This is Exactly What's Wrong With America!!

Activist Judges!! California's Shame!!

from JoeUser Forums
.. District Judge Lawrence Karlton rules in favor of atheist Michael Newdow.

This is a perfect example of what Plagues the United States, One man on a personal mission to destroy God and one Judge with no sense ruling in favor of this complete waste of human flesh.

There is something inherently wrong when a small percentage of people What I like to label the Godless ones can ram there views down the throat of the vast majority of Americans that DO believe in GOD>!!!

Just another reason to hate living in such a LIBERAL state filled with liberal activist judges legislating law from the bench!!!

How can ONE judge assume that the MAJORITY of people would even begin to agree with this heinous decision is beyond me.

The courts have grown much to powerful and are not shy about exercising that power either.

This is a prime example of Democracy gone wrong and something that needs to be addressed and corrected, we need to take back the power of LAWMAKING from the courts and put it where it belongs in the hands and votes of the PEOPLE!!!
30,704 views 119 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Another great contribution from the liberal community.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Island DogPosted: Thursday, September 15, 2005Another great contribution from the liberal community


this particular decision makes me want to "hunt" liberal judges down" and do away with them.
They are destroying the fabric of america.
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
With "judges" like this, who needs a school board?
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
#3 by ParaTed2k
Thursday, September 15, 2005


With "judges" like this, who needs a school board?


I believe this is another reason to get as many conservative judges on the supreme court, to stop this madness.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
"complete waste of human flesh"?

Because he managed to get a judge to agree with him on a subject you happen to feeel strongly about?

Are you out on a crusade to convince people that the atheist is right in pointing to Christianity as a bad influence?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have to disagree. If you go back and look at why "Under God" was added, and when it was added, I don't think you can dispute the fact that this it was to establish a national religious identity. No, granted, it wasn't to promote one particular religion, but it most certainly was to establish the US as something apart from "godless" communism.

I think we have to be honest and see this for what it is. If Pat Robertson tomorrow decided that we needed to say 'under God', it would be rejected outright. Most people just don't understand that this was a creation of anti-communist politics, not the founding fathers.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I believe this is another reason to get as many conservative judges on the supreme court, to stop this madness.
---Modman



Because he managed to get a judge to agree with him on a subject you happen to feeel strongly about?
--Leauki

Well, see....the liberal judges do often seem to rule more from personal opinion rather than constitutional law, which is what they're supposed to do.

Michael Newdow is a headline-grabber and scumbag trying to push his (non)beliefs on the rest of us. He needs to get a life.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
have to disagree. If you go back and look at why "Under God" was added, and when it was added, I don't think you can dispute the fact that this it was to establish a national religious identity. No, granted, it wasn't to promote one particular religion, but it most certainly was to establish the US as something apart from "godless" communism.
I think we have to be honest and see this for what it is. If Pat Robertson tomorrow decided that we needed to say 'under God', it would be rejected outright. Most people just don't understand that this was a creation of anti-communist politics, not the founding fathers.


True, but what if they had said "Under ~~a~~ God", instead. Do you think that would have precluded this problem? I doubt it. Newdow wants all references to religion ripped out of public life.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top


#5 by Leauki
Thursday, September 15, 2005


Because he managed to get a judge to agree with him on a subject you happen to feeel strongly about?

Are you out on a crusade to convince people that the atheist is right in pointing to Christianity as a bad influence?


first not a christian me that is, second he has been on this crusade along with the liberals left since 1963 {the liberals not neudow}
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
#6 by BakerStreet
Thursday, September 15, 2005


I have to disagree. If you go back and look at why "Under God" was added, and when it was added, I don't think you can dispute the fact that this it was to establish a national religious identity. No, granted, it wasn't to promote one particular religion, but it most certainly was to establish the US as something apart from "godless" communism.


I remember when it happened baker I was alive and already in school, was in IKES admin.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
#7 by Rightwinger
Thursday, September 15, 2005


Well, see....the liberal judges do often seem to rule more from personal opinion rather than constitutional law, which is what they're supposed to do.


exactly... they do not follow LAW, the follow feelings.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
#8 by Rightwinger
Thursday, September 15, 2005


but what if they had said "Under ~~a~~ God", instead. Do you think that would have precluded this problem? I doubt it. Newdow wants all references to religion ripped out of public life.


there is no way having Under God inserted today could pass.

the left would see to that.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
It doesn't matter if it was the God, or if it was any god. What matters is that it was an state-sanctioned statement against Atheism. To me, that's no different than a state-sanctioned attack on Hinduism or any belief system.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
13 by BakerStreet
Thursday, September 15, 2005


It doesn't matter if it was the God, or if it was any god. What matters is that it was an state-sanctioned statement against Atheism. To me, that's no different than a state-sanctioned attack on Hinduism or any belief system.


since for the most part we tend to AGREE on most things, we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one baker. K?
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
" we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one baker. K?"


Sure. I just think you kind of mischaracterize this. If you condemn the 'godless ones' for imposing their will, I think you should go back and look and I think you'll find this was a governmental attempt to shove God down the throats of the 'godless ones'.

Or at least say openly that the US isn't 'godless'. The government should take no stance on the existance of God at all.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
#15 by little_whip
Thursday, September 15, 2005


this particular decision makes me want to "hunt" liberal judges down" and do away with them.


Careful there, MM, threatening a federal judge is a felony. You don't want a little social visit from men in dark suits, do ya?


fuck em if a governer can threaten the president and get away with it.. fuck em.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
#16 by BakerStreet
Thursday, September 15, 2005


Or at least say openly that the US isn't 'godless'. The government should take no stance on the existance of God at all.


agreed and deal!
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
I feel that my faith in God has been insulted and my right to express my religious beliefs has been trampled on. I DEMAND that they stop stepping on me! I'm going to sue. Sure I don't live in CA but that's not the point...I should still get to sue and bitch and moan until I get my way.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Elie I hadn't seen this article before I wrote mine!

You're right though....."The courts have grown much to powerful and are not shy about exercising that power either." It is about time they stop doing that! Trying criminals is one thing and even upholding people's rights is good too but this I believe is too much!
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
"but this I believe is too much!"


How? If there were an effort to put "one nation, seeking enlightenment" in the Pledge, people would have a cow.

This is a holdover not of our noble creation, but of a sick period of our history wherein we tried to use a hypocritical image to set ourselves apart from the Soviets. It was an 'in your face' by McCarthyist thinkers towards those here and abroad who weren't "red blooded Americans".

Why should we hold on to such? To pretend that we are a nation upholding God's existance is as hypocritical as the Soviets pretending to be Atheistic when in reality many, if not most, held to their traditional religious beliefs.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
19 by lifehappens
Thursday, September 15, 2005


feel that my faith in God has been insulted and my right to express my religious beliefs has been trampled on. I DEMAND that they stop stepping on me! I'm going to sue. Sure I don't live in CA but that's not the point...I should still get to sue and bitch and moan until I get my way.


so do I and if more of us were not only vocal but tied the courts up with suits demanding we be heard we might get our way.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
20 by foreverserenity
Thursday, September 15, 2005


Elie I hadn't seen this article before I wrote mine!

You're right though....."The courts have grown much to powerful and are not shy about exercising that power either." It is about time they stop doing that! Trying criminals is one thing and even upholding people's rights is good too but this I believe is too much!


tis ok no one had "dibs" on any subject.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
#21 by BakerStreet
Thursday, September 15, 2005


How? If there were an effort to put "one nation, seeking enlightenment" in the Pledge, people would have a cow.


and that sentence is what's wrong with america baker. there is not a dman thing wrong with seeking enlightenment.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
It doesn't matter if it was the God, or if it was any god. What matters is that it was an state-sanctioned statement against Atheism. To me, that's no different than a state-sanctioned attack on Hinduism or any belief system.


See, I don't look at it that way. The number of atheists in this country is miniscule next to the number of believers in/of any faith, no matter the Deity. Not that atheists shouldn't count, but when you're in the vaaaaaaast minority, you should just shut your piehole and let sleeping dogs lie. Especially when those dogs aren't actually hurting you in any way that you don't let them.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
As always, the majority enjoys their "rights", not considering the fact that they aren't always going to be the majority. Why act in ways that your opponents may someday use to abuse you? I don't want Hillary passing legislation that defines me as an American. Why sanction it, then?

No offense, but I know for a FACT that if Hillary made some statement of national identity you guys disagreed with, you'd be up in arms whether it hurt you or not. Are you hurt when the California congress passes a law granting legitimacy to gay marriage? If next week Democrats pass legislation granting spanish "official" status alongside English, will it bother you? Any statement defining us "officially" needs to be accurate. You can't define the US religiously without being innacurate.

When you say "In God We Trust" on a coin, does that money just represent part of the nation?