Author Topic: Senate condemns Pledge ruling 99-0 (Read 991 times)

majic · « **Reply #45 on:** June 27, 2002, 11:39:08 AM »

Weazel, you don't really believe the crap you're spewing do ya?

Wingnut_0 · « **Reply #46 on:** June 27, 2002, 12:30:12 PM »

Eagler,

You failed to address any of the post directed at you so I'll repost this here for you in this thread as well.

Quote

Loyalist hit the nail on the head.

Everytime some Christian starts raising cane about prayer in school around my house, and brings up the pledge I clearly point out that I and my child will not be raised to be forced to sit thru THEIR beliefs. Oh but that's not what we're doing, God can mean whatever..yea freaking right....bullchit.

I say the same thing. If I wanted you to recite something with Gods, Goddess, Allah, Jehovah, Brigid, Osiris, Hecate, No god, etc, you that support the "under God" bit would have a holy fit because it wasn't "christian". You can't have it both ways.

I could care less if you worshipped Grapefruits. That doesn't mean everyone should or does think Grapefruits are divine.
Quote

There's no way as a X-ian that you'd stand to have your child or yourself acknowledge any other diety except yours. "god" as ADDED to the pledge was added to refer to the X-ian "god" and him only. So don't pull that viel down saying we can use it as an all encompassing term.

Sikboy · « **Reply #47 on:** June 27, 2002, 12:43:24 PM »

If we're going to place our nation under a ficticious charactor, I'd prefer Froto from the lord of the Rings.

Or maybe Spiderman

-Sikboy

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #48 on:** June 27, 2002, 12:48:10 PM »

Past a certain point non-conformist behavior becomes dangerous degenerate and abbernt behavior. Im sure that we all agree on this point no? Certainly Jeff Dahmer was non conforming to the normal ideas of USA society, and did so to an extent that made him an abberant and degenerate.

And Tahgut dont you think KKK are non conformist with respect to most of us? Dont they not conform the generally accepted idea that non-whites and non-protestants are people desreving of civil rights and liberity and life on the USA?

My whole point it that the judges went past the point of acceptable non conformity. They are a bunch of self righteus degenerates who must be arrested and shot.

Plus I really really really like the word degenerate.

Tac · « **Reply #49 on:** June 27, 2002, 01:20:09 PM »

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS,
ONE NATION, (SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE),
INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL

San Francisco (SatireWire.com) — A U.S. federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public school is unconstitutional because it contains the phrase "under God," a decision that has infuriated politicians from both parties, and sent the United States on a desperate search for a new sponsor.

While the U.S. Justice Department said it plans to appeal the ruling, officials are quietly speaking with several potential sponsors interested in having their brands associated with America, and are already test-marketing the phrases "One nation, under Wal-Mart," "One nation, under Windows XP," and "One nation, but 24,000 Starbucks."

Until an agreement is reached, however, the U.S. will advertise by replacing the phrase "One nation, under God," with "One nation, (sponsorship opportunities available)."

While the words "under God" were only added to the Pledge by Congress in 1954, God has been the title patron of the United States since its founding in 1776, and the God name adorns everything from U.S. currency to the phrase "So help me God" used to swear in judges and politicians. According to analysts, severing that 226-year relationship without an alternative is a mistake.

"Over the years, the U.S. under God has been a great draw for the major players - Einstein, Solzhenitsyn, John Lennon," said government marketing analyst Gil Treacle. "Without God's brand recognition and infinite marketing powers, you risk losing the marquis names to competitors. Then the networks don't renew, the money dries up, the fans revolt, and the next thing you know, you're Argentina."

But others defended the decision, saying it was wrong to force religion on anyone. "The phrase 'under God' clearly violates the separation of church and state," said McDonald's CEO Jack Greenberg. "However, there is nothing in the Constitution that separates chicken and state, which is why we're proposing, 'One nation, six chicken McNuggets and a medium Coke, all for $1.99.'"

Europeans, meanwhile, seemed to be confused by the uproar. "I don't understand. I always thought it was 'One nation, we are God,'" said British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "Oh my, I've been worshipping them for nothing."

Back in America, many questioned whether the United States really needs a patron, and instead suggested the Pledge should include verbiage that simply reflects America. So far, the leading contenders:

¤ "One nation, under indictment,"
¤ "One nation, road under repair,"
¤ "One nation, sure, but with cheerleaders!"
¤ "One nation, under yellow alert, please report any suspicious activity,"
¤ "One nation, but kinda two if you count Canada."

God, in various forms, currently sponsors most nations, with the exception of officially atheist China and Vietnam, and the Netherlands, which hasn't been told yet but is in for a nasty shock tomorrow.

Eagler · « **Reply #50 on:** June 27, 2002, 01:22:54 PM »

Tac
It'd have to be:

"one nation under Bill Gates"

Nifty · « **Reply #51 on:** June 27, 2002, 01:27:06 PM »

I dunno about the rest of you, but I'd go for "sure, but with cheerleaders" myself!

hehe, how come it wasn't "under cheerleaders"? too easy to be construed as "underage cheerleaders"???

Steven · « **Reply #52 on:** June 27, 2002, 01:52:57 PM »

One nation under bush?

You know what bugs me, is when people put their hand on their heart during the singing of the national anthem. It's a great song and take your hat off in respect, but you place your hand on your heart during a "pledge"...you "pledge" something.

Anyway, the pledge sounds fine to me without a deity. I don't think it will alter anyone's life by taking it out.

"I pledge alegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all." I think the pledge only started in that late 40's or early 50's anyway.

Sikboy...Frodo? heh heh

koala · « **Reply #53 on:** June 28, 2002, 11:44:21 AM »

Eh, never mind.

StSanta · « **Reply #54 on:** July 04, 2002, 06:34:10 AM »

Heh, this will be overturned, unfortunately.

But it's a good start.

I mean, the logic involved is easily understood.

The term 'God' refers to an entity existing in certain religious beliefs. Christians call their god 'god' with a capital G, just as it is in the pledge.

The constitution forbids the government from promoting one religion before another. This dates back to the bad experiences with the Church of England, and it is in this light the founding fathers decision must be seen.

'God' with a capital G is a direct reference to the Christian deity. 'god' would be more all encompassing, but that would promote monotheistic faiths before polytheistic ones. Those lacking faith would also find themselves on the wrong side of government favour.

This is how simple it is: 'God' is a reference to the Christian deity. By using it, you exclude polytheistic faiths, and those Americans lacking faith.

I know that Ronald Reagain, head of state for eight years said that '...atheists aren't real Americans' but again, such a statement is not in line with the constitution.

The 'under God' phrase was added in 1954 in an effort to further show the separation between the godless communists and the God fearing American people.

It's a religious addition endorsing one or several religions before others, or before lack of faith.

And that, my friends, is unconstitutional. Simple

.

The ruling will be overturned. Senators calling a judge 'stupid'. 'That judge is just stupid'. Senators using ad hominem attacks, calling others stupid, like kindergarden kids do. It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry.

Good luck with it though

. At least you have (in theory) a separation between church and state, and that's more than we have here.

NUKE · « **Reply #55 on:** July 04, 2002, 08:44:24 PM »

Quote

A recent poll on CNN showed that 25% of Americans agreed with the ruling. The Congress voted against it 99-0. Where are the 25% represented?

25% of Americans being retarded seems a bit high. Unless they polled Ted Turner's family and friends

Nuke

Samm · « **Reply #56 on:** July 04, 2002, 09:15:50 PM »

Speaking of ad hominem...

Eagler · « **Reply #57 on:** July 05, 2002, 07:00:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Loyalist
A recent poll on CNN showed that 25% of Americans agreed with the ruling. The Congress voted against it 99-0. Where are the 25% represented?

CNN Poll

Question 1
Do you watch Fox News?

Question 2
Are you Republican?

*** Note to poll taker:
A "Yes" answer to Question 1 or Question 2 disqualifies this person from any CNN poll. Hang up immediately and call the next person on the list ...

Question 3
Do you have AOL 7.0?

oarsman · « **Reply #58 on:** July 06, 2002, 07:07:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Loyalist
A recent poll on CNN showed that 25% of Americans agreed with the ruling. The Congress voted against it 99-0. Where are the 25% represented?

At the polls when their senator was elected 75%-25%. The United States of America is a republic, not a pure democracy.