Why don't we let the people decide? Oh shiat, sorry i thought we lived in a democracy. Only when it serves the minority.

Cyberluddite,

Thanks for the bio. Sounds like someone pissed off God.

/I keed

Thinking about it some more, yeah the timing of this is regrettable :). Next thing you know the liberals will put gay marriage up for a vote in several Presidential swing states.

Andric: Have you fools ever heard of the Declaration of Independence?

No but apparently some fools think the document is binding law, which it ain't.

It's no Constitution, sir.

I hate it when other Christians insist on shoving Chrisianity down other's throats, screaming damnation if they don't repent and convert.

Isnt that what the Bible says to do? (short of the "screaming damnation" part?)

The pledge is stupid...how many kids actually think about what they are saying let alone believe in it. Not many, if any.

From my earliest memory of the pledge, I always mouthed the words because I thought it was dumb. If kids want to say a silly pledge in the morning, give the option of reporing to the cafeteria between 7:25-7:30.

These fundies seriously need to get a grip already.

Back in the good ol' days when I was in high school (the sweet 80s), my home room teacher said, "If you're a godless commie, you can just leave out the `under god` bit while the rest of us say it". That was good enough for me and a couple other godless commies. One kid wouldn't even stand up for the pledge.

btc9183

I firmly believe that if we had a little more God in our lives, things would be much better.

Perhaps you are right, but that is not the role of government. It has to happen on its own. When government gets involved with religion it corrupts both of them.

"Render unto Caesar..."

less yellin' and more boobie goodness of melissa theuriau.....

/on your mark, get set, post!

markie_farkie: "What's funny is that you NEVER see the anti-God, anti-religion people renouncing US CURRENCY and refusing to accept it since it contains "In God We Trust" printed or minted on it!"

I just cross it out with a Sharpie. It still spends, plus maybe I can piss off some religious nutbag when they get the money, and they can waste their time and my tax dollars getting the bill replaced. Easy. As a matter of fact I'm going through my wallet and doing it now.

V for Vendetta: serious question: If the Supremem Court has already ruled on something why is a lower court reversing there decision?


The SC didn't "rule". RTFT.

evilmousse:
#1, it doesn't specify WHICH god, simply that we acknowledge forces greater than ourselves.

Doesn't matter. It's still religion. Please, don't establish your religion in our government.

God vs. god semantics aside:

When I was a little kid watching baseball on TBS, I could've sworn they were singing the national anthem as "Atlanta is free, and the home of the Braves."

It was pretty cool watching a baseball team with a whole freakin' national anthem written for them.

V for Vendetta, the Supreme Court merely ruled that Newdow did not have standing to bring the case. It was a procedurial thing, since he did not have custody over his daughter. This case was brought by Newdow, as an attorney, on behalf of a group of parents who DO have standing, thus the controlling precedent is the 9th Circuit opinion, not the Supreme Court opinion.

If the Supremem Court has already ruled on something why is a lower court reversing there decision?

The SCOTUS dismissed the case on a technicality.

btc9183:

Separation of Church and State does not mean that you can not mention God in a government-run establishment...

Correct, but it also means the government cannot force you to mention God in a goverment-run establishment. That's the key here - you can mention or not mention God to your heart's content; the government cannot take a stance either way.

Reciting the pledge of allegiance, or even praying in school, is not mandating a religion. When I went to school, if you chose not to recite the pledge, or participate in prayer, you were permitted to leave the room during that time. It doesn't sound like anyone was forcing any particular religion upon me. I was merely given an opportunity to either pray or not, my choice.

The government was taking a stand and promoting a particular religion. The question of whether it was mandatory is irrelevant - they clearly sanctioned one religion over all others, and over the absence of religion. There's nothing in the Constitution about "mandatory" religion - it says the State may not establish a State religion, even if membership in that religion is not mandatory. The fact that it has State sanction is sufficient to make it unconstitional.

I firmly believe that if we had a little more God in our lives, things would be much better.

I'd prefer a moment of science in our schools, but that's just me. I'm selfish that way - I want lots of kids growing up learning better and better ways to keep me alive and healthy.

Why don't we let the people decide?

Because the liberals and secularists dont want to risk it.
Therefore, government is God.

btc9183
past inhumanity. A bunch of asshats claiming to be acting out the will of God, does not make it so. They may have called themselves Christians, and may even have believed that they were, but they certainly were not.

One name, Pat Robertson. As long as there is a large group of people that can be told to do something because they will suffer consequences beyond imagination if they don't then there will be people who will strive to control that power. Those people striving for control will not have the groups best interests at heart.

MikeC_EE

AND STILL NO CURE FOR CANCER!!!!

If the pledge was the biggest problem here in the USA then I would be happy to allow this kind of BS to appear in our courts, but the judge should throw this out based on the fact that there are biggest issues in the US. Waste of time and tax payer money....stop your biatching about the pledge and find something meaningfull to bring before the courts!


Sir, if you're waiting for the 9th Circuit Court to cure cancer... you'll be waiting a while, I think.

3boys: Why don't we let the people decide? Oh shiat, sorry i thought we lived in a democracy. Only when it serves the minority.


The people are free to elect representatives who will make a constitutional ammendment that destroys separation of church and state. Anyway, it's a republic, not a democracy.

IF only it was true that Limbiatch's head did explode.

It always struck me as kind of fascist to begin with, ergo I never said it past 5th grade. As for my feelings on this ruling...a big load of meh.

Aren't there more important things our courts could be ruling on?

California, question everything

Andrael:

You'll be on a chain and dragged through scrub brush behind a 4X4 faster than you can say "Dixie".



Well we went through the briars and we went through the brambles and went through the places where a rabbit wouldn't.
Wee

I don't really give a crap about the pledge of allegiance either way, as I think that there are more important matters to worry about, but I am really really glad that this will piss off a bunch of farking moronic theocracy-wantin fundamentalist conservative christians.

Hopefully, this will distract them from screwing up other things, like my favorite shows, movies and music.

TrixieBelasco

TheKnownUniverse, I'd be willing to say "One nation, under Butterstick." He's too precious for flamewars.

I thought a soothing panda pic might quell the flames, but I think it was negated by the numerous posts of the same "Life in Hell" comic. I should go find more cute pictures...

/One nation, under Butterstick...I like it!

amoricanCrowe

Jefferson was not the author of the Constitution - the government (under the Articles of Confederation) sent him to France so he wouldn't interfere with the drafting of the constitution.

And for all you "bring it on folks", the blue (unionists) states already crushed the red (confederate) states in the last civil war. You may not want us to do it again.

Remember:

"We are not only fighting hostile armies, but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war."
- William Tecumseh Sherman

Colgate: California, it's the place to find yourself

What is your point, man? Stop it with the propaganda.

saminman: So whenever you force someone who does not revere God to say His name, you are FORCING THEM TO SIN.


Um, if they don't believe in God, then they can't sin. It's only if you believe they're a sinner that they become one... to you . They'll just go about their lives in happy, non-religious bliss.

Nothingman: Before going all boohoo on us, dont forget about us rastafarians, we aint got no freedom mon.

Good Lord, I'd totally forgotten. Power, Brother! You don't struggle alone!

I love sarcasm. It allows me to communicate with others.

I don't remember a single day when I actually said it in school. Of course, I sat with the scary kids with clothes-pins through our eye-lids and awesomely huge multi-colored hair, so no one really cared. Besides, if someone wants to say it, they can feel free to do so. Now that I've grown older, I realize that there is nothing in the pledge itself that I am against. Well, maybe the under God part, but even that is just an idiomatic expression.

untrustworthy:

Says who? Do Christians have all the rights to the capitalized version of god? Do other religions not capitalize the title of their creator when referring to them? This is silly. Are Christians only Christians when the title is capitalized? This is silly. God is a generic term, capitalized or not.


Read the history on why and when it was added to the pladge. It is explicitly refering to one particular sect of one religion, and was intended to market that religion.

Have you fools ever heard of the Declaration of Independence?

Indeed I have. It has no bearing on whether or not something is unconstitutional.

I wouldn't have agreed with the ruling a year or two ago, but I do now.

Snowbowl

FWIW, I can't seem to find your post around that picture...

techmaniac: IF only it was true that Limbiatch's head did explode.

Little pills flying everywhere.

deeproy:

And for all you "bring it on folks", the blue (unionists) states already crushed the red (confederate) states in the last civil war. You may not want us to do it again.

Most of the nukes - and the Strategic Air Command - are in red States. Just sayin'. :)

I am not religious at all and probably close to being an athiest and I think this ruling is DISGUSTING.

Since someone else started the Life in Hell posts..

whidbey

Andric: Have you fools ever heard of the Declaration of Independence?

No but apparently some fools think the document is binding law, which it ain't.

It's no Constitution, sir.

Way to put words in my mouth. Can you at least put some salt on them next time? Maybe a dash of soy sauce?

I didn't say it was a legally binding document. But it does illustrate that our founding fathers did indeed have God in mind when going about their founding.

Besides, as several others have pointed out, it's not against the law to abstain from saying the pledge.

What we ought to be arguing about is what is causing the public educational system in America to be going down the toilet.

1) lack of money for new schools
2) lack of money for teachers
3) teacher's unions
4) the National Educational Association
5) "insert something other than Bush or Clinton here"

I'm voting 3&4. The unions demand that crappy teachers get paid the same as good teachers, so there is no incentive to be a good teacher. And the textbooks and standardized tests suck.

Orangutan

It is seriously time to have another civil war. The red states are completely surrounded, we've got Europe to cover our flank. I say we march on middle america and end this once and for all. It is time for the intelligent man to make a stand.

Bwhaa haa ha,(breathe) What a moran you are, bwhaa haa haa ...

Sinister Minister:

This type of statement is where I'm not understanding this issue...you're not made to stand up and declare your allegiance.

Teachers are required. Students are peer-compelled.

The problem I have with this ruling is that it is not saying "you are not required to say the pledge in school if you don't want to," - that I would agree with, and that is already clearly established. This ruling is instead saying, "you are forbidden from saying the pledge in school, period." This ruling is saying that it is against the spirit and intent of the Constitution to pledge your allegiance, if you so choose, in a school. Doesn't make sense to me. If anything, this is limiting a freedom, not expanding it.

This ruling specifically points out - I quote from the article -

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

It's not about the pledge as a concept, it's about "under God". This is about forcing teachers and strongly compelling students to say "there is a God". It's blatantly in violation of the First Amendment, and has been for 51 years. Finally justice can be done about this ignorant inclusion.

oh my, better stop this thread right away:

stonent

Activist Judges are Judges who repeatedly go against the will of the voters. Such as the ones to against the popular vote in California allowed same sex marriages to be recognized.

Even in New Jersey I know it wasn't the California Superior Court, the California Supreme Court, nor the 9th Circuit that recently placed a bill on the Governator's desk recognizing marriage between persons of the same sex.

That courage and the responsibility for that wise action belongs squarely to the elected representatives of the California legislature.

Perhaps you were thinking of Vermont or Masachusetts, where the courts, after painstaking work, found nothing in their state constitutions to prohibit such marriages? State constitutions that, according to the cherished principles of federalism upon which this country was founded, can provide greater protections to a state's citizens than that afforded the U.S. Constitution, which serves as the floor and not a ceiling of a U.S. citizen's rights?

And the previous state ballot initiative that the Governator claims ties his hands only prevents California from being compelled to recognize same sex marriages in other states. His argument, thusly, holds no water.

Scalia decried Lawrence v. Texas as the end of "morality-based legislation." Let's hope he was right.

/We have a right to privacy - we'd better because the way things are going, we're gonna need it
//Freedom of religion by definition means freedom from religion
///I'm white, middle class, not gay, I'll be dead in 40 years or so when the oil is gone and the whole planet is despoiled, and my wife and I have no kids - why do I bother getting upset about the inevitable decline of a nation that allows itself to be dominated by backwards buffoons? Let Darwin do his work I say.

"Wingnuts, please stop advocating the promotion of your God with my tax dollars."

Your tax dollars advocate the promotion of the wingnut's God you speak of. "In God We Trust"

/Try again.

FlyingSpaghettiMonster

You beat me by a few days.

/and an H
//Neverforget the H

PocketfullaSass: "A Pledge of Leeches"

That's like "a pride of lions" and "a flock of birds", right?

/is now as far as I am concerned