Federal District court rules Pledge of Alliegance unconstitutional...

[Figrin D'an]

AP article

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Pledge Ruled Unconstitutional
Wed Jun 26, 5:51 PM ET

By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Stunning politicians on both the left and right, a federal appeals court declared for the first time Wednesday that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional because of the words "under God" inserted by Congress in 1954.

Pledge of Allegiance Controversy

The ruling, if allowed to stand, would mean schoolchildren could no longer recite the pledge, at least in the nine Western states covered by the court.

Critics of the decision were flabbergasted and warned that it calls into question the use of "In God We Trust" on the nation's currency, the public singing of patriotic songs like "God Bless America," even the use of the phrase "So help me when God" when judges are sworn into office.

In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ( news - web sites) said the phrase "one nation under God" amounts to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the separation of church and state.

Leading schoolchildren in a pledge that says the United States is "one nation under God" is as objectionable as making them say "we are a nation `under Jesus,' a nation `under Vishnu,' a nation `under Zeus,' or a nation `under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion," Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote.

In Canada, where President Bush ( news - web sites) was taking part in an economic summit, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer ( news - web sites) said: "The president's reaction was that this ruling is ridiculous."

"The Supreme Court itself begins each of its sessions with the phrase `God save the United States and this honorable court,'" Fleischer said. "The Declaration of Independence refers to God or to the Creator four different times. Congress begins each session of the Congress each day with a prayer, and of course our currency says, `In God We Trust. The view of the White House is that this was a wrong decision and the Department Justice is now evaluating how to seek redress."

The ruling was also attacked on Capitol Hill, with Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle, D-S.D., calling it "just nuts."

The government had argued that the religious content of "one nation under God" is minimal. But the appeals court said that an atheist or a holder of certain non-Judeo-Christian beliefs could see it as an endorsement of monotheism.

The 9th Circuit covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington state. Those are the only states directly affected by the ruling.

However, the ruling does not take effect for several months, to allow further appeals. The government can ask the court to reconsider, or take its case to the U.S. Supreme Court ( news - web sites).

Congress inserted "under God" at the height of the Cold War after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, religious leaders and others who wanted to distinguish the United States from what they regarded as godless communism.

The case was brought by Michael A. Newdow, a Sacramento atheist who objected because his second-grade daughter was required to recite the pledge at the Elk Grove school district. A federal judge had dismissed his lawsuit.

Newdow, a doctor who holds a law degree and represented himself, called the pledge a "religious idea that certain people don't agree with."

The appeals court said that when President Eisenhower signed the legislation inserting "under God" after the words "one nation," he declared: "Millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

The appeals court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has said students cannot be compelled to recite the pledge. But even when the pledge is voluntary, "the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge."

The ruling was issued by Goodwin, who was appointed by President Nixocn, and Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a Carter appointee.

In a dissent, Circuit Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez, appointed by the first President Bush, warned that under his colleagues' theory of the Constitution, "we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings."

"`God Bless America' and `America the Beautiful' will be gone for sure," he said, "and while use of the first and second stanzas of the `Star-Spangled Banner' will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third."

Fernandez said the same faulty logic would apply to "In God We Trust" on the nation's currency.

Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., was one of many lawmakers who immediately reacted in anger and shock to the ruling.

"Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. This is the worst kind of political correctness run amok," Bond said. "What's next? Will the courts now strip 'so help me God' from the pledge taken from new presidents?"

Harvard scholar Laurence Tribe predicted that the U.S. Supreme Court will certainly reverse the decision unless the 9th Circuit reverses itself. "I would bet an awful lot on that," Tribe said.

The 9th Circuit is the nation's most overturned appellate court — partly because it is the largest, but also because it tends to make liberal, activist opinions, and because the cases it hears — on a range of issues from environmental laws to property rights to civil rights — tend to challenge the status quo.

The nation's high court has never squarely addressed the issue, Tribe said. The court has said schools can require teachers to lead the pledge but ruled students cannot be punished for refusing to recite it.

In other school-related religious cases, the high court has said that schools cannot post the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms.

And in March, a federal appeals court ruled that Ohio's motto, "With God, all things are possible," is constitutional and is not an endorsement of Christianity even though it quotes the words of Jesus.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I heard earlier this evening that the judges that made this ruling have issued a stay until it can be reviewed by other Federal courts. Still, this is a pretty hot topic that is only going to get more attention. Any thoughts or opinions? Maybe I'll post my opinions later, but I thought this might be a interesting topic of discussion.

[Admiral Lebron]

It'll go to the supreme court and get shot down.

[Figrin D'an]

Likely, yes... the Senate voted 99-0, with one missing, to condemn the decision... pretty interesting...

[Charley]

I think if the ACLU really wants to open this can of worms, I can crack open my handy-dandy bible and declare my paying of taxes to support welfare as unconstitutional as well :)

It wasn't enough to just opt out of saying the pledge...no, now they want to eliminate it for those who participate.

Alrighty then :)

I've got something neat in Leviticus that I think my IRS Auditor should see...>D

[Gia Van Derveld]

Calmness, LL. You're straying into the Dark Side.

Frankly, I agree with Bush. Thats ridiculous. If it isn't shot down, I'm going to stand on the steps of the Supreme Court and protest.

[Maelstorm]

are you guys all religious republicans, you can pull out your handy dandy bible and i can pull out my handy dandy bill of rights. not everyone has to abide by the same rules. we say that we have separation of church and state but we in fact do not, in my opinion this is probably a move in the right direction. by the way the ACLU has touched cans of worms much more dangerous at the time than this one and we owe their bravery much. maybe one day we will look back in this issue in that same light.

[Charley]

You seem to conveniently forget that not only did our founding fathers say that the state cannot impose religion upon a person, but they also cannot prohibit their practice of said religion. Its just more chic to dig at the silent majority on these kinds of things. I assure you that if the ACLU played this with the kind of fair hand they profess to, that they would eat their words faster than Sally Struthers would eat a McDonalds french fry if it fell in your lap.

[Selena Kyle]

The RIGHT direction????!!!

I am SORRY but I beg to differ. We may ALL have a DIFFERENT God...but still there is GOD. Unless you are atheist. (then that is a different subject) Religion is a tough subject and now you are throwing in Politics. ANOTHER tough one.

How about this..the right direction you claim is to H E double hockeysticks!!

Ok..guys the world is coming to an end. When we get stupid and change things that have been in OUR history forever. |I

**Rant Over**

[Admiral Lebron]

Maelstorm don't just go off and think we're neat little republicans with bibles. I'm a democratic Jew. Granted I have my little bible to, but in all honestly, a month ago we're you appauled when you used your money to pay for stuff and see "In God We Trust"? And since you are obviously American, while in grade school did you really protest the fact you didn't feel you should say two damned words in the pledge? Or are you just jumping on the band-wagon?

[Gia Van Derveld]

Instead of just ranting in here, Americans, we should DO something. But what!? I don't even know where to start with writing letters.

[Figrin D'an]

Actually, not forever... the words "Under God" weren't added to the Pledge until the 1950's, during the Eisenhower administration. The Pledge itself has existed since 1892, written by a Baptist minister.

[Sene Unty]

Slavery was also in our history "forever" and now is thought to be a mistake. I agree with Maelstorm. This is indeed a good think that is happening. America is based on a belief that you can belief in anything you want freely. If I don't believe in God then I should not have to hear his name in every facit of our judicial system. It is wrong and you are all blinded by a your beliefs. And because YOU belef that there is a GOD does not mean there is a GOD!

[Maelstorm]

how seriously did you take the pledge of allegiance when you were five?? here the issue is not the actual imposing or prohibiting the issue lies in the implicit nature of the language. we have the word "god" ingrained in our society the same way we used to say "mailMAN" and still say "MANkind", it is snuck in there everyday and we are told that the significance of the words or if we are forced to say them ore not are minimal but the fact is that based on this simple words people are discriminated against, ostracized, and even killed. People are subjugated and it is due in large part to this small words that we say are not being force fed to anyone. Of course, you will never agree that words have that much significance but in my opinion they are at the core of the world we have constructed for ourselves. This issue is not whether we make the kids say the words in school, it's that the kids are learning at a very young age where the norm lies and whether they meet the norm or fall outside it.

[Tony Laciscero]

I'm sorry, but these two needless lines were added during the Macarthy era. Until then, they weren't there. They sure as hell don't need to be there now.

The less religion I have in my government the happier I am.

[Sene Unty]

Actually in grade school I did have a dis-agreement with saying the pledge. I have believed that it is wrong now for a while.

[Jedi Master Leia Solo]

I see Figrin. But still all this is the US history. Sad they want to change something like that.

Yes..slavery is wrong. But what does that have to do with the Pledge here.

If you don't believe in GOD that is your thing. BUT...should they change everything mentioned above in our history because GOD is mentioned?! I BEG TO DIFFER!! That would be STUPID!!

Sorry I still think this is totally bogus!

[Admiral Lebron]

It's heritage folks. At one point in this world everyone believed in god, whether they called him Adonai, God, or Allah, they were still there. I find it hilarious that know one person decided to try and take it down, everyone jumps out and says they hate it. What's next, changing the money to? Then of course we will certainly have to change the words mankind, history, and any other word like it. But wait! Theres more, other people will complain and changes will keep going till we have the christmas episode of south park. Anything you do will offend someone. Just ignore it.

[Maelstorm]

let it be noted that I DO NOT JUMP ON BANDWAGONS. it is easier to discard my feelings as simply the replies of a drone who regergetates what she hears on Politically Incorrect but I am actually a thinking being same as you. And to Lebron, simply because you hear my opinion now for the first time do not believe this is the first time I think that reiligion should not be a part of my government. I have been bothered by it for years but short of crossing out the words "in god we trust" from all my money or paying with shells i could nto make the words disappear

[Gia Van Derveld]

Actually, you have a good point. Just because I do happen to believe in God, doesn't mean He exists. But just because you don't believe in God, doesn't mean that he doesn't exist.

And if I want to protest this decision, I will. Thanks. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, do NOT discriminate against me because of my beliefs.

[Admiral Lebron]

You know what? If the senate and reps vote this thing through and the judges let it pass then more power to ya, but when they don't and you want to complain, don't do it here. Do it in a letter to your senator and representitive.

[Charley]

Then don't say it. What the hell is your problem? You do know you're entitled to refuse to say that. Nobody's twisting your arm here. Yet you've got this chip on your shoulder to insist that the majority who do believe in that pledge should be made not to?

[Maelstorm]

AND WAHT IS WRONG WITH CHANGE. WOMEN WITHOUT THE VOTE, SLAVERY, SEGREGATION, AND BEING AN ENGLISH COLONY WERE ALL AT ONE POINT OUR HERITAGE AND TRADITION BUT THEY WERE NOT THINGS THAT WERE BENEFICIAL. change is the only thing that keeps us moving as a society

[Admiral Lebron]

Don't yell. Changing something as trivial as this when the majority don't want to is pointless. Democracy = Majority Rules.

[Jedi Master Leia Solo]

Agreed with that as well, Gia

Changes in what you said makes sense. But the word "God" removed from the Pledge.

Give me how that is sooooo beneficial to our society?!!

Bah....I can't believe I am arguing with you!o_O

[Maelstorm]

i do not have a chip on my shoulder, you have a false sense of entitlement. things do not have to be your way. why cant we alter the pledge in schools and if you want to say it the unedited way in the privacy of your home then go ahead.

[Sene Unty]

I am not telling you to believe anything, and your right, he may exist. I am not arguing whether or not he does. i am simply stating that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to say God in the pledge of allegiance. I have no problem with you protesting the decision. Be my guest. Go to Washington. Stand on the steps. I don't care. BUT DO NOT ACCUSE ME OFF INFINGING ON YOUR BELIEFS! I have done nothing of the sort.

Oh and Leia I mentioned slavery to counteract Gia's statement about things being in the constituion forever. The constitution was made to be changed. It was made to be fixed.

[Xazor Elessar]

THIS IS BOGUS!! People, just because you don't believe in God, doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. I totally agree with Gia and LL. It's rude to come in here and stomp on someone's beliefs. To have a discussion about it is one thing, to stomp on beliefs is another. I am personally a Christian and think that the only reason the government wants to take it out now, is because they are afraid. This nation was founded on biblical principles. Now the US and our government has screwed up on a ton of things, and they're afraid of God and they're afraid of disobeying more...so now they'll just get rid of the words and "make everything all better". Right.....this government is such a joke sometimes......

[Gia Van Derveld]

You know, not to be against the grain or anything, but honestly, do you WANT women to be able to vote? Think of all those ditzy valley girls in CA voting... >_< Noooo!

They probably pick by the color of the canidate's ties, or something.

There should be an intellegence test before hand. :D

Okay, back to arguing at each other. :)

[Maelstorm]

you know something. you all come in here and state your views but when i say something different from what you are all saying you go ahead and say to go and complain elsewhere. instead i will state views everywhere i can, including letters to my senator but i will not be set back by comments that try to make me seem crazy. lots of people laughed and shrugged off the people that made changes other's thought were trivial. today these changes are the basis of our society.

[Admiral Lebron]

Under God, won't get changed. To many congressmen who are religious. That problem lies in the voters. And changes don't make our society.

[Sene Unty]

Gia.....did you just say that. I am in a parallel universe. I swear.

[Figrin D'an]

Let's not get into debating the existence of divinity... that's another topic entirely, one that can go in circles...

[Dalethria Mal Pannis]

less angry posts and more discussing posts please. :)

[Maelstorm]

yes i do want women voting, i dont care what you think that their IQ level should be, why do we not make that same claim about men. and by the way i do believe in god so do not think that i am in here as some sort of heretic trying to crucify me some Christians

[Admiral Lebron]

Sarcasm is great.

[Sene Unty]

No....its not the politicans. Its the voters. To many voters are blinded by there religious beliefs to think that anything like this should be changed.

[Gia Van Derveld]

:) Sene, yes i did say that. :)

[Jedi Master Leia Solo]

True Figrin. But if they start with this..what next everything that has been documented or sung with the word "GOD" in it.

It is utterly ridiculous!!

[Admiral Lebron]

My post summed it well. So did that south park episode I mentioned.

[Figrin D'an]

Come on people, I posted this with the hopes of having a civil discussion... keep the personal snipes out of this.

[Sene Unty]

No I have no problem with the word God. That I think is a misconception. It is the fact that it is mandatory for EVERYONE to say the pledge, even those that don't believe in God. If you want to say God after every sentence.....go ahead.

[Gia Van Derveld]

Blinded by religious beliefs? Say what you want, everyone believes in something. And what you stand for IS a part of you. You can't take it out or act apart from it, even if you want to.

So, unless you want me to vote the way my next door neighbor does, or the people across the street, I'll still vote the way I've always voted. In people I believe in, who will do what i think it best for the country.

In a true democracy (think ancient Greece) everyone in the city-state got a say in every decision. We're too big. We vote for representatives who we think will "represent" us to the rest of the government.

So yes, I will continue to vote "blinded by my beliefs." As will you.

[Sene Unty]

No I will vote on what I see is right, not what I have been told in church to think.

[Gia Van Derveld]

Is that what you think I am? A brainwashed moron? Gee, thanks.

[Morgan Evanar]

Mneh. Mneh mneh.

Mneh.

I'm a firm believer of the idea religion is generally bad. I'm sure everyone can add two and two. I used be pretty cool with the church thing until I started reading and thinking about it.

[Figrin D'an]

I believe the point is that, what you see as being right IS a personal belief, influenced by a myriad of factors. They aren't mutually exclusive...

[Gia Van Derveld]

If you think something is "right," then you obviously think that there is something that is "wrong." You 'believe' in the right. You vote because of what you believe is right.

So do I.

[Maelstorm]

here is my question. if we are pledging allegiance to our country, and just our country, why do we have to invoke God at any point? It is extraneous and unnecessary.

[Maelstorm]

i do not need to mention God to stand by my country

[Sene Unty]

No Gia not a moron. Just someone who cannot seperate politics from religion. I am sorry if you took it as a personal attack. It was not meant that way.

[Admiral Lebron]

Because Eisenhower said so.

[Maelstorm]

and i do everything Eisenhower said

[Maelstorm]

and Nixon, Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, etc. I do not listen to anyone in absolute terms and presidents are no exception

[Sene Unty]

Okay Gia vote on what you think is right......I don't know what else to tell you. Go ahead.

[Gia Van Derveld]

...I think I'll still push for the intelligence test before being allowed to register to vote. :)

[Morgan Evanar]

Jackson-Kent Blues

By: Steve Miller
I was down in Nashville just payin' my dues
Headed for Ohio when I read the news
'Bout the people demonstrating 'gainst the President's views
Four were shot down by the National Guard troops
Just like Uncle Sam I put on my fighting shoes
School shot down cause there's no more to lose
Now we're headed to D.C. two by twos
Cause those low down, profound, killin' four blues

Lookin' for my Congressman to make it well known
But the politicians already won't answer his telephone
Making in his office while they're shooting kids down at home
Worried about the voters but he won't be worried long

Silent majority still glued to the tube
Say CIA ain't lookin', FBI come unglued
Shot some more in Jackson just to show the world what they can do
While we're marching to D.C. cause there's too much to do

Give peace a chance
Give peace a chance
There's no turnin' back my friend
There's no turnin' back

When the President said that the tear gas is gone
The army's pulled out leavin' blood on the ground
The streets are empty and the crying's died down
You can be President if no one's around
Just like Kow Kow, you've heard it before
Get back gangster, don't you open that door
Space Cowboy's back to tell you the score
Nothing any good is gonna come from a war
Got those low down, profound, killin' four blues

Give peace a chance
Give peace a chance
Give peace a chance

[Maelstorm]

ok, but will you pass your own test, these things have a way of getting out of our control. once you put restrictions like that in it is very difficult to determine how much it will be abused by the powers that be

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Gia Thorn
...I think I'll still push for the intelligence test before being allowed to register to vote. :)


Could be worse... in Chicago a number of years ago, they had dead people voting in the mayoral elections... I thought that was a pretty cool trick... ;)

[Gia Van Derveld]

:) = I was joking. :)

[Loklorien s'Ilancy]

I remember when I first heard about this yesterday; I was just a little perterbed.

Yes, I'm a Christian; I go to church when I can. Do I try to shove my beliefs down other people's throats or go out downtown and Bible-thump? No. Fo the simple fact that I know I don't like being forcefed someone else's belief, so I don't do it myself. Now if someone has questions they want to ask me, I've no problem answering to the best of my abilities; but I'm not gonna ram my Bible down anyone's throat.

What one of my main problems with it was (aside from myself being a Christian of course) the fact that our country was founded on freedom of religion, speech, etc. God has so many meanings to so many different people of different religions. Granted the words were added in the fifties, I think it would be a slap in the face to our founding fathers.

If you don't like the words, just don't say 'em.

But that's just me.

[Charley]

To all those who think you're forced to say "under God" in the pledge...have you ever refused to say it, and had the "Thought Police" come down on their crazy mofo jet packs and hit you with their crazy laser batons, and inject you with truth serum so you can watch Donna Reed?

Okay maybe nothing so extreme. Have you been jailed? Fined? Made to do community service?

Have the powers that be punished you in any way?

No?

You mean...you're not FORCED to say "under God"...even now?

Then what in the Hell are you people bitching about.

Call your proctologist. The popsicle stick in your ass can be removed safely.

[Mr Dust]

I see a logical flaw here. The reasoning used by most who are against the "Under God" line is that it necessitates a belief, and it establishes a norm. The reasoning continues to state that, if this line is made illegal, it would fix things. Granted, this is rather simplified, but since the point has been stated well above and everyone knows what I'm talking about, I'll leave it at that.

The flaw lies here: the forceful removal and illegality of said lines ALSO necessitates a belief, and ALSO establishes a norm. The belief it necessitates is that, to be loyal to your country, you should NOT be loyal to a deity, and that whatever deity you worship is not important enough to influence your country. It makes the statement that your God is something to be hidden, shunned, and not ever to be spoken of in public, other than church. How is that any less wrong, by the reasoning used?

Second, the norm established is that saying God in schools is WRONG, and if you DO want to say that, then you become the outsider. It's like trying to cure a gunshot wound with a gunshot wound. There may be arguments against those lines, but that argument is faulty.

[Marcus Telcontar]

There is always one thing no one can have a civilised discussion on

Religion.

Blunty, what does it matter? I believe in a God, but a pledge of alliegience or the flag or the national athem or patriotism can kiss my butt. If your that worked up about it, then when the relavent line comes up dont say it. Nothing hard with that and to me that is the sensible solution, not this trollish court decision.

god doesnt want forced belief, for that is worthless. If ya dont want to call on his name, that's up to you. All I know is if there was a pledge of alliegence in australia, I'd just refuse to say it anyway.

[Sene Unty]

I will after you LL. Oh and by the way, when it is removed and you still want to say it. YOU CAN. I'll let you.

[Maelstorm]

once it is removed from my ass i will be sure to shove it down your throat and then tell you that you dont have to swallow it the same way you tell me i dont have to swalow the words "under God"

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Aussies are like that though. :) Oh, btw, I'm Gia. Some people may not know. Now you do. :p

[Mr Dust]

Actually, there will be a difference if it is made unconstitutional. As is, you don't have to say it. After the ruling, it will not be legal to say it.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Maelstorm -

HONESTY, I would rather have a loonie JW at my door than read your posts.

* Click *

[Sene Unty]

And here come the thought police..........watch out LL.

[Figrin D'an]

Quit the personal bickering people... if you can't discuss the issue in a rational manner, get out of the thread...

[Maelstorm]

if you dont like what your reading then you get out of the thread D'an

[Charley]

Oh for crying out loud, this is as retarded as 3 year olds screaming "Will you stop touching me!"

Do you really want to play Mad Libs? If so, I'm sure we can. Remove God and put a ____ right in its place.

Pledge allegiance to a nation under Jerry Garcia

Pledge allegiance to a nation under a tootsie roll

or hell, pledge allegiance to a nation under me.

It poses the distinct paradox that neither side is truly right, and neither side is truly wrong.

Maybe we should take a nice big vote each year, and ask the country what they'd like to fill in the blank each year, so that most people will be happy. That way, each person can say that they want to pledge allegiance to cherry pie, or Brittney Spears or whatever.

I'm not a gambling man, but I'm pretty sure they'd still stick with "One nation under God"

But I could be wrong :)

Would you take that bet? :)

[Admiral Lebron]

It won't become unconstitutional. It's literally impossible. Congress I think is republican ruled therefore its impossible.

[Maelstorm]

i hate being told to mind my p's and q's when i am stating how i feel on an issue. you can speak your mind and therefore so can i

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Malestrom, D'an is a respected member of this community, and quite frankly, I have no idea who you are. DO NOT insult him.

*gets Momma Bear-ish*

[Maelstorm]

marcus, i wipe my ass with your opinion of my post

[Jedi Master Leia Solo]

Originally posted by Maelstorm
if you dont like what your reading then you get out of the thread D'an

Hey that was down right rude!! :mad

Will you just chill out!!

[Mr Dust]

I have a question, in regards to my previous post. If my post was correct, then the argument in question is invalid. If so, what argument is there against the "Under God" line? If it's not, why not?

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Maelstorm
if you dont like what your reading then you get out of the thread D'an


This is the kind of crap that I am referring to. Was that comment necessary? No.

I started the topic in hopes of having a civil discussion. Looks like some people aren't capable of that.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

You have a donkey? o_O

[Maelstorm]

i dont care what community he is a respected member of and that you dont know who i am. all of you come in here and put on this holier than thou act, it is a web site, a thread, and an argument, dont dream that you can tell me to shut up or that i am an idiot and that i will have nothing to say on it

[Morgan Evanar]

Maelstorm, even though I agree with your opinion of the motion, I'd reccomend you cut the adhorning before you find yourself in a sore state.

[Admiral Lebron]

*waits for the ban-warnings to be thrown around*

[Charley]

Originally posted by Sene Unty
And here come the thought police..........watch out LL.

Funny, seeing that I'm a mod, eh.

I think that the fact you and Maelstrom are allowed to continue in such a rude manner is a testament to the oakish nature of this Wyatt Earp of the Cerebrum. :mneh

[Lilaena De'Ville]

This is not, nor should it have ever been an argument.

And I don't think I ever said you were an idiot. I *can* say that if you want, but you won't believe me. And if I put on a "holier than thou" act, I apologize.

Did I? :\

[Sene Unty]

you know i was joking. I really was. If you cant see that, then I'm sorry. I meant no insult.

[Maelstorm]

you know i came into this hoping that we could all discuss what we thought but everyone here thinks that they are so witty and that they can come back with a one line response to everything but in reality when someone says the things that you are stating between the lines, outright you get all upitty

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Admiral Lebron
It won't become unconstitutional. It's literally impossible. Congress I think is republican ruled therefore its impossible.


Interestingly enough, like I mentioned earlier, the Senate voted 99-0 to condemn the ruling. It seems to be a pretty non-partisan response. Even though the final decision belongs to the Supreme Court, if it gets that far, that kind of statment by the Legislative branch does have an effect. I'm interested to see how far the issue goes...

[Sene Unty]

Sanchez......please. This is not the way things are done around here.

[Mr Dust]

Well, no one yet has addressed my counter argument. I have yet to insult or flame anyone. I'm trying here, but someone has to respond.

[Jedi Master Leia Solo]

Hey guy...its the way you are talking. Rather rude. Try being civil here, that's all.

[Morgan Evanar]

I'm fairly certain that the Senate is almost perfectly evenly split between the Republicans and the Democrats at the moment. But I'm not really following the numbers game much at the moment, so I very well could be wrong.

[Maelstorm]

by the way, i dont think there should be any apologizing here. we are all entitled to our opinions, that is the beauty of this. what is said in this context of religion and god should be taken accordingly. i may have made enemies or you could have taken what i said with a grain of salt but with these issues it is too easy to get offended to actually let it become a serious issue

[Marcus Telcontar]

"I'll kiss your a@@"

"LOOK MUMMY! THAT' MAN'S DOING SOMETHING RUDE TO THAT MAN'S DONKEY!!"

Sorry, Irrevelent Aussie again.

And back on topic - this court decision was discussed int he office here today. Apart from the Aussie irrevelence for authority, we just have to ask why not just simply mumble Oh Great Basket Weaver / Fish / Myself / etc at that point? Begark knows, we would. And by Begark, the Great Deity of Rally Drivers, doesnt that make sense?

Does to me. In Begark we Trust.

* Begark is the Great Chicken God. We call on Begark and wave chicken entrails to ward off Killer Trees and Mullets.

[Maelstorm]

bryson, dont reprimand me, i am no baby

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Mr Dust, your arguement was sound.

[Admiral Lebron]

Yes. 99-0 with one missing. Hopefully the court will take a hint.



On other topics...

<img src=http://www.gamegen.com/fightgen/characters/cinder-anim2.gif>


cool ain't it?

[Morgan Evanar]

The please don't adhorn others. You were doing fine until you did so. Maybe strong, but potshots aren't apreciated.


Edit:

Ah, Cinder from KI. I like that game a lot for some reason. Maybe cause 26 hit combos rule ^_^

[Maelstorm]

you know that you have opinions that are much stronger than the ones you state here, you have a fear of losing what little ground yopu have gained here. you do not have to acknowledge my presence but do not tell me what i need to do

[Charley]

I'd like to make some kind of inferrence over that 99-0 Senate vote.

Look...voting not to condemn that ruling would be like stuffing a hand grenade down the back of your pants. You could kiss your senatorial ass goodbye, because its an issue like that that will destroy a career if voted on wrong. Do you honestly think there's a single Senator out there with a majority of constituents that are in favor of such a ruling? Of course not. Its political suicide, and no senator this side of naboo's gonna touch it, even with their friend's 200 foot pole.

The Judges, on the other hand, have lifetime terms. It will be much more difficult to predict how they rule on this one.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

what does "adhorn" mean?

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Mr Dust
Well, no one yet has addressed my counter argument. I have yet to insult or flame anyone. I'm trying here, but someone has to respond.

Sorry, I think a lot of us got preoccupied for a moment. I'm sure no one meant to ignore your posts. You do make some excellent points.

[Sene Unty]

Please.......just stop. I am not reprimanding you. I am simply trying to get you to stop insulting people. Please. I know why you did......I know. Just please. Just this once.....

And Mr Dust. I found no fault i your argument. I just liked the idea of the change. I think it is necessary. This has really taken it out of me......

[Morgan Evanar]

LL is right, it almost always comes down to political expediency with the Senate or house. It's somewhat unfortunate, and you have to be very careful if you're in such a spot.

[Maelstorm]

since my boyfriend is embarrased by me i will leave

[Maelstorm]

disregard all of my comments, i am on medication and sometimes my behavior is uncotrollable, random, and rude. i did not mean any disrespect and i say let the word GOD stay it does not bother me that much any way.

[Loklorien s'Ilancy]

I said it on page 3 and I'll say it again.

Even though 'under God' was added in the fifties, this would be a slap in the face to our founding fathers.

[Jedi Master Leia Solo]

Originally posted by Maelstorm
since my boyfriend is embarrased by me i will leave

o_O Just put 2 and 2 together. Sene & Maelstrom are bf & gf

[Sene Unty]

so what does that have to do with anything.

[Figrin D'an]

Yes, I do agree with that assessment, LL. It would indeed be political suicide. But, considering the response was so unified, it would indicate a propensity that the masses like the status quo. Otherwise, voting the other way wouldn't be a political suicide. Granted, it is different with the Supreme Court judges, but even they can take a hint about the "pulse" of the nation.

[Jedi Master Leia Solo]

If you meant my post..nothing. Just an observation of something I did NOT know!:|

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Nothing?

[Maelstorm]

do not let me be any reflection on him. i am truly nothing like him, he is a much better person than i am. and leia i appreciate that you figured that out and shared it with everyone

[Sene Unty]

I thought you were implying something......

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Figrin, like I said earlier, our votes go to voting for representatives. Its safe to say that their vote would echo that of the nation OVER ALL...that keeping the two little words in would win out.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Question -

And please, take this as a serious one and remember, I dont know the history of the Pledge or USA much

What would the attitude to this decision been if 11/9 didnt happen? I have noted an outpouring of patriotism from the USA since then and a lot mre people willing to be known as believeing in a God.

I really wonder if such a furor would have been caused if 11/9 did not happen.

Is it even worth considering?

[Sene Unty]

A lot of angry words were thrown around because of those two "little words".

[Charley]

Sene, its all good. I like to debate/argue/insult-wittily waaay too much, and it shows sometimes :)

(Points at Maelstrom)

<font size=50>SHE'S A WITCH....BURRRN HERRR!!!</font>

[Sene Unty]

Yes Marcus it indeed is something to think about......but not by me. At least not on this thread.

[Morgan Evanar]

Yes, I do agree with that assessment, LL. It would indeed be political suicide. But, considering the response was so unified, it would indicate a propensity that the masses like the status quo.

Ahs disagrees. Political suicide because the highly religious masses seem to have more free time than others, and vote much more often than the hard working schmoe. I don't feel that this is a time where they are truly representing the viewpoint of the populace and as I said before--its for political expiedency.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
Figrin, like I said earlier, our votes go to voting for representatives. Its safe to say that their vote would echo that of the nation OVER ALL...that keeping the two little words in would win out.


Yup...

The Supreme Court is capable of "throwing some curves" every once in a while. It could happen in this case, but it seems kind of unlikely...

[Sene Unty]

I sincerley hope that you are joking LL.

[Jedi Master Leia Solo]

Actually this may sound silly. But remember a Christmas movie called "Miracle on 34th Street" where they were in court trying to justify a certain man was "THE SANTA CLAUS" and the same thing happened there. The campagn friend told the judge that it would be political suicide to say there was "NOT" a Santa Claus. Because of the children and how many parents would be upset with the Judge.

So..to me this whole thing is Political suicide too (like LL & Figrin said) , because if a politican disputes "God", who is to say there is NOT a "God".

There is a similarity here. As silly as it may sound. I think you get what I mean

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Because of 9/11 (as we like to put it ;)) people are turning to 'organized religion' more. Not even that, people are turning to God more. Sometimes they don't even know how or why, but they did because of that attack, IMO.

If it had not happened, who knows. People might not care. But because it IS political suicide to not vote against this, I don't think the decision will stand.

Like LL said though, judges have lifetime terms.

[Charley]

I quoted Monty Python. Of course I am joking, my frowning little Menanite :)

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Morgan....as someone considered "highly relgious" I also like to think that I'm hard working. Its not mutually exclusive you know. :)

[Morgan Evanar]

I've noticed a similar pattern Marcus, and I think its generally frivilous BS, because if you look at this history, we essentially brought 9/11 on ourselves. Most people don't know that though.

I generally think of religion as a bad thing. Its responsible for more death than just about anything else.

DeVille, I didn't imply that the two were exclusives, just that there seemed to be a general trend where ultra-religious people in the bible belt seem to show up to the poles and political movements in droves, and that the rest of the populace were doing thier jobs.

Honestly, to change the topic, election day should be a national holiday, but thats not entirely relevant to the dicussion.

[Sene Unty]

Judges wont vote something if they consider it "political suicide". They are much to conscious of the way people think, and with such a landslide in one corner of the ring, it wont pass. I'm surprised it got this far. Also I would be afraid of some nut shooting me if I was them. That would keep me from voting against it.

[Charley]

Except the Nazi Holocaust and Stalin's purges....which were nice, comfortable little religion-free, state-sanctioned genocides that wiped out millions more than any Jihad, Crusade, or other Holy War has even come close to killing.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Originally posted by Sene Unty
A lot of angry words were thrown around because of those two "little words".

*sigh* nothing had to be angry. but when you have a subject like this, its religion AND politics rolled into one. Its a flamefest waiting to happen.

But it can be discussed calmly. Honest. :)

[Sene Unty]

Morgan I know it as well.

[Morgan Evanar]

Thats fine, but I'm fairly certain the perpetual cluster-screw that was the crusades and other movements did quite well to up the body count for organized religion.

Hitler scapegoated the Jews, and I'm fairly certain that was a religion. Anyway, this is going to dissolve into a penis comparison and not contribute to the dicussion. Lets move on to somewhere, shall we?

[Lilaena De'Ville]

And Morg, 'doing their jobs,' unless they work ALL DAY (which might happen? but 20 hour days are rare) shouldn't stop them from voting. Ah well, its neither here nor there. :)

[Jedi Master Leia Solo]

Its a lot better that everyone is calmer. No harm was really meant to anyone. No one likes flames.

I have to agree w/LD religion and politics a VERY bad mix.

[Morgan Evanar]

LD: The poles are not open for 24 hours. Usually from 7-4, I believe.


I have to agree w/LD religion and politics a VERY bad mix.

Exactly why the uneeded phrase that was added in the 50s should be dropped again.

[Charley]

They were measured on racial terms (shape of nose, hair color, body characteristics) The Jews were a religion, but more importantly, a race.

But yeah the horse be dead (tosses bat away)

[Maelstorm]

sene check your PM's

[Lilaena De'Ville]

I think they're open longer than 4, but I don't know for sure, and it might be different in FL.

[Morgan Evanar]

*sigh*

its rather unfortunate that things like poles are handled locally here (and rather poorly, I might add.)

[Figrin D'an]

I know in my state, all election polls, regardless of the political level, are open until 9 PM. Each state has their own rules, though... so much inconsistency...

[Admiral Lebron]

Maryland, Virginia, and the District all go by 8 PM. I think Delaware does 8 to.

[Maelstorm]

sene, a PM, check it i gotta go

[Marcus Telcontar]

There is probably one thing Australia does that the USA could do with, but of course it would be Unconstitutional

Our elections are on a saturday and we are legally obliged to vote if we are over 18. There has been no serious attempt to allow voluntary voting and I hope there never will be. What this does is that everyone must have a say and a great deal more awareness of our political process is evident.

[Admiral Lebron]

I like that idea. It makes society flow easier. Less stupid people running around sueing everything.

[Morgan Evanar]

I think what Austrailia has going is a great thing, and if the politicians actually cared, it would be implimented.

Though I'm not sure I agree with it being compulsory.

[Maelstorm]

bryson please

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Maelstom, he may not be checking this thread. Check "Whos online" and see where he's at.

[Figrin D'an]

Part of me would love to see manditory voting by citizens of legal age, at least for national elections. Another part of me doesn't like the idea, though. I know during the last major election (2000), I was so disillusioned with the available choices (not just for president, for other elections as well) that I honestly didn't want to vote. I couldn't, in good conscious, support any of the candidates... if I were forced to choose, it would have made me sick to my stomach...

anyway... just rambling...

[Morgan Evanar]

I'd still like it on a saturday though, or you should get the day off.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Morg, didn't you "go to bed"? ;)

[Marcus Telcontar]

Though I'm not sure I agree with it being compulsory.


Well, until it's pointed out how much probelms we could have going to voluntary, it's usually looked upon as an annoyance. But a necessary one. Plus, think abut this - you dont need the gazillions in adverts to just get people out to vote with Please vote ads. As I understand it, half of Bush's fundraising was for to get people to vote at all. uuhhh, that doesnt seem right to me. Plus there is a uniform voting system - tick a box. None of this hanging chad nonsense.

Basically, the people who are most vocal will say something on any issue and vote. The majority dont really care. In a Voluntary democracy as the rest of the world uses if it is democratic, that means that only those who really want to use their vote will do so. Eventually, you do get apapthy and you can get shocks like Le Penn in France occasionally.

I think compulsory, tho going against free will, is a better solution. It like say you have the right to choose SO YOU WILL!!!! while we have our loonies, it's much harder for them to get in as the magority dont like loonies. If you have a minority voting, then a Loony could possibly get the votes to get in - seeming they have to win 25% of the populance or maybe less, not 50% or more in Australia. Religious conservatives like Buchanan would have f--- all chance here and I will say Religious leaders should not have such a huge sway. Even if we had the Baptists like the USA has, they still could not get a Buchanan in.

Not a bad thing with some of the stuff he says. Some so called Christian leaders make me cringe and I am christian.

Any, getting off point.

What this means is that we have a decent representation from cross sections of the community. We do have undenied athiests in Parliment, Monarchists, Republicans, Religious no so crazies and gays. If such a court decision as this came out, there sure as hell would not be a bi-partisan outpouring of outrage. You dont have to claim to believe in God to be elected here. Oh, there would be some outcry, but the decision would probalby stand. Apart from the atheist being hit with a clue by 4 for mounting such a stupid legal challenge. Like, who would care?

So I guess in that respect, the Aussie enforced voting has worked very, very well.

BTW Lebron, Australia has one hell of a lot of litigation probelms as well. Too many. Yesterday some twat got 60,000 for slipping on a floor and bruising his butt - cause his mate was walking about with pork chops on his feet and left grease trails.

[Tianje Xhu]

this post wasnt here earlier, so at the risk of fanning the flames, im going to have my say.

i, for one, am sick and tired of the politically correct crap that omg!, we might offend someone if we let this happen, or if we do that. what the friggin H E double hockey sticks ever happened to the "majority rules"?!? our local schools can no longer have halloween parties..they are now pc called "fall festivals" because, oh my!, we would offend two or three ppl! funny that the rest of the parents didnt mind one little bit! and personally imo, maureen o'hare should have been taken out and had her head beaten in with ball bats!

america was built on faith in god and for the search of religious freedom. theres a lot of things i dont like that i have to deal with every day. if you dont like the words "under god" or "in god we trust", too bad. deal with it.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Pork chops!?

LMAO!! :lol:lol

[Figrin D'an]

Everytime I hear you tell another story like that Marcus, I become a little more afraid of you Aussies...

I guess that's what happens when a penal colony evolves into a nation... ;)

[Sith Ahnk]

Until I see a God, I ain't trusting him.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Have you seen your brain?

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Sith Ahnk
Until I see a God, I ain't trusting him.


I'm sure he'll remember that line when he decides to smite you down into the incessent flames of Hell... :p



j/k

[Sith Ahnk]

No, I've never seen my brain. And I don't really trust it either.

I let my penis make the majority of my decisions

Bit more from the random though column

I used to sing God Save the Queen

Had I know what I know now

I would not have

I'm not a big fan of god, or the Queen

But I sang

Why?

Because teacher sang

And teacher was nice

She fed me when I had no lunch

Stupid poverty

Anyways

We stopped singing in high school

Why

Because most high school kids aren't fed by teacher

And are lambes to no Queen or god

Some would sing

But most would not

Singing is seen as kind of homosexual which I think is crap I love to sing

Suck at it

But it's fun

Anyhow

I haven't sung god save the Queen since grade 6

Some eight years ago

One more thing

Why does god only bless America

And why only saving the Queen

Wheres god bless Niguraga

Why doesn't god save the Comrade

I don't get it

[Lilaena De'Ville]

God doesn't only bless America, I don't think it says "God bless ONLY America."

[Tianje Xhu]

marcus, to answer your earlier question on whether it would have made a difference before 9/11. i think it would have. i would still be just as angry about it as i am now. the "political correctness" of our government is beyond belief and stupidity. its time we get past all the hand holding and the coddling and let the majority have thier say once more. i could go on with this but i wont. suffice it to say that even with our problems, we all still pull together when need be.

:lol @ pork chops!!

[Lady Vader]

After hearing about the ruling, I basically thought "MORONS! THE LOT OF EM!", and then I immediately thought, "BURN THEM IN THE SHED!"

And, aside from being upset at the Federal District courts stupitity, that was the extent of my thoughts on the matter.

I'm not big into politics. Why? Because those in "power" always seem to ignore the masses, always thinking they have to play the role of "big brother".
And besides... it gives me a splitting headache. Like that --> :headache, where I litterally feel my cranium splitting from the rest of my head.

And there it is... my last post in this thread. Tata.

[Taylor Millard]

I wasnt' going to post here 'cause most of my thoughts have been said on countless number oftimes. BUT

This is interesting... (http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56367,00.html)

[Marcus Telcontar]

Until I see a God, I ain't trusting him.


You may not believe in God, but he believes in you

:)


Hey figrin, didnt the USA get a lot of convicts too? I seem to remember my history said they decided to colonise Australia cause the Brits couldnt send their crims to the USA.

[Figrin D'an]

I heard about the stay of the decision earlier this evening... sounds like Ashcroft made a phone call and requested a "personal favor" from said judge to postpone the implementation of the decision. Although I really don't agree with the decision, this seems kind of like and end run around the system. It is the right of the judge to issue a stay on his own decision, but it just seems a little fishy, that's all... especially since the judge gave no reason for the stay...


And yes, Marcus, to be fair, the US got it's fair share of criminals as well. It's just that you Aussies do so well to continue to live up to that reputation, it's hard not to notice. ;)

[Marcus Telcontar]

Excuse me? Keep the reputation up?

:: pickpockets Figrin's wallet::

We do not! None of us are criminals!

:: Nicks Figrin's watch ::

There hasnt been a crime committed her in years!

[Sith Ahnk]

See, I believe in god's ability to help people, real or not

I once volunteered at a church

And they always said

Why don't you believe in god

And I said

Why do you

And no one ever said

I don't know

So maybe I just don't know something

You all know

But I know

When I cut my arm

I bleed

When I stub my toe

It hurts

When I pray for a miracle

Nada

So eventually I began to think

Maybe god isn't real

But maybe the idea of god is enough

For some

So

Why claim he doesn't exist

Just say you don't know that he does

And leave it alone

But

Christianity IS pushed too much

If you didn't know god

You would see it too

I can honestly say I've never heard anyone praise Buddha

But

Hear praise the lord

Everyday

[Miryan no Trunks]

And now for my unimportant opinion.

I just find it really funny that the politicians who are suppossed to be running America, honestly believe they have nothing better to put their efforts into right now, then changing a referance to a deity that may or may not mean a d4mn thing to the individuals singing it, from a pledge that basically says "I won't become a traitor to my country" Do they think that without that, all Americans will instinctively try to overthrow their government?

However, I must say I find it even Funnier that instead of wondering what's up on That front, everyone here is arguing and trading insults with each other, over whether or not it Should be gone...

I say, what's it matter? If you believe in a deity, and I do, then more power to you. If you Don't believe in a deity, so what? Why bother letting a couple of words you don't have to say get on your nerves? I mean, I don't know about those who're here, but I personally don't know a single atheist who hates the idea of a god with such fervor as to go to the Canadian government to try and get "God keep our land glorious and free!" removed from our national anthem.. I don't see why it would be so different down there..

Edit Addon:

As for the whole religion thing, I'm not religious, I believe in a god, but I also believe that the many different religions out there are man-made. The way I figure it, the only feasible purpose of a religion is to give people a reason to try and live well, cause most religions I know of revolve around a set of rules or ideals that basically say "You live a good life, you'll have a good afterlife."

And why believe in a god?

You explain where the mass that the big bang destroyed came from Otherwise.

And to all: If you disagree with anything in my post, I put a lot of thought into my opinions, even if I Don't word them well enough to get the point across perfectally sometimes. So help me I'm just not that articulate. And I babble.

Which brings up my next point. If you're going to tell me that I babble, I just have this to say to you, and I quote:

:|

[Lord Gue]

I dont believe in good, a higher being, or anything of that sort.
I really dont care what the silly country does, im not a polotician nor will I ever be.
this one just goes right up there with not being able to kill Mentaly Retarded people on death row

[ReaperFett]

Not read anything but post 1 :)


When Bush finds it stupid, it says something ;)




But surely to ban it is the wrong way to go about it? If you were to do anything, wouldnt amending it work better?

[Ilyn Pyke]

I am sorry for the brevity of this message but who gives a flying -DO-NOT-SWEAR--DO-NOT-SWEAR--DO-NOT-SWEAR--DO-NOT-SWEAR--DO-NOT-SWEAR- if the word 'God' is used in our Constitution, our Pledge of Allegience, or printed on our bills. The ACLU and their gustapo can kiss my ass for wasting tax payers dollars on all these FRIGGIN INFANTILE GAWD DAMM DEAD ISSUES. If your antheist.. SO WHAT... shut the hell up and learn some tolerance... afterall isn't that what they always preach... stupid hypercritical hair-splitting prissy mofos. ACLU is a legacy of stupidity for stirring up moronic issues that cost mucho money.

[Lord Gue]

Actually if you were Aithiest im sure tolerance would be something youd be wearing thin on, if youd heard as many convert people buggin you about religion and going to hell as I have, tolerance wouldnt be ur argument

[Ilyn Pyke]

I am not a religious advocate nor subscribe to any religion... however the word 'god' does embody something for americans as a whole. Especially during 9/11 and other crisis for example. It does not necessarily have to represent a deity or a high power... or a specific religion. Just instill a greater hope!

[Marcus Telcontar]

The concept of "God" reminds us there is likely to be something bigger than us somewhere out there. Now there is a chance that a "God" exists. Probably a better one than we realise or would dare hope for. Now in all of this conjecture, would anyone deny that there is no chance of a God? If your truthful and think about it, you have to say no, there is a chance.

And so what is God?

I cant tell you, you have to find out for yourelf. I cant convince you I'm certain I've heard God speak, cause that's unprovable and crazy talk. All I can say that God means different things to everyone. But for now, lets think what God means to some others....

God is a tree to the Nords
God is nature to Greenies
God is money to Bill Gates
God is themselves to an atheist.

A God is something you worship or believe in. It is not true an atheist has no God, for their God is simply different. It's themselves, or materialism or any number of things.

So, if an atheist say In God I trust, he means himself.

If I say In God I trust, I mean the Christian God.

Really, in the end it's a silly argument. If you say you have no God, your not honest with yourself, cause you do. It just menas something different.

And if you think of it like that, the argument is over. You atheists are quite free to say In God I trust, cause what is your God? You most likely.

The person who bought this suit is a imbecile. There was no need for this stupidity. Just dont say the line or realise what his God really is.

[Ilyn Pyke]

In all truth, atheism and deism are both literally religions as they require faith by their advocates... and can not be intelligently argued against by their denouncers.

[Helenias Evenstar]

In all truth, atheism and deism are both literally religions as they require faith by their advocates... and can not be intelligently argued against by their denouncers.


Atheism is unprovable by scientific means and so I would think is God in a sense that He can not be measured or compared. Int he end, Atheism is indeed a religion that has it's own dogma (The is no God), it's own creation story (Evolution) and it's attempts to be something that one can believe in. To believe in the absence of something is a belief initself. I would dispute that Atheism can not be intelligently argued against.

I heard a good quote once however - there is no such thing as a dying atheist. Another one is that there are no atheists in foxholes.

I think everyone, at some point in their life believes in a God. What one and in what form, well I dont presume to know. Very silly ourt decision and I think it will be overturned quickly.

I would als wonder if this In God We Trust is dissolved, then what about the laws which are based on moral codes of Religion? Scrap those too? If there is no God, then there is no reason to think we have any moral obligations to anyone else and laws become with no grounding very fast.

[Sene Unty]

Originally posted by Ilyn Pyke
If your antheist.. SO WHAT... shut the hell up and learn some tolerance... afterall isn't that what they always preach... stupid hypercritical hair-splitting prissy mofos.


For someone who is telling others to be tolerant, that was a very intolerable statement. You have the freedom to not like aethiests, but that doesn't give you the right to say they are:



stupid hypercritical hair-splitting prissy mofos.

[Charley]

Sure he has the right to say that. Just no right to set any legal precedent that follows that statement.

[Sith Ahnk]

You can intelligently argue against religion assuming you are hoping to win.

Saying that YOUR THOUGHTS ARE WRONG is never an argument you can win

Saying that you are wrong can be won, but you can not despute belief

As such dispute the facts only, I can't see god, therefore I see no evidence that he exists

You might say the universe is evidence that god is real

But thats like saying that because a body was found in a river it was murder

Lots of people die naturally in a river

I think what the issue is is that people have freedom of choice

However hollow

Since government maipulates media to make your choices for you

This is no exception

Government has been grooming you and teaching you in Christianity

And slowly religion has been removed from school

This is a natural progression

And it should happen

It may seem asanine to you

Stupid

A

Waste of time

But it's the right thing

There are Christian schools

Go to them

Then pledge whatever you want

But in free public schools where a majority of the country goes

And are all some people have access to

They should not need to be told of god, let in on his greatness, or told of his intentions

They need only learn skills and knowledge needed for life

My question is

Why not just reword the pledge?

[Sanis Prent]

Oh ye of compulsively-pounded enter key.

[Ilyn Pyke]

Sene, that was my opinion of the supposed ACLU whom preach equality and tolerance while attempting to erase the rights given to one and all americans under the constitution. And that is religious freedom under the guise of "seperation of church and state."

The state, local, and federal governments is not pushing or advocating any particular religion or faith in any form whatsoever.

[Sene Unty]

I completly agree with Sith Ahnk. I think the media as groomed us to think a certain way, just like the government.

[Grizwaldy]

(Not mine, but illustrates the point)


Introduction
When Christians ask me to examine the possibility of their god existing, I do - just as I always have. As a child, when I was Christian, I examined other possibilities out of curiosity. Now I examine other possibilities for consistency. What if the Christian god is real? Loosely, I have arrived at these possibilities:

- god is limited
- god is evil
- god is perfect
- god is false

For the short attention spanned, I give a summary of these conclusions: god cannot be limited, or he would not be god by his own definition; god cannot be evil as evil is a product of limited perspective - again, meaning god is limited and thus cannot be god. If god does exist as a perfect and unlimited being, he would not fit the biblical profile in any way, and he wouldn't even be a "he" (as gender is a physical biological property for purposes of procreation). The only reasonable conclusion would be that the Christian god is false.

I understand for many the above summary is not good enough. If you are a Christian, your calculations are in error. I will now go into greater detail and discipline your feeble mind.



In the beginning...
If god has always existed, what did he do during the eternity before the creation accounted in the bible? If god were perfect and complete, why would he have a need or desire to create anything? For god to do anything during the eternity of nothingness would not be out of need but out of desire. Why would god possess the property of desire? First we must examine the definition of desire.

Noun: desire
1. The feeling that accompanies an unsatisfied state
2. An inclination to want things

If god were complete, why would he experience an "unsatisfied state"? Why would god have an "inclination to want things"? Desire is a product of limitation, "unsatisified" implies limitation, and to want is to lack. For god to have desire would make him limited, and therefore not god by definition.

Possible Christian retort:
-"Desire does not make god limited". I just explained how it does - I suggest you reread it.
-"God can do anything, even have desire while remaining unlimited". I suppose god could do anything, but god cannot have desire by definition. Just as a chair cannot have four legs and three legs simultaneously, god cannot be unlimited and have desire simultaneously. Perhaps god is emulating the properties of desire, and for what reasons are unknown. But for the feeble mind, I will explore the possibility of god having desire.



Heaven
So a complete god who has existed for an eternity finally becomes bored and gets the desire to create. The first of his creations are angels, which are his helpers according to the bible. Why god would need any help is unclear, but who said the bible is logical? God makes the angels limited in perspective but expects them to perform justly as they would if they had unlimited perspective - already god is exercising demand and challenge. For reasons unclear, one-third of god's angels rebel against him. If a modern day corporation had one out of three employees leave for a competitor, this would be considered a horrific turnover rate. One could either interpret this as god making a mistake, or the angels miscalculated god's plans. Since god is perfect, he cannot make any mistakes. The angels were perfect but limited in perspective next to god, and therefore miscalculated god's plans - but by god's design only. Thus, god is responsible for this turnover. Why would god create unnecessary complications? I suppose boredom could be responsible, relieving god of responsibility - and the title of god.

Possible Christian retort:
-"God gave angels free will." Angels cannot exceed god's design, or they would be more powerful than god; hence god designed them to do as they did.
-"God did not need any help, he was just lonely." Lonely means one "lacks" companionship, and a complete god lacks nothing.
-"God was bored". If god were bored by definition he would have a "lack" of interest and experience mental weariness. Boredom is a result of limited perspective; uninterested because of frequent exposure or indulgence. If god possesses all faculties of consciousness simultaneously, knows all future and past, boredom would not be experienced, nor would desire - he would know what to expect, eventful or not. But for the mentally inferior, I will ignore such logic.



Earth
For some reason, according to the bible, god creates the earth, plants, and daytime before he creates the sun. I understand the writers of the bible did not have a full understanding of photosynthesis and such, but god did - who supposedly directed their writings. When the sun is finally created it is suggested that the sun exists for calendar purposes, not necessarily for day and light as it was already created (at this point, one must resist the temptation to think that the creation story is a primitive human perspective on reality, or maybe god created our beginnings in a chaotic and illogical fashion, perhaps to trick us into believing by means of faith only). Finally, after everything was finished, god rested. His error producing blueprints were set into motion.



Garden of Eden
For unknown reasons, god decides to create animals and humans: inferior creatures extremely limited both mentally and physically (especially in comparison to god). Much like the angels, god expects humans to perform just as they would if they had unlimited perspective and full understanding of everything, when clearly they do not. Now that these limitations and challenges lay in front of humans, god puts restrictions on desires that he has given them. This may seem cruel and unfair, but who said god was fair? God designs humans with desires to have sex but forbids fornication. God designs humans with the capacity to reason and be independent thinkers, but god does not explain sufficiently and demand we ignore our reasoning and rely on his commands alone. God designs Adam to be innocent, naïve, and curious... and god forbids Adam to eat from a fruit yet does not explain why, only that he will die if he does. Christians will argue that this is not an act of cruelty, but love. God is only testing Adam. Let us examine the definition of "test".

Verb: test
1. Put to the test, as for its quality, or give experimental use to
2. Examine one's knowledge of something
3. To determine a previously unknown outcome

Why would god test Adam? According to definition, god was limited in knowledge so conducting a test was necessary for god to understand what he did not previously. God was examining Adam's knowledge or trying to determine an outcome that was previously unknown - but if he is god, wouldn't he know everything to begin with? Then why was a test given if not necessary? With god, if something is not done out of need, it is done out of desire. One might conclude that god was testing Adam not for new knowledge, but perhaps out of a desire to throw hoops and hurdles in front of him to watch him struggle - but who wants to believe in a cruel god? If there is another reason, god has not made it clear - and it does not seem like love. Using the brain he has given me, I see no other options. The brain he designed for me thinks he is a bastard. But I digress.

The serpent, which Christians presume to be Satan (although it is not specified anywhere in genesis who or what the serpent is other than a serpent), supposedly tricks Adam and Eve into eating the fruit of knowledge, which god forbids. Why would god forbid knowledge? Why would god put restriction on information and experience? It is bad enough that he has limited our mental and physical states to that of a rotting animal, hosting parasites and pain. It seems odd that god would design us to crave knowledge and information and then restrict it - it becomes clear that god is the source of sin and designed us to do precisely that. But let us move on.

So Adam eats from the fruit, as god plans, resulting in their ejection from Eden. When you have a probability greater than zero, the longer time goes on the more highly probable that variable becomes. God created the variable for sin to exist. One could conclude that humans could only delay the inevitable. Just before they are ejected, Adam is walking in the garden and god asks him where he is. God knows very well where Adam is, and Adam should know this. Perhaps god had not honestly communicated the nature of Adam's own creator to him. When god asks Adam where he is, he suggests he lacks knowledge of Adam's location, clearly tricking Adam - or more accurately, attempting to deceive Adam.

In short, we have determined:
- Communication between god and Adam is lacking, enough for Adam to believe god does not know where he is.
- God did not give Adam sufficient information about anything, and then restricts other possible knowledge by forbidding the fruit - and without explanation.
- God attempts to deceive Adam by asking where he is (then later calls Satan the father of the lie - the nerve!).

Possible Christian retort:
-"God is not the source of sin." On the one hand god must be in complete control, as he is god. On the other, he cannot be in complete control, or he would be responsible for sin. If god is not the source of all, he is limited and not god by definition.
-"God is merciful, not cruel." Consider these three aspects. 1) The wages sin pays is death. 2) God chose death as the consequence for sinning. 3) God is under obligation to no one. Therefore, god chooses violence and death as a solution out of pure desire.
-"God is not deceiving Adam, but teaching him a lesson". Verb: deceive - Cause someone to believe an untruth. Did god cause Adam to believe that he did not know his location? Yes. Is it truth that god really did know where Adam was? Yes. By definition, god deceived Adam.



Angels & Animals
Why god would allow angels the power to materialize as humans and breed may be unclear - but one thing is clear: nothing happens without god allowing it. As the story goes, angels were watching earth women from heaven and again, for reasons unknown, develop a sexual attraction for them. Sexual arousal is a biological response to the preparation for sex, a desire produced by the need to procreate. Since when did angels have a biological need of any kind, especially one to reproduce their species through sexual means? I know it doesn't make any sense, but when did god claim to be logical? And since when did god care if you understand?

So now that god has designed angels to be able to procreate with earth women, they do. Instead of producing blanks, angels and humans produce unnatural hybrids called Nephilims, and this is made possible by god's detailed and deliberate design. God then gets angry that his creations are doing as he designed, and decides he must implement an intelligent, positive, and divine solution. After all, he is god.



The Flood!
By this point there is so much wickedness in the world, god decides to fix it by killing all but eight humans (plus a whole lot of animals). Christians (and this applies to Jews, Muslims, or any other Yahweh kiss-ass) claim their god is all-powerful, and by such could choose any solution he wants. Why would god choose violence as a solution? Let us ignore god's desire for violence for a moment and focus on the flood. God could have snapped his fingers and made everything better, or destroyed the "bad" humans without killing a huge proportion of animals. Whether it was a lack of creativity or the lack of smarts for an efficient solution, the flood was a 40-day-and-night ordeal (not to mention the 40 years spent previously when Noah built the ark). Perhaps god wanted to drag it out to teach people a lesson, although only the eight "righteous" survivors would be alive for the lesson. Smart god.

Noah was a righteous man and as such his reward was to preach to nonbelievers and build the ark himself. Then he was rewarded the task of gathering animals by pairs. If we ignore the logistics, this story is good for small children and foolish Christian adults - but let us explore this fantasy even more. Animals of all kinds were to be gathered, and presumably animals from all over the globe. Were these animals teleported by god? Did Noah use a magic flute? Perhaps the animals were all local, and then after the flood they evolved into the variety we know today. According to the bible, the flood occurred less than 6,000 years ago - making the time between then and now too small for evolution of that proportion to occur. This means animals of a wide variety of habitats - from the penguins and polar bears of the North Pole to the camels of the desert - had to endure a uniform climate within the ark. Different species also have very different eating needs, which Noah did not likely have resources for, even if he somehow became an expert on every animal's eating habit. Shoveling poop would be the least of Noah's problems - try stopping the animal food chain from occurring within the ark. From carnivores to vegetarians, Christians and Jews can agree that Noah had all the animals taken care of, without feeding the animals to each other. So how did snakes, lions, scorpions, and spiders stomach salads? Did Noah gather bugs too? Certainly Noah could not have gathered and saved every species that existed - clearly a lack of knowledge on the variety of animals that existed on the parts of the bible's writers, who were guided by god. This means that many species died off during the flood, species that god wasted time on designing as he would kill them off anyhow.

Perhaps god forgot to look into the future during creation, hence all the mistakes such as creating species he would kill during the flood. And after the flood, after all the animals magically survived, did god teleport them back to their natural habitats? If god used his powers to teleport animals all over the globe and back, magically kept them fed without eating each other, and magically kept them alive in a uniform climate, why didn't he just kill off the bad humans with his magic? The bible usually seems to leave these logical details out, and for good reason. God certainly used a time consuming, inefficient, negative, nonproductive, violent, and unintelligent solution for this matter. I am sure small children could come up with thousands of better solutions than that. Maybe god has a really good explanation behind all this; he just doesn't want to share it with us - again, restricting knowledge and information. As a side note, the rainbow debuted directly after the flood as a symbol of god's promise to never flood the earth again (fire, locusts, etc. are all still fair game I guess). This means rainbows never existed before this, meaning the properties of light and water were different before and then changed just for this promise. If you had god's powers, would you kill off animals and humans, and then change the properties of light and water for a simple promise? I didn't think so, blasphemer.



Moses & Egypt
Pharaoh oppresses god's people, the Israelites, and god gets angry. This dispute should appropriately be between god and pharaoh, but as usual, innocent people are caught in between. When pharaoh refuses to let god's people go, he decides to unleash a series of plagues - not on pharaoh, but on everyone, including his own people. In the final plague god kills Egyptian firstborn males. Innocent children were executed by god or his angels for the actions of one man. I suppose this should come as no surprise as all humans are born into sin by the actions of one man and woman, Adam and Eve. So after god murders innocent children, he rewards Moses and his followers by leading them through the desert for forty years. One wonders if they were treated better as slaves in Egypt before the plagues and desert wandering began.

During their journey Moses goes up to a mountain to talk to god. God does such a good job of communicating his authority on his people, that they quickly lose faith and began to worship a golden calf. When Moses returns and finds out what happens, god is quite angry. God tells his people, through Moses, to murder the golden calf worshippers - whether they are neighbors or family members. Sure, they would be breaking the "Thou shall not murder" commandment, but god's emotions come first. Yahweh later commands them not to eat meat, and gives them manna - low quality food that fell from the sky, which they were to gather and eat (but not save or it would turn into maggots). The Israelites complain about the lack of variety, so god gives in and sends down some fowl for them to eat. He quickly changes his mind, becomes angry, and kills off almost a third of the remaining Israelites. The message is simple: stick with god, and he will put you through a horrendous bloodbath - if he doesn't have you killed first. Is this the same god that Jesus talks about?



Jesus
Let me begin with a story. You will like it.

One weekend I had to watch my niece (age 11) and two nephews (ages 6 and 8) for my sister. I do not have any children myself, so I have nice things around the house that are either dangerous or breakable. So come early Saturday morning the boys are horsing around and I am woken up as I hear something break. I run out into the living room to find a lamp and bowl shattered on my hardwood floor, which is now scratched and dented. I am a bit grumpy and I ask who is responsible for the damage - in quite an aggressive manner. I think the kids were scared, as they didn't say anything. I unbuckle my belt and take it off my pants, and then I ask again. At this point, the smaller boy starts to quietly cry, and confesses he and his brother broke the lamp and bowl, and that he is very sorry. I tell him to pull down his pants as he is going to get spanked for it, then his brother next. The boy then begins to plead with me and tearfully says that he is sorry. His brother begins to beg to me too, and I tell them that someone is going to have to get spanked for the damage. Their older sister steps in and asks me to spare them the spanking and give it to her if I must. So I ask her to bend over, and after she looks at her two brothers and smiles, she does. She closes her eyes as I lift my arm all the way up and then strike her hard. The boys jolt from the loud popping sound that the belt makes on her buttocks. The sister is silent. I hit her again, harder this time. The boys watch in silence and disbelief. She is still quiet. So I strike her again. I can now see her convulse a bit and hear her tears hit the floor. I strike her yet again. The boys begin to cry. I strike her again, this time the hardest. I can hear her gasp for air as she tries to stifle her crying. I stop for a few moments and look at the boys... they look horrified and are sobbing. I turn back around and look at my niece, still bent over and hiding her face to hide her crying. I strike her again... and then again... and then one more time. Now she is convulsing uncontrollably as her brothers are frozen with their little shirts soaked with tears. I tell them that I feel a lot better now, and I am going to hop in the shower and then make breakfast. "Oh," I said with a smile... "No more breaking things".

I suppose I was a little hard on the girl as she really didn't do anything wrong. The boys said they were sorry, and I could have let it go. I didn't really have to issue a spanking even though I wanted to prove a point - after all, I do make the rules. Spanking the girl serves no solution or purpose, other than appeasing my emotion. With this said and acknowledged, why did I do it? Many of you must think I am a bastard, and rightfully so. However, in case you couldn't figure it out, this story is fictional but is presented to illustrate a point. It is quite obvious what I am illustrating, but I understand we may have some Christians reading this.

In the story I represent god, the brothers represent humans, and the girl represents Jesus. According to the bible, god punishes innocent Jesus for the mistakes of humans. Why did Jesus have to die? How was Jesus' death a solution? God could have chosen any solution for man's mistakes and he chose violence. A belt to one's buttocks may be cruel, but at least the girl in the story was not nailed to a crucifix, cut open, mocked, and remained in a tortured state until merciful death. By what rule is god obligated to for this sacrifice to happen? What force or object exceeds god's will and design? If god did not make a choice out of desire, he was obligated to make a choice to someone or something that he did not want. Since god is obligated to nothing but his own will, one may conclude that god chooses violence as a solution out of desire. And what if Jesus had refused to be sacrificed? Perhaps god would have seen everyone to the grave, and his creation would have been wasted. Yes, much like the bugs killed in the flood.



Hell
Why does god choose negative reinforcement as part of his strategy - because he lacks control, or because he is cruel by nature? With proper deduction there are only two reasons why negative reinforcement is used, 1- the issuer lacks control, 2- the issuer is cruel. To answer this, first I must prove that god uses negative reinforcement. Hell, if your version of Christianity happens to believe in it, is a good example of negative reinforcement. Hell is not a facility to rehabilitate, enlighten, or correct but a platform to punish various sinners for eternity. Let us examine the definition of negative reinforcement.

Noun: negative reinforcement
1. A reinforcing stimulus whose removal serves to decrease the likelihood of the response that produced it

Example: A child wants to play in the street. A parent puts restrictions on such actions as the parent understands the danger, and the child does not. If the parent had the option to enlighten the child (as opposed to punishing), they would certainly choose to do so. However, the parent does not possess such powers, as where god does.

God's options are not limited, suggesting he chooses them out of desire. If god truly wanted to protect us, certainly he would enlighten us as opposed to simply punishing us, which has no productive or positive results. One could reasonably conclude that the only purpose of hell or punishment is a consequence to persuade, or ultimately, negative reinforcement.

Possible Christian retort:
-"God is love, not cruel." God restricts knowledge and cripples understanding purposely, thus creating the variable for struggle, pain, and punishment. Would a father with a family keep his front door open all night (maybe with a sign posted that reads "Strangers: rob me and rape my daughters") increasing the variable of negativity, and exposing his family to danger? Sure, if he was cruel or insane. So, why would our heavenly father increase the variable of negativity, exposing his earthly family of humans to danger? Not out of love.
-"Negative reinforcement isn't bad or exclusive to 1) limitation or 2) cruelty." Wrong. 1) A parent lacks the ability to enlighten a child to certain logic, but children understand negative feelings - hence often respond to negative reinforcement. In this case, the issuer lacks control. 2) However, if the parent had the power to enlighten the child and chose not to, the parent must resort to exerting negative reinforcement - or more simply put, negativity. Since making the child understand would result in safety, and negative reinforcement may result in safety (or danger), the positive result is compromised and variable for negativity become present. In this case, the issuer is cruel.
-"Hell was created for Satan and his demons." Regardless of who hell was created for, it does not negate the policy of humans receiving it.
-"You and the entire christianburner.com staff are going to hell." Where is hell located? I cannot seem to find it on my map - perhaps I need a map of fantasyland.
-"Hell is received by choices of free will." If a robber points a gun at me and gives me a choice to comply or suffer accordingly, he is using negative reinforcement - and ultimately has given me options. By such logic, the robber is using free will. If you disagree, then you agree that god does not issue free will - god gives us a choice to comply or suffer accordingly, and if you do not like either option it becomes a matter of which suffering is lesser, much like the options a rapist would give. If you disagree, then you believe that if a woman is in the process of being raped, refuses, and is beaten and stabbed - she was stabbed by choice. Rapist: "My way or the die way." Robber: "My way or the die way." Yahweh: "My way or the die way."



Conclusion
After reviewing the information above, and the more one thinks, the idea of free will seems to become irrelevant. Here is an analogy to illustrate what I mean (yes, I love these).

God is having a presidential election. To sway voters his way, god says "Vote for me, and you will live. Vote for Satan, and you will be killed. Vote for anyone else, and you will be killed. And if you do not vote at all, you will also be killed. Yet, no matter who you vote for, I will become president anyway."

As you can see, free will becomes a futile property when only one option will be tolerated. Much like a dictator, god will only tolerate his way and destroy all other choices, which makes one wonder why choices are even given at all - perhaps to make him look merciful. Although Jesus and Christians claim god is merciful, the scriptures say otherwise. According to the bible, god is a baby killing, animal sacrificing, world flooding, hell creating, human testing, plague sending, first born killing, genocidal, jealous short tempered god, who required his own son to be tortured and killed to appease his anger.

It is interesting that god would not allow us to choose him by his merit alone, but feels he must use the policy of punishment and reward. Animals are trained with the same strategy, which is ultimately negative and positive reinforcement. Clearly god wants us to make his one and only preferred choice not by reason and understanding, but by fear and desire - like animals. God designed humans with the dynamics of reason, and some do not believe in god by use of that reason. Reason is our only crime against god - a crime that he designed himself.

The Christian god is highly emotional, like an underdeveloped child with a temper. The bible humanizes god to an unrealistic degree. First, god does not operate within specific variables of the spectrum of consciousness and emotion, as he is the entire spectrum. Reason and faculties of consciousness suggest parameters, a product of limitation; how could the source of all have such restrictions? Logic and reason are what we use as limited creatures to process reality. God, the source of all, is that reality: what is there to process? Tests, decisions, and conclusions are products of limited perspective. Since the Christian god is confined to these methods, he is then limited and negates the claim that he is the unlimited source of all - and thus not god.

In conclusion, we have determined that god is cruel, inefficient, illogical, evil, and downright nutty. The true source of all would be perfect, complete, and share the same signature as the universe. The idea of god possessing human attributes is ridiculous, and any limitation or products thereof make him impossible to exist. The bottom line is that we have not yet determined our origin, reality, or future. Clearly Christians are mentally flawed creatures to subscribe to such a grossly false belief. It seems puzzling that some Christians, of course, are intelligent - perhaps emotional desperation takes priority over logic when it comes to matters of their own life and death. Since our learning is not complete, it would be unreasonable for anyone to come to a conclusion already. One conclusion is for certain: the Christian god is a series of logical conflicts, a simple calculation error, and no doubt a primitive human construct.

[Darth Viscera]

This subject should not stray into the area of an argument as to whether religion is good or bad.

The argument, for those who have strayed, is that religion is fundamentally separated from government. The following is paramount:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
-The First Amendment

Now, until the first amendment is repealed, the following is unconstitional to be spoken in public schools:

One Nation,
Under God,
Indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all

I believe that the first amendment is just. It should certainly be enforced.

[Morgan Evanar]

One Nation,
With Liberty and Justice for all (despite how realities seem to appear...)

[Grizwaldy]

or as the daily show said, good place for advertisement slot...

One Nation,
Under Skittles,
With liberty and justice for all

[Darth Viscera]

@morg

yeah, that's exactly what I was saying at school.

[Figrin D'an]

To agree with Viscera, let's not stray onto pros and cons of religion or the existence of divinity. It's about the Constitution, the interpretation thereof, and the reaction to this particular district court decision.

[Shawn]

Hmm... this is why I've absolved to not argue Religion in good company. :|

[Sanis Prent]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion <u>or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.</u>

Yeah, that latter part failed to recieve proper acknowledgement, and everybody seems to forget it :)

[Morgan Evanar]

Yes, but the current situation is far from neutral. A lack of mention would be.

What we have is a forced statement that there is god, despite if your feel otherwise.

[Charley]

Even a lack of mention isn't neutral, as it implies absence. The paradox is that you can't argue either way decisively. Both sides can be right and wrong at the same time. Thus, we're bickering and turning the Pledge into a game of Mad Libs.

You can break this down then, into the cold, hard logistics of "Should we invest the money to change the system?" Since neither side gets their knuckles smacked for saying or not saying the line...whether the words exist or not is really not important. You could ask voters of what they say our One Nation is under, if anything. And the majority (sure-fire bet is that they say "God") wins. It doesn't prohibit the minority from saying or not saying or whatever their little hearts desire. But it makes the system "best fit" the desires of the population.

[Morgan Evanar]

Ah yes, but one might argue God != Allah, or whatnot.

Therefore a lack of is best.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Actually, I'd be more objecting to swearing allegience to a bit of soil and some cloth, But that's just me I guess and a different argument

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Aussies aren't patriotic though.

Allah is just the arabic word for God. An Arab Christian would still pray to Allah.

So.

[Lord Gue]

bah, this is just gonna be a definition of words fight

free exercise
and what it really means

[Darth Viscera]

Yeah, that latter part failed to recieve proper acknowledgement, and everybody seems to forget it :)


The absence of respect from the congress to an establishment of religion should not be construed as prohibiting that free exercise. It is simply illegal for religion to get government backing, as is happening right now unconstitutionally across the U.S. The popularity of religion does not justify its incursion on our democracy.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

We here, in this thread, in this forum and at this board, are just a small smattering of the population of the US (most of us, that is) and the diversity of our backgrounds, the differences in our ages, etc, should prove beyond a doubt that the majority of Americans approve of and WANT the words "under God" in our Pledge.

What is there to NOT understand about this? Id like to know who, if any, have already written thier Congressman and Senators, or at least made a phone call? Or will the lot of us sit back on our respective duffs and let another opportunity to exercise our beliefs go down the proverbial tube?

[Grizwaldy]

I believe you dont follow some of us, we are with this guy, some of us are. Forcing someone to mention religion in school is not free excersice, its forced

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

The "some of you" are the minority. Why should the majority of us be "forced" (your word, not mine) into not saying it? And, youre not being forced to say it. Just close your lips when those two words come up but leave my right to utter them up to me. dont make it illegal. Thats just incredibly anal and moronic.

[Sith Ahnk]

No, it's not anal

Why

Should you

Be forced to say a pledge

Or even

Be forced

To listen to others

Pledge it

When it mentions

A god

You don't believe in

May even

Consider

Evil

Unjust

Unfair

I say

Whats to stop

The kids from say it now

Imagination

True unbull-DO-NOT-SWEAR--DO-NOT-SWEAR--DO-NOT-SWEAR--DO-NOT-SWEAR-ted patriotism

A belief that a silly pledge is just a series of words and it's what is in your heart that matters

The issue is

Kids can't be lead to hear it it

Or say it

and

To be honest

It's not under god

I would

Not say it

Without god

I don't think it's right

To make Canadians

Sing our anthem in French

Our school tried

And I sung in english only

Because

Forcing people to do

Anything

Is unjust

Unlawful

Cruel

Etc

Etc

Etc

[CMJ]

Geez....I just spent the last 30 or so minutes reading all of these posts. Soooo much to respond to, but I'm not sure I have the patience.

Nonetheless I guess I'll post an abbreviated version of my thoughts on this whole matter.

First off...the Pledge of Allegiance was written for immigrants to the "New Country" or the USA in 1892. The original version did not mention God for a reason....this new Pledge was all about COUNTRY. It was meant to give the new citizens on our shores something to hold on to...so to speak. Let's examine what the Pledge was as written.

"I pledge Allegiance to the flag,
and to the republic for which it stands,
One nation indivisible,
With liberty and justice for all."

Yes....even "of the United States of America" was added in the '54 version. Looking at this original version it's plain to see....this oath was meant to be free of religious influence.

Now an earlier post made reference to the fact that our Declaration of Independence and Constitution said "God". That is false. The US Constitution makes absolutely no reference to a diety of any kind. The Declaration says "their Creator". A way of referenceing a diety perhaps....yes. But it doesn't say God.

A good reason why is that a great many of our founding fathers were athiests or diests. Now before any of you get riled up and start calling me names....it's true. Trust me...you don't want me to start listing off letters and such that some of our hero's wrote questioning religion(because I could...I am kind of a history buff). That's why I have to laugh when people say stuff like "the founding fathers would roll over in their graves". Some would yes...even perhaps a significant majority. However many of our most famous Fathers were diests at best...athiests at worst(if you consider that to be bad). Hell Jefferson wrote his own version of the Bible!!

Now...I've also read this whole currency "In God We Trust" thing. Does anyone know when the first time that appeared on US coins and bills was? It was in 1864(hardly the founding Father time period) during the Civil War to give faith to the Union because the North was questioning whether the South could be vanquished...and the country could be put back together. Even so...the slogan was an on again off again thing depending on administrations till 1954 when Ike and friends made it a permanent stamp on currency.

Remember guys...this is the short version. ;) After all of that...about all I can sum up with is, I truly don't believe "God" should be included in our Pledge. Nontheless it's no skin off my nose if it in fact is.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

But of course! Lets stop paying taxes..thats unjust and evil! Lets stop wearing seat belts..the law in my state says I have to..who cares that it saves lives?! Its unfair and unjust that I have support criminals on death row, who make appeal after appeal, clogging our justice system..lets off the b@st@rds right now! Its unfair and unjust that honest but poor people have to decide whether to eat or heat thier homes in the winter.

Many things are unfair and unjust. Lets take care of the truly unjust situations and stop wasting my hard earned tax dollars on some whining crybaby twit who decided that his/her senses had been offended by saying "under God" is more important than perhaps donating his/her time at a hospital helping to take care of crack babies or maybe passing out blankets to the homeless when its below freezing outside.

If he/she wants to fight against something, lead a crusade against drugs in the neighborhood. Let it be for a truly unfair and unjust cause and stop wasting all of our time.

[CMJ]

Hmmm I'm not really sure how that is an adequate argument Lady Daiquri. I never said it was "unjust" that we're made to say the Pledge. I don't personally think as written the Pledge in Constitutional...but thats just MY opinion.

As for your non-paying of taxes. Thats cool. I know you were being tongue in cheek, BUT many philosophers have argued AGAINST paying taxes if you truly believe the government is behaving in either a wrong or unjust manner.

[Sith Ahnk]

The only problem is

our beloved government

Is unwilling

To give up drug profits

They're scared

Of the homeless

And god knows

How many people

Protest killing people

On death row

Hell

An eye for an eye

But

They can't use that anymore

Because

Of seperatism

BTW

Here's a cool image I found

Parental discretion advised as usual

http://www.fugly.com/media/IMAGES/funny/fromthemormons.jpg

And to be honest

I think

That

Harp playing

Robe hugging

Prayer chanting

Religious -DO-NOT-SWEAR--DO-NOT-SWEAR--DO-NOT-SWEAR--DO-NOT-SWEAR--DO-NOT-SWEAR--DO-NOT-SWEAR--DO-NOT-SWEAR-s

Who say that this is asanine

Take a step back

It is seperatism

It is the law

Is is just

And it is being appealed as well :)

But

You didn't see complaints

When it was put it

By the way

Vancouver is now the top city for smoking pot in the world

And

Only the chinese complained

Tells you something

About my kind of people

I suppose

Immoral I guess

Perverted souls

But

At least I don't -DO-NOT-SWEAR--DO-NOT-SWEAR--DO-NOT-SWEAR--DO-NOT-SWEAR- alter boys

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

Of course they dont. The Mormon religion doesnt have "alter boys".

Toss out something that has some meat to it, please. That was lame.

[Sith Ahnk]

The meat is

ABC

Can't be faught

And

ABC says

Under God goes

No matter the reason

ABC is law

And

Unless it is sucessfully appealed

It stays law

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

In that case, someone please bake a cake, with a file in it, because I refuse to NOT say the words "under God". I'll say it loud and proud and they can kiss my -DO-NOT-SWEAR--DO-NOT-SWEAR--DO-NOT-SWEAR--DO-NOT-SWEAR- if they dont like it. "they" refering to anyone who objects to the words in any way, shape or form.






Oh and make it chocolate, please! :lol

[Sith Ahnk]

A file? :(

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

I thought a file would less noticeable than a grenade, or elves with tinsel. :)

[Figrin D'an]

Geez... I'm good at causing a ruckus, aren't I? ;)



In that case, someone please bake a cake, with a file in it, because I refuse to NOT say the words "under God". I'll say it loud and proud and they can kiss my -DO-NOT-SWEAR--DO-NOT-SWEAR--DO-NOT-SWEAR--DO-NOT-SWEAR- if they dont like it. "they" refering to anyone who objects to the words in any way, shape or form.


I don't think it would come to that. By arresting someone who chooses to use the words "Under God" in the Pledge, that itself would be a violation of the "free exercise" of religion portion of the First Amendment. So... I don't think that is any worry... :)


I can see both points of view on the issue... I guess, in the end, I'm kinda neutral about the whole thing, and I'll live with whatever the decision happens to be. I think that LL brings up an interesting point about the cost to change the system... do we want to invest the taxpayers dollars to do so?


I would, however, like to strongly second CMJ's statement about the beliefs of the "Founding Fathers." I think the big point of confusion around this comes from people misconstruing the use of the word "God" in letters and documents from that time period. There is a huge difference between the Christian interpretation of "God" and the deist interpretation of "God." The idea that the United States government was founded on Christian principles is a falsehood that is far too perpetuated in today's society.




I actually thought this thread might die... it appears to have caught a second wind. :)

[Live Wire]

wow I really dont feel like sifting through all of it so I'll keep this short and simple.

The court made the right decision based on the facts and on the law and to do otherwise would be simple emotional nationalism. The seperation of church and state should be upheld over and above the emotions. I applaud the guts it must have taken to hand down this controversial rulling. As far as anyone who doesnt want to say the pledge they dont have to you're not forced to say it in school. And the facts outlined above by CMJ are indeed correct.

So no one yell at me with the arguement that I'll say it if I want to and its wrong cause its always been there cause thats not a valid arguement and Im grateful you're not making the decisions cause everything has to be based on law and not emotion.

[CMJ]

Glad to see I have a couple of people on my side. :)