It's about time the Judges in this country stop changing the laws and start enforcing them...
Pledge ruling
Printable View
It's about time the Judges in this country stop changing the laws and start enforcing them...
Pledge ruling
Stupid Athiests... Would rounding them all up into bins and then throwing them into the ocean be considered genocide? :tongue:
I would call it a step in the RIGHT direction.... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Slaughter
It's interesting that the pledge was written by a bishop, and he didn't include it. It was added in the 60's. Personally, I think we should sue that dude for wasting our time and tax dollars.
And yes... I see the tongue smiley faceQuote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Slaughter
Great! Then we can go after anyone else that thinks differently than us! Woo Hoo.
The judges really didn't say that it was right or wrong, just that the plantif could not make that challenge because he does not legally represent his daughter. Nothing more. At no time was the Supreme Court 'enforcing laws' in regards to the Pledge.
I argue that the pledge was never intended to have GOD included in it. That the red scare was responsible for the addition of a deity in 1954 into what is nothing more than a rant written by a socialist.
If the words in a poem are the gauge to measure your patriotism than I am truely sad for you all. :nuh:
I'm just tired of silly lawsuits.
Nuts.. I understand your point and you are right on the Supreme Court not ruling on this case.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Nuts
However, whether you are Atheist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, agnostic or whatever - this "crying" over anything associated with the government containing the word "god" in it is PATHETIC and SAD. This country, like it or not, was found upon the principles of Christianity. And no leftist revisionist history can change that. I find the denying of our history and the truth in it's regards as disgusting.
The separation of church and state does NOT mean the government has to be atheist. It means that the government would not directly become involved in religious institutions and/or implement them into our government. Nowhere does it state, and I will strongly argue the forefathers never intended for, the government to absolve itself from the existence of, or acknowledgment of, God in it's principles and practices.
(I'm using 'you' in a generic sense Nuts, not directed at you)
You don't have to like it, you don't have to believe in it, and you don't have to participate in any "ceremony" that does - but that does not mean the rest of the country and government can't or should be banned from doing so because it "offends" you. This country doesn't owe you a thing, it was here first.
Amen.. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Hylander
Some other things we should get rid of:
- the word "GOD" on all of our currency
- the House and Senate chaplain
- all chaplains in military service
- all crosses in government maintained cemetaries like Arlington
- any mention of God in speeches by US politicians
- removal of this line from our Star Spangled Banner:
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust!”
My point here is how far do you want to go with this? The founding fathers never intended a literal seperation of church and state. Their intent was to frame the constitution so that there was no state mandated or approved religion unlike England where the Anglican church was made the only game in town at the expense of all others.
You mean "How far do THEY want to go with this?Quote:
Originally Posted by '[AK
The answer is: "All the way."
Hylander:
Valid points. I too agree that all the lawsuits benfit no one. Too many folks are so wrapped up in what they think is a violation of their 'RIGHTS'.
Leftist Revisionist history however is the opposite of what modified the original Pledge in the first place. It was fear of Communist Russia and hardcore conservatives that changed the Pledge.
IN GOD WE TRUST:
It was not used on coins until 1864.
It was not used on paper money until 1957
It was not the US Motto until 1956
It was not in the pledge of alligence until 1954
It was not used in ceremonies until 1950.
Other GOD facts:
The U.S. Constitution does not contain a single reference to a 'GOD'.
The Declaration of Independence does not contain a single reference to a 'GOD'.
Think deeply about those two lines. Say them outloud. Those are the two most important documents that this country has ever produced. They are the foundation of our society.
So what we see is that most 'GOD' reference stem from fear. They started up after the civil war and again during the cold war (during the Red Scare). Nothing more than scared men thinking that the key to salvation was through the public display of their own beliefs.
Teddy Rosevelt fought this, 'But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements.'
President Adams found this, 'As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity [sic] of Musselmen . . . it is declared . . . that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries'.
Thomas Jefferson fought this, 'No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship'
James Madison fought this, 'And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.'
Thomas Paine fought this, 'The adulterous connection between church and state.'
George Washington fought this, 'The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy'
And finally... why wasn't God mentioned much in goverment during the founding years of this country... here's a little quote from the Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1968, P.420, 'One of the embarrassing problems for the early nineteenth-century champions of the Christian faith was that not one of the first six Presidents of the United States was an orthodox Christian'.
On a slight sidebar: A story of true Patriotism that I saw:
I was in boot camp. One oif the first weeks there it was mine and 2 other guys' job to raise/lower the U.S. Flag. One of the guys and a fellow recruit in my company was a Pole. Not a decendent, but 1st generation, just got off the boat Pole. After raising the flag and while waiting for the music to end, I noticed that he was crying. He was a big guy... looked like an ox farmer... and I imagined that he was simply homesick. As we gathered up to march back to the barracks he saw the questioning look in my and the other recruits eyes; he simply stated, "That is the pretty thing I've ever seen." It wasn't a song. It wasn't a poem. It wasn't John Kerry in his boxers. It was the U.S. Flag and all that it stood for.
A good number of the US founding father's were "deists" - believing in a God but not proscribing to any structured religion.
In that light, the term "GOD" as it applies to our US currency, motto, etc. would be perfectly acceptable to them.
Here's some more founding father quotes:
John Adams:
"Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion at all!!!" But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell."
Samuel Adams in his Last Will and Testamentwrote:
"Principally, and first of all, I resign my soul to the Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying on the merits of Jesus Christ for the pardon of my sins."
Ben Franklin just five months before his death:
"I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe; that he governs it by his Providence; that be ought to be worshipped; that the. most acceptable service we can render to him is doing good to his other children; that the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think his system of morals and his religion, as be left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is like to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it."
Alexander Hamilton in his last dying words after being shot by Aaron Burr:
"I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me."
Patrick Henry frmo his last will:
"This is all the inheritance I give to my dear family. The religion of Christ will give them one which will make them rich indeed."
John Jay the first US CHief Justice:
"While in France . . . I do not recollect to have had more than two conversations with atheists about their tenents. The first was this: I was at a large party, of which were several of that description. They spoke freely and contemptuously of religion. I took no part in the conversation. In the course of it, one of them asked me if I believed in Christ? I answered that I did, and that I thanked God that I did."
Thomas Jefferson a deist himself who doubted the Christian view of Christ:
"I am a Materialist.
Among the sayings and discourses imputed to [Jesus] by His biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same Being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore to Him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of His disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great . . . corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus."
George Washington
During his presidency (1789-1797) and in his later life, Washington is not recorded referring to Jesus Christ and rarely to God. He preferred titles such as "the Divine Author of our blessed Religion," "Almighty Being," "Providence" and "Grand Designer" (all terms from Deist beliefs).
Good points Nuts, however I don't believe it was the fear of Communist Russia so much as adding the word "God" was a counter-reaction to Communism in itself. Communism is in general an atheistic philosophy, and adding "God" to our country institutions, placards, currency, etc. was a way to "counter" Communisms beliefs and separate us and distinguish us even further. The Act of 1954 stated that the hope was to "acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon … the Creator … [and] deny the atheistic and materialistic concept of communism."Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Nuts
The Founding Fathers did certainly keep the word God out of the documents on purpose, as they wanted our government to be run by man, not by god. It would succeed by the service of men, not by the blessing of god. In fact, many of our founding fathers were "arguably" not Christian by what some consider a real Christian. They may have believed in God, but that doesn't necessarily make them a Christian. As Bribo mentions, Deism was extremely prevalent in our founding fathers.
So I suppose to proper way to describe it that our country was built upon some Christian Principles and the belief in a God, but not necessarily Christianity in and of itself.
The first Amendment says:
"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."
The pledge of allegiance is not a law. It's not prohibiting free speech. It is not abridging the freedom of speech or the press. It is is not prohibiting the right of people to assemble peaceably and it is certainly not petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.
In fact, PROHIBITING the saying of the pledge with the word "God" is arguably prohibiting free speech. The Pledge, if not mandatory, is not infringing on any rights. A school allowing the pledge to be said is not "government sponsorship" of any religion.
In fact, I think the word God - in most cases used on Government "items" - is generic. You could be from just about any religion and use the word "God". Atheists saying it is offensive is very weak at best, as nobody is forcing them to acknowledge or accept God as a reality in their life. But the contrary is definitely an infringement in my opinion.
Does the same atheist that wants under god removed from the pledge refuse to accept US currency because the word God is on the currency?
Is he truly in it for his daughter or just his 15 minutes of fame?
You don't necessarily have to believe in god or worship him in any form, but why should the majority of the people of this country be forced to say something in a fashion so as not to offend the extreme minority? I know if I had a problem with that line I simply would not say it as it is my right not too, as it is the right of the person next to me to say it if they so desire.
Very nicely researched and clearly stated counterpoints that I can agree with. I tend to debate and argue as my father did around the dinner table to us kids. He would argue a point just so we would research and learn more about our our beliefs and values.
I agree with most things you said except for the 'God' term is used in a broad and generic way. Can you imagine the uproar if we simply replaced 'God' with 'Ra'? Or perhaps 'Allah'. So I believe that when the American Government uses the word, it's an implied Christian God, thus it's now stating that one belief system is being promoted more than another. Free advertising so to speak.
We couldn't possibly use a reference point to cover every religion, belief, god etc... in our government. How could you represent the Shaolin Fighting Monks? The Scientologists? So if you can't represent every god figure in a generic form, then it should be left out. I guess that's where I have a problem. If I was a devote panthiest (look it up) than perhaps I might be put off that my government seems to promote a god figure at all. And what of my children? ('who's going to think about the children!!!) If your faith is so weak that you need the government to remind you of your lord, than perhaps a bit more time in church and less time playing bingo is in order.
I like how a few of the references were from dying men. As I get closer to fatherhood I question my beliefs more often, and I can only imagine doing so again on my death bed. "There are no atheists in foxholes."
And Gunny, I agree. Clearly this guy was a nut anyway. However the majority/minority thing does not always equal out right vs wrong.
As always, the 'your' and 'you' is used not to identify a specific person.
Gunny.. this guy is an attorney and he's just looking for a claim to fame and recognition. I firmly believe that. He was never married to the "mother of his daughter" and he did not have shared custody of her. He is an atheist, but the "mother of his daughter" claims her daughter does not believe in what her father is doing - although she is only 10 years old. Either way, the guy is just looking to make a name for himself in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Gunny Highway
Lets just say for the sake of argument, I'm FAR right and very Christian. Lets just say you are purely Atheist. How does YOUR right of not believing infringe on me, and vice versa? How come you being "offended" by religion supposedly being spread in the use of the word "god" in the pledge supersede me being "offended" by you forcing it to be omitted? If you don't want to participate in it, you have the right not to. BUT, if you prevent me from doing so... I have no alternative but be forced to comply with your view. So IMHO... your infringement upon my rights are by far greater than any perceived infringement I may be performing because you have the right to abstain, while I would have no choice in the matter.
In many ways, it's like any other form on censorship. If you don't want to watch "Hot & Heavy" Hour on the Spice Channel... don't watch it!! But dammit.. if I want to watch it, you have no right to tell me I can't! ;)
If the schools were saying "your child MUST say this" - then I would have a huge problem with that. That would be "government" sponsored religious support. But this is optional and you don't have to participate if you don't want to. In this case, the father wants to impose HIS views in order to stop others from acting upon theirs, but the reciprocal is NOT the case.
As an Alaska Native, I would take issue with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Hylander
"Gunny.. this guy is an attorney and he's just looking for a claim to fame and recognition. "
My point exactly.
"As an Alaska Native, I might take issue with that."
I have a lot of respect for ancestory as should everyone be proud of their roots. My family is Native American Indian, Cherokee to be exact, I think the point was Sonic that the country should not be forced to change everytime some people take offense or as in this case are seeking their 15 minutes of fame. There is not now nor will there ever be in existence a eutopian environment where no one is offended by anything. I truly believe that if there were legislation in place to fine an attorney $100,000.00 for bringing a suit that is deemed to be frivolous by the court you would see a lot less of this nonsense.
If you don't like it, in the very least just stand up while everyone else does..
Through Highschool, before I found a religion that I truly liked, thats what I did... If it "offends you" just stand up to pay homage to our forefathers and your fellow countrymen, you don't HAVE to say the pledge and cover your heart.
When I was in school, not only did we recite the pledge.. but we also sang My Country 'Tis of Thee.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Slaughter
Here we go again...
http://www.lt-smash.us/archives/002984.html#002984
"SALT LAKE CITY— The American Civil Liberties Union plans to sue the National Park Service in Federal Court if it does not change the name of Zion National Park in southern Utah. The ACLU expressed concern that the name is offensive to many Arab-Americans."
You've got to kidding me.
Yes, I heard the Matrix series was also named in that suit, for using that as the name of the last human city.
I heard they were also suing Bob Marley's estate.
Can't be singing about Zion.
How about every US city with "Saint" in the name? St. Paul, St. Louis, etc.
Are they next?
What about Los Angeles? Translated from Spanish thats "City of Angels". Angels are a Christian belief therefore we should change that name as well???
Again - how far are they going to push this? This is insane!
I live near Lee St. I think that is short for Robert E. Lee... a confederate. I'm offended too. Can I sue?
I also noticed that there's been a McDonald's down the street from my house. It offends my irish roots to see a clown called Ronald McDonald. Can I sue for that?
My god people... help find me someone to sue! I'm feeling un-American because I'm not in a class-action law suit against someone... anyone. Won't you help?
I'm suing my printer paper manufacturer for not supplying a sufficiently diverse color selection. Want in?
I'm suing you all for upholding the honor and dignity of our great name, all over the internet.. HOW DARE YOU! ;) :tongue:
I'm suing Hylander for getting rid of his Chirac name, and Palooka for listening to him.... :tongue:
Maybe they will outlaw paintball next afterall it is a terrorist training method.
paintball gone bad :)
/cough "bullshit"Quote:
"To put it bluntly ... had I been a Zionist Jew or a Christian training to fight (in Palestine), I would never have been charged with violating the Neutrality Act,"
Oh, and it wasn't about paintball.. :tongue:
Quote:
"This case was not about paintball," she said. "It was about something much more serious."
Thats about my take on it too :)Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Slaughter
I think they all got what they deserved, except some of them got IMHO too lenient of a sentence. If you train to fight against the USA I think they should be imprisoned and once they serve their time their citizenship should be revoked and shipped the hell out.
That was the judges response after sentencing but it never stopped the liberals before :tongue: The media would never put a negative spin on something like this either. :smokinQuote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Slaughter
I love it... using paintball to train. Morons. Might as well run around your house using capguns. You'd get all the utility with none of the exposure.
You do realize of course I posted this knowing you of all people would get a kick out of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Squidly
But of course. :D