"... under God"

[Sasha_Lyazzat]

Anybody not willing for pledge allegiance likely be Klingon spy. I be assured for this by same peoples who claim Iraq has WMD.

 

[jeninflorida]

This is an idea that's time has come. If you taxed religious institutions, you could completely close the deficit, and there's no legitimate reason for them to get a tax exemption.

Why not terminate 30% of the federal work force...that would be better and a long term plan as that ponzi pension liability would be reduced as well.

For the most part, religion is far better than the corrupt obama war loving regime...


Isnt it ironic that john kerry demanded we end the cival war in Vietnam and now kerry is piming for a new obama war!

 

[jeninflorida]

Anybody not willing for pledge allegiance likely be Klingon spy. I be assured for this by same peoples who claim Iraq has WMD.

Well sweetie ... you need to spend less time smoking crack.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Jerry !! How's the wife? She has a fine ass!

 

[Tryharder62]

really - ?

NBC broadcast some kids saying the Pledge, omitted the "under God" part in the broadcast and had 50,000 Christians screaming bloody murder that is was unpatriotic to omit from the broadcast.

Well, I think that some Christians may have decided that enough of God has been taken away and they have to make a stand somewhere. Do you wait until you are put in jail or do you say enough is enough earlier? Jeees my kid accidently put on one of his youth group shirts because he was running late for school and he freaked out when we got to school. He didn't want to be sent home and disciplined so we had to go back home and change it. Believe me it was not an outragious shirt, but it had a small cross on it. We are nothing as a society if we don't stand up for what we believe.

For me what you said is entirely different. You have a news media deciding what we as Americans should hear or not hear. If I understand what you said correctly NBC deleted the portion but the kids said it as written. NBC decided what I should hear or not hear. If the children omitted that part "under God" in protest then I think you have another situation all together. If you are going to report it though - report it like it happened.

 

[neci]

Well, I think that some Christians may have decided that enough of God has been taken away and they have to make a stand somewhere. Do you wait until you are put in jail or do you say enough is enough earlier? Jeees my kid accidently put on one of his youth group shirts because he was running late for school and he freaked out when we got to school. He didn't want to be sent home and disciplined so we had to go back home and change it. Believe me it was not an outragious shirt, but it had a small cross on it. We are nothing as a society if we don't stand up for what we believe.

For me what you said is entirely different. You have a news media deciding what we as Americans should hear or not hear. If I understand what you said correctly NBC deleted the portion but the kids said it as written. NBC decided what I should hear or not hear. If the children omitted that part "under God" in protest then I think you have another situation all together. If you are going to report it though - report it like it happened.

by "standing up" for society, you fed into your son's fear of the unknown. symbols either are or are not allowed on the child's t-shirt based on the dress code adopted by the school. all you had to do was look at the code with him and explain to him the rules adopted by the board. nothing religious about it.

NBC broadcasted the story, but what you are hearing in the pledge of allegiance was based on the decision to include "under God" which happened a long time ago. since children are parrots of their parents, and the parents sit on the school boards who in turn enact the changes, it makes sense the media would try to reach the parents via the news.

edit. that first "sentence" of the second paragraph makes no sense. anyways. it's dinner time.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Well, maybe some Christians, and really all religiously inclined people, are just too accustomed to having God where it does not belong in the first place. Nobody is coming to take your god or diminish your right to practice whatever thing you think lets you express your spirituality. It is about keeping your particular organized religion(s) out of the US government.

It is funny, having these conversations about religion is like having a conversation about guns. No one is taking anything away. The whole point is equal protection and not establishing a state religion to make sure you can practice whatever you believe, Christian, Muslim, etc.

How about we change the words to "one nation under Allah" ? "one nation under Gaia"?
"one nation under Satan"?

 

[phrodeau]

I don't know a single modern religion that claims God is somewhere overhead. Even as a metaphor, the expression "under God" is weak and pointless.

 

[eyer]

It is about keeping your particular organized religion(s) out of the US government.

For someone who evidently sprouts a chubby every time you mention separation of church and state...

...you got it azzbackwards.

The American conveyor of that phrase, Jefferson, and his protégé, Madison (who many call the father of the Constitution), both approved church services being held in Congress during their presidencies...

...to this day, both the Senate and House have their own chaplains, who open every day that Congress meets with a prayer.

The wall of separation between church and state is meant to do the exact opposite of what you fantasize of, and it is codified in the very First Amendment to the Constitution...

...the 1st constitutionally bars all government from establishing any religion as its own (as many of the colony governments, in fact, did), and dictates that any individual's exercise of religion is constitutionally free from any government dictate.

The wall, the 1st, is to keep "the US government" "out' of religion...

...not, as you wish, the other way around.

You should try reading more...

 

[EducatedOwl]

How about we change the words to "one nation under Allah" ? "one nation under Gaia"?
"one nation under Satan"?

This is the part of the argument that I decided not to bring up with Tryharder because he was being such a nice guy. The assumption that not having Christian verbage in our official creeds is somehow an assault on Christianity naturally leads to the assumption that the US is already committing an assault on all religions except Christianity; in that case we must put Shiva, Buddha, Allah, etc. in there too or else we're committing crimes against those religions.

 

[EducatedOwl]

For someone who evidently sprouts a chubby every time you mention separation of church and state...

...you got it azzbackwards.

The American conveyor of that phrase, Jefferson, and his protégé, Madison (who many call the father of the Constitution), both approved church services being held in Congress during their presidencies...

...to this day, both the Senate and House have their own chaplains, who open every day that Congress meets with a prayer.

The wall of separation between church and state is meant to do the exact opposite of what you fantasize of, and it is codified in the very First Amendment to the Constitution...

...the 1st constitutionally bars all government from establishing any religion as its own (as many of the colony governments, in fact, did), and dictates that any individual's exercise of religion is constitutionally free from any government dictate.

The wall, the 1st, is to keep "the US government" "out' of religion...

...not, as you wish, the other way around.

You should try reading more...

The Establishment Clause is, as is much of the original Constitution, an attempt to prevent the United States from becoming like Britain and other European monarchies. What the authors of the Constitution were specifically trying to prevent with the Establishment Clause was the rise of a state-endorsed religion like those of many countries in Europe. The perception that the United States was founded with the implicit endorsement of Christianity flies in the face of what the authors of the Constitution were trying to do, as well as in the face of the Constitution itself, which is intentionally devoid of religious language.

The fact that Congress has prayers and chaplains is only a tiny speck on the giant mound of evidence that America sucks at reading its own foundational documents.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

This is the part of the argument that I decided not to bring up with Tryharder because he was being such a nice guy.

Try is a "he" too? WTF? Are there any women in the GB?

 

[neci]

I don't know a single modern religion that claims God is somewhere overhead. Even as a metaphor, the expression "under God" is weak and pointless.

i be up under God getting my throat fucked.

 

[neci]

times like this, a part of me still worries about going to hell.

 

[Tryharder62]

This is the part of the argument that I decided not to bring up with Tryharder because he was being such a nice guy. The assumption that not having Christian verbage in our official creeds is somehow an assault on Christianity naturally leads to the assumption that the esUS is already committing an assault on all religions except Christianity; in that case we must put Shiva, Buddha, Allah, etc. in there too or else we're committing crimes against those religions.

Isn't Shiva also translated as "Great God" And Buddah teaching you to get to your own Nirvana. Don't Muslims consider Allah God? If the pledge was commiting an assault wouldn't it read one nation under Jesus? I just like to learn more. The group that I can understand feeling disturbed by under god is the athiest and I totally get that.

Try is a "he" too? WTF? Are there any women in the GB?

I just checked and my ta ta's and hoo hoo are still there!

 

[eyer]

What the authors of the Constitution were specifically trying to prevent with the Establishment Clause was the rise of a state-endorsed religion like those of many countries in Europe.

Partially correct...

...but they were more intimate and concerned with British American colony-mandated religion here, and they weren't "trying to prevent" - they explicitly commanded:

Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion...

Government, as I stated in a post above (because that's what the 1st plainly asserts)...

...must stay out of religion. Or, as Jefferson wrote:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Do you really need me to bold for you where he insists that "a wall" is built between "the legitimate powers of government reach" and "opinion" ("religion")?

Now, will you please bold for me where Jeff even implies in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist association that religious opinion must be kept out of government - can you do that? How 'bout if you research most of what Jefferson has ever written - because I have, and have never read what you and your ilk on this matter profess.

Jefferson's "wall" serves one, and only one, constitutional purpose:

...to elevate religion ("opinion") above the reach ("action") of government.

The perception that the United States was founded with the implicit endorsement of Christianity...

What the fvck does your subjective assessment there have to do with Jefferson's "wall" and what the 1st dictates to government?

The fact that Congress has prayers and chaplains is only a tiny speck on the giant mound of evidence that America sucks at reading its own foundational documents.

Maybe "America", in general, does "suck at reading its own foundational documents"...

...but that doesn't excuse you from being completely wrong on the issue.

You don't quite seem to want to acknowledge the vital difference between what you contend should be: freedom from religion...

...and what the 1st actually asserts as reality: freedom [there]of religion.

I totally understand religion offends such an arrogantly sensitive guy like yourself, and if you do a search on my writings on this Board re: "religion", "Christians", "Christianity", you'll discover I have not much taste for any of them, either...

...but "abridging the freedom of speech" is specifically denied government in the 1st right after denying government any role in effecting religious freedom, and there's a reason for that:

Jefferson and the overwhelming number of his American political peers viewed freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, and freedom of speech as all sprouting from the same root of inalienable right...

...and all naturally beyond the power of any government to effect.

The 1st was not constituted to protect either religious exercise or speech which found approval, it was constituted to establish both as inalienable individual rights far above the power of any government and, thus, constitutionally protected from all government intrusion...

...and, just as importantly, totally out of persecuting reach for those of us who may be offended by eithers' excercising.

You tyrannically demand freedom from religion in government...

...therefore, you are an enemy of free speech in government.

Foff and die...

 

[Joeybagadonuts]

Prayer in school, the pledge of allegiance are issues I don't give a shit about. It should be optional

 

[phrodeau]

Neither Thomas Jefferson nor eyer has served on the Supreme Court, so it makes no difference what they think about the first Amendment.

 

[eyer]

Neither Thomas Jefferson nor eyer has served on the Supreme Court, so it makes no difference what they think about the first Amendment.

Excellent reply, lemming...

 

[jeninflorida]

Prayer in school, the pledge of allegiance are issues I don't give a shit about. It should be optional

totally agree with you on that one! good job

 

[jeninflorida]

This is an idea that's time has come. If you taxed religious institutions, you could completely close the deficit, and there's no legitimate reason for them to get a tax exemption.

see, this is why you are a total piece of shit. a fucked up flawed less than a human.


why not make government more efficient and remove the dead weight?


oh yeah, you would be out of work....or your family members.

but hey, you don't have any personal pride or value yourself. but don't fear, I'm here to FIX you (and those like you)

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT for the Commonwealth
Case Docket: SJC-11317

JANE DOE & others vs. ACTON-BOXBOROUGH REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT & others


On September 4, a groundbreaking case of great importance to atheists and humanists will be heard before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Doe vs. Acton-Boxborough Regional School District is brought through the AHA's Appignani Humanist Legal Center, and is the first in the nation to assert the rights of atheists-humanist solely via equal protection and nondiscrimination. The case challenges the state law that requires daily school-sponsored and teacher-led classroom recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, because the pledge's "under God" wording discriminates against atheists-humanists by instilling and defining patriotism according to God-belief.

The fucking militant atheists are as bad as the freaking gay community. Always in your face and always an embarrassment to the name.

I am an atheist. Live and let live, you have to choose to be offended.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Neither Thomas Jefferson nor eyer has served on the Supreme Court, so it makes no difference what they think about the first Amendment.

Fallacy.

You been on the court, in government, or in the military?



There might be a lot of things, if held to the same standard that makes your thoughts on many topic irrelevant. Of course your smug, self-assured snark already does a good job of that already...

 

[EducatedOwl]

Fallacy.

You been on the court, in government, or in the military?



There might be a lot of things, if held to the same standard that makes your thoughts on many topic irrelevant. Of course your smug, self-assured snark already does a good job of that already...

His point is that Thomas Jefferson's personal feelings about the First Ammendment are not of any legal consequence, since Jefferson neither wrote the First Ammendment nor had any legal authority to interpret it. A lot of people love to throw down the famous Jefferson quote as if he is an authority on the matter; he wasn't. He was just a guy with opinions.

 

[EducatedOwl]

Partially correct...

...but they were more intimate and concerned with British American colony-mandated religion here, and they weren't "trying to prevent" - they explicitly commanded:



Government, as I stated in a post above (because that's what the 1st plainly asserts)...

...must stay out of religion. Or, as Jefferson wrote:



Do you really need me to bold for you where he insists that "a wall" is built between "the legitimate powers of government reach" and "opinion" ("religion")?

Now, will you please bold for me where Jeff even implies in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist association that religious opinion must be kept out of government - can you do that? How 'bout if you research most of what Jefferson has ever written - because I have, and have never read what you and your ilk on this matter profess.

Jefferson's "wall" serves one, and only one, constitutional purpose:

...to elevate religion ("opinion") above the reach ("action") of government.



What the fvck does your subjective assessment there have to do with Jefferson's "wall" and what the 1st dictates to government?

Jefferson's writings (including the "wall" you're so hung up on, which I never cited) is not in the Constitution, and is therefore not a binding absolute in the way you seem to think it is. Also, do you think that ordering children to endorse a particular God is "within the powers of legitimate government reach"?

Maybe "America", in general, does "suck at reading its own foundational documents"...

...but that doesn't excuse you from being completely wrong on the issue.

You don't quite seem to want to acknowledge the vital difference between what you contend should be: freedom from religion...

...and what the 1st actually asserts as reality: freedom [there]of religion.

I totally understand religion offends such an arrogantly sensitive guy like yourself, and if you do a search on my writings on this Board re: "religion", "Christians", "Christianity", you'll discover I have not much taste for any of them, either...

...but "abridging the freedom of speech" is specifically denied government in the 1st right after denying government any role in effecting religious freedom, and there's a reason for that:

Jefferson and the overwhelming number of his American political peers viewed freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, and freedom of speech as all sprouting from the same root of inalienable right...

...and all naturally beyond the power of any government to effect.

The 1st was not constituted to protect either religious exercise or speech which found approval, it was constituted to establish both as inalienable individual rights far above the power of any government and, thus, constitutionally protected from all government intrusion...

...and, just as importantly, totally out of persecuting reach for those of us who may be offended by eithers' excercising.

You tyrannically demand freedom from religion in government...

...therefore, you are an enemy of free speech in government.

Foff and die...

What is "freedom of speech in government"? Is the government a citizen with Constitutional rights?