Due to the prolific nature of these forums, poster aggression is advised.
The Bill of Non-Rights The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA. This guy should run for President one day... "We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights." ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything. ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be. ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy. ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes. ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care. ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair. ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure. ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights. ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from! (finally....) ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!
And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!
Second, don't these two sentences contradict one another?
QuoteAnd yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!First off, I don't consider the 1950's our "heritage". Second, don't these two sentences contradict one another?
This will never work. It advocates personal responsibility and that's just silly.
- Which "GOD"? Vishnu? Yahweh? Zeus? I was unaware of the legislation that established monotheism as a national mandate. I don't trust in ANY deity, much less one as nebulous as the one dictated by this manifesto, and I won't be told by my government that I have to in order to be considered a "good citizen".
But we're now reaching the point where atheism is the de facto state religion. And that's a mistake.
I think the point is that there's a difference between freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion.
We've gone from the attitude of "worship whomever you please however you please" to "but don't even think about demonstrating anything remotely related to faith in public."
"God" is sufficiently vague that it can be interpreted in any variety of ways.
Abolishing all aspects of any sort of faith is a HUGE mistake, IMHO. So much of our culture is, objectively speaking, rooted in Judeao-Christianity.
The whole reason the pilgrims moved here is that they wanted to avoid persecution from the official state religion.
With all due respect Sir, I find this claim to be confusing; please elaborate. I just know I'm going to regret asking that, though.
The following was written by State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA. "We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden, deluded, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights." ARTICLE I:You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything. ARTICLE II:You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone — not just you! You may leave the room, change the channel, or express a different opinion, but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be. ARTICLE III:You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy. ARTICLE IV:You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes. ARTICLE V:You do not have the right to free health care That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care. ARTICLE VI:You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair. ARTICLE VII:You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure. ARTICLE VIII:You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat. ARTICLE IX:You don't have the right to a job. Sure, all of us want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. ARTICLE X:You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness — which, by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights. If you agree, we strongly urge you to forward this to as many people as you can. No, you don't have to, and nothing tragic will befall you should you not forward it. We just think it is about time common sense is allowed to flourish — call it the age of reason revisited.
Origins: Mitchell Kaye, a Georgia state representative from Marietta, is not the originator of the piece. The famed "Bill of No Rights" was written in 1993 by Lewis Napper, a self-described amateur philosopher and from Mississippi who ran for a U.S. Senate seat in 2000 as a Libertarian. Kaye's name likely became associated with it through the innocent act of finding the article in his inbox and liking it enough to forward to friends. People tend to leave official-looking signatures intact when they forward e-mail, and his name's remaining with the piece beyond the initial round of forwardings could easily have created the impression that he was the article's creator. Kaye is quick to give credit where credit is due, and his office routinely informs those who ask about the "Bill of No Rights" of its true authorship. On 19 July 2000, advice columnist Ann Landers published a truncated version of the piece, attributing it to Kaye. (Left out were the points about free health care and sending troops to fight in foreign wars.) She praised his "tough 'do-it-yourself' position" and declared the language he used to convey his message "delicious." The "Bill" resonates with folks because it addresses a number of issues that have often led many of us to shake our heads in disbelief. This Bill of Rights parody strikes straight at the heart of the sense of entitlement so often displayed by those who feel the world owes them a living.
Quote from: BinoboyWith all due respect Sir, I find this claim to be confusing; please elaborate. I just know I'm going to regret asking that, though.Good Sir, statements like that make me want to invite you to a D&D session and have you play a Paladin.
Abolishing all aspects of any sort of faith is a HUGE mistake, IMHO.
So much of our culture is, objectively speaking, rooted in Judeao-Christianity. The whole reason the pilgrims moved here is that they wanted to avoid persecution from the official state religion.
This is really an argument between two kinds of prayer--vertical and horizontal. I don't have the slightest problem with vertical prayer. It is horizontal prayer that frightens me. Vertical prayer is private, directed upward toward heaven. It need not be spoken aloud, because God is a spirit and has no ears. Horizontal prayer must always be audible, because its purpose is not to be heard by God, but to be heard by fellow men standing within earshot. To choose an example from football, when my team needs a field goal to win and I think, "Please, dear God, let them make it!" --that is vertical prayer. When, before the game, a group of fans joins hands and "voluntarily" recites the Lord's Prayer--that is horizontal prayer. It serves one of two purposes: to encourage me to join them, or to make me feel excluded. Although some of the horizontal devout are sincere, others use this prayer as a device of recruitment or intimidation. If you are conspicuous in your refusal to go along, they may even turn and pray while holding you directly in their sights. This simple insight about two kinds of prayer, which is beyond theological question, should bring a dead halt to the obsession with prayer in public places. It doesn't, because the purpose of its supporters is political, not spiritual. Their faith is like Dial soap: Now that they use it, they wish everyone would. I grew up in an America where people of good breeding did not impose their religious convictions upon those they did not know very well. Now those manners have been discarded.
"Congress 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."
BUT, going out of your way TO put those things there interferes with the religious practices of those that may not believe that same exact way by essentially creating an "official endorsement" of that religion by government, engendering a preferred class of citizens among those that believe in that particular way, and a second class among those that may not.
Total Members: 4952