Thank God!

Newdow says he will appeal--but this is a done deal..

"The federal court that touched off a furor in 2002 by declaring the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to be an unconstitutional endorsement of religion took another look at the issue Thursday and said the phrase invokes patriotism, not religious faith."

What a crock.

Thank God!
#1 | Posted by MURPHY

Q.E.D.

Of course it's Patriotism.

You didn't get the pun of my first post?

lol

Good decision!

I'm sure the atheist and anti-religion fanatics on DR have already started to lock and load.

Got on my flak jacket.

Go ahead

>>>>>>> fire away>>>>>>>

This can't possibly be true.

We've been told for years the 9th Circuit is nothing but atheists and commies who hate America.

We've been told for years the 9th Circuit is nothing but atheists and commies who hate America.

#6 | Posted by TedBaxter at 2010-03-11 11:01 PM | Flag: Atheist desperately trying to stick it to those damn Xians

I'd be happy if this ruling was taken to include every conceivable notion of "god".

But we all know how it will be used by many.

I'd be happy if this ruling was taken to include every conceivable notion of "god".

#8 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2010-03-12 12:23 AM

"But that'd still leave out the emo atheists."

Of course you can't please everyone, but I think a lot of atheist would be okay if an all inclusive definition of god included "universe".

I didn't know whether to be turned on my that girl or scared of her.

I didn't know whether to be turned on my that girl or scared of her.

#10 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2010-03-12 12:50 AM

I just love her leading the atheist battle charge with, "We need to come out of the closet."
#11 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

LOL. I know a fair number of republicans who are openly atheist in private, but keep their beliefs on the DL publicly to defend their economic affiliation with the GOP.

While I agree with the dissenting judge, any reading of the events surrounding Eisenhower's decision to add to the original pledge would show it was an anti-communistic/atheistic decision, it will be fun to watch the libby retorters pee themselves over the decision. Far from a done deal though, this was only a three judge panel. They'll likely now sit en blanc to overturn this decision, once again sending it to the Supremes.

LOL. I know a fair number of republicans who are openly atheist in private, but keep their beliefs on the DL publicly to defend their economic affiliation with the GOP.

#12 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2010-03-12 01:21 AM

i should read under HIS NOODLEY APPENDAGES.

what a crock.

don't worry Murph, it's never over.

FTA: ...the phrase invokes patriotism, not religious faith.

Stupidest fucking argument EVAR.

9th Circuit FAILs.

Be Well.

Does anyone here really believe that the people who added "under God" to the pledge were not intending it to be an assertion of belief in God? It's a ridiculous claim. You don't declare an allegiance to God or put your trust in God as a show of support for the U.S. There are plenty of atheists who don't believe in God and still have allegiance to their country. And people who have allegiance to God are from many countries. These judges turned logic on its head because they were afraid to reach any other ruling.

...'we are endowed by our Creator..."

Maybe that's the next on the list. Or 'In God We Trust.'

...'we are endowed by our Creator...

Or in Spud's case Well endowed!

* rim-shot *

^_^

Be Well.

emo atheist girl needs a better job. I would have been more convinced if she crossed god off a 100 not a 5.

SPUD, be careful. You could be hung fer that one.

When asked by reporters for his reaction to this verdict, God said "frankly my dear I don't give a damn."
I'm sure the immature among us will now fell safer when they go to sleep at night and believe God loves America above all other nations and He will keep us safe from harm because America is good and our wars are just. Halleluiah! We are saved!

Does anyone here really believe that the people who added "under God" to the pledge were not intending it to be an assertion of belief in God? It's a ridiculous claim. You don't declare an allegiance to God or put your trust in God as a show of support for the U.S. There are plenty of atheists who don't believe in God and still have allegiance to their country. And people who have allegiance to God are from many countries. These judges turned logic on its head because they were afraid to reach any other ruling.

#17 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-12 08:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

Interesting. this is the same argument from semantics that the homosexual crowd and supporters of their cause hate when it comes to marriage. Many atheists would be happy if the word reflected a broader concept of "god" in terms of universe or origin or nature or something of that sort, however just because of the term used to describe all of those things, they have a big problem, and whine and cry and piss about it.

Yet... when the same things happens with marriage and homosexuals trying to be "married" there is no understanding of why it would be semantically significant to the situation, and why another world would be acceptable with the same rights applied over the term marriage for homosexuals.

I find this interesting at the least.

Maybe words really do have meaning, but only when it is convenient for people and their causes.

"and why another world would be acceptable with the same rights applied over the term marriage for homosexuals."

There has never been an offer of a partnership agreement which actually gave gay people the same rights as married straight people so your claim that it is just semantics is baloney. Barnie Frank said clearly that he doesn't care what you call it, he just wants to have the same rights for a gay "marriage" as for a straight one.

I bet Chile and Haiti now wish they had put "under God" in their oaths of allegiance.

Stupidest fucking argument EVAR.

Based on one sentence from an article caption. Why not read their 193-page opinion and get back to us, Spud, that is, if you're capable of doing so.

I am not in charge of what people offer, I am not a politician . I have told politicians to adopt the offer that I put forward, they don't.

However, whenever I present that offer to those on the DR, it is not good enough, they are unequal if they are under a different term, they are unequal if they don't get the call it marriage. You can't win. They say it is all about the money, but it is all about being part of some marriage club. Redefining the current definition o of the word.

I don't think anyone should get special rights just because they are married. I don't think people should get anything from the government outside of road care and necessities. No bonuses for children, no bonuses for other things of that nature.

I do think that they should give the same monetary benefits to the homosexual couples that are united. I have no gripes with that.

Either give them to them, or get rid of them all together.

IN regard to 25, I would say that God is probably more pissed off at America than he is with anywhere else as we are the ones that use the concept and then do everything in our power to present our selves as contrary to doing something of a higher order than others.

We make the most mistakes of any other nation in my opinion. Mostly be cause we are hypocritical with almost every fashion of our policy.

Based on one sentence from an article caption.

Based on a quote from the actual judges.

Why don't you try and debate why Spud is incorrect?

Ya know... if you can.

Be Well.

First they get you to believe in God, or at least keep your mouth shut. All the other bullshit is a practically automatic after that.

Why don't you try and debate why Spud is incorrect?

I already did. Spud is incorrect because he ignores 193 pages of reasoning and bases his opinion on one quote contained in an article caption. Perhaps Spud's opinion would be more informed if Spud read the 193-page ruling that discussed the history and reasoning behind the one-sentence quote Spud hangs his hat on. Joe doesn't expect Spud to do this.

I already did.

No, you did not.

If you were to write a 193 page paper on why the sky was orange and not blue would Spud hafta read all 193 pages in order to call you a farking madman?

No, Spud would not.

Feel free to quote from any of the 193 pages of this ruling and try to prove the sky is orange, Joe.

Go nuts, buddy!

Be Well.

#29 | Posted by nutcase at 2010-03-12 09:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

That's right, they are going to make you believe in God and they are going to make you do whatever it is they want...

You decide what you do.

I'm just curious... which religion does "One Nation Under God" promote? Last time I checked, it doesn't say "One Nation Under Islam... or Christianity... or Judaism". As the judges correctly stated, it's simply a patriotic, ceremonial pledge acknowledging the philosophical beliefs of the majority of our founders.

That doesn't mean an atheist has to say the words or be put in jail. If you don't want to say it... then leave out... but don't be some elitist jackass who tries to tell everyone else what to say and believe. Gee, that would seem a little hypocritical dontcha think?

And how does reciting the pledge disenfranchise anyone?

I'm being disenfranchised as a parent who believes his children should be taught what the founders believe in and the pledge is a part of that.

#21 | POSTED BY OOHRAH

Whoa, there, Oohrah.

Pun police.

Pull over.

And keep your hands where we can see them.

The ruling is perfect sentiment based in the first Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress has not established a religion in respect to the pledge, "Under God" is a vauge term used to address a vauge entity in which case could mean a lot of things to many people in mnay different religions, not just the big three. In the same sense they are not restriting the exercise thereof, but taking the words "Under God" out they would be restricting the free exercise thereof.

I realize athiest belive in no God, which is fine, people can belive in whatever they like, but there is still a majority of the people who do belive in some sort of higher being, and majority generally rules. Besides, a student does have the option to not say the pledge if they so choose, it has already been ruled. The 9th made a good call in this case and if this case does goto the SCOTUS, I belive they will arrive at the same opinion with similar logic.

#31 | Posted by dethspud at 2010-03-12 09:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

The sky actually is orange, however it is just not prevalent after the blue hue that is visible from the absorption caused by the gasses and depths of our atmosphere, and the angle of the light hitting it.

So Joe could write a 193 page paper on that and be correct and Spud would just show that he is unable to think objectively.

I'm just curious... which religion does "One Nation Under God" promote?

Christianity. Making children pledge that their nation is "under God" reinforces the belief that there's a God.

If it was "under Allah" you'd be singing a different tune.

#33 | Posted by Dont_TreadonMe at 2010-03-12 09:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

Wrong, it was added, at least "under God".

You can teach them what the founders believed without "under God" in there.

Interesting. this is the same argument from semantics that the homosexual crowd and supporters of their cause hate when it comes to marriage.

You're dodging the question. Do you believe that the people who added "under God" to the pledge were not intending it to assert a belief in God?

#37 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-12 09:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

There is God in terms of what the word means. It has a broad scope and does not have to mean an entity of any sort. Some people think the Universe is God.

God is a concept, not necessarily a person.

It would do many people well to get a broader scope of definitions, rather than jumping to what inflicts their emotional responses. Many people approach many things with a false understanding. This is why Americans always get so hurt by words, but don't think twice about killing real people.

This can't possibly be true.

We've been told for years the 9th Circuit is nothing but atheists and commies who hate America.

#6 | Posted by TedBaxter

They are those things.

They are also smart enough to know they needed a precedent for the Earth Mothers new motto...

...In Gore We Trust.

Feel free to quote from any of the 193 pages of this ruling

Your comments are typical of what many refer to as "bumper sticker liberalism." You base your opinions on short quotes and are incapable of any in-depth analysis. There is no short quote from the 193-page opinion that will prove to you that the pledge of allegiance is a patriotic exercise - you need to read the opinion as a whole to understand where the judges are coming from. Feel free to do so and your commentary will have more value.

Not to make light, but I have to ask, is there anyone on here for whom this is a really big deal?
Regardless of how the 9th circuit ruled, is there anyone for whom this has any real effect?
We can argue about who believes what, and read the entire 193-page argument (sorry, Joe, but I'm not gonna do it), but in the end, what's the fuss?

Personally, I don't care if "under God" is in the pledge.
It didn't use to be, and then it was added, and there it is. Okie-dokie.
"In God We Trust" on our currency? Again, okie-dokie. And do we really need to re-tool all of our mints over this?

I recognize that, for some, this may be a landmark ruling.
Just not really sure why.
I'm okay either way.

#39 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-12 09:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yes I believe that was part of it. Subjectively, it may have meant something to the individual in terms of their personal religions leaning, however objectively meaning a broad concept referring back to either
1. Creator in the original founders documents (General term again)
2. Something greater than ourselves.
3. Something open to all people of all faiths who would eventually be gathering in the United states as wee were a place of freedom (at least proclaimed to be.

There are many facets and reasons to why someone does something. To say it was simply for this or simply for that is incorrect and shows an unwillingness to understand the motivations of a person.

If you want to mis-characterize you can claim it was simply for the sake of Christianity or setting up the recognition of "Religious concepts of God"

I think it was a multi faceted addition driven by many purposes both subjective and objective.

To claim otherwise would be pompous and foolish.

#39 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-12 09:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

Repreading your question, there is no way to say that they were not trying to assert a belief in God, as again, the concept of God is broad.

If you mean a specific God, no not objectively. They may have believed it, but I don't think they were advocating that for everyone, in terms of their personal beliefs.

They were presenting or advocating the recognition of God in its literary scope. Something greater than America that put it together, made it happen.

Fate, chance, universe, Alla, God, Jesus, Yahweh, Buddha, Vishnu, Mother earth, The four goddesses of Wicca, etc etc.

Something out of our control driving the fact that our nation is underneath it and only hear under its actions and happenings no matter what that "it" may be.

"We've been told for years the 9th Circuit is nothing but atheists and commies who hate America."

I am sure those who brought this lawsuit up in a location knowing it would go to the 9th Circuit are as surprised as you.

Rcade, since Allah is arabic for god I really don't see why I would have a problem with putting it in the pledge other than the curiosity of why we were using arabic words in our pledge. However since it came about 20-30 years before I was born I doubt I would even question it that much.

The Constitution does not use the words "God" or "Jesus," instead preferring the emphasis to be on "The People" as the ultimate source of governmental power.

Also, it's obvious what the intent of the people was who put "Under God" into the pledge, a jingoistic, nationalistic result of Red scare-mongering.

All that being said, the phrase "Under God", whether one prefers it in or out of the pledge, does not turn the pledge into a prayer.

I would prefer the pledge to echo the Constitution, perhaps replacing Under God with, "Of, By, and For The People".

Or, given recent SC rulings, "Under Corporate Control" would be more apropos.

"Of, By, and For The People".

from Lincoln, of course

RCADE... So you're saying that the term "God" is owned by Christians???? That's the dumbest thing I've heard of. God is a generic term. Romans believed in serveral Gods. Allah is Arabic for God.

So which religion does "One Nation Under God" sponsor? It doesn't sponsor any particular religion... it simply acknowleges a higher power than Government... God forbid!

Yes... most of our Founders could be placed in the Christian category... but not all of them. Some simply considered themselves Deists or someone who believes a creator (or God) exists but doesn't concern himself with our daily lives. Thomas Jefferson, I believe was one of them.

So I would argue that these men came together under a consensus that Government is NOT the ultimate power, but that we as a Nation should consider that there is a higher power still that keeps our government officials humbled.

So if our founders were willing to work through their religious differences... why can't we? I find it extremely arrogant and offensive that atheist talk out of one side of their mouth saying, "Christians are hypocrits who are simply seeking to control the lives of others" and there are some that fit that description... but then out of the other side of their mouth... they themselves are doing the same things by trying to rewrite history and pretend this belief in a higher power never played a role in our Nation's creation.

They should just use the FUBU lable.

For Us By Us.

Judges said the phrase invokes patriotism, not religious faith. "Thus, the pledge is an endorsement of our form of government, not of religion or any particular sect," they ruled.

Yeah...um, no. While "G-d" does not endorce any particualr sect, it is not an endorsement of our form of government. The pledge places our loyalty to America "under G-d," meaning we pledge our loyalty to G-d first.

Yeah...um, no.
...
#52 | Posted by kanrei at 2010-03-12 10:26 AM | Reply | Flag: Posted by Kanrei

Weak Null...very weak and you risk running a good joke into the ground. Use it wisely because it is funny.

"Also, it's obvious what the intent of the people was who put "Under God" into the pledge, a jingoistic, nationalistic result of Red scare-mongering."

That seems to be the most logical reason and trend. They started putting "In God We Trust" on paper money three years later. Didn't they put said slogan on coins during the Civil War with the idea to unite the Country?

Well... glad to see that atheist are so tolerant ::rolls his eyes::

I'll end my part in this discussion by quoting several Democrats... "We won, you lost"

I don't agree with the whole "in God We Trust" on the money.

It seems antithetical to me, and pointless. If you really trust God you don't have to be proclaiming it over and over to yourself in order to better convince.

I agree the phrase has no place in the pledge, but it is also a benign phrase. This guy's lawsuit is actually more divisive than the phrase he seeks to get rid of.

I don't agree with the whole "in God We Trust" on the money.

It seems antithetical to me, and pointless. If you really trust God you don't have to be proclaiming it over and over to yourself in order to better convince.

Placing G-d on money seems like pissing on the Jesus and the money lenders story as well as the "render unto Cesar what is Cesar's" quote personally.

It is a religious endorsement and no court judgment will change that however there are much bigger fish to fry at the moment.

Once we get our country back together then we can address things that don't affect how much food goes into my children's bellies.

Until then quit belly aching and start trying to find solutions to the financial crisis that is still threatening to cripple this nation.

I don't think we want to fry the fish that needs to be dealt with at the moment as it is chock full of maggots.

Time to take out the trash. All of it.

"I would prefer the pledge to echo the Constitution, perhaps replacing Under God with, "Of, By, and For The People".
#48 | Posted by Corky at 2010-03-12 10:12 AM | Reply

In my opinion, the whole purpose of the Pledge of Allegiance is for individuals to acknowledge their belief in, and support of, something more important than themselves. Having the phrase "under God" in the oath strengthens that philosophy, without pinning down a specific belief system; simply the existance of something greater than the individual.
Again in my opinion, in the age of the "me first" generation of Americans and people in general, this philosophy would be more important than ever.

You also don't have to say it, as Jello Biafra showed:

I pledge defiance to the flag of the United Snakes of Captivity

And to the Republic for which it stands, I dip it in kerosene, and stick it up the ass of you know who1 and light it

One nation, under God--or else

One nation, under psychopath Pentagon gangsters, whose idea of democracy is concentration camps for the people who go and use the drugs that the government supplies themselves

One nation, under Wall Street:

If the cops and the President are all criminals, I might as well be one too, ha ha! 2

One Nation of tabloid robots who actually believe what they see on tv, but when ask about it say "I don't care."

One nation, drowning in its own garbage

Indivisible from the from the fall of Rome

With liberty and justice for all who can afford it

I pledge allegiance to the flag.....one nation under the guy who causes diseases, earthquakes and hurricanes with liberty and justice for all.

But that'd still leave out the emo atheists.

www.youtube.com

#9 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Why does she try to look like Sarah Palin??

This gal needs a drink--maybe a lot of drinks..

The Pledge of Allegiance was a purely secular pledge before 1954. In 1954, the members of Congress who wrote the bill to add "under God" came right out and said they were doing it because of a sermon by Presbyterian Reverend George M. Docherty in Washington DC before the president and members of Congress.

In the sermon, Docherty said that the U.S. was locked in a war between "Judaio-Christian civilization in mortal combat against modern, secularized, godless humanity."

Here's what his sermon said to American atheists:

"[A]n atheistic American is a contradiction in terms. ... [T]hey really are spiritual parasites. . . . [They] are living upon the accumulated spiritual capital of a Judaio-Christian civilization, and at the same time, deny the God who revealed the divine principles upon which the ethics of this Country grow. ... [I]f he denies the Christian ethic, [the atheist] falls short of the American ideal of life."

So "under God" was added as a fuck you to atheists in this country and an assertion that we're engaged in a holy war against "secularized, godless humanity."

Other than that, though, it's completely non-religious.

Having the phrase "under God" in the oath strengthens that philosophy, without pinning down a specific belief system; simply the existance of something greater than the individual.
Again in my opinion, in the age of the "me first" generation of Americans and people in general, this philosophy would be more important than ever.

#62 | Posted by hawk at 2010-03-12 11:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

To Americans "God" is the Christian god. It isn't Allah, or any other god. The country is greater than the individual---no god needed. The courtr was clearly mistaken in their judgement.

"In God We Trust" should be taken off the money. The biblical god has clearly shown it can't be trusted. Fortunately, it doesn't exist, and to have a reference to a non existent being makes as much sense as worshipping the Easter Bunny.

Having the phrase "under God" in the oath strengthens that philosophy, without pinning down a specific belief system; simply the existance of something greater than the individual.

A belief in God is a belief system. The fact there are more specific belief systems such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam does not change this.

The biblical god has clearly shown it can't be trusted. Fortunately, it doesn't exist,...

pfffttt

Are we under God? The original pledge with its reference makes far more sense as it is a pledge to the country and to each other without the need of an unproven supernatural being.

#66 | Posted by rcade

Rcade--the godless was in reference to the USSR who were by and large atheists or godless.

Not to mention that rights come from God and not the government.

Rights come from our creator. My creator is my mother as she created me.

Wasn't the original pledge written by a minister? He left out "under G-d." He didn't feel it was necessary and he was a man of G-d.

Not to mention that rights come from God and not the government.

71 | Posted by MURPHY at 2010-03-12 11:57 AM

I give it 2 minutes before BuffaloBob shows up on that one. : )

I agree with him in that our rights -- at least all of our civil rights -- come only from the government.

To Americans "God" is the Christian god.
#67 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-03-12 11:46 AM | Re

To some, perhaps; certainly not all, or even the majority. We can't alter our language because certain individuals misuse it.
Webster's Online Dictionary defines the word as follows:
God
Noun
1. The supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions.
2. Any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force.
(Source: WordNet 1.7.1 Copyright 2001 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.)
Nope, no specific Christian reference there.

"A belief in God is a belief system. The fact there are more specific belief systems such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam does not change this."
#68 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-12 11:48 AM | Reply

Correct. But our constitution doesn't prohibit any reference to a belief system; it prohibits promotion or usage of any specific belief system.

Chris says, "I agree with him in that our rights -- at least all of our civil rights -- come only from the government."

How about the civil right to free speech, Chris? Is that only given by government, or can anyone use it at any time they choose?

Because other countries don't have our "Law", does that mean that those people can't speak out - you consider that they are dumb by "Law"?

Why should we adopt, or even listen to any of your other "political beliefs" when you are demonstratably so ignorant about what are and what are not God given rights???

But our constitution doesn't prohibit any reference to a belief system; it prohibits promotion or usage of any specific belief system.

Our Constitution prohibits the government from showing preference for one religion over another. It's sophistry to suggest that a belief in God is not an expression of religion. To the millions of atheists in this country, the pledge's "under God" compels their children to express belief in somebody else's religion.

I have always had a sneaking suspicion that the real impetus for the Islamic jihad movement was because of the In God We Trust label on our money. In the Koran it says "Allah is He, other than Whom there is no other god." In their phrase you see quoted in the newspapers all the time they say there is only one Allah and that is Allah.

Now, if you asked a Christian if he believed in God he would say yes. If you asked him if he believed in Allah he would say no. The Islamic people know this. The people who put God on our money and in the pledge were not thinking about Allah, obviously.

Therefore American money, and the Pledge, are, in the minds of hardcore Muslims, inherently a provocation against their beliefs.

They don't buy the argument that Allah is just the Arabic translation of the word God. They know that it is not the same thing in the minds of the American people.

We should not have an anti-other-god statement on our money. That statement should be removed.

Or else we should have a certain percentage of the money printed which would say In Allah We Trust or In Vishnu We Trust or In Ra We Trust or In Keoahikamakaua We Trust or In Thor We Trust or or or or or or or or .....

If the word God on the money is only a ceremonial thing about like the Queen's sceptre then it is pointless to have it there. To claim it is not divisive is willful ignorance.

How about the civil right to free speech, Chris? Is that only given by government, or can anyone use it at any time they choose?...

#75 | Posted by tadowe at 2010-03-12 12:08 PM

One word: CHINA

Chris,

Just because China will "re-educate" people who speak freely does not mean the people can not speak freely they just take a risk to do so.

"Our Constitution prohibits the government from showing preference for one religion over another. It's sophistry to suggest that a belief in God is not an expression of religion."
#76 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-12 12:10 PM | Reply

I agree 100% with these statements, but I believe they support the ruling.
The phrase "under God" does not show preference for one religion over another.
And the Constitution does not prohibit an expression of religion.

Well put Hawk.

I love the pledge, and use under god whenever I give it, although I didn't when I was younger.

I think that any law requiring a citizen to give the pledge - under God or not - should be declared unconstitutional as a violation of a person's right to dissent. Kids should not be required to say it if they don't want, but I think it still ought to be a voluntary part of schools, assemblies, etc.

Our Constitution prohibits the government from showing preference for one religion over another. It's sophistry to suggest that a belief in God is not an expression of religion. To the millions of atheists in this country, the pledge's "under God" compels their children to express belief in somebody else's religion.

#76 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-12 12:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

If we take it out for this reason, do you find it viable that we do not allow homosexuals to fall under the term marriage because it causes Judaic, Christian and Muslim children to assert belief in another s definition of a word that is currently defined a certain way?

Or do you rather people grow up and learn to understand it how they want to understand it while others understand it in a different way as the language allows?

I think the atheists can get past this just as much as the "Christians" can get past the word "marriage" being used in terms of homosexuals uniting with one another.

If not, looks like we have a dichotomy in how people are willing to understand words.

... when it suits their purposes.

Chris responds, "One word: CHINA"

See? You haven't a clue as to what is a right and what is not!

I suppose that is because you have this heuristic process of ignoring anything which mentions, "G*d", isn't it?

I mean, if I were to say that Nat*re provides the right to speak to all but a very few ... then you might open your mind enough to acknowledge that SPEAKING is an inborn right?

Now, you list those civil rights you think are only given by "L*W" ... okay?

The secular institution of marriage is separate from the religious institution. Christians, Jews and Muslims can define marriage any way they want. But when the state recognizes a couple as married, it should not discriminate on the basis of the couple's genders.

Either that, or the state should get completely out of the marriage business and grant civil unions to any two adults who want one for any reason they want it.

The phrase "under God" does not show preference for one religion over another.

It shows preference for every religion that posits the existence of God.

Of course, atheism is just a Stealth Religion....

I do believe that Atheism has morphed into a religious belief for some, if not many.

Either that, or the state should get completely out of the marriage business and grant civil unions to any two adults who want one for any reason they want it.

#85 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2010-03-12 12:30 PM | REPLY | FLAG

Except merely to gain benefits without there being a true underlying relationship, or to avoid taxes, gain citizenship, or gain a marital exemption.

"It shows preference for every religion that posits the existence of God."
#86 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-12 12:32 PM | Reply

Are you saying there is a religious belief system that doesn't acknowledge a higher power? How does that one work, exactly?

Are you saying there is a religious belief system that doesn't acknowledge a higher power?

Some have more than one. Maybe it should be "one nation under G-d(s)"

Our Constitution prohibits the government from showing preference for one religion over another. It's sophistry to suggest that a belief in God is not an expression of religion.
#76 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-12 12:10 PM | Reply

68 References to "God" in US Code

1. Education - Strengthening and Improvement of Elementary and Secondary Schools: "Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act"

2. Armed Forces: Rules of Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces - Qualifications to Practices

3. Money and Finance: Coins and Currency

5. Patriotic and National Observances, Ceremonies, and Organizations - National Motto

6. Patriotic and National Observances, Ceremonies, and Organizations - Army and Navy Union of the U.S.A.

7. Patriotic and National Observances, Ceremonies, and Organizations - Catholic War Veterans of the U.S.A., Inc.

8. Flag and Seal, Seat of Government, and the States

9. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure: Rules of The United States Court of International Trade - Attorneys; Admission to Practice

10. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure: The U.S. Court of Federal Claims - Attorneys

Rcade says, "Either that, or the state should get completely out of the marriage business and grant civil unions to any two adults who want one for any reason they want it."

Here is another example of what is and what is not a "Right" ignorance.

The state can't "grant" marriage, it can only tax it. Now, those socialists, who want the perfection of the state into one controlling every facet of life, encourage more taxes by "granting" marriage as a "right" to members of the same sex (of course, they suborn votes in doing so.

What exactly is the right? To have a partnership where love is the right and undeniable by society ...?

How about defining what the "Right" to marriage happens to be, Rogers? Can a bipartisan agreement be made? Can any such love and desire for the right of marriage be denied by the state?

The Chaplain of the House and the Chaplain of the Senate are paid positions within the Federal Gov't.

The House and Senate may choose their officers as it states in the Constitution, but the Bill of Rights are Amendments to the Constitution. So the "establishment clause" applies to the Legislature because it Amended the Constitution.

If the argument is the Separation of Church and State for removing "under God" and "In God We Trust" then please explain why Newdow and anyone hasn't fought the two Federally paid religious leaders of the House and Senate?

"Some have more than one. Maybe it should be "one nation under G-d(s)"
#91 | Posted by kanrei at 2010-03-12 12:43 PM | Reply

Nah, Kan, we can just say the word can be plural. We have precident with words like that. Let's not get carried away with this thing.
To be perfectly honest, in my opinion this whole discussion can be ended with one absoutely factual statement: There is no constitutional protection from being offended.

acts of God plural

1.An act of God is an event that is beyond human control, especially one in which something is damaged or someone is hurt.

Does this mean athiests can't use this if being sued? Or be compensated if damaged because they don't believe in God?

Rcade says, "It shows preference for every religion that posits the existence of God."

As opposed to what? What is it that is being preferred against you, or to your detriment Rogers?

How does this statement deny anyone of anything?

Are you actually this much of a cement-for-brains case of arrested development ...?

Hey, Crisp, that's nasty. No lawsuits? Talk about hitting them where they live...

I suppose that is because you have this heuristic process of ignoring anything which mentions, "G*d", isn't it?

I mean, if I were to say that Nat*re provides the right to speak to all but a very few ... then you might open your mind enough to acknowledge that SPEAKING is an inborn right?

Now, you list those civil rights you think are only given by "L*W" ... okay?

#84 | Posted by tadowe at 2010-03-12 12:28 PM

Read post # 5, you idiot.

"Hey, Crisp, that's nasty. No lawsuits? Talk about hitting them where they live..."

Kind of ironic that a lawyer like Michael Newdow has filed multiple lawsuits trying to remove "God" when it is used in our entire legal system.

I feel sorry for you, Chris. You can't even acknowledge reality, but must misdirect to #5 to avoid listing the "rights" that the USA "grants" to citizens.

You could have said, "the vote" but instead had to do the typical: revile the messenger.

You are one of the dupes of the left, and literally cannot be reasoned out of your institutionally inculcated brainwashing ...

How does this statement deny anyone of anything?

It denies secularists from having non-secular money. It denies worshippers of other gods from having their deity mentioned.

Grumpy responds directly, "It denies secularists from having non-secular money. It denies worshippers of other gods from having their deity mentioned."

Thanks for this, very unusual, attempt to reason the issue.

As others have mentioned, no particular "God" is mentioned, so your argument about god recognition is specious. And, as for that, Sharia denies any mention of any other than the word, "Allah", as a name, and which is not done by any other religion so tyrannically. US law makes not such distinction or demands.

As for "money", isn't that what Institutionalized Atheism is all about? The money they seem to think devolves to them as a "secular" religion?

Shouldn't the Southwestern tribes pay all the other tribes for taking their land and forcing them to migrate (some all the way to Canada!)?

Or, would that be as stupidly ridiculous as demanding funds for being and Anti-religion ...?

...but there is still a majority of the people who do belive in some sort of higher being, and majority generally rules....

ahh yes the old tyranny of the majority argument...

Yes... most of our Founders could be placed in the Christian category...

Oh they could be but they were not. Define Founding fathers...6 of the original 11 were considered Deists or Freemasons. Do you know that there were laws on the books in colonial times that could punish you for not attending church?

Thomas Jefferson wanted to be remembered for one particular thing after he died...so much so that he had it placed on his tombstone.

HERE WAS BURIED THOMAS JEFFERSON
AUTHOR OF THE DECLARATION OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE
OF THE STATUTE OF VIRGINIA FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
AND FATHER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

"no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoevernor suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief"

So if our founders were willing to work through their religious differences... why can't we?

Our founding fathers attempted to establish and maintain a SECULAR government.

Why can't we?

Atheism is not a Religion. Atheist only recently organized at all in an attempt to defend themselves against organized religion. Is Buddhism a Religion? Buddhist do not believe in one Nation under a God.

If you must put this nonsense in the Pledge then instead of "one Nation under God" it could be "one Nation under a Higher Power".

Of course, that is just plain silly too.

"Our Constitution prohibits the government from showing preference for one religion over another. It's sophistry to suggest that a belief in God is not an expression of religion."
#76 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-12 12:10 PM | Reply

Actually, the Constitution prohibits congress from making law respecting an establishment of religion.

They have made no law on this issue, therefore this is not unconstitutional.

This is not a forced pledge. I remember sleeping through it in High School. I didn't even stand up. The grade school kids who are forced to say it, don't say it right. "One nation invisible" anyone? They don't know the words "allegiance," "Republic," "indivisible," "liberty," or "justice."

Are you saying there is a religious belief system that doesn't acknowledge a higher power?

There are many religions that don't believe in a single entity called God. Some have multiple gods. Others have no gods at all.

Do you genuinely believe that when "Under God" was added to the pledge, it was a vague reference to "a higher power"? There was one God they had in mind.

The effort to treat references to God as references to any higher power are just a dodge intended to keep references to God in our government.

The grade school kids who are forced to say it, don't say it right.

You underestimate schoolkids.

Add to it, change it, set it to rhythm and beatbox, pervert the very ideals it proclaims to protect, I don't care. It is a christian pledge, and I won't say it. The reason I know it is christian is because christians are the only people who take such absolute glee in the inclusion. If they were not so patently dishonest about their support we could just chalk this up to another act, in a long line of christian actions, where they attempt force their god down everyone's throat. But instead they promote a bald-faced lie and pretend it isn't their god they are so overwhelmingly happy to see mentioned; a cheap and cowardly cop-out.

Can anyone name any other situation where devout christians are overjoyed when an ambiguous god takes preference over the god? Does anyone have any evidence of christians talking about "god" in a context that doesn't include the god they grovel at the feet of? And since god doesn't mean "god", why is "goddamn" blasphemy?

Shinto- a religion with no gods.

Actually, the Constitution prohibits congress from making law respecting an establishment of religion. They have made no law on this issue, therefore this is not unconstitutional.

The Constitution doesn't just cover acts of Congress. The Establishment Clause has been used by judges to prohibit numerous government endorsements of religion, such as Nativity scenes on government property.

You underestimate schoolkids.

It was a joke. I forget the comedian. I want to say Lewis Black, but I doubt it was him.

Can anyone name any other situation where devout christians are overjoyed when an ambiguous god takes preference over the god?

That's a good point. I can't think of any. I wonder what the people who added "Under God" to the pledge would think if they saw religious people denying, 56 years later, that it was a reference to God.

Normally, the belief in a generic "higher power" is derided as New Age mumbo jumbo.

Maybe in another 50 years, "Under God" really will mean "Under Any God Of Your Personal Choosing."

But then Christians will be as unhappy about that as they are the War on Christmas.

Thomas Jefferson (a Founding Father) clearly intended that

"no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever nor suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief"

Maybe in another 50 years, "Under God" really will mean "Under Any God Of Your Personal Choosing."

Won't take that long. Remember "They Live?" The money said "This is Your G-d." One nation, under the dollar, indivisible, with liberty and justice for those who can afford it.

The Constitution doesn't just cover acts of Congress. The Establishment Clause has been used by judges to prohibit numerous government endorsements of religion, such as Nativity scenes on government property.

This is true and it's one of those areas where I feel the text of the Constitution has been pervereted to mean whatever some activist judge wants it to mean and once the precedent has been sent its often used on other, similar cases.

Regardless, this is a bit of a non-issue for me. If some ACLU lawyer with a hard-on for Christianity wants to get his panties in a knot over a nativity scene at Christmas-time, then that's his perogative.

I don't think "Under God" is an exceptionally big deal. I said it, my kids say it. Maybe they will take comfort in religion. I just find the argument made by these judges dishonest. The dissent in this case is 100 percent correct for calling bullshit on them.

#117 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-12 02:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

And so as the same with marriage.

The argument seems to be that the anti-establishment clause has not been violated because a generic theistic statement does not endorse any specific religion, and atheism is categorically not a religion, so therefore the anti-atheism of "In God We Trust" also does not apply. Sweet. It's logically unassailable. The only way to further the argument would be to go back to argue about the intent of the lawmakers, or to form a new religion based on anti-religion, ha-ha.

I just think it would be better if the US avoided the whole issue and specifically made the government rigorously secular. We really need to do this in order to prevent the kinds of problems which too much accomodation to religion can engender such as the whole veil thing.

There is already the giant cultural imperialism built in from long ago with the seven days of the week and calling this the year 2010. I would be in favor of an establishment of secularism, like Turkey, which has freedom of religion at the same time as control of expression of religiosity.

Americans don't like things that take time to understand.

Not to mention that rights come from God and not the government.

#71 | Posted by MURPHY at 2010-03-12 11:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

Link? No god gives any rights. You are clearly mistaken. You should rethink your stance---unless you can show where your god gives rights.

And so as the same with marriage.

I don't see anything dishonest about the desire of gay couples to have the state grant them the same marriage rights it grants straight couples.

Just because China will "re-educate" people who speak freely does not mean the people can not speak freely they just take a risk to do so.

#79 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2010-03-12 12:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

I guess the meaning of the word "FREE" eludes you. If there is a risk from the government for speaking freely, it isn't free speech. If there is a price to pay or a penalty to face---it isn't free by any definition.

"Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live."

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors."

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

"It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams."

-Thomas Jefferson, (Clearly talking about nanc) in a letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825

Alas Tom never anticipated the rise of mass media and it's malignant tumor, Idiot America.

Why should we adopt, or even listen to any of your other "political beliefs" when you are demonstratably so ignorant about what are and what are not God given rights???

#75 | Posted by tadowe at 2010-03-12 12:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

How about you show where your god gives any rights? Our rights come from the government in the form of the Bill of Rights---catchy title don't you think?

So---where can I see those God given rights?

Waiting on you.

;-)

If some ACLU lawyer with a hard-on for Christianity wants to get his panties in a knot over a nativity scene at Christmas-time, then that's his perogative.

#116 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-03-12 02:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

The ACLU supports, and would defend your right to place a nativity scene on your property. The ACLU defends civil liberties af ALL Americans. Those against the ACLU, are simply against freedom for others. I don't want the government wasting time with nativity scenes---they should have better things to do. Those who want and like nativity scenes are nopt prevented from enjoying and displaying them. That is fair, and that is what the ACLU supports---American civil liberties---maybe that's whey they have the name.

"Do you genuinely believe that when "Under God" was added to the pledge, it was a vague reference to "a higher power"? There was one God they had in mind."
#107 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-12 02:14 PM | Reply

I respectfully disagree. There are any number of specific references they could have used; it is my belief that they used the one generic word in an attempt to be as all-inclusive as possible.
I also believe that they want to a lot of trouble to build this belief in because they wanted to acknowledge a higher power in their system.

Liberal or Conservative

OK, I know you'll get a kick out of this one:

If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

Lot of truth here!

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't` buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't` eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
(Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for
it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a
good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".

If a conservative's beliefs are opposed, he cries "treason"
If a liberal's beliefs are, he enjoys the debate.

If a conservative is held to his own standards, he fails
If a liberal is held to his own standards, he meets them

If a conservative encounters someone who worships another G-d or government, they must die
If a liberal encounters them, just let me be.

>These judges turned logic on its head because they were afraid to reach any other ruling.

Sounds a lot like finding the right to abortion in the constitution.

Oh, and this one needs fixing: If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

It should be: If a conservative is a homosexual, they use the public bathrooms A LOT, love having interns around, and want to pass laws outlawing their own actions as a way to deflect accusations.

If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

"If a conservative's beliefs are opposed, he cries "treason"
If a liberal's beliefs are, He screams bigot or redneck.

"If a conservative is held to his own standards, he fails"
If a liberal is held to his own standards, he lowers them.

"If a conservative encounters someone who worships another G-d or government, they must die"
If a liberal encounters them, he cries to momma government that it should be banned in all public places.

Fixed that for you.

Sorry, kinda had to, now i feel dirty.

Don't feel dirty, they are great. Better than mine because they kept the Conservative slam, but added balance. Thanks =D

If the umptee-umpth circuit court comes out with an opinion that the earth is flat, are we duty-bound to read all 193 pages before we may reasonably opine that it is bullshit? "In God We Trust" and "Under God" are clearly unconstitutional government endorsements of theist religion, failing to consider any non-deity religions at all.

And the "Mac Hernia" posting is cute, trite and testifying per se to the author's having no clue as to the difference between libs and cons. herm

I bet they did this so that Atheists can use the term "circus court." Why should Dittoheads get to use all the funny names?

>If a liberal's beliefs are, he enjoys the debate.

Dumbest thing read today. You should log on more often. Anything but enjoyment foundhere; and mostly groupthink.

#137- Got a bite...finally! Been days since I caught anything.

#122 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-12 02:43 PM | Reply | Flag

I don't have a problem with the rights, I don't understand their need to redefine words. Same thing happened with "gay".

If it is about the rights, why fight about words?

If words have multiple meanings, why fight about "under God" in the pledge?

Words must mean something.

Sweet. It's logically unassailable.

This routine has been used against atheism in the past. Just a few generations ago when christians were busy burning and torturing atheists, they were also claiming that an atheist couldn't exist.

"Many people have pretended to atheism or have been reckoned atheists by the world, but it is just a question whether any man seriously adopted such a principle."
-Encyclopedia Britannica 1771

One might assume these vicious liars are just playing stupid to win the argument, but it has been going on for so long it is probably not an act.

God and the State were made for each other. They are your masters; you are their slave.

If a conservative encounters someone who worships another G-d or government, they must die
If a liberal encounters them, just let me be.

#130 | Posted by kanrei at 2010-03-12 03:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

LOL - I see so many libtards on this thread just "letting the Christians be". Funny as hell Kan.

Now, if government has no preference in religion why should it have preference in gender or race?

The Constitution refers to the year that the Convention created the document as "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Please someone tell me how the pledge is a law respecting the establishment of religion? Are you forced to say it? Can you go to jail for not saying it? For leaving out "under God" from it when reciting it?

I don't have a problem with the rights, I don't understand their need to redefine words. Same thing happened with "gay".

Most of the states that adopted a ban on gay marriages also used language to ban gay civil unions. So it doesn't matter what it is called -- some people want the state not to allow them to have these rights.

This is a much bigger issue than a semantic debate over the meaning of words. There are longtime gay partners out there being excluded from their partner's bed at hospitals. That should never happen.

Please someone tell me how the pledge is a law respecting the establishment of religion? Are you forced to say it?

Do you think a kindergartener knows that he doesn't have to say the pledge, or why he can exercise the right not to say it? Do you think the other kids know why it's important to treat that dissent with respect?

I think we all know what the pledge does. It helps indoctrinate children to believe in God and to believe that our country believes in God also.

I think we all know what the pledge does. It helps indoctrinate children to believe in God and to believe that our country believes in God also.

POTD

I'd like to know what Thomas Jefferson thought of William Linn and Samuel Provoost.

I'd like to know what Thomas Jefferson thought of William Linn and Samuel Provoost.

I believe it was something like "who are William Linn and Samuel Provoost."

When is the ACLU going to address the positions of William Linn and Samual Provoost?

The First Amendment to the Constitution applies to the Legislature.

This routine has been used against atheism in the past. Just a few generations ago when christians were busy burning and torturing atheists, they were also claiming that an atheist couldn't exist.

"Many people have pretended to atheism or have been reckoned atheists by the world, but it is just a question whether any man seriously adopted such a principle."
-Encyclopedia Britannica 1771

One might assume these vicious liars are just playing stupid to win the argument, but it has been going on for so long it is probably not an act.

Really a great post, Blusky. I guess it is too much to hope that those who claim only a generic theism, but in fact are making a religion out of it, would come clean.

#124 - Zatoichi - Thanks. Copied and saved.

#143 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-12 03:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is true, things like not allowing a partner at bedside should never happen, homosexuals should be able to be at the side of their homosexual partners.

I think we should change the laws of who can visit someone in the hospital etc. Why not let the patent choose ahead of time. Give permission of that person to visit via signed document for now, until we get it all changed so that they can.

Also, can you please stop using the word "gay" it might offend the overly happy people in this country who are not homosexual. Homosexual is a much better term to use for the individuals as they are in a relationship with someone of the same sex, and from what I can tell, they are not gay about their situation in terms of the state and union.

I don't think the people of Lesbos like homosexual women being called Lesbians either, since they call their people Lesbians and the word already had an attributed meaning before it was hijacked.

If one is fickle over the word "God" it seems only proper to be fickle of the proper use of "gay" "lesbian" and homosexual.

The higher circumstances outside of ourselves that dictate what happens on this planet would not be happy (if they could be happy) about that.

(had to say it this way since I might offend some people if I say "God" or even "Higher Power".

Sticks and stones my behind. More people cry over words than anything else that I know of. Both the non-theist and theist varieties of all types alike.

And we are supposed to be mature, and or adults.
Funny stuff.

There has never been an offer of a partnership agreement which actually gave gay people the same rights as married straight people so your claim that it is just semantics is baloney. Barnie Frank said clearly that he doesn't care what you call it, he just wants to have the same rights for a gay "marriage" as for a straight one.

#24 | Posted by danni

I have absolutely nothing against gay people. However, do you realize, Danni, that if everyone were gay that the human race would not exist? In other words, marriage is looked at as something that enhances the advancement of life. True, there are a very few cases of sterile people who get married but this is far from the norm. Just like gay people are far from the norm.

What makes you think you deserve the same rights as people that you are so different from? Sure, you're still a person, but one who doesn't fit into the norms of society at all. You need to realize that you are different. Not that that makes you a lesser being, just a different one. And different people don't automatically deserve the same options.

You are different. Face it. You are not the norm. Face that. Quit trying to beat people over the head with your sexuality because all it does is alienate you even further.

Now, I realize all of that sounds like it comes from a homophobic person, but I assure that it does not. It is just common sense. Why should you get the same privileges as a couple that can procreate and help to ensure the survival of our species? You can't or won't do that so we can't rely on you for the survival of the human race. Like I said, you're different. Face it.

Everlong,

I don't know what country you come from but in the US we are taught that one of the reasons this country was founded was so that the minority would not be oppressed by the majority and that all could live happily and freely.

In fact, those that founded this country did so because they did not fit into the "norm" of England and they wanted to see an end to that practice.

also, with over crowding and lack of resources I don't think that those that procreate need to be set aside as special.

If I understand ol' Ever right, only those who can breed should be allowed the rights and privileges of humanity. I presume that gas chambers are too good for sterile ones who can't. herm

If it was "under Allah" you'd be singing a different tune.

"Allah" is the Arabic word for God. When Arabic speaking Christians (and there are some) refer to God the father of Christ, they use the word "Allah."

If you were translate the entire pledge to Arabic, I would demand using the word "Allah."

If it is in English, the English word "God," suffices and seems appropriate.

"and seems appropriate"

Horseshit from a pompous, ignorant asshole.

The original pledge is appropriate.
As it was before the McCarthyite scum ruined it.

"The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.

In its original form it read:

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

In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration."

"In 1954, in response to the non-existent boogeyman Communist threat of the times ... " is more like it.

Idiots.

"and seems appropriate"

Horseshit from a pompous, ignorant asshole.

Zat, no you got it wrong. I said, "and seems appropriate." Not you.

Anyway, if you didn't jump to conclusions, (odd thing for a so called scientist to do) you would understand that appropriate in my post refers to translating the current pledge which includes the reference to a deity. If one was going to translate it into Arabic, it would be appropriate to use the Arabic word Allah.

It was not an argument that the current pledge should contain the reference to any deity or revert back to the original form.

You know they have medicines like requip to help with restless leg syndrome. It may cure that knee of yours from jerking uncontrollably. Perhaps, you should see your doctor.

Well I certainly am not going to argue with anyone over this..

But... In God We Trust is the official motto of the United States, the U.S. state of Florida and the Central American nation of Nicaragua.

As an old school guy would say it... Those days are long gone....

"I don't know what country you come from but in the US we are taught that one of the reasons this country was founded was so that the minority would not be oppressed by the majority and that all could live happily and freely.

In fact, those that founded this country did so because they did not fit into the "norm" of England and they wanted to see an end to that practice.

#152 | Posted by richardspirit "

There are some actions that the public believes should not be legal and therefore, the public's representatives outlawed what the people wanted outlawed.

Sometimes, the minority is WRONG.

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't` buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

Actually, you are mistaken. The right to keep and bear arms is a liberal concept. I have yet to see a liberal that wants to outlaw all guns, Liberals would just like to have registration so that those who violate the law can be more easily found.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't` eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

I believe you are confusing a liberal with a vegetarian. Liberals are for freedom--free to eat yourself to death---or eat only veggies---or only twinkies.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

You must be joking. If a conservative is a homosexual and a politician, he leads anything but a quiet life.

That doesn't mean an atheist has to say the words or be put in jail.

How many people actually recite the pledge of allegiance on a daily basis?

When I was in highschool, we were lead through the pledge and prayer daily. Not saying the pledge resulted in a trip to the principle's office.

I'm being disenfranchised as a parent who believes his children should be taught what the founders believe in and the pledge is a part of that.

The pledge was written by a Socialist Preacher. Are you saying the founders of this nation felt that a socialist preacher had the right idea?

History is important.

I have yet to see a liberal that wants to outlaw all guns, Liberals would just like to have registration so that those who violate the law can be more easily found.

This place is full of liberals who would like to out law guns...

Were we to observe schoolchildren in Iran pledging allegiance to their nation "under Allah" every day, we would rightly suspect they were being forcibly religiously indoctrinated by their government.

I don't see how what we do is any different.

Christians (for the most part) call their god "God" and do not ascribe a proper name to their deity. And it is the Christian god being referenced in the Pledge. Were it not, the Pledge would simply invoke the appropriate name -- Yahweh, Allah, etc.

The notion that there is some "catch-all" meaning of God; that the words in the Pledge could mean any god or gods, be they Christian, Zoroastrian, Hindu, etc. is a smokescreen devised to hide the true purpose of the Pledge. It's a lot like how decades ago some dictionaries defined the word "nigger" as "a lazy person" in an attempt to legitimize a slur.

The fact that the Pledge capitalizes "God" is the smoking gun. Were they referring to any god, they would not have used the proper noun.

I'm an atheist, and I can say with certainty that the court is wrong when it states the phrase invokes patriotism. For me it does the exact opposite.

Here's what his sermon said to American atheists:

"[A]n atheistic American is a contradiction in terms. ... [T]hey really are spiritual parasites. . . . [They] are living upon the accumulated spiritual capital of a Judaio-Christian civilization, and at the same time, deny the God who revealed the divine principles upon which the ethics of this Country grow. ... [I]f he denies the Christian ethic, [the atheist] falls short of the American ideal of life."

So "under God" was added as a fuck you to atheists in this country and an assertion that we're engaged in a holy war against "secularized, godless humanity."

Other than that, though, it's completely non-religious.

#66 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-12 11:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

Good sermon then and even more relevant today. You can't refute it. Why? Because history, and especially current history bears witness in fact.

Whoremongers, thieves, liars and the self serving control the government and are propped up and kept in power by those claiming character (morals) has little to do with good decision making.

How's that working out?

#165 | Posted by porkchop at 2010-03-13 09:16 AM | Reply | Flag: another F- in American History

You can't refute it. Why? Because history, and especially current history bears witness in fact.

You mean like the time God let down the protective veil over America on 9/11?

Yeah, that is going to be pretty hard to refute.

How about defining what the "Right" to marriage happens to be, Rogers? Can a bipartisan agreement be made? Can any such love and desire for the right of marriage be denied by the state?

#93 | Posted by tadowe at 2010-03-12 12:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Those dead of spirit cannot be educated by spirit. Their mind is closed.

...those claiming character (morals) has little to do with good decision making.

Who is claiming that?

Guess after grasping at straws long enough you had enough to make up your own strawman.

Those dead of spirit cannot be educated by spirit. Their mind is closed.

#168 | Posted by porkchop at 2010-03-13 09:28 AM | Reply | Flag: Unintentional Irony

Jesus said you can blaspheme him but if you blaspheme the Father? Well, that just isn't good.

Jesus NEVER refered to himself as GOD in biblical scipture.

Yeah, that is going to be pretty hard to refute.

#167 | Posted by snoofy at 2010-03-13 09:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

You certainly seem to want to BLAME God for alot of things.

I suppose that could ease the mind.

We all know humans are perfect and have no part in nasty events.

The dissent in this case is 100 percent correct for calling bullshit on them.

#117 | Posted by rcade at 2010-03-12 02:29 PM | Reply | Flag: Only likes consensus when it's on his side. Like global warming, er, climate change.

You certainly seem to want to BLAME God for alot of things.

Quite the opposite. I don't blame G-d for anything because there is no G-d.

I'm an atheist, and I can say with certainty that the court is wrong when it states the phrase invokes patriotism. For me it does the exact opposite.

#164 | Posted by snoofy - FLAG: enlightened irrelevance

enlightened irrelevance

Sounds a little too Buddhist for my tastes.

Though I do agree that, in our consumer society, the complete lack of desire that comes with enlightenment would render a person irrelevant, at least from an economic standpoint.

It's hard to sell a new riding mower to the Buddha.

"It's hard to sell a new riding mower to the Buddha."

The protestant work ethic is much more suitable to consumer capitalism. Buddhism certainly isn't conducive to workaholic striving and consuming.

It's hard to sell a new riding mower to the Buddha.

I had to look up "consumer capitalism."

Yeah, that wouldn't work on Buddha, or even an educated, emotionally mature populace with a conscious knowledge of their desires.

I can see why it's so successful here.

There are longtime gay partners out there being excluded from their partner's bed at hospitals. That should never happen.

#143 | Posted by rcade

True--it shouldn't happen.

So change that law or sign a Power of Attorney and shove it in the hospitals' face.

In God we Trust -- all others pay cash.

#129 | POSTED BY MACHERNI

Did you get this off of a Bazooka Joe wrapper?

"I think we all know what the pledge does. It helps indoctrinate children to believe in God and to believe that our country believes in God also."

It is laughable that a pledge like this is an indoctrination or that "Under God" is needed as a reminder that ourr Country believes in God. Almost any national cerimony, oath, observance, creed, pledge, have a reference to God. From the POTUS, to the Lawmakers, Judicial Branch, Military...

Link? No god gives any rights. You are clearly mistaken. You should rethink your stance---unless you can show where your god gives rights.

#121 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-03-12 02:40 PM

"(3) In 1781, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration

of Independence and later the Nation's third President, in his

work titled 'Notes on the State of Virginia' wrote: 'God who gave

us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be

thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a

conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of

the Gift of God. That they are not to be violated but with His

wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God

is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.'

Crispee OC

Very good---you showed where Jefferson says god gives liberty.

Now show us where your God says we have any rights. Unless you think Jefferson is God.

"And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva, in the brain of Jupiter."

Thomas Jefferson

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

Thomas Jefferson

"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to Liberty."

Thomas Jefferson

The point still stands:

No god gives any rights. You are clearly mistaken. You should rethink your stance---unless you can show where your god gives rights.

Sorry--forgot the link for the Jefferson quotes.

#185...

Is there really a difference between libert and rights? Is the "right" of free speech different than the "liberty" of free speech? Liberty by definition means a particlular right, freedom, etc.

libert...
Liberty

liberty (n)

Synonyms: freedom, independence, autonomy, emancipation, liberation

Synonyms: right, freedom, authorization, authority, permission

Crispee OC

The point was your God gives no one any rights. There are no "God given rights". That point still stands.

As to your #187 post---define Free Speech. I define it as being able to speak freely without government intervention or punishment. I would say that Americans have the right and the liberty to free speech. I would say that Chinese have the liberty to speak freely, but not the right to do so. That means the Chinese are at liberty to say what they like, but the government may throw them in jail for doing so.

Freedom and Liberty can be used in the same context---but are not interchangeable in ALL contexts.

Case in point are the Chinese. They are at liberty to go about their lives, but do not enjoy the same freedoms we do.

Crispee OC

Very good---you showed where Jefferson says god gives liberty.

Now show us where your God says we have any rights. Unless you think Jefferson is God.

My God? Think Jefferson is a God? You asked for something about our rights and God. Meaning the origin of our rights as a nation.

"Freedom and Liberty can be used in the same context---but are not interchangeable in ALL contexts."

Nobody said they were. I simply pointed out they are both synonymous with "rights"...

On the benefits of religious liberty:

...(O)ur rulers can have no authority over such natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God.

No god gives any rights. You are clearly mistaken. You should rethink your stance---unless you can show where your god gives rights.

#185 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-03-13 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Free will (rights) is given to me by my creator.

Not you, not a government, nor any other human being has the ability to issue them (it) nor be able to take them (it) from me. Only should I surrender (free will) them (it) is it possible they (it) be removed.

I am in MY skin, a gift from my creator, not a government.

You really believe the crap you post.

Sad.

You asked for something about our rights and God. Meaning the origin of our rights as a nation.

#192 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-03-13 02:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

I asked for a link to where God gives anyone rights. Either state that God gives no one any rights, or show where God gives rights. Simple isn't it.

Free will (rights) is given to me by my creator.

#195 | Posted by porkchop at 2010-03-13 03:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Your creator has never given anyone any rights---ever. If you are correct, show where your creator gives you or anyone, any rights. Your delusions are not reality.

Among the most inestimable of our blessings is that...of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will; a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support (Reply to Baptist Address, 1807).

The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion (Letter to Benjamin Rush, 1800).

Your creator has never given anyone any rights---ever. If you are correct, show where your creator gives you or anyone, any rights. Your delusions are not reality.

#197 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-03-13 03:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

You could prove it to yourself if you didn't have esteem issues, holding yourself so low.

That's what believing you're some kind of random accident gets you.

You don't have to wallow, but that's your right.

I asked for a link to where God gives anyone rights. Either state that God gives no one any rights, or show where God gives rights. Simple isn't it.

#196 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-03-13 03:10 PM |

As usual you ignore the crux, which was "our rights deemed by the founding fathers" and the recognition they came from God.

Maybe when you build that time machine, you can go back and argue all those salient questions with the people who wrote the 1st, 2nd, 3rd... amendments. Seeing as you disagree the rights they give are accurate or true.

"and the recognition they came from God."

That should have been, and the recognition(according to them) came from God.

THE GODS OF THE COPYBOOK HEADINGS

AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

RUDYARD KIPLING

rights are not given by god, they are priveledges granted by governments. period. end of story.

Otherwise, how could governments take them away?

Free will (rights) is given to me by my creator.

Not you, not a government, nor any other human being has the ability to issue them (it) nor be able to take them (it) from me. Only should I surrender (free will) them (it) is it possible they (it) be removed.

I am in MY skin, a gift from my creator, not a government.

You really believe the crap you post.

Sad.

#195 | Posted by porkchop

you dont have free will, you are a product of your parents genes and your environment. Nothing more nothing less. your government can and does completely control you.

your government can force you to fight and kill others.
your government can put you to death.
your government can take away your possessions.
your government can get you to believe most anything.

It is laughable that a pledge like this is an indoctrination or that "Under God" is needed as a reminder that ourr Country believes in God. Almost any national cerimony, oath, observance, creed, pledge, have a reference to God. From the POTUS, to the Lawmakers, Judicial Branch, Military...

#183 | Posted by crispee_oc

thanks for pointing out the magnitude of the indoctrination. since i dont believe in god, that makes these ceremonies less meaningful.

so if i have to swear to god on a bible in a court of law, that means what?

Truth,

In regards to post #203, I was pointing out that the rights the Government granted us and the founders reference to God.

As for #205, rcade said the "reason" for adding the words "Under God" was for indoctrination purposes which I disagreed with, and I pointed out there are hundreds of places where God is inlcuded in our Country's pledges, oaths, observances etc. Not saying it is good or bad, right or wrong. If you have a problem with where it is included or the reasons why, that is another subject.

As usual you ignore the crux, which was "our rights deemed by the founding fathers" and the recognition they came from God.

#200 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-03-13 03:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

It is you who is ignoring the crux of the matter. The crux of the matter is---no rights come from any god.

If the founding fathers claimed rights come from god---they are wrong also. If god gave rights---there would be a record of it. no record----no rights. Just because you think there is a god that gives rights, doesn't mean there is a god that gives rights. Just because you believe in the Easter Bunny, doesn't mean there is an Easter Bunny.

Either show where god grants rights, or admit your mistake. I know the first is impossible to do, since there has never been any god that has ever granted any rights to anyone, and the second will never happen since you are too small a person to admit you are mistaken.

Rights given by men can never be inalienable. BOB's always been comfortable with the idea some pencilneck can put a dog collar on him and make him go "Woof!".

Some of us are uncomfortable with that notion, though in BOB's specific case I might pay a dollar to see that.

"Rights given by men can never be inalienable."

You must have a novel definition of the word "inalienable". Rights are alienated/violated every second of every day. "Inalienable rights" is just philosophical psycho-babble, one of Jefferson's more unfortunate phrases, along with "self-evident".

#207...

Once again Boob, you have trouble reading what I posted. Nowhere does it say what I believe or that God grants rights. Like I wrote earlier, when you build that time machine, go back and take it up with the people you disagree with.

It is funny you want me to admit a mistake I never made and expect a link showing God gives or doesn't give something. lol

"Rights are alienated every second of every day...."

People are abused everyday, sure. The idea is that being a mere victim of abuse doesn't change your essential nature.

You fellows are falling into a variety of the famine fallacy the idiot libertarians seem to support.

Once again Boob, you have trouble reading what I posted. Nowhere does it say what I believe or that God grants rights. Like I wrote earlier, when you build that time machine, go back and take it up with the people you disagree with.

It is funny you want me to admit a mistake I never made and expect a link showing God gives or doesn't give something. lol

#210 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-03-13 07:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Name calling proves my point about you being a small person.

This discourse started when you highlighted the statement in your #184 post, and stood in opposition to the statement I made in my #121 post:

No god gives any rights. You are clearly mistaken. You should rethink your stance---unless you can show where your god gives rights.

#121 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-03-12 02:40 PM

That point still stands. The second point about you being too small a person to admit you are mistaken stands also. Everyone knows it, and has known it for some time. I just like to highlight it from time to time.

"the idiot libertarians seem to support."

The idiot right-libertarians support nonsense on stilts, i.e., "natural law", "natural rights", "self-evident rights", "inalienable rights". They are all archaic 18th century flim-flam.

"Woof!"

This discourse started when you highlighted the statement in your #184 post, and stood in opposition to the statement I made in my #121 post:

No god gives any rights. You are clearly mistaken. You should rethink your stance---unless you can show where your god gives rights.

#121 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-03-12 02:40 PM

For the third time now Bob, I DIDN'T WRITE ANYTHING OR GIVE AN OPINION. I PASTED JEFFERSON. What fucking stance do you want me to rethink? That Jefferson never wrote that? Then you stupidly ask the same question about what "my God" gives? Show where I mentioned my god or said God gave me any rights, or SYFM and ask someone else to produce a link from God.

your government can force you to fight and kill others.
your government can put you to death.
your government can take away your possessions.
your government can get you to believe most anything.

#204 | Posted by truthhurts at 2010-03-13 05:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ever heard the words "give me liberty or give me death"?

Obviously words cowards would never utter.

Are you and BBob the same person?

The second point about you being too small a person to admit you are mistaken stands also. Everyone knows it, and has known it for some time. I just like to highlight it from time to time.

#212 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-03-13 07:25 PM

LOL!!! I have acknowledged my mistakes here many times, I have apologized and even took a break from posting because of a gaffe. Sadly the same can never be said about you. You're just a sad lonely man looking for any attention and will post anything, regardless of stupid it makes you look.

or SYFM and ask someone else to produce a link from God.

#215 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-03-13 07:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Laughing.....

BBob wants a link.

This is great entertainment.

"regardless of stupid"
regardless of how stupid...

"BBob wants a link."

In his mind, if you can't produce a link from God then you are a liar or mistaken. That is how his wharped mind works. He claims there are smokestacks on the moon, unless you can provide a link to refute that, in his mind he is right and everyone else is wrong.

For the third time now Bob, I DIDN'T WRITE ANYTHING OR GIVE AN OPINION. I PASTED JEFFERSON.

What was your reason for pasting Jefferson in response to the highlight post you were responding to?

No god gives any rights. You are clearly mistaken. You should rethink your stance---unless you can show where your god gives rights.

#121 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-03-12 02:40 PM

What fucking stance do you want me to rethink? That Jefferson never wrote that?

What is the point of Jefferson saying that in response to the post you highlighted?

No god gives any rights. You are clearly mistaken. You should rethink your stance---unless you can show where your god gives rights.

#121 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-03-12 02:40 PM

Then you stupidly ask the same question about what "my God" gives?

That was the whole point of our conversation since you responded and highlighted my #121 post.

No god gives any rights. You are clearly mistaken. You should rethink your stance---unless you can show where your god gives rights.

#121 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-03-12 02:40 PM

Show where I mentioned my god or said God gave me any rights, or SYFM and ask someone else to produce a link from God.

The point is that you didn't show that god gives anyone any rights---just as I said in the post you highlighted. I believe most people think that when you highlight a post, that you stand in opposition to the post, and can back up your opposition. You highlighted this post, and couldn't back your opposition.

No god gives any rights. You are clearly mistaken. You should rethink your stance---unless you can show where your god gives rights.

#121 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-03-12 02:40 PM

Since you can not refute that statement---as has been shown time and time again. I think you are the one who should just SYFM and slink away

#215 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-03-13 07:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

.

Laughing.....

BBob wants a link.

This is great entertainment.

#218 | Posted by porkchop at 2010-03-13 07:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

I understand your god is supposed to take very seriously, and frown upon, making things up about what it says and does. Something like eternal hellfire or something.

To say god gives rights, is a lie about your god. It is easy to post a link as to what god says and doesn't say. Just like this.

Ever heard the words "give me liberty or give me death"?

Obviously words cowards would never utter.

Are you and BBob the same person?

#216 | Posted by porkchop

not sure how one thing has to do with the other.

yep brave old patrick henry

of course he never had to go and fight and die in a war he didnt believe in or was killed by the state for a crime he didnt commit, or had his land taken by emminent domain.

you live and die at the whim of powerful men

thank your lucky stars they havent had a reason to call for a draft in 30 years

What is the point of Jefferson saying that in response to the post you highlighted?
#221 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-03-13 07:59 PM

Are you for real? You knew why I posted Jefferson and said it in post #207. You even argued that "rights" and "liberty" are not always synonymous. Yet you still want to know why I posted Jefferson? Your a fucking whack job Bob, plain and simple.

If the founding fathers claimed rights come from god---they are wrong also.
#207 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-03-13 06:58 PM

Are you for real? You knew why I posted Jefferson and said it in post #207. You even argued that "rights" and "liberty" are not always synonymous. Yet you still want to know why I posted Jefferson? Your a fucking whack job Bob, plain and simple.

#224 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-03-13 08:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

#207 was in response to your deflection from the crux of the matter.

God gives no one any rights

Just because I responded to your deflection, does not mean your deflection had anything to do with the point of the discussion. The point being

All rights come from the government. God gives no rights.

The secondary point being you are a small person in mind and spirit.

"The secondary point being you are a small person in mind and spirit."

Compared to your pathetic wharped mind and body, I am a fucking giant.

you live and die at the whim of powerful men

#223 | Posted by truthhurts at 2010-03-13 08:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

While I may die at the whim of powerful men, I am sustained by the will of God.

That you may believe you are the result of some random accident is your choice, or right, which ever word delivers you most comfort.

Compared to your pathetic wharped mind and body, I am a fucking giant.

#226 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-03-13 09:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Your name calling proves the opposite to be true.

The point still stands:

No god gives any rights.

;-)

"While I may die at the whim of powerful men, I am sustained by the will of God. "

Amen!!!!

All rights come from the government. God gives no rights.

#225 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-03-13 09:00 PM

Yet you feign ignorance why I pasted Jefferson? Did you bother to read this post, before your stupid demands asking for a link from God? Or claiming what "my God"...

I was pointing out that the rights the Government granted us and the founders reference to God.
#206 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-03-13 06:33 PM |

"While I may die at the whim of powerful men, I am sustained by the will of God. "

Amen!!!!

#229 | Posted by Lisa at 2010-03-13 09:20 PM

Hey Bella... Refreshing to see you post on a fouled thread.

I was pointing out that the rights the Government granted us and the founders reference to God.
#206 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-03-13 06:33 PM |

#230 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-03-13 09:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

As I stated---that is a deflection from the point.

All rights come from the government. No rights come from any god.

Pay attention. Focus on the point. That the founders gave a reference to a deity is a given. Just because they reference a deity means nothing. Their reference does not prove the existence of a god. The point is----again---no rights come from any god.

No god gives any rights.

I guess you will not be happy unless there is some kind of wording in sacred texts that read like miranda rights.

Does God in scripture give law?

Yes, he does.

And what is the purpose and function of law?

A basic understanding of law will show that an important function of it is for the protection of human rights.

For example,

"Thou shalt not kill" protects the inalienable right to life.

"Thou shalt not steal" protects the right to have property.

I doubt if that will convince you. So be it.

Since you do not believe in natural law and therefore universal inalienable rights, I am curious as to where does your moral compass come from?

Certainly you must think governments act immorally from time to time. And in making that judgment you must be applying a moral measuring stick of some sort by which you judge actions of governments or others.

Is this measuring stick of yours purely some kind of subjective application of your individual understanding of morality? If so, wouldn't it be more honest when you disagree with someone in matters of law and morality, not to say they are wrong, but to say: "According to my moral system which is totally arbitrary and human constructed, I believe that you are wrong despite the fact that your arbitrary system is as equally valid as mine"?

Point of fact, I never hear you say that here on the retort. You offer opinions about morality and law and judge other's take on them as if there was an absolute, objective reality to them--that one can be absolutely right and wrong in regard to moral rights. It strikes me as a bit disingenuous.

#232...
Of course it doesn't Bob, It's not like the Declaration of Independence just refers to a deity, right?

The Declaration contains five references to God - God as supreme Lawmaker, God as Creator of all men, God as the Source of all rights, God as the world's supreme Judge, and God as our Protector on whom we can rely.

"Thou shalt not kill" protects the inalienable right to life.

Actually, it means--"Thouu shalt not kill". It does not mean people have any right to life. I guess you think your god is too stupid to say--Humans have the right to life. I don't. I believe if there were a god, and that god wanted to say you had a right to life---that god would make such a statement.

"Thou shalt not steal" protects the right to have property.

It is a universal law---nothing special from any god.

How about the right to free speech? The right to peaceful assembly---freedom of the press--the right to bear arms---freedom of and from religion---anything? No.

The point stands.

All rights come from the government----no god gives any rights.

#233 | Posted by Grendel at 2010-03-13 10:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

#232...
Of course it doesn't Bob, It's not like the Declaration of Independence just refers to a deity, right?

The Declaration contains five references to God - God as supreme Lawmaker, God as Creator of all men, God as the Source of all rights, God as the world's supreme Judge, and God as our Protector on whom we can rely.

#234 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-03-13 10:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

First, the Declaration confers no rights.

Second---god didn't write the Declaration of Independence.

Show where god gives any rights, or as you like to say---SYFM.

;-)

"You must have a novel definition of the word "inalienable". Rights are alienated/violated every second of every day. "Inalienable rights" is just philosophical psycho-babble, one of Jefferson's more unfortunate phrases, along with "self-evident"."

#209 | Posted by nullifidian

Hey genius.... power given never taken.

"Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind."
Rutyard Kipling

"Hey genius.... power given never taken."...
237 | Posted by Dirk

Yes, I am a genius. Thanks for acknowledging that. Your worthless retort is hereby nullified.

"of course he never had to go and fight and die in a war he didnt believe in or was killed by the state for a crime he didnt commit, or had his land taken by emminent domain."

#223 | Posted by truthhurts

Your ignorance of Patrick Henry and history in general is exactly why it tends to repeat itself.

Actually, it means--"Thouu shalt not kill". It does not mean people have any right to life. I guess you think your god is too stupid to say--Humans have the right to life. I don't. I believe if there were a god, and that god wanted to say you had a right to life---that god would make such a statement.

Such a demaninding literalist! ha, ha.

Actually, I think God didn't think humans were so stupid that they couldn't figure out that "thou shalt not kill" means that human beings did not have the right to arbitrarily take the life of another and thus every one had a right to their own lives. I understand and accept that you don't want to apply such reasoning.

No matter. I didn't expect to convince you.

How about a comment on my other questions? Or is it just easier not to deal with them?

Yes, I am a genius. Thanks for acknowledging that. Your worthless retort is hereby nullified.

#238 | Posted by nullifidian at 2010-03-13 10:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I know you are but what am I"

Is this your rebuttal? I mean really. Come on at least call me poopy head or something. At least then I would raise you up a notch on the intelligence barometer.

"Is this your rebuttal? "

It's good enough for you, Dick.

"It's good enough for you, Dick."
#242 | Posted by nullifidian

Hard to formulate an argument eh? What happened, too many lead paint chips as a baby? Would you like me to purchase some crayons for you so you could draw a picture of your head up your ass?

Come on at least call me poopy head or something

Okay, you're really something. Just not sure exactly what. : )

How about a comment on my other questions? Or is it just easier not to deal with them?

#240 | Posted by Grendel at 2010-03-13 10:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

I didn't even read them until now. They are simple deflections from the point.

The point being:

All rights come from the government. No rights come from any god.

"Would you like me to purchase some crayons for you so you could draw a picture of your head up your ass?

#243 | Posted by Dirk

That's pretty weak, Dick. I appreciate the attempt at multiple cliches, but really, trying to be objective, you pretty much suck.

I didn't even read them until now. They are simple deflections from the point.

You must have watched a lot of Star Trek in your day. Your posts remind me of many episodes.

Shields and deflectors are up, taking evasive action, cloaking device is on.

Hmmm, Fascinating (raise right eyebrow).

Live long and Prosper, BB.

Good night.

Grendel

You should focus on the point at hand. If you were to concede that all rights come from the government, and that no god has ever given any rights, you could go on to ask other questions. Until then, it is you with shields and deflectors up and taking evasive action. Your cloaking device is working fine.

;-)

"All rights come from government...."

And all money to whores comes from Johns. You be fucked up.

Your ignorance of Patrick Henry and history in general is exactly why it tends to repeat itself.

www.historyplace.com

#239 | Posted by Dirk

I'm the ignorant one?

And you are apparently ignorant of the countless examples of how a. "rights" were denied b. "rights" were limited c. "rights" were refused in the past 234 years or so.

the "rights" we have are definded by the government, nothing more nothing less. the government has the power to set aside these rights and regulary does so.

Men wrote the constitution, men defined what is a "right" men defined who was alloed those rights and who was not allowed. those men were part of a government. period end of story.

There are longtime gay partners out there being excluded from their partner's bed at hospitals. That should never happen.

#143 | Posted by rcade

True--it shouldn't happen.

So change that law or sign a Power of Attorney and shove it in the hospitals' face.

We're trying, but too many Americans are bigoted and prejudiced and don't want gay people to have the same rights as straight people.

Free will (rights) is given to me by my creator

Which of your creators gave you those rights, Porkchop?
Was it your mommy or your daddy?

According to my moral system which is totally arbitrary and human constructed, I believe that you are wrong despite the fact that your arbitrary system is as equally valid as mine"?

I take exception to "equally valid." Biblical morality is contradictory. For example "Thou shalt not kill" is followed shortly by a whole list of conditions under which killing is demanded by G-d, like when a eunuch enters the temple or whatever. (Not to mention the killing sprees undertaken by G-d himself.)

My totally arbitrary and human constructed morality doesn't posses such glaring internal contradictions. From a logical basis, my morality is substantially more robust than the Bible's.

Men wrote the constitution, men defined what is a "right" men defined who was alloed those rights and who was not allowed. those men were part of a government. period end of story.

I agree, it is a little surprising that people are attempting to ascribe deeper meaning to the Declaration of Independence, which is simply a wartime propaganda piece put together by a bunch of rebels looking for a good excuse to justify their illegal war.

The Constitution is the formative basis for our government. The Declaration is not.

Had the Declaration carried the day, our nation would have been a brief flash in the pan, as our economic survival was not possible without slavery, and slavery flies in the face of the (childish) notion that "inalienable" rights are conferred by G-d.