Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on June 26, 2002, 09:51:29 PM
-
From Yahoo!: (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020626/ap_on_go_co/pledge_reaction_5)
Lawmakers also said they would push for a constitutional amendment authorizing the words "under God" if the Supreme Court doesn't reverse the decision barring the pledge in public schools.
Next... they'll be amending the first amendment. :rolleyes:
-
Sandman we need to fire you! Go live in Cuba where nobody will ask you say God...... :rolleyes:
-
Oh... so you're all for the legislative branch mucking around the Constitution every time they disagree with the judicial branch?
They've been tryin' this same stupid toejame for years because the court says that it's okay to burn a flag in anger.
Sheesh... Grun... you missed the point.
-
Well I dont think I missed the point, you missed it.
America hates this decision, pure and simple. The negative reaction even here in the Bay Area is overwhelming, nobody is saying anything good about it. I think that's driving you nuts.
As for flag burning.....
Anyone who burns the US flag, especially if they are a citizen or resident, should be arrested and shot on the spot. I find flag burning intollerable.
-
we need to throw California out of the Union.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Well I dont think I missed the point, you missed it.
America hates this decision, pure and simple. The negative reaction even here in the Bay Area is overwhelming, nobody is saying anything good about it. I think that's driving you nuts.
As for flag burning.....
Anyone who burns the US flag, especially if they are a citizen or resident, should be arrested and shot on the spot. I find flag burning intollerable.
Nope... still missed it.
-
Yeah, I guess I did.... :rolleyes:
You talked of checks and balances before, and now you will see them in action.
Don't you realize how outrageous and anti-American way of life this decision is?
What if two federal judges made slavery legal in 9 states, would you be so outraged if the Senate voted 99-0 in disagreement.
In that case would you say this?
"Oh... so you're all for the legislative branch mucking around the Constitution every time they disagree with the judicial branch?"
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yeah, I guess I did.... :rolleyes:
You talked of checks and balances before, and now you will see them in action.
Don't you realize how outrageous and anti-American way of life this decision is?
What if two federal judges made slavery legal in 9 states, would you be so outraged if the Senate voted 99-0 in disagreement.
In that case would you say this?
"Oh... so you're all for the legislative branch mucking around the Constitution every time they disagree with the judicial branch?"
Well... to do that, the legislative branch would first have to repeal the 14th Amendment.
Did you sleep through high school civics?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Well... to do that, the legislative branch would first have to repeal the 14th Amendment.
Did you sleep through high school civics?
Did you? Abolition of slavery was the 13th.... :p
-
True... but to make the law would violate the 14th. :P
I've had enough sparring, Grun.
-
Sandman you left wing whacko... :)
-
ITS ABOUT TIME that this ruling came out.. I was sick as a school kid to have to acknowledge someone ELSES imaginary friend.. by saying 'one nation under god' .. god has NO business in our government. and before you spew the oh-so tired 'we were founded by christians'.. don't embarrass yourself. we weren't.
as for flag burning.. ive already posted about the rednecks who would beat a flag burner in the streets but have a half ripped, soiled and faded US flag on their camaro.
-
"Oh... so you're all for the legislative branch mucking around the Constitution every time they disagree with the judicial branch? "
That's why the constitution CAN be amended. It was designed to be flexible to change with the times. The Constitution wasn't supposed to be some sort of sacred, fixed, inflexible system of government. It can change, has changed, and will further change with the times.
IMO the separation of Church and State doesn't and shouldn't apply to "God". "God" is a indeed symbol of spirituality and christian beliefs in general, but is not representative of any single church. If the phrase was "one Catholic nation, under God".....then there'd be a problem.
That said I don't really care about that phrase in the Pledge...it was added in the 1950's anyhow. Take it or leave makes no difference to me, either way the Pledge still means the same thing.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
"Oh... so you're all for the legislative branch mucking around the Constitution every time they disagree with the judicial branch? "
That's why the constitution CAN be amended. It was designed to be flexible to change with the times. The Constitution wasn't supposed to be some sort of sacred, fixed, inflexible system of government. It can change, has changed, and will further change with the times.
IMO the separation of Church and State doesn't and shouldn't apply to "God". "God" is a indeed symbol of spirituality and christian beliefs in general, but is not representative of any single church. If the phrase was "one Catholic nation, under God".....then there'd be a problem.
That said I don't really care about that phrase in the Pledge...it was added in the 1950's anyhow. Take it or leave makes no difference to me, either way the Pledge still means the same thing.
J_A_B
Whoa... The Constitution may be modified, but it's hardly flexible. Constitutional amendments are hard to do and there's a reason for it.
-
We need to fire the Senate
..why is it when yah need a terrorist suicide bomber, yah can never find one?
-
the fat arse politicians are running to the door/steps to separate themselves from this decision as fast & as far as possible as they do not want to get the boot in 5 short months...
Hopefully the right shows six pack Joe public how the left created the enviroment in which this crap can happen...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Anyone who burns the US flag, especially if they are a citizen or resident, should be arrested and shot on the spot. I find flag burning intollerable.
I think you would like living in china.
-
yeah living in China rocks :D
-
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
AMEN !
Oh hawk22....your post makes my stupid, violent, imperialist American self want to enroll you in a state sponsored "re-education" camp.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
we need to throw California out of the Union.
lets trade California to Canada for a province to be named later. Face it the Canadians need a warm beach or two and we could use some new Hockey players :)
-
Originally posted by -dead-
yeah living in China rocks :D
hmmm Hunan beef :) i
m hungry !
-
If you want to know an opinion from an "imbecilic communist bastard" (tm) - I find this decision reasonable.
In an new text of the Russian state Anthem, the one that was a Soviet anthem since 1944, there is a line "The only country, saved by god". http://www.gov.ru/main/symbols/gsrf4_4.html First of all I want to know what god they meant - Jesus, Allah, Jahve or Buddah. We have all major confessions here, and Orthodox Church is traditionally the strongest, but mentioning Jesus in state Anthem is against the official state politics in religion. And another strange thing is - should we realy only on god now? Is it all really THAT bad?
-
Y'know...Old Osama said he would hit us where we least expect. We were suckerpunched against yesterday. Think about this.. This is the 2nd time since 9/11 that both parties joined on the steps of the Whitehouse to show their patriotism. We were hit again just like we were on 9/11. This time from within.
-
Constitution is absolutely NOT meant to be flexible. You can CHANGE, but not bend it.
Otherwise there wouldnt be any reason to have constitution.
-
Glad to see I'm no longer a patriotic American because I don't believe in God and therefore don't want "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Go Germany! :)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Y'know...Old Osama said he would hit us where we least expect. We were suckerpunched against yesterday. Think about this.. This is the 2nd time since 9/11 that both parties joined on the steps of the Whitehouse to show their patriotism. We were hit again just like we were on 9/11. This time from within.
Now this is funny!
You are honest to God actually comparing the decision of the court to the killing of thousands of Americans? On top of that, you equate the decision of this court, which emphasizes the separation of Church and State, to Osama "hitting us"? This is just a hoot! Osama would probably feel the court is wrong also. Maybe some of us are rooting for the wrong side in this WOT. I was of the opinion that it was our very FREEDOMS that pissed old Osama off. I choose to continue to piss him off.
-
Whats funny Midnight is that the Dems and Repubs both agree that this is ludicris, its only the wackos that are supporting it, like yourself.. how are you going to feel when your left standing on the street alone in this case when your own party condemns it...even Sen. D-amazinhunk said the judge was "an idiot".
-
Duh! Its called politics Ripsnort. Has nothing whatsoever to do with what's right or wrong.
-
"God" wasn't on our money until WWII.
"Under God" wasn't in the pledge until nineteen fitty fo'.
Exactly what part of America's heritage does the removal of those two words from the Pledge destroy?
Oh no, religion isn't on the money no mo' or the Pledge, what shall we eva' do?!?!
I don't Pledge Allegience to a nation under "god"... I Pledge Allegience to the US, and it's constitution. Nice how the religious people can avoid what this nation was founded on when it interferes with them being able to force their "God" down people's throats. "seperation of church 'n state" our founding fathers knew what would happen when they get combined... and what happened yesterday is the best f'in example. Put down your cross and your bible, pick up some history books.
-SW
-
The morality part
as God diminishes from the mind of our society, what do you think fills the void?
-
This "God" you keep referring to has been part of no American heritage, but something thrown onto us during WWII.
Before WWII, our nation seemed to do quite fine without Federal sponsored religion... and as you say Eagler, or was it Rip?, our society has been DECLINING since the '50s or '60s.... Interesting...
-SW
-
Y'know...Old Osama said he would hit us where we least expect. We were suckerpunched against yesterday. Think about this.. This is the 2nd time since 9/11 that both parties joined on the steps of the Whitehouse to show their patriotism. We were hit again just like we were on 9/11. This time from within.
Ya know Rip, comparing the death of 2800+ people and the horrible injuries to scores of others to a circuit court's decision upholding the US Constitution is so grotesquely ludicrous it defies explanation.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
we need to throw California out of the Union.
Tumor, I would LOVE for California to become an independent Nation. We have the fifth largest economy in the World and, in all candor, you need us a hell of a lot more than we need you. Look up any agricultural crop and you'll see California in the top 5 in production of everything but maple syrup.
I never felt this way about an independent California until I started reading these BBS and discovered just how out of touch we are with the rest of the Nation...and the longer I read them the more I not only want independence, but I want to erect a big fence around us to keep all you right wing Archie Bunker wanna-be nut burgers out. And at the risk at sounding just as reactionary as some of you do (thinking the 9th circuit court was a local SF tradition?? LOL Hortlund is right, Americans are uneducated) I want to plant land mines at our borders with the USA and order our border guards to shoot on sight.
Please, throw us out of the Union. We don't need you.
-
Elf, can we still visit your new country to get In-n-Out burgers??? :D
-
Who here would be for "One nation under Buddha"?
-
You'll still be able to get to an In-N-Out in Arizona and Nevada. :D
-
ooo! ok, get rid of California then! All they ever did was steal New York's baseball teams! ;)
-
Originally posted by Loyalist
Who here would be for "One nation under Buddha"?
"GOD" itself would cover Buddha, Allah, all of them.
Incidently, the ruling should have been "No children are required to say the Pledge in school"..similar to that of the Prayer in school ruling. To make Pledge "Unconstitutional" is the same as making "Prayer" unconstitutional. Now, to make them unconstitutional by forcing someone to recite it in a school IMO would have been the proper way to do this. They went to far. And thankfully, both partys recognize it.
-
Now that's funny
what "religion" were the feds pushin during the last admin?
Yep, what we have here is a Christian Tellie Bon :rolleyes:
-
God doesn't cover Buddists. Or Taoists. Or Hindus, or 50% of the world's other religions. Nevermind atheists.
What if I was atheist (which I am not) and my son or daughter had to go to school and say "under God" every day in a pledge to the flag. If I had been teaching him/her that there is no God, which is my right as a parent, my child would feel that the pledge does't mean anything. It's just a bunch of words to make people feel safe and comfortable.
All because Ike wanted America to distinguish itself from communist Russia.
If everyone wants to be equally represented and valued, God should not be a part of politics or government.
-
Religion period. Did I say Federal sponsored Christianity?
No, indeed, I did not. The fact that there are the words "God" on anything thats Federal means that there is Federally sponsored religion...
-SW
-
California is also stealing all the cute chicks with big boobs....(Only Florida seems to be able to keep them).
;)
-
deSelys, I hope you're not talking about the judge.
-
Originally posted by Loyalist
deSelys, I hope you're not talking about the judge.
This one was way over my head. Could you explain please?
(remember that I only have a distorted view of the USA as 90% of my knowledge on this field comes from TV shows like Malibu Beach, Buffy....):D
-
The judge is a chick.... but she was born in Colorado and Lived in Arizona. Both liberal hotbeds!!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Both liberal hotbeds!!
Thats an understatement now that both states are burning due to environmentalists gone astray...;)
-
Originally posted by deSelys
(remember that I only have a distorted view of the USA as 90% of my knowledge on this field comes from TV shows like Malibu Beach, Buffy....):D
and the other 10% comes from his contact with the Flying Mongrels! So you KNOW he's got a screwed up view of the USA! After all, we've got guys with callsigns of Puke, nopoop, and banana in our squad! :eek: ;)
back to seriousness... The gov't added the words "under God" to the pledge as an endorsement of religion. That's my point, and I think that's SW's point.
-
No one has ever been forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance. And the Supreme court ruled to that effect in 1942-1943. I personally abhore the thing. Always have since I was about 8 yrs old. In fact it would be a violation of my Constitutional rights to force me (or my children) to say it. Heck, that's on the pledge itself. I could careless about 'in God we trust' in that or on money. Big whoop.
I also have the same feelings for the playing of the National anthem in sports arenas before a game. I do not say stop playing it. I just insist that no one force me to have to particpate in the pointless ceremony.
School is for learning, not brain washing. And sports are for enjoyment and competition, not political bandstanding.
Westy
-
Church attendance/census records show we're probably no less a religious society today than anytime in the past. The writings of the founding fathers show some distinctly different interpretations of Christianity and religion than that portrayed during the Reagan years (and during the revisionist Currier and Ives period). Our one true national religion, free market capitalism, is still going strong.
The pledge of allegiance and the powerful symbol of the flag, as we know them today, grew out of fear over the waves of late 1800s immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe. They were seen as lesser Europeans, not committed to the same pure principals as the people of good Western European stock (sound familiar?). Some were anarchists, who committed acts of terror and attempted the assassination of Teddy Roosevelt discussed in a recent thread. Tools were needed to get them with the program.
In a wave of national patriotism, our national embarrassments (a mild word in some aspects), such as the Indian Wars and slavery, were sanitized. The unnecessary (except from a colonial perspective) Spanish-American war became a heroic epic. George Washington "cut down the cherry tree" but no one noted that he could have just had one of his slaves do the deed. History and patriotism were polished, packaged and presented in simple, feel good ask no questions terms.
The pledge was adopted in 1892. The flag, which had really been a non-symbol up to that time (and even until WW2, largely) was suddenly emphasized (in fact, we used to salute the flag in the Zieg Heil manner until WW2 prompted a change).
That is why I have a really hard time with any constitutional amendments over these symbols. I don't personally pledge allegiance to the flag, like some Nazi or Communist was required to by the power of the state. My allegiance is to the freedoms outlined in the Constitution. I had no trouble with this pledge upon entering the armed forces, and don't to this day.
The separation of church and state is part of those freedoms. A part that is perhaps hard to understand by the religious majority -- or at least inconvenient.
Some Christian sects (such as the Southern Baptist faith in my personal background) are very much focused on converting non believers to the one true faith, and will lever any possible opportunity to convert children in the public schools. This is no secret. Ralph Reed, formerly of the Christian Coalition used to brag about how clever he was in “stealthing” Christianity into the public schools through school board elects, etc. Now, there are evangelical Christians who see these actions as good deeds, that will ultimately save America from itself (whether we feel we need to be saved from ourselves or not). I see this as a threat to our way of life that is greater than anything a pissant like bin laden could come up with.
Further, many religious people, regardless of their aggressiveness or particular faith, see no problem with non believers generally being required to acknowledge a God, even if they would never stand for their children having to acknowledge the special divinity of another religion. But of course, nobody is "required" to say the pledge.
My stepsister is teenager in the Bible belt. Both her and my stepmom are religious, but they were not churchgoing. That is, until my sister started to get a hard time from her peers for not going to church. She was increasingly becoming an outsider in some very apparent ways, so she got with the program eventually. I don't think it was a big deal for her (being a believer in general) and it made her part of the crowd and probably increased her social life. However, for someone with perhaps deeper convictions, I really can't imagine being the only person in a High School class not to stand up and say the pledge without feeling tremendous pressure to get with the program. And, this type of "coercion by example" has no more a place in a public school than a pledge saying: "one nation without god" or "one nation under Alla (or Budda, or Hitler, or Jesus Christ)
Charon
[edit: The Senate vote seems to show the impact of coercion by example as well :) Who wanted to be the first one to vote nay, since the reasons for voting nay wouldn't fit into a typical soundbite and would likely be lost on their constituents, many of who don't know which side of the war we fought on in WW2, for example.]
-
Originally posted by K West
No one has ever been forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance. And the Supreme court ruled to that effect in 1942-1943
That is not true. On that occasion Supreme Court overturned previous decision that people could be/had to be compelled to plege allegiance.
It was mandatory once, it may be so again.
miko
-
"GOD" itself would cover Buddha, Allah, all of them.
Now that's a very interesting problem you have there ripsnort:
According to your logic, I fear, one has to ask you if you're still comfortable with the US being one Nation under The Emperor of Japan? The King of Nepal? The King of Thailand? The Dalai Lama? Haile Selassie? David Koresh? Anyone who wants to proclaim himself a God and can get followers?
Sounds like a nightmare sovreignity/constitutional problem to me...
I guess to cover the whole gamut of religious belief it should really be "One nation under many gods, godesses, devils, demons, princes, kings, priests, maybe even myself; or maybe none at all - heck, we simply don't know for sure."
But in a nation so full of lawyers willing to go with weird fringe lawsuits, I'd play it safe and go back to the pre '54 pledge and ditch the whole god problem completely.
Otherwise, you may technically be making your country subservient to non elected monarchs and non US citizens. Giving away your sovreignity, even only symbolically, doesn't sound too patriotic to me.
-
N1kPaz, you sound like such a redneck.. you would send me to a 're-education' camp because i don't believe in YOUR imaginary friend? or is it because i dissent with you? DISSENT IS AMERICAN .. i know that is a tough concept for you, you want everyone to lockstep with your oh-so enlightend, views. YOUR type of myopic patriotism would be right at home in Germany in about 1936.
-
Charon said:
My stepsister is teenager in the Bible belt. Both her and my stepmom are religious, but they were not churchgoing. That is, until my sister started to get a hard time from her peers for not going to church. She was increasingly becoming an outsider in some very apparent ways, so she got with the program eventually. I don't think it was a big deal for her (being a believer in general) and it made her part of the crowd and probably increased her social life. However, for someone with perhaps deeper convictions, I really can't imagine being the only person in a High School class not to stand up and say the pledge without feeling tremendous pressure to get with the program. And, this type of "coercion by example" has no more a place in a public school than a pledge saying: "one nation without god" or "one nation under Alla (or Budda, or Hitler, or Jesus Christ)
There is a lot of truth in what you say, here. Did all of you forget how much peer pressure goes on in high schools? The whole basis of this guy's lawsuit in the first place was that even though his daughter was not required to say the pledge of allegiance, she felt ostracized because she chose not to.
-
Originally posted by banana
Charon said:
There is a lot of truth in what you say, here. Did all of you forget how much peer pressure goes on in high schools? The whole basis of this guy's lawsuit in the first place was that even though his daughter was not required to say the pledge of allegiance, she felt ostracized because she chose not to.
So why did the court not do the proper thing and ban the Pledge in School? Instead they just banned the pledge, and pissed off every American senator and congress person. Most of the guys in this thread are standing alone on this issue! Wake up!
-
Rip, if by pissed off you mean taking the majority side so they can win the next election.... then you're right.
Don't put much more than a bag of flour into the words that come out of a politicians mouth.
-SW
-
Just the ones holding up Bushs nominees ... the same hypocrites which ran to the steps yesterday to say the pledge in front of the tv cameras
-
"Will our courts, in their zeal to abolish all religious faith from public arenas, outlaw 'God Bless America' too?" added fellow Missouri Republican Rep. Roy Blunt "The great strength of the United States is that we are and will continue to be, despite the liberal court's decision, one nation under God."
Guess I'm not part of this one nation then. I'm nearly positive I'm not under any God. I definitely don't worship one.
-
Please, throw us out of the Union. We don't need you.
You got my vote. Leave, please. I'm tired of having to pay higher energy bills because California's leadership has its head up its ass, along with the handsomehunkes who voted them in.
Good luck with those energy bills when you have to go it alone.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
So why did the court not do the proper thing and ban the Pledge in School? Instead they just banned the pledge, and pissed off every American senator and congress person. Most of the guys in this thread are standing alone on this issue! Wake up!
They did NOT just ban the Pledge. What they banned was the phrase "Under God" because that phrase violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which bars the Government from setting up an official religion. Frankly I'm not surprised they allowed the addition of this phrase in 1954 as it was during the height of the Cold War and, thinking back, the Communists were always refered to as Godless.
Think about this rationally and you'll agree with the majority opinion written by Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, a Nixon appointee, BTW- "A profession that we are a nation "under God' is identical...to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion."
-
Originally posted by koala
You got my vote. Leave, please. I'm tired of having to pay higher energy bills because California's leadership has its head up its ass, along with the handsomehunkes who voted them in.
Good luck with those energy bills when you have to go it alone.
What energy problems? Now that Enron is gone, things seem okay.
Let's see... 2000 had no real problems. 2001 had rolling black outs and then 2002 is back with no problems.
Sounds like mismanagement and fraudulent practices caused the crisis of last year... but we knew that already.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
So why did the court not do the proper thing and ban the Pledge in School? Instead they just banned the pledge, and pissed off every American senator and congress person. Most of the guys in this thread are standing alone on this issue! Wake up!
Think about that one for a minute. If it is wrong in a school (state institution) then it must be wrong in all state institutions. The court did the courageous thing, the morally right thing, the only thing that makes sense when measured against our constitution. This issue is incredibly black and white. Mentioning God, is not appropriate in a State sponsored institution! We aren't tossing God out the window! We're saying we don't prefer one religion over another!
-
What energy problems? Now that Enron is gone, things seem okay.
I guess the 50% rate hike in my Washington State energy bill is just a figment of my imagination. A hike caused by California's inability to generate it's own power, and instead having to take it from the rest of the Western United States. But I'm glad things seem okay for you.
-
I don't know how courageous the Court was, MT. They simply did their job. What WOULD have been courageous would have been for even one Senator to oppose the resolution comdemning the 9th Circuit Court's ruling. Unfortunately politicians are all gutless potatos who choose to serve themselves rather then the USA.
-
Maybe you're right Elfie, but this whole issue with the conservatives ranting about morality is laughable. When a judge is appointed by a conservative they always point out how "this judge is a strict Constitutionalist". "Liberals judges make new laws, conservative judges just apply the Constitution."
Now that the Constitution has been upheld, they rant on about the Moral degradation of the Country! Hypocritical IMHO.
-
The unfortunate part of this whole thing is that all it managed to do was deflect from two important Supreme Court rulings today- one on random drug testing for High School students and the other on the constitutionality of school vouchers.
I'm more concerned with random drug testing of school kids than I am with what is basically a symbolic act like a Pledge to God and Country. We all know that's roadkill anyway. Testing my kid randomly for drugs violates her rights and my responsibility.
-
We're saying we don't prefer one religion over another!
And which religion does "God" prefer? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
We're saying we don't prefer one religion over another!
And which religion does "God" prefer? :rolleyes:
Ask a Hindu who God is and chances are they won't know. Ask a Taoist. Ask a Buddhist. Ask an athiest. Then tell them they not only have to pledge allegiance to our Nation but also recognize a particular religion as being superior to their own beliefs.
Oh, I know what you're going to say GRUNHERZ. The seperation between Church and State was to keep the different sects of Protistants from fighting. Isn't it amazing how such a simple concept has expanded in modern times to include ALL religions and ALL beliefs?? Thank God (or Allah, or Vishna, or whoever) we established such a Great Nation that welcomes all irregardless of their religions.
-
Amusingly enough, the pledge was originally written by a socialist. Hardly one that wanted "under God" added in.
-
Seperation of church and state meant just that. Meaning that government could not decree an official religion. Nowhere did that say the government couldnt use the word god, its in the diddlying founding document of the country. The decleration of independence.
HERE:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's GOD entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --
Lets go and remove these obvious references to god and creation, they are so so awul.
BTW I dont go to church or anything and I firmly belive in Evolution, Im basically a non religion type, so dont give me any religion nut BS.
-
Think about this rationally and you'll agree with the majority opinion written by Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, a Nixon appointee, BTW- "A profession that we are a nation "under God' is identical...to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion."
I have thought about it rationally and I disagree with the opinion. Maybe if you think about it rationally you'll disagree as well. We'll see if the Supreme Court agrees how "rational" it is, or if it even stands in the 9th Circuit. Apparently the Judge has set aside the ruling "indefinitely" so it can be further examined by the entire 9th district.
-
Who is Nature's God? (http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/hhr93_1.html)
Interesting reading about it.
I wonder if Jefferson would still be a deist if he had had the choice of Darwin's theory of evolution?
But the pledge god is a 1954 "God" - so I guess that means good old Xian, reformed JHVH-1.
-
Originally posted by koala
I have thought about it rationally and I disagree with the opinion. Maybe if you think about it rationally you'll disagree as well. We'll see if the Supreme Court agrees how "rational" it is, or if it even stands in the 9th Circuit. Apparently the Judge has set aside the ruling "indefinitely" so it can be further examined by the entire 9th district.
The Supreme Court will overturn this, but it'll be like their drug testing decision where they'll acknowledge they're violating peoples' rights but the common good is to eradicate drugs from schools, therefore we can "bend the rules" so to speak.
Sorry I got so excited at the prospect of the Constitution being upheld but these last few months I've watched our civil rights eliminated one at a time to the point where the Conservatives are getting exactly what they want- a tolitarian state where if you don't fit in you must get out.
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
...to the point where the Conservatives are getting exactly what they want- a tolitarian state where if you don't fit in you must get out.
meanwhile in the secret conservative evil headquarters...
Vicious conservative leader:[/b] Greetings my fellow wrongdoers.
Evil conservative nr 1: Greetings my most vicious and evil leader. I am happy to report that we have tricked the senate into condemning the federal court ruling against the Pledge of Allegiance.
Evil conservative nr 2: Yes, yes, and we even fooled them into reciting of the Pledge, in front of a massive media coverage.
Vicious conservative leader: Yes, yes...good muahaha (evil laughter). Now we are one step closer to our goal of creating a totalitarian state. All us evil conservatives strive for this secret deplorable goal. I am happy to see that our secret plot to abolish democracy is working well.
Evil nerd nr 1[/b]: Wait oh foul one, I spot a danger on the Aces High BB.
Everyone turns to the computer screen
Vicious conservative leader: ..what is this?? Who is this clever Elfenwolf, and how can he know our secret vile plot?
turns to Evil Black Helicopter pilot nr 1
Vicious conservative leader: Evil black helicopter pilot nr 1. Prepare the little black chopper, and follow him around. Find out how much he knows.
Evil Black Helicopter pilot nr 1:[/b] Yes sire.
---To be continued...
-
ROFLMAO Hortlund!! You made me spit coffee!!! And anyway the Conservatives don't need black helicopters to follow me around, they've implanted a beacon device in my brain.
-
didn't know they made them that small :)
-
Originally posted by koala
I guess the 50% rate hike in my Washington State energy bill is just a figment of my imagination. A hike caused by California's inability to generate it's own power, and instead having to take it from the rest of the Western United States. But I'm glad things seem okay for you.
One thing that must be learned from the Enron debacle is that rate hikes may not have anything to do with the generation of power.
I can't speak for what's happening in Washington state. I don't know. I do know this. We don't have any rolling blackouts in California this year.
I'm wondering why. The whole energy crisis thing seems dubious.
-
Eagler, who are you calling a pin head???:)
-
GRUNHERZ: We're saying we don't prefer one religion over another!
And which religion does "God" prefer? :rolleyes:
It prefers any religion with monotheistic masculine deity to any goddes-worship, polytheistic religion, ancestor-worship, atheism, devil-worship, paganism, etc.
"Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..." - any religion. Not a about non-preferential treatment to all religions, but not supporting religion at all.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR
That's simple - my creators are my parents. There are no inconsistencies here.
miko
-
That's simple - my creators are my parents. There are no inconcistencies here.
Nice spin. It didn't say creators, it said Creator, so yes it is inconsistent.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Whats funny Midnight is that the Dems and Repubs both agree that this is ludicris, its only the wackos that are supporting it, like yourself.. how are you going to feel when your left standing on the street alone in this case when your own party condemns it...even Sen. D-amazinhunk said the judge was "an idiot".
Daschole said that?? REALLY???? MUAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Ok now I think he's a little less of a hole lol.
-
Daschle is like every other career politician. No balls.
-
Unlike some folks in here, I don't look around to see who else holds "MY" opinion. Daschele is perfectly free to be wrong on this issue. He has my permission.:p
-
Conservatives are getting exactly what they want- a tolitarian state where if you don't fit in you must get out.
Interesting stereotype, especially in light of the liberal Polictical Correctness era of the 1990's, where all the lefties found a way to be offended by pretty much anythin anybody said. Apparently "fitting in" means embracing a liberal agenda, or else you get sued or charged with a hate crime.
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
"God" wasn't on our money until WWII.
"Under God" wasn't in the pledge until nineteen fitty fo'.
Exactly what part of America's heritage does the removal of those two words from the Pledge destroy?
Oh no, religion isn't on the money no mo' or the Pledge, what shall we eva' do?!?!
I don't Pledge Allegience to a nation under "god"... I Pledge Allegience to the US, and it's constitution. Nice how the religious people can avoid what this nation was founded on when it interferes with them being able to force their "God" down people's throats. "seperation of church 'n state" our founding fathers knew what would happen when they get combined... and what happened yesterday is the best f'in example. Put down your cross and your bible, pick up some history books.
-SW
Hmmm. I respect anyones decision to not be religious or not believe in God, even to refuse to say "under god" in the pledge. I think the real root of the issue is.... allot of folks are just fed up with whiney people (whether they be left/right or in the middle). I am. I'm not religious, I'm not even positive I believe there is a God (lordy lordy... and I'm a conservative too). It's not like it's going to kill me to say "under God" though. If a kid doesn't want to say it... and is afraid of "peer pressure".. tough. What are they gonna do out in the real world when they are given the choice of "hangin with the crowd" or "sticking to thier guns" so to speak, run and get a lawyer? Hardly. Again... IMHO the issue boils down to a a big fat nasty whine and I for one and sick of hearing it. People get far too wrapped around the axel over menial crap that isn't hurting a freekin thing. Irks me even more that the Courts are WASTING thier time on BS like this instead of doing something... worthwhile? Sheesh.
Tumor
-
Originally posted by Tumor
allot of folks are just fed up with whiney people (whether they be left/right or in the middle
A lot of whiney people did not like "...under King George..." in their plege - started all that War of Independence and all. Should have listened to the loyalists, right?
What are they gonna do out in the real world when they are given the choice of "hangin with the crowd" or "sticking to thier guns"
I will definitely teach my child to stand up to the bad guys. I just do not want to have to teach him that the government are the bad guys to stand up to. But I regretfully will if I have to.
miko
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Eagler, who are you calling a pin head???:)
takes one to know one right? :)
-
Tumor, I ain't on either side of the issue. I don't care if it stays in the Pledge, if it stays as a school supported morning announcement, or if "In God We Trust" stays on our money... I was just saying that to show that with or without the Under God on the Pledge... it's still the Pledge... and without "In God We Trust" on the money... it's still money.
-SW
-
Originally posted by koala
Nice spin. It didn't say creators, it said Creator, so yes it is inconsistent.
I think it's important to note is said "Creator" rather than "God." Don't we all choose which diety is the Creator, rather it be God or Buddha or whoever??
And yes, Eagler, I admit my statement was stupid, but someone from the Left has to balance out Ripsnort.
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Tumor, I ain't on either side of the issue. I don't care if it stays in the Pledge, if it stays as a school supported morning announcement, or if "In God We Trust" stays on our money... I was just saying that to show that with or without the Under God on the Pledge... it's still the Pledge... and without "In God We Trust" on the money... it's still money.
-SW
Oh well your "side" or lack thereof wasn't the reason I posted. Your's however was the first post that really got me thinking. Didn't mean to make it sound like an attack on you... apologize if it came out that way.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
A lot of whiney people did not like "...under King George..." in their plege - started all that War of Independence and all. Should have listened to the loyalists, right?
Entirely off topic
I will definitely teach my child to stand up to the bad guys. I just do not want to have to teach him that the government are the bad guys to stand up to. But I regretfully will if I have to.
So, currently it "appears" the Executive and Legislative branches of our government are at odds with the Judicial branch over this issue. If (IF) that holds true and the Court is stopped from making law (seems they all to often need a little reminder).... does that make the government bad guys if you disagree? To think any citizen would consider our government the "bad guys" over the term "under god" is rather over the top I'd think. Remember... not once has anyone MADE anyone say the Pledge of Allegience.
-
I know Tumor, don't worry, I didn't take it as an attack or anything other than a reply to my post. So I couldn't let it go without replying and making my stance clear... you can never be too safe. ;)
-SW
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Just the ones holding up Bushs nominees ...
Yeah....our country NEEDS more criminals in the bush regime. :rolleyes:
He already has most of the Iran/Contra thugs in his cabinet, who will the chimp nominate next....John Gotti?
-
you're right Tumor. It's not hurting anything. Well, it obviously hurt someone, or they wouldn't have made an issue out of it. Overall, though, you're right. It's harmless.
However, it WAS brought before a court. So what if the person brought it up was a whiner. It got there. So the court didn't say "oh, you're just whining, get over it." The court actually took the case seriously. They looked at "under God" in the context of the Pledge and interpreted it to be a federal endorsement of religion. (I agree 100% in that it is a federal endorsement of religion. Read Eisenhower's quote from 1954 when the words were added to the Pledge.) The court then ruled that this endorsement is in violation of the 1st Amendment.
It's not the popular decision, that's plainly obvious. Based on how I interpret the reason for the addition of the words, plus the fact it is the proper noun God and not the common noun god (big difference, IMO), I see the addition as a federal endorsement of a specific deity (the one from the Jewish/Christian faith) which is even more of a reason for the Pledge, as written since 1954, to be in violation of the 1st Amendment.
Does this fact even hurt 0.001% of the US population? Probably not. It does NOT matter in the grand scheme of things. However, it is still, IMO, a violation of the 1st Amendment as it is, once again IMO, a federal endorsement of religion, specifically the Christian (or less likely, the Jewish) faith.
-
ATLANTA, Georgia (AP)
-- A federal appeals court heard arguments Friday on whether an Alabama school system had the right to discipline a student who stood silently with his fist raised rather than recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
The student, Michael Holloman, a high school senior who has since graduated, was spanked three times with a wooden paddle and given a written reprimand.
The case was argued before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta only days after another federal appeals court ruled that the pledge is unconstitutional because of the words "under God."
The attorney for the school board in Walker County, Alabama, told the judges that Holloman was punished two years ago for disrupting class, not for refusing to say the pledge.
"He acted out, and he has attempted to cloak his behavior in the First Amendment," attorney Russell Robertson said.
Holloman's lawyer, Charles Tatum, said his client did not disrupt the class and raising a fist was a form of speech.
"You've got a right to disagree with things that are seen as morally and politically correct in this country," Tatum said.
A federal judge dismissed Holloman's lawsuit last year
-
Speaking in class out of turn is disruptive.
-
Originally posted by Nifty
you're right Tumor. It's not hurting anything. Well, it obviously hurt someone, or they wouldn't have made an issue out of it. Overall, though, you're right. It's harmless.
However, it WAS brought before a court. So what if the person brought it up was a whiner. It got there. So the court didn't say "oh, you're just whining, get over it." The court actually took the case seriously. They looked at "under God" in the context of the Pledge and interpreted it to be a federal endorsement of religion. (I agree 100% in that it is a federal endorsement of religion. Read Eisenhower's quote from 1954 when the words were added to the Pledge.) The court then ruled that this endorsement is in violation of the 1st Amendment.
It's not the popular decision, that's plainly obvious. Based on how I interpret the reason for the addition of the words, plus the fact it is the proper noun God and not the common noun god (big difference, IMO), I see the addition as a federal endorsement of a specific deity (the one from the Jewish/Christian faith) which is even more of a reason for the Pledge, as written since 1954, to be in violation of the 1st Amendment.
Does this fact even hurt 0.001% of the US population? Probably not. It does NOT matter in the grand scheme of things. However, it is still, IMO, a violation of the 1st Amendment as it is, once again IMO, a federal endorsement of religion, specifically the Christian (or less likely, the Jewish) faith.
Nifty
What started it was a girl (I don't recall the age or grade) who from all accounts actually said had no problem with it. It was Daddy who got involved. Anyway, I respectfully disagree. Each person who says the pharse "under god" has the responsibility of interpreting what "god" is or is not. Further, each person also has IMO the responsibility to choose whether or not to say the pledge at all (or the phrase). I don't see why the Courts should have to, or the PEOPLE simply MUST rely on the government to legislate thier thoughts. This case is a complete waste of taxpayer money and nothing more than an attention getter for ... someone. Menial and wasteful, nothing more.
-
Well... the 9th Circuit Court is done wasting their time. Now it's time for the Senate, the House, and all the states to start wasting time rather than accept the decision and move on.
-
John 18:36 : Jesus answered, My Kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
King James version.
I think that Jesus already commented on seperation of Church and State.
Are we so Arrogant as to beleive we should tell God what His stand should be?
Jesus wanted no part of Worldly political power, Satan offered him all the kingdoms of the world and he rejected that offer. Should we not follow his example?(those of us who are Christians, Athiests need not apply).
It seems everyone here is arguing from their own viewpoint, But not once has Gods View been quoted or stated.
It seems all Nations Claim...maybe not Russia or Cuba ;) that God is on their side ex: Nazi Germany....Seems Jesus stated non allegiance to any state for a reason.
Argue this all you want When it comes to issues regarding God, Christians should look to the Bible and base it on that...Not some politician who has other agendas.
-
Holy crap.
I may not be religous, but that was the most enlightened thing I've seen posted on this subject so far.
Ping.
-
Nice Ping!
-
""GOD" itself would cover Buddha, Allah, all of them."
ripsnort.
god most certainly does not cover buddha, you ignorance of religion matches most other subjects. not that you will care.
the friggin pledge of allegence came from cosmopolitan magizine a rag magazine then and now. conservative people cant see the forest for the trees . your religion is you prob, ALOT of people dont want to pledge toejam to your imaginary friend. and get this it is a garrenteed right.
dont see where the prob lies except probly preachers had a field day on the crappy mindwashing sermon of the week.
-
I'll pledge to god in school and other *public* settings if you all pledge to Bubbles (the yellow-haired Power Puff Girl) in your churches.