Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(US Congress)   U.S. Government calls for citizens to pray and fast so God will help win the war   ( thomas.loc.gov) divider line
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

225 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Mar 2003 at 10:36 AM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



987 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Newest

 
2003-03-27 03:47:59 PM  
Whoever posted this forgot to add: Seperation of church and state surrender.
 
2003-03-27 03:51:33 PM  
seriously. what ever happened to the sacred separation of State and crazy nutjob voodoo hooha??
 
2003-03-27 03:58:12 PM  
DrLearned: Not jumping to conclusions, it just seems like you and the other apologists for this BS resolution don't seem to get it. Usually, the ones who play ignorant in this area are fundies. Even if you're not a fundie, you're ignorant in this area. Bush made a strong push for prayer in schools. If you didn't know that and you live in Texas, you're fairly uninformed.

This bill is not technically a violation of the establishment clause because it's a resolution, not a law. But it's this kind of asinine resolution that has two effects: first, it makes it look like the US is controlled by a bunch of fundies, which is bad when you're in the middle of a war against Arabs and you're trying to make it look like it's not a Christianity v. Islam thing, and second, it erodes the separation of church and state. Why on God's green earth would they do such a horse shiat thing? Thi scountry is devolving quickly. The Constitutional protections developed over decades have been erased by bills purporting to protect us against terrorists. Now, with all of the Republicans in office, voucher programs and prayer in schools will be pushed to the fore again. Damn those fundamentalist wackos.

Meatball. I like that. Beats what my ex-wife calls me, anyway.
 
2003-03-27 03:58:26 PM  
Yes, I have read the entire Bible. And if you don't want to be religious, that's fine too.

And I believe that mainstream Christianity already has followed the same road that other religions have over time and become different. Christianity today is fundamentally completely different from the religion that Christ taught.

And while it is true that religion is not necessary for tolerance and love of others, it is also true that religious teachings are a great source to go to for those teachings. The Sermon on the Mount, for example, is arguably the best speech ever given, even if you don't believe in God.

For the third time, it is NOT the role of government officials to declare a day of prayer and/or fasting. Our government is based on a belief in God... which is a belief in tolerance for people to believe in that God however they want, including not believing at all. Asking a nation to dedicate a day to fasting and prayer is a few steps behind establishing a state religion. That would eventually lead to this country falling apart.

Try and see if this holds true even if you don't believe in God. In my religious studies, I've learned about this thing called, "The Cycle of Pride." Imagine a diagram where you start out with a society that is righteous. So they are blessed, there is peace, and prosperity. So then you draw an arrow to selfishness, pride, and ingratitude that develop because these folks have it good. This leads to wrath, poverty, greed, lust for material/physical pleasures, social class distinction, and political corruption. That in turn leads to rebellions, social unrest, demonstrations, riots, gangs, drugs, extreme prejudice. That's where they hit rock bottom, with cursings, war, and destruction. But because of this, they humble themselves. Then they help each other, work together, rebuild, and repent. This leads them to call on God and obey his commandments. And then the cycle repeats itself, because as they do this there are blessings, peace, and prosperity. That is my religious viewpoint. I would love feedback, but don't get hostile cause I'm not trying to be pushy, just insightful.

/sorry about long post
 
2003-03-27 03:59:06 PM  
If prayer worked then most of the planet would've been smited and every guy left would have a three foot long dick.
 
2003-03-27 03:59:27 PM  
Is this war officially a crusade yet?
 
2003-03-27 04:00:32 PM  
Two things two say:

1) You voted for em.
2) Congress is irrelevant.
3) This is the stupidest thing I've seen since the "freedom fries" resolution.
 
2003-03-27 04:00:38 PM  
Who do YOU believe?
 
2003-03-27 04:01:00 PM  
Joey JoJo: Read the Gettysburg Address. Old Abe had skills Jesus couldn't touch.
 
2003-03-27 04:04:06 PM  
Oh, I'm a Republican
I got a small schling
I like to bomb nubianhs
and make a lot o' bling

I got a bunch o' friends
in high up places
They helps me get dem
government graces.

You think I'm smart
I just know who's who
I couldn't run a fruit stand
without the red white & blue

I'll drop some crap
about Jesus the Christ
You'll buy it all
and vote for me twice

'Fact, Jesus is comin'!
Real soon, now!
So we gotta prop up Israel
That ol' sacred cow

Don't need no history
Don't need no schoolin'
I got my ideology
To keep me a shootin'

Liberals! faggots!
Commies and queers!
Socialist hippies
Full o' pussy tears

Propaganda's m'friend
But I calls it "fact"
Even though I don't read
'Cept for Chick tracts

Facts? No! Don't need em here!
We're conservatives! We work on FEAR!
Don't like what we say?
Well fark YOU, bud!
We'll shove it down yer throat
and tell ya it's good!
 
2003-03-27 04:06:01 PM  
Auckum Is this war officially a crusade yet?

No it is not. This war is either about freeing the Iraqi people from a tyranical dictator or disarming Iraq of WMD as Saddam will use them to KILL you. It could also be about preventing Saddam from trying to do another 9/11 on the US.

I'm not sure which one it is as it seems to keep changing, but at the moment the 'liberation' message seems to be hit home the loudest.
 
2003-03-27 04:06:04 PM  
six-foot dick:
[image from i.cnn.net too old to be available]
 
2003-03-27 04:07:34 PM  
[image from birthscopes.com too old to be available]

Dude, why did you leave us? We NEED you now.
 
2003-03-27 04:08:04 PM  
Kpar90-
Funny you should mention that. I just read it yesterday for my American Heritage class. It is an incredible speech, no question about that. But saying that Lincoln was greater than Jesus seems a pretty ignorant comment. Compare "...we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom..." with, "...Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you..."

Big fan of Abe, bigger fan of Jesus.
 
2003-03-27 04:09:49 PM  
What I want to know is that why is it so many of these right wing type Christians seem to think that their religion is so weak that it needs the government to back it up? Do they not think that it's convincing enough for people to believe on their own?

Well, OK, for me it's certainly not convincing enough, so maybe they do need the government to sponser their religion to make me obey it. Although, if someone were going to force me to believe in a religion, I would really hope they would force me to believe Buddhism. They seem to be much less into killing people in general.
 
2003-03-27 04:10:17 PM  
LIVE SI MADDAS.
EID TSUM MADDAS.
TNEDISERP RUOY TROPPUS.
UOY SEVOL ACIREMA.
SNOITSEUQ ON KSA.
 
2003-03-27 04:10:24 PM  
Kazaama: Your timing is impeccable.

Like Michael J. Fox before the shakes got to him. Bravo.
 
2003-03-27 04:11:14 PM  
Also-
While I firmly believe that God will support and protect a nation fighting defensively, I don't believe in a God that would ever promote starting a war.

So it's up to us to decide whether or not the invasion of Iraq is offensive or defensive.
 
2003-03-27 04:12:24 PM  
LIVE SI MADDAS.
EID TSUM MADDAS.
TNEDISERP RUOY TROPPUS.
UOY SEVOL ACIREMA.
SNOITSEUQ ON KSA.
 
2003-03-27 04:14:39 PM  
I still want to know... are they going to make this a national holiday so that I can get the day off? You know, like Christmas. If so, I am all for it.
 
2003-03-27 04:18:51 PM  
The results:
YEAS NAYS PRES NV
REPUBLICAN 221 7
DEMOCRATIC 125 48 23 9
INDEPENDENT 1
TOTALS 346 49 23 16
 
2003-03-27 04:19:22 PM  
I still want to know... are they going to make this a national holiday so that I can get the day off? You know, like Christmas. If so, I am all for it.

I don't think Christmas is even really a religious holiday anymore. All of my atheist and agnostic friends (including myself) celebrate it as a secular holiday. You basically have two holidays on the same day by the same name.

Holiday Number One: Commercial buying of gifts, Santa Clause, snowmen, reindeer, Christmas tree, getting together to eat a big meal holiday.

Holiday Number Two: The "birthday" of Jesus Christ.

How many people do you know that celebrate more of #1 than #2?

The same thing goes for Easter.
 
2003-03-27 04:20:55 PM  
hmm, that didn't work, disreguard my last post
results of the voting:
Yeas: 346
Nays: 49
not even close
 
2003-03-27 04:21:50 PM  
Joey: Ignorant? Different perspective maybe, but hardly ignorant. After all, you tell me what has had the greater impact on our (secular) government--turning the other cheek, or freeing slaves?

Jesus has some good ideas for a perfect world, but in the real world sometimes you have to nut up and shoot somebody.
 
2003-03-27 04:24:12 PM  
God was apparently unavailable for comment....

Nothing like someone praying to get a bunch of hippies all riled up. God forbid anyone besides some left-wing, unwashed piece of shiat express themself.....

Take a look at a piece of U.S. currency (For all you Democrats that's the green stuff they give you at the liquor store when you cash your government check) and you will see "In God We Trust".

So much for separation of church and state I suppose....
 
2003-03-27 04:26:01 PM  
Joey JoJo: Don't think God supports an offensive war? How about that whoel Ark of the Covenant thing? Sure it was Old Testament, but it is the same God. He just needs to make up his name. Do we kill people and sacrifice animals to him or not? I want to know. How do we know he won't pop up with some Newer Testament that reasserts the Talmud?
 
2003-03-27 04:28:18 PM  
I Ate An X:

1. You can express your views all you want. But not through the government if it happens to be a religious view.

2. In God We Trust didn't start appearing on money until the cold war, when we were fighting the good fight against the commie heathens. Wanted to make that stolid conservative McCarthy happy and all.
 
2003-03-27 04:31:21 PM  
Kpar90-
Agreed, sometimes fighting is necessary. I'm kind of teetering between being okay with this invasion and being against it. I'm more on the pro side.

Freeing slaves was the result of the Civil War (probably the costliest war in the history of this nation) and the result of that was the reunion of the union. (I'm fairly sharp on this whole Civil War thing as I'm in the process of studying it right now). I'm not sure turning the other cheek has had any impact on the government. The establishment of the Constitution and the drafting of the Declaration of Indepence definitely had religious men behind it.

And while we may have different perspectives on Jesus Christ vs. Abraham Lincoln, I don't think there is any real question about which man has been more influential. No offense was intended by the "ignorant" statement, I just don't think it sits well from a historical perspective.
 
2003-03-27 04:32:15 PM  
This war has created a divide in me. As you will see. (It may be a little on the rambling side, and I make some broad generalizations but I spent way to much time writing this and am not going for style points ;)
There is no Black and White.
Anti-American? No. Anti-war? Generally, yes. They are not the same thing.
My head is still trying to get around the motive for this war.
I do not feel that the "official" motive of the week was sufficient justification to invade. At least not if the "regime change, threat to his neighbours" Brush is not being used to paint other nations. Africa and South America have nations that torture and kill their people, although none of them have pursued a nuclear arsenal. If the motive is "homeland security" than why have equally forceful steps not been taken against Korea's admitted attempts to build "Weapons of mass destruction?" While I have no window into the mind of Bush or Blair or their army of speechwriters, politicians and generals, I could assume that the simple answer is that they believe Iraq's defeat would be speedy and have minimal casualties. I am sure that Korea would not present such an easy and clean victory. Perhaps as Bush has said, Saddam has had twelve years to disarm and they have given Korea no window to lay down their arms. (Or at least their attempts to build them)
Hmm how about oil? "No Blood for Oil" I don't think that this argument holds water either. While the112 Billion Barrels of oil that are estimated to be in the ground under Iraq is nothing to sniff at, the Athabasca Oil Sands in Canada are believed to hold 1 trillion barrels of oil. That is greater than all the known reserves in Saudi Arabia. So why blow 100 billion on a war for oil when the stuff is practically free right next door.
I do not feel that the U.S. is justified in invading because Iraq is in violation of the U.N. resolution. There is irony in what the U.S. has done. "I am breaking the rules because you did" In very simple terms: What sort of example do we set for our children if we tell them that it is okay to smash Billy's toys because he broke yours. An Eye for an eye, eh, Georgee.
The U.S. is the wealthiest most powerful nation on Earth. Set the example not the rule.
Part of the U.Ns mandate is to ensure that member nations (and non-member nations) are responsible caretakers of their citizens. The U.S. has tried to justify the invasion by stating that Saddam has done serious harm in the past and may do so in the future. Sure we have examples of what leaders that abuse their citizens and have military might do. They abuse the citizens of others. Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, Slobodan Milosevic, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein.
Okay, so I think the Bush approach has been the wrong one (or at least unclear)....but we need to remove Saddam, if only to stop the torture and slaughter of his own people. Mind you, I think that this should have been done twelve years ago. Many lives and more importantly, of course, hundred of millions of dollars could have been saved (and made). I do not believe that regime change is the true motive for the invasion. As I have previously stated there are tyrants all over the world that should get the boot. (Some are local - tongue planted firmly in cheek)
You may ask: What right have we to tell another country how to conduct itself? Every right! If we are truly a global village holding hands and singing we must work to build a peaceful world. The irony is of course that sometimes peace requires cracking skulls (too simple?). The "fighting for peace is like farking for virginity" slogan is utter bullshiat. These simplistic views and chants take away from the credible voices for positive change in the world. I am sure that the majority of thinking people do not assume that the safety and prosperity of a nation and the global community (economy) is as simple as deciding whether or not to get your fark on. Is world peace not the message of those protesting the war? Well then should we not do what we can to remove those disrupting it even if sometimes that means that some people will die?
I am open to other alternatives. We have had a decade to present and implement a solution to the tyranny of Saddam and prevent this war. (Why not get to work on the other nations that are home to similar governments?) Maybe Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. Maybe he doesn't. What has he done? Slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people and his neighbours, He has fed families feet first through industrial shredders, forced families to watch the rape of their wives, mothers and daughters. He is not a nice man and neither are those that support and help him despite the smiles for Dan Rather.
A quarter million Iraqi's and Kurds die (sounds like genocide to me) and a million voices do nothing (I heard a couple squeaks). Fifty Britons, Americans, and a few hundred Iraqi people die and a million voices cry out. What gives? I will take the protesters seriously when they stop treating what they are doing like the "mode de jour."
I grant that our civilized governments have done little up to this point. Are we not a democracy (once again placing tongue in cheek)? If the people request no action then no action will be taken. A day of action is laughable. I am unlikely to be moved by a hoard of teenagers that took the day off school and painted their faces. I do not care how many of them there are. The cynic in me will still think that most of them simply thought, "Cool let's cut class." I know that a few return to classes the next day and continue their noble efforts, but most wait until "Earth Day" before breaking out the poster paint again. Sadly most chant without really understanding all the "whys" and this is the assumption those watching make and that is why they are not taken seriously.
Do we protest because we do not want our own to die, even if saving many other lives is one of the side effects. I can appreciate the isolationist view. (Ah, who am I kidding? No I can't.) The problem is that typically that is the only time an isolationist expresses their view. They are fine with selling their goods to feed their family and importing the goods that feed their family. Besides isolationism is not socially or globally responsible. If we are ever to achieve "World Peace" we cannot isolate ourselves from conflicts that may harm us. If you don't like they way something is done, say so. If there is a problem and the solution conflicts with your value system, then suggest an alternative. But don't scream no if you can't tell me why, can't suggest an alternative or at least say that you are trying to think of one.
It is indeed sad that civilians and soldiers will continue to die. It is truly sad that in the first war Saddam was not removed to stop the slaughter of the Kurds other Iraqi citizens in cities that rebelled which are now so reluctant to help for fear of getting burned again.
Once again the New World is waging war in the cradle of humanity. The very rivers of creation flow past the ancient city of Bagdad.
We have truly taken away right and wrong from the world. We protest, we support, we watch and we do nothing. Perhaps these millions of protesters should have raised their voices when Saddam was committing genocide. Perhaps they should continue to shout loudly when this war is over to prevent another. Perhaps they should grow, learn, and become the hands and minds that make change instead just the voices.
More to say...and a million reasons tearing me in one direction than another when I think about where I stand.
Back to my peaceful view of the highway and my WindowsXP desktop.
 
2003-03-27 04:33:24 PM  
-the time will come when he will have to answer to somebody.

it may as well be me.

-on a better note....go dennis kucinich.

you seem to be the only democrat with any balls.

with much respect, theodore william bauer.
 
2003-03-27 04:35:10 PM  
hahahahahahaha.

hahahahahahahahahahaha.

America is getting stupider by the minute.
 
2003-03-27 04:37:58 PM  
Kpar90-
I'm not sure what you're referring to with an offensive war and the Ark of the Covenant.

As for killing animals, the God of the Bible (old and new testaments) had a law of sacrifice. All of the animal's on the altar were symbolic of the final sacrifice, that of Jesus.
 
2003-03-27 04:39:18 PM  
I_ate_an_X
Maybe you should look into the history of "In God We Trust" that appears our money, and how it became the unofficial national motto. During the 50's when the Red Scare was gripping the national consiousness there was a big deal made about the Soviets and communists in general being athiests. So to counter this and to project a superficial image of being as counter to communism as they could possibly be it was proposed to change the national motto from "E Plurbus Unum" (latin: Out of Many One) to "In God We Trust". There have been failed and heavily criticized attempts in the recent past to switch it back and remove the religiously referencial motto. But all have been shot down by politicians from the bible belt who refuse to acknowledge the seperation of church in state in the Constitution.
 
2003-03-27 04:39:53 PM  
DaryoonTDP: The First Amendment does not protect against the establishment of "any religion" or "any single religion." It protects against the establishment of "religion," hence religion in general. The federal government is neither theistic nor atheistic nor even agnostic -- its job is to keep its mouth shut, and for this reason the resolution at hand has got to go. [SCARY] indeed.
 
2003-03-27 04:41:31 PM  
"03-27-03 04:24:12 PM I_ate_an_X

"Nothing like someone praying to get a bunch of hippies all riled up. God forbid anyone besides some left-wing, unwashed piece of shiat express themself....."

Name-calling - how mature, but then again, this is fark. I think this resolution sucks, and I AM NOT A HIPPIE

"Take a look at a piece of U.S. currency (For all you Democrats that's the green stuff they give you at the liquor store when you cash your government check) and you will see "In God We Trust"."

Talk about making major generalizations about people. I don't get a government check, nor am I cashing ANY check at a liquor store.

Get over yourself...

For me, this is all about respect. You don't shove other people's beliefs down their throats.
 
2003-03-27 04:41:50 PM  
Joey: I'm pretty up on the Civil War myself, its been a hobby for about 15 years. It was more costly in human life than all other wars combined that the US has taken part in. But its reward was that we have a country, so it has also been the most cost-effective. Without a unified US, who would have save dthe UK and France so many times (had to be said).

Alabasterblack: That divide in you is your ass. Keep them short and sweet, you ass.
 
2003-03-27 04:42:19 PM  
Did you get my post earlier Bauer?
 
2003-03-27 04:43:22 PM  
WAR IS HORRIBLE AND GOD SENT HIS SON TO BATTLE EVIL...FOR US...IF SADDAM THINKS HIS WAY IS JUST, WHY DOESN'T HE SEND HIS SONS INTO BATTLE?!?!

WE ARE DOING IT FOR MORAL REASONS N O T OIL REASONS!


WAR IS HORRIBLE, BUT EVIL IS WORSE!
 
2003-03-27 04:43:55 PM  
Joey JoJo Junior Shabadoo

Weren't the founding fathers deists? I know some were christians but compared to the Christians of that time they were polar opposites. They were pro reason etc America was the product of the enlightnment. The church was in charge for thousands of years and never discovered individual rights.
 
2003-03-27 04:45:09 PM  
Kpar90

I deserved that. :)
 
2003-03-27 04:45:51 PM  
Read the back of a farking one dollar bill, d00ds (or any U.S. legal tender, for that matter). The government already supports religion--it just isn't allowed to discriminate against a religion if it gives favor to another (ie. not give the first said religion the same favor).
You guys also have to remember that the U.S. has always used religious reasons for going to war--like someone said up there, look at Manifest Destiny in the 1800's. According to those principles in Manifest Destiny, the United States was backed by the Will of God to conquer the western hemisphere, basically (one of the reasons for going to war with Mexico).
So in reality, this war is just like past wars. Besides, why shouldn't we expect politicians in southern states with mass religious appeal to suck up to their voters?
 
2003-03-27 04:46:02 PM  
Alabasterblack

I haven't read your whole post, but you have made an excellent point. I have looked at the issues and this is not as simple as many farkers think. It will likely turn out bad, but on the otherhand, a new orde may arise, where tyrants don't have the same opportunity in the world. Who can say at this time? I'm sure many of the opponents to the "pre-emptive" nature of this war are also moral relativists and are being somewhat inconsistent and don't seem to care about the Iraqi people.
 
2003-03-27 04:46:39 PM  
Dennis Kucinich is a kook.
He filed a bill prohibiting "chemtrails" and
"space-based mind-control weapons".
[image from carolynsclinic.com too old to be available]
 
2003-03-27 04:47:30 PM  
After much thought, prayer and fasting, I have concluded that Bauer contributes the most consistently fatuous commentary on FARK. It must suck to be him.
 
2003-03-27 04:48:43 PM  
-you can repeat it if you like...this is fark.

just don't repeat it too many times and wind up 'banned' for "spamming, repeditive messages".

-i wouldn't want that to happen to anyone.

it was not fun.

-actually...fark has helped me to curb my passions. ;)
 
2003-03-27 04:50:21 PM  
isnt praying freedom of religion and speech?...
 
2003-03-27 04:51:18 PM  
WorldCitizen

Christmas was never a religios holiday. It was taken from the Pagan's celebration of the winter soulstice. The religous leaders of the time hated it. They thought Santa Claus was the opposite of Jesus. Christmas was born out of Captitalism. American's invented greeting cards wrapping paper all these things. At that time people had more wealth and happiness and wanted to share. Remember Santa Claus only gives gifts to the good not the bad. Christians had a big problem with this.
 
2003-03-27 04:51:22 PM  
Joey: You read all the bible you say? An army which carries the Ark before it is invincible.

At least tell me you've seen Raiders of the Lost Ark.
 
2003-03-27 04:52:27 PM  
I hope gargoylemann is just a-trolling along, or is really stupid w/ his ask no questions rant.

The fact remains is that church and state will never be fully separate, because most of our laws are founded on morality, and most of our morality is founded in judaeochristian precepts. We tend to tread the line of separation pretty well, considering, until something new pops up (women's suffrage, civil rights, gay rights) but hey, those things slowly seem to diffuse into majority culture (too slowly, but its progress). The problem comes when reso's like this get passed by politicians who are eager to garner public opinion. Its like high school all over again. The popular kid wins, so make sure you're on his side. This time, the popular kid is Good Ole J.C. Man, its good to see that so many politicians conveniently make friends w/ j.c. for public image
/pathetic
 
2003-03-27 04:54:47 PM  
"soulstice"

Would have been a good pun, except that it was only because you can't spell it right.
 
Displayed 50 of 987 comments


Oldest | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Newest



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report