Pledge of Allegiance Illegal? [Archive]

Backtothemac

Jun 27, 2002, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by sturm375
Reciting the pledge is legal, forcing it is not.

What is also illegal, is the 1954 Congressional Act to put "Under God" in the Pledge. That Congressional act defies the 1st Amendment.

It was a direct action by the Congress at that time to prove that we were not Godless Commies. They used Public Opinion to make that bill pass, not the law.

BTW:
Anybody remember a little catch phrase that the Republicans like use: "Rule of Law":D

Rule of Law. Yea, I remember it. It is what this whole point is about. The most liberal court in the country basically gave the finger to us all. They don't care about family values, and the things that are important to the majority of Americans.

The 54 Congressional Act doesn't violate the 1st ammendment. The 1st ammendment was created so that you could speak out against your governmnet and not be executed for it. It has been basardized into a soap box for the minority in the country. If we pray at a high school football game, aw, sorry, can't do that it violates an athiests 1st ammendment right. BS! He is violating my right of self choice. He is violating the right of the majority. It is crap, and political correctness run amuck.

To all the people out there that agree with the ruling. Watch the beginning of the NASCAR race this weekend. Not only do they say a prayer, but they invoke the name of God, and Jesus as his son. That, my friends will never change.

sturm375

Jun 27, 2002, 05:00 PM

So, because most people accept this, we all should? Doesn't that also mean that since most people accept that polititions lie, we should have just accepted that in the case of Pres. Clinton, and moved on?

Fact: The 1954 Congressional Act, was unconstitutional, in other words illegal, Accept that!

Sun Baked

Jun 27, 2002, 05:16 PM

Just replace word "God" with "Litigation" in the Pledge...

And do it to the currency also "In Lawyers we Trust"

Seems the lawyers have taken over anyway.

from http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/other/1110/6-27-2002/20020627053001_13.html

Under "Newdow's theory of our Constitution, accepted by my colleagues today, we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings," Fernandez wrote.

" 'God Bless America' and 'America the Beautiful' will be gone for sure, and while use of the first and second stanzas of 'The Star Spangled Banner' will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third," he added.

Fernandez said the same logic would apply to using "In God We Trust" on the nation's currency.

Bond, the Missouri senator, had similar complaints.

"Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. This is the worst kind of political correctness run amok," Bond said. "What's next? Will the courts now strip 'so help me God' from the pledge taken by new presidents?"

Congress approved the change to the pledge at the height of the Cold War after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, a Roman Catholic men's service organization. Americans deluged Congress with mail supporting the change, and religious leaders said the United States' pledge should be different from that of communist countries.

eyelikeart

Jun 27, 2002, 05:27 PM

this whole thing reminds me of the women's movement wanting to rephrase the word "woman" because it has "man" within it...:rolleyes:

krossfyter

Jun 27, 2002, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by eyelikeart
this whole thing reminds me of the women's movement wanting to rephrase the word "woman" because it has "man" within it...:rolleyes:

yep... just one of those things that you just have to let slide.... no use fighting about it.

its stupid.

Durandal7

Jun 27, 2002, 06:18 PM

I read that the 9th circuit court that made this decision is the most overturned court in the country. Wonder why? :rolleyes:

krossfyter

Jun 27, 2002, 06:22 PM

yeah becuase the rule from thier opinion rather then the law.

Royal Pineapple

Jun 27, 2002, 06:45 PM

i went to public grade school, where we were forsed to stand and recite the pledege of alegence, the term under god always bothered me, not so much that it seemed wrong for a patrotic thing, but just because i didnt feel that i neaded to bring up my personall religous affiliations in the classroom (i'm not atheist although i've been accused of it) presonally i feel that the phrase "under god" should be optional, i remember a Hindu kid who we had in the class who used to rephrase it "under gods".
personally i didnt ever say the pledege because i felt that forsed alegance was a thing that i didnt want to deal with. my taecher used to kick me out of class because i was deemed "UnAmericain" because i refused to pledege my self to the united states of americia in school, flame me all you want but i never liked the pledege of alegaince.

neut

Jun 27, 2002, 06:55 PM

my proposal:

"one nation, under steve"

and

"in steve we trust"

how ridiculous is that? or what about your name?

i don't think any god would want thier name on greed and on a tainted pledge.

when you believe in something because, "that's the way it's always been" or you, "just accept it and don't fight it" then we've already lost what being human is about (remember something called revolution?).

think different forever...something i feel has been lost among the common mac user.

teach thought — not acceptance

krossfyter

Jun 27, 2002, 07:00 PM

if i was a woman id be upset of all the injustices toward the woman but there are somethings that you just have to let go. if a man wants to open a door for you...sometimes its good just to let it happen rather than fighting it. just let him open the door for you...its not going to hurt anyone. some things are worth fighting for... and this one is not. it DIVIDES the country even more and thats the last thing we want for our country.... the terrorists would love it.

Macmaniac

Jun 28, 2002, 09:07 AM

I think this nation has gotten carried away with Politacal Correctness, I like the pledge it helps me remember how lucky I am to be an American.

PCUser

Jun 28, 2002, 09:30 AM

"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. " 1st Amendment (emphasis added)

If you read the sentence strictly, that means Congress can not take sides that there even is a God. Which means it is unconstitional to have it in the pledge.

Also, Backtothemac, your rights STOP when they meet others. Therefore, praying at a football game violates the athiest's right. His rights do not "violate" yours. He has the right to not pray, and you have the right to pray. When in conflict, you BOTH lose.

(edit: actually, substitute school for football game there... a football game is technically private, and therefore you can do whatever they want about prayer, but in a school it is different)

Taft

Jun 28, 2002, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by Backtothemac

Rule of Law. Yea, I remember it. It is what this whole point is about. The most liberal court in the country basically gave the finger to us all. They don't care about family values, and the things that are important to the majority of Americans.

The 54 Congressional Act doesn't violate the 1st ammendment. The 1st ammendment was created so that you could speak out against your governmnet and not be executed for it. It has been basardized into a soap box for the minority in the country. If we pray at a high school football game, aw, sorry, can't do that it violates an athiests 1st ammendment right. BS! He is violating my right of self choice. He is violating the right of the majority. It is crap, and political correctness run amuck.

To all the people out there that agree with the ruling. Watch the beginning of the NASCAR race this weekend. Not only do they say a prayer, but they invoke the name of God, and Jesus as his son. That, my friends will never change.

Gee, a conservative opinion expressed by B2TM! Hard to imagine. :D Of course, you know that I'm going to take the liberal opinion just to spite you, right??

First, NASCAR has every right to sing the praises of God. They are a private organization. Government and the public schools on the other hand...

The 1st ammendment was created to allow a person worship and believe anything they want to, not to allow a person to speak out against the government. Remember the whole state-sponsered religion thing over in merrry ole England?? Thats one of the principal reasons people came here in the first place.

Finally, the most liberal court in the country didn't give us the finger, they gave us a correct ruling by following the constitution. Sure the majority of us think there is a God and that worshiping God results in good family values. But the fact remains that some of us do not believe in God, or in a single God.

We are not a democracy by definition. We are a republic. In a democracy, majority rules--sometimes to the detriment of the minority. Our founding fathers made every attempt to setup a system of government where the rights of the minority COULD NOT BE TAKEN AWAY BY THE RULE OF THE MAJORITY. That is why the majority opinion on this topic should not matter. What matters is that the laws of our constitution are followed so that we may protect the rights of those who do not hold the popular belief.

I think that worshipping God is a good thing. I personally believe in a higher power. But I do not think that we need to include the majority's deity in a state sponsered pledge, or in a a state sponsered school, or in anything sponsered by the state.

We can all still worship whom ever we want. Lets just keep it out of the government. One of the great freedoms in this country is to worship whoever we like--or no one at all. Continuing to sponser a single religion's God starts us on a slippery slope towards the degredation of our right to choose who we worship.

Don't let the majority's opinion and vigor in supporting it overtake you. Think about what is in the constitution and why its there. Think about the rights of a few and how our majority is affecting them.

Taft

jelloshotsrule

Jun 28, 2002, 09:41 AM

Backtothemac

Jun 28, 2002, 10:17 AM

PC User and Taft. Two seperate responses here.

PCUser. The pledge doesn't establish a religion. The purpose of that part of the ammendment was due to the Church of England. Yea, there was a glorious history for you. Yea, my rights end where anothers begin, but you are wrong my friend. The freaks out there have made it so that you cannot say a non-denomiational prayer before a football game. They have changed the very foundation of our country. If I pray at school before lunch, how does that hurt the athiest. He has the right not to pray. But his personal crap of "it seperates me from everyone", or "they treat me different because I am an athiest", there fore they can't pray. CRAP! They are treated different because those people choose to treat them different. The same people that treat them different will do so once the day comes that they find out that they are an athiest. Seriously. Look at the laws first.

Anyway, it doesn't invoke a religion, or establish one, therefore it is not unconstitutional. Just because someone is offended, that doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Taft.
I agree with you except that the "one nation under God" doesn't establish a religion, and if someone is offended, then they can choose not to say it.

See, that is the thing. If my daughter prays before her meal at school she could be suspended. Yet, kids can dress like Marylin Manson, and wear next to nothing. The problem with the country is that so many people are focusing on stuff that doesn't matter.

Oh, and PCUser, no, we both don't loose. It should be that if they choose not to, then that is fine. Why then can they dictate to me how to live my life because someone may or may not be offended! Think about how stupid that is. That is why I live in the south. This crap would never fly here.

Oh, and Jello, I am going to kidnap you, hog tie you and make you watch a Nascar race in person. Of course, you will only be tied up during the race. Friday, and Saturday night we would all party till dawn. he.he. :D

Taft

Jun 28, 2002, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
PC User and Taft. Two seperate responses here.
...
Taft.
I agree with you except that the "one nation under God" doesn't establish a religion, and if someone is offended, then they can choose not to say it.

See, that is the thing. If my daughter prays before her meal at school she could be suspended. Yet, kids can dress like Marylin Manson, and wear next to nothing. The problem with the country is that so many people are focusing on stuff that doesn't matter.

...

I actually agree with you for the most part. What I have an objection to is state sponsered practice of religion. So while I don't want a school to organize prayer or sponser it, I have absolutely no objection to individuals practicing in school. In fact, I think they have the right to.

But with the pledge of allegence, we are looking at a state-sponsered pledge. Congress expressly added a phrase to it that, IMO, violates the first ammendment. Sure, people should be able to add whatever they want to it (in the interest of both free speech and freedom of religion), but the government should not be promoting this or adding it to their own language. THAT is what I've got a problem with.

And you're right, people are really making way to much of this. Its pretty minor and the fact that there is a controversy over this is nothing short of ridiculous. But since the "debate" has already broken out, I personally stand with the courts decision. I think it was the right decision by the constitution.

Take the word 'God' out of the state sponsered version of the pledge. Then allow anyone to add whatever they want to it. Thats my stance. It allows personal freedom without any chance of religious alienation.

Taft

topicolo

Jun 28, 2002, 10:39 AM

I definately don't think children should be forced to recite the pledge. I mean, what if someone's religion does not believe in one God? What if some child is hindu? It's not fair to them. Also, what about the children of foreign diplomats going to US schools? They're not US citizens and forcing them to pledge allegiance to the US is just wrong. I don't really care if the God word is removed, but I feel that the pledge should definately be optional.

Backtothemac

Jun 28, 2002, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Taft

I actually agree with you for the most part. What I have an objection to is state sponsered practice of religion. So while I don't want a school to organize prayer or sponser it, I have absolutely no objection to individuals practicing in school. In fact, I think they have the right to.

But with the pledge of allegence, we are looking at a state-sponsered pledge. Congress expressly added a phrase to it that, IMO, violates the first ammendment. Sure, people should be able to add whatever they want to it (in the interest of both free speech and freedom of religion), but the government should not be promoting this or adding it to their own language. THAT is what I've got a problem with.

And you're right, people are really making way to much of this. Its pretty minor and the fact that there is a controversy over this is nothing short of ridiculous. But since the "debate" has already broken out, I personally stand with the courts decision. I think it was the right decision by the constitution.

Take the word 'God' out of the state sponsered version of the pledge. Then allow anyone to add whatever they want to it. Thats my stance. It allows personal freedom without any chance of religious alienation.

Taft

Wow, you and I are agreeing on stuff. Man, someone call Guiness. Serioulsy though. Saying 'one nation under god' is not envoking or establishing a religion. All it is saying is that we are one nation in which the majority of people stand under a God. Be it Muslium, Christian, Jewish, it doesn't matter. What percentage of the people in the US are athiests? If it was 'one nation under the Church of American' then hell yea, you would be dead on right. The fact is that as long as it doesn't establish, or stop the establishment of a church then it is legal. The Constitution is pretty clear on this.

If someone is offended by the 'under God' statement then they have the right not to say it without punishment. While the majority has the right to represent themsevles in the way in which they choose.

Backtothemac

Jun 28, 2002, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by topicolo
I definately don't think children should be forced to recite the pledge. I mean, what if someone's religion does not believe in one God? What if some child is hindu? It's not fair to them. Also, what about the children of foreign diplomats going to US schools? They're not US citizens and forcing them to pledge allegiance to the US is just wrong. I don't really care if the God word is removed, but I feel that the pledge should definately be optional.

The pledge should be said at every school, every morning. So should the golden rule. People should let morals be taught so that people stop living like animals. The pledge, in my opinion, should be stated every morning, and if someone doesn't want to stand, then that is there right. But don't deny my child of their rights.

jelloshotsrule

Jun 28, 2002, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
The pledge should be said at every school, every morning. So should the golden rule. People should let morals be taught so that people stop living like animals. The pledge, in my opinion, should be stated every morning, and if someone doesn't want to stand, then that is there right. But don't deny my child of their rights.

the pledge does not equal morals in my book, just national stuff.

as for it being optional, it IS optional already tropicolo... the case was about whether it should be said at all, since the people who opt out may feel like outsiders..

Backtothemac

Jun 28, 2002, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule

the pledge does not equal morals in my book, just national stuff.

as for it being optional, it IS optional already tropicolo... the case was about whether it should be said at all, since the people who opt out may feel like outsiders..

Yea, the pledge is national you are right. The morals were in the other aspects that we were discussing here. You are also correct in that it is optional.

To all those who choose not to and feel like they are outsiders, I say, tough. Suck it up and realize that you are an outsider, a minority. DEAL!

jelloshotsrule

Jun 28, 2002, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Yea, the pledge is national you are right. The morals were in the other aspects that we were discussing here. You are also correct in that it is optional.

To all those who choose not to and feel like they are outsiders, I say, tough. Suck it up and realize that you are an outsider, a minority. DEAL!

i figured you weren't implying, just clearing it up...

i hear what you're saying, and you pointing out that they're the minority is valid... but i think that sort of tough guy "deal with it" attitude won't accomplish much. as i said in the animal thing..... i'm a vegetarian and feel like an outsider when i have to order something other than what's on the menu at a restaurant.... but hey, i chose my bed and i sleep in it (with tea's mom) and the atheists can do the same. it's how it is being the small % of people...

the only problem i see with that is that this is a child they are talkin about. and the other kids are bound to make fun of them and possibly scar them.... so for them, it's not as simple as "tough"... for their parents, sure, but not them. hmmmm

wwworry

Jun 28, 2002, 12:37 PM

What if we adults had to say the pledge every morning before work? Imagine how stupid we would all feel being forced to say a prayer to the flag. I'm sure at this point the pledge would become very optional. We Americans don't like being forced into expressions of patriotism. It's just not American.

So why is it OK for our children? If my work made pledge allegiance to a symbol under a god, well ... I wouldn't do it.

Morality is not dependant on the existence of god or one's level of patriotism.

Backtothemac

Jun 28, 2002, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule

i figured you weren't implying, just clearing it up...

i hear what you're saying, and you pointing out that they're the minority is valid... but i think that sort of tough guy "deal with it" attitude won't accomplish much. as i said in the animal thing..... i'm a vegetarian and feel like an outsider when i have to order something other than what's on the menu at a restaurant.... but hey, i chose my bed and i sleep in it (with tea's mom) and the atheists can do the same. it's how it is being the small % of people...

the only problem i see with that is that this is a child they are talkin about. and the other kids are bound to make fun of them and possibly scar them.... so for them, it's not as simple as "tough"... for their parents, sure, but not them. hmmmm

Hey, you know that is just me being an A$$hole. he.he.

As for the kids. Look, I was picked on, beat up, pushed around because I was a small child. mental scars. HA! I turned out ok. that is like, the soccer moms that don't want score kept in the games because they don't want loosing to scar their children. **** people! Life is about learning how to loose. UGH, I swear I would love to smack the stupid ones right in the mouth

jelloshotsrule

Jun 28, 2002, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by wwworry
What if we adults had to say the pledge every morning before work? Imagine how stupid we would all feel being forced to say a prayer to the flag. I'm sure at this point the pledge would become very optional. We Americans don't like being forced into expressions of patriotism. It's just not American.

So why is it OK for our children? If my work made pledge allegiance to a symbol under a god, well ... I wouldn't do it.

Morality is not dependant on the existence of god or one's level of patriotism.

guess what, the kids don't HAVE to say it.....

it's optional. it's been declared unconstitutional to make it mandatory (several years ago).

backdawg... i hear ya. kids are spoiled and all need to get some ribbing when they're young to get over it....

but this is getting made fun of essentially for their parents, which kinda sucks.

anyhoo.. beer's cool

Backtothemac

Jun 28, 2002, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by wwworry
What if we adults had to say the pledge every morning before work? Imagine how stupid we would all feel being forced to say a prayer to the flag. I'm sure at this point the pledge would become very optional. We Americans don't like being forced into expressions of patriotism. It's just not American.

So why is it OK for our children? If my work made pledge allegiance to a symbol under a god, well ... I wouldn't do it.

Morality is not dependant on the existence of god or one's level of patriotism.

Well, how should I do this. If my office asked us to say the pledge before work, you damn right I would. Why for children, because it teaches them loyalty to their country. Something they should know. Something they have to learn. We said it every morning in my education. All the way through high school. It is not a symbol under God! All it does is show that we were founded on the principles of God. Freedom, Liberty. Those are what it means.

So, that being said.

"I pledge alliegence to the flag, of the United States of America. And to the republic for which it stands, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, indivisible, with Liberty, and Justice for all"

wwworry

Jun 28, 2002, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac

To all those who choose not to and feel like they are outsiders, I say, tough. Suck it up and realize that you are an outsider, a minority. DEAL!

So why is it so hard for you to "DEAL" with a ruling that you disagree with? Why can't you just "suck it up" and realize that just because you are in the majority you can't make everyone recite whatever you want them to. I thought the truest measure of morality is the way you treat those that have less than you and not taking advantage of a situation just because you can.

Sun Baked

Jun 28, 2002, 01:02 PM

Sort of sucks that the nation quickly forgets the threat of the cold war days. When they would teach students what to do (duck-and-cover) if they see a bright flash (nuclear), and the Pledge of Allegiance and signing up for the draft were parts of fostering national unity and preparing for national defense.

Now nobody really cares and the flag can be disgraced in an "art exhibit" and the Pledge of Allegiance is now a devious means of fostering religion sponsored by the government.

Remember if this were some countries our students would Pledge Allegiance daily to their national leader, and the families of dissatisfied students could risk punishment if the student complains about it.

Maybe these people should look why the Pledge was changed and also look at the world political climate of the time.

Nah, too hard...

Backtothemac

Jun 28, 2002, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by wwworry

So why is it so hard for you to "DEAL" with a ruling that you disagree with? Why can't you just "suck it up" and realize that just because you are in the majority you can't make everyone recite whatever you want them to. I thought the truest measure of morality is the way you treat those that have less than you and not taking advantage of a situation just because you can.

OMG. Ok. Feel this. This is the pulse. Here is your finger away from the pulse shoved directly up your a$$.

NO ONE IS BEING FORCED TO SAY IT! If you don't say it are you going to jail? No! Do kids get suspended? NO! What I am saying is that the minority should not have the right to tell the majority what they CHOOSE to say! Think about it, it is optional! It doesn't envoke a national religion. That is what would be unconstitutional. If it said 'under the Catholic Church' that would be bad. The notion of a supreme being doesn't form a national church!

Would you care for a chocolate covered pretzel?

wwworry

Jun 28, 2002, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by Sun Baked

Maybe these people should look why the Pledge was changed and also look at the world political climate of the time.

Nah, too hard...

So are you saying McCarthyism was good?

I think it's funny how some people's view of American history starts at the end of WW II. In the 20's and 30's America (along with the rest of the industrialized countries) was on the verge of becoming a TRUELY socialized country. The only thing that stopped it was the New Deal. In other countries like Italy they used "fear of the outsider" nationalism and Germany as well, for that matter.

In the 50's the tax burden was less on the middle and lower classes and that was good. Institutionalized segregation and McCarthyism was not good. The temporary relative economic strength of the US (because Europe was recovering from the war) was good for us as well. I guess the "good-ol'-days" depends on who you are.

wwworry

Jun 28, 2002, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac

OMG. Ok. Feel this. This is the pulse. Here is your finger away from the pulse shoved directly up your a$$.

NO ONE IS BEING FORCED TO SAY IT! If you don't say it are you going to jail? No! Do kids get suspended? NO! What I am saying is that the minority should not have the right to tell the majority what they CHOOSE to say! Think about it, it is optional! It doesn't envoke a national religion. That is what would be unconstitutional. If it said 'under the Catholic Church' that would be bad. The notion of a supreme being doesn't form a national church!

Would you care for a chocolate covered pretzel?

"NO ONE IS BEING FORCED TO SAY IT!"
True, but there are plenty of people like you threatening whatever that makes me not trust things like the pledge. The difference between adults and children is the way they resolve differences of opinion. A child will use violence. That much is a given. Any difference is singled out and attacked.

An immature adult will threaten violence.

Think about what you just said. First you invoked God -> "OMG" = "oh my god" and then you wrote "Here is your finger away from the pulse shoved directly up your a$$."

Now why would I want to pledge to your god of finger **********?

Choppaface

Jun 28, 2002, 01:37 PM

irrelevant

it really doesn't matter if its legal or not, but that people are still nitpicking over it.

PCUser

Jun 28, 2002, 01:38 PM

Stating that there IS a God for the country to be united under is a statement "respecting an establishment of religion", which is specifically forbidden to the Congress. That statement is implied in the addition to the pledge.

I think we're on different tracks here. It's okay for individuals to pray whenever they want, where ever they want. But if a school wants everyone to say a prayer (or everyone to not say a prayer), then it's wrong.

IMO, your morals and your ethics are your business, and your business to teach your child, not the school's business.

How does the pledge teach loyalty? I hated it as a child. It didn't make me loyal, just angry that I had to recite something every day. You can't teach loyalty. Loyalty is earned. IMO, it's just like respect... you don't deserve respect or loyalty just for existing, you have to earn it. (Fight in a war, etc.)

rainman::|:|

Jun 28, 2002, 01:41 PM

I completely agree with the ruling; forcing kids to protest the pledge by sitting down and not saying it is wrong. Who wants to be an outsider at that age? i know when I was that young, i would have said the pledge so as not to cause trouble. even tho i do not believe in it. that's not fair. lets face it, the real issue here is the fact that they inserted the words "under god" so many years ago, and i think when they did this unconstitutional act, they forfeited any rights to it being said in school.

and btw, i'm NOT a minority, or an outsider. i chose to believe something other than the 'norm'. my ancestors came here from Scotland two hundred years ago, immigrants JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE'S ('cept the NAs, forgive me) so I have the right to believe or not believe whatever i want. and I certainly wouldn't want my kids having to decide between Protest and Pledge.

:)
pnw

krossfyter

Jun 28, 2002, 01:53 PM

civil religion is not true religion. its often times contrary.

this whole issue is basically the tyrany of the minority.

coolocity

Jun 28, 2002, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by krossfyter
civil religion is not true religion. its often times contrary.

this whole issue is basically the tyrany of the minority.

What happened to your 'tar? Seperation of church and macrumors? :D

krossfyter

Jun 28, 2002, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by coolocity

What happened to your 'tar? Seperation of church and macrumors? :D

heh thats funny! nah man.... its an umarked tar!

the very first umarked tar on macrumors.

i claim it! right here right now!

coolocity

Jun 28, 2002, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by krossfyter

heh thats funny! nah man.... its an umarked tar!

hehe... i DIG it! :D

Sun Baked

Jun 28, 2002, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by wwworry
I guess the "good-ol'-days" depends on who you are.

Ahhh... the good ol days of the Clinton Presidency, when accounting/stock fraud was just another way to boost your stock price, lavish CEO salaries were the norm for sub-par leadership, and the stock market could go nowhere but up. And lest we not forget the loose morals of our leader.

Bring back Chainsaw Al, he really knew how to save a company and boost the bottom line. ;)

krossfyter

Jun 28, 2002, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by coolocity

hehe... i DIG it! :D

cool man. dig it homeskillet!

Backtothemac

Jun 28, 2002, 02:08 PM

Sheesh. The finger comment was from Jay and Silent Bob strikes back, and I though it would add some humor. You are ranting about this on an emotional level. The pledge doesn't equate to any God, just God. Don't like it. Sorry. It is there and isn't going anywhere. It was a pathetic rulling, and stupid.

PcUser. Dude, for real. In God we Trust, or Under God, doesn't establish a religion. How many churches have been founded on the pledge? Get over it. It isn't unconstitutuional. Krossfyter hit the nail on the head. It is about the tyranny of the minority. That is the problem. The right of the minority to exist without recourse is the fundamental right of the minority. That doesn't mean that everything that may potentially make someone uncomfortable is therefore unconstitutional. yet, the minority is doing just that with prayer, and anything that could be offensive. It is out of control, and stupid!

Paul, you know I love ya brother, but I cannot agree with you here. If you don't want to say it, don't, that is your right. So what if you get picked on or harrassed for it as a child. Schools take care of stuff like that if you let them know. God knows that I was harrassed as a child because I was small, and did not like to fight. It is part of life. Learning to deal with pain.

Oh, wwworry, don' t know your age, or background, but you don't know Pi$$ about history. The 20's and 30's! The new deal is what made America nearly a socialist nation. Get your facts right.

Backtothemac

Jun 28, 2002, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Sun Baked

Ahhh... the good ol days of the Clinton Presidency, when accounting/stock fraud was just another way to boost your stock price, lavish CEO salaries were the norm for sub-par leadership, and the stock market could go nowhere but up. And lest we not forget the loose morals of our leader.

Bring back Chainsaw Al ;)

Man, you have a great sense of humor. It is nice to know that I am not alone in here. :cool:

krossfyter

Jun 28, 2002, 02:10 PM

its getting heavy now.

chibianh

Jun 28, 2002, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
The pledge doesn't equate to any God, just God.

IMO, it should have been spelt (sp?) with a small g... god.

DarkNovaMatter

Jun 28, 2002, 03:08 PM

I think there is some holes in this case, but he only targeted the wrong one- he needs to target the addition to the pledge. The part in question should be removed, and the pledge should still remain voluntary. The only problem with the god statement is that it still does target a specific sect of religions, How? not all religions are monotheistic (don't know about the spelling). One thing people need to remember is that the majority doesn't rule. If you changed the quote from god to allah (the islamic version of the word "god") you would have a lot of people ticked at you even though it would be the same as theirs. I just wish we had more people to enforce the voluntary pledge (there are many teachers that will make you say it because they think you are being discourtious to them, and then all the other kids).

coolocity

Jun 28, 2002, 03:11 PM

Hmm, an idea. If people wish to say the pledge while their at school, all the power to them. Since apparently it means so much to so many people, then why not just have a school function before classes begin where they can recite the pledge, sing a song, pray, and get all that stuff out of their system. Schools are a place of learning, not gospal. I'm just as American as the next guy, but I don't think people should be forced to listen to the pledge - this is the land of freedom.

- John

krossfyter

Jun 28, 2002, 03:20 PM

its not church though...its civil religion.

thats different.

Backtothemac

Jun 28, 2002, 03:26 PM

Part of the limit of freedom is order. The court proved that this week when they passed the drug testing ruling. Now, The pledge is voluntary in the sence that if you don't want to say it you don't have to. As far as letting people pray before school and that. Nice idea, but already killed by the ultra left that claim that it can't be done in buildings funded by the state. Stupid, absolutely stupid.

God is spelled with a capital G. That is the correct spelling, look at the dictionary. And furthermore, the country is founded on Majority Rule, but with minority right. That is the foundation of the constitution. Lately, over the last 10 years, it has been Minority tyranny. Period. That is a fact.

According to Fox news 89% of all people questioned disagree with the decision. That is hard numbers. So you going to tell the 89% of the country to get
********? Why not tell the minority hey you don't have to say it if you don't want to, but we, the people, have spoken, and we are going to keep it there. Remember "we the people". Sen. Lieberman is proposing that it be made a constitutional ammendment. He is a democrat. Hell, even Gephart said it was a stupid ruling. Only the ultra-left, and athiests would have a real problem with the pledge, and frankly sorry for the attitude, but, get over it.

agent_j

Jun 28, 2002, 03:51 PM

Fox news. yeah, they're the posterchild for unbiased news reporting. give me a ****ing break.

Backtothemac

Jun 28, 2002, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by agent_j
Fox news. yeah, they're the posterchild for unbiased news reporting. give me a ****ing break.

Ok newbie, would you prefer Gallop? Cnn/USA Today? Which agency would you prefer? They are all saying the same thing. The senate 99-0 condeming the decision. When the hell was the last time they voted 99-0 on anything other than a payraise for themselves. Actually, Fox news is the most centrist of them all. CNN is a friggin joke, and don't even get me started on Rather, and Jennings. Sheesh. You would not be a democrat by chance would ya?

krossfyter

Jun 28, 2002, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by agent_j
Fox news. yeah, they're the posterchild for unbiased news reporting. give me a ****ing break.

who is un biased? really? it seems to me though that fox news is the closest to unbaised presenting both sides...even if they may slant a little to the right. but its really all up to ones perspective.

and please dont say cnn. ted turner is a whore.

krossfyter

Jun 28, 2002, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac

Ok newbie, would you prefer Gallop? Cnn/USA Today? Which agency would you prefer? They are all saying the same thing. The senate 99-0 condeming the decision. When the hell was the last time they voted 99-0 on anything other than a payraise for themselves. Actually, Fox news is the most centrist of them all. CNN is a friggin joke, and don't even get me started on Rather, and Jennings. Sheesh. You would not be a democrat by chance would ya?

prech it brotha!:D

mr.w

Jun 28, 2002, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by eyelikeart
I think this is what's wrong with our country. We have way too many laws "protecting" the livelihood of us and way too many liberties. It's no wonder why there is so much segregation between social groups.

I don't think this is completely the case... i think that intolerance leads to segregation. People should always look at both sides to a story and not be so closed minded, it is only then that peace and happiness are attainable. Who cares about the pledge of allegiance anyway... essentially it has lost all of it's impact anyway. Think about it, do you really think that school children (or the majority of Americans in general) actually take pride in the pledge... probably not. My generation really doen't know the purpose of it, we are just expected to recite it from time to time, we are somewhat disillusioned i guess. And what do we actually gain by reciting the pledge of alleggiance... not to much (because what does it stand for anyway) there is so much hypocricy and so many doubble standards with-in our country that many americans have lost faith in the system and the pledge of allegiance means nothing to them, because it is only sometimes that our country delivers on the promises that are given to us.

(a little overborad but i'll continue)

Originally posted by backtothemac
The pledge should be said at every school, every morning. So should the golden rule. People should let morals be taught so that people stop living like animals. The pledge, in my opinion, should be stated every morning, and if someone doesn't want to stand, then that is there right. But don't deny my child of their rights.

--- so you honestly think that reciting the pledge every morning will solve our problems??? I guess your an optomist. As i said earlier most of the nation really doens't give a ******* about the pledge because we don't know what the purpose of it is. It hasn't made any impact on my life what so ever. (it surely hasn't made me more proud to be an American) because it is not word's that really matter to me, it is actions that are more important. "liberty and justice for all," ya right... maybe if your a middle class white american. It is $$$ that truely matters in our capatilist country. $ buys you a better education, better living situation, better image (to a lot of people that's all that really matters) and in some cases, $ can buy your way out of murder...

i guess what I'm saying, in short, is that the pledge really doesn't really have any meaning anymore. There are more important things to fix at this point in time. I think that it's important to question everything, especially anythinig that comes from an authority figure (most of the time they have their own agenda) think that everything that authority tells you is a lie and make them prove to you that they are right. Education is the key to success. If we teach our children to be more tough-minded, independant thinkers, they will, in time, come to the conclusion that all that truely matters in life is that being nice to people leads to your own happiness aswell, you can't go wrong if your nice to someone. ( i guess i'm being the optomist now)

Gelfin

Jun 28, 2002, 04:19 PM

To the claim that "under God" does not serve to establish religion, you're right. What it does is even worse. It assumes that the religion is already established.

If it serves no significant function, then why do the right wingers get so uptight about it? Why not just remove the phrase, if it serves no function?

Those who claim that the country was built on a religious foundation clearly know very, very little about the founding fathers of the U.S. and their attitudes towards matters of faith. Those men were deists, which was as close as you could come to atheism in the late 18th century without being killed by an angry mob. Jefferson willfully invoked the "Creator" because attaching God to an idea makes it more powerful in the minds of many reading it. In short, God's role in the establishment of our nation was basically that of "marketing tool."

I wonder if the 89% objection figure would be nearly so high if all the media weren't universally reporting that "the Pledge of Alliegence has been ruled unconstitutional." That's a willful and dishonest perversion of the actual ruling.

We don't even know that the addition of "under God" had the full support of the public and Congress at the time it was inserted. After all, it was inserted during Communist witch hunts, at a time when popular propaganda held that Communism and Atheism were inextricably linked. Now who is going to speak up against such a bill under those circumstances?

Here's a nice hypothetical scenario: Suppose the Pledge had read, "one nation, agnostic, ..." To the mind of an agnostic, there is good reason to have that there. The United States is meant to be a secular government. The government is forbidden to interfere in matters of religion. Ergo the government IS (supposed to be) agnostic on matters of faith. Now suppose a conservative Christian had filed that suit, saying that "agnostic" repressed her freedom of religion, which to the mind of a conservative Christian, might seem to be the case. My hypothesis is that the 9th Circuit Court would have made the EXACT SAME RULING in that case, because Newdon was not attacking Christianity. He was upholding the Constitution. On the other hand, all the people who are crying out against the real life ruling would be APPLAUDING the 9th CC decision in this hypothetical case, because they don't give a rat's ass about the Constitution. They're only supporting their personal religious faith.

The fact that people are so blinded by dogma that they can't see this monumental hypocrisy is very frustrating to me. I have long been one of the silently offended minority who does just "deal with it." It's mostly harmless. I'm less offended by the phrase itself than I am over the senseless public reaction, which won't for an instant consider that the 9th CC is exactly right. They are incapable of detaching their personal interests from application of a wider social principle. Personally, I think the push towards theocracy in this country is a far greater danger than any terrorist threat, because the overwhelming majority of Americans, both in and out of government service, simply do not understand the philosophical groundings for having a secular government, or the difference between "democracy" and "tyranny of the majority." We've got people in this country who look down their noses at those backwards little Islamic regimes with their oppression of women and their Taliban death squads and what have you... and then turn right around and get their political opinions from some downright hateful conservative Christians, without realizing that if those people were making the laws unhindered, we would be in pretty much exactly the same boat, just with a different book of scriptures justifying it.

No matter what your personal religious stance, it is so important that you understand why, for the good of the society we've worked so hard to build, government policy must be kept as free of religious dogma as it is possible for us to achieve. Of course it's still okay to BE Christian. I wouldn't take that away from anybody. But it's not okay to bring your personal dogma into your execution of a state job.

Is the difference here really that hard for people to grasp?

Backtothemac

Jun 28, 2002, 04:20 PM

I am not going to quote you because it would take a whole page. W. this is for you. The point that this is some class war is crap. People make there own lives. I was raised poor, and made my own way. Welfare, and other types of government assistance help hold people down. They do not empower people at all. To think that the pledge does nothing is hillarious to me. It teaches children to be proud of their country. To believe in what it stand in. To give them a sense of belonging. You and I are obviously not in the same generation. The problems in this country are not going to be fixed by the pledge. The pledge and the flag, however, are two of the last symbols of meaning that we have for this country.

People over the last 10 years have lost sight of who they are. They are more focused on being the average and making everyone the average, than they are reaching for higher goals. It is sad really. Oh, and when you have kids, believe me you will not be telling them to question authority. Authority is required in society. It is neccessary for the everyday funciton of our lives.

Sorry if you are frustrated with in your younger years.....:p

krossfyter

Jun 28, 2002, 04:24 PM

if i went to another country i would be held subject to thier culture or laws. why cant they be here? the pledge is a symbol of america and anyone who comes here has to respect that but does not have to reciet it. no ones forcing no one. if you dont want to say it dont. big deal. if you dont like our flag...that does not give you a right to change it. go to another freking country where you agree with the way the flag looks.

Backtothemac

Jun 28, 2002, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Gelfin

If it serves no significant function, then why do the right wingers get so uptight about it? Why not just remove the phrase, if it serves no function?

1st. it does serve a purpose. This country was founded on the morals that are projected through religion. It is important, because the majority of people here are religious, and we believe in "God Bless America".

Those who claim that the country was built on a religious foundation clearly know very, very little about the founding fathers of the U.S. and their attitudes towards matters of faith. Those men were deists, which was as close as you could come to atheism in the late 18th century without being killed by an angry mob. Jefferson willfully invoked the "Creator" because attaching God to an idea makes it more powerful in the minds of many reading it. In short, God's role in the establishment of our nation was basically that of "marketing tool."

Um, no. You my friend are sadly mistaken here. Ya need to do a vast amount more reading on this one.

Personally, I think the push towards theocracy in this country is a far greater danger than any terrorist threat, because the overwhelming majority of Americans, both in and out of government service, simply do not understand the philosophical groundings for having a secular government, or the difference between "democracy" and "tyranny of the majority." We've got people in this country who look down their noses at those backwards little Islamic regimes with their oppression of women and their Taliban death squads and what have you... and then turn right around and get their political opinions from some downright hateful conservative Christians, without realizing that if those people were making the laws unhindered, we would be in pretty much exactly the same boat, just with a different book of scriptures justifying it.

Ok, no offense to you as a person, but that is the flat out dumbest thing I have ever heard! How in the hell can you equate having 'in God we Trust', and 'one nation under God' with being as dangerous as terrorism. You are out of your friggin mind! It is not a tyranny of the majority to say, hey everyone. We, the majority begin religious are going to say one nation under God. If you don't want to you don't have to. What is being a tyranny of the minority is, it offends us that you use the word God, so you have to stop.

You lefties like to talk about that slippery slope all the damn time, so here goes. Where is it going to stop? Your shirt offends me. Your tone offends me. Your clothes, hair, house, dog, wife, child. Get friggin over it. You don't agree with the majority, then don't. But you do not, and I mean do not have the right to bastardize the Constitution to use the friggin lawyers to take crap before ultra left judges and force your whim on the majority. The majority should not have to circum to the whim of a minority. Period. That is a fact.

Oh, and one more thing. Go read the Constitution and the Bible, the Tora, the Koran. You need to brush up on your facts.

sturm375

Jun 28, 2002, 04:33 PM

Polls shouldn't mean anything when it comes to laws. Does anybody remember the "Right's" war cry during the Clinton Impeachment: "Rule of Law". The United States does not, theoretically, adhear to mob rule, thus the distinction between Democracy, and Republic. We have a set of laws, and we follow those laws, even if they are unpopular. Of course I dispise what Clinton did to the office of the President. However popular opinion at the time said leave it alone. We didn't because of the "Rule of Law".

mr.w

Jun 28, 2002, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
I am not going to quote you because it would take a whole page. W. this is for you. The point that this is some class war is crap. People make there own lives. I was raised poor, and made my own way. Welfare, and other types of government assistance help hold people down. They do not empower people at all. To think that the pledge does nothing is hillarious to me. It teaches children to be proud of their country. To believe in what it stand in. To give them a sense of belonging. You and I are obviously not in the same generation. The problems in this country are not going to be fixed by the pledge. The pledge and the flag, however, are two of the last symbols of meaning that we have for this country.

People over the last 10 years have lost sight of who they are. They are more focused on being the average and making everyone the average, than they are reaching for higher goals. It is sad really. Oh, and when you have kids, believe me you will not be telling them to question authority. Authority is required in society. It is neccessary for the everyday funciton of our lives.

Sorry if you are frustrated with in your younger years.....:p

So you think that every American has the potential to become something... maybe while still in their mom. once you pop out, you're emediately a product of your environment. The % of people growing up in the ghetto and becomeing contributing citezens and the % of those growing up in the suburbs become something are vastly different.

tell me this, what do you think the flag and the pledge stand for?

and your wrong about teaching my kids to question authority... im not going to tell them to become anarchists, but to believe everything that is told to you is wrong, self discovery leads to true belief. when you believe everything that is stated in the status quo you just become brainwashed, you are just another person without true content, and with that you just become what what society wants you to be. is that what you want your childeren to become???

krossfyter

Jun 28, 2002, 04:35 PM

oh foot.

Backtothemac

Jun 28, 2002, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by mr.w

So you think that every American has the potential to become something... maybe while still in their mom. once you pop out, you're emediately a product of your environment. The % of people growing up in the ghetto and becomeing contributing citezens and the % of those growing up in the suburbs become something are vastly different.

tell me this, what do you think the flag and the pledge stand for?

and your wrong about teaching my kids to question authority... im not going to tell them to become anarchists, but to believe everything that is told to you is wrong, self discovery leads to true belief. when you believe everything that is stated in the status quo you just become brainwashed, you are just another person without true content, and with that you just become what what society wants you to be. is that what you want your childeren to become???
I will tell you what the flag and the pledge stand for. Freedom. Liberty. Justice. Never Forgetting. Remembering everyone in my family, and the millions of families that have served and died for this country. It stands for opportunity for those who will work. Like myself. I came from that poor side of town that you speak. I took the hard way, and became something. That was my choice. And I do want my daughter to learn though question. But not authority. To question everything as false is faithless. It is in its purest form Anarchy.

krossfyter

Jun 28, 2002, 04:42 PM

wwworry

Jun 28, 2002, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Oh, wwworry, don' t know your age, or background, but you don't know Pi$$ about history. The 20's and 30's! The new deal is what made America nearly a socialist nation. Get your facts right.

That's right NEARLY a socialist nation. What do you think the New Deal was in response to? What pressures allowed a completely new role for the Federal government? Do you think it happened in a vacume?

Along with the dust bowl, workers being shot at by corporate union busters, the stock market crash, a renewed populism and Herbert Hoover's refusal to address these problems you might say things were ripe for change.

Ask any historian and they will tell you that the New Deal SAVED Capitalism in the USA. If it wasn't for the WPA etc. there could have been a socialist revolution in America. By setting up the various saftey nets it stopped people from demanding more radical solutions.

Or does your version of US history stop at the beginning of the depression?

Are we all supposed to know the Jay and Silent Bob movie? Is that what you would require a US citizen to watch? Forgive me for not knowing your stupid pretzel joke.

mr.w

Jun 28, 2002, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac

I will tell you what the flag and the pledge stand for. Freedom. Liberty. Justice. Never Forgetting. Remembering everyone in my family, and the millions of families that have served and died for this country. It stands for opportunity for those who will work. Like myself. I came from that poor side of town that you speak. I took the hard way, and became something. That was my choice. And I do want my daughter to learn though question. But not authority. To question everything as false is faithless. It is in its purest form Anarchy.

okay, so the flag and the pledge are symbols... do you think that America actually deliveres on all of the promises they have given us. the constitution for instance..... I mean it took 80 years for blacks to actually become "=" after the 13th 14th and 15th amendments were written. Ya, the govenrment said that they could vote and live as the actually live their lives free of prejudice. but that was not reality. if blacks were to attempt to vote they were killed or at least they were threatened. To say something and to promise freedom, or equality, or justice is great, but it means nothing if they don't follow through on their promises.

why not question authority? are you afraid that your daughter will turn on you or something??? I'm not saying that you're wrong, but if you're right, she'll discover this for herself... and like i said self discovery leads to true belief...

Gelfin

Jun 28, 2002, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
1st. it does serve a purpose. This country was founded on the morals that are projected through religion. It is important, because the majority of people here are religious, and we believe in "God Bless America".

To start with, I am deeply offended by the supposition that all morality comes from religion. I am, as an atheist, FAR more ethical (almost compulsively so) than pretty much anyone I know. I am this way because I have personal ethical beliefs justified through reason, and through the belief in immediate personal responsibility for my own actions, not through the threat of eternal damnation. The Enlightenment principles of individual liberty and popular self-government upon which the government of the United States is based are nowhere to be found in the Bible. You say "we" believe in "God Bless America." Aside from wondering what it means to "believe in" an imperative clause, I am not part of that "we." I can't be. I don't believe in your God. I believe that if America is "blessed," it is so because of the actions of the people and the strength of the system that allows the people to act.

Um, no. You my friend are sadly mistaken here. Ya need to do a vast amount more reading on this one.

We can go back and forth ad infinitum about who hasn't done his homework, but I promise it's you. The claim that the nation was founded on religion is something that people with a religious political agenda say because most Americans don't know their own history. It's easy to prey upon a confusion between the Plymouth Rock pilgrims (who were religiously conservative and escaping religious persecution), and the framers of the Constitution more than a hundred years later. Most of Jefferson's writings would make you think of him as an atheist. He was deeply suspicious of the impact of religion on governance, and the ability to maintain a free society under the tincture of religious dogma.

Ok, no offense to you as a person, but that is the flat out dumbest thing I have ever heard! How in the hell can you equate having 'in God we Trust', and 'one nation under God' with being as dangerous as terrorism. You are out of your friggin mind!

I'll try not to take it as personally offensive that you call me dumb and insane based on something I didn't say. I do not believe that having "under God" in the Pledge of Alliegence is in itself dangerous. In fact I very specifically stated as much. The danger is people who are ignorant of the importance of keeping matters of faith and matters of public policy separate. The deeply religious, believing that morality ONLY comes from their religious document of choice, do not grasp why legislating from their own respective pulpits isn't kosher. Terrorists can destroy our buildings and kill our people, but they can't change us at a fundamental level. There is a push from the religious right in this country to do exactly that -- to make the United States into a Christian state, starting by convincing people that it always was. In a few cases this is a very intentional political power play, but those are very few. The vast majority of people are simply ignorant and believe that whatever somebody tells them the Bible says must be right.

It is not a tyranny of the majority to say, hey everyone. We, the majority begin religious are going to say one nation under God. If you don't want to you don't have to. What is being a tyranny of the minority is, it offends us that you use the word God, so you have to stop.

Nobody has said that the majority cannot talk about God all they like. La la la God is neat and so forth. Everyone may exercise their religion however they like. But there is a VAST difference between free expression of religion and inserting language into the official text, applicable to all citizens, such that if you wish to claim alliegence to this country in that important symbolic way, you are required to accept the existence of a deity running the show. I would certainly choose to pledge my alliegence to this country. You're telling me that I can't properly do that, that I can't be considered loyal to this country, because I don't believe in God. And you don't see the problem there?

You lefties like to talk about that slippery slope all the damn time, so here goes. Where is it going to stop? Your shirt offends me. Your tone offends me. Your clothes, hair, house, dog, wife, child.

I am NOT a "lefty." If you think I'm a leftist, you don't know what leftism is. You label me a leftist because I don't agree with you. Your slippery slope argument is absolute nonsense. My tone does not impact your right to self-determination. Nor do my clothes, hair, house, dog, wife, child and so forth. I am in no way even saying that your religion offends me. It does not. The thing that offends me (and, I presume, other atheists), is the belief that YOUR religious faith is somehow an inextricable part of what it means to be an American. If you want to get into history, it's the idea of a particular religion as national identity that drove the Pilgrims out of England in the first place.

Get friggin over it. You don't agree with the majority, then don't. But you do not, and I mean do not have the right to bastardize the Constitution to use the friggin lawyers to take crap before ultra left judges and force your whim on the majority. The majority should not have to circum to the whim of a minority. Period. That is a fact.

Okay, as I read this I'm imagining a little foam coming out of the corners of your mouth. I'll recap, briefly. Nobody is taking religion away from the majority who follow it. I personally am fairly content to ignore the presence of religious references on our currency and so forth as mostly harmless. I am over it. I was technically never on it. But since it's come up, what I can't get over is the attitude, like the one you express right there, that in a nation where freedom of religion is one of our most important rights, you believe that you are entitled to have your own religious views insinuated into secular society, just because you are in the majority. That is very specifically the thing that isn't supposed to happen here.

Oh, and one more thing. Go read the Constitution and the Bible, the Tora, the Koran. You need to brush up on your facts.

I assume you've read all of these works thoroughly. Good for you. Do please clarify what possible point you could be trying to make here. I don't see any relationship between this statement and anything you said previously.

krossfyter

Jun 28, 2002, 06:04 PM

a woman gets upset because a man wants to open up a door for her... she cries out "im a woman i can do it myself...we have been opressed for so long im going to open my own door... im going to fight this so called curteousy law"

i respect the right of the female and i understand that they have been neglected at times. with that being said.... there are somethings that you just have to let slide and are not worth fighting for. just let that man open the door for you...let it go. dont make a big deal about it. it will only make it worse for you and all of us.

all this does is FURTHER divide our country.

thats what the terrorists want.

AmbitiousLemon

Jun 28, 2002, 06:46 PM

you guys need to listen to B2TM and kross, these guys are brilliant in their rhetoric. i completely agree with them.

i dont want to live in a country where even the lowliest minority has civil liberties. im white im christian im male, im basicaly the only type of person who should have basic civil liberties. this is all just political correctness and it is complete ************. if you arent christian i dont care about you and most of this country desnt either. you are an immoral asshole and are going to hell so why should we help you along the way?

this reminds me of when negros wanted to vote. they arent white why the hell should they be allowed to vote? they arent really people in the first place. but a bunch of leftest goons started stirring things up and noe we have ******s everywhere. its crazy. the world is really going down the toilet. the only way to combat all of this political correctness is to allow good christian morals to be spread in schools and everywhere else we are can get out the word.

all of this left wing ************ is getting in the way of my ability to teach my children good morals. i mean if the governement does not endorse christianity, and if my kid goes to school where all people are equal under the law then they might get it in their crazy head that not everyone shares their beliefs, and they may even begin to think about the things i teach them. thats just wrong, and the last thing we need in government and religion is thought. thought leads to questions, and questions are the devils work.

i remember a little atheist boy from my high school. he got good grades and seems perfectly normal. thats how these people are they sneak among us, and try to subvert the youth. we finally figured him out when he wouldnt say the flag salute and teh principal decided to expel him. unfortunately he called the aclu and soon enough the principal backed down. but we knew who he was after that. thats why we need the pledge so that we can expose these people who try to live among us. they arent like the negros, you cant tell them apart from a good christian boy very easily.

well i have faith this decision will be overturned. the whole country is in an uproar. maybe we can finally pass that ammendment that the congress almost passed a couple years ago about changing the first amendment to clearly state that there is a freedom of religion but no religion isnt a proper choice. fortunately there are 9 states currently that have it on the books that atheists can not hold public office. if only we could exclude the ******s, jews, and all teh oother backwards immoral people that try to live amongst us.

preach on brothers. some of us are listening and are keeping the faith alive.

[i was nearly expelled from a public high school because i wouldnt say the pledge of allegiance. i had a close friend beaten to death when it was discovered he didnt believe in god. i will live my whole life having to hide my religion because of fear i will be attacked or fired from my job. i pup for kids in the hospital in junior high when they found out i was an atheist and tried to jump me. my great great grandfather came to this country when the turks invaded armenia. they carved his eyes out before he got away. i have many friends whose grandparents came here from poland after the nazi's invaded. i have african american friends who frequently get stopped by the police for no reason other than their skin color. no one asks for more than basic civil liberties promised them by this country. there is a great deal of hatred in this country. when you start deciding on what small freedoms to take away from the minorities you happen to dislike, please remember history. ask the germans how they feel about their country's past if you feel denying others of their freedom is a good thing. i may be oppressed today but i dream of a better world for my children. please do not equate religion with morals, it is insulting and backward. people who do nt share your beliefs can still be good people. i find it terrifying that people who follow the teachings of jesus have so much hatred in their hearts and so little respect for other people. go home and read your bible and let it touch your heart and open your mind before thumping the rest of us over the head with the old book.]

Sun Baked

Jun 28, 2002, 06:47 PM

Here's a pdf of the 32 page 9 circuit opinion (which is now on hold)

www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FE05EEE79C2A97B688256BE3007FEE32/$file/0016423.pdf
Newdow is an atheist whose daughter attends public ele-mentary school in the Elk Grove Unified School District ("EGUSD") in California. In accordance with state law and a school district rule, EGUSD teachers begin each school day by leading their students in a recitation of the Pledge of Alle-giance ("the Pledge"). The California Education Code requires that public schools begin each school day with "ap-propriate patriotic exercises" and that "[t]he giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy" this requirement. Cal. Educ. Code § 52720 (1989) (hereinafter "California statute").1 To imple-ment the California statute, the school district that Newdow's daughter attends has promulgated a policy that states, in perti-nent part: "Each elementary school class [shall] recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag once each day." 2

The classmates of Newdow's daughter in the EGUSD are led by their teacher in reciting the Pledge codified in federal law. On June 22, 1942, Congress first codified the Pledge as "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of Amer-ica and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indi-visible, with liberty and justice for all." Pub. L. No. 623, Ch. 435, § 7, 56 Stat. 380 (1942) (codified at 36 U.S.C. § 172). On June 14, 1954, Congress amended Section 172 to add the words "under God" after the word "Nation. " Pub. L. No. 396, Ch. 297, 68 Stat. 249 (1954) ("1954 Act"). The Pledge is cur-rently codified as "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and jus-tice for all." 4 U.S.C. § 4 (1998) (Title 36 was revised and recodified by Pub. L. No. 105-225, § 2(a), 112 Stat. 1494 (1998). Section 172 was abolished, and the Pledge is now found in Title 4.)

Newdow does not allege that his daughter's teacher or school district requires his daughter to participate in reciting the Pledge.3 Rather, he claims that his daughter is injured when she is compelled to "watch and listen as her state-employed teacher in her state-run school leads her classmates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God, and that our's [sic] is `one nation under God.' "

Macmaniac

Jun 28, 2002, 06:51 PM

I think what we need is a BS court that decides what cases get actually get heard. Some law suits that are filed are so completely random and pointless it boggles ones mind. People in America will sue over anything these days- I sneeze in front of you and you sue me for endangering your health, why can't we devote our legal time to solving problems and tracking down the real criminals in this country instead of creating needless hysteria.
If you don't want to say the pledge you don't have to, many people in my class don't always say the pledge. If you don't want to hear the word god then I advise that you stop all news papers, turn off TVs and Computers, shut off Radio, and not go outside where people are.
Also we can also edit parts of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I bet the terroists are mighty happy to see us tearing apart like this.
Hey I have a freedom of speech too, no atheiest is going to stop me from saying the word god.

Backtothemac

Jun 28, 2002, 07:02 PM

Lemon. Man, that was way to tounge in cheek. I don't agree with anything that you are saying about Blacks and Whites etc. I don't know where you live, but it ain't that way here. Fact is, I think everyone should have rights. This county has a long history, and it is a proud history. There are also some very bad things. Just to clarify, I am not white. I am a native American. I also believe in the teachings of Christ, Allah, and others. I have read all major religious texts, and believe that they all share a common theme. Love. That is the greatest theme throughout all religions.

I am not wanting to take away anyones rights. I do not want to oppress them, or make them belive me. Diversity is what makes us so great. However to let the minority rule the roost is just not right. To let liberalism run amuck is insane. To let political correctness go unchecked will destory this country. Mark my words it will. As an example the Hunchback of Notre Dame now has a different name because it may be offensive to some.

I will scream this at the top of my lungs so everyone can hear me. YOU CANNOT LIVE YOUR LIFE WITHOUT OFFENDING PEOPLE. IT IS PART OF BEING HUMAN, AND CANNOT BE AVOIDED THROUGH LAW!

Seriously, lawsuits of possibly offensive behavior is rediculous. I am offended by the Atlanta Braves Mascott, and the Clevland Indians Mascott. But I don't think that people should sue over it. I get over it. It isn't that big a deal, and neither is having 'under God' in the pledge. Seriously. It means something to the majority, so let them have it. If it means nothing to you, then good for you. If it offends you, get friggin over it and grow up.

Gelfin

Jun 28, 2002, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by Macmaniac
Hey I have a freedom of speech too, no atheiest is going to stop me from saying the word god.

Thank you. Exactly my point (well, one of them). No atheist particularly wants to stop you from doing so. Please do.

Just please don't try to run the government in such a way that one MUST believe in your God in order to be a full member of American society. That's just not the way we do things in this country.

Sun Baked

Jun 28, 2002, 10:31 PM

Sorry about the long quote, things don't last too long on law.com

And from da man himself...

from www.law.com/regionals/ca/stories/020701a.shtml

Goodwin Isn’t Fazed by Storm Over the Pledge 9th Circuit judge sees critics as ‘superficial’

By Jason Hoppin
The Recorder
July 1, 2002

Speaking from his 60-acre timber ranch in central Oregon, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Senior Judge Alfred Goodwin said Friday he wasn't surprised by the furor over his ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance.

Although Goodwin stressed that he couldn't talk about the merits of the case itself, he did share some of his observations about the flag, the politicians who have seized upon the controversial decision holding the use of the phrase "under God" unconstitutional, and the public's reaction to it.

"I never had much confidence in the attention span of elected officials for any kind of deep thinking about important issues," Goodwin said. "When they pop off after what I call a bumper strip headline, they almost always give a superficial response."

Goodwin, who turned 79 Saturday, was pilloried in the Senate last week as a "stupid judge" whose ruling was "just nuts."

He said he was disappointed in President Bush, who called the decision "ridiculous."

"I'm a little disappointed in our chief executive -- who nobody ever accused of being a deep thinker -- for popping off."

Goodwin said he knew the decision would catch people's attention, but suggested the issues are complex. "The more you know about something, the more difficult it gets sometimes," he said.

But he said he isn't bothered by the fury of personal criticism, including being branded a liberal.

"I've been a judge for 47 years and I've been called everything, so it doesn't bother me. It comes with the territory," Goodwin said.

The former Oregon Supreme Court justice was appointed to the 9th Circuit by President Nixon in 1971. He was born in Washington and is a self-professed cowboy who, evidently, shoots from the hip.

"That was just damage control," Goodwin said about his Thursday order staying the decision in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 02 C.D.O.S. 5700, even though the case is automatically stayed anyway.

He said that was done for the benefit of the media, who don't understand the intricacies of court rules -- especially TV reporters.

"Their attention span can't handle anything more than a haiku of about four lines," he said. "The worse thing about it was that some people said we were caving under pressure."

He said he also issued the order so that other judges could get back to work. Judges that weren't on the panel were getting lots of calls, he added.

Goodwin pointed out that he won the Combat Infantry Badge in World War II, and remembers that on the belt buckles of dead German soldiers was an inscription claiming God was on the German side.

"I was supporting the flag then and I still support it," he said.

He also noted that some of the criticism is being fueled by what he called "this wrap-yourself-in-the-flag frenzy."

The defendants in the case have announced that they intend to ask an 11-judge en banc panel to rehear the case, which many experts expect to happen.

Normally, senior judges aren't included in the pool of active judges from which the panel is drawn. But under circuit rules, senior judges who author the three-judge decision in question are eligible -- meaning Goodwin could possibly join the panel.

Goodwin said he was "pretty sure" the case would be taken en banc.

He added that he wasn't impressed with the media's interpretations of the ruling.

"I wasn't too surprised," Goodwin said. "I did work for newspapers … so I know how they work."

The ruling does not outlaw the Pledge, but if it stands, it would mean that teachers in the nine Western states covered by the 9th Circuit cannot lead their classes in a patriotic pledge that tells students the country is "one nation, under God."

"The Wall Street Journal gave [the ruling] about a half-inch, which is what it deserved," Goodwin said.

He said he has received much reaction -- from strangers, lawyers and old Army buddies -- which has been running hot and cold. All the e-mails go into a folder marked "Newdow."

"Someday when I haven't got anything else to do, I'll read them," he said.

Reporter Jason Hoppin's e-mail address is jhoppin@therecorder.com.

mr.w

Jun 29, 2002, 03:18 PM

Lemon-
geeze... If you truely feel that way, then we have some serious issues to discuss. That was one of the most racist comments I have even seen on macrumors. So you think that because you are a white christian male that you are more important then everyone else??? You are a horrible example of the christian faith, and I'm sure that many of the other christians on macrumors are ashamed of you at this time. I sure hope that you never become a father, If you believe that teaching a little kid YOUR morals is ok, then you are truely crazy. I don't want to piss you off, nor anyone else for that matter, but it is because of intolerance like yours that our country is so fu***d up. What does the flag stand for in your opinion. surely not freedom or equality...

cablejump

Jun 29, 2002, 04:17 PM

to everyone who wants and is trying to eliminate "under God" from the pledge- i have just one thing to say Shut The ****** Up!
also Get A Life- This is not hurting anyone- Why don't you complain about all of the starving children in America- or the corruption of politicions- For God's sake- stop whining!

Durandal7

Jun 29, 2002, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by mr.w
Lemon-
geeze... If you truely feel that way, then we have some serious issues to discuss. That was one of the most racist comments I have even seen on macrumors. So you think that because you are a white christian male that you are more important then everyone else??? You are a horrible example of the christian faith, and I'm sure that many of the other christians on macrumors are ashamed of you at this time. I sure hope that you never become a father, If you believe that teaching a little kid YOUR morals is ok, then you are truely crazy. I don't want to piss you off, nor anyone else for that matter, but it is because of intolerance like yours that our country is so fu***d up. What does the flag stand for in your opinion. surely not freedom or equality...

Ummm, go back and read the last part of his post carefully. He is making a point about people with those opinions.

As for the guy who said FoxNN was too republican biased, it sounds to me like a democrat who is threatened by a non-democrat biased news network.

krossfyter

Jun 29, 2002, 04:21 PM

krossfyter

Jun 29, 2002, 04:25 PM

...

Durandal7

Jun 29, 2002, 04:27 PM

An interesting question I thought of:
The man who brought this case says it's for his daughter's sake. Even though she doesn't have to say the pledge she still has to hear it. How will she avoid hearing the word God through the rest of her life?

krossfyter

Jun 29, 2002, 04:34 PM

...

PCUser

Jun 29, 2002, 05:29 PM

Backtothemac - Okay, time for your English course. The sentence I quoted doesn't mean 'concerning a religion that will be established', it means 'concerning an already established religion' (such as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc). Congress is forbidden from making any law (and "Act"'s are laws) that concerns an already established religion. Assuming there is a only one "God" (and not many gods or no "God") is a statement concerning atheism and non-monotheistic religions.

The pledge doesn't teach children anything. Recited words in school are meaningless, and for a good reason. Anything forced down the throat of a children is worthless to the child. You do not "educate" people (or children) - people educate themselves. A few words do not teach anything. Words gain meaning, not give it. Forcing people to say words do not make them "learn" anything. It just forces them to learn sounds.

The correct spelling of "God" is both capitalized and not capitalized. The capital version is used by monotheistic religions to denote their paticular god of preference, and the lowercase means a diety in general. Sorry to disappoint you, but if you look in a good dictionary, you'll find both cases.

Once again: this country was not founded on the principle of majority rule, it was founded on the principle that a select few decided by the majority of those who voted will make the decisions. We are a republic, not a democracy. Majority rule is mob rule, the tyrany of the majority. The majority (54%) of Americans are female, so shouldn't females make all of the decisions? That doesn't sound very fair, does it? Shouldn't it be an equal balance between all involved?

Yes, I'm an atheist, but I'm also a white male, so I'm mostly in the majority. As an atheist, my morals do NOT come from any "Holy Book" and decided by someone else. My morals are carefully thought-out opinions based on my experiences, and can change if I decide that I was wrong. It is offensive to me whenever any religious person claims that the only "correct" morals only come from their religion.

krossfyter - define "civil religion". If it's religious, it's none of the government's business. People have the right to practice any religion they please. The government is specifically forbidden from practicing any religion... even stating that there is a "God" is forbidden of the government.

Those two words do harm everyone. The fact that they are there mean Congress was allowed to overstep it's bounds in religious matters. The removal of the two words is a correction of Congress's illegal action. The fact that those words are in the official pledge of allegiance is wrong. Congress is expressly prohibited from promoting any religion (for a good reason... remember the Church of England?).

AlejandroGonzo

Jun 29, 2002, 05:43 PM

First off, I am an atheist.

At first glance, a strict literal interpretation of the Constitution can only lead to the conclusion that the pledge of alliegence is unconsitutional.

However, when evaluating issues concerning the separation of church and state, one must also consider other factors. In the past, the Supreme Court has decided these cases based on if a particular law could credibly be construded as the state attempting to force a religion onto the country. In this case, I do not believe this is so. Reciting the pledge of alliegence all those years did not do me any harm.

Another thing the Court takes into account when determining the constitutionality of laws is the intent of the authors of the law.

The Declaration of Independence has no legal standing but it is useful in determining the founder's intent in creating both the Constitution and the nation as a whole. In it, Jefferson writes that man is "endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights."

In conclusion, I base my position that the Pledge is not unconstitutional because 1. It does not represent a credible attempt by the government to establish a religion. 2. It was not the intent of the founders that the law be so narrowly interpreted. If the God stuff was OK by the founders, then it's OK by me.

I say Darwinism all the way, but whatever floats your boat and tickles your pickle. :)

Dr. Distortion

Jun 29, 2002, 06:59 PM

Interesting statements:

http://www.haxial.com/policies/religion-policy.html

-Dr. D.

Backtothemac

Jun 29, 2002, 07:18 PM

Hey PCUser, you know what. I have a brain. You however, obviously do not have the capacity to understand what it is that is being discussed. You should go back, start at the beginning, and learn something. Here is a tidbit for you.

Amendment I

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.

Now, the last time that I checked there is not a law by Congress that establishes a religion for the US. That is what the 1st ammendment means. That Congress cannot delcare a national religion for the people of the US. It doesn't mean that God cannot be mentioned in the pledge. I find it so funny that people like you scream for the 1st ammendment, and then would love to strike down the right to bear arms.

You know what. I feel sorry for you. I will include you in my prayers.

Oh, and one more thing. I don't think that you should believe what I do. Believe in what you want, but sorry to inform you that the legal morality that exists in this country does come from a "Holly Book". And finally, we are a Democratic Repbulic, not just a republic. And if you are part of the 10% that doesn't want God in the pledge. Oh, well. Majority rule says it stays. Minority right not to say it. Reread the Constitution, you will see that it is Majority Rule.

PCUser

Jun 29, 2002, 07:28 PM

"People like me"? I think that everyone who a) can intelligently use a gun and b) can intelligently store a gun should have one. Please don't assume you know me based on a few beliefs of mine. I could be a green sea slug with purple tentacles. ;) Just trying to add some levity.

I also quoted the first amendment. I've read it and studied it several times in the past, as well. The exact text of that sentence is ambigious, because the word "establishment" in that sentence can be a verb (as you see it), or a noun (as I see it). However, the Supreme Court has in several rulings indicated an intrepreation as a noun.

(EDIT: Removed personal attacks. Sorry about that. Here's an olive branch... :) )

(http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/courtrulings.html a quote from the SC's majority opinion in the ruling on 'Everson vs. Board of Education': "...or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." By putting the words "Under God" in the pledge, it is forcing the speaker to profess a monotheistic belief, IMO.)

krossfyter

Jun 29, 2002, 08:45 PM

Eran todo un ramo de cabezas de pelusa de todos modos. besa mi extremo usted ramo de tontos. :p :D

Sun Baked

Jun 29, 2002, 09:05 PM

Maybe I should dissect this sentence in a slightly different manner, and see if you can catch the point the judge may have been trying to make. ;)

Newdow does not allege that his daughter's teacher or school district requires his daughter to participate in reciting the Pledge.3 Rather, he claims that his daughter is injured when she is compelled to "watch and listen as her state-employed teacher in her state-run school leads her classmates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God, and that our's [sic] is `one nation under God.'"

I haven't had the chance to dissect the 32 pages (and I'm low on paper and making excuses), but the judge - in his interview - seems to be hinting that he may just have outlawed the govt. paid employees from leading the pledge on govt. property.

If that is the case it won't stop the teachers from teaching the pledge, nor will it stop the pledge from being the "appropriate patriotic exercises" in California schools.

The smart lawyers and educators would immediately say, let the kids lead the Pledge.

Then there are the private schools ...

---

I hope you know it would have been more fun to throw a match into this powder keg. :D

wwworry

Jun 29, 2002, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by cablejump
to everyone who wants and is trying to eliminate "under God" from the pledge- i have just one thing to say Shut The ****** Up!
also Get A Life- This is not hurting anyone- Why don't you complain about all of the starving children in America- or the corruption of politicions- For God's sake- stop whining!

Well really, this whole thread is about people who demand the "under god" part whining and crying. So I have one thing to say to you cablejump - Shut The ****** Up! You lost. Get over it. Grow up. etc.

And so you see how useless an argument that is.

I do agree however that these "culture wars" make a pretty good smoke screen for the root problem which is lack of funding for public schools. Think about how nice cities and everything else would be if all the people who had money did not move out to the suburbs so their children could get a good education. I can't really fault them.

All you conservative f***s will say we throw enough money at the schools. Really, it's the same funding (in inflation adjusted dollars) as in 1970. However, the schools have been asked to do a lot more with the same funding, providing special education to all that need it, lunch and breakfast programs, language programs etc. Also in 1970 the labor market was such that one of the only good jobs a woman could get was teaching. Now women have many more oportunities and you can't get away with paying them sub-professional salaries. In 1970 schools had a captive labor market.

Anyway, if would could get twenty kids to a classroom, well stocked libraries in well maintained schools I would say the pledge before every meal. As it is, we yell and scream about testing pledges and standards while gladly funding more prisons and more police at ten times the price of good schools. America is stupid and it's God has deserted it.

Backtothemac

Jun 29, 2002, 09:43 PM

Um, two things wwworry.

1) No we did not loose, because it was stayed, and it hasn't been to the US Supreme Court yet. The public outcry over the most liberal court in the country deciding for the country what they think has been clear. WE WON! 90% of American surveyed on every poll want it in. That is a win in my opinion.

2) You have a screwy image of conservatives. In case you can't remember, I will remind you that Bush helped pass the largest education bill in the history of our country, and is for school vouchers! Learn the platform before you start thowing stones!:mad:

krossfyter

Jun 30, 2002, 12:05 AM

job

Jun 30, 2002, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Um, two things wwworry.

1) No we did not loose, because it was stayed, and it hasn't been to the US Supreme Court yet. The public outcry over the most liberal court in the country deciding for the country what they think has been clear. WE WON! 90% of American surveyed on every poll want it in. That is a win in my opinion.

2) You have a screwy image of conservatives. In case you can't remember, I will remind you that Bush helped pass the largest education bill in the history of our country, and is for school vouchers! Learn the platform before you start thowing stones!:mad:

Nicely put. Conservatives rock.

I just wanted to throw my two cents in. I don't really know if anyone brought this up yet, but the pledge specifically states : "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.......one nation under God..etc." So if you want to get very technical about this, nowhere does it require you to pledge allegiance to any form of religion, only the flag. And it does not really mention any specific God. It could be any deity from any religion. ****Note to athiests - You don't have to say the word God. It is your right to choose whether or not to say it.****

Also, if the person in question does not want to say the pledge then she does not have to. You don't want to say the word God in the pledge then just don't say it. Leave it out, don't say the pledge, whatever. Just stop whining about it. We are not forcing you to accept any religion.

One more comment and I'm done for the night. I'm just wondering if the courts ban the use of the word God in the pledge, does'nt that infringe on our First Amendment rights? Who are the courts to tell us what we can and cannot say?

bah.

@krossfyter : Fox News Network is the best! Do you read the Drudge Report?

hitman

Sun Baked

Jun 30, 2002, 02:57 AM

OK, forget everything nice I said...

Newdon, the good Rev. Dr. is a complete utter atheist WHACKO.

Seems this scumbag is traveling the country on a mission to kill the Pledge of Allegiance. Tried and lost in Florida, so he gets up and tries again in the liberal state of California.

If he really wanted to insulate his daughter from this horrid word he should have moved south to Cuba, where Castro's version of the Pledge of Allegiance probably won’t make his daughter suffer quite so much.

I just can't fathom the complete utter stupidity of this little man to have brought a similar case before the court in Florida, especially when his daughter wasn't even enrolled in the school district.

www.law.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/View&c=LawArticle&cid=1024078923948&t=LawArticle

In 1998, Newdow, styling himself "Rev. Dr.," sued President Bill Clinton, Congress, the Broward County School District, and Florida's Congressional delegation to have "under God" removed from the pledge, and to bar the Broward County schools from reciting the pledge until the language was removed. The pledge's language, Newdow claimed, violated both the Free Exercise Clause and the establishment clause of the First Amendment. At the time, Newdow was an ordained minister in the Universal Life Church, which claims that "the true and eternal bonds of righteousness and virtue stem from the reason rather than mythology." That mythology includes "trust in any God."

Newdow said that were he to teach in Broward public schools or enroll his daughter there, they would be subjected to a daily government endorsement of theism. Broward's school board policy specifies that schools should conduct the pledge each morning, though the schools could substitute some other "thought-provoking program planned with discretion."

Marylin Batista, attorney for the Broward School Board, said the Florida case was the first time the system had heard of Newdow. He was "not the gadfly type," she said. However, his case did have some weaknesses, Batista said.

"He was not working here [with the Broward School District], and his daughter was not enrolled in the district," she said. At the time, Batista said, Newdow was in the process of moving. "To California, I guess," she said, laughing.

Solipsys

Jun 30, 2002, 06:21 AM

From the Gospel of AL...

"i dont want to live in a country where even the lowliest minority has civil liberties. im white im christian im male, im basicaly the only type of person who should have basic civil liberties. this is all just political correctness and it is complete ************. if you arent christian i dont care about you and most of this country desnt either. you are an immoral asshole and are going to hell so why should we help you along the way?

this reminds me of when negros wanted to vote. they arent white why the hell should they be allowed to vote? they arent really people in the first place. but a bunch of leftest goons started stirring things up and noe we have ******s everywhere. its crazy. the world is really going down the toilet. the only way to combat all of this political correctness is to allow good christian morals to be spread in schools and everywhere else we are can get out the word.

all of this left wing ************ is getting in the way of my ability to teach my children good morals. i mean if the governement does not endorse christianity, and if my kid goes to school where all people are equal under the law then they might get it in their crazy head that not everyone shares their beliefs, and they may even begin to think about the things i teach them. thats just wrong, and the last thing we need in government and religion is thought. thought leads to questions, and questions are the devils work. "

Wow, I can't believe people like you exist. I'm impressed you even have the cognitive functions to type on this list at all! It's the "absolute morals" that religion imposes in it's believers that make it so dangerous. It's so Black and White, Right and Wrong... and you're not allowed to make these decisions for yourself. You sound very afraid of everything that is different around you. Fear comes from things which you do not understand, ignorance is not bliss. Fear causes wars, hatred, and Religion (western) is about closing out of your mind all that is not "moral" in the eyes of your faith. If you close it out then you do not understand it, and then fear it, and ultimately hate it. The separation of Church and State exists in order to avoid the absolute moral doctine of western religion. Nothing changes if you don't ask questions.
What's wrong with saying "One Nation under Freedom (or some other superlative that actually means something)..." instead of god (lowercase is better). god has NOTHING to do with freedom.

Well this post will just be deleted anyway since AL is a moderator ;)
If you're being sarcastic on the other hand then you probably made the best post on this whole thread, and I'll apologize of course...

PCUser

Jun 30, 2002, 08:53 AM

A democracy is majority rule. The majority of the citizens determine the laws, etc, in a pure democracy. A republic is where a select few from differing areas determine the laws, etc.

Our democratic republic is far closer to the second. The reason we are a "democratic" republic is because we select those few individuals democratically, and the votes by those individuals are determined democratically. However, the public has no control over the decisions of those elected.

The majority opinion does not matter in the US. The majority of the opinions of those elected is what matters. Those elected do not have to follow what their constituents want.

"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." - US Constitution, Article I, Section 1

This establishes that we are a republic, and that all decisions of law-making rest in the hands of the Congress, not the majority of the public.

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states..." - US Constitution, Article I, Section 2

This establishes that we democratically select the Representatives. It does not give the majority rule, because the Representatives can decided anything they want.

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof..." - US Constitution, Amendment XVII

Originally, Section 3 of Article I stated that the Senators were to be selected by each state's legislature. It was changed by Amendment XVII to the Senators being democratically selected in each state.

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." - US Constitution, Article III, Section 1

The Supreme Court (and it's lower federal brethren) do not make laws. They determine the constitutionality of laws made by the Congress. Their decisions are made by the judges, not by the majority rule.

B2TM, where is the "majority rule" you think of in the US Constitution? Each decision in the Congress is made democratically, not in the interests of the majority of the country, but in the interests of the majority of the Congress. Each determination on the constitutionality of a decision by Congress is made democratically by the judges viewing the case, not the majority of the public.

Perhaps you can quote a portion of the Constitution which gives the public law-making privilege? If not, how then are we "majority rule"? If the majority can not make law or determine it's correctness in the eyes of the Constitution, how can the majority rule?

Who cares what 90% of Americans think? They are irrelevant in determining if Congress broke the law. Decisions get stayed all of the time before panels of judges look at them, regardless of public opinion. The public outcry doesn't matter. BT2M, you and I have no voice in determining the constitutionality of a law. That is solely the job of the Courts.

Despite all of that, the case that brought this before the Courts is ridiculous. But the reason it came before the Courts does not make the addition of those words any less unconstitutional.

PCUser

Jun 30, 2002, 09:20 AM

Sorry for the double post, but...

"I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation [under God], indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all." -Pledge of Allegiance

You forgot a sentence. It's more then pledging allegiance to the flag. You are pledge allegiance to the nation, as well.

Backtothemac

Jun 30, 2002, 11:12 AM

PCUser. Dude, seriously. You are obviously very well educated, so there won't be a need for personal insults between the two of us. :p This country is majority rule in every aspect. A majority is required to win elections, pass bills, etc. It is minotiry right in the sense that majority cannot force, or coerce the minoirty into doing what they, the majority want them to. That is simply what I mean. Oh, and it does matter what the 90% thinks. She, we can vote there A$$ out of office if we don't like what they do. :D

krossfyter

Jun 30, 2002, 01:22 PM

seriously doh...
this whole isssue
its
like
WOW (http://www.y2khai.com/khai06.html)

RecTechMin

Jun 30, 2002, 02:56 PM

America is the most religious industrial nation in the world. Kinda scary. The reason "in god we trust" and "one nation under god" is on our coins and in our pledges is because politicians pander to the voters' religious beliefs. Remember that these phrases were added relatively recently--they were not originally there. As an atheist, I find is sad and pretty scary. I've always considered America's constitution as defending the rights of its minorities, not the majority. The rights of the individual. Oh, and by the way, I don't believe in the toothfairy either!

krossfyter

Jun 30, 2002, 03:01 PM

actually i think politicians pander more to the voters secular beliefs. if they did not they would be comminting what is known as political suicide. but anyways...everythings relative to an atheist right? ...

dig it.

job

Jun 30, 2002, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by PCUser
Sorry for the double post, but...

"I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation [under God], indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all." -Pledge of Allegiance

You forgot a sentence. It's more then pledging allegiance to the flag. You are pledge allegiance to the nation, as well.

Yes I know. I left it out as you can see in my post my writing "......" However, my point still remains. You are still only pledging allegiance to the flag and to "the Republic for which it stands." Nothing more, nothing less.

Taft

Jun 30, 2002, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac

Now, the last time that I checked there is not a law by Congress that establishes a religion for the US. That is what the 1st ammendment means. That Congress cannot delcare a national religion for the people of the US. It doesn't mean that God cannot be mentioned in the pledge. I find it so funny that people like you scream for the 1st ammendment, and then would love to strike down the right to bear arms.

YOU are interpretting the ammendment like this. MOST people interpret this as a distinct separation between church and state, and that government can, in absolutely in no way (not even by advertisements of sorts), sponser a religion.

Don 't get into a gun control battle here. You have no idea if he thinks that the right to bear arms is good or bad. Assuming.

You know what. I feel sorry for you. I will include you in my prayers.

What a patronizing and pious statement. THIS is what I hate about the Christian faith--the faith is great, the morals are great...its the fasct that they think they are the only way to God that stinks. Its a good religion that corrupts the people who worship it. I blame people.

I feel sorry for you.

Oh, and one more thing. I don't think that you should believe what I do. Believe in what you want, but sorry to inform you that the legal morality that exists in this country does come from a "Holly Book". And finally, we are a Democratic Repbulic, not just a republic. And if you are part of the 10% that doesn't want God in the pledge. Oh, well. Majority rule says it stays. Minority right not to say it. Reread the Constitution, you will see that it is Majority Rule.

We are NOT a majority rule. A majority rule would mean the majority is able to do whatever they want. They are not. They are not allowed to violate the rights of the minority. And the minority MUST have the same rights as the majority under the eyes of the law.

The majority has more leverage in the government, but the rights of the minority must be preserved. If they are not treated equitably by the majority, the process should rectify the problem. That is what the founding fathers set out to do.

Taft

Taft

Jun 30, 2002, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by AlejandroGonzo
F
Another thing the Court takes into account when determining the constitutionality of laws is the intent of the authors of the law.

The Declaration of Independence has no legal standing but it is useful in determining the founder's intent in creating both the Constitution and the nation as a whole. In it, Jefferson writes that man is "endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights."

In conclusion, I base my position that the Pledge is not unconstitutional because 1. It does not represent a credible attempt by the government to establish a religion. 2. It was not the intent of the founders that the law be so narrowly interpreted. If the God stuff was OK by the founders, then it's OK by me.

SLAVERY was OK by the founders. They called the native americans in this country animals and other derrogatory terms in the Declaration of Independance. Should we observe these intentions of the founding fathers???

The constitution was meant to be changed--but only by the process of the government. And only in a matter that is consistent with itself. If we think all people should have the same rights, and that the rights of the minority matter, then we cannot create a law that would trample the rights of the minority because we also think that they have the same exact rights that the majority has.

You cannot consider the intent of the founding fathers as what our laws should mean. The constitution and other government documents describing our law are the ONLY source of our laws.

The constitution says that slavery is not legal. Thomas Jeffersons thought personally that slavery was OK (it was OK with a lot of people then). Does this then mean that I could own people as property??? NO!!!! The constitution says that we can't.

Intent should be left out of this. Its whats in the document that matters.

Taft

mr.w

Jun 30, 2002, 11:29 PM

Being pretty young this makes a lot of sense to me...

"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

(sorry for the somewhat random statement, but I thought it was kinda valid)

Taft

Jun 30, 2002, 11:33 PM

I am appalled at some of the comments that have been made on this thread. The same can be said of other threads on politics here.

Maybe I shouldn't get involved in these discussions here...

Taft

Taft

Jun 30, 2002, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by hitman

@krossfyter : Fox News Network is the best! Do you read the Drudge Report?

Fox News is the most blantentlly biased network on television. Its party affiliation is clearer than the Oxygen network's core audience. There's a difference between leaning and charging. Which is CNN doing??

Fox needs to better distinguish between reporting the news and editorializing. They also need to better inform their audience when they are reporting and when they are editorializing. I have been force to watch too many hours of this horrible network at work.

I know others will respond that every other network on TV is liberally biased. Save it. I've heard it before, but have seen no real evidence to back it up. Save your conservative bashing quotes by liberal networks, too. At least all the other "liberal" networks have the integrity to analyze a both sides and be critical of both.

Blah.

Taft

mr.w

Jun 30, 2002, 11:49 PM

As for the constitution... we are, as Americans, very lucky to have such a document, but most of the statements in the constitution can be interperated in dozens of ways (this is why lawyers are still in business)... So, I guess what I'm saying is that no-one is either right or wrong here (anything can be interperated in different ways) -> the problem is... for such a document to WORK correctly, there has to be a common ground between different people. I ask myself, "is this common ground attainable?"
Life is a give a little, get a little situation (it relies in a complex structure of compromises...) but when the compromises have the potential to greatly effect our lives... who should make the ultimate decision?
I personally believe that the constitution is one of the most contriversial documents in the history of the world (the bible, koran, etc. are similar in this very way) any alteration, or interperatation, is essentially a loose-loose situation -> for evey person that is satisfied another is offended (but who is actually correct ???).

I really don't know where I'm going with this, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that in our own reality ... we are all right (there is never a common ground), it is just up to every one of us to accept one-another... ultimently it will be the masses that determine our fate.

AmbitiousLemon

Jul 1, 2002, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by Taft
I am appalled at some of the comments that have been made on this thread. The same can be said of other threads on politics here.

Maybe I shouldn't get involved in these discussions here...

Taft

dont worry taft. many of us agree with you. as usual its the most ignorant who are the most outspoken. those of us who arent saying much as still reading and thank you for fighting the good fight. i think i already summed up my opinion about people like krossfyter and bt2tm in my previous post so i wont say what i think of them.

Solipsys

Jul 1, 2002, 03:39 AM

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon

dont worry taft. many of us agree with you. as usual its the most ignorant who are the most outspoken. those of us who arent saying much as still reading and thank you for fighting the good fight. i think i already summed up my opinion about people like krossfyter and bt2tm in my previous post so i wont say what i think of them.

Sorry Lemon, I realize now that we are on the same side with this... which I pretty much realized right after I posted before. I suggest we just let this thread die because it deals with people's faith which can't be rationalized on an articulate level, and arguing over it only causes division and hurt feelings in this community. to each his/her own and all that great stuff.

krossfyter

Jul 1, 2002, 04:21 AM

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon

dont worry taft. many of us agree with you. as usual its the most ignorant who are the most outspoken. those of us who arent saying much as still reading and thank you for fighting the good fight. i think i already summed up my opinion about people like krossfyter and bt2tm in my previous post so i wont say what i think of them.

what... just because b2tm and i have a different belief then you we deserved to be dis respected by you? when was i ever knocking you about anything? what brought about your hatred or whatever you want to call it towards me?

did you automatically become negative towards me because you saw that i was a christian or whatever?

iver never done a thing negative to you homeboy. if i have ...please show me and we can settle this. there is no need to be hateful to anyone because they have varying beliefs then you. we must learn to tolerate, forgive and be loving towards each other.

God bless and rock on!

krossfyter

Jul 1, 2002, 04:27 AM

Originally posted by Taft

Fox News is the most blantentlly biased network on television. Its party affiliation is clearer than the Oxygen network's core audience. There's a difference between leaning and charging. Which is CNN doing??

Fox needs to better distinguish between reporting the news and editorializing. They also need to better inform their audience when they are reporting and when they are editorializing. I have been force to watch too many hours of this horrible network at work.

I know others will respond that every other network on TV is liberally biased. Save it. I've heard it before, but have seen no real evidence to back it up. Save your conservative bashing quotes by liberal networks, too. At least all the other "liberal" networks have the integrity to analyze a both sides and be critical of both.

Blah.

Taft

i respect your response to this...but i disagree on some points. good response about the editorializing and reporting bit though. i will try and see whats up with that and form an opinion on it. but thanks for bringing that one part up.

now the other part...

i think a lot of liberals see the fact that fox news does not appeal to thier ideology so they automaticaly catogorize at conservative..or whatever else. i know some conservatives that dont agree with it and they automaticaly catogorize it as liberal. intresting. which one is it? its an enigma i guess. heh. but anyways.. im not a conservative by the way... and my opinion on fox is that its the only news network that is closest to be unbiased even if it may slant a little to the right or whatever. not many news networks out there like that. proving such to each other will do us no good. we will just continue to go in circles etc. etc. so allow it to lay in the waters of opinions when it comes in the contexts of a discussion between two opposing sides...if that may be possible.

to each his own. its all relative right? relative to what side of the political spectrum we are on.

dig it.

AmbitiousLemon

Jul 1, 2002, 04:32 AM

krossfyter you are a laugh riot. so good at BS its amazing. please dont pretend to be a nice thoughtful person, ive read every single post on this thread as well as all your other posts on this entire site since day one. i know what you are about.

you have stated numerous times on this thread that you disagree with the court. this clearly demonstrates an intolerance toward peoples who are different for you. im sorry its hard for you to except but the rest of us are not happy to sit on the back of the bus the rest of our lives. our rights do matter.

this isnt a matter of differences of opinion. the law and morality on this issue are quite clear. but for some reason you and thos elike you seem to think that your opinions and your beliefs shoudl be allowed to deprive others of their rights. i know too many people who ahve been hurt and killed by pious christians such as yourself to simply lay down my rights. people who are oppressed fight, and we fight for every victory we can achieve. whether it is eliminating a state sponsored prayer in school or refusing to sit in the back of a bus, it is in the small fights that we win our freedom. your belief that people such as myself are not entitled to live as the rest of america lives may just be 'your opinion' but it is a hateful opinion.

krossfyter

Jul 1, 2002, 04:36 AM

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
krossfyter you are a laugh riot. so good at BS its amazing. please dont pretend to be a nice thoughtful person, ive read every single post on this thread as well as all your other posts on this entire site since day one. i know what you are about.

you have stated numerous times on this thread that you disagree with the court. this clearly demonstrates an intolerance toward peoples who are different for you. im sorry its hard for you to except but the rest of us are not happy to sit on the back of the bus the rest of our lives. our rights do matter.

this isnt a matter of differences of opinion. the law and morality on this issue are quite clear. but for some reason you and thos elike you seem to think that your opinions and your beliefs shoudl be allowed to deprive others of their rights. i know too many people who ahve been hurt and killed by pious christians such as yourself to simply lay down my rights. people who are oppressed fight, and we fight for every victory we can achieve. whether it is eliminating a state sponsored prayer in school or refusing to sit in the back of a bus, it is in the small fights that we win our freedom. your belief that people such as myself are not entitled to live as the rest of america lives may just be 'your opinion' but it is a hateful opinion.

i think your generalizing me and sterotyping me. and yes man you are entitled to live the way you want to live and entitled to have your opionin where it may be.

just what makes me pious in your eyes by the way? never would i want to hurt anyone...so im sorry if i have. take care.

dig it.

krossfyter

Jul 1, 2002, 04:38 AM

and could you please answer some of my questions by the way.

AmbitiousLemon

Jul 1, 2002, 04:42 AM

i am certainly not generalizing or sterotyping anyone here. i am judging you based on what you have said. if you make hateful statements and hold hateful beliefs then i will judge you for that. i will not allow you to try to back out of this so easily. if you have changed your mind about what you have said, then please tell us. that would make me very happy to know that some eyes have been opened here. you may be using words of peace all of a sudden but moments ago you were speaking like a hatefilled tyrant. you can not tell me that you feel that my civil liberties do not matter and then pretend to respect me and my beliefs. i am sorry but you can not fool me.

krossfyter

Jul 1, 2002, 04:50 AM

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
i am certainly not generalizing or sterotyping anyone here. i am judging you based on what you have said. if you make hateful statements and hold hateful beliefs then i will judge you for that. i will not allow you to try to back out of this so easily. if you have changed your mind about what you have said, then please tell us. that would make me very happy to know that some eyes have been opened here. you may be using words of peace all of a sudden but moments ago you were speaking like a hatefilled tyrant. you can not tell me that you feel that my civil liberties do not matter and then pretend to respect me and my beliefs. i am sorry but you can not fool me.

dude im not trying to fool you or anyone.

when was i speaking like a hateful tyrant? please indicate such. i know most of the time im usualy jacking around and having some fun....but i never mean to hurt anyone with what i say...because i assume they are not sensitve to such. now if thats my failure then im sorry..do forgive me on that one. but exactly where again was i being hateful? im sorry i dont know where you got to thinking that i think yout civil liberties do not matter. becasue they sureas hell do. everyones do...its america they should. now can i get some indication of what exactly you are talking about here. thanks.

krossfyter

Jul 1, 2002, 04:52 AM

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
i am certainly not generalizing or sterotyping anyone here.

you called me a pious christian. if you knew me you would retract that statement. heh

dig it.

AmbitiousLemon

Jul 1, 2002, 05:22 AM

your playing dumb is growing tiresome.

this crap is so ludicrious its going to be turned down in a heartbeat.

its just one of those things that those people who are bothered by it should just let it slide. live with it ...come on.

yep... just one of those things that you just have to let slide.... no use fighting about it.

its stupid.

yeah becuase the rule from thier opinion rather then the law.

if i was a woman id be upset of all the injustices toward the woman but there are somethings that you just have to let go. if a man wants to open a door for you...sometimes its good just to let it happen rather than fighting it. just let him open the door for you...its not going to hurt anyone. some things are worth fighting for... and this one is not. it DIVIDES the country even more and thats the last thing we want for our country.... the terrorists would love it.

civil religion is not true religion. its often times contrary.

this whole issue is basically the tyrany of the minority.

prech it brotha!

if i went to another country i would be held subject to thier culture or laws. why cant they be here? the pledge is a symbol of america and anyone who comes here has to respect that but does not have to reciet it. no ones forcing no one. if you dont want to say it dont. big deal. if you dont like our flag...that does not give you a right to change it. go to another freking country where you agree with the way the flag looks.

Originally posted by cablejump
to everyone who wants and is trying to eliminate "under God" from the pledge- i have just one thing to say Shut The ****** Up!
also Get A Life- This is not hurting anyone- Why don't you complain about all of the starving children in America- or the corruption of politicions- For God's sake- stop whining!

:)

do these quotes ring a bell? you are seriously making me sick. you spend 5 pages telling me my opinion, my freedom, my feelings dont matter. you tell me that fighting for equality and freedom are a waste of time. you kowtow to various people making hatefilled statements while interjecting your own insulting jokes as if an insult veiled as a joke is any better. you flat out tell me that since im not christian i shouldnt live in the united states and hsould just leave. if i was an black instead of an atheist everyone here would think you wree a monster. the same way people read my satirical post and thought i was a monster. but since you only direct your hatred towards those who do not believe christ was the savior its apparently ok.

but hey if you honestly have change dyour mind, then let me know. because as long as you are telling me you still believe the things you wrote here (and countless other threads) i am going to remain convinced that you are a hateful person. that might sound like a horrible statement to some people but after reading pages and pages of people (including you, krossfyter) tell me that my rights do not matter, that i am somehow less of an american because of my beliefs, and that i should leave the country now or simply agree to live as a second hand citizen i can only conclude that you people must be very full of hate if you feel that simply because someone else has a difference of opinion regarding religion that for some reason their rights do not matter and that a court that protects that person's rights is somehow ridiculous, shameful, and wrong.

please take a good strong look at yourself and a good strong look at your actions and those of people who you support before you blindly attack and rob another person of their freedom.

and by the way, if i sound a little over the top, if i sound like i am exagerating, then perhaps you should go back and read my first post here (you can skip to the bold section so many missed) and think for a second about what i said there. i have a whole life time of experiences i could share with you, but perhaps just seeing that little snippet will give you some reason to think that maybe you just might be wrong.

was having to sit at the back of the bus all that big of a deal? did that really hurt anyone? did having to go to a separate school really hurt any children? should people have just let this slip? was the civil rights movement just a bunch of liberals who should have been shut up?

krossfyter

Jul 1, 2002, 05:34 AM

understood lemon.

thanks for posting up where you thought i was being rude. and in all honesty .... i do see your point. most of the time im throwing in a mixture of my opinions and offbeat insensitive comments....if you want to analyze it. i just assume that most cats on here arent really all that sensitive on the boards. if they do get sensitive about what i say..i would like to be confronted by it. and thanks for doing so.
so ... im sorry for the hateful things i have said in your eyes or in anyone elses. do forgive me. but if you cant thats you bag and understood. i do not retract my basic opinion and belief on this issuse. let me say this again so you wont misuderstand me.... you have as much right as i do to belief what you want in this issue. sorry if i screwed that part up in the start. you rights matter as much as mine.

whatever happened to you in the past im very sorry about and i wish it did not happen to you. im sorry that you think im like those people...but im not. you only know me from this board and if you knew me in person you would understand that im not mean or shallow like that. but anyways...forgive me for being such a butt sometimes on here... i do not mean to do that. im just getting caught up on all the fun and i enjoy messinga around like a lot of cats do on these boards.

dig it.

AmbitiousLemon

Jul 1, 2002, 05:52 AM

:) dude i dont understand you. you can look me in the face (metaphorically) and tell me you respect my beliefs, and then condemn a court for protecting my rights. try as you must, to deny this, if you disagree with this court decision, if you disagree with the first amendment, then you are disrespecting me. your logic here is nonexistant, friend. you act like im being overly sensitive. if i was speaking to a black man, and told him that i feel that he should drink from a different water fountain from me simply because he is black, and then tell him that if he has a problem with that he should simply go back to africa, would he be reacting in an overly sensitive manner to feel like i was a horrible ignorant and ahteful person? many people here certainly didnt think so when they thought i was making those very same statements. but now because we are talking about an atheist instead of a black person, suddenly its ok for people to make disparaging remarks and comment about how it is ok, and correct even, for that person's rights to be taken away. you baffle me. do you honestly not understand what you are saying? you are advocating the oppression of people simply because of their religious beliefs. it really is that simple. so you can take your 'dig it's and easy going bs and shove it, until you are willing to accept the FACT that you are advocating the oppression of non christian peoples you wont seem 'cool' to me or whatever the hell other image you are trying to pawn off on me.

krossfyter

Jul 1, 2002, 06:05 AM

look man... that guy has a right to push his view to the supreme court...thats his american right. the difference with me is that ...in my opinion the pledge of allegence shouold not be taken from the schools. and if you hate me or want knock me for that then so be it i dont care. thats not being tolerant of other views by the way. i respect your rights... if i didnt i would say you should not voice them. but i very strongly belief you have the right to voice what you feel is right. we have diametricaly opposing views on this issue and your not going to sit here and make me change my mind about it. you obviously dont respect me and never did. thats fine. but the fact remains im sitting here saying im sorry for what hurt i may have caused you and you cant forgive me. so thats over with. you obviously have other issues because you think that in order for me to be "Cool" in your eyes i need to completley change my beleive about this issue. you cant simply let be and let us have different views? whats wrong with that? why do you have to hate on someone because they think opposite then you on this issue?...not the voice and rights issue by the way. i dont care what you think about me... go ahead and think what you want. im trying to be cool with you but you obviously cant with me because im a christian. thats not being tolerant.

AmbitiousLemon

Jul 1, 2002, 06:16 AM

:) you dont get it do you? you think this is about 'a difference of opinions' sure i suppose you could characterize it that way. and the nazis had a difference of opinions with the jews. no matter how 'cool' you may want to be your hateful beliefs prevent me from thinking you are a good person. but i think this has gotten a bit out of hand (both of us not just you). i understand that i wont convince you. that was never my intent. i merely mean to resist. because that is all i can hope for. i made a decision that your hateful beliefs could not go unchallenged. whats wrong witha difference of opinions on this topic? ill tell you. its quite simple. it is because it is your opinion that a court who has decided to protect my rights is wrong. it is your opinion therefore that i do not have the same rights as the rest of the people in this country.

jelloshotsrule

Jul 1, 2002, 10:54 AM

as a christian.

i think that the phrase "under god" IS unconstitutional. i think it's clear that it is advocating belief in a god and should not be said in a state run facility. likewise, the patriotic songs sung at my church since september 11 are not right. i don't sing them because in general i don't think that america is all right and such. now, i would ask god to help america and such as i would every country and every gov't. but to sing a song that is praising the country i wouldn't do, not in church or anywhere.

i never got anything out of saying the pledge. and although my dad was in the army and my family is catholic, i was never discouraged from questioning the gov't or anything. of course, i didn't when i was young, but when i got a bit older and on my own (i'm 20 now) i did...

i do not think that only christianity is ok. and i do not think that only the US and constitution is right. in general. i don't see why the constitution is held as some sort of higher word.... i think it was good but needs to be adapted for the times. such as... gasp. guns.

anyhoo, i can see the various viewpoints here... but basically it comes down to, why do the kids have to worry about this stuff in school when they should be learning. they don't seem to do enough of that anyways...

as for the lemon vs krossfyter thing. sure, kross came off a bit wrong and said sorry. but lemon, your assumption after assumption of peoples' intentions on the board in general is more arrogant than the people you attack as arrogant. i saw the strong point in your sarcastic comments, but then you went and flat out attacked him based on things he said, and apologized for, and yet you did not let up. and you say he has the hatred in him... ok. and oh yeah, not only christians believe in god and say the pledge with "under god". so it's not fair to attack christians as the only ones who might support the phrase. in fact, i read that a young hindu would rephrase it as "under godS".. another generalization and stereotype you made that you seem to be so strongly against (ie that christians are the only ones who might be upset by the ruling)

backdawg... authority got to where it is not by some great deed or act of a higher power or anything. generally, the people were lucky and worked their way up. my point is, authority needs to be questioned and while it's not always wrong by any means, sometimes it is... and thus, needs to held in check. ie, checks and balances...... no kid should be taught to just accept all authority in every case. no, i don't think anarchy or straight up rebellion is the way to go. for example, i generally think cops are good and do a good job. i think that most of the people who complain about "random" car searches and stuff are the ones who have the drugs and whatnot anyways. however, there is no doubt that at times cops act in a racist manner or just assume something based on the fact that 4 18 year olds are in a car late at night. and that's not right/fair. thus, their "authority" should by all means be questioned....

basically- it's ok for me to say in private, "jesus, help america act justly and not partake in any evil, unjust actions" etc etc... but to claim in a state run facility that there is a god, no doubt, then that is not right. not according to the constitution, and not in general to me....

ahh. long thread. sorry for digging it up but i was gone all weekend...

mr.w

Jul 1, 2002, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule

as a christian ..............

well said jello.

And also, I just want to say sorry to lemon for thinking that you were a racist :) I got a little confused about your post.

jelloshotsrule

Jul 1, 2002, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by mr.w
well said jello.

ha. it was anything but.... as is often the case when i read multiple pages of a thread i've missed out on and want to comment on 10 different things and then try to do it.... i always miss something or just sound like i'm rambling and stumbling over myself. ha

AmbitiousLemon

Jul 1, 2002, 02:23 PM

well thank you for that jello. i have nothing against christians. the onlypeople i have something against are those who attack me. even in krossfyter's 'apologies' he continued to insult and attack. that is why i continued. nearly all of my friends and family are christian, so i certainly have no problem with it. it is when people allow their faith to so blind them that they mindlessly attack others that i begin to have a problem with someone. i honestly believe that most christians are like you jello, good people with good hearts who just want to worship as they wish and allow others to do the same. in fact this is how i feel all people regardless of religion are. it is the unsilient minority such as krossfyter who tell me i shouldnt be allowed to live in this country if i do not worship as he does that i have problems with. and an apology that does not retract those words is no apology at all in my mind. i do not think i am arrogant simply because i wouldnt back down, if that upsets people, then too bad. one of the reasons it has taken so long for things like this to be fixed by courts is that too many people have been silient for too long. i appreciate your sharing your thoughts but i do not understand why you would call me arrogant for defending myself against someone who has so hatefully attacked me.

what if i was gay and he had told me i was a fagot and i should be heterosexual or leave this country, would that have been ok, or could i have defended myself then? what is i was black and he had called me a ****** and told me i should go back to africa? is that ok? could i then defend myself? i find it so odd that you can attack someone who doesnt believe in god simply for that reason and others on this thread will congratulate and agree with you and not see that as hateful. that is the most frightening thing about this. that hateful statements come from the mouth of someone like krossfyter, and that others join in the chant without any problems. and when one of the peopel who is the object of the ridicule speaks up it is seen as overly sensitive and arrogant. this frightens but does not surprise me.

krossfyter

Jul 1, 2002, 02:26 PM

if you dont want people to attack you or insult you why must you insult ot attack them when doing the same thing?

im not attacking you...GET OVER IT!

krossfyter

Jul 1, 2002, 02:27 PM

why are you very bitter man?

i apologized but you still hate on me. what gives?

krossfyter

Jul 1, 2002, 02:28 PM

this is some stuid repugnant ***** might i say.

very intresting!

dig it.

AmbitiousLemon

Jul 1, 2002, 02:35 PM

korss. glad you felt you had to post 3 posts in a wow, in order to say once again what a horrid little man you are.

you are a bigot my friend. if my saying that is offensive to you the perhaps you should stop being so hateful.

again i must say that the only reason you and others have problems with what i have said is because i am not christian. when people thought i was a bigot (because of my satirical post) they said far worse things about me than what i have said about you and it was accepted. but when i simply tell you that i do not forgive you and you are a hateful person when you attack a atheist, suddenly im a bad guy. seriously krossfyter, if yo dont like that i have called you a hateful person, then please stop hating. its really as simple as that.

krossfyter

Jul 1, 2002, 02:41 PM

thanks for the love ambitous lemon.

dig it.

jelloshotsrule

Jul 1, 2002, 02:56 PM

lemon-

i agree with your point about kross' example about people not liking it and having to leave. of course that's not what i'mm about nor do i think it's ok to have such an attitude, and i'm glad you don't either.

i just think your responses to him only perpetuated the problem/misunderstanding. i have no problems that you are an atheist and in fact i didn't even realize it until the last post because though you were defending the atheist point of view, i didn't assume anything. as there are atheists on both sides, as well as christians on both sides.

anyways, no hate here. i have nothing against you. you just need to realize not everything on here is a serious personal attack and that you could also be a bit less harsh in your responses.. just as kross and b2tm and whoever else could be... no reason to get so fired up about it for anyone...

SoarEyes

Jul 1, 2002, 03:00 PM

well all I have to say about it is this:
http://www.plastic.com/article.html?sid=02/06/30/23285364;cmt=32

Don’t you just love plastic

I believe in Atheism
:confused:

krossfyter

Jul 1, 2002, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
lemon-

i agree with your point about kross' example about people not liking it and having to leave. of course that's not what i'mm about nor do i think it's ok to have such an attitude, and i'm glad you don't either.

this statement i retract and i apologize for... i was simply responding from the emotion of having this issue drag on thats all. did not mean to hurt or single out anyone.

let me say this so it can be a little more clear....

NO ONE SHOULD LEAVE .....everyone even athiests have a right to beleive the way they want.... and should not be oppresed for it.

im sorry if i came off as the oppresor.... because of a few statements of mine.

AmbitiousLemon

Jul 1, 2002, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
anyways, no hate here. i have nothing against you. you just need to realize not everything on here is a serious personal attack and that you could also be a bit less harsh in your responses.. just as kross and b2tm and whoever else could be... no reason to get so fired up about it for anyone...

o i didnt even mean to suggest you had any hatred or anything of the sort. but really. had this been an issue of black and white would i then have been justified? for some reason people, even open minded people such as yorself, can not seem to understand that hatred is hatred, and no one should be discouraged from speaking up against it. and honestly peopel should be very angry when they read things such as has been said by people on this thread. it is frightening that you are not.

imagine if you will that kross had called me a ****** and told me that i should be happy sitting in the back of the bus and i should just let the issue drop. would i have been out of line to tell him he was a racist and that he was being hateful? this issue is exactly the same. there is a minority who has had its rights squashed for years, and is now standing up for equality. that is all that i am trying to get across.

just soaw your post krossfyter. imagine if you had said the following " NO ONE SHOULD LEAVE .....everyone even negros have a right to believe the way they want.... and should not be oppresed for it. "

sounds bad right? :) no im not saying there was anything wrong with your statement. just puts some perspective on things i hope. and i dont see how you can amke the above statement and then oppose a court ruling that made a decision that only corrected an injustice against said minorities.

[btw kross, sorry to single you out once again]

krossfyter

Jul 1, 2002, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon

led me a ****** and told me that i should be happy sitting in the back of the bus and i should just let the issue drop. would i have been out of line to tell him he was a racist and that he was being hateful? this issue is exactly the same. there is a minority who has had its rights squashed for years, and is now standing up for equality. that is all that i am trying to get across.

[btw kross, sorry to single you out once again]

no you would not be out of line with that. you have the right to not let the issue drop... you have the right for your voice to be heard...the minority should not have thier rights squashed period. let all voices be heard. i AGREE.

its cool.

krossfyter

Jul 1, 2002, 03:22 PM

heres the deal...

thier are two people on this matter...

those that think the pledge should be taken out.

those that dont.

the ones that do think the pledge should be taken out.... have the right to fight it. they have the right for thier voice to be heard. .... etc. etc. they have all the rights in the free world to try and get it taken out. no one should opprese them. i agree.

however im one who does not think the pledge should be taken out.

thats it ...pure and simple. no need to read more into my motive for this one.

:)

jelloshotsrule

Jul 1, 2002, 03:22 PM

lemon,

i see yoru point fully and i'm willing to bet that because i am not an atheist that it didn't come off as hateful as you took it. for that i'm sorry. it was not one of ignorance as much as just flat out not being on the same level as you as far as how we might take such comments...

i agree hatred is hatred. yes. but truly you can see how he is sorry and spoke out of emotion or whatever. he was wrong. he admitted it. that's how one learns and grows... so let's move on and be more productive...

AmbitiousLemon

Jul 1, 2002, 03:30 PM

:) i hear that. but now that we are all being civil and such. perhaps everyone should take that understanding and look again at the court decision. all the court has done is remove a portion of the pledge that was added during a most terrible time in our country (the mccarthy era) in order to root out atheists. this was done because of separation of church and state, and because it was harming children who were being forced to recite the pledge every monring in a public school, or decide to protest. can you really falt the court for such a decision? sure it might seem minor, but that is how rquality is achieved. through minor victories, fought on a day to day basis that hold more meaning then they might seem superficially.

its all burned into our minds as something important, but think about black and the buses. imagine how minor that must ahve seemed even to sympathetic white at the time. african americans were seen as stirring up trouble unnecessarily. over a minor issue such as having to sit in the back of a bus, and get up for awhite person. but it is a big issue, and it is seen as such today, because of the progress that was made because of that decision and many subsequent decisions and movements.

[kross, your private message box is full]

krossfyter

Jul 1, 2002, 03:34 PM

i see your point lemon. i hear ya. i respect it.

[lemon my pm box is not full anymore]

SoarEyes

Jul 1, 2002, 03:40 PM

I totally agree with you AmbitiousLemon ...... BUT
don’t be such sauerpuss about

In Darwin we trust

mc68k

Jul 1, 2002, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by krossfyter
*creator of the first and only unmarked avatar*
Sorry if this is off topic, but isn't it marked since it's a black box? Unmarked would be a transparent gif…

krossfyter

Jul 1, 2002, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by mc68k

Sorry if this is off topic, but isn't it marked since it's a black box? Unmarked would be a transparent gif…

yeah good point. thanks for that. but a transparent one wont show up. so i have to have something to make the statement of it being unmarked. transparent wouldnt do it i beleive...since it would look like nothing there...thus no avator. i think.

heh.

mc68k

Jul 1, 2002, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by krossfyter

yeah good point. thanks for that. but a transparent one wont show up. so i have to have something to make the statement of it being unmarked. transparent wouldnt do it i beleive...since it would look like nothing there...thus no avator. i think.

heh.
It will show up as a 50x50 space where normally there wouldn't be one. That would still be a legitimate claim.

krossfyter

Jul 1, 2002, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by mc68k

It will show up as a 50x50 space where normally there wouldn't be one. That would still be a legitimate claim.

well let me try it and lets see what happens.

thanks for the advice.

always good to get some help.

:D

jefhatfield

Jul 1, 2002, 06:41 PM

the ultra left thinks we are cramming religion down people's throats and the ultra right thinks we are worshpping a cloth idol

as a moderate, i say keep the pledge the same and why make an issue either way fifty years later

let's concentrate on

1) catching al qaeda
2) boosting the economy
3) helping apple take back some market share

Backtothemac

Jul 1, 2002, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
the ultra left thinks we are cramming religion down people's throats and the ultra right thinks we are worshpping a cloth idol

as a moderate, i say keep the pledge the same and why make an issue either way fifty years later

let's concentrate on

1) catching al qaeda
2) boosting the economy
3) helping apple take back some market share

There you go jef. See, us moderates really are the ones in control. he.he.

krossfyter

Jul 1, 2002, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
the ultra left thinks we are cramming religion down people's throats and the ultra right thinks we are worshpping a cloth idol

as a moderate, i say keep the pledge the same and why make an issue either way fifty years later

let's concentrate on

1) catching al qaeda
2) boosting the economy
3) helping apple take back some market share

i agree with that.
too most liberals im conservative... to most conservatives im too liberal. i guess that makes me a moderate. i dont know. independent maybe. not sure.

take care.

Sun Baked

Jul 1, 2002, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by krossfyter
why are you very bitter man?

Remember

"There is no such thing as a bitter man, only an improperly seasoned one"

- Hannibal Lector

raschild

Jul 1, 2002, 10:47 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PCUser
[B]"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. " 1st Amendment (emphasis added)

If you read the sentence strictly, that means Congress can not take sides that there even is a God. Which means it is unconstitional to have it in the pledge.

Also, Backtothemac, your rights STOP when they meet others. Therefore, praying at a football game violates the athiest's right. His rights do not "violate" yours. He has the right to not pray, and you have the right to pray. When in conflict, you BOTH lose.

I'm disappointed that so many Americans don't know their own history. Too many have fallen under the lie that God is not an intricate part of this country. "Separation of Church and State" is nowhere in the first amendment or the Constitution. It came from an 1802 letter written by President Thomas Jefferson. He was expressing his opinion on the first amendment. He was amazed that the American people would go to such lengths to prevent the government from establishing a national religion or exerting any control over their church (freedom of worship). It goes both ways. Church cannot run the government, but does not mean that God can, of necessarily should be, left out of government institutions. That's what it means when the Constitution says "Make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
I'm also baffled by the fact that a God-fearing person can't pray in school (or wherever) because of the atheist's rights, but the atheist is totally justified, even applauded, for preventing the religious person from expressing themselves through prayer or what have you. It makes no sense!!

raschild

Jul 1, 2002, 10:49 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PCUser
[B]"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. " 1st Amendment (emphasis added)

If you read the sentence strictly, that means Congress can not take sides that there even is a God. Which means it is unconstitional to have it in the pledge.

Also, Backtothemac, your rights STOP when they meet others. Therefore, praying at a football game violates the athiest's right. His rights do not "violate" yours. He has the right to not pray, and you have the right to pray. When in conflict, you BOTH lose.
_____________________________________________________________

I'm disappointed that so many Americans don't know their own history. Too many have fallen under the lie that God is not an intricate part of this country. "Separation of Church and State" is nowhere in the first amendment or the Constitution. It came from an 1802 letter written by President Thomas Jefferson. He was expressing his opinion on the first amendment. He was amazed that the American people would go to such lengths to prevent the government from establishing a national religion or exerting any control over their church (freedom of worship). It goes both ways. Church cannot run the government, but does not mean that God can, of necessarily should be, left out of government institutions. That's what it means when the Constitution says "Make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
I'm also baffled by the fact that a God-fearing person can't pray in school (or wherever) because of the atheist's rights, but the atheist is totally justified, even applauded, for preventing the religious person from expressing themselves through prayer or what have you. It makes no sense!!arial

coolocity

Jul 2, 2002, 08:56 AM

I like that one Simpsons episode that ended with a restraining order between church and state. Hehe.

job

Jul 2, 2002, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by raschild
[QUOTE]Originally posted by PCUser
[B]Also, Backtothemac, your rights STOP when they meet others. Therefore, praying at a football game violates the athiest's right. His rights do not "violate" yours. He has the right to not pray, and you have the right to pray. When in conflict, you BOTH lose.arial

I'm just curious how my personal rights "stop when they meet others."
I don't exactly plan on conforming and giving up my rights, just so someone is not offended. In this scenario, how do the "rights" (just call them beliefs, since we all share the same fundamental rights) of an atheist not "violate" b2tm, when his, in comparison, do?

Aren't you telling him what he can and cannot do? You are telling him it is offensive to pray, yet at the same time you claim that it is alright for an athiest to proclaim his beliefs. To some, would'nt that be offensive instead?

I am not "against" athiest by any means. They have the right to believe anything they want to. I just find it hard to understand just exactly you are trying to say.

jelloshotsrule

Jul 2, 2002, 10:30 AM

i'm not sure if pcuser was saying this... but the difference is that this is a government run building...

therefore, to make a pledge standard (not mandatory, i know, but common practice) including the phrase "under god" which denotes that there is a god, is not right....

i'm trying to think of a good analogy but i'm coming up empty for now...

basically, the atheists aren't arguing for the right to say "one nation, there is no god, indivisible...." but just to leave out mention of god at all... therefore, it's not infringing on anyone's beliefs... you see what i'm saying? i know it's hard to get and i'm not speaking too clearly.

in this case, what infringes upon the beliefs of one, the opposite doesn't infringe upon the beliefs of the other. that is to say, leaving out the "under god" does not directly infringe upon the beliefs of any people who believe in god. whereas having it there DOES infringe upon atheists.

now, whether one cares about that infringement or not is different, but that's how leaving it out and having it in differ in how it impacts the groups....

if a good analogy comes to mind i'll try to explain it... word out.

ps- im a christian but don't think it belongs in the pledge... word

jefhatfield

Jul 2, 2002, 10:38 AM

jello, that makes a lot of sense and i see your point

in actuality, we are mostly an atheist nation in practice even though a lot of atheists think they are christian because they think it's some trait like blond hair or brown eyes

any religion is a consious belief, not a tradition passed down or a trait genetically encoded

jelloshotsrule

Jul 2, 2002, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
jello, that makes a lot of sense and i see your point

in actuality, we are mostly an atheist nation in practice even though a lot of atheists think they are christian because they think it's some trait like blond hair or brown eyes

any religion is a consious belief, not a tradition passed down or a trait genetically encoded

glad it made sense cause it did in my mind, but not really on paper.... ha.

yeah, too many people call themselves christians for just going to church, just as many people call themselves catholic when they don't go to church, which is very important in the catholic faith... so it kinda goes either way...

there are more atheists than would label themselves as such i'm sure... just in that they don't believe in god really, but they don't think about it enough to label themselves.... i have a few friends like that. word

jefhatfield

Jul 2, 2002, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule

glad it made sense cause it did in my mind, but not really on paper.... ha.

yeah, too many people call themselves christians for just going to church, just as many people call themselves catholic when they don't go to church, which is very important in the catholic faith... so it kinda goes either way...

there are more atheists than would label themselves as such i'm sure... just in that they don't believe in god really, but they don't think about it enough to label themselves.... i have a few friends like that. word

i am a prod i guess, he he, but i use the term christian for all types

but is it really that important for a modern day catholic to go to church? all the time?

there is this ex-priest on radio that marries people on the air in the sf bay area and he is very popular and gets no flak

mcrain

Jul 2, 2002, 11:51 AM

This is a seriously dead horse because no politician will go on record as saying that the decision was right (political suicide), and everyone in the legislature and executive branch seems to think that it is ok to jump in and interfer with the judicial branch.

This decision will most likely be overturned, so really this whole argument is moot.

But, I would like to point out that there are a few common misperceptions.

First, the decision has been butchered here, and in the media. This isn't a decision about forcing kids to say the pledge. That was previously found to be unconstitutional (I'm pretty sure at least). This was a decision about a voluntary saying of the pledge. Yes, the kids could opt out. But, the teacher led the kids, and the court said that when the teacher leads the kids in the pledge, the teacher is acting as the state, and by doing so, is implying that the state supports the words "under God." As such, the court found the practice unconstitutional. Now, clearly, this decision does not prevent kids from unilaterally saying the pledge by themselves.

Second, some have argued about the word God in the pledge as going too far. I won't touch that argument. I just would like to look at the word under.

Many Native Americans, Druids, and other religions see Mother Earth as their god. As such, this would be a nation over their gods, right? Saying under God in the pledge implies that the US Government is saying they are wrong, and that this country's religion is NOT their religion.

Just a few thoughts on a decision that won't be around much longer.

jelloshotsrule

Jul 2, 2002, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i am a prod i guess, he he, but i use the term christian for all types

but is it really that important for a modern day catholic to go to church? all the time?

there is this ex-priest on radio that marries people on the air in the sf bay area and he is very popular and gets no flak

well catholics interpret "keep holy the sabbath" as a commandment to praise god in church on sundays.... so yeah, basically. it is a pretty serious sin if you skip church fully knowing and there's no decent reason.

it's not the same as being "catholic" and not believing in christ or something, which clearly doesn't fit... but it is something that is inherent to catholocism. at least in my understanding of it....

ps. what's a "prod"? ha

mcrain

Jul 2, 2002, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule

ps. what's a "prod"? ha

A satan worshiper. :)

(edit) I better put a smiley on here before someone doesn't realize I'm joking.
(edit) the answer is protestant (I think that's what he means)

jefhatfield

Jul 2, 2002, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule

well catholics interpret "keep holy the sabbath" as a commandment to praise god in church on sundays.... so yeah, basically. it is a pretty serious sin if you skip church fully knowing and there's no decent reason.

it's not the same as being "catholic" and not believing in christ or something, which clearly doesn't fit... but it is something that is inherent to catholocism. at least in my understanding of it....

ps. what's a "prod"? ha

a catholic friend called me that...as for protestant for short...but i am not really protesting the pope...i just consider him one of many great christian leaders like the archbishop of canterbury and billy graham and the head of the greek orthodox church, etc...

raschild

Jul 2, 2002, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by hitman

I'm just curious how my personal rights "stop when they meet others."
I don't exactly plan on conforming and giving up my rights, just so someone is not offended. In this scenario, how do the "rights" (just call them beliefs, since we all share the same fundamental rights) of an atheist not "violate" b2tm, when his, in comparison, do?

Aren't you telling him what he can and cannot do? You are telling him it is offensive to pray, yet at the same time you claim that it is alright for an athiest to proclaim his beliefs. To some, would'nt that be offensive instead?

I am not "against" athiest by any means. They have the right to believe anything they want to. I just find it hard to understand just exactly you are trying to say.
_____________________________________________________________

If you look at it again it says that the quote about atheists is from PCUser, not me. Sorry about the confusion

jelloshotsrule

Jul 2, 2002, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by mcrain
A satan worshiper. :)

(edit) I better put a smiley on here before someone doesn't realize I'm joking.
(edit) the answer is protestant (I think that's what he means)

haha. good ole satan worshippers.....

prod. interesting...

PCUser

Jul 2, 2002, 01:10 PM

Golly, this thread has gone on while I've been away... Also, jello, you hit the nail on the head. :)

hitman- I apologize for the poor wording in that post. It was rushed, and my choice of wording in that post was poor. (Also, substitute 'school' or some other government organization for 'football game') The points I was trying to make:

An individual praying anywhere they want is just fine, and that does not interfere with another's rights. If a government institution leads a prayer, or states that there is a "God", then it is illegal, for two reasons:
1) It oversteps their bounds specified in the First Amendment.
2) It infringes upon the rights of those who do not believe in a "God", or in just one god.

Your rights stop when they infringe, violate, etc, upon another's rights (not when they "meet" them, bad choice of words on my part). That's why slander and libel are illegal... your right to freedom of speech stops when it infringes upon another's rights. Stating in the pledge that there is a "God" infringes upon an atheist's rights (and those who believe in more then one god). Leaving out that statement does not infringe upon the rights of those who believe in God, because it states nothing about an existence of a "God" or gods.

raschild- the official interpretation of the First Amendment by the Supreme Court of the US contains separation of church and state. Reading this excerpt of the Supreme Court's majority ruling on 'Everson vs. Board of Education' might clarify that: http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/courtrulings.html.

This page might also interest you: http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/quotes_founders.html. It is a page of quotes of the 'founding fathers' that show, without a doubt, that "God" was not an "intricate" part of the design of our nation, nor should it be. A quote from Thomas Jefferson: "I contemplate with soveriegn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

job

Jul 2, 2002, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by raschild

_____________________________________________________________

If you look at it again it says that the quote about atheists is from PCUser, not me. Sorry about the confusion

Ah. ok. No problem. I was just confused as too what was being said.
cheers
hitman

job

Jul 2, 2002, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by PCUser
hitman- I apologize for the poor wording in that post. It was rushed, and my choice of wording in that post was poor. (Also, substitute 'school' or some other government organization for 'football game') The points I was trying to make:

An individual praying anywhere they want is just fine, and that does not interfere with another's rights. If a government institution leads a prayer, or states that there is a "God", then it is illegal, for two reasons:
1) It oversteps their bounds specified in the First Amendment.
2) It infringes upon the rights of those who do not believe in a "God", or in just one god.

Your rights stop when they infringe, violate, etc, upon another's rights (not when they "meet" them, bad choice of words on my part). That's why slander and libel are illegal... your right to freedom of speech stops when it infringes upon another's rights. Stating in the pledge that there is a "God" infringes upon an atheist's rights (and those who believe in more then one god). Leaving out that statement does not infringe upon the rights of those who believe in God, because it states nothing about an existence of a "God" or gods.

Thanks for clarifying. I just was not sure as to what was being said.
cheers,
hitman

raschild

Jul 2, 2002, 05:50 PM

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PCUser [/i
raschild- the official interpretation of the First Amendment by the Supreme Court of the US contains separation of church and state. Reading this excerpt of the Supreme Court's majority ruling on 'Everson vs. Board of Education' might clarify that: http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/courtrulings.html.

____________________________________

Here's a URL for you activist judge-supporting people (they sure have caused havoc in this country!). Activist Judges, that is. http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=9

By the way, you need to read the whole context of the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote, including the first of the series written by the Danubury Baptist Association. That should also be on the Wall Builders site. You misused it (the quote) because of lack of context-a common error. Thanks.

PCUser

Jul 3, 2002, 12:04 PM

Sorry for bringing this old thread back up, but I felt the urge to rebut raschild.

raschild - The mistake I believe you made (I could be wrong, but it seems this way) is that you let Wallbuilders interpret the letters for you. I have read the letters in question, and I suggest you do so again, as well. Here's a link to the letter Thomas Jefferson was responding to http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/dba_jefferson.html, and a link to Thomas Jefferson's response http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/jefferson_dba.html.

The Danbury Baptist Association is expressing concern that the Constitution (specifically, the first amendment to it) is ambiguous on the State's authority over religion. They are afraid that the sentence only means that Congress can not establish a religion, and future government officials may take away their religious authority. Thomas Jefferson responds and assures them it means that there is separation between Church and State, and no future government officials can take it away.

The quote from the Danbury Baptist Association expressing their concern:

"Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty -- That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals -- That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted on the Basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, and such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degradingacknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men -- should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ."

My intrepretation of the paragraph is as follows. They begin by saying that they are on the side of religious liberty (that anyone can practice anything they wish at any time, unlike many other religious organization's opinions at that time). Their opinion is that the Government's power should extend no more then actions, and not thought (which religion is). After which they express concern that the Constitution is not specific (the sentence is ambiguous because it can be interpreted two very different ways) over the government's power over religion. Then they say, not as a concern, but as a rebuke, that previous governing documents had taken the right of religious authority away from the people and given it to the civil authorities (they are talking about previous governing documents, not the US Constitution, when they make the statement about "inalienable rights", because the Constitution was not in existence at the time of the Revolution). Finally they express their concern -- which is not quoted by Wallbuilders -- that because the sentence is ambiguous, future government officials may be able to take away the right of religious authority.

The response paragraph from Thomas Jefferson:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

My interpretation is this: Thomas Jefferson starts by agreeing with the Danbury Baptist Association that action, and not thought, is all the government has power over. He finishes that sentence by saying that the amendment to the Constitution means that the State has no power to govern religion in any way (and therefore the quote is not out of context). He finishes his paragraph with his opinion that the nation interprets the sentence in the correct way.

So, who made the common mistake? I read and understood the letters. I suggest you re-read the letters yourself, or at least read them. If you would like to bring the whole series of letters into this, be my guest.

raschild

Jul 3, 2002, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by PCUser
My interpretation is this: Thomas Jefferson starts by agreeing with the Danbury Baptist Association that action, and not thought, is all the government has power over. He finishes that sentence by saying that the amendment to the Constitution means that the State has no power to govern religion in any way (and therefore the quote is not out of context). He finishes his paragraph with his opinion that the nation interprets the sentence in the correct way.

So, who made the common mistake? I read and understood the letters. I suggest you re-read the letters yourself, or at least read them. If you would like to bring the whole series of letters into this, be my guest. [/B]
_____________________________________
PCUSER-
I think we've been misunderstanding each other. I think we're on the same side on the issue of Separation of Church and State (my previous post explains my position pretty well). What I'm saying is that God is part of our nation's history and the atheists (or what have you) are going to have to face up to that.
-"We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible."- Benjamin Rush
(See also Declaration of Independence)