"......One Nation, under the 'boogie man', with......."

[yyz]

I can't believe how these fuhking Athiest scumbags, can run the judicial system in this rapidly decaying country.

Now, from chats in the past regarding religion, most of you know that I don't believe in a "high power". Still, I do realize the basic ideas and thoughts that this country was founded on. I respect the fact that most of you believe in God. I think you should be able to say T.P.o.A in school, and if I don't want to say it, I keep my trap shut. End of story.

But, there is always some Athiest prick, and his ACLU lawyer crying foul about anything with the mention of God, by a State run faction. Well, kiss my nuts, Klaus!

Why can't a judge say, "Listen, Skippy.....Shut yer fuhkin' pie hole, and let us do our job!" But, no......we have to pander to the whims of these dolts. When did our country decide that the "wants" of 2% of the poplous, outweigh the wants of the other 98%?

These people should be whipped, so their lawyers can earn their money on an actual case. Are you really put off by the mention of God in the school? If my kid went to that school, I would tell him to mention God in every breath to this kid. Then, her old man could sue me, too!

I'll bet that if a few "Christians" started thumping this cotton rocksucker on his empty mellon, he would be calling for God, soon enough!

We are a weak Nation, and we get weaker by the day. There are more "terrorist" who call themselves citizens in this country, than we will ever have to worry about from abroad. This country will fall from within, before any outside force defeats it.

 

[AR182]

The guy who brought this case to court happens to be a lawyer.
I don't think that the wording in the Pledge is meant for a religious purposes.I think it is meant to show that we as a nation do believe in God,without it being any religious statement.

The case was heard by 3 judges from the 9th circuit court of appeals in California.It is made up of 9 judges.Only 3 judges were required to hear the case.From what I have heard,the 3 judges are not all liberals.
1 judge was a Nixon appointee,1 judge was a Carter appointee,& the other judge was a Bush sr. appointee.
From what I have heard,this ruling should be over turned by either the remaining judges on this court or by the Supreme Court.If neither of these courts overturn this decision,then Congress will pass a bill to over turn the decision.

I definately do not agree with this decision.I remember reciting the Pledge when I was in school.Nobody ever questioned anything about it's wording.We just did it.I guess those were different times.
I think people have over reacted to this decision.It was just somebody using his right to challenge what he thought was wrong.He used the system.Our system also has a provision in it to challenge THAT decision.That is what we are about.I think it is a lesson in civics.Eventually I think everything will be back to normal.

 

[yyz]

I am sure that it will be overturned, but the mere fact that this can happen, bothers me.

 

[JT]

This decision being correct or incorrect aside has NOTHING to do with the decay of this country. My god, it wasn't in there before 1954 and we did ok back then. Oh no, God is not in the pledge THE END IS NEAR. This whole thing is a distraction from more important things. If you want to do something about the terrorists how about tighter immigration and better control of our borders.

 

[TheShrimp]

YYZ WROTE:
I can't believe how these fuhking Athiest scumbags, can run the judicial system in this rapidly decaying country.

--I don't know who "runs the judicial system". If anyone does, its Ashcroft and he's no atheist. Also, whether you belive in god or not shouldn't affect how you interpret the constitution.

YYZ WROTE:
Now, from chats in the past regarding religion, most of you know that I don't believe in a "high power". Still, I do realize the basic ideas and thoughts that this country was founded on.

--do you realize the FIRST thing they added to the constitution was the so called "separation of church and state"? That's what this country was founded on. Or are you referring to the ideas and thoughts McCarthy-ism was founded on, because 1954 was the year "under god" was added after a campaign by the Roman Catholic group "Knights of Columbus"?

YYZ WROTE:
I respect the fact that most of you believe in God. I think you should be able to say T.P.o.A in school, and if I don't want to say it, I keep my trap shut. End of story.

--There are a lot of laws where people say "if you don't like it, don't do it." It completely misses the point.

YYZ:
But, there is always some Athiest prick, and his ACLU lawyer crying foul about anything with the mention of God, by a State run faction. Well, kiss my nuts, Klaus!

--Huh? Is this an analogy between the ACLU and the Nazis?

YYZ:
Why can't a judge say, "Listen, Skippy.....Shut yer fuhkin' pie hole, and let us do our job!" But, no......we have to pander to the whims of these dolts. When did our country decide that the "wants" of 2% of the poplous, outweigh the wants of the other 98%?

--when the "wants" of the 2% agree with the constitution.

YYZ:
These people should be whipped, so their lawyers can earn their money on an actual case. Are you really put off by the mention of God in the school? If my kid went to that school, I would tell him to mention God in every breath to this kid. Then, her old man could sue me, too!

I'll bet that if a few "Christians" started thumping this cotton rocksucker on his empty mellon, he would be calling for God, soon enough!

--YES! Torture the atheists till they say they believe. Let's bring back the inquisition. Won't that be fun. And with all the new technology available since the 1500's.

YYZ:
We are a weak Nation, and we get weaker by the day. There are more "terrorist" who call themselves citizens in this country, than we will ever have to worry about from abroad. This country will fall from within, before any outside force defeats it.

--I don't know why you think we're a weak nation or what this has to do with God. Faith in god did not make this country great and lack of faith will not make it weak. If anything will, it will be ignoring the constitution, which has worked pretty well for us up to now.

But really, YYZ, TPOA doesn't really bother me. I said it for years and years, remained an atheist, and never felt pressured or intiimidated or upset by having to say it. But the issue that's being debated is whether or not saying "under god" when pledging allegiance to the country is constitutional or not. I'm not really sure of whether your post talks about that at all or if you're just pissed. It sounds like you're just pissed. Do you think it doesn't violate the first amendment?

 

[yyz]

"Separation of church and State", merely refers to the government not interfering with your right to have a religion, and practice it.

It has nothing to do with the government not mentioning God. God is mentioned everywhere in government, or was until the ahiests, and ACLU got "offended". You swear on the bible in court, you see mention of God on our money, the Supreme Court itself begins each of its sessions with the phrase, `God save the United States and this honorable court, etc. The First Amendment, as well as the whole Constitution, is one of the most misquoted, and misunderstood documents in the land.

But really, YYZ, TPOA doesn't really bother me. I said it for years and years, remained an atheist, and never felt pressured or intiimidated or upset by having to say it. But the issue that's being debated is whether or not saying "under god" when pledging allegiance to the country is constitutional or not.

This is my point, Shrimp. I am not saying that you need to be a"good little boy", and stick your head in the sand, but just don't participate if it is something you don't buy into.

IMO, this is just another example of someone making waves for the sake of "having the right" to do it.

Yes, this was a "rant" on my part, and yes, I do believe we live in a rapidly decaying nation. (Not because of this, either.)

We have a sub-standard education system, and an over-all complaiceney among the people of this land. We are laughed at by other countries, and deservedly so. You may choose to not believe that, and that is your right, but we were a much stronger nation 50 years ago, when family values, and religion, were the theme of the day. Young people today, don't understand that. I am not a "doomsayer", and we won't all be working for $5 an hour tomorrow, but we are slipping very fast.

I would not want to live anywhere else, but I would like a better place, here.

 

[fatdaddycool]

Gentlemen,
I think what YYZ is saying is that there are enough legitimate reasons to clutter up our legal system. Frivolous lawsuits, greed driven civil cases, matters of the heart have slowed our legal system to damn near a halt.

First of all to theshrimp,.....dude you are reading way to much into what yyz says, you are giving him way too much credit for any off the cuff remarks. He tends to say what is on his mind and sometimes adds a few adjectives, that hardly makes him wrong. At issue is the pledge of allegiance and whether it is constitutional to say in the schools, led by teachers. First of all think about what you are saying, is it constitutional...that isn't the question. The question is does the practice violate the individuals rights and liberties afforded the individual by the "living agreement" that is the constitution. Keep in mind the Constitution was written and ONLY ratified because the Federalists (pro constitution) assured the states such as New York and Massachusetts and Virginia that the amendments to the Const. would be passed to "protect individual liberties against incursions by the National Government". That was then this is now. Prior to the American Revolution less than 20% of American adults adhered to a church compared to over 60% now, therefore the question has never reached the magnitude affected until now.
The question is this..Do the states have the right to promote religion, in general, without making any attempt to establish a particular religion. Which is the same issue that was put up for "judicial review" so to speak in 1962, Engel vs. Vitale and the so called Regents Prayer case in New York. The prayer: Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, and our country , the parents balked saying it violated the first amendment. The parents LOST. The Supreme Court, however ruled that the egents action was unconstitutional because and I quote "the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must mean at least that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as part of a religious program carried on by any government" The Courts decision was based on "the historical fact that governmentally established religions and religious persecutions go hand in hand". In Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) the Supreme Court ruled against daily readings of the Bible and recitation of the Lord's Prayer in public schools, however that ruling and the many that have followed have been based on the fact that the prayers were an "endorsement" of a certain religion. Although some states such as Tennessee and I believe Alabama have won in the Court to allow for a moment of silent reflection in schools, Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) , since then the Courts have interpreted the Supreme Courts ruling to mean that anything that does not endorse religion and lacks any secular purpose does not violate the establishment clause. With all that background I gave you in mind the question to be answered is simple.
Does the "Pledge" endorse religion and a secular establishment of religion in the school by stating "under God". Absolutely not! Once we as a society start to enter into the realm of religious and poetic interpretation as far as what is secular and what is not, we open up an entirely new can of worms. Should the Bible be taught as History? Or even more importantly, should the Government provide funds for educational services for disadvantaged students attending religious schools? You see, the Court along with Society has to provide for the freedom of religion and speech also. Be careful what you ask for because the longer we continue to nit pick at the secular issues of interpretation of prayer or song, is that much faster that the question of whethter or not to teach Evolution will rise. Is it Unconstitutional to teach Evolution? Some might say that it promotes secular religion of Atheism and they would be just as correct as those that say "one nation under God" is secular Christianity. I think silent abstension is in order and the parents of those unwilling participants should be afforded their rights but not at the cost to others operating under their own civil liberties.
A little long winded but I am a little touchy on the subject of seperation of church and state.

 

[TheShrimp]

I'll grant that the "under god" doesn't endorse a particular religion -- I don't believe it endorses a Christian God any more than it does Allah.

However, what it can possibly do is make the kid who doesn't believe in ANY god feel that loyalty to the country is wrapped up with believing in a god. When TPOA is said in a public place by everyone surrounding you, but not you, this can be interpreted as a type of pressure to believe a certain way. That's the problem with "if you don't like it, don't say it."

Now don't get me wrong. It's probably a snivelly little punk with snivelly little parents that gives enough of a crap about this to take it to court. But, it's obviously something they deem big enough to go to court over. There are probably things you'd go to court over that this guy thinks is a useless waste of court resources.

YYZ - Just FYI, there is an oath that atheists take in court that doesn't mention god. It reads, "You do affirm that all the testimony you are about to give in the case now before the court will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; this you do affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury?"

Also, references to God are leaving many government institutions. The Marines no longer use it in their motto, according to my pal down at OCS. Someone else will know this better, but the saying that was something like "god. core. country." has become "honor. discipline. something." [the quotes are wrong, but you get the spirit of what i'm saying]

And you know there are just as many people who think the country is going to hell because of the Christian Right that think its going to hell because of the Bleeding Hearts.

For every guy who thinks its a problem that Muslims are running around free, there's another genuinely concerned because people who have committed no crimes are being locked up for indefinite periods of time in the name of "prevention". [the FBI was taking heat a few weeks for not doing more to prevent 9/11. All of a sudden, "Look what we found. A guy planning a bombing." How convenient. "See -- we're doing our job. We're just going to lock him up till we feel there's no longer a threat out there, whenever that may be."]

Then there are those of us who go to work, go home, drink beer, watch sports, have fun with the wife, go to sleep, and think things are just fine.

BTW, there are a lot of people who also think that 50 years the country was pretty fvcked up with people being dragged before congresssional committees (HUAC) because of their political beliefs and forced to rat on their friends.

Now, I'm way off topic, and I never get into these things. . .

TheShrimp

 

[yyz]

The House Un-American Activities Committee, was a joke, IMO.

But I don't think it was held in high regard, and its findings were "suspect" at best. (Hollywood/Communist conection) On the other hand, this was the begining of the Cold War era, and some people felt some measures had to be taken to "protect" us.

 

[Felonious Monk]

I share yyz's frustrations.

That's the pledge of our country. If you don't like it, don't say it. Or better yet, move somewhere else where you like their pledge. You know the saying "You can't please all the people all of the time?" It's true. Americans need to stop bending over backwards to not offend anyone. People in our society are seeking to be victims and offended. KEEP THE PLEDGE!

Not that I think this opinion will stand (seeing as how the Supreme Court bitch-slaps the 9th Circuit on appeal more often than any other appellate court), but does this mean my money is now unconstitutional? Every bill has "In God we Trust" on it.

 

[fatdaddycool]

I'll grant that the "under god" doesn't endorse a particular religion -- I don't believe it endorses a Christian God any more than it does Allah.

O.K.

Shrimp, so we agree on that point and that is the exact point everyone is missing, as I feel you do in your next statement.

However, what it can possibly do is make the kid who doesn't believe in ANY god feel that loyalty to the country is wrapped up with believing in a god.

An ad in the newspaper for Snow Crab Legs may make you hungry and therefore make a trip to the store and purchase said shellfish. After ingestion of your meal you have an epiphany and ask yourself "What is responsible for this whimsical purchase?" Is it the ad? The Crab? Fishing industry? Or your own doing?

Let me ask you this...You are an atheist, practicing atheist, will you or do you allow for your children to make their own religious decisions or will you be making them for them? And if so, at what point does your child lose his own "Bill of Rights" to make an educated decision on his own religious or secular beliefs? If you are open minded enough to allow him/her to make their own decision wouldn't the least that you ask of them to make sure they opt to make an "educated decision" on the matter? And isn't that "education" going to need both sides of the story?

You can't continue to say freedom of speech and religion is okay as long as it doesn't tread on me. By continually omitting notions and references of God, or Allah, Yahweh, or Porky Pig for that matter, then the courts are favoring not the dissentor but the Atheist, which can also be construed as secular deity. One Nation under God, in the long run, is just fine with me and I am neither Atheist or Catholic or Baptist or anything for that matter. I know that I believe there is a God and that the world Evoluted and wasn't created by God. I think there is a spirituality in subconscious of our unconsious mind if that makes any sense to you at all. But the Truth is, not necessarily whatever the Bible says, not what the scientists of the world hypothesise, but a mixture of spirituality and strength of Human Spirit and will combine with a little Scientific knowledge of the facts and artifacts of the past. If you look at all of that with an open mind and allow yourself to understand that not everything you read is true and not everything you see is real, you will find the "truth" somewhere in that area.

 

[TheShrimp]

FDC:
"By continually omitting notions and references of God, or Allah, Yahweh, or Porky Pig for that matter, then the courts are favoring not the dissentor but the Atheist, which can also be construed as secular deity. "

Omission of the phrase "under god" is not the same as saying "One nation, no god exists, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

That's just like saying "One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" means you root for the Red Sox because you didn't say, "one nation, Yankees rule, with liberty and justice for all".

Lack of religious terminolgy in state sponsored activities is not a state endorsement of atheism. Otherwise, you could construe everything as such, even that receipt I got from buying those snowcrab legs because it didn't have religious symbols on it.

How I will raise my kids is not germane to the discussion of references to god in state sponsored activities. I can't be dragged into another topic as I've been on this one too long as it is. I do, however, come from a devout catholic family. I respect the religion and recognize the benefits and joy it brings to many people's lives. I'm glad it exists and in no way am I anti-religious as some other atheists are. I know many religious people who actually believe that their worship of god is personal and familial and see no need for it in school -- and find it weird that it is there.

This is it for me. I have too much else to do today.

 

[fatdaddycool]

Shrimp,
Don't get mad dude, I wasn't saying that you are wrong, just trying to state the opposing point. All I am saying is I
think that giving the option of silent reflection or singing or praying in the schools ought to be afforded to include everyone. No need to get mad, the points or questions I was asking was as a....well I forgot what you call it but as a reference not questioning how you raise your children so to speak. Cheers

 

[TheShrimp]

What made you think I was mad? I wasn't mad at all.

When I said, "How I will raise my kids is not germane to the discussion of references to god in state sponsored activities," I wasn't being huffy -- maybe wordy -- but not huffy.

I actually had an uncalled for wise crack in the post that i removed so you wouldn't think it was personal or that I was mad.

OK - this is my final post.

TheShrimp

 

[Tenzing]

Gentlemen...

Gentlemen...

... if you will go back and re-read yesterdays article on this case, you will see that the issue is "...when the pledge is read in class, my son feels belittled and vilified for not reciting the pledge allong with the others." The Supreme Court of the US ruled a while back, the late 70's or early 80's, that the "separation clause," which by the way is NOT in the constitution, means that no gov't entity is allowed to PROMOTE or ENGENDER a specific religion, nor is it allowed to suppress the free exercise thereof. The 3-jurist panel of this Appellate court knowingly made a bad ruling, most likely to curry favor with the ultra-liberal, america-hating types what live in SF. The US Justice dept will appeal this, and win, based on primacy, the notion that since this issue has already been decided, another, lower, court cannot make a ruling which is not in accord with the Supreme Court. In essence, what I am saying is that it has been decided some time ago, that WHEN the Pledge is recited, one may choose to participate, or not, but that the Pledge is not unconstitutional. The history of the "seperation clause" is fun to read and a good jumping off point into what is referred to as "activism," the awful and unlawful trait of these Uber-Liberal Clinton- and Carter-appointed jurists to mish-mash the law (and common sense) any way they see fit, for the sole purpose of making an extremely Liberal and antiAmerican ruling.

 

[fatdaddycool]

Tenzing,
It certainly seems that one of us need to re-read alot more than that article!!

The Supreme Court of the US ruled a while back, the late 70's or early 80's, that the "separation clause," which by the way is NOT in the constitution, means that no gov't entity is allowed to PROMOTE or ENGENDER a specific religion, nor is it allowed to suppress the free exercise thereof

certainly you are speaking of the "establishment clause" which I assure is a large part of the Constitution and is located in the first amendment prohibiting the establishment of a church officially supported by the National Government. etc....There is no "seperation clause"

The 3-jurist panel of this Appellate court knowingly made a bad ruling, most likely to curry favor with the ultra-liberal, america-hating types what live in SF. The US Justice dept will appeal this

You just stated that it was a Supreme Court ruling now you say it was a three member(jurist?) panel of the appellate court. I won't even go into what is wrong with that statement. Please see 6th grade history teacher for a complete rundown of the judicial branch of Government. Also, I am sure you are referencing the three member supreme court decision that I already mentioned in Engel v. Vitale (1962). Since the judges you speak of were already appointed and could not be removed and that at that time three members of the bench constituted a quorum, I hardly think their decision is based on political favor. I will admit that the ruling is somewhat disregarded in as far as who the presiding judges were aat the time and their political ties, meaning who appointed them. That is all speculative.

The US Justice dept will appeal this, and win, based on primacy, the notion that since this issue has already been decided, another, lower, court cannot make a ruling which is not in accord with the Supreme Court.

The U.S. Justice system can't appeal a Supreme Court ruling nor does it appeal anything. What the hell is it going to appeal? A not guilty verdict? That is called double jeopardy and illegal in our legal system. Appelate courts look at questions of Law not constitutionality. A Judicial Review is held to decide whether a law is contrary to the mandates of the constitution.

Dude, I could sit here and take this entire reply you made apart piece by piece. However, my reply has grown long winded and although educational, only to those who didn't listen in Constitution class.

If you feel like educating us on the seperation of church and state or the freedom of religion or speech, then I suggest you read the following carefully. They will most assuredly be explained in any High school text:
Amendment I Gitlow v New York (1925)
" " Cantwell v Connecticut (1940)
" " Everson v. The Board of Education(1947)
This will get you started on the path of keeping your foot in your shoe and out of your mouth

 

[djv]

Just keep it as is period. Any little kid don't want to use those words just don't. Mutter something else. I worried the day would come when our country would have to many people with nothing to do. What about are money. Should we make all new money. Believe that states (in god we trust). It's nuts leave it all as is.

 

[AR182]

Wow!....Some interesting reading guys.Good job!


While this ruling didn't bother as much as other people,there is one ruling by this same court that does annoy me.They ruled that gas tanks of trucks & I think cars cannot be searched crossing the US/Mexico border.With the way things are I think this is a real stupid ruling.Does anyone know anything about this?

 

[marine]

Also, references to God are leaving many government institutions. The Marines no longer use it in their motto, according to my pal down at OCS. Someone else will know this better, but the saying that was something like "god. core. country." has become "honor. discipline. something." [the quotes are wrong, but you get the spirit of what i'm saying]


whoever said this line is full of BS! no where, and i mean NO WHERE has "unit Corps God Country" ever... EVER been a official USMC motto.
Well, maybe hollywood and PVT johnny's barracks room. But the Corps never endorsed this crapola.

The USMC motto is Semper Fidelis. Meaning "Always Faithful". no mention of God anywhere in there.

Honor Courage Commitment is part of the advertising (propaganda) that the USMC uses to invite fresh young faces in and turn them into green killing machines that keep your respective gods in business.

"It's not my job to die for my country, its to make the other idiot die for his."

Tell your buddy in OCS to go back and re-read his knowledge books before he makes it out into the fleet and ends up with a lance corporal's boot print on his @ss

 

[TheShrimp]

Also, references to God are leaving many government institutions. The Marines no longer use it in their motto, according to my pal down at OCS. Someone else will know this better, but the saying that was something like "god. core. country." has become "honor. discipline. something." [the quotes are wrong, but you get the spirit of what i'm saying]

Tell your buddy in OCS to go back and re-read his knowledge books before he makes it out into the fleet and ends up with a lance corporal's boot print on his @ss

If I misrepresented it, it was MY fault, not my friend down at OCS. That's why I wrote "someone else will know this better".

I don't know how big you are, but there are not too many guys I'd wager even money on sticking a boot up HIS ass.

Thanks for setting me straight.