Religious Nazis Piss Me Off!

People like this piss me off almost as much as Biblethumpers:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050915/ap_on_re_us/pledge_of_allegiance;_ylt=AobRn_dw_p0AL40y3ySnKvSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

SAN FRANCISCO - An atheist seeking to strike the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools has won a major battle in his quest to force the

U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue again.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton sided with atheist Michael Newdow in ruling Wednesday that the pledge's reference to God violates the rights of children in three school districts to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Okay. I'm no Christian, but am willing to overlook the whole "under God" thing. When this country was founded, EVERYONE was Christian, thus the reference. The Pledge of Allegiance is NOT about God, or Religion. It's about patriotism. Which is being destroyed by all of these PC nuts. Is it REALLY that offensive? Hell I have just as many problems with Christianity as the next person, but GIMME A BREAK. This is ridiculous!

People like this piss me off almost as much as Biblethumpers:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050915/ap_on_re_us/pledge_of_allegiance;_ylt=AobRn_dw_p0AL40y3ySnKvSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

 

Okay. I'm no Christian, but am willing to overlook the whole "under God" thing. When this country was founded, EVERYONE was Christian, thus the reference. The Pledge of Allegiance is NOT about God, or Religion. It's about patriotism. Which is being destroyed by all of these PC nuts. Is it REALLY that offensive? Hell I have just as many problems with Christianity as the next person, but GIMME A BREAK. This is ridiculous!

 

We've done this before, but okay. One more time!

 

"Under God" was only added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. It's a creation of Eisenhower and was not a good thing to begin with. Desiring to remove it has nothing to do with political correctness, but rather a return to the WAY IT WAS and strict intrepretation of the constitution in a secular society.

 

"Citing a concurring opinion in a Supreme Court decision, the 9th Circuit said, "The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers 'that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.'"

 

The court said the 1954 insertion of "under God" was made "to recognize a Supreme Being" and advance religion at a time "when the government was publicly inveighing against atheistic communism" -- a fact, the court said, the federal government did not dispute.

 

The appeals court noted that when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the act adding "under God," he said, "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."

 

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledge.allegiance/

I may be an atheist, and I certainly have a vendetta against the Christianity thing but geez man, how many years has it been since "One Nation Under God" was around? This is GENERATIONS ago! Who cares!?! I still hear atheists say OH MY GOD! Is it that bad? Give me a break, we have bigger fish to fry and larger problems to handle that something that has been around since our greater generations were walking around. I wish these people would shut the hell up and focus on the matter at hand right now.

 

People only make crap harder on themselves.

im a catholic and i believe in almost all of my religion except im thinking we'd be better off with sepperation of church and state. if we were a single religion country it wouldnt matter but there are way too many religions here and i think everyone would be better off.

The reason I have a problem with removing these words is that EVERYONE believes in God. I will explain why... The term God refers to the ultimate power in the universe. All people have a power greater than themselves (if you don't believe it, look at hurricane Katrina, the power of the sun, or an atomic blast, even the state government can get kick your ass if you break the law)... so these goofy atheists should not get all hung up on semantics!

LOL i was just about to make the EXACT same thread.

What a loser! Ya know no child HAS to say the pledge. They chose to.

I believe if a child wants to recite the pledge they can and should be able to when and wherever that might be. I cant believe ppl are so fucking idiotic to take something like THE PLEDGE away from this nations YOUTH

WTF?

 

Want to know about the Pledge...where it came from...who wrote it...how it's been changed.

 

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

 

Read this and see if you opinion is the same as before you read it.

SAN FRANCISCO - An atheist seeking to strike the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools has won a major battle in his quest to force the

U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue again.

 

It's not a good or a bad thing. It shouldn't have added to the Pledge in the first place. But, taking it out after it's been in there all this time is stupid, too. It's going to piss a LOT of people off either way. They should've left it alone. I don't know if anyone else realized this, but: No one makes a big deal out of it until it goes to the courts or anything else like that. The second some idiot gets pissed off, on either side, EVERYONE starts getting all pissy about it.

 

Can't win either way.

 

And, this will NOT be the end of this crap.

 

Maybe they should just take the pledge out of schools all together. That will solve the whole damn problem.

We've done this before, but okay. One more time!

 

"Under God" was only added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. It's a creation of Eisenhower and was not a good thing to begin with. Desiring to remove it has nothing to do with political correctness, but rather a return to the WAY IT WAS and strict intrepretation of the constitution in a secular society.

 

"Citing a concurring opinion in a Supreme Court decision, the 9th Circuit said, "The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers 'that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.'"

 

The court said the 1954 insertion of "under God" was made "to recognize a Supreme Being" and advance religion at a time "when the government was publicly inveighing against atheistic communism" -- a fact, the court said, the federal government did not dispute.

 

The appeals court noted that when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the act adding "under God," he said, "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."

 

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledge.allegiance/

CES, I had no idea that it was added later on, or the motivations behind it.

However, it doesn't change the fact that people take it a bit TOO seriously. Maybe they can just change it back to the way it was before. That oughta shut everyone up.

this is like people who demand political correctness?

 

"Happy Holidays" vs. "merry christmas"

 

who fucking cares? It's just a saying, and it means jack to a good chunk of the world.

What's the sense in having any young child recite the Pledge of Allegiance at all?

 

The teachers don't teach the meanings of the words used, hence, most kids don't understand it anyway. They're memorizing a bunch of sounds, not words.

 

Can you imagine explaining the entire Pledge to a group of six year olds, and then furnishing them with a good sound reason that they should stand with their hand over their heart and pledge this?

 

Let's get them all to promise they won't do crack cocaine.

 

Then follow that up with promising not to cheat on their spouses when they get married.

 

It makes about as much sense.

 

The pledge sounds like something newly recruited soldiers could recite and pledge... or new citizens coming into the country.

 

But six-year olds?

 

The Mum's would be more pleased with a pledge to make their beds and not throw their sandwiches away at school lunch time.

 

(then again, maybe they don't make kids do this anymore..I AM from the dark ages, after all!)

What Is The World Coming Too?

God does not refer to any particular religion. The pledge does not say 'One nation under Jesus'. I could see a valid argument in that case. This country was founded on religious freedom and every reference to a greater power that has been made has been made with the broad term God being used. There are many more individuals in this country that believe in a God than do not. Therefore, there would be many more people offended by the removal of the words than not. Those who believe in no God should not be offended by those who believe there is one. Atheism is a lack of belief in God and therefore a lack of conviction about God. If you are a person who believes there is no afterlife then what does it matter what people around you believe. You can

First there was NO pledge. Then they write one (Ben Franklin flips in his grave) then they ADD "under god" (ben actually DIES all over again) then it is some big deal to take it away???? I am not so much for or against it except that poeple are being complete idiots about the whole thing. Get a grasp!!!!! If it was up to the people that founded this nation, we wouldn't have a p[ledge at all (let alone say "under god") I personally don't say the phrase when reciting the pledge (if we were all any god let alone ONE god there wouldn't be so much damn hate and death over which god that is) Such amusement

God does not refer to any particular religion. The pledge does not say 'One nation under Jesus'. I could see a valid argument in that case. This country was founded on religious freedom and every reference to a greater power that has been made has been made with the broad term God being used. There are many more individuals in this country that believe in a God than do not. Therefore, there would be many more people offended by the removal of the words than not. Those who believe in no God should not be offended by those who believe there is one. Atheism is a lack of belief in God and therefore a lack of conviction about God. If you are a person who believes there is no afterlife then what does it matter what people around you believe. You can

Here's one (but not the ONE I am looking for)

Those who commit blindly their allegiance to party and excuse any steps that party may take to limit their freedoms. It is the ultimate in arrogance to root for greater government power so long as you're the one behind the steering wheel.

 

 

I wil get the other one later.

Too bad so many poeple in this country are completely ignorant to the history of the pledge or how it actually goes AGAINST the ideal this nation was founded on. I wish I had the quote on hand but Franklin said something to the effect that NO ONE should have to pledge their alligence to the country. I will try to track that quote down (I used to have it in my sig but I lost it)

 

Oh, please. So the country was founded by Franklin alone...There are people in this government today that disagree about issues. It is a little overly confident of you to claim to know exactly what the founders would or would not have said. The point is that God is a general term.

I'm not sure I understand if it is the pledge you are against or the wording...

If you can manage to say it with out adding the 'under God', even though it is currently written that way, then so can others. There is no need to remove it.

Tori, I think you need to repost the "5 PROOFS OF GOD, by St. Aquinas" post again.

.

.

Oh, please. So the country was founded by Franklin alone...There are people in this government today that disagree about issues. It is a little overly confident of you to claim to know exactly what the founders would or would not have said. The point is that God is a general term.

I'm not sure I understand if it is the pledge you are against or the wording...

If you can manage to say it with out adding the 'under God', even though it is currently written that way, then so can others. There is no need to remove it.

 

 

Honestly I am not big on training kids to blindly pledge their alegiance to anything (or anyone doing it for that matter). As for the GOD thing? That was added for some bullshit reason anyway and there is NO reason to keep it and if you look closely it is NOT supported but rather defeated by the constitution. Why is it important that it be there?

 

I see the whole this as more of a way of succkering poeple into nationalism over patriotism. Hell if I had it MY way we would have a bit of a revolution every 50 years or so in this country anyway (keep things in check and keep the government from gaining too mch power over the people when it SHOULD be the people having power over the govt) It is an issue of principal.

Tori, I think you need to repost the "5 PROOFS OF GOD, by St. Aquinas" post again.

.

.

You deleted my thread didn't you...Alright, I'll put it up in the Speak your mind forum.

Why don't the people who don't want to say the last two words (Under God) just leave it out, tell their kids to leave it out when saying the Pledge Of Allegience in school and find something a little more constructive to do with their time and the time wasted in courts of law on this type of trivial crap. If you don't like the ten commandments in front of a courthouse, Don't Read the Damn Thing!

 

I also have trouble believing this athiest is really that offended by the words being in the pledge and if it does I wish that was the extent of the problems in my life. If that bothers him so much he better stop accepting cash or cash payments from anyone because it says "In God We Trust" on cash.

If that bothers him so much he better stop accepting cash or cash payments from anyone because it says "In God We Trust" on cash.

 

whereas it used to say, "In silver payable to the bearer on demand" now...we trust in God.

whereas it used to say, "In silver payable to the bearer on demand" now...we trust in God.

 

Didn't that change when cash was no longer backed by precious metals?

this guy was just looking for a quick payout at the governments expense, and if were all thinking of the same guy, he did not even have legal custody of his daughter in the first place, people like this need to stop trying to get a payout or there name in the paper by screwing the government over, you want money, get a job, you want to be famous, save a kid from a burning building.

The mentality of the quick, easy buck gained by lawsuits, in my opinion, can be linked to what I honestly feel is one of the biggest cancers to society... Lawyers (more specifically, personal injury type lawyers).

 

I respect lawyers that are actually perfoming their duties in an honorable manner but the rest of the bottom feeding, sue for anything attorneys should find a nice place to lay down and die.