Newdow wants all references to religion ripped out of public life.

While this may be completely true, he is, in fact, trying to keep the use of "under God" out of the school houses during the pledge. Those are two completely different thing. One is impossible, ridiculous and would be illegal, the other is a change he thinks can and should be made.

Let me ask this - If Congress released a new, official version of the pledge that left out the "under God", would you change how you say it? Would you teach your children differently? Would you have your children add it in at school? I'd still say it with the "under God" and I'd have my kids (if I had any) do it, too.

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.

It's always easy to say that and feel that way as a member of the vaaaaaaaast majority.

Moderateman

I agree 100%. To take GOD out of America is WRONG.

So much of our angst toward liberals comes from the fact that they want to define us as Americans against our will. The next time one of these "tolerance" discussions comes up around here, I'm going to remember that definitions only matter if you are somehow harmed by them.

Sometime in the next decade or two, we'll have a Democrat president and congress. When that time comes and we start being redefined as being accepting of homosexuality, etc., I'll see how you guys feel about it. Hillary's definition of what an American should be doesn't hurt you, does it?

"I agree 100%. To take GOD out of America is WRONG."

Speaks volumes.

Let me ask this - If Congress released a new, official version of the pledge that left out the "under God", would you change how you say it? Would you teach your children differently? Would you have your children add it in at school? I'd still say it with the "under God" and I'd have my kids (if I had any) do it, too.

hi chiprj been a while I was alive when the pledge had "no under God" in it I learned to change how I said the plege I guess the children here will learn too, because sure as I am alive the california schools will have someone listening to hear if any children say the offending Under god while reciting the NEW PLEDGE.

29 by BakerStreet Thursday, September 15, 2005

So much of our angst toward liberals comes from the fact that they want to define us as Americans against our will. The next time one of these "tolerance" discussions comes up around here, I'm going to remember that definitions only matter if you are somehow harmed by them.

no MY angst as you call it from liberals wanting to REDefine ME.

#28 by COL Gene Thursday, September 15, 2005

Moderateman I agree 100%. To take GOD out of America is WRONG.

we it seems we do have some common ground gene, I appreciate your support.

not considering the fact that they aren't always going to be the majority.

You don't think believers will always outnumber atheists?

Why act in ways that your opponents may someday use to abuse you?

Then why should we take the time or chance to champion anything?

You can't define the US religiously without being innacurate.

I disagree....we ARE a religious nation, no matter what the Left says or tries; among the first settlers to come here from Europe were those who came to escape religious persecution and ultimately established this nation as a haven for any and all faiths. That would include atheism, of course.
I'd just like to know how "under God" is 'hurting' Michael Newdow or anyone, for that matter? He doesn't believe...okay, so? Don't say it. Don't listen to it. Hum something while those two words are being said. But don't force me NOT to say it. That infringes on MY rights.

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

No, it represents the nation as a whole. A nation made up of many faiths and belief systems.
Does a one dollar bill amount to anything less than a hundred cents just because God is mentioned on it? No, and I'm sure Michael Newdow, as offended as he may be, tries as hard as he can to rack up as many of them as possible. Which is what he's doing now.

"no MY angst as you call it from liberals wanting to REDefine ME."

So you don't think people trying to create a national identity don't seek to define Americans? Atheists aren't Americans? When the coin says "In God WE Trust", "We" shouldn't apply to all of us? If in 2008 a Democratic congress and President pass legislation stateing that America grants

I don't think you can recast this to suit your argument. This was enacted to define what Americans are to spite what Soviets were. They had no right to define America religiously. Let the polls do that, or our collective expression.

This is a hypocritical bunch of garbage. You guys believe it now while you are on top, and hope no one remembers when you are trying to combat the exact same thing when a new definition of "American" is imposed that you don't want to be associated with.

this is in response to rightwingers latest post:

the last poll or survey taken shows over 76% of americans have a belief in GOD.

"the last poll or survey taken shows over 76% of americans have a belief in GOD."

There's 300 million Americans. So 24% of Americans, roughly 72 MILLION people don't fit the definition of American set forth by the McCarthyist pledge.

I wonder how many of Americans believe in God and disagree with the pledge, like me. If it is anywhere clost to the number of Atheists, your majority is looking pretty thin.

The point is, Federal Judges shouldn't have crap to say about how schools are run. Public schools are local government entities. NOT FEDERAL

9th Kangaroo Court of Shlameals, go back to smoking your dope and SHUT YOUR FACE!!!

(((my apologies to pot smokers for the association with those rapists of justice))))

" The point is, Federal Judges shouldn't have crap to say about how schools are run. Public schools are local government entities. NOT FEDERAL 9th Kangaroo Court of Shlameals, go back to smoking your dope and SHUT YOUR FACE!!!"

Nope, that is ignorant of the fact that this pledge was enacted by the FEDERAL Congress in 1954, at the behest of the President of the United States, after being lobbied by the Knights of Columbus and various other religious leaders and organizations of the time.

We'll see how the outraged here feel when the ACLU lobbies the next Democratic Congress to have kids reciting tolerance pledges of homosexuality or any number of other perspectives you differ with.

because sure as I am alive the california schools will have someone listening to hear if any children say the offending Under god while reciting the NEW PLEDGE.

Now, see, I disagree there. They can not keep you from expressing your worship just as they can't sponsor it. As has been posted elsewhere, public schools do allow prayer groups, moments of silence, that sort of thing.

Someone slips in an "under God" in their version - that's religious expression.

Someone say, "just omit those two little words" - that's setting someone up as different.

Nope, that is ignorant of the fact that this pledge was enacted by the FEDERAL Congress in 1954, at the behest of the President of the United States, after being lobbied by the Knights of Columbus and various other religious leaders and organizations of the time.

True, so the logical (and legal) action would be to repeal that law, putting it back in the hands of the local school board.... but no, these rapists of justice aren't happy doing that, they have to go even further with their crackwhore ideas and call the whole thing unconstitutional.

Spit in their "blame America First" hatemongering, pathetic faces!

What "whole thing"? They want two words taken out that shouldn't have been put in in the first place.

I remember a few people here had opinions about the "We are family" cartoon in schools, and the "tolerance" pledge that they were going to take. If it doesn't hurt an Atheist to deal with state-sponsered "Under God" pledges, I wonder why we care if our kids are pressed to pledge tolerance of homosexuality... they can opt not to, right?

"Spit in their "blame America First" hatemongering, pathetic faces!'

So I assume that goes for me, too. How divisive you folks get. It's truly all or nothing in your little fascist world, isn't it? Me, I call your statement a lot more hatemongering. I dread the day you meet that attitude in reverse from those who outnumber you, because I will suffer too.

Now, see, I disagree there. They can not keep you from expressing your worship just as they can't sponsor it. As has been posted elsewhere, public schools do allow prayer groups, moments of silence, that sort of thing.

But apparently to the wastes of human flesh infesting the 9th Kangaroo Court of Shlameals, it is ok to offer Muslim kids a room for them to do the prayers required by their religion.

Teaching Paganism is fine

Anything that isn't Judeo/Christian is okey dokey.

Well, they show their prejudice little peabrains. Crackwhores shouldn't be judges!!

No Bakerstreet, I don't say spit in your face. You are merely an American making a point. That is your right and even if I disagree, I respect that. What I don't respect is a bunch of pinheads who get paid to smoke dope and inflict their diseased minds on the rest of us.

Your opinions are not legally binding. The vomit of these terrorist loving pinworms is. They don't care what the Constitution or the law says, they only care to see their hallucinations enacted.

No, para, I think you just want to oppose anything they do, regardless with how it could later be used against you.

Almost 1/4th of the nation, 70+ million people don't believe in God according to the poll cited above. Yet the Pledge doesn't represent them. They aren't represented by "In God We Trust". Add to that those who do believe in God and differ with you on these national definitions. Think of the how close the last elections have been. You don't see how you could easily end up in the minority on some very important issues?

I don't think this is nearly as cut-and-dried as you think. Like I say, wait until the next cartoon that calls for your kid to pledge acceptance to homosexuality comes down the pike. We'll see if you think your kids are harmed by opting out in a class full of kids who don't and then look down their nose at your kids for it.

I already said, if they had have merely struck down the 1954 Federal Law concerning the Pledge of Allegience in schools, I would be all for that, I would congratulate them for finally pulling their blockheads out of their butts and making a sound decision.

My kids have already been put in the postion to opt out of things in class we disagree with. In one case it was because of an R rated version of "Romeo & Julliette". I called the teacher to complain about both the inappropriateness of that film and the waste of education time watching a film is (in lieu of reading the book). I was told that the kids were told that if they objected to this film they could be given a hall pass to go to the library.

In other words, we have been faced with that question. We weren't told that the whole school district should be changed for our standards. In fact the teacher asked if I wouldn't be happier with my kids in private school.

So don't lecture me on what I would or wouldn't do in specific situations. I understand that the entire church and state thing isn't that cut and dry. I'm merely pointing out that the monkeys in the 9th Circuit could have merely struck down a federal law, which would leave the question where it belongs (at the local level). However, the power hungy apes couldn't do that, that wouldn't feed their egos. The little dictators aren't happy if they aren't running the country. Piss On 'em!

Courts rule on cases they are given, Para. Do you think they have the right to crawl over US law like some search engine and arbitrarily pick federal legislation to overturn?. You can bet you'd not like it if they did.

They can't rule on laws that they aren't tasked to judge. The judge was asked here whether to dismiss Newdow's case, and the judge said no. Where it goes from there isn't decided yet.

It might just have the effect you say you'd be happy with. What is there to be outraged at? If you have no problem with 'under God' being taken out, then why are you outraged? Maybe you should look at what was decided. If you have no problem with them ruling what legislators did in 1954 was wrong, maybe you aren't really in opposition to this ruling.

36 by BakerStreet Thursday, September 15, 2005

There's 300 million Americans. So 24% of Americans, roughly 72 MILLION people don't fit the definition of American set forth by the McCarthyist pledge.

and that's fine I do not make anyone recite the pledge neither does anyone else, but they are making me not recite what I want to>!@!

37 by ParaTed2k Thursday, September 15, 2005

The point is, Federal Judges shouldn't have crap to say about how schools are run. Public schools are local government entities. NOT FEDERAL

BINGO! exactly.

I already said, if they had have merely struck down the 1954 Federal Law concerning the Pledge of Allegience in schools

The courts are not allowed to direct Congress to pass laws--what they can do is rule whether or not something is unconstitutional.

#39 by chiprj Thursday, September 15, 2005

Now, see, I disagree there.

disagreement is good, but you can believe it or not the godless nazis will be listening for any infractions of the ruling.

The point is, Federal Judges shouldn't have crap to say about how schools are run. Public schools are local government entities. NOT FEDERAL

Fine--as long as you want your schools to run without federal money (and I mean all federal money, including all education grants).