[dcolton]

Bah...nothing is sacred anymore. I realize this has been tried before...but what motivates someone to sue over the PLedge of Allegiance? This guy is America's worst kind of terrorist

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/24/sc...dge/index.html

[christ]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Bah...nothing is sacred anymore.

Sacred to whom?

This guy is America's worst kind of terrorist

Either he has got a case (in which case it is the constitution that is at fault, not him), or, more likely, he hasn't got a case, and he will lose. What is the problem here?

I think that the word you were looking for is 'nuisance', not 'terrorist'.

Or are you expecting the Department of Homeland Security to imprison in Guantanamo Bay anyone that brings a frivolous lawsuit?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcolton:
This guy is America's worst kind of terrorist[/url]

That is the most incredible use of hyperbole since the creation of the universe.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That is the most incredible use of hyperbole since the creation of the universe.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That is the most incredible use of hyperbole since the creation of the universe.

Thank you...I was going to include the Gay marriage thing in that statement too...but out of respect for you, I didn't.

Nonetheless, he is trying to destroy American tradition because of his hate for God. He is trying to revise history. He is trying to FORCE his values on the American people. So yes, he is America's worst kind of terrorist - hyperbole or not.

[Developer]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Nonetheless, he is trying to destroy American tradition because of his hate for God.

God was introduced 1954 only. Does that count as tradition already for you Americans?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Developer:
God was introduced 1954 only. Does that count as tradition already for you Americans?

God was the foundation of the United States of America.

[christ]

Originally posted by dcolton:
...Nonetheless, he is trying to destroy American tradition because of his hate for God. He is trying to revise history. He is trying to FORCE his values on the American people. So yes, he is America's worst kind of terrorist - hyperbole or not.

No. He is not.

Either he has got a case (in which event it is the constitution that you should be targetting, not him), or, more likely, he hasn't got a case, and he will lose. What is the problem here?

He is not trying to 'destroy American tradition', he is trying to enforce the constitution, as he understands it. He is not trying to FORCE anything, he is trying to avoid being FORCEd to do something which he appears to find unconstitutional. He is probably wrong, but being wrong is not (yet) considered terrorism. And your description was not hyperbole, it was inaccuracy.

I still think that the word you were looking for is 'nuisance', not 'terrorist'.

As a rule atheists don't 'hate' God, because they don't believe in any gods, so what would they hate? Being an atheist is not about hate, it is about not believing.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by Developer:
God was introduced 1954 only. Does that count as tradition already for you Americans?

god is 50 already? He looks so much older in the pictures.

[christ]

Originally posted by dcolton:
God was the foundation of the United States of America.

Man, are you deluded.

God is an Englishman.

[osiris]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Bah...nothing is sacred anymore. I realize this has been tried before...but what motivates someone to sue over the PLedge of Allegiance? This guy is America's worst kind of terrorist

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/24/sc...dge/index.html

FYI, the "under God" line wasn't part of the original pledge. Also, our forefathers never included God references in governmental documents, the separation of church and state was important to them. It was amended in 1954 to include "under God".

[hyteckit]

Hehe...

I remember in Elementary School, all the students would say

"I pledge allegiance to the fag, under God, indivisible"

Here is the original pledge:

"I pledge allegiance to my flag and the nation for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by osiris:
FYI, the "under God" line wasn't part of the original pledge. Also, our forefathers never included God references in governmental documents, the separation of church and state was important to them. It was amended in 1954 to include "under God".

Actually, "under God" was added at the height of McCarthyism and the "red scare". Since communists were seen as godless (which is technically true), it was felt this was a way to prevent the youngsters from straying into communism.

[osiris]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Actually, "under God" was added at the height of McCarthyism and the "red scare". Since communists were seen as godless (which is technically true), it was felt this was a way to prevent the youngsters from straying into communism.

....in 1954, with Dwight as president. ""In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

Talk about the reassembly of church and state.

[hyteckit]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Actually, "under God" was added at the height of McCarthyism and the "red scare". Since communists were seen as godless (which is technically true), it was felt this was a way to prevent the youngsters from straying into communism.

Ah, makes sense.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by osiris:
....in 1954, with Dwight as president. ""In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

Talk about the reassembly of church and state.

well it is the opiate of the masses, ect

[christ]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
...communists were seen as godless (which is technically true)...

Is it?

Are communists godless, or is it only the variants of non-communist Communism that we have seen that are godless? What we (and McCarthy) refer to as communism is much nearer fascism than communism, with order imposed by diktat rather than the communist ideal of universal egalitarianism. I would have thought that there could, technically, be a communist society with a place for God.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by christ:
No. He is not.

Either he has got a case (in which event it is the constitution that you should be targetting, not him), or, more likely, he hasn't got a case, and he will lose. What is the problem here?

Our nation is based on the foundation of Christianity. Some will argue against that statement, but it is true. These left wing terrorists are trying to pick away at the very moral foundation which this country was built. And it is appalling that he is using his CHRISTIAN daughter to further his mission to create a godless society.

He is not trying to 'destroy American tradition', he is trying to enforce the constitution, as he understands it. He is not trying to FORCE anything, he is trying to avoid being FORCEd to do something which he appears to find unconstitutional. He is probably wrong, but being wrong is not (yet) considered terrorism. And your description was not hyperbole, it was inaccuracy.

No, it is terrorism because it is a deliberate effort by him and probably the ACLU to forceably remove God from America by abusing the constitution and forcing his interpertation of it on this entire nation.

I still think that the word you were looking for is 'nuisance', not 'terrorist'.

No, terrorist is the word I am looking for.

As a rule atheists don't 'hate' God, because they don't believe in any gods, so what would they hate? Being an atheist is not about hate, it is about not believing.

When you attack another persons god simply because you don't believe in god...it is hate. He is trying to take away freedom of religion...not enforce it. He hates god and every notion of a supreme being...otherwise, he would not be attacking "One nation, Under God".

[hyteckit]

Here is the liberal version:

'I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'

[dcolton]

Originally posted by osiris:
FYI, the "under God" line wasn't part of the original pledge. Also, our forefathers never included God references in governmental documents, the separation of church and state was important to them. It was amended in 1954 to include "under God".

You know, I realize this. But what is next? Removing GOD from our currency? Removing GOD from historical documents? A line must be drawn.

[Lerkfish]

If you define everyone as a "terrorist" who disagrees with you, that's going to water down the impact of the word.

[Spliffdaddy]

heh.

Liberals will never be my equal.

so much for equality.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
If you define everyone as a "terrorist" who disagrees with you, that's going to water down the impact of the word.

Perhaps.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
heh.

Liberals will never be my equal.

so much for equality.

I know. They would never get down to your level

[hyteckit]

Here is the conservative version:

'I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, justice, and equality for all, except for homosexuals.'

[dcolton]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
Here is the liberal version:

'I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'

'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, and to the United Nations, many nations, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all

[hyteckit]

Here is the conservative version:

'I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, justice, and equality for all, except for homosexuals and liberals.'

[hyteckit]

Here is the conservative version:

'I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, justice, and equality for all, except for homosexuals, liberals, and atheist.'

[christ]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Some will argue against that statement, but it is true.

Your arrogance is only exceeded by your irrectitude, dude.

You have an opinion, that does not make it truth.

An unwillingness to converse, eg by calling people that disagree with you 'terrorists' is laughable.

And you are factually incorrect. He is not trying to create a godless society - he is trying to ensure that Church and State are kept separate. What would have been your stance, if you were asked to vote on the addition when 'under God' was added to the pledge? For the amendment (thereby forcing God down the throats of unbelievers, and being unfair to people that disagree with you) or against it? If you were for it then you are no better than he is now, and if you were against it, then you have (eventually 50 years late) got your way.

Stop complaining and let the law take its course. He will, like the frivolous litigant that he is, probably fail, and your way of life will once again have withstood a mighty threat, and you will be able to sleep easy in your bed.

You do no-one any favours by deliberate misuse of the word terrorist.

[hyteckit]

Terrorist - Everyone who disagrees with dcolton opinions.

[christ]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
... for homosexuals, liberals, and atheist.'

aren't they by definition the same thing, that is "godless pinko commie n****r-loving fags"? (translation "non-conservatives")

[hyteckit]

Isn't the pledge basically ban from California's schools already? I thought it was 10 years ago.

[hyteckit]

Originally posted by christ:
aren't they by definition the same thing, that is "godless pinko commie n****r-loving fags"? (translation "non-conservatives")

Nope, there are thousands of gay pastors and priest.

[Logic]

I read somewhere that this is recited every morning in US schools. Is that correct?

Sounds a bit old fashioned to me......

[dcolton]

Originally posted by christ:
Your arrogance is only exceeded by your irrectitude, dude.

You have an opinion, that does not make it truth.

An unwillingness to converse, eg by calling people that disagree with you 'terrorists' is laughable.

And you are factually incorrect. He is not trying to create a godless society - he is trying to ensure that Church and State are kept separate. What would have been your stance, if you were asked to vote on the addition when 'under God' was added to the pledge? For the amendment (thereby forcing God down the throats of unbelievers, and being unfair to people that disagree with you) or against it? If you were for it then you are no better than he is now, and if you were against it, then you have (eventually 50 years late) got your way.

Stop complaining and let the law take its course. He will, like the frivolous litigant that he is, probably fail, and your way of life will once again have withstood a mighty threat, and you will be able to sleep easy in your bed.

You do no-one any favours by deliberate misuse of the word terrorist.

Well, look at it like this. these people are making a concerted effort to remove all notions of God from American society - nothing more, nothing less. There is much more to this than the Pledge of Allegiance. It is the beginning of a trend to attack God and christianity in the United States. You guys are all in an uproar because I refer to these people as terrorists...and perhaps I shouldn't...but considering the sources of the criticism (people who don't think Palestinians and Hamas are terrorists), I could care less what you think.

There is a bigger picture...and it is shameful that many Americans can't keep their eyes open long enough to see it.

And what is with the personal insults? I am not allowed to have an opinion contrary to yours, so you attack me? Isn't that the same thing you criticised me for. I could understand if it were Lerk, who lives by the creed of personal attacks, but I am dissapointed that you would employ his same tactics.

[zigzag]

Wow, I thought I'd seen everything but dcolton has set some sort of record for ignorant hyperbole here.

I think Scalia's recusal is pretty amusing. Very bright guy, but of dubious temperament - he goes and says in front of God and everybody what he thinks about the case before it's in front of him. This is the sort of thing they teach you not to do in Judging 101. So he has to recuse himself, which means one less vote for the God Squad. If the vote is split, the lower court's decision will stand. I love it.

At least he had the decency to recuse himself in the Pledge case. Not so in the Cheney case - the other thing they teach you in Judging 101 is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, like flying in the VP's private jet. You're not exactly instilling confidence in the judicial system, Tony.

[hyteckit]

We, the whole school, had to recite it every morning in elementary school back in the 80's.

Then one day, our teacher basically told us when can no longer recite the pledge of allegiance every morning without telling us why. The whole school just stopped doing it. We were happy and sad at the same time. Happy we didn't have to recite the stupid pledge and sad because we missed making fun of the pledge during the recital. Ah, the fond memories of the 80's.

I don't mind reciting the pledge once in a while like during ceremonies and special events, but everyday? Oh come on! That's brain washing.

[Logic]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
I don't mind reciting the pledge once in a while like during ceremonies and special events, but everyday? Oh come on! That's brain washing.

Thanks for the info

And I agree with the quote above. Nothing wrong with reciting something like that at ceremonies and special occasions but every day sounds a bit too much for me.

[hyteckit]

I agree with getting rid of the "under God" from the pledge of allegiance. You can keep the "God" word on money. I really don't care. You can keep the bible in the courts, I don't really care.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Wow, I thought I'd seen everything but dcolton has set some sort of record for ignorant hyperbole here.

...which means one less vote for the God Squad. If the vote is split, the lower court's decision will stand. I love it.

My point exactly...attack anything God...no matter how benign it is.

[cpt kangarooski]

I read somewhere that this is recited every morning in US schools. Is that correct?

Yes, it is. It's rather scary in fact. AFAIK we're one of the only countries that has a habit of doing this; most places seem content to not have constant loyalty oaths of a sort. By children. Me, I don't like the pledge at all, with or without the under God.

At any rate, Newdow has a good case, and I believe he's in the right.

And it's certainly no threat to religion whatsoever, as this case deals solely with whether teachers can be required to lead their classes in the pledge (it's been unconstitutional to require children to say it since 1942 IIRC -- even without the presence of 'under God' in the pledge, the Court recognized that the government has no right telling people what to believe), given that their classes are composed of young children who will be naturally pressured into following along.

It doesn't stop other people from saying whatever they like in their non-governmental capacities, it doesn't stop religious worship, etc. It just stops the government with all its might from imposing religious values on people who may disagree with it. That's a large part of the point of the First Amendment.

So I wonder why it is that dcolton seems to hate the First Amendment and religious freedom so much? Is his religion so perverse that it demands people be forced to give it lip service even though that would never result in true belief? Or what? I just don't get it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Wow, I thought I'd seen everything but dcolton has set some sort of record for ignorant hyperbole here.

I think Scalia's recusal is pretty amusing. Very bright guy, but of dubious temperament - he goes and says in front of God and everybody what he thinks about the case before it's in front of him. This is the sort of thing they teach you not to do in Judging 101. So he has to recuse himself, which means one less vote for the God Squad. If the vote is split, the lower court's decision will stand. I love it.

At least he had the decency to recuse himself in the Pledge case. Not so in the Cheney case - the other thing they teach you in Judging 101 is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, like flying in the VP's private jet. You're not exactly instilling confidence in the judicial system, Tony.

I'm curious (although this goes down a tangent), if Scalia should recuse himself because of his opinions and contacts with litigants, what about Ginsberg and her ties to NOW? Shouldn't she recuse herself from any case that they touch as well? What about cases (like this one) where the ACLU is a party? Didn't she used to be their counsel? Shouldn't she recuse herself as well?

Personally, I think this is silly. Supreme Court justices aren't like trial judges. They make explicitly political decisions. That's how they are chosen. They are supposed to have views on the hot-button issues presented. If they didn't, we wouldn't have all these confirmation fights. If they have a personal financial stake in a case, fine, they should recuse themselves. But not just because they have a political opinion on the subject. It's an absurd fiction to think that Supreme Court justices are tabula rasa. Next we'll be saying that Justice Marshall should have recused himself from any case involving issues important to African Americans or involving the NAACP. Of course he had an opinion. That's the whole point.

If the Court deadlocks without Scalia, the 9th Circuit decision will stand, but it will only be effective in the 9th Circuit. That's hardly an issue to get upset about.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by dcolton:
My point exactly...attack anything God...no matter how benign it is.

It's what us terrorists do.

edit: Just to be clear, I wasn't attacking God - I was poking fun at religious fanatics. And I'll do it again if I'm feeling cranky.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by christ:
Are communists godless, or is it only the variants of non-communist Communism that we have seen that are godless?

If you go by Marx -the founder of communism- then the philosophy of communism is by definition atheist. So technically, actual communists are godless, and proud to say it.

Whether or not this is a Good Thing is left as an exercise for the reader.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Logic:
I read somewhere that this is recited every morning in US schools. Is that correct?

It was back during the 1980s, and probably well before then, but it seems to have fallen out of fashion over the last decade and a half.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Yes, it is. It's rather scary in fact. AFAIK we're one of the only countries that has a habit of doing this; most places seem content to not have constant loyalty oaths of a sort. By children. Me, I don't like the pledge at all, with or without the under God.

At any rate, Newdow has a good case, and I believe he's in the right.

And it's certainly no threat to religion whatsoever, as this case deals solely with whether teachers can be required to lead their classes in the pledge (it's been unconstitutional to require children to say it since 1942 IIRC -- even without the presence of 'under God' in the pledge, the Court recognized that the government has no right telling people what to believe), given that their classes are composed of young children who will be naturally pressured into following along.

It doesn't stop other people from saying whatever they like in their non-governmental capacities, it doesn't stop religious worship, etc. It just stops the government with all its might from imposing religious values on people who may disagree with it. That's a large part of the point of the First Amendment.

So I wonder why it is that dcolton seems to hate the First Amendment and religious freedom so much? Is his religion so perverse that it demands people be forced to give it lip service even though that would never result in true belief? Or what? I just don't get it.

"One nation, under God..." is not a religious value. It is a sentence that reaffirms that our nation has freedom of religion and was founded on the basis of christianity. You can skew the original intent of our forefathers and the 1st amendment to meet your needs - it is shameful that you would use the 1st amendment to remove god from America.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm curious (although this goes down a tangent), if Scalia should recuse himself because of his opinions and contacts with litigants, what about Ginsberg and her ties to NOW? Shouldn't she recuse herself from any case that they touch as well? What about cases (like this one) where the ACLU is a party? Didn't she used to be their counsel? Shouldn't she recuse herself as well?

Personally, I think this is silly. Supreme Court justices aren't like trial judges. They make explicitly political decisions. That's how they are chosen. They are supposed to have views on the hot-button issues presented. If they didn't, we wouldn't have all these confirmation fights. If they have a personal financial stake in a case, fine, they should recuse themselves. But not just because they have a political opinion on the subject. It's an absurd fiction to think that Supreme Court justices are tabula rasa. Next we'll be saying that Justice Marshall should have recused himself from any case involving issues important to African Americans or involving the NAACP. Of course he had an opinion. That's the whole point.

If the Court deadlocks without Scalia, the 9th Circuit decision will stand, but it will only be effective in the 9th Circuit. That's hardly an issue to get upset about.

I recognize that the justices don't operate in a vacuum. They're strongly opinionated political animals and have probably already made up their minds half the time. But would you not agree that one has to draw lines somewhere, even if it's for appearance's sake? Scalia himself appears to agree that he crossed one, and I think he was pretty close to crossing the other.

I'm not that concerned about the Cheney incident itself, I'm just sort of amused by the whole picture.

[Montezuma58]

Originally posted by Millennium:
It was back during the 1980s, and probably well before then, but it seems to have fallen out of fashion over the last decade and a half.

Even further back than that. It has not been a ubiquitous practice for a long time. The only time I ever recited the pledge at school was a couple of times during the late 80's at high school assemblies and once in the fourth grade when a substitute teacher started the day with the pledge and a prayer.

That's not to say there aren't schools that do it on a daily basis though. What's amazing to me is that some people beleive that repition of a trite ritual will help develop patriotic citizens.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Montezuma58:
Even further back than that. It has not been a ubiquitous practice for a long time. The only time I ever recited the pledge at school was a couple of times during the late 80's at high school assemblies and once in the fourth grade when a substitute teacher started the day with the pledge and a prayer.

That's not to say there aren't schools that do it on a daily basis though. What's amazing to me is that some people beleive that repition of a trite ritual will help develop patriotic citizens.

Perhaps it is a ritual not to develop a patriotic citizen but to reinforce the values of our nation. Perhaps it is enforcing the ideal of "liberty and justice for all."

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by zigzag:
It's what us terrorists do.

I knew it all along!!

Your posts are way too reasonable to be on this board. It must be one of those spy techniques to fly under the radar. Well, the jig is up now buddy.