Ephy, citizens' rights should NEVER be violated, even in times of crisis or war.
i'm not saying it's right, i'm saying that it tends to happen. and it happens worldwide, too.
Slavery: once again, I was disputing the above quote. When you take just about anything out of context it sounds pretty ridiculous, so read things for what they are...
okay, but you worded it as if america was the ONLY country that ever had slavery. the romans did, the greeks did,
most of freaking europe did. you're ignoring the human tendency to lessen the consequences upon frowned-upon acts if somebody else is committing disdainful ones. not to mention the human tendency to follow the crowd. i'm not saying it justifies or makes slavery any better, but that the light you're putting it in is very one-sided. hmm, blind "me-too"ism right here: most of the world that isn't being paid by america hates america. you probably
are paid by americans, but you seem to be following the larger majority (see my definition later in the post).
HARDCORE SECULAR PROGRESSIVES: make up what percent of America? 5%? Maybe 6%? Now, knowing this, saying that "America is a place that seeks to acknowledge everyone and provide them the same rights" is dumb, considering only a small portion of Americans are aspiring toward this common goal. America is made up of lots of people, and yes, a few devoted individuals can make a difference, but the nation must be represented as a whole...
okay, but hardcore secular-progressives know how to use the court systems to their advantage, leveraging every last bit of power out of their relatively small group. 5% of a WHOLE country as large as the US being devoted to being pussies is a lot of people, especially if their ideals are being considered by moderates. have you noticed that a very low % of most of anything is fanatical about what they do? if 5% of america is hardcore secular-progressive, what % of america is secular-progressive overall? "me-too"ism is really easy, because you don't need to stop and think (see my definition later in the post)
Nothing wrong with a step in the right direction, but if two groups march in opposite directions, how can they ever expect to be unified?
who the hell is marching in different directions? it's generally agreed upon that america could stand to be better, and most of the ways in which it could are also well-defined. spitting back your low% at you, maybe only 10% of americans disagree with the rest of the nation about where the US should be going, if even 10%? the only real dispute is how to get there.
Finally, qualify/define this 'me-too-ism' so I at least have a proper chance to defend myself...
Ephy's definition of "me-too"ism: the tendency to follow the crowd and not make one's own judgments as to what should and should not be allowed. what YOU seem to be saying is that because america has been so bad and ugly in the past, why should it even consider
stopping to think about things that it's doing bad and ugly now?
If america is so negative, what is wrong with taking a step to make things right? If america has to be represented as a whole, let that whole be neutral. Let's not have our children recite a pledge every day in school to monotheism as if that's the only true type of religion. I'll refer you to one of my previous posts
The US is predominantly white. Does that mean we should only acknowledge the white people and throw away the rest of the people? If the US wants to be represented as a whole, does that mean we should just say "screw the black people, the asians, and the rest of them. We're a white nation"? This is not a matter of majority, it's a matter of morality.
QFT
You see, I just don't recognize why the whole "under God" part is such a big deal; you are pledging allegiance to the Flag and to the Republic, not to God nor monotheism. People seem to have such a problem with saying 'under God', even though it means nothing if they don't believe in it.
but YOU ARE pledging allegiance to God! "I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the US of A, and to the republic for which it stands ...
under God ... with liberty and justice for all."
THE COMMAS IN BETWEEN "ONE NATION" "UNDER GOD" AND "INDIVISIBLE" MEAN THEY ARE LIKE ITEMS IN A LIST, YOU ARE PLEDGING YOUR ALLEGIANCE AND LOYALTY TO GOD EVERY TIME YOU SAY THE PLEDGE. also, this has been said before, but
"under God" wasn't in the original pledge. wait, another example of "me-too"ism: "we've done so for practically forever, why should we stop just because we've only now realized it's at best controversial, and at worst fascism?"
On a side note: this is getting to be quite a heated debate. I think I'm enjoying this whole devil's advocate thing way too much...
so is THAT why you're coming off as wrong to the point of criminal ignorance, or are you really? honestly, commas separating individual items to form a list is a
BASIC. ENGLISH. WRITING. PRINCIPLE. the people that don't get that need to stop whatever they're doing and talk with an elementary-school teacher about their writing skills.