Lies they teach you in HIstory class

[Dorian Cornelius Jasper]

And the hoax saying the moon landing was a hoax is an even bigger hoax.

By the way, did you know Puritans attempted to ban Christmas? (The story's actually a bit more complicated than that, but taken at face value it's hilariously true.)

 

[Nuke_em_05]

*snip*

None of this is relevant to what I said, though. I was talking about (besides the parts where I was talking about the Goddess Columbia) how we are to interpret the 1st Amendment today, after Incorporation against the states through the 14th Amendment. In fact, this part if flat out wrong:

The distinction of the United States to previous governments was not that it was "religion-less" it was that it did not force a religion on its citizens. The president is not ordained by God. The governors are not also the bishops. The citizens are not required to believe anything.

That was the distinction of the *Federal* government of the United States to previous governments. That was not the case when it came to the states even after the 1st Amendment became law:

Until 1818, the Congregational Church stood as the established church of the state. All Connecticut residents were required to attend church and/or pay taxes to support the Congregational faith. Anyone belonging to another Christian sect such as Baptist, Episcopal, or Quaker, had to provide documentation signed by a church officer indicating attendance and financial support of their separate church in order to avoid paying taxes to the Congregationalists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Connecticut_Constitution#Connecticut.27s_Foundation_as_a_Religious_Colony

I'm having a difficult time determining what it is exactly that you're trying to argue.

Okay, First Amendment only applied to the Federal Government at first, specifically Congress. I think we covered that. I've explained a few times how it only says that the government can't force the citizens to believe in a specific religion, but nothing against the government having a preference towards one, or referencing one. The states, constitutionally, could enforce religion freely until it was incorporated in the past century. Once applied to the states, they were still held to the same first amendment that only forbids enforcing religion, not acknowledging it in government. So, anyway you slice it, incorporated, and especially unincorporated, there's nothing unconstitutional about having "In God we Trust" on coin, "Under God" in the pledge, or the ten commandments in courthouses. Because they don't require a belief, or control the beliefs of a religion.

 

[Kinguendo]

Snippity

Erm... I am pretty good I know... anyway, the guy is a comedian and has decided to create more awareness of Atheism. And you can kinds see him looking to his side every so often and doing some clicking... he is "possibly" looking at something relevant to what he is saying, "maybe" even back at research he did.

Being a comedian he has... that much more credibility?

I'm not saying that everything he said was out of his ass, he does make a few good points about common misconceptions (initial purpose of the colonies and such). However, he does slant and re-interpret a few things to make a biased point. i.e. Affiliation and intent of founding fathers.

As for looking at it, we can't know what he's referencing because he doesn't tell us. That's like a paper reading "We went to the moon in 1969 [I read it in a book]." He could be reading a legitimate source, wikipedia, his own notes on his own opinion, or porn. We just don't know.

Again, I'm not saying he's horribly wrong on all points. Just what he bases some assumptions on need to be clarified.

I never said he had more credibility, its not fair that you are allowed to make assumptions when I am not allowed to on what he is looking at.

Raise the questions on that video and he will answer you, he is very involved in his videos.

 

[Skuffyshootster]

American students are taught that the war of 1812 never happened. That is bullcrap, their whitehouse got burned down and they don't want to admit it.

What the hell makes you think that?

 

[ElephantGuts]

American students are taught that the war of 1812 never happened. That is bullcrap, their whitehouse got burned down and they don't want to admit it.

What the hell makes you think that?

That's a good question. In fact, how would someone even teach that something didn't happen? That would necessitate bringing up the event, which a quick search or even asking someone would then prove that it did happen.

 

[Skuffyshootster]

American students are taught that the war of 1812 never happened. That is bullcrap, their whitehouse got burned down and they don't want to admit it.

What the hell makes you think that?

That's a good question. In fact, how would someone even teach that something didn't happen? That would necessitate bringing up the event, which a quick search or even asking someone would then prove that it did happen.

I'm tired of all of the America bashing on this forum. LEAVE AMERICA ALONE!

 

[ElephantGuts]

American students are taught that the war of 1812 never happened. That is bullcrap, their whitehouse got burned down and they don't want to admit it.

What the hell makes you think that?

That's a good question. In fact, how would someone even teach that something didn't happen? That would necessitate bringing up the event, which a quick search or even asking someone would then prove that it did happen.

OK that was a spelling mistake on my part, but all of the American history text books I've ever seen have no mention of the 1812 war.

In my textbooks it atleast got a small mention, but it's true that it tends to be suspiciously overlooked. However I think it has more to do wiht the war being relatively unimportant. Besides the White House being burned down it didn't have much effect on the country, and it didn't have a large impact on the world stage either. Those that created the textbooks probably decided the space and time would be better used for more important national events. I mean, do English history books go over every single small war England has ever had (though granted there were many more such wars over a much longer time period)?

 

[ElephantGuts]

American students are taught that the war of 1812 never happened. That is bullcrap, their whitehouse got burned down and they don't want to admit it.

What the hell makes you think that?

That's a good question. In fact, how would someone even teach that something didn't happen? That would necessitate bringing up the event, which a quick search or even asking someone would then prove that it did happen.

OK that was a spelling mistake on my part, but all of the American history text books I've ever seen have no mention of the 1812 war.

In my textbooks it atleast got a small mention, but it's true that it tends to be suspiciously overlooked. However I think it has more to do wiht the war being relatively unimportant. Besides the White House being burned down it didn't have much effect on the country, and it didn't have a large impact on the world stage either. Those that created the textbooks probably decided the space and time would be better used for more important national events. I mean, do English history books go over every single small war England has ever had (though granted there were many more such wars over a much longer time period)?

I think it's an important part because the States actually lost the war and for some reason they don't want to admit that it ever happened same with the whole Vietnam thing. I once had a guy tell me Nam was a tie.

Yeah, unfortunately I would have to be way too ignorant to say that there isn't some covering up of our country's failures. But then again I think that's fairly natural, if not quite right. All countries must do that to an extent, or risk civil discontent. As long as they aren't lying to us outright I'm not any more dissapointed with the educational system than I already am.

 

[Darkwolf9]

Lie #7
The Pilgrims were fleeing a land of religious persecution (England) to establish a land of religious freedom and tolerance.

Yeah, hanging and crushing people to death for being 'witches' is really tolerant.

An ironic note on this is that of the original 13 colonies only 2 or so were souly for religious freedom the other colonies were more about monetary ventures.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

Snippity

Erm... I am pretty good I know... anyway, the guy is a comedian and has decided to create more awareness of Atheism. And you can kinds see him looking to his side every so often and doing some clicking... he is "possibly" looking at something relevant to what he is saying, "maybe" even back at research he did.

Being a comedian he has... that much more credibility?

I'm not saying that everything he said was out of his ass, he does make a few good points about common misconceptions (initial purpose of the colonies and such). However, he does slant and re-interpret a few things to make a biased point. i.e. Affiliation and intent of founding fathers.

As for looking at it, we can't know what he's referencing because he doesn't tell us. That's like a paper reading "We went to the moon in 1969 [I read it in a book]." He could be reading a legitimate source, wikipedia, his own notes on his own opinion, or porn. We just don't know.

Again, I'm not saying he's horribly wrong on all points. Just what he bases some assumptions on need to be clarified.

I never said he had more credibility, its not fair that you are allowed to make assumptions when I am not allowed to on what he is looking at.

Raise the questions on that video and he will answer you, he is very involved in his videos.

Now we're discussing the credability of a YouTube video poster?

My point was simple, yes, he had some facts, but again, just because four or five of around 100 "founding fathers" were held Deist or Universalist beliefs (in the context of the time, beliefs of current Deists and Universalists are not necessarily retroactive), doesn't mean that the nation wasn't founded on a Christian basis.

 

[lostclause]

I didn't mean to overlook any unpleasantness in Nazi germany, actually I tried to say that both committed very similar human rights violations at about the same time.
(It's been a nice debate, btw)

Yes and very useful too. Thanks.

Have you been to a history class? 41 was when the US joined the war, not when it started. It started in 39 when Britain declared war on Germany after they invaded Poland. Hitler gaining power was not the beginning of WW2, he was elected long before (33 as I've been informed)

If you talk to the chinese, WW2 started in 1937 with the sino-japanese war. 1939 was just the opening of the european front

I've already stated my opinions on this but I'll say it again. 37 is the date of the marco-polo bridge incident. Japan invaded manchuria in 31. Why not place the start then? Why not in 38 when the last peace treaty broke down? In short, I believe that it can be classified as a regional conflict until Japan was dragged into the whole war by her alliance with Germany (Rome-Berlin-Toyko axis). This prompted more actions in asia such as the invasion of French Vietnam. These actions were part of WW2, not anything before it.
This is only my opinion and is wide open to interpretation but to me it makes the most sense.

It seems unlikely. I'm a deeply authoritarian social contractualist who believes justice is punitive rather than preventative or rehabilitory.

Suffice to say, I don't see a lot of general support for my position. You mention you're a fascist and it's a very short countdown until Godwin's Law has ended the discussion.

Fair enough, like everything punitive justice has its benefits and drawbacks (I think France used it quite heavily until recently). As for Godwin's law, I wish people would realise Facism and Nazism are different.
This social contractism you mention sounds interesting though. I may be reading it wrong (had to look it up on wikipedia) but isn't it just a form of democracy? I can't see too much difference.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

*snip*

None of this is relevant to what I said, though. I was talking about (besides the parts where I was talking about the Goddess Columbia) how we are to interpret the 1st Amendment today, after Incorporation against the states through the 14th Amendment. In fact, this part if flat out wrong:

The distinction of the United States to previous governments was not that it was "religion-less" it was that it did not force a religion on its citizens. The president is not ordained by God. The governors are not also the bishops. The citizens are not required to believe anything.

That was the distinction of the *Federal* government of the United States to previous governments. That was not the case when it came to the states even after the 1st Amendment became law:

Until 1818, the Congregational Church stood as the established church of the state. All Connecticut residents were required to attend church and/or pay taxes to support the Congregational faith. Anyone belonging to another Christian sect such as Baptist, Episcopal, or Quaker, had to provide documentation signed by a church officer indicating attendance and financial support of their separate church in order to avoid paying taxes to the Congregationalists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Connecticut_Constitution#Connecticut.27s_Foundation_as_a_Religious_Colony

Okay, First Amendment only applied to the Federal Government at first...The states, constitutionally, could enforce religion freely until it was incorporated in the past century. Once applied to the states, they were still held to the same first amendment that only forbids enforcing religion, not acknowledging it in government.

That makes no sense: the relationship of a person to a government is different from the relationship of a state government to a federal government. According to that logic, Incorporating the 2nd Amendment would not only guarantee the right of the individual to own a gun, but also to organize an armed, well-regulated militia.

When incorporated, under the fourteenth amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". This means that State law cannot abridge Federal law. It doesn't mean that States can't make their own laws where the Federal Government has not (i.e. homosexual marriage). It means that federal law, like the constitution, can also be read changing "Congress" to "The State of..." for the state. i.e.:

"The State of South Dakota shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That is why Connecticut could require its citizens to only attend and pay taxes to the Congressional Church (unless they had proof that they were attending and supporting another church), before incorporation.

 

[Knonsense]

Anarchy is much more similar to communism than facism. Communism is the equality of wealth and status. Anarchy is the equality of status. Facism is neither at heart. The nazi were against communism. Hitler invaded the soviet union (although that has something to do with oil too but it was outlined in mein kampf) and before that hunted down communists. They were not socialists (and to everyone who says communism and socialism is different I know but since one is a version of the other I use them interchangeably).

If that is how you define Communism, then what word should we assign to the phenomenon that we saw in soviet countries? There was certainly a ruling class in these countries, and it seemed to be more exclusive and oppressive than the ruling classes of many other societies.

I can understand if you think that "Communism" should refer to Marx and Engels's theoretical utopia, but this has a very tenuous relationship with reality.