| Subject: A reply to both Beau and Brian |
Author:
Alex
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 06:02:15 07/16/02 Tue
In reply to:
Rebel
's message, "This is worth at least three cents huh?" on 19:50:11 07/15/02 Mon
To Brian:
Yes, yes, no harm in patriotism. However, what if--and just bear with me on this one guys--what if nations did not pander patriotic chauvanism (sp, and too lazy to look it up). If the Palestinians did not love their "country" or lack thereof, would they be sending suicide bombers into Isreal? If the Northern Irsih and the Irish Irish (we all know who deserves the damn country) weren't so damn tied up in national patriotism, would they be sending their children off to die in the streets before their 20th birthday (its the important birthday in Europe, not like you yanks with 21)? In short, and you all saw me coming to this, no! Nationalism, patriotism, just plain "ISM" is what makes people think they are a part of something bigger than themselves, something that will not die even if the individual dies, soemthing--and this is the scary part-- worth dieing for! For all your damned spouting off about the strength of our nation and how great we are and other jingoistic bullshit (like we invented democracy, or are even a democracy--which we are not!), you are falling into the trap set for you by the politicians. Yes, this is a great country, but only if you live in it. Others hate us, because we are that loudmouthed bully who, eventhough he already has the most power and the most toys, still whines and claims that everyone is against him and being unfair. So, talk to me about the glories of patriotism and I will tell you about things done in the name of countries and gods. If you want something to fight for, fight for every human's right to have the same luxuries that you hold dear (which is not what America is currently doing BTW).
To Beau:
Excelelnt research. I found the same myself. You will also note that I did not claim a consitutional separation of church and state. The actual clause about freedom of religion was, as I have said before, a reaction to the Anglican church. As you know, this was the state created and sponsored church of England created in response to Catholic ferver. The united states simply wanted that no ONE religion would be state sanctioned. This does not mean that it was designed to take god out of our government.
Nevertheless, it seems that Americans want a separation of church and state. Thus, the supreme court is acting in the will of the people (not its job I would add), but thats life and our system of government.
I apologize for the ranting nature of this post and any grammatical and spelling errors within.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 
