistently struck down the infiltration of Christianity into schools?

quote: Please study some history before you answer.

I suggest you do the same, sans the Relgious-tinted glasses you're using to look at it.

	06-07-2002 20:41									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I guess not.

	06-07-2002 21:09									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Ramo The Declaration is a list of grievances Americans had against England. The Constitution is the foundation upon which this nation stands - if one could say such a foundation exists.

The Constitution is the functioning document of the United States GOVERNMENT. The Declaration of Independence lays out the purpose for the founding of the NATION.

It is the Declaration that Abraham Lincoln referred to during the Gettysburg address (the second greatest piece of non-religious writing) when he said that 'all men were created equal'. The revered 'Constitution' includes the provisions for slavery and the 3/5 compromise, onerous to a free society.

This nation was FOUNDED by the Declaration of Independence - you'll note that we just celebrated a certain holiday. That holiday doesn't coincide with the Constitution. It coincides with the Declaration of Independence. The Consitution wasn't a functioning document until drafted in 1787 and finally ratified by the states. This nation DATES itself to 7-4-1776 - the date of the Declaration.

This nations raison d'etre is the Declaration of Independence...the greatest piece of non-religious writing ever.

God it pisses me off when people don't understand the history of their country.

Venger

	06-07-2002 22:23									#106
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: The Constitution is the functioning document of the United States GOVERNMENT. The Declaration of Independence lays out the purpose for the founding of the NATION.

First off, a common definition of "nation" is government. I assumed Lincoln used that definition since that's the way in which the word is most commonly used.

But if you want to use the poli. sci. defintion, a nation being a group of people that share common customs, origins, history, and language, I'd say that an American nation never existed - it has always been a hodge-podge of various nationalities. But it certainly didn't come into existence due to the Declaration of Independence. The only thing the document did was to justify severing the ties to England.

quote: It is the Declaration that Abraham Lincoln referred to during the Gettysburg address (the second greatest piece of non-religious writing) when he said that 'all men were created equal'.

There's a reason why slavery was abolished in this country 89 years after the Declaration, and even then as a cynical ploy to ward off European intervention in the Civil War. The Declaration had very few long term effects in this country besides justifying independence to Europe.

But what's your point? Lincoln used imagery from the Revolutionary War to support his agenda in a speech. So?

quote: The revered 'Constitution' includes the provisions for slavery and the 3/5 compromise, onerous to a free society.

The founders didn't create a free society. If they weren't feudal aristocrats, they were mercantalists.

quote: This nation was FOUNDED by the Declaration of Independence

If you want to be pedantic, this nation never existed.

quote: God it pisses me off when people don't understand the history of their country.

Me too.

	06-07-2002 23:13									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Let's see if I understand Boris's reasoning. The farther we get from the founding documents the better the Supreme Court is able to interpret them. The fact is the decision that I quoted from is only part of the point. I used this decision in part because it refers to hundreds of other documents and various decisions by other state supreme courts and affirms what Venger said about the inherent nature of the Declaration of Independence in the laws of this country.

Only by using the tainted "glasses" of a biased atheist can the truth of the nation's history be distorted to prove otherwise. By the way, the Supreme Court will probably review the latest pledge case (which is already suspended) and they will rule as usual that the 9th district court is out to lunch. Even this modern Supreme Court which (as Boris stated) cannot seem to rule without making laws themselves, can read history.

Also, why is there provisions in the constitution for Sunday off and not Saturday? And why does one of America's most distinguished laywers disagree with Boris i.e.:

And in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294, 295, Chancellor KENT, the great commentator on American law, speaking as chief justice of the supreme court of New York, said: "The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of those doctrines in not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. ... The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious [143 U.S. 457, 471] subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right.

Nor are we bound by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama; and for this plain reason that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors."

	06-07-2002 23:26									#108
	Tired of ads?

From George Washington's farewell address:

George Washington's Farewell Address (Sept. 19, 1796):

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens...

"'Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free Government...

"Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its virtue?"

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."

John Jay, first Supreme Court Justice:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

Andrew Jackson:

"The Bible is the foundation upon which our republic rests."

Alex de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

"Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must be regarded as the first of their political institutions...I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion - for who can search the human heart? - but I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions."

	07-07-2002 10:44									#109
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ramo First off, a common definition of "nation" is government.

England has been a nation with many different forms of government, but it was always England. Did China not exist before Mao? Very, very wrongheaded... and incomplete to boot. It is a people united under a common government - but that is a foreign concept in a federalist society, where there are multiple governments. It's simple really - did the United States exist before ratification of the Constitution? Answer the question.

quote: I assumed Lincoln used that definition since that's the way in which the word is most commonly used.

Dear God Lincoln specifically PULLED from the Declaration - here's a hint for you. Take the date of the Gettysburg address, remove four score and seven years, and see what that coincides with...hint: it ain't the Consititutional Convention.

quote: But if you want to use the poli. sci. defintion, a nation being a group of people that share common customs, origins, history, and language, I'd say that an American nation never existed

Just how deep does your lame take on this topic go? The United States has never been a nation? You've just been disqualified, please pull over to the side....

quote: - it has always been a hodge-podge of various nationalities.

Uh, when you become an American citizen, you are... an American. Don't confuse cultural and ethnic heritage as a descriptor for nation.

quote: But it certainly didn't come into existence due to the Declaration of Independence.

Oh my F'ING GOD. What do you think we celebrate on July 4th you feckless simpleton? The BIRTH OF THE UNITED STATES. You may remember the bicentennial - we celebrated 200 years AS A NATION. Trust me - everyone gets this but you.

quote: The only thing the document did was to justify severing the ties to England.

What it did was throw off it's chains of colonialism and declare 'That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States'. IT ESTABLISHED THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The Constitution is ONLY a functioning model for government - preceded by the previous Articles of Confederation. The United States had a Navy, ambassadors, and international status well before the United States constitution...

quote: There's a reason why slavery was abolished in this country 89 years after the Declaration,

Yes, because it was onerous to a free society and anathema to the principles on which the United States was founded (you should read the DoI sometime...).

quote: and even then as a cynical ploy to ward off European intervention in the Civil War.

Are you OUT OF YOUR F'ING MIND again? The British and other European nations LOATHED slavery, and THAT is the reason the South received so little help - the North was already a slavery free zone, not to mention the Europeans wanted no bit of fighting in America. Some feel the EP kept England from actively aiding the South - but they had plenty of time to do that before it, and never would, because the populaces would never stand for it, even if those power were not truly democracies. Additionally, the MOST assistance a European power would have given would be possible naval support (the British have always gotten their asses kicked by American boats - go figure), but no troops were going to land and fight - a European army would have been crushed so far from home - the North had 700,000 troops available - and after Antietam it was pretty damn clear that simple numbers and industrial power were going to win this war.

quote: The Declaration had very few long term effects in this country besides justifying independence to Europe.

Uh, we declaring independence from ENGLAND dude, and it declared the absolute principles on which the nations is founded. The core concepts of Americanism are found in IT, not the Constitution. The Constitution is a brilliant document in it's initial limits of power, and it's federalism is sheer magnificence. However, it is a flawed document, including provisions for slavery, and a far more restricted sense of election of the government. It is a operating manual for the United States government - it is NOT the basis of the American nation. PLEASE do some research on the history of the Consitution and early American government, with special attention to the Articles of Confederation.

quote: But what's your point? Lincoln used imagery from the Revolutionary War to support his agenda in a speech. So?

He used the founding document of the nation to show why the wonderful US Constitution needed to be changed - because the Constitution was out of step with the principles of the nation. All men are created equal - this is not in the Constitution. But you and I both would agree is a fundamental tenet in American society. Or maybe you wouldn't seeing how flabbergastingly wrong you are about the history of this country.

quote: The founders didn't create a free society. If they weren't feudal aristocrats, they were mercantalists.

Oh MY F'ING GOD. One of the largest complaints from the colonies was the competition between colonial productions and self interest and the British mercantile system. Mercantilists? GOD ALMIGHTY? What else do you have up your kiester besides this?

Venger

	07-07-2002 10:48									#110
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln Only by using the tainted "glasses" of a biased atheist can the truth of the nation's history be distorted to prove otherwise. By the way, the Supreme Court will probably review the latest pledge case (which is already suspended) and they will rule as usual that the 9th district court is out to lunch.

The Supreme Court will never hear this case - it will be remanded to a lower court or decided after the full 11 members of the Circuit Court rule on it. The decision was 2-1 by a 3 judge panel, not the entire membership. And you can bet you aren't gonna get more people to sign their names to this judicial turd...

Venger

	07-07-2002 13:55									#111
	Tired of ads?

Stop foaming at your mouth and think for a change. The foundation upon which a nation stands is not necessarily the document that established independence. It's the document that dictated the course of the country. That's the Constitution, not the Declaration. It's quite simple.

quote: Just how deep does your lame take on this topic go? The United States has never been a nation? You've just been disqualified, please pull over to the side....

Not my fault if you're ignorant. Read a political "science" text. A nation is a group of people that share common customs, origins, history, and language. Hence the term "nation-state."

quote: Yes, because it was onerous to a free society and anathema to the principles on which the United States was founded (you should read the DoI sometime...).

The fact that slavery was abolished nearly a century after the Declaration demonstrates that slavery was anathema to the principles on which the US was founded? You need a reality check.

Slavery was abolished because the lack of labor liquidity was hurting Northern industry, combined with the evaporation of free land that could support plantation agriculture, and foreign cotton competition, and the impetus brought by foreign.

quote: Are you OUT OF YOUR F'ING MIND again?

Dude, get some riddilin.

quote: The British and other European nations LOATHED slavery and THAT is the reason the South received so little help -

That must be why the European governments were courting the South prior to the Emancipation Proclamation.

(And of course the EP gave the abolitionist movement momentum to pass the 13th Amendment.)

quote: Wrong, the South the North was already a slavery free zone,

Never asserted otherwise.

quote: not to mention the Europeans wanted no bit of fighting in America. Some feel the EP kept England from actively aiding the South - but they had plenty of time to do that before it, and never would, because the populaces would never stand for it, even if those power were not truly democracies.

It wasn't until the EP that the war became about slavery. The Brits or French would have had no problem garnering popular support for a US invasion had the EP not been released.

quote: Additionally, the MOST assistance a European power would have given would be possible naval support (the British have always gotten their asses kicked by American boats - go figure), but no troops were going to land and fight

Complete speculation.

quote: - a European army would have been crushed so far from home - the North had 700,000 troops available -

In comparison, France fielded nearly a million men in the Franco-Prussian War.
http://www.stabi.hs-bremerhaven.de/.../francoger.html

quote: and after Antietam it was pretty damn clear that simple numbers and industrial power were going to win this war.

Antietam demonstrated that the North could pull off a draw if it had Confederate battle plans. Besides, after Antietam was too late anyways. A Union victory at Antietam brought about the Emancipation Proclamation, and therefore precluded European intervention in the first place.

quote: Uh, we declaring independence from ENGLAND dude, and it declared the absolute principles on which the nations is founded. The core concepts of Americanism are found in IT, not the Constitution.

Gee, maybe the core concepts around the American government had something to do with the actions of the American government - dictated by the Constitution (and the various "interpretations" of it).

quote: Constitution is a brilliant document in it's initial limits of power, and it's federalism is sheer magnificence. However, it is a flawed document, including provisions for slavery, and a far more restricted sense of election of the government.

I never said it wasn't flawed.

quote: It is a operating manual for the United States government - it is NOT the basis of the American nation.

The basis of the government is the basis of the nation.

quote: PLEASE do some research on the history of the Consitution and early American government, with special attention to the Articles of Confederation.

PLEASE drop your sanctimonious attitude. There's a reason why the Articles were dropped - they were unpalatable to the chief elements of power in the US - unpalatable to the American nation, if you will.

quote: He used the founding document of the nation to show why the wonderful US Constitution needed to be changed - because the Constitution was out of step with the principles of the nation. All men are created equal - this is not in the Constitution.

What's your point?

quote: But you and I both would agree is a fundamental tenet in American society.

Not really.

quote: Or maybe you wouldn't seeing how flabbergastingly wrong you are about the history of this country.

Or maybe you're foaming at the mouth.

quote: Oh MY F'ING GOD. One of the largest complaints from the colonies was the competition between colonial productions and self interest and the British mercantile system.

That doesn't imply Northern industrialists didn't have any problems with trade barriers against the Brits and other countries.

quote: Mercantilists? GOD ALMIGHTY?

Ever hear of the Federalists? They were the party of mercantilism. They supported protective tariffs, the whiskey tax, and the Bank of the US to help subsidize Northern industrialists.

quote: What else do you have up your kiester besides this?

I'd imagine you're mistaken on a wide variety of historical topics.

Like I said, it's not my fault if you're totally ignorant about the country.

	08-07-2002 05:49									#112
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Ramo The foundation upon which a nation stands is not necessarily the document that established independence.

Uh, the DoI isn't applicable to nations created from whole cloth, only former colonies. That said, it is how a former colony establishes itself as a sovereign state. Thats what the DoI did, it CREATED the United States, and your constant hoodwinking around it belies that you have nothing in the tank to counter what is readily apparent.

quote: It's the document that dictated the course of the country. That's the Constitution, not the Declaration. It's quite simple.

The Consitution is the functioning document of government - please reread the thread, you've missed this from the get go.

quote: Not my fault if you're ignorant. Read a political "science" text. A nation is a group of people that share common customs, origins, history, and language. Hence the term "nation-state."

Try it next time with the unused matter between your ears - everyone gets this but you. You want to argue on one hand that a nation is defined by it's government, then argue that no, it's a shared cultural history.

'brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty'

Take Abe Lincoln's word for it. I do. They did not have a shared heritage, and did not have a shared government.

quote: The fact that slavery was abolished nearly a century after the Declaration demonstrates that slavery was anathema to the principles on which the US was founded? You need a reality check.

Everyone gets this but you. Slavery is anathema to the founding principles of the nation. Or isn't it. Please spell out your racist notions for us here...

quote: Slavery was abolished because the lack of labor liquidity was hurting Northern industry,

quote: combined with the evaporation of free land that could support plantation agriculture, and foreign cotton competition, and the impetus brought by foreign.

Foreign what? Did you cut and paste this? Get an original idea...

quote: Dude, get some riddilin.

It's Ritalin dude.

quote: That must be why the European governments were courting the South prior to the Emancipation Proclamation.

'Courting' them? Please. Evidence? Name a single substantial action taken by Britain or France to aid the South.

quote: (And of course the EP gave the abolitionist movement momentum to pass the 13th Amendment.)

The Battle of Antietam gave them the impetus.

quote: It wasn't until the EP that the war became about slavery.

Slavery was the underunning current of the war - the debate was over states vs. federal rights, and it all boiled back to slavery, and power of slave vs. free states, including new state admission and the Missouri compromise.

quote: The Brits or French would have had no problem garnering popular support for a US invasion had the EP not been released.

More nonsense. The United States was unconquerable by 1850. The French would support an invasion of the U.S.?

quote: In comparison, France fielded nearly a million men in the Franco-Prussian War.

That's great, too bad the United States isn't adjacent to France. If they'd started in 1860, maybe by 1875 could they establish a million man army in North America...

quote: Antietam demonstrated that the North could pull off a draw if it had Confederate battle plans. Besides, after Antietam was too late anyways. A Union victory at Antietam brought about the Emancipation Proclamation, and therefore precluded European intervention in the first place.

Antietam proved that it was only a matter of time. The North was going to outproduce the south 10 to 1 in war material - and that was not going to be overcome. Europe had full well over a year to 'aid' the south. Which they never did.

quote: There's a reason why the Articles were dropped - they were unpalatable to the chief elements of power in the US - unpalatable to the American nation, if you will.

They were dropped for one reason - they didn't work. The 'Constitutional Convention' was called to REWORK the articles, not create a new constitution...

quote: That doesn't imply Northern industrialists didn't have any problems with trade barriers against the Brits and other countries.

The US was hardly mercantile.

quote: Ever hear of the Federalists? They were the party of mercantilism. They supported protective tariffs, the whiskey tax, and the Bank of the US to help subsidize Northern industrialists.

The key to federalism is not mercantilism - this nation is still a federalist nation. Federalism is defined by the striated layers of government power and responsibility. If you read the federalist papers, it is not a discussion of economics, but of federalizing the governing authority of the states.

quote: Like I said, it's not my fault if you're totally ignorant about the country.

Your only fault lies with your utterly feckless notions of American history.

Venger

	08-07-2002 05:55									#113
	Get a bigger avatar today!

RYUOKAI!!!

	08-07-2002 06:17									#114
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Try it next time with the unused matter between your ears - everyone gets this but you. You want to argue on one hand that a nation is defined by it's government, then argue that no, it's a shared cultural history.

Actually Ramo is right. A nation is a people which shared culture, not a bordered area. That is refered to as a state.

quote: 'Courting' them? Please. Evidence? Name a single substantial action taken by Britain or France to aid the South.

Ramo is correct here as well. Britain and France were seriously weighing to come in to aid the South. Cheap cotton is a good impetus. Of course the Emancipation Proclamation is a great piece of PR, because after that, Britain and France realized there was no way in Hell they could get involved.

quote: The key to federalism is not mercantilism - this nation is still a federalist nation. Federalism is defined by the striated layers of government power and responsibility. If you read the federalist papers, it is not a discussion of economics, but of federalizing the governing authority of the states.

The Federalists have little to do with Federalism. The Federalists are the party of Hamilton that wanted strong government and mercantilism. They under the onslaught of the Democratic-Republicans, and were reborn as the Whigs, who were splinted by the slavery discussion and reborn as the Republicans.... who totally shifted position right around the 20s and FDR's time.

	08-07-2002 06:20									#115
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

RYUOKAI, I tell you! RYUOKAI!

	08-07-2002 08:09									#116
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Imran responded to the important points, so here are the other points:

quote: Slavery is anathema to the founding principles of the nation.

Seeing as how a huge portion of our founders were slave owners, I find that extraordinarily hard to believe.

quote: Please spell out your racist notions for us here...

**** off, dumbass.

If you want to accuse of racism (no doubt because you're an idiot who has no argument), you certainly aren't worth debating with.

quote: Thats what the DoI did, it CREATED the United States, and your constant hoodwinking around it belies that you have nothing in the tank to counter what is readily apparent.

I never said otherwise. I simply wouldn't say that just because the Declaration severed ties to England and justified it to Europe, it is the "foundation upon which the nation stands."

quote: Foreign what?

Foreign opposition to slavery.

quote: Did you cut and paste this? Get an original idea...

I didn't think of a good idea of how to succintly write what I had in mind so I skipped it and forget to get back to it.

Just because you're brain-dead doesn't imply everyone else is.

quote: Slavery was the underunning current of the war - the debate was over states vs. federal rights, and it all boiled back to slavery, and power of slave vs. free states, including new state admission and the Missouri compromise.

Wrong again, the protective tariff was the undercurrent of the war. It was the principal reason why the South seceded from the Union and why the North fought to preserve the Union. The same thing almost happened not even 3 decades years earlier.

quote: More nonsense. The United States was unconquerable by 1850. The French would support an invasion of the U.S.?

The US didn't have to be conquered. England and France only had to protect the Confederacy's independence. That's a huge difference.

quote: Take Abe Lincoln's word for it.

You're basing this whole thing on a propaganda piece by Lincoln.

quote: They were dropped for one reason - they didn't work.

They were dropped because the Articles didn't allow give the central government enough power to crush Massachusett's peasant rabble.

quote: The 'Constitutional Convention' was called to REWORK the articles, not create a new constitution...

Your point is..?

quote: Antietam proved that it was only a matter of time.

No, again, Antietam proved that the Union could bring a battle to a draw if they had Confederate battle plans.

quote: 'Courting' them? Please. Evidence? Name a single substantial action taken by Britain or France to aid the South.

I never said that they aided the South. I said that they were thinking of aiding the South. Gladstone and Russel strongly advocated it. The British PM, Palmerstone, said he would do so if the CSA had a major victory on US soil - which possibly could've happened at Antietam - to prove that they were viable.

quote: The Consitution is the functioning document of government - please reread the thread, you've missed this from the get go.

What's your point? I haven't missed anything.

quote: That's great, too bad the United States isn't adjacent to France. If they'd started in 1860, maybe by 1875 could they establish a million man army in North America...

If Britain went along with it, they would've had the Royal Navy at their side. Nonetheless, I didn't say that there would be a million man army in North America. I am saying that they, combined with Britain, would have a huge, well-equpped force to nullify the North's advantage in manpower and industrial might.

	08-07-2002 11:01									#117
	Increase Your PM Length

Lincoln -

quote: Based on the recent ruling of the Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Declaration of Independence, signed July 4, 1776, is Unconstitutional, even though it is the very foundation document on which the United States exists. You see, the Declaration of Independence refers to God in the most respectful terms, without doubt declaring this new nation to have emerged under the authority and entitlement of none other than God. I quote various sections of the document.

The ruling did not say we cannot refer to God in respectful terms, it said we cannot compel or coerce other people's children to pledge allegiance to something they may not believe in, something the Nazis and Communists would have done. The author is an idiot.

quote: No right-thinking American should tolerate the inclusion of these words on public display, and in no case should they ever be allowed to be uttered in any public forum or government subsidized school.

No right-thinking American would try to compel the children of Christians to pledge allegiance to Satan, yet the author would try to compel the children of non-Christians to pledge allegiance to "God"? The author is an idiot.

quote: Every day that facsimilies of this document are allowed to be displayed or read in state institutions increases the chances that someone may be offended.

It's not about being offended, it's about the use of coercion by the state to compel children to affirm a belief in God. The author is an idiot.