The pledge ruling and Michael Newdow

[Durandal]

-smiles- my my. I don't doubt it was originally placed to be a political move to get religious minded people on the government's side against communism, but with the ussr fallen, that usage is over. the term god is quite flexible, and as times change, so does it. let it stay in the pledge, it keeps millions of religious types warm and fuzzy, and as long as it's unenforced, it's not unconsitutional. don't like it; don't say it.

No offense, but fuck the religious types. It's not my problem if Christians and Jews start fretting over losing some of the governmental endorsement they enjoy. Even now, the Supreme Court ruled that "vouchers" for private/religious education (paid for by taxes, of course) are constitutional, even though it means that state funds being allocated to endorse religious indoctrination centers. I don't see what they could possibly be complaining about. Judaism and Christianity have about 99% representation in Congress, while atheism has exactly 0%. The vehement reaction to this ruling by the current Congress and administration shows that they're no more than religious egocentrists who are, in my opinion, no better than the so-called "Muslim fundamentalists." So, I'm going to keep making noise.

By the way, the mentality that 'if you devote a lot of time to an activity it becomes your god' is taught in strict Catholic churches and schools, as well as some strict Protestant sects(Puritinism and such).

That's what I thought.

However, the majority of Christians are neither extremely strict Catholics or Protestants, and thus do not teach that. I know my church certainly doesn't.

But the ones arguing that "under God" should be in the Pledge are arguing exactly that, because the more devout they are, the more they know what their religion teaches. Since their religion teaches that anything can be considered a god, they project this belief on to atheists in order to make us conform to their belief system.

Though, if you want to substitute 'under God' for 'under Baal' or 'under capitalism' no one is stopping you. Same deal with omitting 'under God' entirely.

How about this? Take it out, and if you want to put it in, do so. Constitutionality is unaffected, and freedom of speech rules the day.

[Enforcer Talen]

<i>The vehement reaction to this ruling by the current Congress and administration shows that they're no more than religious egocentrists who are, in my opinion, no better than the so-called "Muslim fundamentalists." So, I'm going to keep making noise. </i>

course, congress doesn't strap on explosives and detonate messily in crowded streets when someone disagrees with them.

[LMSx]

Ever wonder why Iranians don't blow themselves up in the middle of Tehran?


Because "Islamic Fundamentalist" does not automatically entail "suicide bomber".

Reference Bush's statement:

"This is a prime example of why we need common-sense judges, who understand that our rights are passed down by God."

In Bush-speech.....

"This........is a prime example....of why we need...."common sense" judges....who understand that our rights.....are passed down by God....."

So basically, Bush is saying that we need to load the deck and make sure that only judges who are religious fundamentalists, who believe that rights are not granted by law but by God, should be put into postions of power.

And then suddenly we have every Senator up in arms over this event, and suddenly the Pledge of Alligence is no longer an irrelevant part of life. You'd believe that the ruling actually *affected* them, by the way that every Senator spontaneously arrived early for the Pledge the day after. Never mind the fact that the day before, there were three there, suddenly the ruling was an attack on every Senator's rights.

They *are* no better then opportunists who pander to the bountiful policy world of religion.

[Gil Hamilton]

Originally posted by LMSx:
Reference Bush's statement:

"This is a prime example of why we need common-sense judges, who understand that our rights are passed down by God."

In Bush-speech.....

"This........is a prime example....of why we need...."common sense" judges....who understand that our rights.....are passed down by God....."

So basically, Bush is saying that we need to load the deck and make sure that only judges who are religious fundamentalists, who believe that rights are not granted by law but by God, should be put into postions of power.

And then suddenly we have every Senator up in arms over this event, and suddenly the Pledge of Alligence is no longer an irrelevant part of life. You'd believe that the ruling actually *affected* them, by the way that every Senator spontaneously arrived early for the Pledge the day after. Never mind the fact that the day before, there were three there, suddenly the ruling was an attack on every Senator's rights.

They *are* no better then opportunists who pander to the bountiful policy world of religion.

The funny thing is, that our concept of liberty and rights and stuff originated from Thomas Paine, who spent the last several years of his life being lambasted in churchs across America (at the time) because he believed that religion was utter bollocks and was a humanist. Bush is yet another person that doesn't understand that our sense of liberty et cetera was derived from humanism, not God.

[Mr Bean]

God yes(Ha get it? nm)

Have you ever read the Bible Marge? Tecnicaly we are not even allowed to go to the bathroom
~Reverand Lovejoy


Religion<---------(BIG ARSE WALL!)---------->Politics


Religion is nice and dandy but Religion did not get us on the moon, Religion did not cure all the things that try and kill us, Religion does not win wars, Religion does not protect us from Bug-eyed space aliens with Laser Beams

The closer you put Religion to Politics the more you FUBAR things up(Yes even more than normal)

[Eleas]

"I think it's ridiculous. No one is forced to say the pledge. If you want you can just skip "under God.""

What a nice thing. If you want, in school, you can walk around naked as well. Given how tolerant children always are, this would never be a problem.

"There is no law requiring the Pledge of Allegiance to be said, or requiring it must be said in full. Saying "under God" does not respect an establishment of religion, either."

In that case, I move that we change "under God" to "under Satan". After all, that doesn't respect an establishment of religion either.

[Eleas]

"I do oppose what I've stated above; total banning of all forms of all prayer."

Let me tell you a little anecdote from my days at school.

It's the last day before summer break. We're all out in the sunshine. The school choir is singing, the weather is warm, we're all pretty happy.

Then comes this female priest, ascends the podium, holds a brief speech about her religion (which I, as an eleven-year old, felt was laced with an unthinkingly patronizing attitude, but then it was usually so at our church). The speech ended with the following sentence: "Now, let's all thank God that he'll give us such a wonderful summer break."

I try to be descriptive, but I can't, I think, ever describe the feeling I experienced as our whole class - our whole school! - dutifully and monotonously recited these words. They didn't mean anything to us. Most of the younger kids probably never even understood. But I did. Kids recognize the party line when they hear it. They know the penalties for not spouting it. And there's nothing worse for a child than to be an outcast.

Without thinking, I fell in. It was, after all, easier than to resist. That was probably the first time I genuinely felt unclean.

What was the result of this fanatic person's action?

Well, first of all, I felt manipulated. She had just forced me to declare my support for something I didn't believe in.

Second, I felt anger, because such a thing should not be allowed to happen, and because I was given the impression by this arrogant bitch that I somehow owed someone for a good summer break.

Third, it gave me a good hard look at the darker side of religion. Because in my country we're far more secular than the US will ever be. My school was not religious in the least, and the Church was just a place where we went sometimes for things like Easter and suchlike. All the school did was basically to show us what Church was like, and that's fine.

And even so, a priest manages to hijack what should have been a simple ceremony of joy in an attempt to influence us, against our will.

And that is nothing less than sickening.

In the US, the church actually has money. It has political power.

What would have happened to me there? I suspect that, sooner or later, I would just have given up and converted to Christianity. Against my wishes. But that's all right for the priest, of course. She would be doing this for my immortal soul. Only, she would be violating me.

[Eleas]

"-idly notes 'God' can mean absolutely anything, not just Christian God, God of major religion, or diety in general; a person's god, what they strive for, could be money, pleasure, or casting aside worldly goods-"

Bullshit. Buddhists believe in the Buddha and the Bodhisattva, and there are several shamanistic, deistic and just plain pluralistic religions. None of them are compatible with a single God, capitalisation fully intended.

"-also notes he's not said pledge at times, even tho a Christian and mildly patriotic-"

All of which proves nothing. Just because you forgot to say it doesn't mean anyone else wants to be coerced.

"so what if it was made after 1954? you can still worship what you choose."

They desecrated one of the fundamental points of the Constitution. Yeah, so what?

"and, why have 'under god' there when it could mean any god? why have any god at all? cuz people like the idea of a higher power looking out for them. . ."

No they don't. Just some of them. I, for instance, don't.

[LMSx]

Just out of curiosity, Eleas, what country are you from?

[Captain Cyran]

I am anything but a devoute christian but i believe that if you are in a vast minority as the Atheists are in the US and something like the words "under God" offend you....deal with it, swallow your pride and don't ruin it for everyone else in the U.S. who do believe in a God.

[IDMR]

I am anything but a devoute christian but i believe that if you are in a vast minority as the Atheists are in the US and something like the words "under God" offend you....deal with it, swallow your pride and don't ruin it for everyone else in the U.S. who do believe in a God.

Interesting. So you are of the opinion that the whim of the masses should always prevail, despite the law?

[Durandal]

I am anything but a devoute christian but i believe that if you are in a vast minority as the Atheists are in the US and something like the words "under God" offend you....deal with it, swallow your pride and don't ruin it for everyone else in the U.S. who do believe in a God.

What a touching sentiment. Maybe we should have used that reasoning a couple hundred years ago to keep black people as slaves.

[Darth Yoshi]

You can make all sorts of fancy claims about how the Pledge of Allegiance is optional, but young people don't understand that. They'll go along with it, because their teachers told them to. I myself didn't stop until I got into high school, and that was only because I grew lazy.

[Mr Bean]

As I've said it before and people ignore

How many people would realy care if it where gone tommrow?

Or is the princple of the thing blinding you from the basic facts

A. Some people don't like it
B. No one REALY cares about it

Just get rid of it and don't make so much of a fuse

[Eleas]

"Just out of curiosity, Eleas, what country are you from?"

I'm from Sweden. Uh, doesn't my Location text say so?

[Captain Cyran]

I am anything but a devoute christian but i believe that if you are in a vast minority as the Atheists are in the US and something like the words "under God" offend you....deal with it, swallow your pride and don't ruin it for everyone else in the U.S. who do believe in a God.

Interesting. So you are of the opinion that the whim of the masses should always prevail, despite the law?

I am very against this whole Politically correctness crud and I see this problem as another case of this. As I see it 90% and up of people in the United States believe in a God and I think it is wrong to change something just so that the vast vast minority of the people who are atheist, and even then most of them probably don't care, so we are basically saying that "Oh one person is upset about the fact that God is mentioned on our money so we have to change all our money because one friggin person doesn't like it...it just doesn't make sense to me.

[Captain Cyran]

I am anything but a devoute christian but i believe that if you are in a vast minority as the Atheists are in the US and something like the words "under God" offend you....deal with it, swallow your pride and don't ruin it for everyone else in the U.S. who do believe in a God.

What a touching sentiment. Maybe we should have used that reasoning a couple hundred years ago to keep black people as slaves.

There is no comparison between Slavery which was apparently thought wrong by a good portion of the people both in America and outside of America and removal of the words "under God" which, as I said in the post above, is saying that since one person wants it, it doesn't matter what the other 99% of people want because of that one person, it doesn't make any sense to me.

[EmperorSolo51]

Michael Newdow Is nothing but a Liar!. He used his daughter to sue the giveronment and try to get rid of the pledge and stated his daughter was Being "harmed by saying/not sayng the pledge." What He did not tell you is that Mr. Newdow's Wife is a practicing Christian and so is his daughter. He never once stated this fact. He lied to the American People, and Frankly I want an apology!


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=28242

[Durandal]

There is no comparison between Slavery which was apparently thought wrong by a good portion of the people both in America and outside of America and removal of the words "under God" which, as I said in the post above, is saying that since one person wants it, it doesn't matter what the other 99% of people want because of that one person, it doesn't make any sense to me.

There is a comparison. Blacks were done an incredible injustice because the majority (whites) had no problem with it. Atheists are done an incredible injustice because the majority (Jews/Christians) have no problem with it.

The rest of your post is meaningless. "Under God" constitutes an establishment of religion by the government, and it's not allowed. Period. As an aside, a full 10% of the population is nonreligious (about 30 million people).

Michael Newdow Is nothing but a Liar!.

Yes, damn him for interpreting the Constitution correctly! He must be lying!

He used his daughter to sue the giveronment and try to get rid of the pledge and stated his daughter was Being "harmed by saying/not sayng the pledge." What He did not tell you is that Mr. Newdow's Wife is a practicing Christian and so is his daughter.

And that changes the point that "under God" is a religious endorsement ... how?

He never once stated this fact. He lied to the American People, and Frankly I want an apology!

He filed the suit on behalf of himself, not his daughter. Did you even read the whole article, or just the headline and first couple paragraphs?

"I mentioned that she has a free-exercise right and that I consider it injury to have government force dogma down the throats of little children. But I don't think I argued it in terms of her right. And particularly since the press [attention] and everything I've made it quite clear this is my case and not hers. ... I have the right as a parent to be able to send my child to school without the government indoctrinating views."

And, wow! He's absolutely correct! Children should be able to go to school without having the government force religious views down their throats!

[Galvatron]

I am very against this whole Politically correctness crud and I see this problem as another case of this. As I see it 90% and up of people in the United States believe in a God and I think it is wrong to change something just so that the vast vast minority of the people who are atheist, and even then most of them probably don't care, so we are basically saying that "Oh one person is upset about the fact that God is mentioned on our money so we have to change all our money because one friggin person doesn't like it...it just doesn't make sense to me.

So the majority rules? Hmmm... Since Christianity is the predominant religion in America, maybe "under God" should be changed to "under Christ" so we can exclude Jews, Muslims, and the rest of the people who don't matter. After all, whether it's a 99.9% majority or a 50.1% majority should make no difference. Majority rules, minorities be damned.

[IDMR]

I am anything but a devoute christian but i believe that if you are in a vast minority as the Atheists are in the US and something like the words "under God" offend you....deal with it, swallow your pride and don't ruin it for everyone else in the U.S. who do believe in a God.

Interesting. So you are of the opinion that the whim of the masses should always prevail, despite the law?

I am very against this whole Politically correctness crud and I see this problem as another case of this. As I see it 90% and up of people in the United States believe in a God and I think it is wrong to change something just so that the vast vast minority of the people who are atheist, and even then most of them probably don't care, so we are basically saying that "Oh one person is upset about the fact that God is mentioned on our money so we have to change all our money because one friggin person doesn't like it...it just doesn't make sense to me.

::smiles:: Someone just called me politically correct. How... odd. At any rate, I find your wilful misinterpretation disturbing. It was against the law. There is no reason to accomodate it simply because a majority (by no means a certainty) is in favour.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Luckily, I don't live on the Left Coast, so I'm unnafected. Besides, The 9th Circuit ruling is irrevelant. It was overruled by the (sane) Supreme Court. The news struck me as no surprise. California is known for the idiots in charge.

[David]

Many of the problems come from ther massive court system. It is nearly two as big as any other in American. Judges there complain about not be able to co-ordinate with other judges. Thayt might be part of the reason nearly all of there decisions are over-ruled by the Supreme Court.

[Durandal]

Luckily, I don't live on the Left Coast, so I'm unnafected. Besides, The 9th Circuit ruling is irrevelant. It was overruled by the (sane) Supreme Court. The news struck me as no surprise. California is known for the idiots in charge.

It was overruled? Big fucking surprise. If by "sane" you mean "religiously bigoted," then yes, I agree.

[nrs]

I'm not American but it shouldn't have been over-ruled, this is another example of hypocricy in American politics, freedom of religion? as long as its my religion is the message I get.

Then again, I come from a country where an arch-bishop is the head of state, though he doesen't really have any influence on the Government.