0
NightJumper

The Pledge of Allegiance stands!

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

And furthermore. How is GOD a religion?
Is mother nature or father time. I believe HE is an entity. The way you worship HIM may be a religion.
GOD knows?!



Exactly! The acknowledgment of God is not "establishing a religion." The VAST majority believe in the most basic concept of a God or gods regardless of their specific religion.



I'd bet that the vast majority of CAVEMEN believed in angry lightning gods whenever there was a thunderstorm, which they didn't have the capacity to understand.

Just becaue the "vast majority" have a need for this crutch we call religion does not mean it should be forced on those who don't feel the need to believe.

-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


I'd bet that the vast majority of CAVEMEN believed in angry lightning gods whenever there was a thunderstorm, which they didn't have the capacity to understand.

Just becaue the "vast majority" have a need for this crutch we call religion does not mean it should be forced on those who don't feel the need to believe.


One last Quote
(Thank God huh)


Romans 1:
20
Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;
21
for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.
22
While claiming to be wise, they became fools
-----
W.C. Fields on his deathbed
W.C. why are you reading the bible,I thought you didn't believe. " Just check'n for loophoooles"
------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Religion is man seeking after GOD.
For someone to say that there is no God one must be omnipotent; because there is knowledge outside of ones self.
A little word of warning:
Psalm 2-
10
And now, kings, give heed; take warning, rulers on earth.
11
Serve the LORD with fear; with trembling bow down in homage, Lest God be angry and you perish from the way in a sudden blaze of anger. Happy are all who take refuge in God!
-Bob-



I don't see how this is good. God sounds like a bully. You could have made the same comments about Saddam Hussein to Iraqis: "Serve Saddam with fear; with trembling bow down in homage, lest Saddam suspect you of plotting his overthrow from power and you perish at the hands of his sick sadistic evil scumbag sons in a blaze of political torture. Happy are all who are subservient to Saddam!"

Someone please tell me why the fuck I would want to believe in a god I needed to fear!

-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Jeffery,

"Just becaue the "vast majority" have a need for this crutch we call religion does not mean it should be forced on those who don't feel the need to believe."

This issue doesn't bother me to much one way or another.

But and I say BUT if the "vast majority" as the polls are suppose to show want to leave it in. Why would we need to take it out for the minority that feel threaten by it?

To acknowledge a god, doesn't seem to be the same as the goverment promotioning one "god"

Just thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>The separation to which you are referring is not called out in our Constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Often described as the separation of church and state.



What a load of shit. What you should have said is:
"Often MISREPRESENTED as the separation of church and state."

The same type of person who reads "separation" into it reads "as long as you serve in a state militia" into the second amendment.

Both are full of shit.

-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yet more proof that the judges of the Ninth Circus are an activist court and will remain the most overturned court in the system.

Bill, are they requiring everyone to suddenly declare one religion?
Are they requiring everyone to recite the pledge?



To be fair, I think I see why people want things like god out of the pledge. It is seen as a preliminary step toward what could eventually be incrementalism toward theocratic rule -- an idea that may seem remote but which is always possible. I would think of it in the same way we oppose registration of guns, Kennedy, because of what we know could come later on. You don't oppose small, apparently insignificant changes in the immediate present because they themselves are so horrible; you oppose them because they gradually change and erode the political landscape, making huge changes over huge amounts of time so that they are barely noticable as they happen. I can see the point, and agree with it -- even though I do NOT agree that the first amendment demands a strict separation. Regardless of that, I do still feel that government and religion have no business mixing, and should not. In fact, I would support amending the first amendment to something like, "Federal, state and local government entities, their official documents and their official actions must be devoid of references, allusions, and loyalty of any kind to any religion."

-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion.

Actually, it means you can be free of religion if you so choose. That's sort of the point - no one in the government can compel you to do ANYTHING when it comes to any kind of religious worship, affiliation or affirmation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Someone please tell me why the fuck I would want to believe in a god I needed to fear!



I'm pretty sure "fear" as it is presented in the Bible means more so "respectful reverence." Although, God is all powerful and has proven himself to be worthy of a healthy fear as you are referring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'd bet that the vast majority of CAVEMEN believed in angry lightning gods whenever there was a thunderstorm, which they didn't have the capacity to understand.



And "Under God" would cover them nicely and they shouldn't be offended by it either. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hey Jeffery,

"Just becaue the "vast majority" have a need for this crutch we call religion does not mean it should be forced on those who don't feel the need to believe."

This issue doesn't bother me to much one way or another.

But and I say BUT if the "vast majority" as the polls are suppose to show want to leave it in. Why would we need to take it out for the minority that feel threaten by it?



Because in our constitutional republic, we protect the minority, whose rights still matter no matter how small that minority is, from the tyranny of the majority.

Not everything comes down to "we outvote you, so tough shit."

You might see this reflected in the fact that we protect ethnic minorities, and homosexuals, from a majority that might, if unencumbered by constitutional equal protection under the law, see fit to strip them of their rights, maybe even um, enslave them...

Does that answer your question?

-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was wondering when you would show up.:P

Quote

their ruling had absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of the case.



But it did. Regardless if they addressed it directly or not the result is that the pledge is still intact and constitutional as it is presently written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I was wondering when you would show up.:P

Quote

their ruling had absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of the case.



But it did. Regardless if they addressed it directly or not the result is that the pledge is still intact and constitutional as it is presently written.



I think this is a fallacy. "Constitutional as it is presently written"? Is it impossible for laymen to look at a law and say, "Oh, that's clearly unconstitutional"? Is it by definition that all things are constitutional until and unless the Supreme Court has said they are not?

What if they passed a law that said that newspapers had to submit all their copy to government censors prior to publication? WE KNOW THIS WOULD NOT BE "CONSTITUTIONAL." Let's not argue that because we'll be wasting time. I want to ask you, then, would you say that this law was constitutional just because it had not been declared UNconstitutional by the Supreme Court?

If the Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to this law because of a technicality, like the plaintiff (or whatever you call the plaintiff in a Supreme Court case) lacked standing to bring the challenge, and let a lower court ruling stand, that it would mean the law was "constitutional"?

I personally think that "constitutionality" is something that by its nature really should be pretty objective. When the words contained in a statute are parsed and analyzed and diagrammed, etc., and compared with what the Constitution demands, I think that there should be very little "wiggle room."

-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think this is a fallacy.

It doesn't matter what you "think" because it is a fact.
Quote

What if....


What if cows could fly? What if.... is nothing more than individual speculations and have nothing to do with the present reality. Or do you believe that the fact that it has been here for 50 years is a fallacy? Maybe it will be changed in the future, who knows, but that is not now and what is now.


Stay safe,
Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You would be correct.
:)If I remember the phrase correctly he refers to an 'inseparable wall between Church and state' but I haven't read it in a long time.

Yours in agave,

Vinny the Anvil
:)
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is not exactly true Bill. The purpose of Separation was to keep Gov out of Religion not Religion out of the Gov.

Laws can not be passed which restrict the rights of religion to freely practice. The Government can legally endorse any religion it wants.

Too bad most people don't understand that. Thanks of course to the Anti-Chistian Cult called the ACLU.

Chris

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi again, Jeffery -

"Not everything comes down to "we outvote you, so tough shit."

You might see this reflected in the fact that we protect ethnic minorities, and homosexuals, from a majority that might, if unencumbered by constitutional equal protection under the law, see fit to strip them of their rights, maybe even um, enslave them...

Does that answer your question?"

Thanks for the interesting discussion. I understand the rights of the minority, believe that they are very important to our system.

But when you damage a protected minority there are courses of action (In most case laws) but what protection from the minority does the majority have?

When we discuss the "slippery slop" idea, when do we say this is the reverse (minority forceing there will in the majority?)

How do you balance it? I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That is not exactly true Bill. The purpose of Separation was to keep Gov out of Religion not Religion out of the Gov.

Laws can not be passed which restrict the rights of religion to freely practice. The Government can legally endorse any religion it wants.

Too bad most people don't understand that. Thanks of course to the Anti-Chistian Cult called the ACLU.

Chris



Chris, I hear the Taliban is looking to open up a Christian subsidiary in the US. You might contact their HR department...that attitude is just what they're looking for...:|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Exactly! The acknowledgment of God is not "establishing a religion." The VAST majority believe in the most basic concept of a God or gods regardless of their specific religion.



So why do you need the backing of the Government to push your dogma? Why not just ensure you give your kids this indoctrination at home/at your church, and leave me and my family, and the rest of the country the hell alone? Why do religious people seem incapable of refraining from shoving religion down other's throats via the Government??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Why do religious people seem incapable of refraining from shoving religion down other's throats via the Government??



My guess, because they think they are supposed to live a certain way and do certain things according to a bunch of rules that were shoved down their throats when they were kids. Then, they come to find out that they don't _really_ want to live that way and that every day life tempts them to break those arbitrary rules. Some of them can't even stand seeing naked statues in front of gov't buildings that they work in. So, it's basically a mentality of bringing everyone else down with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So why do you need the backing of the Government to push your dogma? Why not just ensure you give your kids this indoctrination at home/at your church, and leave me and my family, and the rest of the country the hell alone? Why do religious people seem incapable of refraining from shoving religion down other's throats via the Government??



I don't need the "backing" of the government for any of my religious beliefs. I, however, believe this country was founded on Christian principles and it is expressed in many ways within the government. Nobody's trying to shove anything down your throat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My guess, because they think they are supposed to live a certain way and do certain things according to a bunch of rules that were shoved down their throats when they were kids. Then, they come to find out that they don't _really_ want to live that way and that every day life tempts them to break those arbitrary rules. Some of them can't even stand seeing naked statues in front of gov't buildings that they work in. So, it's basically a mentality of bringing everyone else down with them.



None of it was "shoved" down my throat. It wasn't stressed to me as a child either. I'm 35 and didn't become a Christian till 6 years ago. Also, the "mentality" is to bring people up, not down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

So why do you need the backing of the Government to push your dogma? Why not just ensure you give your kids this indoctrination at home/at your church, and leave me and my family, and the rest of the country the hell alone? Why do religious people seem incapable of refraining from shoving religion down other's throats via the Government??



I don't need the "backing" of the government for any of my religious beliefs. I, however, believe this country was founded on Christian principles and it is expressed in many ways within the government. Nobody's trying to shove anything down your throat.



I'm not a big participant in religion, but I do have to laugh when everytime religion is mentioned, it's referred to as "shoving it down ones throat" by the athiests. Since when does the mere mention of something transgress to that image? Freudian perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0