P
pawclaws
Guest
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-06-14-court-pledge_x.htm?csp=24
It ain't a win, but it is better than a loss!
It ain't a win, but it is better than a loss!
Bambistew
Well-known member
Why can't it say one nation under Allah? Why does it need a refrece to god anyway?
Calif. Hunter
Active member
If you do not believe in God or a god, then why does it make a difference to you? No one is forcing you to believe in God, although Muslims would tax you for not believing in their god.
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
All kids are being forced to say "under god" whether they believe in it or not. That's not right. I was hoping that guy would win his case.
Calif. Hunter
Active member
Are they really being forced to say it? Even back in the 1960's and 70's, kids were not "forced" to say the Pledge at all, and if someone objected to saying "under God," the teacher told them "Just don't say that part if it bothers you."
This just means that you are nor forbidden to say it. Besides, the only reason it got thrown out was that the father suing did not have full authority to sue on behalf of his son, and the child's mother did not object to the pledge.
This just means that you are nor forbidden to say it. Besides, the only reason it got thrown out was that the father suing did not have full authority to sue on behalf of his son, and the child's mother did not object to the pledge.
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Well I realize that theoretically children are not forced to say the pledge at all, but how many kids in grade school are going to object? I am thinking not very many. How many of those kids are even mature enough to have an opinion one way or the other anyway? Most will just go along with whatever the parents believe. I just do not feel that public schools should be involved in religion in any way. That is what parents, and churches are for.
WH's OutdoorsChick
New member
I myself believe “under God” should not be removed. It has been the same since 1954 and it’s not something that needs to be changed again.
It was changed and approved by President Dwight D. Eisenhower , and this was his reasoning, "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."
Our forefathers who founded our country believed in God, and because of that we should keep our traditions the same. What is next, Bitching about taking “God” off of our dollar bills as well? 
The structure of our constitution and Declaration of Independence was based on the beliefs our forefathers had in “God” so why change things now?
Here is the first couple line of the Declaration of Independence, lets change that also!
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Besides isn’t this Michael Newdow a Lawyer…
Hmm wonder what kind of publicity a lawyer will get in this case…..
yeah it is My SPARE TIME
The structure of our constitution and Declaration of Independence was based on the beliefs our forefathers had in “God” so why change things now? Here is the first couple line of the Declaration of Independence, lets change that also!
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Besides isn’t this Michael Newdow a Lawyer…
Hmm wonder what kind of publicity a lawyer will get in this case…..
yeah it is My SPARE TIME
What a stupid assed waste of time, There is not 1 dang thing bad about under God, It isn't forced or mandatory. I would dare guess that the majority of "The people" would prefer it stays. Why should the minority trump the majority?
Why not do something about the filth in the mass media instead of going after something as harmless as Under God?
Why not do something about the filth in the mass media instead of going after something as harmless as Under God?
yes Michael Newdow is a Lawyer He was on the Hannity radio show today and he made an ass of himself
One of the interesting things that came out was that the daughter does believe in God, and doesn't have any problem with Under God, and he was opposed by his ex-wife.
Seems like he was using his child to push his own agenda
He was on the Hannity radio show today and he made an ass of himself
One of the interesting things that came out was that the daughter does believe in God, and doesn't have any problem with Under God, and he was opposed by his ex-wife.
Seems like he was using his child to push his own agenda
WH's OutdoorsChick
New member
YES the daughter and her mother are Christian, so we get to waste our Tax Payer Money on this stupid CHIT instead of More important things!!!!
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Michael,
The minority should trump the majority for the same reason hunters (the minority) should trump the non-hunters (majority.)
The minority should trump the majority for the same reason hunters (the minority) should trump the non-hunters (majority.)
P
pawclaws
Guest
Mike, ODC, What could possibly be more important than bringing the phrase "UNDER GOD" to the front page? Way to go God!!
WH's OutdoorsChick
New member
Touché
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
There are a lot of stupid things the government wastes money on, but this wasn't one of them.
P
pawclaws
Guest
Don is that a simile, metaphor, parable, or did you get the wrong thread??
Bambistew
Well-known member
Can you answer the question? How about one nation under Satan? Would that piss you off? Maybe I'll start a campaign to have it changed to Satan...
You guys can just not say it whey it gets to that part
Calif. Hunter
Active member
I'll answer your question, Bambi, but you won't like it or agree with it. It says "under God," like our money and many of our original (and official) documents reference God because this was a nation founded by Christians under Christian pricipals, which was established to (among other things!) allow people the freedom of choice which God himself allows. In most cases, while trying to balance their own Christian faith with freedom of religion, they used "God" as a generic term. In the English language, "God" is both specific and generic. "Allah" or "Satan" is not generic.
Note that the Pledge does not mention Christ, and the Declaration of Independence, quoted above, talks about "Nature's God" and "their Creator."
If you choose to believe there is no God, what does it matter? If I did not believe in Satan, it wouldn't matter to me if the Pledge said "under Satan." Since I do happen to believe in both God and Satan, I would object to it.
There was no "separation of Church and State" until that doctrine was established by the Supreme Court.
Note that the Pledge does not mention Christ, and the Declaration of Independence, quoted above, talks about "Nature's God" and "their Creator."
If you choose to believe there is no God, what does it matter? If I did not believe in Satan, it wouldn't matter to me if the Pledge said "under Satan." Since I do happen to believe in both God and Satan, I would object to it.
There was no "separation of Church and State" until that doctrine was established by the Supreme Court.
P
pawclaws
Guest
Yeah what Cali said plus+ As a free Christian nation, nobody is forced to be a Christian or practice Christian beliefs by the state. How do you suppose that would compare with most of our Islamic brothers homes? The issue of whether or not a child will voluntarily take the pledge is between the child, the child's parent (hopefully in support of the child) and the local school administration; not some asshole who wishes to impose his whim or beliefs on the child, the entire community, and the rest of the nation as well. Partner if you want to pledge allegience to the flag "under Satan" I guess that is your business; but, maybe you should find out what the word means first. Sounds almost contradictory.
I think there are a couple of things that everyone needs to consider.
1. The Court did not rule against the father. They ruled that he did not have pervue in the case. Since he is not legally related to the girl, as he does not have or share custody with the mother and since he and the mother were never married, he has no right to speak on behalf of the girl.
2. In several related cases, the Court has ruled that "God" referred to on money, in the national motto "In God We Trust", does not refer to a specific God, but to the concept of God. That way, regardless of what God you worship, you're covered. If you don't believe in the concept of God, then blow it off. You are not being forced to believe in a God, any God.
So there is no relativity to a "State Sponsored Religion" per se, which would be in direct violation of the Constitution.
[ 06-15-2004, 21:45: Message edited by: danr55 ]
1. The Court did not rule against the father. They ruled that he did not have pervue in the case. Since he is not legally related to the girl, as he does not have or share custody with the mother and since he and the mother were never married, he has no right to speak on behalf of the girl.
2. In several related cases, the Court has ruled that "God" referred to on money, in the national motto "In God We Trust", does not refer to a specific God, but to the concept of God. That way, regardless of what God you worship, you're covered. If you don't believe in the concept of God, then blow it off. You are not being forced to believe in a God, any God.
So there is no relativity to a "State Sponsored Religion" per se, which would be in direct violation of the Constitution.
[ 06-15-2004, 21:45: Message edited by: danr55 ]
