ROCKPAGE

Posted: **Monday Dec 03, 2007**

I'm all for after all God rules

Posted: **Tuesday Dec 04, 2007**

Merge wrote:I know what the Constitution states, I asked someone to point out
where the phrase "Separation of Church and State" is located. Lots of people like
to throw that phrase around, but it's still not in there.

Verbatim, no. BUT, the state traffic laws don't say SPEED LIMIT 65 verbatim either.
It has all these words, I'm sure, but along with others. However, he meaning is there.
Looking for exact verbiage and discounting something because it's not there is being
dishonest about the intent.

What a lot of people who say the country was founded on Christianity forget, or
ignore, is that Adams, Franklin, and even Jefferson, among others didn't believe
in "God" and had a great disdain, and distrust, for any organized religion.

As a matter of fact, the PHRASE "Separation of Church and State" comes from
correspondence between Adams and Jefferson.

Also, the Treaty of Tripoli famously states:

"As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded
on the Christian Religion..."

Also, if you look at the reasons there was an American Revolution....NOWHERE is
religious freedom involved. Nowhere. The Puritans came over here based in large
part on their religious beliefs, but the majority of these were Cromwellians who weren't
welcome in Britain. The Puritans didn't celebrate any holidays. They believed every
day was to be seen as God's holiest day.

I grew up Southern Baptist. The one thing that's always struck me is how insecure
Christians are about their God, and how misguided they are about their own religion.

They'll have fits if someone doesn't like that there's a Christmas tree because it's
supposed to be an attack on them, their God, their religion, etc. but totally ignore
that the tree is a symbol taken from Pagans. They get mad if it's called the "Holiday"
season (I get e-mail alerts from the psychos at the A.F.A. every week to boycott
stores that mention it as a "holiday" rather than "Christmas". In the last coupl'a
weeks they've gone after Old Navy, Gap. PETCO, and others). However, anyone
with the most REMOTE knowledge of Jesus knows he wasn't born December 25th
and that Hanaukka is an older religion (Most early Christian converts were Jews
who'd been celebrating it all their lives anyway). Early Christians put it there so the
people they were trying to convert had a holiday at the same time so as not to lose
converts.

To a Christian friend of mine, he wants God taken out of the holiday entirely because
it's (Correctly) a purely commercial holiday. Hardly the kind of thing Jesus would think
is real cool. According to him, he wants Jesus back away from the stores.

Posted: **Tuesday Dec 04, 2007**

You make some very good points, VentGtr. That was written very well.

Posted: **Tuesday Dec 04, 2007**

VENTGtr wrote:As a matter of fact, the PHRASE "Separation of Church and State" comes from correspondence between Adams and Jefferson.

As a matter of fact, Jefferson penned this phrase in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. They were a religious minority who were concerned about larger factions repressing their religious freedom thru the state government.

I just thought you might find that interesting, especially that you mentioned your Baptist upbringing.

Posted: **Tuesday Dec 04, 2007**

I'm actually against the entire debate as a whole. Not this thread tossing around ideas and personal observations for conversation's sake, but I'm against taking a personal opinion and forcing that opinion onto others. The power of any given word is derived only by the person who is comprehending it. On some level, the words "under god" have a different meaning to each individual. It could mean God, Allah, Buddha, Mother Nature, etc. Or it could even mean nothing at all unless put into the context of the Pledge of Allegiance, which is my interpretation. The Pledge of Allegiance, imo, is simply a poetic version of "I like the USA...YAY!" It's just a jumble of words spewed out with the intention of stimulating people's patriotism. "Under god" just happens to be part of the rally cry. I think people should define/interpret words as they deem appropriate and take a look at the big picture as opposed to insignificant details...and maybe pick up a hobby because obsessing over a couple of words is a pathetic way to go through life.

Posted: **Tuesday Dec 04, 2007**

The context of "Separation of Church and State" Jefferson was responding to was to make it known that the Government will not choose ONE religion over others to be the "State" religion. That (State Religion) was common practice of most all governments. And still is with many today.

It did not mean that the Government was without God or separated from
God and religion. They were saying, "We don't want a State religion, we are separating ourselves from an established state religion". And no ONE religion will run our new country. (Also a common practice in some governments.)

Separation meant, The government will not run a chosen religion nor will a chosen religion run our government.

But it did not mean they would take away your freedom to express your religion.

Many came to the colonies because they were free to practice and establish there religions. The spin on separation of state and religion has come to differ with FREEDOM of religion, when it was originally meant to NOT ESTABLISH a State religion. But to allow many religions to keep from being persecuted.

Now it is being used to persecute those who want to FREEly express their religion. Like a simple Nativity scene on public owned property. That is NOT what Jefferson (or any founding father) meant. They WANTED you to be free to choose and express your religion.

Posted: **Wednesday Dec 05, 2007**

Hawk,

True, there was never an intention to take away anyone's freedom to express
their religion. I wouldn't want that and God's as real as the Easter Bunny. Just
a thousand times more vindictive, mean, and destructive and not cute and fuzzy
in the least.

Someone has every right to stroll down the street in nothing but a cross if they
want (Granted, indecency laws...but if it's a big enough cross). But, if they're so
for religious freedom they better be ready to defend the Wiccan who's coming
down the street the other wearing a (Just as big) pine cone.

Too many out there are all for religious freedom as long as it's their religion that's
getting the benefit.

"They were saying, "We don't want a State religion, we are separating
ourselves from an established state religion"."

True. Endorsing no religion. Why should there be an acknowledgment of a
single religious deity? Are you intimating that when "God" is mentioned in the
pledge, which came about apx. 170 years after the Constitution, that it's meant
to imply ALL Gods?

The pledge was written by a Socialist and the "under God" bit was originally
added by the Knights of Columbus, because they wanted a mention of "God".
Having it added officially took a few years, but they found their way in.

"Now it is being used to persecute those who want to FREEly express their religion."

How in the world do you come up with that?

That's just making a of people whose religion is the most prominent be able to
feel like they're being persecuted. You hear this in chuches and it's pretty much
laughable that they have the gall to say it.

Tell me there are people terrorizing you because you have a Christmas tree.
Again though, I do think the tree is a secular thing. But, I'm more on the side of
those who see the Christmas tree Christmas and the celebrating Jesus' birth as
2 very different holidays. Jesus was a great human and, for those who see him
as a Saviour, I feel bad they're celebration gets overshadowed with sale flyers.

"Like a simple Nativity scene on public owned property."

If it's on PUBLICLY OWNED property, it' has no right to be there. That's not someone
expressing themselves on their property, it's making a public statement on everyone's
property. And it is exactly the kind of thing Jefferson didn't want. It's also a governmental
endorsement of a religious belief. You can believe in your God, Gods, etc. but I don't
have to be bothered by it. It's your relationship with your God. Let's keep it that way.

Now, would I be especially bugged by it? Not on a real visceral level, But, I am a
parent. Kids shouldn't have to tolerate someone's God-need or be made to feel
uncomfortable, and that happens all too much. Especially when most of the parents
who espouse this stuff don't practice what they supposedly believe.

How many people on here watch football Sunday? Sinning. Git yer drunk on?
Sinning. Turn your heat on on the Sabbath? Sinning. Matter of fact, you ask a strict
adherence Seventh Day Adventist and, if you're not eating "right" and go by Sunday
as the Sabbath...yerrrrrr sinnin'. Actually, going by the Bible, they're right. There's
nowhere in there the day was actually changed to Sunday. BUT, we're all worm food
when we die anyway, so I don't care when people go to church.

"It did not mean that the Government was without God or separated from God
and religion."

Of course it did. The founders saw what having official religion(s) had done in England
where, when there was a new ruler, there was violence between Catholics and Protestants.
ALSO, they were smart enough to know how having religion in a government could cause
it to be unstable. If they didn't even believe in the deity, it'd be pretty odd for them to base
their new government on it.

With the "Pledge" the words under God weren't even there until we turned into the total
insecure freaks we are now and thought it made us better than the Soviets. That's our
intelligence level nowadays, more than ever. Slap on a bumper sticker, you're a patriot,
a plastic flag and you're fighting terrorism, ignore reality and you're a self-made man
who's never needed anyone and just want to be left to your business. You just need to
make sure everyone believes the same or you're being oppressed,

YAYYYYYY US.

LOVE these discussions!

Posted: **Wednesday Dec 05, 2007**

Excellent, excellent post.

Persecution is a central tenet of Christianity, and indeed many religions... without a struggle against the "bad guy," the "good guy" has nothing compelling him. When you use that collective feeling that "they're all against us," you engender a devotion to the group, and that devotion is power to those who control the group. Devotion is what fills pews with the devoted, and what fills collection plates and tithe envelopes with tax-free cash.
I have laughed openly at the folks who think Americans don't want you to say "Merry Christmas"... that's just not true, outside a twisted little few. That's just a massive overstatement from people who want to anger the sheep enough to knee-jerk a little more reaction from them. O'Reilly says non-christians hate Christmas, and you love Christmas, so you listen to O'Reilly. Has anyone ever gotten pissed off because someone said, "Merry Christmas?" Seriously, do you know one single individual who actually chastened you for saying, "Merry Christmas?"
One needs to bear in mind that the "Under God" controversy was completely the invention of the conservative media. It was started when a nutjob in California decided to piss off his ex-wife in custody/divorce battle. Jeez, those never get ugly and unrealistic, right? At the time the case was brought up, the Neocons were making a case for a war we all knew wasn't quite right. They have consistently pushed B-grade human interest stories to the front of the line, to keep the Fox News-types from being branded as propagandists, and to refocus our attention away from administration screw-ups. Lacey Peterson. Natalee Holloway. The new one where the cop has a body count of wives. Sad stories, obviously, but hardly the only ones, and how relevant? Really, how is "Under God" relevant to the War On Terror? If I don't say "Under God," do the terrorists win? Really?--------->JMS

Posted: **Wednesday Dec 05, 2007**

songsmith wrote:Really, how is "Under God" relevant to the War On Terror?
If I don't say "Under God," do the terrorists win? Really?--------->JMS

SS,

Seems to be the thinking...or the spewing,....then believing. Little thinking involved
except by those who are figuring out how to use people's sheep-like tendencies to
drag them along. Irony is that those who are the most fundamentalist have more in
common with the psychos in the same Islamic groups to which they want be so
diametrically opposed.

"Persecution is a central tenet of Christianity, and indeed many religions."

It's, unfortunately true. I believe the guy Christians worship as "the son" was
the total opposite of this. Seems a decent guy who's been saddled with a lot
of baggage by his followers.

Posted: **Wednesday Dec 05, 2007**

This is why I worship the devil.

Posted: **Wednesday Dec 05, 2007**

We Americans didn't have most of these kinds of problems before FDR introduced big government, by the government and for the government.

The U.S. didn't even have an official national pledge until Congress approved the Pledge of Allegiance in 1945.

The Constitution makes a simple and clear cut statement:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

And yet, in 1954, only 9 years after the pledge was approved, Congress passed a law respecting an establishment of religion (in general) by adding the words "under God" to this official national pledge.

All personal beliefs aside, this is just another example of big government sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong.

Officially removing these words will not diminish the greatness of the U.S., but it would go a long way towards reducing the divisiveness that plagues us. After all...

its a pledge to a country, not a prayer to a God.

Posted: **Wednesday Dec 05, 2007**

lonewolf wrote:After all...

its a pledge to a country, not a prayer to a God.

Oooh. Nice. Like that.

Posted: **Thursday Dec 06, 2007**

VENTGtr wrote:Hawk,

True, there was never an intention to take away anyone's freedom to express
their religion. I wouldn't want that and God's as real as the Easter Bunny. Just
a thousand times more vindictive, mean, and destructive and not cute and fuzzy
in the least.

How is God vindictive ?
.......................................

Free to express religion IN PUBLIC.
...................................................

Founding fathers invoked the name of God quite often, they were believers.
...........................................................................................

Someone has every right to stroll down the street in nothing but a cross if they
want (Granted, indecency laws...but if it's a big enough cross). But, if they're so
for religious freedom they better be ready to defend the Wiccan who's coming
down the street the other wearing a (Just as big) pine cone.

The States were founded on Christian Judeo morals and beliefs. Wiccans would be seen as anti religious.
........................................................................................................

Too many out there are all for religious freedom as long as it's their religion that's
getting the benefit.

No, you are so wrong. The freedom is for all religions. Don't just make things up please.
..................................................................................................

"They were saying, "We don't want a State religion, we are separating
ourselves from an established state religion"."

True. Endorsing no religion. Why should there be an acknowledgment of a
single religious deity? Are you intimating that when "God" is mentioned in the
pledge, which came about apx. 170 years after the Constitution, that it's meant
to imply ALL Gods?

Yes, there is only one true God BY ANY NAME.
...............................................................................

The pledge was written by a Socialist and the "under God" bit was originally
added by the Knights of Columbus, because they wanted a mention of "God".
Having it added officially took a few years, but they found their way in.

Not quite right. I personally met and talked to George Dagherty (spelling) who was a Presbyterian Minister in DC but origionally from Scotland. He lives in Huntingdon PA now. He was friends with the president and thought God's name should be mentioned. When the President announced it, it passed resoundingly !
.........................................................................................................

"Now it is being used to persecute those who want to FREEly express their religion."

How in the world do you come up with that?

Seperation from church and state is used by YOU to keep US from expressing religion on public property. There is no actual mention of "Seperation of church and state" anywhere in the constitution, yet the words are invoked regurlarly. There is simply no state religion.
.......................................................................................................
That's just making a of people whose religion is the most prominent be able to
feel like they're being persecuted. You hear this in chuches and it's pretty much
laughable that they have the gall to say it.

When have you been to church lately ? Making stuff up again are you ?
By not being able to put a nativity scene on public property is persecution to me.
...................................................................................................

Tell me there are people terrorizing you because you have a Christmas tree.
Again though, I do think the tree is a secular thing. But, I'm more on the side of
those who see the Christmas tree Christmas and the celebrating Jesus' birth as
2 very different holidays. Jesus was a great human and, for those who see him
as a Saviour, I feel bad they're celebration gets overshadowed with sale flyers.

"Like a simple Nativity scene on public owned property."

If it's on PUBLICLY OWNED property, it' has no right to be there. That's not someone
expressing themselves on their property, it's making a public statement on everyone's
property. And it is exactly the kind of thing Jefferson didn't want. It's also a governmental
endorsement of a religious belief. You can believe in your God, Gods, etc. but I don't
have to be bothered by it. It's your relationship with your God. Let's keep it that way.

Now, would I be especially bugged by it? Not on a real visceral level, But, I am a
parent. Kids shouldn't have to tolerate someone's God-need or be made to feel
uncomfortable, and that happens all too much. Especially when most of the parents
who espouse this stuff don't practice what they supposedly believe.

Don't judge God by what people do.
...................................................................................

How many people on here watch football Sunday? Sinning. Git yer drunk on?
Sinning. Turn your heat on on the Sabbath? Sinning. Matter of fact, you ask a strict
adherence Seventh Day Adventist and, if you're not eating "right" and go by Sunday
as the Sabbath...yerrrrrr sinnin'. Actually, going by the Bible, they're right. There's
nowhere in there the day was actually changed to Sunday. BUT, we're all worm food
when we die anyway, so I don't care when people go to church.\

So your point is.......there is no God because people sin ? Or exactly what point are you making here ? I don't get where you're going with this ?
......................................................................................................

"It did not mean that the Government was without God or separated from God
and religion."

Of course it did. The founders saw what having official religion(s) had done in England
where, when there was a new ruler, there was violence between Catholics and Protestants.
ALSO, they were smart enough to know how having religion in a government could cause
it to be unstable. If they didn't even believe in the deity, it'd be pretty odd for them to base
their new government on it.

The founding fathers recognised there was one God but many religions. The government did not choose one religion.
.................................................................................................

With the "Pledge" the words under God weren't even there until we turned into the total
insecure freaks we are now and thought it made us better than the Soviets.

Wrong again. A man's love for God thought it was a good idea to add to the pledge. I am getting where you come from now though. You don't like religion ! So you dismiss God . It's all obvious now by all of your statements. I can't say I blame you there though. Churches are made up of men and men get it wrong sometimes.
.......................................................................................................

That's our
intelligence level nowadays, more than ever. Slap on a bumper sticker, you're a patriot,
a plastic flag and you're fighting terrorism, ignore reality and you're a self-made man
who's never needed anyone and just want to be left to your business. You just need to
make sure everyone believes the same or you're being oppressed,

No two men are made alike so no two men will ever think alike. I don't expect everyone to believe the same as me. I would fight for the right of any established religion to be free. So would (did) our founding fathers.
....................................................................................................

YAYYYYYY US.

LOVE these discussions!

Me Too !

Posted: **Thursday Dec 06, 2007**

lonewolf wrote:We Americans didn't have most of these kinds of problems before FDR introduced big government, by the government and for the government.

The U.S. didn't even have an official national pledge until Congress approved the Pledge of Allegiance in 1945.

The Constitution makes a simple and clear cut statement:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

And yet, in 1954, only 9 years after the pledge was approved, Congress passed a law respecting an establishment of religion (in general) by adding the words "under God" to this official national pledge.

All personal beliefs aside, this is just another example of big government sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong.

Officially removing these words will not diminish the greatness of the U.S., but it would go a long way towards reducing the divisiveness that plagues us. After all...

It's not a prayer to God at all. The name "God" represents a "higer power" and many religions use many names to invoke the same God.

It's mention does not establish a religion. Only that we that we are a nation under a higher power.

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Posted: **Thursday Dec 06, 2007**

Hawk wrote:
It's not a prayer to God at all. The name "God" represents a "higer power" and many religions use many names to invoke the same God.

It's mention does not establish a religion. Only that we that we are a nation under a higher power.

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

There are some who do not aspire to this higher power. Why then should they be required to pledge to it?

The larger problem is with those who believe in this gargantuan megalomaniac government that has evolved.

One of the defining principles of Judeo-Christian beliefs is the absolute freedom of and from religion. Why then should we subject non-believers to an oath that they cannot in their hearts oblige?

Like I said. It wasn't a problem until government got big and decided that they were more important than its citizens.

Of course, big government is more important than the individual (please read disclaimer).

Posted: **Thursday Dec 06, 2007**

lonewolf wrote:
Hawk wrote:
It's not a prayer to God at all. The name "God" represents a "higer power" and many religions use many names to invoke the same God.

It's mention does not establish a religion. Only that we that we are a nation under a higher power.

A rose by any other name is still a rose.
There are some who do not aspire to this higher power. Why then should they be required to ipledge to itt?

The larger problem is with those who believe in this gargantuan megalomaniac government that has evolved.

One of the defining principles of Judeo-Christian beliefs is the absolute freedom of and from religion. Why then should we subject non-beleivers to an oath that they cannot in their hearts oblige?

Like I said. It wasn't a problem until government got big and decided that they were more important than its citizens.

Of course, big government is more important than the individual (please read disclaimer).

It is not a pledge to God. It is a pledge to the USA under God.

If you don't believe that God exists at all, why would you be bothered by His name being mentioned ?

On another question, What was the size of the government pre and post FDR ? I really don't know and I curious. And what is itr that he added to make it so big ?

Posted: **Thursday Dec 06, 2007**

Hawk wrote:
It is not a pledge to God. It is a pledge to the USA under God.

If you don't believe that God exists at all, why would you be bothered by
His name being mentioned ?

On another question, What was the size of the government pre and post
FDR? I really don't know and I curious. And what is it that he added to
make it so big ?

Well, Hawk, I respect your belief in God, but I'm just as sure there isn't one.
Part of the issue is that when you (Not "you" literally) put that in, it gives more
credence to making laws following THAT particular God, gives that particular
religion more of a say, a platform, and can single out those who DON'T believe
in it (Just over Thanksgiving someone was where we were visiting going on
about something and said "If they don't believe like the rest of us, they should
just leave, huh?" Looking at me. The look on their face when I said "Uh...no.
I'm not goin' anywhere" True fun thing is that this particular person is one of
those most would think are totally nuts. Go into the whole freakin' out, speakin'
in tongues thing at their services...yet....known to drink fair bit).

For me, I've had the whole "God" discussion with ministers, family members
and everyone else. Lot of things they can't answer and fall back on it being
about "Faith". And, that's fine. I respect that and have no desire to change
anyone's mind about it. Like to discuss, would hope to make people see some
new point, but the last thing I want to do is make someone change their mind
on it. I grew up with the thing and it took me a long time to resolve. BUT, like
I've said I'm a parent. People have several times tried to bring up "Shouldn't
you let him believe and then decide?". Well, he knows a lot of about religion.

At his age, I was at church 3x a week and he knows more than I did then. He
actually is a fan of Hinduism.

My answer back to those people is "Are you going to send your kids to a Mosque,
Synagogue, Temple (Or head over to the Church of Satan with Dirty Sanchez?)....
or my house....to let them get a bunch of points of view and decide?" LORD NO!

I've NEVER heard someone honestly be able to say the "God" in the pledge
is any other than the "Christian" God and I'm pretty positive most Christians
would be offended if anyone really suggested it was any other.

Religion is an extremely divisive issue, and is used for that purpose by many.
I won't tolerate someone come busting in your home for believing and there's
no reason anyone else's religious views should be pushed on me and mine
in public. REALLY, it's SUPPOSED to be about the relationship between a
person and their deity of choice for their eternal soul. WHY do the same
humans who believe this think they have a right, in any way, to push their
belief on others in what is to them, so serious a matter.

Actually, government prior to FDR was what the current regime wants it to be
now. It was owned by corporations and did their bidding.

Most people don't realize how close we were to a whole other showdown from
the late 1800s-early 1900s. What FDR did was put in place social programs
that no country can get by without. People don't to believe it...but it's true.
Always has been, always will be as long as a country expects to last a long
time.

How cool of a country would we be if we had old people sleeping in the streets
because they couldn't afford a place live? Or kids? We have too much of that
garbage now and it's an embarrassment (And, a sin, religious or not). It would
have been exponentially worse without FDR's social programs.

People's "complaints" with FDR is that he started us on what they see as being
too Socialist and the government taking more control. I don't like necessarily
like everything FDR did, but if he'd not have put in place the reforms he did,
you'd have seen a legitimately large, nationwide, stronger Socialist movement.
And during the Depression, it could have taken hold a lot more strongly than it
did.

Posted: **Thursday Dec 06, 2007**

VENTGtr wrote:
I've NEVER heard someone honestly be able to say the "God" in the pledge
is any other than the "Christian" God and I'm pretty positive most Christians
would be offended if anyone really suggested it was any other.

.

This is precisely the argument that should be used when people say it's not about the seperation of church and state. Stop mid-sentence and suggest that everyone should be allowed to say, "one nation, under Allah," or Shiva, or Buddha, or Vishnu, or Mickey Mouse. How would 99.9% of Christians react to that? NO! They feel they must tie America to God. Their God. Otherwise, it would tailspin into failure and evil.
Christianity is a religion of judgement. No man goeth unto Heaven except by Me. If you do not follow the Christian God, you will suffer eternally, and there is no exception for being a good Muslim or even just a good guy (of course, you can't be a good guy unless you're a Christian). Evangelicals, and Charismatic Evangelicals in particular, relish their piousness, which makes them feel superior. I grew up in the Assembly Of God and other Pentecostal churches, and I can assure all, everyone judged everyone else on everything... apparently, the verse about judging not lest ye be judged was edited out. Anyway, while the church elders chastised little girls for wearing pants to church, the little girls were being molested by the circuit-preacher. You know that guy... he preached about boys whose hair had grown over their collar, about rock n' roll, about how people needed to give God (and himself, of course) what they call a Seed of Faith offering, which consisted of all the money anyone had saved in those hard times. If you didn't get it back tenfold, you didn't have enough faith, my friend. Hit your knees in your prayer closet.
The point I've danced around here is this: The problem with Christianity is Christians. Christians are people, and people have no right to make me do or say anything. I owe you nothing because you are Christian. I used to feel I had to respect your faith, but that respect has to be returned to continue existing, and I'm not seeing it. If I don't want to be a Christian, that's how it is. Feel free to do the Christian thing and judge me on my beliefs, but never forget that while there is only one God, there are thousands of denominations, and at the most, only one of you is right. Myself, I think that number's a little high, but your mileage may vary.-->JMS

Posted: **Thursday Dec 06, 2007**

songsmith wrote:...and at the most, only one of you is right. Myself, I
think that number's a little high, but your mileage may vary.-->JMS

SS,

Think you'd like this quote.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you. When
you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why
I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

Posted: **Thursday Dec 06, 2007**

During his first 8 years (during peacetime) FDR tripled the budget. It wasn't just that, his New Deal legacy continues to bankrupt the U.S.

This is the budget spending in millions during for the given years:

1932 4,659 (Hoover)
1933 4,598
1934 6,541 (FDR)
1935 6,412
1936 8,228
1937 7,580
1938 6,840
1939 9,141
1940 9,468
1941 13,653
1942 35,137
1943 78,555
1944 91,304
1945 92,712
1946 55,232 (Truman)
1947 34,496
1948 29,764
1949 38,835
1950 42,562
1951 45,514
1952 67,686
1953 76,101
1954 70,855 (Eisenhower)
1955 68,444
1956 70,640
1957 76,578
1958 82,405
1959 92,098
1960 92,191
1961 97,723
1962 106,821 (Kennedy)
1963 111,316
1964 118,528
1965 118,228 (Johnson)
1966 134,532
1967 157,464
1968 178,134
1969 183,640

Each president is stuck with the prior administration's budget for the 1st year of their term.

Source:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/hist.html

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/ ... st01z1.xls

Posted: **Thursday Dec 06, 2007**

LW,

That's not really a great indicator though. During the first years of FDR we were still
trying to dig out of the stock market crash (Really, until WWII). Much of the spending
to which you allude was getting people back to work and trying to make an economic
recovery.

Without the "New Deal", or some version of, we, as a nation, were done. We'd have
hit economic collapse beyond repair. Besides, a lot of the items in the first few rounds
of the New Deal were struck down for various reasons (Some were also expansions
on some of Hoover's policies). Those that stuck, Social Security, Labour reforms,
CCC, Infrastrucure repair/upgrades, even speeding construction on the Hoover Dam,
etc. added to the employment of millions who would've been broke, homeless, starving.

Posted: **Thursday Dec 06, 2007**

VENTGtr wrote:LW,

That's not really a great indicator though. During the first years of FDR we were still
trying to dig out of the stock market crash (Really, until WWII). Much of the spending
to which you allude was getting people back to work and trying to make an economic
recovery.

Without the "New Deal", or some version of, we, as a nation, were done. We'd have
hit economic collapse beyond repair. Besides, a lot of the items in the first few rounds
of the New Deal were struck down for various reasons (Some were also expansions
on some of Hoover's policies). Those that stuck, Social Security, Labour reforms,
CCC, Infrastrucure repair/upgrades, even speeding construction on the Hoover Dam,
etc. added to the employment of millions who would've been broke, homeless, starving.

The U.S. and the whole world was in that depression and managed to survive for more than 3 years before FDR took office. The New Deal was a failure and did not bring the country out of depression. It took WWII to do that--a situation for which we were ill-prepared.

Unfortunately, FDR let the big government genie out of the bottle and nobody has ever been able to put it back in. Most of those programs should have been dismantled after WWII, but the politicians liked their new found power and were not about to give it up. Now we are stuck with it.

BTW, You forgot to mention that little nugget called welfare.

Posted: **Thursday Dec 06, 2007**

So everyone is gonna stop giving me shit now for believing in unicorns and leprechauns...right? Right?

Damn hallucinogens.

Posted: **Thursday Dec 06, 2007**

Surviving the Depression (Which a lot of people didn't) and getting out of it are two
vastly different things. Would it have been better to do nothing and let things get
worse?

Didn't forget welfare at all. There are times that people going on welfare has been a
necessity. Has it ever been abused? Lord ya. But so have unemployment benefits
and everything else. Does it need revised? Ya. There were moves to do that in the
90s. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be there to help when necessary.

I grew up in a town where the a lot of the patriotic-God-believing-perfectly healthy-and
all-for-America men in the town couldn't wait until Thursday because that's when the
welfare checks came in and they'd have more to spend at the 2 bars in town.

Also, look at the employment rates, standards of living, wages earned, etc. after the
New Deal and you'll find that it did work.

"So everyone is gonna stop giving me shit now for believing in unicorns and leprechauns...right? Right?"

Depends. What kind of offer of Salvation have they promised?

Posted: **Thursday Dec 06, 2007**

Hawk wrote:Just a question. Why are non believers afraid of the mention of God ?

I was raised in a religious family so i know a lot about the whole deal. However, i choose to be an atheist. Im not afraid to mention or hear the word god, its just that i am sick of hearing it. I personally dont care if it is in the pledge or not. But I am tired of getting it crammed down my throat. Everyone is automaticly better than me because I dont believe in god, How much of a sin is that??
_________________

ROCKPAGE

Political Poll for Keeping God in the Pledge