| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"the Professor" |
| Date: |
15 Sep 2005 04:48:16 AM |
| Object: |
"under God" |
These are the type of issues that separate me from my liberal compatriots.
This is a naion made up of many different people of many different faiths.
Aetheists and agnostics comprise but a miniscule percentage of the
population, yet the wishes of the overwhelming majority of citizens would be
ignored if this court decision holds up. There are times when good old
common sense should prevail.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05258/571785.stm
'Pledge' in legal trouble
SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge yesterday declared the reciting of the
Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional, a decision that
could put the divisive issue on track for another round of Supreme Court
arguments.
The case was brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the
words "under God" was rejected last year by the Supreme Court on procedural
grounds.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to
one nation "under God" violates schoolchildren's right to be "free from a
coercive requirement to affirm God."
Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow
that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
.
|
|
| User: "LC" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
15 Sep 2005 02:42:47 PM |
|
|
A "Young" troll calling himself "the Professor"
<university@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:4fadnanQvoQRYLXeRVn-iw@giganews.com...
These are the type of issues that separate me from my liberal compatriots.
This is a naion made up of many different people of many different faiths.
Aetheists and agnostics comprise but a miniscule percentage of the
population, yet the wishes of the overwhelming majority of citizens would
be ignored if this court decision holds up. There are times when good old
common sense should prevail.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05258/571785.stm
<snip>
"Good old common sense should prevail"?
I guess we should just dump the whole silly Constitution while we're at it,
eh IBenNymShiftingAgain?
LC~ Another "opinion" from an insane troll.
"Your ("J Young") mindless cut and paste trolling is getting old. Try
something else for a change. Like thinking for yourself, perhaps."
Message-ID: <5dl4i11e0fbhae9mr0e3snck3tgims89l7@4ax.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "the Professor" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
16 Sep 2005 03:54:37 AM |
|
|
"LC" <LCain't@this.com> wrote in message
news:HLfWe.69$Gg1.23@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
A "Young" troll calling himself "the Professor"
<university@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:4fadnanQvoQRYLXeRVn-iw@giganews.com...
These are the type of issues that separate me from my liberal
compatriots.
This is a naion made up of many different people of many different
faiths.
Aetheists and agnostics comprise but a miniscule percentage of the
population, yet the wishes of the overwhelming majority of citizens
would
be ignored if this court decision holds up. There are times when good
old
common sense should prevail.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05258/571785.stm
<snip>
"Good old common sense should prevail"?
I guess we should just dump the whole silly Constitution while we're at
it,
eh IBenNymShiftingAgain?
LC~ Another "opinion" from an insane troll.
"Your ("J Young") mindless cut and paste trolling is getting old. Try
something else for a change. Like thinking for yourself, perhaps."
Message-ID: <5dl4i11e0fbhae9mr0e3snck3tgims89l7@4ax.com>
Where you belong, in the trash.
< PLONK>
.
|
|
|
| User: "LC" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
16 Sep 2005 01:55:55 PM |
|
|
A "Young" troll calling himself "the Professor" <university@volcanomail.com>
wrote in message news:dPqdnYSMJeXl37feRVn-hA@giganews.com...
"LC" <LCain't@this.com> wrote in message
news:HLfWe.69$Gg1.23@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Good old common sense should prevail"?
I guess we should just dump the whole silly Constitution while we're at
it, eh IBenNymShiftingAgain?
LC~ Another "opinion" from an insane troll.
"Your ("J Young") mindless cut and paste trolling is getting old. Try
something else for a change. Like thinking for yourself, perhaps."
Message-ID: <5dl4i11e0fbhae9mr0e3snck3tgims89l7@4ax.com>
Where you belong, in the trash.
< PLONK>
Run, J/IBen, run!
LC~ The "Professor" hasn't been studying his lessons.
"So, ***** you again, IBen/JYoung. Don't bother
attempting to connect the dots into a CLUE that eluded you the first
time around - do the net a favor and drown yourself in a pool of your
own vomit."
From: "spartakus@my-deja.com" <spartakus@my-deja.com>
Message-ID: <1118245740.522659.223560@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "XTS" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
15 Sep 2005 05:52:15 AM |
|
|
"the Professor" <university@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:4fadnanQvoQRYLXeRVn-iw@giganews.com...
These are the type of issues that separate me from my liberal compatriots.
This is a naion made up of many different people of many different faiths.
Aetheists and agnostics comprise but a miniscule percentage of the
population, yet the wishes of the overwhelming majority of citizens would
be
ignored if this court decision holds up. There are times when good old
common sense should prevail.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05258/571785.stm
'Pledge' in legal trouble
But the larger question is why do we have a pledge of allegiance to a flag
in the first place? If a person follows the laws of the laws of the land,
pays the taxes necessary to keep his nation running, does not transgress
against his neighbor, and in the end, minds his own business and does not
harm anyone, what the hell does he have to prove by holding his hand over
his heart and mindlessly repeats a mantra, chant kind of thing? What does
that prove? That he has the memory required to recite a few lines of babble?
Does that make him more of an American, or a human if he says it out loud?
What if he's just a big phony, and while he's doing it, he's plotting to
steal your car, boosting your wallet, or robbing a bank? Memorizing and
mouthing a few lines of script aloud does not mean *****. The merit of a man
lies in his deeds, not in his words. If what lies in words were the merit
of men, politicians, lawyers, cops and preachers would all be saints, and we
know they are not.
SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge yesterday declared the reciting of the
Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional, a decision that
could put the divisive issue on track for another round of Supreme Court
arguments.
The case was brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the
words "under God" was rejected last year by the Supreme Court on
procedural
grounds.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to
one nation "under God" violates schoolchildren's right to be "free from a
coercive requirement to affirm God."
Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow
that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
16 Sep 2005 04:55:07 AM |
|
|
XTS wrote:
"the Professor" <university@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:4fadnanQvoQRYLXeRVn-iw@giganews.com...
These are the type of issues that separate me from my liberal compatriots.
This is a naion made up of many different people of many different faiths.
Aetheists and agnostics comprise but a miniscule percentage of the
population, yet the wishes of the overwhelming majority of citizens would
be
ignored if this court decision holds up. There are times when good old
common sense should prevail.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05258/571785.stm
'Pledge' in legal trouble
But the larger question is why do we have a pledge of allegiance to a flag
in the first place? If a person follows the laws of the laws of the land,
pays the taxes necessary to keep his nation running, does not transgress
against his neighbor, and in the end, minds his own business and does not
harm anyone, what the hell does he have to prove by holding his hand over
his heart and mindlessly repeats a mantra, chant kind of thing? What does
that prove? That he has the memory required to recite a few lines of babble?
Does that make him more of an American, or a human if he says it out loud?
What if he's just a big phony, and while he's doing it, he's plotting to
steal your car, boosting your wallet, or robbing a bank? Memorizing and
mouthing a few lines of script aloud does not mean *****. The merit of a man
lies in his deeds, not in his words. If what lies in words were the merit
of men, politicians, lawyers, cops and preachers would all be saints, and we
know they are not.
Now you're going to ***** up a good debate by introducing logic.
--
Jack
Plonked by Native American
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/xmissionbobo/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Provasek" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
15 Sep 2005 06:21:12 AM |
|
|
"the Professor" <university@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:4fadnanQvoQRYLXeRVn-iw@giganews.com...
These are the type of issues that separate me from my liberal compatriots.
This is a naion made up of many different people of many different faiths.
Aetheists and agnostics comprise but a miniscule percentage of the
population, yet the wishes of the overwhelming majority of citizens would
be
ignored if this court decision holds up.
And at one time Christians were such a minuscule percentage of the
population,
that they could be fed to the lions as entertainment for the overwhelming
majority
of citizens....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
15 Sep 2005 06:14:12 AM |
|
|
"the Professor" <university@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:4fadnanQvoQRYLXeRVn-iw@giganews.com...
These are the type of issues that separate me from my liberal compatriots.
This is a naion made up of many different people of many different faiths.
Aetheists and agnostics comprise but a miniscule percentage of the
population, yet the wishes of the overwhelming majority of citizens would
be
ignored if this court decision holds up. There are times when good old
common sense should prevail.
From http://www.au.org/religious/religiousgroups.htm
Religious Bodies Which Support Church-State Separation
American Baptist Churches USA
Historically connected to securing religious liberty. Has statements and
resolutions on the principle of separation of church and state, and against
state mandated prayer.
Church of the Brethren
Has a long history of defending the public schools, religious liberty and
the principle of church-state separation. Statements and resolutions have
been adopted.
Episcopal Church in America
Resolutions in support of church-state separation have been adopted.
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Statements on religious liberty, human rights, church-state relations and
Lutheran perspectives on church-state have been written. Resolutions on
Religious Freedom and the Constitution have been adopted.
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Statements on School Prayer and religious freedom have been written. Public
policy statements favor church-state separation.
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Historically supportive of the principle of church-state separation. Adopted
a Resolution in support of church-state separation at 1999 General Assembly.
Mennonite Central Committee
Statements on school prayer have been written. Mennonites have been vocal in
religious liberty issues.
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Has published policy statement in support of religious liberty: God Alone is
Lord of the Conscience.
Seventh Day Adventists
Historically strong supporters of religious liberty and the principle of
church-state separation.
Soka Gakkai International – USA
Statements regarding school prayer have been written. Strong proponents of
church-state separations and religious liberty.
Union of American Hebrew Congregations
Historically strong supporters of religious liberty and the principle of
church-state separation. (Reform Judaism)
United Church of Christ
Has adopted a resolution which encourages the education of member
congregations about the principle of church-state separation. Historically
strong supporters of religious liberty and church-state separation.
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
Statements on religious liberty and several religious liberty resolutions
have been adopted. Strong supporters of the principle of church-state
separation.
United Methodist Church
Resoultions, study guides and statements in support of religious liberty and
church-state separation have been written and adopted. Historically
supportive of the principle of church-state separation.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05258/571785.stm
'Pledge' in legal trouble
SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge yesterday declared the reciting of the
Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional, a decision that
could put the divisive issue on track for another round of Supreme Court
arguments.
The case was brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the
words "under God" was rejected last year by the Supreme Court on
procedural
grounds.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to
one nation "under God" violates schoolchildren's right to be "free from a
coercive requirement to affirm God."
Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow
that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
15 Sep 2005 05:19:05 AM |
|
|
"the Professor" <university@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:4fadnanQvoQRYLXeRVn-iw@giganews.com...
yet the wishes of the overwhelming majority of citizens would be
ignored if this court decision holds up.
If it's the "overwhelming majority" then why not just propose an Amendment
repealing the First Amendment to the Constitution?
-Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nog" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
15 Sep 2005 01:40:43 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Welch" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126761545.0a7cca5671082bb43b7e8dfb13ae5e0f@meganetnews2...
"the Professor" <university@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:4fadnanQvoQRYLXeRVn-iw@giganews.com...
yet the wishes of the overwhelming majority of citizens would be
ignored if this court decision holds up.
If it's the "overwhelming majority" then why not just propose an Amendment
repealing the First Amendment to the Constitution?
-Jeff Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original
Pledge in August 1892.
His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and
(to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.'
DID YOU NOTICE THERE IS NO MENTION OF "god"
In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the
American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the
Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.'
Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the
words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath
and a public prayer.
It's time to remove "Under God" because it DIVIDES the nation instead of
itbeing "Indivisible".
GET RID OF IT NOW!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
15 Sep 2005 02:08:17 PM |
|
|
"Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:64GdnaEiCu1U5LTeRVn-vQ@adelphia.com...
"Jeff Welch" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126761545.0a7cca5671082bb43b7e8dfb13ae5e0f@meganetnews2...
"the Professor" <university@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:4fadnanQvoQRYLXeRVn-iw@giganews.com...
yet the wishes of the overwhelming majority of citizens would be
ignored if this court decision holds up.
If it's the "overwhelming majority" then why not just propose an
Amendment
repealing the First Amendment to the Constitution?
-Jeff Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the
original
Pledge in August 1892.
His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and
(to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.'
DID YOU NOTICE THERE IS NO MENTION OF "god"
In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of
the
American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the
Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.'
Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the
words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic
oath
and a public prayer.
It's time to remove "Under God" because it DIVIDES the nation instead of
itbeing "Indivisible".
GET RID OF IT NOW!
You people are so stupid. The vast majority of people are religous.
Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddist, Hindu ect. The continued attack on religous
freedom divides the country. Because the vast majority are religous,
religous freedom will unite the country. It's moot anyway. After Bush gets
his next two supreme court justices in the court will protect religous
freedom for a couple more decades.
It is impossible for the state to control the masses when the people's
alligance is two the church. Just ask Stalin and Hitler.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "ManMadeGod" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
15 Sep 2005 06:34:46 PM |
|
|
"Jeff" <augier@mts.ca> wrote in message
news:lafWe.3873$qP3.40759@news1.mts.net...
"Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:64GdnaEiCu1U5LTeRVn-vQ@adelphia.com...
"Jeff Welch" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126761545.0a7cca5671082bb43b7e8dfb13ae5e0f@meganetnews2...
"the Professor" <university@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:4fadnanQvoQRYLXeRVn-iw@giganews.com...
yet the wishes of the overwhelming majority of citizens would be
ignored if this court decision holds up.
If it's the "overwhelming majority" then why not just propose an
Amendment
repealing the First Amendment to the Constitution?
-Jeff Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the
original
Pledge in August 1892.
His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and
(to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.'
DID YOU NOTICE THERE IS NO MENTION OF "god"
In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of
the
American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the
Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.'
Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the
words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic
oath
and a public prayer.
It's time to remove "Under God" because it DIVIDES the nation instead of
itbeing "Indivisible".
GET RID OF IT NOW!
You people are so stupid. The vast majority of people are religous.
Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddist, Hindu ect. The continued attack on
religous
freedom divides the country. Because the vast majority are religous,
religous freedom will unite the country. It's moot anyway. After Bush gets
his next two supreme court justices in the court will protect religous
freedom for a couple more decades.
It is impossible for the state to control the masses when the people's
alligance is two the church. Just ask Stalin and Hitler.
Hitler was a devout catholic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cmdr Buzz Corey" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
15 Sep 2005 08:16:39 PM |
|
|
ManMadeGod wrote:
Hitler was a devout catholic.
Let's just say he had a Catholic background.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "FlameStrike" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
15 Sep 2005 03:41:13 PM |
|
|
In article <lafWe.3873$qP3.40759@news1.mts.net>, says...
You people are so stupid. The vast majority of people are religous.
Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddist, Hindu ect. The continued attack on religous
freedom divides the country. Because the vast majority are religous,
religous freedom will unite the country. It's moot anyway. After Bush gets
his next two supreme court justices in the court will protect religous
freedom for a couple more decades.
It is impossible for the state to control the masses when the people's
alligance is two the church. Just ask Stalin and Hitler.
Religious freedom would be better suited by removing reference to God from the
government. Returning the government to a neutral position on the issue, by
removing "under God" from the Pledge and "In God We Trust" from the currency,
would not deny people the right to go to church, or temple, or the mosque as
they choose. It would also prevent people who don't share that belief from
feeling the government is trying to ram it down their throats, from making
them feel like they're not equal in this country.
The way the Pledge is currently written, it says that the government
acknowledges the existence a single god, and put that god in a position
superior to our nation. This can, and has, lead to the feeling that those who
do not believe in God cannot be patriotic, and cannot expect equal treatment
from the government.
As it stands, the Pledge itself is in violation of the first amendment by
establishing that God does exist as far as the government is concerned, and
that is establishing a religious belief, one that is repeated everytime you
say the Pledge.
--
FlameStrike
"My honor is my life!"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
15 Sep 2005 03:29:02 PM |
|
|
On 2005-09-15 07:08:17 -0700, "Jeff" <augier@mts.ca> said:
The continued attack on religous
freedom divides the country.
Exactly. That is why we should stop compelling schoolkids from
chanting "under God" every morning. Worshipping according to one's own
faith should be voluntary and done on the worshippers own time.
So glad you agree on that.
On the other hand (to paraphrase Jon Stewart), there are few better
ways to render a phrase impotent and irrelevant than to force fifth
graders to chant it over and over.
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
"Genocide is used sparingly by God in only extreme circumstances." -Jim Spaza
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
15 Sep 2005 02:25:54 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 09:08:17 -0500, "Jeff" <augier@mts.ca> wrote:
You people are so stupid. The vast majority of people are religous.
And you're a deliberate liar who pretends that religious freedom means
imposing the majority religion on everybody.
You have the right to practise your religion.
You have no right to force everybody else to acknowledge the supremacy
of your deity.
Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddist, Hindu ect. The continued attack on religous
freedom divides the country. Because the vast majority are religous,
The attack on religious freedom is carried out by you and your kind,
who want to destroy everybody else's religious freedom.
religous freedom will unite the country. It's moot anyway. After Bush gets
his next two supreme court justices in the court will protect religous
freedom for a couple more decades.
No, liar - it will enforce your brand of religion.
It is impossible for the state to control the masses when the people's
alligance is two the church. Just ask Stalin and Hitler.
Eisenhowers's own words as he signed "under God" into law demonatrate
that the intent was unconstitutional.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
15 Sep 2005 03:15:43 PM |
|
|
Nog wrote:
"Jeff Welch" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126761545.0a7cca5671082bb43b7e8dfb13ae5e0f@meganetnews2...
"the Professor" <university@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:4fadnanQvoQRYLXeRVn-iw@giganews.com...
yet the wishes of the overwhelming majority of citizens would be
ignored if this court decision holds up.
If it's the "overwhelming majority" then why not just propose an Amendment
repealing the First Amendment to the Constitution?
-Jeff Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original
Pledge in August 1892.
His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and
(to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.'
DID YOU NOTICE THERE IS NO MENTION OF "god"
So what? If it wasn't, Newdow would have simply changed the lawsuit and
made it simply about saying the pledge.
In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the
American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the
Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.'
Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the
words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath
and a public prayer.
It's time to remove "Under God" because it DIVIDES the nation instead of
itbeing "Indivisible".
The onyl thing divided is your brain. No one is forced to say
anything. I remember as a kid in school on certain days not reciting
anything. Other days, I recited the whole thing with the class. No
one cared.
There's no need to "fix" something that ain't broke. Unless someone is
holding a gun to the back of the kids who are atheists, this is a
non-issue.
mj
.
|
|
|
| User: "ManMadeGod" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
15 Sep 2005 06:38:20 PM |
|
|
<moorehead_johnson@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126797343.266819.245320@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Nog wrote:
"Jeff Welch" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126761545.0a7cca5671082bb43b7e8dfb13ae5e0f@meganetnews2...
"the Professor" <university@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:4fadnanQvoQRYLXeRVn-iw@giganews.com...
yet the wishes of the overwhelming majority of citizens would be
ignored if this court decision holds up.
If it's the "overwhelming majority" then why not just propose an
Amendment
repealing the First Amendment to the Constitution?
-Jeff Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the
original
Pledge in August 1892.
His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and
(to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.'
DID YOU NOTICE THERE IS NO MENTION OF "god"
So what? If it wasn't, Newdow would have simply changed the lawsuit and
made it simply about saying the pledge.
In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of
the
American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the
Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.'
Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the
words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic
oath
and a public prayer.
It's time to remove "Under God" because it DIVIDES the nation instead of
itbeing "Indivisible".
The onyl thing divided is your brain. No one is forced to say
anything. I remember as a kid in school on certain days not reciting
anything. Other days, I recited the whole thing with the class. No
one cared.
There's no need to "fix" something that ain't broke. Unless someone is
holding a gun to the back of the kids who are atheists, this is a
non-issue.
The "fix" came from a religious men's group, now it's time to change it back
to it's original wording.
How would you like a pledge that included "without god" instead of "under
god".
Didn't think so.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
16 Sep 2005 05:18:30 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Nog wrote:
"Jeff Welch" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126761545.0a7cca5671082bb43b7e8dfb13ae5e0f@meganetnews2...
"the Professor" <university@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:4fadnanQvoQRYLXeRVn-iw@giganews.com...
yet the wishes of the overwhelming majority of citizens would be
ignored if this court decision holds up.
If it's the "overwhelming majority" then why not just propose an Amendment
repealing the First Amendment to the Constitution?
-Jeff Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original
Pledge in August 1892.
His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and
(to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.'
DID YOU NOTICE THERE IS NO MENTION OF "god"
So what? If it wasn't, Newdow would have simply changed the lawsuit and
made it simply about saying the pledge.
In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the
American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the
Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.'
Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the
words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath
and a public prayer.
It's time to remove "Under God" because it DIVIDES the nation instead of
itbeing "Indivisible".
The onyl thing divided is your brain. No one is forced to say
anything. I remember as a kid in school on certain days not reciting
anything. Other days, I recited the whole thing with the class. No
one cared.
There's no need to "fix" something that ain't broke. Unless someone is
holding a gun to the back of the kids who are atheists, this is a
non-issue.
mj
Too bad they didn't have you for council in 1954 when they tried to
"fix" the pledge.
--
Jack
Plonked by Native American
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/xmissionbobo/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
15 Sep 2005 11:05:14 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 15 Sep 2005 08:15:43 -0700,
"moorehead_johnson@hotmail.com" <moorehead_johnson@hotmail.com> let us
all know that:
Nog wrote:
"Jeff Welch" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126761545.0a7cca5671082bb43b7e8dfb13ae5e0f@meganetnews2...
"the Professor" <university@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:4fadnanQvoQRYLXeRVn-iw@giganews.com...
yet the wishes of the overwhelming majority of citizens would be
ignored if this court decision holds up.
If it's the "overwhelming majority" then why not just propose an Amendment
repealing the First Amendment to the Constitution?
-Jeff Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original
Pledge in August 1892.
His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and
(to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.'
DID YOU NOTICE THERE IS NO MENTION OF "god"
So what? If it wasn't, Newdow would have simply changed the lawsuit and
made it simply about saying the pledge.
That was already done, back in 1943. No child has to recite
the pledge, period. There's a coupla JW's to thank for that.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
16 Sep 2005 04:53:22 AM |
|
|
Jeff Welch wrote:
"the Professor" <university@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:4fadnanQvoQRYLXeRVn-iw@giganews.com...
yet the wishes of the overwhelming majority of citizens would be
ignored if this court decision holds up.
If it's the "overwhelming majority" then why not just propose an Amendment
repealing the First Amendment to the Constitution?
-Jeff
Because they haven't figured out a way to prohibit your speech while
allowing theirs. They're working on it.
--
Jack
Plonked by Native American
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/xmissionbobo/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "doktorf" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
15 Sep 2005 11:18:42 PM |
|
|
These are the type of issues that separate me >from my liberal compatriots.
This is a naion made up of many different people >of many different faiths.
Aetheists and agnostics comprise but a miniscule >percentage of the
population, yet the wishes of the overwhelming >majority of citizens would be
ignored if this court decision holds up. There are >times when good old
common sense should prevail.
I couldn't agree more. Common sense should prevail. Common sense seems
to make things like loyalty oaths seem sort of unAmerican in general
character. Are we so insecure that we must make our kids swear
allegiance every morning in school?
"Under God" isn't the problem. The pledge is the problem.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "doktorf" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
15 Sep 2005 11:19:16 PM |
|
|
These are the type of issues that separate me >from my liberal compatriots.
This is a naion made up of many different people >of many different faiths.
Aetheists and agnostics comprise but a miniscule >percentage of the
population, yet the wishes of the overwhelming >majority of citizens would be
ignored if this court decision holds up. There are >times when good old
common sense should prevail.
I couldn't agree more. Common sense should prevail. Common sense seems
to make things like loyalty oaths seem sort of unAmerican in general
character. Are we so insecure that we must make our kids swear
allegiance every morning in school?
"Under God" isn't the problem. The pledge is the problem.
.
|
|
|
| User: "XTS" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
16 Sep 2005 12:54:15 AM |
|
|
"doktorf" <doktorf@tiac.net> wrote in message
news:1126826356.804454.116700@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
These are the type of issues that separate me >from my liberal
compatriots.
This is a naion made up of many different people >of many different
faiths.
Aetheists and agnostics comprise but a miniscule >percentage of the
population, yet the wishes of the overwhelming >majority of citizens
would be
ignored if this court decision holds up. There are >times when good old
common sense should prevail.
I couldn't agree more. Common sense should prevail. Common sense seems
to make things like loyalty oaths seem sort of unAmerican in general
character. Are we so insecure that we must make our kids swear
allegiance every morning in school?
"Under God" isn't the problem. The pledge is the problem.
I agree. It's a chant, that has no reason, rhyme, or merit. It is out of
place in a 21st century enlightened society. Why do we cling to these
throwbacks to darker ages?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Provasek" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
15 Sep 2005 06:18:29 AM |
|
|
Also, the requirement for "In God We Trust" on our currency
also dates to the Eisenhower years. Here is a dollar bill from the
1935 to 1957 era...
http://i16.ebayimg.com/02/i/04/e3/0a/d6_1_b.JPG
RARE COIN AUCTIONS NO MINIMUMS www.frankcoins.com
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZfrankcoins Texas Auction License 11259
Board member of Texas Coin Dealers Association, Fort Worth Coin Club.
Member: Texas Numismatic Assoc, American Numismatic Assoc
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ManMadeGod" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
15 Sep 2005 04:59:26 AM |
|
|
Hey Jackass,
Before shooting off your dumbass mouth, consider this...
The original "pledge" did not include "under god". The K of C (a religious
men's organization) lobbied congress in 1957 to have the words "under god"
added to our original pledge. Thus, our government crossed the line and
added the christian "god" to our country pledge.
Maybe you would be much happier in Saudi Arabia, under a Theocracy, because
you seem miserable living under a democracy that promotes freedom of/from
religion.
"the Professor" <university@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:4fadnanQvoQRYLXeRVn-iw@giganews.com...
These are the type of issues that separate me from my liberal compatriots.
This is a naion made up of many different people of many different faiths.
Aetheists and agnostics comprise but a miniscule percentage of the
population, yet the wishes of the overwhelming majority of citizens would
be
ignored if this court decision holds up. There are times when good old
common sense should prevail.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05258/571785.stm
'Pledge' in legal trouble
SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge yesterday declared the reciting of the
Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional, a decision that
could put the divisive issue on track for another round of Supreme Court
arguments.
The case was brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the
words "under God" was rejected last year by the Supreme Court on
procedural
grounds.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to
one nation "under God" violates schoolchildren's right to be "free from a
coercive requirement to affirm God."
Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow
that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
15 Sep 2005 03:10:02 PM |
|
|
ManMadeGod wrote:
Hey Jackass,
Before shooting off your dumbass mouth, consider this...
The original "pledge" did not include "under god". The K of C (a religious
men's organization) lobbied congress in 1957 to have the words "under god"
added to our original pledge. Thus, our government crossed the line and
added the christian "god" to our country pledge.
I guess then, the government also "crossed the line" when in our own
Declaration of Indpendence we announced that our rights come from our
CREATOR? Do you ever bother to think your own ***** through, MORON?
Didn't think so.
Maybe you would be much happier in Saudi Arabia, under a Theocracy, because
you seem miserable living under a democracy that promotes freedom of/from
religion.
Saudi sounds like the liberal utopia - an overreaching govenment that
makes your decisions for you, including what religion you can (or
can't) believe in, and basically emsasculates you to the point of being
a walking, hairy ***** with no ability to think for youself.
I'll bet you're already packing.
mj
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
15 Sep 2005 06:02:02 PM |
|
|
"moorehead_johnson@hotmail.com" wrote:
ManMadeGod wrote:
Hey Jackass,
Before shooting off your dumbass mouth, consider this...
The original "pledge" did not include "under god". The K of C (a religious
men's organization) lobbied congress in 1957 to have the words "under god"
added to our original pledge. Thus, our government crossed the line and
added the christian "god" to our country pledge.
I guess then, the government also "crossed the line" when in our own
Declaration of Indpendence we announced that our rights come from our
CREATOR? Do you ever bother to think your own ***** through, MORON?
Didn't think so.
There was no US government when that particular piece of revolutionary rhetoric
was written. Crimeny, don't you know ANYTHING about American history and civics?
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
- Robert Anton Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "D-word" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
16 Sep 2005 12:26:17 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I guess then, the government also "crossed the line" when in our own
Declaration of Indpendence we announced that our rights come from our
CREATOR? Do you ever bother to think your own ***** through, MORON?
Didn't think so.
How ironic.
"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...."
['cepting if they be darkies in which case they will be subject to
purchase or sale for a fair price, without any of the rights our
CREATOR gave to us white folk.]
The Declaration of Independence has no legal bearing. It was not
ratified as a civil rights document, it was a declaration of war. For
that matter, even the US Constitution failed to address many civil
rights issues, including women's suffrage and slavery. The
Constitution, to which purists cling, was written in 1789 and has been
amended many times. Slavery wasn't prohibited until the passage of
the 13th Amendment to that /same/ document in 1865. "Equality" always
has been, and always will be, a relative concept.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
16 Sep 2005 05:15:43 AM |
|
|
wrote:
ManMadeGod wrote:
Hey Jackass,
Before shooting off your dumbass mouth, consider this...
The original "pledge" did not include "under god". The K of C (a religious
men's organization) lobbied congress in 1957 to have the words "under god"
added to our original pledge. Thus, our government crossed the line and
added the christian "god" to our country pledge.
I guess then, the government also "crossed the line" when in our own
Declaration of Indpendence we announced that our rights come from our
CREATOR? Do you ever bother to think your own ***** through, MORON?
Didn't think so.
Maybe you would be much happier in Saudi Arabia, under a Theocracy, because
you seem miserable living under a democracy that promotes freedom of/from
religion.
Saudi sounds like the liberal utopia - an overreaching govenment that
makes your decisions for you, including what religion you can (or
can't) believe in, and basically emsasculates you to the point of being
a walking, hairy ***** with no ability to think for youself.
I'll bet you're already packing.
mj
Sounds like Pat Robertson's vision for America.
--
Jack
Plonked by Native American
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/xmissionbobo/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "James Ascher" |
|
| Title: Re: "under God" |
16 Sep 2005 12:33:33 AM |
|
|
wrote:
ManMadeGod wrote:
Hey Jackass,
Before shooting off your dumbass mouth, consider this...
The original "pledge" did not include "under god". The K of C (a religious
men's organization) lobbied congress in 1957 to have the words "under god"
added to our original pledge. Thus, our government crossed the line and
added the christian "god" to our country pledge.
I guess then, the government also "crossed the line" when in our own
Declaration of Indpendence we announced that our rights come from our
CREATOR? Do you ever bother to think your own ***** through, MORON?
Didn't think so.
"Creator" is non-specific. Most religions believe in some Creator. The
founders were mostly Deists, not Christians.
James
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
