#30792
06/13/2001 1:35 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69 |
"FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."
Good ol' Ambrose Bierce. He was a clever man. And right more often than not.
Cheers,
Bryan
Cheers,
Bryan
You are only wretched and unworthy if you choose to be.
|
|
|
#30793
06/13/2001 1:51 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69 |
Consuelo wrote: Something that gets my gall is people that are paid large sums of money for speaking that don't take the time to learn the pronunciation of difficult or unknown words. GRRRR!
Right on! Even worse, is people paid lots of money to speak who can't pronounce normal words. Ever wonder why Tom Brokaw sounds like he does? An "L" is a sound made with the front of the tongue and the teeth. However, as done by Brokaw and Ira Glass (and some other people I've met) they use the back of their tongue and the glottis. As a result, it makes their "L" sound like a German "R" (and I'm being generous, here - personally, I think it sounds like they have a speech impediment). I refuse to listen to either Brokaw or Glass for that very reason.
Cheers,
Bryan
P.S. We're not merkins, Americans, or a-merry-kins. We're US citizens. :-)
Cheers,
Bryan
You are only wretched and unworthy if you choose to be.
|
|
|
#30794
06/13/2001 2:26 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
"P.S. We're not merkins, Americans, or a-merry-kins. We're US citizens. :-)"
Well said.
|
|
|
#30795
06/13/2001 5:19 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
pubic wigs can't pronounce anything
Dictionary? We don' need no steenkeen dictionary!
|
|
|
#30796
06/13/2001 8:43 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
#30797
06/13/2001 9:52 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 387
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 387 |
The US empire's Pacific colonies
Nice, Max. First other person I've heard of thinking of it like that.
|
|
|
#30798
06/14/2001 2:11 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
And where do the French fit in all of this? Thanks, doc_comfort, from saving me from having to post that very rude pun!  And, welcome, Bryan...thanks for the interesting thread! 
|
|
|
#30799
06/14/2001 2:36 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
If you have faith, you believe, and that settles it
I think one of the tenets of faith we too often overlook is captured with an eloquent brevity in the teachings of Christ from the Bible: "Faith without works is dead."
i.e.: If you don't work to make the money, you have no money to invest your faith (or confidence) in. I think this notion of a lazy faith ("Let go and let God") is one of the most damaging misinterpretations of Christianity (and other religions that use the same interpretation) unless it is honed with the careful qualifiers that Jesus so wisely pointed out.
|
|
|
#30801
06/14/2001 1:08 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69 |
That is, as may be. But a lot of people calling themselves Christians have told me that working on faith is the most important thing. Until you have the faith, the works are meaningless. These same people spend a lot of time reaffirming their faith, talking about being with other people to reinforce faith, etc. It is hard to say "Christians don't ..." or "Christians do..." when you have so many that do what "Christian's don't," and don't do what "Christians do." I don't think it is something you can generalize.
Personally, I can't imagine having to work on faith. My faith is solid: that there are objective facts, that the laws of the universe aren't going to change tomorrow, that people can improve themselves as individuals and as a species, that love and friendship is important, that I deserve respect, that others deserve respect until they prove otherwise - all seem self-evident and solid. I don't need to discuss these things endlessly to continue to believe them. I don't have long-term "crises of faith" in what I believe (sure, everyone has a day here and there when everything seems to be falling apart). I can't prove any of those things I believe, but I certainly don't have to work on them. <shrug> It seems a strange thing to me to claim to have faith in something, and then need to reinforce it all the time with others who believe the same. Faith is like breathing - you only notice it under unusual circumstances. It isn't like a vitamin that you have to supplement every day.
Cheers,
Bryan
Cheers,
Bryan
You are only wretched and unworthy if you choose to be.
|
|
|
#30802
06/14/2001 1:38 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69 |
Max wrote:
you will not object to my pointing out that most U.S. citizens are indeed Americans, as are Argentinians, Brazilians, and even your ruthlessly polite neighbours to the North.
Of course. My main objection to US citizens calling themselves "Americans" is that they tend to feel they somehow own the designation. The term American is so broad, as you point out, as to be meaningless. It means anyone in N, S, and Central America.
I am also not a fan of words that are so broad that they are very difficult to understand without extensive context - unless that context is already well understood. On an international forum such as this, it is unclear at best and arrogant at worst for a US citizen to insist on calling themselves Americans. On a streetcorner in Iowa, it is much more specific - they mean "born in USA."
Cheers,
Bryan
P.S. It is often fun to accuse the USA of being an "empire." I can't help but think this is tongue-in-cheek by critics. If the US had wanted an empire, we'd still own the Philippines and Cuba. We'd be "administering" places we occupied during WWII. Not to mention various and sundry banana republics. However, we looked at the British colonial model and decided we didn't want it. The US has been historically isolationist. Not even the harshest critics can deny that. So how do you square "isolationist" with "empire?" Answer, you can't.
Cheers,
Bryan
You are only wretched and unworthy if you choose to be.
|
|
|
#30803
06/14/2001 2:21 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
We'd be "administering" places we occupied during WWIISure, amongst intelligent members of the world community it is a tongue-in-cheek joke at Americans we know to have broad shoulders and much to be proud of. But the legacy of history can not be lightly airbrushed away. A great deal of America's founding wealth (like Britain's) was dependent upon the evils of the slave trade. The USA quite rightly avoided the model of social hegemony of the traditional 19th century empires - but it certainly chose to benefit from maintaining an economic choke lead around the throat of many territories in its power through the course of the first and second world wars. The current context of this same argument is over the degree of indebtedness of so-called Third World countries. We are currently achieving a more disastrous effect on the states of Africa by financially bleeding them dry than by the worst byproducts of the imperial era. But this is not much to do with words... so raise your glasses, all, to a fine and much abused word: justice![/rant]
|
|
|
#30804
06/14/2001 2:46 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
a tongue-in-cheek joke at Americans
Besides, we administer our empire, not through the heavy hand of the Raj, but through the ham hand of the CIA.
|
|
|
#30805
06/14/2001 4:24 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
Yes, that's a lot less scary nowadays! I guess my point is a slow way of explaining the popular tag of 'Coca-colonialism'.
|
|
|
#30806
06/14/2001 5:03 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 428
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 428 |
I probably should just keep my mouth shut, but I've always disagreed with people who have a problem with citizens of the United States of America calling themselves Americans. Often they argue that Canadians, Brazilians, and Nicaraguans are also Americans. I think that Canadians and Nicaraguans (and Americans) are North Americans, and Brazilians and Ecuadorians are South Americans. There is no continent named America. Just as I wouldn't call residents of either North and South Dakota, "Dakotans" -- I would call them "North Dakotans" or "South Dakotans." (Of course, I may be shouted down by any "Dakotans" or "Carolinians" out there...) There is no other single word to define citizens of the United States of America (quiet, you in the back), so what is wrong with using the "America" part of the country's name and calling us "Americans"?
I always feel so stupidly jingoistic when I have to explain this to people, but it's a linguistic argument for me, not a patriotic one. If the word "American" is really so vague as to be a problem for everyone else out there, I suppose I will have to relent, but the few times I have been abroad, when I have told people that I am an American I can't remember being met with a perplexed stare. Also, if it really offends other North Americans and South Americans, I guess I will purge it from my lexicon as well, but I just don't like the sound of "I'm a US citizen" -- too official.
Anyway, I have to go read a report that some citizens of the UK who were visiting the US left in our office when they were here.
|
|
|
#30807
06/15/2001 1:20 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
#30808
06/15/2001 2:33 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
words that are so broad that they are difficult to understand without extensive context That's why I have such a problem witht the label Hispanic...I think it's deplorable to lump such ethnically diverse peoples as Mexicans, Cubans, Continental Spaniards, Agrentinians, Puerto Ricans, Filipinos, etc., etc., all under one heading...it just doesn't make sense to me. However, in the same breath I am going to say that I think, despite all the literal and/or spiteful rhetoric, that the name American/Americans has come to be accepted as and equated with being a U.S. Citizen...it represents an ideal more than a region (an ideal we're still striving to acchieve). Besides, if we want to get really technical we can revert to the hackneyed, but true, argument that the only real Americans were the Iroquois, Delaware, Seminoles, Lakota, etc...and don't call them "Native" or "Indian", stick to the tribal names of their nations as they would prefer, and deserve, to have it. I am an American. Of Slovak/Russo/Hungarian/German descent...with a drop of French/Italian/and Irish sprinkled in...but I am an American, second and third generation. What else would you have me call myself...a Mutt?  And, besides (and I know I'm going to catch it for this, I've got my flak-jacket on folks!) during the days of the British Empire did Englishmen living in India, South Africa, Australia, etc. call themselves Indians, South Africans, Australians.....or Englishmen? I rest my case (and ducking very low!).
|
|
|
#30809
06/15/2001 2:45 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
My faith is solid: that there are objective facts
I think, perhaps we need to differentiate between a concrete, scientific faith that says if I'm holding a stone in my hand and let go, I have complete faith it will fall to the ground due to gravity; and an abstract faith that believes if you let go of the stone it will defy the laws of gravity and levitiate or float. The first is guaranteed; the second could happen. I believe that "faith can move mountains,"...but you better have a lot of dynamite and good pick-axes handy, and be ready and willing to use them.
|
|
|
#30810
06/15/2001 10:36 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 609
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 609 |
during the british Empire did Englishmen living in India, etc. call themselves Indians, South Africans, Australians.....or EnglishmenIt may be illogical and not strictly accurate, but I have no real problem with Americans=US'ns in common parlance. In that sense, Americans are also North Americans (but not necessarily vice versa), but not South Americans. Of course if one was discussing North and South and whole American continents, one would probably avoid the term. But Whitman, I am not sure how your question above relates to the argument about what US citizens are called. Most (male) people living for a while in a country still refer to themselves as "an X-man living in Y-land". And in those times, the longer stay colonists still thought of themselves as "X-men". Or were you alluding to the confusion between Britain and England? I'm confused myself as to what you meant so can't start throwing rocks (yet ) Rod
|
|
|
#30811
06/15/2001 1:57 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
i.e. Brits livng abroad in the days of the Birtish Empire -- in reply to rodwardYes, rod, I can see the confusion in my analogy...it was getting late and my logic was wearing thin. I guess I meant that, if we were sticking to strictly continental/regional strictures in describing citizenship, then by rights, during the days of Empire an Englishman (or maybe Brit is more accurate here; I guess English ladies take exception to that term these days, huh?) who was living elsewhere would have to describe themselves as an Indian, Australian, South African, etc. (or, at least, an Indian-Englishman...i.e. Rudyard Kipling)...And, of course, an Englishman would never consider doing that owning to national pride, etc. But these territories were considered part of a "Greater England" then, so perhaps the point is moot. On the other hand, because of the travel requirements in that era, most lived out the larger portion of their lives in the colony on another continent...so they weren't truly an "Englishman" either. Did I just create more confusion or more clarity? I'm not really sure? 
|
|
|
#30812
06/15/2001 2:39 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094 |
concrete, scientific faith
This is an oxymoron. Faith is defined as belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. In this case you don't have faith that rock will fall to the ground, you have knowledge based on logic and reasoning. Faith would be the belief that God is going to save your soul from the devil, not that a scientifically consistent occurrence will happen yet again.
|
|
|
#30813
06/15/2001 3:19 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,289
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,289 |
Right you are, JazzO. However, I'm afraid this is turning into a YART. I seem to recall the discussion some months ago, when I contributed the orthodox view of faith, "Faith is the substance of things hope for, the evidence of things not seen."
|
|
|
#30814
06/15/2001 3:21 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69 |
I think you misunderstood me. I don't have "faith" that a rock will fall out of my hand when I let go. I have confidence in that - since it has happened every time I've done that. My "faith," such as it is, is indeed in the abstract notion that the basic governing principles of the universe will not change arbitrarily in space-time. It is known in scientific philosophy as the Non-Locality Axiom (IIRC). When you quoted me as having faith there are objective facts, I should clarify that I do not have faith in a *given* objective fact, but that I have faith in the *existence* of objective facts. That is, I am not a solipsist.
The discussions I've had on this board have been mightily interesting - and *continue* to point up the confusion sown when people talk about "faith" when they mean "evidence" and vice versa. In your post, Mr. O'Neill, you bring up a different application of faith (still consistent with my differentiation, though). You talk about faith in the possibility that something magical will happen. Maybe not in any given instance, but that it can and will happen, someday - for some reason. Essentially, you're faith rests on a "Locality" (or perhaps "Arbitrary") Axiom - that there are regions of space/time that will alter the laws of physics and chemistry as we know them. Perhaps only briefly, but the faith in the existence of such places/times/circumstances is there. That is very much within my definition of faith. Note that the things I have faith in are equally abstract, but of a much different character.
I think that the usage of "faith" in the concrete sense only confuses matters. I know it does for me. I'd rather have faith in as few things as possible, and deduce the rest from observation and experiment. When people talk about "faith" in things that are basically observations and predictions made from analysis, it dilutes the terms "faith" and "confidence" equally. I believe (based on observations) ;-) that such a dichotomy is important, and that blurring the line is unproductive. I'm not naive enough to believe that faith is unnecessary. I realize that faith in some basic principles is necessary to go forward, otherwise you're just navel-contemplating. However, the fewer articles of faith, the less chance of running into contradictory conclusions in your analyses. Therefore, when one talks about faith - it is the most important thing you can discuss, and deserves the clearest possible definitions. The things you have faith in make a difference between being a functional person (e.g. a person who has faith that all people deserve not to suffer unnecessarily) and a dysfunctional person (e.g. someone who has faith that they are *always* right). This is one of the reasons why I take issue with "faith" that is really "confidence" and vice versa.
Cheers,
Bryan
Cheers,
Bryan
You are only wretched and unworthy if you choose to be.
|
|
|
#30815
06/15/2001 3:34 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69 |
Right on, Jazz & Bob.
I'm glad I'm not a lone wolf, howling at the indifferent moon. :-)
Cheers,
Bryan
Cheers,
Bryan
You are only wretched and unworthy if you choose to be.
|
|
|
#30816
06/15/2001 4:03 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 544
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 544 |
As to what citizens of the United States of America call ourselves - I wish it weren't so, but I feel that the term American has come to mean quite clearly someone from the USA. I have lived and travelled a lot in Latin America, and there's no question that many people from many countries in this hemisphere take some umbrage at the USA claiming the name for themselves, but it's typically quite clear what is meant. I think perhaps this hasn't been cleared up easily because there hasn't been an obvious alternative, and we've got "America" in the name of our land, and none of the other countries on the two continents in question do. There are words used to describe us in Latin America (I'll only mention the ones used politely ), but these aren't really perfect either. "Norteamericano" isn't precise enough, and if you assume it means a person from the USA, it slights Canada. "Estadounidense" (as in "United States," which is estados unidos) would fit, except Mexico's full, formal name is "Los Estados Unidos de Mexico," and we've slighted Mexico enough by now, I think. All of that said, I still tend to use one of the two options presented, so as not to offend, even though I don't feel that there would be any ambiguity in "americano."
|
|
|
#30817
06/15/2001 4:15 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 609
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 609 |
Brits living abroad in the days of the British Empire
Whitman - let me explain one thing quietly before the Welsh, Scots, Irish, and others start throwing stones. English is not synonymous with British. Britain comprises Wales, Scotland, and England. Add Northern Ireland in and you get the United Kingdom (of which we are citizens). The Welsh, Scots, and English are British (though some may rather not be) as the US citizens, Mexicans, and Canadians are North American.
I am still confused on your point about Brits/English (whatever) living abroad, but lets take it off line with a PM if you want to discuss futher.
Rod
|
|
|
#30818
06/15/2001 10:27 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094 |
Well, we've separated church and state now. Half of this thread is talking about faith and the other half America. Good job, folks! Now I'm gonna talk about us Merikuns. I think American is a legitimate title for citizens of the US if for no more reason than there's no other simple one-word denomination. (Outside of derogatory ones, of course. ) I've heard that the founders originally wanted to call the USA Columbia, but it was already taken by the South American country. I can't find out when Columbia was founded because a search for it on both Atomica and britannica.com came up with references to Columbia University, Washington DC, British Columbia and Columbia, SC. The initial result on Atomica defines Columbia as The United States! Neither source said anything about Columbia the drug-lord country of South America. Since both of these reputable sources disavow any knowledge of any other country named Columbia, I guess we could call ourselves Columbians, right?
|
|
|
#30819
06/16/2001 12:03 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
concrete, scientific faith...this is an oxymoronI agree, Jazzoctopus!...I put that image out there because I wasn't sure what Bryan was driving at, and I thought at times he was saying he could only have faith in things that were empirically evidenced...as it turned out that was just my confusion at interpreting his statements. As Bryan says, these faithful discussions can become pretty confusing! But Bryan cleared that up for me in his next response. You talk about faith in the possibility that something magical will happen. I concur with this part of your discussion, Bryan...so we've finally arrived at some common ground!
|
|
|
#30820
06/16/2001 12:26 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
English is not synonymous with British Yes, I know Rod...obviously, now, I've confused myself and everybody else with a weak analogy. I was just trying to find something to highlight the awkwardness, especially in this day and age, of drawing on continental or geographical references as the guideline for naming a country's citizens...as per the suggestions earlier in this thread that U.S. Citizens are arrogant to call themselves Americans because everyone who lives in North or South America is an American. By that token of thought, in the days of Empire, wouldn't it be arrogant for an Englishman or any British Subject born and bred in, say, Australia, NOT to call themselves an Australian? Finally, let me say that I believe the passions of nationalism, and super-nationalism, are traps of prejudice, greed, and hatred that have taken us down many hard paths...see WWI and WWII. Better we should look forward to the day when our boundaries are light and our humanity is strong. That's why I support the space program 100%...I think, ultimately, it alone affords us the chance to break free of these shackles of human nature and grant us the perspective that we are, indeed, one human race. We're all in this together, folks! Will we ever learn? We are all citizens of the world.
|
|
|
#30821
06/18/2001 9:04 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 609
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 609 |
Whitman states That's why I support the space program 100%...I it affords us the chance to break free of these shackles of human nature and grant us the perspective that we are, indeed, one human race.
Any endeavour which binds races and nations closer together is worthwhile and the space programme may do that. There is some useful technical and emotional fallout into general society, but I think we'd do better to focus closer to home.
Rod
|
|
|
#30822
06/18/2001 9:12 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 609
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 609 |
a person who has faith that all people deserve not to suffer unnecessarily
I was with you Bryan, until your use of "faith" in the above and your other example. Surely the person is expressing a (maybe deeply held) opinion (or belief), which to me has little to do with faith.
Rod
|
|
|
#30823
06/18/2001 10:53 AM
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 53
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 53 |
In Germany they call Americans Amis (pronounced ah-meez). Unfortunately it has a rather negative twist to it.
I refer to mayself as a Californian here so that there are no questions.
|
|
|
#30824
06/18/2001 12:18 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
technical and emotional fallout into general societyThose under the path of Mir might have debated its utility, Rod
|
|
|
#30825
06/18/2001 12:47 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
JazzO can't find out when Columbia was founded because a search for it on both Atomica and britannica.com came up with references to Columbia University
You might better search for Colombia (note the second o) being how as that's they way they spell it down there (not being blessed with the superior spelling abilikies of US'ns)
|
|
|
#30826
06/18/2001 1:22 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
Rod--I thought the UK started when James the first became monarch of both England and Scotland (the United Kingdoms) and that Wales and Cornwall had been part of the british crown long before that.. ( the title "prince of wales goes back at to henry viii-- so what 1530 or so?) and i think it was old then. The unification (politically) and the Union Jack-- which unites the flags of St. Andrew cross (scotland) and St Georges cross (England) came some time in 1700?-- It was after the Stuarts, right? when the georges came in? Since it was very easy for the scots when the head of the scotish state was also the head of the English state.. but when Bonny prince charlie's crown was userpted.. (one of the desisive battle's being Cloludden(sp?) Moore?) this is history i only know in song, not by reading.
We'll over the water,
We'll over the sea,
We'll over the water,
For Charlie!
Come weel, Come woe,
We'll battle and go
All for the love of Charlie!
the welsh flag keeps it griffin as a symbol.
(and there are little details--like the current queen being E II in England, and E the first in Scotland.)
|
|
|
#30827
06/18/2001 1:40 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69 |
Yeah, that was probably a bad example - I was just trying to use something that can be believed without proof (or in spite of proof). Some people do believe they're always right, even when the evidence shows them otherwise. Sometimes this isn't even considered a mental disease. :o
I disagree that matters of morality aren't a matter of faith. One can believe something deeply, even though the evidence shows otherwise - like humans are worthy of respect and dignity. There are many cultures (including the US??) that it is hard to maintain that perspective, given the day-to-day way people treat each other. I think this example is useful for demonstrating what faith is. I include myself as having faith that the human race is salvagable and worthwhile. I don't have any firm evidence of that yet, though. :)
Cheers,
Bryan
Cheers,
Bryan
You are only wretched and unworthy if you choose to be.
|
|
|
#30828
06/18/2001 1:45 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69 |
Whitman wrote:
That's why I support the space program 100%...I think, ultimately, it alone affords us the chance to break free of these shackles of human nature and grant us the perspective that we are, indeed, one human race. We're all in this together, folks! Will we ever learn? We are all citizens of the world.
Hey, we have another point of common ground!! :) :O :D I also 100% support the space program, for exactly the reasons you and Rod mention (despite maverick's jibe).
Cheers,
Bryan
Cheers,
Bryan
You are only wretched and unworthy if you choose to be.
|
|
|
#30829
06/18/2001 1:46 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
|
|
|
#30830
06/18/2001 2:11 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 609
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 609 |
I thought the UK started when James the first became monarch of both England and Scotland (the United Kingdoms) Helen, it is MUCH more complicated than that. This link explains more than I knew before I checked. http://www.flaginstitute.org/fiunionflag.htmBasically James VI (of Scotland) was invited to be King James 1 (of England). They were still separate countries under a single ruler. James called his realm the "Kingdom of Great Britain" and referred to South Britain and North Britain. He also introduced the Union Flag (it was called that at least by Charles I time) with the basic form as we know it. With the execution of Charles I, the partial union (of South and North Britain as well as Charles' head and body!) ceased, and a complete union was reformed by Queen Anne in 1707. I believe this was known as "The United Kingdom of Great Britain". When the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was formed in 1801, the red diagonal lines were added to the Union Flag to represent Ireland (the cross of St.Patrick is actually from the arms of the Fitzgerald family). Some people maintain that strictly speaking the "Union Jack" should only be called that when displayed on the jack staff on a boat, and it should be called the Union flag elsewhere. This is not true, it has been called either by the Admiralty, and Parliament officially adopted "the Union Jack" as the national flag in 1908. I think the battle was just called Culloden (no moor). Whenever I try to wade my way through the various layers of who was King or Queen to which bits of UK etc. when, I keep myself sane by reliving the Monty Python sketch from "The Search for the Holy Grail". ARTHUR: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, King of the Britons. Who's castle is that? WOMAN: King of the who? ARTHUR: The Britons. WOMAN: Who are the Britons? ARTHUR: Well, we all are. we're all Britons and I am your king. WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective. DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship. ..... A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes-- etc. Rod
|
|
|
#30831
06/18/2001 2:22 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
I strongly favor the Space Program because it is such a powerful incentive to solving many scientific problems.
Excelsior! The only big disappointment for me is that there seems to be no hope of space travel being able to overcome the problem of overpopulation here on Earth.
|
|
|
|
|
