Posted on 07/13/2002 8:23:34 AM PDT by Donna Lee Nardo
Hey Freepers! Below is from a circulating e-mail. It is terrific! Perhaps a Freeper wrote the editorial? I searched FR and I didn't find it posted -- so I am posting it. And even if it was posted previously, more people are bound to read it for the first time now, I hope.
From the circulating e-mail: "After hearing that the state of Florida changed its opinion and let a Muslim woman have her picture on her drivers license with her face covered, I believe this is even more appropriate. Read on, please!
This is an Editorial written by an American citizen, published in a Tampa newspaper. He did quite a job; didn't he?
IMMIGRANTS, NOT AMERICANS, MUST ADAPT. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Americans. However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the "politically correct" crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others.
I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to America. Our population is almost entirely composed of descendants of immigrants. However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand. This idea of America being a multi- cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Americans, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom. We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!
"In God We Trust" is our national motto. This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan We adopted this motto because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture. If Stars and Stripes offend you, or you don't like Uncle Sam, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from.
This is OUR COUNTRY, our land, and our lifestyle. Our First Amendment gives every citizen the right to express his opinion and we will allow you every opportunity to do so. But, once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about our flag, our pledge, our national motto, or our way of life, I highly encourage you to take advantage of one other great American freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.
Show me the money! Luis, I know the paragraph you mean, and I guess "hell" and "flying sh_t" are vulgarities to you, to one's ears perhaps, but not to "MY Christian religion." I was not using those words about Christianity. Viva la difference! Maybe you could explain the vulgarity. Also, I am still waiting for the post where I forbade you to post again and had the teeth to back it up on FR!
Post #63, addresses the context of the e-mail, it has nothing to do with the fact that it's been repeatedly posted, which was my ENTIRE comment to you. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
Now, you're running around trying to find some sort of justification for your having made a complete ass out of yourself with your hissy fit. It ain't there, and you assumption of my taking offense to this post based on my ethnicity, simply points to a not-so-pretty side of you, a side that judges people on something other than their merits.
My argument is consistent with the ideals of the Founders, you, and the rest here, have some misguided notion that to be an American, one must subscribe to the "group think". The Founders created a nation were individualism is guaranteed, and where a minimal set of rules wouldn't encumber the individualism they championed.
You, and the rest, seem to think that in order to be an American, one has to participate in this socialist idea that we all have to think the same way, behave the same way, and act in the same way.
That's not being American, that's being Borg.
By the way, you're still unable to make an argument without resorting to insults.
Telling.
JimRob, and the Moderators have repeatedly asked everyone to be careful with multiple postings of articles. Donna could care less, as evidenced by her words: "...so I am posting it. And even if it was posted previously...". A total lack of respect for the person who makes this site available to her.
Then she attacks me for pointing out that the e-mail has been posted repeatedly, suggests that I should not post if what I post is not to her liking, and all of it for mentioning that, as the owner of the site has asked us to do, the search engine needs to be used to avoid what happened.
She also has the temerity to tell me I am not polite for politedly pointing this out, and uses vulgar language, and personal attacks in her "polite" responses.
Some Church you must attend!
"The First Flying Sh_t Baptist Church"
NIIIIIICE!
A person with the capacity for rational thought and analysis would read this statement from Donna as "I searched to see if this had already been posted, but didn't find it. If you are one of those people who have nothing better to do with your time than run around behind somebody double checking, and then critiquing them because you were able to find a previous post, then keep it to yourself, because I'm not interested."
Obviously, her little disclaimer that she had, in fact, done a search but was unable to locate a previous post, went right over your head. It appears Donna shares my big pet peeve.
If someone makes an attempt to avoid duplicating posts, then the "That was already posted" and "You mispelled that word" crowd needs to get over it, grow up, and find some other way of making their miserable existence of a life seem somehow important.
It must be dem gobmint schoolz again!
I linked to four instances of four people posting the same article WITH THE IDENTICAL NAME, then I suggested that they needed to use the search engines.
I have been fighting with Donna Lee "it's all about me!" Nardo since.
Maybe, y'all should should show a little more concern with YOUR inability to comprehend the common language.
I never stated or implied that you were the owner of this forum. Trust me, you would have to come across as being much more intelligent before I could ever make the mistake of confusing you with the owner of this forum.
Luis, Luis, that's an outright lie. The post that I started this thread with did not have the same title at all as the prior threads beginning in January, as you know. That's why it didn't come up in the search. In fact, if I had been e-mailed the original article and then posted that, it still would not have come up in the search. There are 3 different versions of the editorial that I have seen now; only 1 is original and was posted by RonDog. That evidently is one with the correct title; whether the editorial ever appeared in a Tampa newspaper also has not yet been proven.
But more importantly, stop slinging the personal insults around like you did again in your post #111. I see you are continuing this behaviour that you seem to rail against at the same time (another similarity you have with the looney liberal left). Didn't you mention something about people sticking to rational argument on the issues and not resorting to personal insults? Please don't be like the looney liberal left which thrives on their duplicity.
Now, there you go proving my point...your inability to comprehend something so simple as my post, lies at the bottom of this never-ending argument.
Here's what I wrote: "I linked to four instances of four people posting the same article WITH THE IDENTICAL NAME, then I suggested that they needed to use the search engines."
Donna dear, not ONE of the post I linked you to are yours, are they?
"Didn't you mention something about people sticking to rational argument on the issues and not resorting to personal insults? "
Here, once again, is my original post to you. Try and find an adult to help you understand it.
To: Donna Lee NardoAlready posted here, here, here, and here.
I didn't look under alternate titles, I'm sure there are few more postings. I guess some people need to learn to use the search engines.
32 posted on 7/13/02 1:00 PM Eastern by Luis Gonzalez
Now, here's the gist of your response back to me.
To: Luis Gonzalez! I also always wondered if the people who chime in to say a post was posted are anal-retentive. Some people should learn how to communicate in the civilized world. This is not the wild, wild west where you come out of the gate with your guns cocked no-holds-barred. Do you know what the word "polite" means, Luis? Finally, I think I should point out to you that you have an unalieanable "right to leave" this thread! There -- tit for tat, you big bore. Go and make another thread stuffy.
40 posted on 7/13/02 1:38 PM Eastern by Donna Lee Nardo
Pot...kettle...black.
Funny but I can find no right for you not to be annoyed anyplace in the Constitution. The world is full of people who believe differently then you do. You do not have the right to make them be silent because their religious beliefs do not coincide with yours. You do not have to recite the pledge or sing the "Star-Spangled Banner". You do not have the right to keep others from doing so either no matter where they are.We're not talking about a right to not be annoyed. We're talking about mixing two things that don't need to be mixed, that indeed should not be mixed.
As for "no matter where they are", you'll find that that's not the case in practice. Try reciting the pledge or singing the anthem during a concert or movie (or in a classroom during class) and see how long it lasts.
-Eric
Even our founding fathers who were not religious recognized the necessity of the Judeao Christian ethic as the common moral code necessary to hold our society together. The American Republic will not work under religious multi-culturalism.In his autobiography, Thomas Jefferson disagreed:
Where the preamble [of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom] declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting the words "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
Washington was also on record as believing that men could be good men without being Christians or Jews, when hiring workmen for Mount Vernon in 1784 he stipulated:
If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists.
You need to study some real history. Look for texts that were published before 1960 and then study the actual transcripts of the speeches and correspondence of the founding fathers.If we're talking about the actual quotes of the Founding Fathers, why only pre-1960 texts? Are you saying that all written since then have falsified texts? Have they falsified the words of Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, and others. Because I can quote any one of them (and have in these pages) to demonstrate that they did not agree that Judeo-Christianity was part of our government. Indeed, Jefferson and Paine said some rather poisonous things about the faith and its influence on society.
Read the Supreme Court cases from before 1930.Before 1930? Okay.:snicker:
Christianity is not established by law, and the genius of our institutions requires that the Church and the State should be kept separate....The state confesses its incompetency to judge spiritual matters between men or between man and his maker ... spiritual matters are exclusively in the hands of teachers of religion.
-U. S. Supreme Court, Melvin v. Easley, 1860
The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect.
-U. S. Supreme Court, Watson v. Jones, 1872
... the First Amendment of the Constitution ... was intended to allow everyone under the jurisdiction of the United States to entertain such notions respecting his relations to his maker, and the duties they impose, as may be approved by his conscience, and to exhibit his sentiments in such form of worship as he may think proper, not injurious to the rights of others, and to prohibit legislation for the support of any religious tenets, or the modes of worship of any sect.
-U. S. Supreme Court, 1890, Darwin v. Beason
-Eric
Actualmente, yo hablo espanol, pero no muy bien...MUDHablo espanol, pero muy poco y muy mal (muchas mal palabras).
Pero en los Estados Unidos, hablamos Ingles.
-Eric
BUMP! Absolutely! Of course, the liberal minds will be first to deny this, but religion surrounds our nations constitution, whether the libs like it or not."Surrounds" it? Is that a way of getting around the fact that other than guarantees of liberty it's not mentioned in it?
-Eric
"The need for some to mix religion into American patriotism is sometimes annoying to those of us who are patriotic but are not religious."No, I'm saying that those who are trying to stir up patriotism should recall that religion is not an integral part of it.I'm not trying to start a flame-war here, but I am confused by your statement. Are you suggesting the author of the editorial should have denied himself his right to express himself, as he sees fit, to appease your opinion?
-Eric
The national government....will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective moralityWould you care to provide the source?I guess they never read this quote.
-Eric
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.