michael newdow

[Deus Ex Machina]

shut the f*ck up, please.

leave the Pledge alone.

when you Pledge Allegiance, you pledge your Country and all the Liberties it stands for.

If you have a problem with your kid reciting the pledge, then ask him/her not to participate -- no one is holding a gun to your head.

Freedom of speech.

 

[hamstershaver]

its called the pussification of america get used to it

 

[juiceddreadlocks]

its called the pussification of america get used to it

read the karamamma that i sent you

 

[hamstershaver]

read the karamamma that i sent you

kitty licking is for the devil

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

this guy spent $1,000,000 so far on his campaign against the Pledge too, damn he's loaded.

 

[atlantabiolab]

this guy spent $1,000,000 so far on his campaign against the Pledge too, damn he's loaded.

This guy is a fucknut. He also advocated the removal of the use of gender specific language such as "he/she" and use in place "re".

 

[casualbb]

His ideas about removing God from the pledge and "In God We Trust" from the coins are right on the money, no pun intended.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

His ideas about removing God from the pledge and "In God We Trust" from the coins are right on the money, no pun intended.

So you agree with Newdow? Reasoning?

 

[juiceddreadlocks]

His ideas about removing God from the pledge and "In God We Trust" from the coins are right on the money, no pun intended.

explain?

 

[casualbb]

Separation of church and state biatch. The state is officially endorsing monotheism when it puts "in god we trust" on the money and makes us pledge allegiace to God during public school meetings and government functions.

As an atheist I feel discriminated against. I don't say "god" when I do the pledge, and I have gotten weird looks from people around me. Take the word out.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

I think "In God we trust" is perfect on money. After all, money IS God to so very many. How apropos

 

[jh1]

The 'God' part of the pledge wasn't added until the 50's. If it can be added for reasons of religion, then why can't it be removed for reasons of religion if one beleives in seperation of church and state.

I think his arguement is sound. I am not passionate about it like this guy, but it holds water.

 

[Y_lifter]

He can't ask his kid anything because he is in a custody battle and his
ex has sole.. She has no problems with the pledge..

I say throw it out on this alone as the case is invalid ..

 

[atlantabiolab]

Separation of church and state biatch. The state is officially endorsing monotheism when it puts "in god we trust" on the money and makes us pledge allegiace to God during public school meetings and government functions.

Only if you believe that reference to something is somehow "forcing" you to accept the concept, which is of course ridiculous. Article 1 has nothing to do with removing all mentioning of a religion, merely the creation of laws endorsing or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. This is a non-issue, made into one by numbnuts.

As an atheist I feel discriminated against. I don't say "god" when I do the pledge, and I have gotten weird looks from people around me. Take the word out.

Life sucks. The government is not here to make you feel better, it is to protect your rights, and none have been violated. There will always be minorities of thought, confined within a nation of majority opinion; you have to get over it that others will not accept your ideas. If you were a vocal Communist, what would you demand government do to make people not give you "weird looks"?

 

[casualbb]

Only if you believe that reference to something is somehow "forcing" you to accept the concept, which is of course ridiculous. Article 1 has nothing to do with removing all mentioning of a religion, merely the creation of laws endorsing or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. This is a non-issue, made into one by numbnuts.

Life sucks. The government is not here to make you feel better, it is to protect your rights, and none have been violated. There will always be minorities of thought, confined within a nation of majority opinion; you have to get over it that others will not accept your ideas. If you were a vocal Communist, what would you demand government do to make people not give you "weird looks"?

Now you're just wrong. Of course the government is allowed to mention God. It's not like I'm gonna shit myself if Bush says "hey, guess what, GOD!" on national TV.

"I pledge allegiance to... one nation under god."

If all elected individuals are saying this and it's being said in schools with government approval, that goes far beyond just mentioning god. Sure nobody's making anyone say it, but leaving it in is tacit approval. That's equivalent to state endorsement of monotheism. "Sure, freedom of religion and all, but we'd prefer if you were Christian, Jewish, or Muslim."

And your communist analogy doesn't fly. All I'm demanding is that the government live up to the constitution it outlined in the first place. There's nothing in the constitution saying the state has to recognize minority opinions. But there is something in the constitution about separation of church and state.

 

[Y_lifter]

How many Wicca are registered voters ?

 

[atlantabiolab]

If all elected individuals are saying this and it's being said in schools with government approval, that goes far beyond just mentioning god. Sure nobody's making anyone say it, but leaving it in is tacit approval. That's equivalent to state endorsement of monotheism. "Sure, freedom of religion and all, but we'd prefer if you were Christian, Jewish, or Muslim."

LOL. Wouldn't the whole "Pledge of Allegience", the idea of pledging oneself to a national ideal, be just as "coercive" in your opinion?? Sure no one is making you say or believe it, but if all elected officials and its being said in school, this goes beyond just mentioning this "obligation", right?

But there is something in the constitution about separation of church and state.

Where?

 

[juiceddreadlocks]

id appreciate seeing someone put a textbook definition to everything else in the constitution and get all ancy when someone tries to make them pledge that.

 

[casualbb]

LOL. Wouldn't the whole "Pledge of Allegience", the idea of pledging oneself to a national ideal, be just as "coercive" in your opinion?? Sure no one is making you say or believe it, but if all elected officials and its being said in school, this goes beyond just mentioning this "obligation", right?



Where?

That analogy is also bad. This is about the government delivering on its promises, not the nature of pledging and coercion. It's about failing to deliver on a promise not to recognize any religion.

You're right on the constitution. It's actually in the Bill of Rights. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That still counts, though, right?

Let me ask you something, why do you think the god-stuff SHOULD be on our money and in our pledge? It was only put in the pledge to distinguish the US from the "godless communists." Not exactly the most noble of purposes, eh?

 

[atlantabiolab]

That analogy is also bad. This is about the government delivering on its promises, not the nature of pledging and coercion. It's about failing to deliver on a promise not to recognize any religion.

I fail to see how the analogies are not consistent, since what is being debated is not against the construction of the Constitution nor the ideas of the Founders. You do realize that there have been numerous recognitions of "God" or "Christianity" by those who founded our country and assisted in the writing of our Constitution? Are they not cognizant of their own intent?

You're right on the constitution. It's actually in the Bill of Rights. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That still counts, though, right?

It counts and is the reason why your argument does not hold true: "Congress shall make no law...". There is no legislation that has occured that violates the Constitution, this is merely an act by those who do not wish to be bothered by any reference to religion.

Let me ask you something, why do you think the god-stuff SHOULD be on our money and in our pledge? It was only put in the pledge to distinguish the US from the "godless communists." Not exactly the most noble of purposes, eh?

I understand the reasoning behind the references, but it still has nothing to do with violating Constitutional law, for it "makes NO LAW".

Why are you so demanding that our government hold to the letter of the law in this issue (although it is not in the construction), yet support loose interpretation of the "general welfare" clause?