lizrising: Can you actually win a civil war? Not saying the "North" won or the "South" lost, but.... country men are killing country men, families split, infrastructure ruined.

I mean.. In ours, the Roundheads won. Yet, soon enough the Crown was restored under Charles II.

Artful Dodger: Those sound like interesting books.

I am from the north but came to Atlanta for college. I think it's really interesting how the approach to teach some things here is different than it was there. For example, when learning about the Civil War, we were always taught that "we" were the good guys and "we" won that war. I had never heard it called the War of Northern Agression until I moved here. According to a friend of mine I was discussing this with, instead of "we won," the attitude taught in the schools here is more like "oh, it's not over!" The way they learn it here is probably more accurate!

As a side thought, as V pointed out, which God are we talking about?

Is it the Christian God (Jesus)? Certainly not the Jewish God (YHVH). Even less the Moslem God (Allah). Hindus have a bunch of gods. I might be confused to think whether it is Shiva or Vishnu.

Buddhists and Atheists have no God, so they don't count.

The Pledge of Allegiance was originally written by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister in 1892. Louis A. Bowman, a chaplain for the Sons of the American Revolution, came up with the idea of "under God". He claimed to have taken it from the Gettysburg address. It was EisenHowar who officially added "under God" after church pastor George MacPherson Docherty convinced Eisenhowar that "under God" was missing in the pledge.

The trend seems clear. The pledge originated, evolved and was enacted as law at the bequest of Christian clergymen. The God in "under God" is the Christian God. In doing so the pledge establishes Christianity as religion. That is in opposition to the First Ammendment, but no lawmaker in the US is going to admit to that because they would be booted out of office by the 75% of Americans who are Christians.

Instead, compromises have been made. Children are not required to say the pledge, even if teachers yell at them that they are unpatriotic. People are required to stand, but they are not required to say anything, or to salute.

I am not a Christian or an American, but there is such a thing as respecting other people's beliefs. If I had to instruct my son, I would tell him to do what he believes is right, and if he disagrees with the pledge, to stand silently and respectfully. If a teacher gave him a hard time, I would go to the teacher and remind them that the law protects people's rights to not say the pledge.

"Prominent legal challenges in the 1950s were brought by the Jehovah's Witnesses, a group whose beliefs preclude swearing loyalty to any power other than God, ("Jehovah's Witnesses-Proclaimers of God's Kingdom"1993 pgs 196-197) and who objected to policies in public schools requiring students to swear an oath to the flag. They objected on the grounds that their rights to freedom of religion as guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment were being violated by such requirements."

It seems to me that they have a point. Is it right for a Christian to swear loyalty to a power other than God? After all, God is the one and only power in the universe. One thought from God, and the whole world would be reduced to dust.

This is one of the few things I agree with. Pledging allegiance to anything other than God seems rather a compromise of one's beliefs. Of course, the country could be renamed to the United States of Christianity. That would clear things up a bit and avoid unnecessary misunderstandings.

Artful Dodger: But implicit in such a term (in America) is loyalty to the USA. Just because the word "God" has been replaced by "Allah" (the one God) doesn't take out the loyalty implied by such a display. Would you get upset if the Jewish faith put up a sign saying "In YHVH we trust"?

Would YHVH offend? It shouldn't, yet some Christians in their "who's the better Christian" competition" would. Implicit though in the Jewish faith is more respect to the use of Ha-Shem.

Tuesday: 'He' being upset, as to say that 'He' would get upset over whether a name we humans made up is used or not used doesn't ring true. I would have thought Job and indeed Christ talking about turning the cheek or forgiving those who crucified his material incarnation (Jesus) would clarify that point.

"but taking him out of everything is going to leave us vulnerable."

How? We are not talking about statues of God's as per say..... the Greeks and Romans. Or (again as per say the Romans) "house Gods".

move on!!!

Tuesday: It's called ellipsis…

Tuesday: The English language is so meager in your world…

lizrising: Waheyyyyyyy....someone who knows :)....and

Justaminute: Religious fanatics don't take or accept responsibility....and

Pedro Martinez: ""but teachers who teach etc etc""

Artful Dodger: To a certain extent, I do agree that the use of a preposition at the end of a sentence might look inappropriate. In particular legalese tends to use, for example, “change in which we believe“ instead of “change we believe in”. But, teachers who teach that a conjunction at the beginning of a sentence looks stupid are just stupid themselves…

Pedro Martínez: But it isn't a myth. It's not an exact rule, but generally it is taught in English Language lessons that in some cases such uses of "but" and "and" just look stupid. That is.. it is taught in British English Language lessons!!

Artful Dodger: one of those "rules" that really isn't

Yup, exactly. The rule is a myth and doesn't make any sense.

Justaminute: That is sorta said by Jesus. God isn't your servant to be used willy nilly.

Tuesday: I don't think God is going to get upset over the mention or non mention of a man made phrase.

Tuesday: More seems to be going towards the stuff that makes Americans fatter. It looks like the Adipose level needs increasing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57g3dKzYMuU&

Bernice: I would have thought so, enough "Limey's" were encouraged to Australia under the £10 deal to make sure you'd have quite a take away business in "Foster's Land" based on "Fish n' Chips"..

I'm Just glad the "fry" has not taken over.

Tuesday: I can not see the logic in a statement that someone who does not believe in God is angry that someone they don't believe in won't sort their problems out. I would have thought it was a case of accepting responsibility for your actions because there was no higher power to rely on.

Tuesday: Well, not really. The words "under God" weren't added to the Pledge until 1954 during the communism scare. Some of our founding fathers warned of the danger of using religion to govern. Just because the majority of Americans believe in some sort of God doesn't mean that upholding the separation of church and state is changing what America originally stood for. Just the opposite, actually, no matter who tries to rewrite history and deny the Constitution. That said, editing the broadcast was silly.

P.S. I have a degree in English and I think starting sentences with conjunctions and ending sentences with prepositions are wonderful practices. :)

Tuesday: So I got an F from someone who thinks English sentences should never start with a conjunction. Funny.

Tuesday: Of course they aren't sorry. If they were, they wouldn't have edited the part out in the first place…

Tuesday: And your point is? The rule claiming that a sentence should not be started with a conjunction is a myth. As well as the God… But I should at least give you some credit for being successful in changing the topic in just one post.

Tuesday:

And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

Tuesday: But why not?

Tuesday: And isn't it stupid to expect them to apologize before getting a reaction?

just goes to show Limey's love chips

(V): whoopee doodle...oil is recycled here as well......nothing new.

One scheme in London involves the recycling of cooking oil from various restaurants and fast food places and conversion into bio diesel.

The Taxi drivers like it as it's cheaper then normal diesel.. the sewer cleaners like it.. less fat poured down the drains causing hard fat blockages that need manual cleaning. In the end if all used oil in London was recycled it'd be enough to run ALL the Taxi's in London.

If it was all collected.. the only consideration would be... is the oil all mixed up.. or the various flavours kept separate.

eg Chinese, Indian, Fish n' Chips.....

Artful Dodger:

Of course, oil companies make no money at all when we use a lot of energy from fossil fuels. Then car exhaust fumes are perfectly harmless. As are fumes coming out of factories.

The reality is that the problem is not the carbon footprint, or carbon emissions. The problem is that we consume without measure, and we waste without measure. Many people try to recycle, use less, drive less, etc. But it is not enough because profits that drive consumes capitalism drive mass production, and that drives pollution in the form of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, ozone-destroying substances, etc.

The carbon tax is a very inefficient way to regulate the problem. What it is saying is that the consumer should pay more for products according to how much carbon dioxide is produced by those products and their manufacturing process.

Instead they should give tax credits to companies that invest in the reduction of pollution. If the capital gains tax runs at a certain percentage, that percentage should be much lower for companies that can prove that they have reduced the pollution produced during manufaturing, use and disposal of a product. In that way more of the capital would remain in the hands of companied that pollute less as opposed to those that pollute more.

There should be no "carbon credit trading" of any kind, because that simply encourages companies that pollute a lot to buy credits from those that pollute less. Companies that pollute more can simply buy their way out of the problem, rather than have an incentive to improve the manufacturing and design of their products.

Well, capitalism is all about profit and the legislators that are trying to address the problems of pollution have only one objective in mind: to make sure that the capitalists keep getting rich, whether by reducing pollution, or keeping it as it is.

> And what's wrong with carbon anyway? Nothing.

Would you breathe the exhaust fumes from a car? Would you move your family next to a big factory with a huge smoke stack bathing your house in carbon dioxide? And when carbon is released into the atmosphere, where does it go? Our atmosphere is a relatively closed system and gases released there stay there for a long time. I think that presuming that the problem is global warming is not quite accurate. The problem is one of generalized pollution and the effects it has on human health and the plants and animals. It is foolish to think that carbon dioxide is "harmless". If it were, people would have no problem breathing the exahust fumes coming out of their cars.