• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Warning: and are NSFW. Threads may start of as text only but then pictures could be added as part of a discussion or to make some point. This is not for family viewing without a parent's consent and supervision. If you are under age 18, please do not use this section
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Pope flies to America: all TV News coverage Hijacked! Am I intolerent?

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Asher,

You imply that because the USA has on its money, that it says, 'in God we trust', that that signifies that state is divorced from religion, in your opening to this thread. Surely that is a religious statement of some sort? The State is saying that they 'trust in God'. I have to assume that somehow, the word God is linked with religion, and therefore it must be that the state, or the bank, is wanted to be linked to religion too. Therefore, I do not see that there is any reason that the State should treat a religious leader in any different way than it would treat other leaders. I do not follow the logic of the original part of your argument. If the currency had said 'we trust in wealth', then I would see no connection to religion. Generally, leaders get welcomed in some way, according to their wishes, too, afaik.

So, discuss that, why you think that the USA state, because of what it says on its money shows that the state is divorced from religion in some way. It says it was placed there because of 'increased religious sentiment in the civil war.' It has not been changed. In an earlier post, in this thread, I asked about that. I may have missed something here, but as far as I know, you never responded to my earlier post, so I just give you a poke, to get some response.

Somehow you are confused as to the law in the USA.

"The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state", which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.[1]" Wikipedia is a good start!! So you need to catch up before you can even start to understand the anachronism of the "In Good We Trust" and worse the assumptions of divine providence and favor for the USA!

Perhaps we can start there, (the state religion thing) or stop here.
Do the reading first!

The question you asked re the media reaction, is different, unless the state has control over the media.

News Media is a major investment in our tools for protecting our freedoms and is protected so as to constitute an independent structure of our society. However, from this weeks activities we see the press and State marching in lockstep. In the Papal visit and the horrible raid on the Mormon adherents of an older form of that faith, this is what was identical: the language, reverence and deference for one religion while humiliating the adherents of another! This disregard for our stated valued of both "Separation of Church and State and Freedom of Religion has been violated on so many fronts. Further the raid was on the basis of a false story made up by an older wonam who previously had been convicted of falsely pretending something like she is a 16 year old girl being sexually abused. The police could have easily checked out the story before initiating the raid. Instead on the basis, or really the excuse of that easily exposed lie, they raided the religious compound and dragged away over 400 women and children. They even snached infants from the arms of young mothers!

So where are the checks and balances promised in the constitution? Where is the independent judiciary who should have already stopped this idiotic way of handling a 100 year old clearly religious group who have values different from our own.

While I happen to consider coerced/ forced or community-decided marriages primitive and perhaps even akin to a kind of rape, there is no evidence that our form of family making is any more successful or cruelty-free. If we could wave a magic wand, then for sure, I'd want the boys and girls to have opportunity in our society. However this is not the way to bring that about!

The States behavior in the past week is, I would argue, against the US Constitution and the press's adulation and selective blind eyes are wrong. The latter is so destructive to the integrity of the checks and balances which should be exposing and challenging the Royal treatment of one powerful religion while humiliating another.

They both should be equally respected and held accountable for any abuses if they happen to trespass on peoples human and or legal rights not to be abused, warehoused or exploited.

So what started for me as a simple question of "Why we were feting a man who is the head of one religion?" (and ignoring the fact that the night before the real news was the linking of the price of Rice via corn to the price of oil because of "Green" production of ethanol with devastating consequences for 100s of millions of poor people), ended as a stunning contrast between our treatment of the powerful and the weak.

That is the current thrust and engine of my "rant". I accept that we have trespassed on the US Constitution to separate Church and State. That itself is bad. The money put to hosting a visitor as Royalty can be argued, since the Vartican's small compound in Rome is indeed recognized as a "State".

However, this week the cruel and inhuman treatment of the 400 adherents to an unpopular faith is shameful. Worse, the press is silent and who is then there to stand up for mercy and compassion.

That's the engine of my rant.

The measure of this democracy, after all, is how we treat the weak and the World over which we have power. If you fail to find that coherent, cogent or important, then so be it. We are just on an entirely different wavelength and you have not reached out sufficiently to put yourself in the USA as a citizen who takes "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" as values to fight for.

Asher

The Currency connections: The "In God we Trust" we thought was bad, but it was an excess that we tolerated. However, the [/depth of the belief that God favors the USA for a special purpose was a total surprise to me several days ago! That was only discovered by incidentally when I tried to find information on the "In God We Trust" Phrase on the front of the currency bills and checked the US Bureau of Treasury Website. On the reverse the incomplete pyramid, the eye and the phrases, all point to a claim of the USA having a God-given selection and favor for its importance. That left me surprised and I must admit flummoxed!
 
Last edited:

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
All others pay cash

Hi, Asher,
The Currency connections: The "In God we Trust" we thought was bad, but it was an excess that we tolerated.

The phrase was added to the US currency fairly recently (it seems to me that it was in about 1956 or 1957; I can remember where I was standing when somebody called it to my attention).
 

Ray West

New member
Asher,

I am not interested in the law or constitution of the united states. Why should I be? It is not important to me at this moment, in this part of the question, which was 'how does the inscription on the currency relate to the state being separated from religion, based on your introduction to this thread.' So, in fact, the currency inscription was not intended to support your argument, but just something you found in passing, so to speak.

However, it is only now that you have explained the link a bit more, maybe it would be worthwhile editing the original.

The measure of this democracy, after all, is how we treat the weak and the World over which we have power. If you fail to find that coherent, cogent or important, then so be it. We are just on an entirely different wavelength and you have not reached out sufficiently to put yourself in the USA as a citizen who takes "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" as values to fight for.

Asher, there is absolutely no way that I would want to be in the USA, and I've had the opportunity to live there. I have personally never understood the 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' That is far to soft to be of any use in living a life. Where is humility, honesty, dignity and other attributes? Liberty to some folk means others suffering, and you have to ban what some see as 'a pursuit of happiness'. 'Life' for many in your country, as elsewhere, is a misery for some folk.

Just because some guys wrote something down a few years ago, doesn't necessarily make it relevant today, things evolve, the world changes.

The general behaviour that I, and many others in this world see, of the way your country and people behave, is a joke, if it wasn't so serious. 'Double standards', I guess is an expression that comes to mind, 'Isolation' may be another. Of course, a similar opinion or worse is held of most countries and peoples, except our own. I wonder why?

Now, talking about the world, in East Africa, there was a recent election. The votes are probably about to be re-miscounted. They learnt that from your lot - Florida was it? so much for democracy, more to do with advertising, these days.

Best wishes,

Ray
 

Ray West

New member
Hi Doug and Asher,

At least you can read yours - the UK pound coin has 'decus et tutamen' around the edge, and 'D.G.REG.F.D. on the face, and the queens name and head of course. (The 'F.D.', Henry VIII kept, even though it was on the coins when he was a puppet of Rome, just he made his own 'F', I guess.) As I mentioned - it's all business, always has been, usually.

Best wishes,

Ray
 
I must make another remark here, it was even on the irish news last night, and well, the Irish news is not unbiased at all.

That the pope asks those who were victimized to "forget and forgive", this impertinence is beyond my comprehension. **** you Ratzi, you have no RIGHT to ask those who's life was traumatised and destroyed inevitably by the abuse they suffered from your sickos. You have no right at all to ask them to forget, however convenient this may be for your interests.

May these tragedies and crimes NEVER be forgotten!

Forgiveness, however, is a different story, and healing of what was crippled and traumatised can only start when one forgives, forgives himself and his abuser, and this is nothing religious nessecarily, but a psychological condition of human beings.

Most of the victims will never reach that state of forgivness, and the burden of their abuse will ballast them for the rest of their life, and more, will affect their next generations in one way or the other as well.

NEVER FORGET!

How bloody CONVENIENT Mr Ratzinger that the Vatican happend to have a Public Liability Insurance that in deed COVERS THE RAPE OF CHILDREN!

No, this will NEVER be forgotten!

ASSOCIATED PRESS AUGUST 19th, 2005

Lawyers for Pope Benedict XVI have asked U.S. President George W. Bush to declare the pontiff immune from liability in a lawsuit that accuses him of conspiring to cover up the molestation of three boys by a seminarian in Texas, court records show.

The Vatican's embassy in Washington sent a diplomatic memo to the State Department on May 20 requesting the U.S. government grant the pope immunity because he is a head of state, according to a May 26 motion submitted by the pope's lawyers in U.S. District Court for the Southern Division of Texas in Houston.

Joseph Ratzinger is named as a defendant in the civil lawsuit. Now Benedict XVI, he's accused of conspiring with the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston to cover up the abuse during the mid-1990s. The suit is seeking unspecified monetary damages.

Excuse my ranting folks, but as I said, I was somewhat mnore intensly involved than the average person in that whole church thing for family reasons, and it triggers some emotions and strong reactions in me as well!
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Ray,

The general behaviour that I, and many others in this world see, of the way your country and people behave, is a joke. . . [Emphasis added]

Are you referring to moi? My goodness!

Maybe "your . . . people" has another meaning in this context.

Best regards,

Doug
 

Ray West

New member
Georg,

You have it wrong. That is not a rant you delivered. It is, as far as I can tell, a statement of fact. Are you really surprised? Do you think any effective plans have been made to prevent similar things happening in future? An analysis will be made, as to the cost of preventing 'bad publicity', as compared to the cost of 'escaping from responsibility', or something similar, or possibly not, since who really cares, other than the few folk directly effected. I'm pretty certain the USA will not declare war on the Vatican state, since a few USA citizens have been molested by agents of a foreign power. My previous post, the last sentence - that is what the whole of this is about - no more, no less. Oh, and the 'double standards' I mentioned earlier.

Best wishes ,

Ray
 

Ray West

New member
No, Doug, not you, so far, but you could be there if you wanted to be ;-)

Originally Posted by Ray West

The general behaviour that I, and many others in this world see, of the way your country and people behave, is a joke. . . [Emphasis added]
I could quote instances, but I'm not sure, considering the 'temperature' of this thread, that it would be understood.

However, in support of explaing what I said, 'in general' phrase, without going into the circle/diameter nit picking phase, of another thread, but I could if you wish)....

I used to keep bees. (Different in UK than in USA). There is the characteristics of the individual bee. It behaves according to its class, its group within the hive structure, and other details. The group has a separate behaviour. The hive also has its own character, which may not be discernible from any group, or individual. And then, you have other hives, etc.

So, because you live in the 'USA hive', as a bee, does not mean that you, or any individual bee has all the characteristics of the 'USA hive', but quite often, a bee-keeper can tell which hive a particular bee has come from. (I am not meaning to imply that I in any way keep 'the USA hive', I think 'allegorical 'will do.)

So, I think that much of the world, from what they see as USA policy of the government, and from the behaviour they see of tourists, etc. or wherever they come across USA citizens, tv news, programs, etc., can see no reason to take them seriously. There are so many really daft things that happen, that others see, that makes it difficult to understand it as anything but a joke, so therefore it must be a joke, but then, I'm being cynical, maybe.

Most every country has its perceived characteristics, and they vary from time to time, and country to country, depending on the perceiver, too..

Best wishes,

Ray
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Ray,

No, Doug, not you, so far, but you could be there if you wanted to be ;-)

Indeed, one of the great benefits of the liberty we have here (compromised though it be!)

I used to keep bees. (Different in UK than in USA). There is the characteristics of the individual bee. It behaves according to its class, its group within the hive structure, and other details. The group has a separate behaviour. The hive also has its own character, which may not be discernible from any group, or individual. And then, you have other hives, etc.

So, because you live in the 'USA hive', as a bee, does not mean that you, or any individual bee has all the characteristics of the 'USA hive', but quite often, a bee-keeper can tell which hive a particular bee has come from. (I am not meaning to imply that I in any way keep 'the USA hive', I think 'allegorical 'will do.)[./quote]

I understand, and that is well said. I was just picking on you!

This is in part a result of the fact that English (except in archaic usage) has lost the distinction between the second person singular and the second person plural (as almost happened in French, but not quite).

There is a similar problem with the fact that there are not enough first persons in English. I remember once saying to a friend (referring to an event I attended with my wife), "We went to see [some musical performer] last Saturday."

My friend replied, "Really? I don't remember a thing about it."

But it's still a great language.

Best regards,

Doug
 
Top