Pledge of Allegiance declared unconstitutional

[I Are Baboon]

Court Declares Pledge Of Allegiance Unconstitutional
2:35 PM EDT,June 26, 2002
By DAVID KRAVETS, The Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court ruled today that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and cannot be recited in schools.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a 1954 act of Congress inserting the phrase “under God” after the words “one nation” in the pledge. The court said the phrase violates the so-called Establishment Clause in the Constitution that requires a separation of church and state.

“A profession that we are a nation `under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation `under Jesus,' a nation `under Vishnu,' a nation `under Zeus,' or a nation `under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion,” Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote for the three-judge panel.

The court, in the nation's first ruling of its kind, said that when President Eisenhower signed the 1954 legislation, he wrote that “millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.”

The court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has said students cannot hold religious invocations at graduations and cannot be compelled to recite the pledge. But when the pledge is recited in a classroom, a student who objects is confronted with an “unacceptable choice between participating and protesting,” the appeals court said.

“Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge,” the court said.

[Random]

I am really suprised that wasn't done sooner as sensitive everybody is now.

[eric strt6]

works for me

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by Random
I am really suprised that wasn't done sooner as sensitive everybody is now.

No kidding. Not sure I agree with the ruling though.

[RideMonkey]

They should change it to "One nation, under science".

[El Jefe]

So change the pledge to "One nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all." Problem solved on the separation of church and state, and kids can still say the pledge. I'll bet most kids these days don't even know it. That's too bad. (too bad kids don't know the pledge. I agree with separation of church and state)

[Damn True]

What a bunch of poop.

Liberals will turn this country into a mass of passionless lumps who stand for and believe in nothing.

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by RideMonkey
They should change it to "One nation, under science".

I prefer "One nation, under IRB..."

[kafin8ed]

how bout "one nation on two wheels..." i like the sounda that...

[eric strt6]

Originally posted by Damn True
What a bunch of poop.

Liberals will turn this country into a mass of passionless lumps who stand for and believe in nothing.

Hey thats BS

I believe in the right to either believe or not believe in the diety of my choice. We call the document that guarantees that right the US Constitution and the bill of rights

part of the role of the government is to protect minorities from the oppression of the majority. It is unconscionable to force people to recite a tome that denigrates their beliefs regardless if the majority disagrees.

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by eric strt6


Hey thats BS

I believe in the right to either believe or not believe in the diety of my choice. We call the document that guarantees that right the US Constitution and the bill of rights

part of the role of the government is to protect minorities from the oppression of the majority. It is unconscionable to force people to recite a tome that denigrates their beliefs regardless if the majority disagrees.

I agree with that. Hopefully they will ratify the Pledge and not abolish it altogether. It should be used to pledge your allegiance to the USA, not to a god. It'd be a shame to see them eliminate the Pledge entirely.

[Sniper]

why don't we all just live in a bubble, so nobody's feelings ever get hurt again.....

[dirtgirl]

Originally posted by El Jefe
So change the pledge to "One nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all." Problem solved on the separation of church and state, and kids can still say the pledge.

BUT Efl Jefe, that would be TOO simple and make TOO much sense.

Instead, lets just all sit around fighting and arguing with each other so that NO one is happy...

Let me start.


I disagree with anything that anyone of you is thinking. :stupid:


:D

[ibismojo]

Originally posted by Damn True
What a bunch of poop.

Liberals will turn this country into a mass of passionless lumps who stand for and believe in nothing.

hmm...so no religion means no passion eh?

[Damn True]

The right to never be offended is not in the bill of rights.

Maybe I can get the courts to outlaw music, tv shows, and movies that glorify infidelity, promiscuity, drugs, and gang life. That stuff bugs me. Do I also have a right to not be bugged?

Not having the right to let your kid wear a cross around his/her neck is as equal an infringement.

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by Damn True


Not having the right to let your kid wear a cross around his/her neck is as equal an infringement.

Who mentioned anything about eliminating the Freedom of Religion?

[Damn True]

Originally posted by ibismojo


hmm...so no religion means no passion eh?

I'm not talking specificly about religion. Moreso the clamping down on your right to say what you believe to be true lest it offend somone.

[Joe Pozer]

Originally posted by dirtgirl


I disagree with anything that anyone of you is thinking. :stupid:


:D

I'm offended by the fact that you disagree with what I'm thinking. I'm suing! :rolleyes:

[eric strt6]

Originally posted by Damn True
The right to never be offended is not in the bill of rights.

Maybe I can get the courts to outlaw music, tv shows, and movies that glorify infidelity, promiscuity, drugs, and gang life. That stuff bugs me. Do I also have a right to not be bugged?

Not having the right to let your kid wear a cross around his/her neck is as equal an infringement.

no you can pray to your god, but it is not ok to force someone else to do the same. I don't care how many crosses or bibles you carry thats your business and it's constitutionally protected and so is someones right to do without any of it.

[Damn True]

Originally posted by I Are Baboon


Who mentioned anything about eliminating the Freedom of Religion?

There was a case about a month ago in So-Cal in which the courts decided that it was a breach of the "separation of church and state" to allow a 12 year old girl to wear a cross around her neck because it offended non-christian children in the class.

Same damn thing.

[M.W.]

Originally posted by Damn True
What a bunch of poop.

Liberals will turn this country into a mass of passionless lumps who stand for and believe in nothing.

Yes, as long as it follows MY opinion, then it's good.

If you change something to accomodate people who aren't ME, then you're an idiot...

Yeah. sure.

[Damn True]

Originally posted by eric strt6


no you can pray to your god, but it is not ok to force someone else to do the same. I don't care how many crosses or bibles you carry thats your business and it's constitutionally protected and so is someones right to do without any of it.

But you have to do so quietly so as not to offend anyone. Which by doing so infringes on the tennants of my faith that state I am supposed to preach the good news and carry the light of Jesus into the darkness of the world.

By disallowing that you are preventing freedom of "religion".

[dirtgirl]

Originally posted by Joe Pozer


I'm offended by the fact that you disagree with what I'm thinking. I'm suing! :rolleyes:

I would file a countersuit against you for raising your eyes toward heaven and thereby violating my religious freedom, but I'm feeling like quite the passionless lump right now.

:monkey:

[M.W.]

Originally posted by Damn True


There was a case about a month ago in So-Cal in which the courts decided that it was a breach of the "separation of church and state" to allow a 12 year old girl to wear a cross around her neck because it offended non-christian children in the class.

Same damn thing.

Well, I know people who aren't allowed to wear their Bad Religion shirts to school. And other people who've been in trouble for drawing pentagrams on binders and such...

[ibismojo]

Originally posted by Damn True
The right to never be offended is not in the bill of rights.

Maybe I can get the courts to outlaw music, tv shows, and movies that glorify infidelity, promiscuity, drugs, and gang life. That stuff bugs me. Do I also have a right to not be bugged?

Not having the right to let your kid wear a cross around his/her neck is as equal an infringement.

no one's infringing on anyone's right to their belief. by having the god word in the pledge, there are those who feel coerced to say something which they don't believe in. that is unconstitutional. and since you want to appeal to as many, you take the god word out. does that mean god is completely obliterated from the country's patrioism and foundations in which it were founded? of course not. it's still printed on money. it still has a role in the armed forces.

[Damn True]

Originally posted by M.W.


Yes, as long as it follows MY opinion, then it's good.

If you change something to accomodate people who aren't ME, then you're an idiot...

Yeah. sure.

That isn't at all what I am saying. It goes far deeper.

[eric strt6]

Originally posted by Damn True


There was a case about a month ago in So-Cal in which the courts decided that it was a breach of the "separation of church and state" to allow a 12 year old girl to wear a cross around her neck because it offended non-christian children in the class.

Same damn thing.

now thats wrong. Government should not show favoritism but let people wear or not wear , pray or not pray with out interference

[Shortbus]

aaaaaaah :rolleyes:

People with TOO much time on their hands and a very limited imagination...

:p

[ibismojo]

Originally posted by Damn True


I'm not talking specificly about religion. Moreso the clamping down on your right to say what you believe to be true lest it offend somone.

ahh...the paradox of our country...a country founded on christianity...yet states freedom of religion...yet asks the citizens of our country to pledge an allegiance to a diety which some may not believe in.

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by Damn True


There was a case about a month ago in So-Cal in which the courts decided that it was a breach of the "separation of church and state" to allow a 12 year old girl to wear a cross around her neck because it offended non-christian children in the class.

Same damn thing.

That is rediculous (the story, that is).

It'll be intersting to see what comes of this. Will kids no longer be allowed to say "Under God" if they so choose? I think they should be allowed to express their belief in their faith, but I don't agree with making everyone pledge allegiance to a god.

[Damn True]

Originally posted by ibismojo


no one's infringing on anyone's right to their belief. by having the god word in the pledge, there are those who feel coerced to say something which they don't believe in. that is unconstitutional. and since you want to appeal to as many, you take the god word out. does that mean god is completely obliterated from the country's patrioism and foundations in which it were founded? of course not. it's still printed on money. it still has a role in the armed forces.

Then if you don't dig God, don't say it. But don't try to stop me from proclaiming what I believe.

[eric strt6]

Originally posted by Damn True


But you have to do so quietly so as not to offend anyone. Which by doing so infringes on the tennants of my faith that state I am supposed to preach the good news and carry the light of Jesus into the darkness of the world.

By disallowing that you are preventing freedom of "religion".

go right ahead but I may tell you where to put it if after asking to be left alone you insist on continuing

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by M.W.


Yes, as long as it follows MY opinion, then it's good.

If you change something to accomodate people who aren't ME, then you're an idiot...

Yeah. sure.

DT et al should be allowed to express their faith. Don't put words in his mouth like that.

[ibismojo]

Originally posted by Damn True


But you have to do so quietly so as not to offend anyone. Which by doing so infringes on the tennants of my faith that state I am supposed to preach the good news and carry the light of Jesus into the darkness of the world.

By disallowing that you are preventing freedom of "religion".

right...that is your good duty to carry on the light of Jesus...but not the governments. that is what is meant by separation of church and state.

[ibismojo]

Originally posted by Damn True


Then if you don't dig God, don't say it. But don't try to stop me from proclaiming what I believe.

OR

we can take out the word God...and let everyone else who believe in God say God in the allegiance.

[M.W.]

Originally posted by I Are Baboon


DT et al should be allowed to express their faith. Don't put words in his mouth like that.

Others should be allowed to not express a faith that they don't believe in.

[Damn True]

Originally posted by ibismojo


OR

we can take out the word God...and let everyone else who believe in God say God in the allegiance.

If we do that aren't we doing the same thing to the Christians that the court is so pitifully trying to protect the non-Christians from?

("But when the pledge is recited in a classroom, a student who objects is confronted with an “unacceptable choice between participating and protesting,” )

Or is it ok to poop on the Christians?

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by M.W.


Others should be allowed to not express a faith that they don't believe in.

No one is arguing that.

[Shortbus]

I don't think we should change the freaking PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE every time a Joe Shmoe gets offended by something in it!!!!!

[Damn True]

Originally posted by M.W.


Others should be allowed to not express a faith that they don't believe in.

Nobody is making the kids say anything.

If you don't want to go to to church sleep late on Sunday.

If you don't want to listen to Howard Stern don't tune your radio to that station.

If you don't want to say God, then don't.

[MtnBikerChk]

I saw a funny bumper sticker this weekend:

"Jesus loves you. Everyone else thinks your an a$$hole."

[dirtgirl]

Originally posted by Damn True


If we do that aren't we doing the same thing to the Christians that the court is so pitifully trying to protect the non-Christians from?

("But when the pledge is recited in a classroom, a student who objects is confronted with an “unacceptable choice between participating and protesting,” )

Or is it ok to poop on the Christians?

Perhaps we should have a multiple choice allegiance to accomodate all religions.

One nation . . .

Under God
Under Jehovah
Under Allah
Under Vishnu
Under Gaia
etc...

[Shortbus]

"Jesus loves you. Everyone else thinks your an a$$hole."

What does it matter what everyone else thinks??? :p

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by MtnBikerChk
I saw a funny bumper sticker this weekend:

"Jesus loves you. Everyone else thinks your an a$$hole."

Perhaps they will add that to the pledge. :monkey:

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Shortbus
I don't think we should change the freaking PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE every time a Joe Shmoe gets offended by something in it!!!!!

Here here.

There was a move about 5 years ago to eliminate it altogether because groups of immigrants were offended at their children being asked to pledge allegience to our flag.

What the? You moved here jacka$$. If you still hold an alegience to goonygoogooland you should have stayed there.

[M.W.]

Originally posted by I Are Baboon


No one is arguing that.

By saying that it's wrong to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance you are.

Say I'm an atheist. Every day I go to school and recite the Pledge of Allegience, and I have to acknowledge the existance of a god that I don't believe exists.

Now say I'm Christian. I go to school and recite the Pledge of Allegience after God has been removed from it. I'm not DENYING the existance of God, I'm just not mentioning God in the Pledge.

[Shortbus]

Perhaps we should have a multiple choice allegiance to accomodate all religions.

WHAT about the NON-religious ones?!!!!

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by M.W.


By saying that it's wrong to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance you are.


Ehhh...I support taking God out of the Pledge. I also support Freedom of Religion.

[ibismojo]

Originally posted by Damn True


If we do that aren't we doing the same thing to the Christians that the court is so pitifully trying to protect the non-Christians from?

("But when the pledge is recited in a classroom, a student who objects is confronted with an “unacceptable choice between participating and protesting,” )

Or is it ok to poop on the Christians?

we're not pooping on the Christians!!!! the problem is that THE GOVERNMENT has an allegiance which recognizes GOD in which some people don't believe in. Ok? So...since there is a SEPARATION between CHURCH and STATE, the allegiance is bogus to begin with because it is "preaching" to those who don't believe in God.

You're arguing, why don't those who don't believe in God just not say God and everything will be all dandy. Well, it would be so easy had there been NO separation between the church and the state. But since the government clearly DEFINES that there IS a separation between the church and the state, it must remain neutral in the whole scheme of religion. So in order for the allegiance to work with this idea....it must take out God. Now you have an allegiance which no longer preaches by the GOVERNMENT, keyword, GOVERNMENT, not Damn True, Not Jesusfreak, not ibismojo. GOVERNMENT. Now those who do believe in God can say God in the allegiance and that would be their right to religion as they so see it.

[Shortbus]

Ehhh...I support taking God out of the Pledge. I also support Freedom of Religion.

So you wanna take religion OUT of the pledge, but still wanna support freedom of religion? So freedom of religion = NO religion????

[Damn True]

Originally posted by M.W.


By saying that it's wrong to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance you are.

Say I'm an atheist. Every day I go to school and recite the Pledge of Allegience, and I have to acknowledge the existance of a god that I don't believe exists.

Now say I'm Christian. I go to school and recite the Pledge of Allegience after God has been removed from it. I'm not DENYING the existance of God, I'm just not mentioning God in the Pledge.

Your last statement is fundamentally correct. But the overiding theme here is not the pledge of allegience it is the movement to eliminate all expression of faith.

[M.W.]

Originally posted by I Are Baboon


Ehhh...I support taking God out of the Pledge. I also support Freedom of Religion.

Same here. But I don't see how it tramples on anyone's right to freedom of religion by removing God from the Pledge. It just means that Christians are now being treated the same as other religions/atheists/agnostics/whatever. Why do they get THEIR god mentioned in it?

What if I want to say Zeus instead? I think Zeus should be in the Pledge instead of God. By not having Zeus, you're trampling on my freedom of religion!

No, I want to say Pop-Tarts! By not having pop tarts in it, you're taking away my right to say Pop-Tarts!

[MtnBikerChk]

My cat's name is mittens.

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by Shortbus
Ehhh...I support taking God out of the Pledge. I also support Freedom of Religion.

So you wanna take religion OUT of the pledge, but still wanna support freedom of religion? So freedom of religion = NO religion????

These are two separate issues. You think the court that made this ruling wants to abolish freedom of religion? Freedom of religion does include no religion, if that is what you so choose.

[Spud]

Interesting - the history of the Pledge indicates that the statement "under God" was only added in the 1950's.....

The history of the Pledge of Allegiance begins in 1892, when a form of the pledge first appeared in a publication. Here are key events in the life of the pledge:

1892: The pledge debuts September 8 in the juvenile periodical The Youth's Companion. It reads: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible, with liberty and Justic for all.

1924: The words "the flag of the United States of America" are substituted for "my Flag."

1942: The government officially recognizes the Pledge of Allegiance.

1954: At the urging of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Congress passes legislation that adds the words "under God" to the pledge. The revised pledge reads: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Source: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc.

[El Jefe]

There is a big difference between a personal expression of religious belief and the government (schools being part of said government) leading a ceremony that includes an overt reference to a religious figure.

Congress inserted the phrase "under God" into the Pledge in 1954. Take the phrase back out, and then express your personal beliefs how you wish. Wear your crosses, wear your pentagrams, wear an "Atheist and Proud" hat.....whatever floats your religious (or non-religious) boat.

[Shortbus]

No, I want to say Pop-Tarts! By not having pop tarts in it, you're taking away my right to say Pop-Tarts!

The pledge was WRITTEN in a time when religion still had "SOME" important role in most people's lives... It would be an insult to history alone to want to change the pledge to accomodate 21st century "beliefs" (or NON beliefs)

EDIT: b4 i get flamed i stand corrected :p

[Spud]

Originally posted by MtnBikerChk
My cat's name is mittens.

Isn't mittens plural, like a pair of cats. :rolleyes: Besides, dogs rule.

;)

[Spud]

Originally posted by Shortbus
No, I want to say Pop-Tarts! By not having pop tarts in it, you're taking away my right to say Pop-Tarts!

The pledge was WRITTEN in a time when religion still had "SOME" important role in most people's lives... It would be an insult to history alone to want to change the pledge to accomodate 21st century "beliefs" (or NON beliefs)

Wrongo, we added "under god" to the existing pledge during the 1950's.

[Shortbus]

This is all going TOO fast for me :rolleyes: :p

[The Toninator]

Originally posted by RideMonkey
They should change it to "One nation, under science".
"One nation, under $ ".
"One nation, under cha ching ".

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by M.W.


Same here. But I don't see how it tramples on anyone's right to freedom of religion by removing God from the Pledge.

I don't think it does elimnate their freedome of religion right. Removing God from the Pledge would eliminate the forcing of a God on people. People are still free to practice religion as they so choose.

Personally, I don't care that much either way. They could leave it as is, and I'd be fine with it. I said the Pledge a million times growing up, and was never offended by saying "Under God."

[Squeak]

Spoon!

[M.W.]

Originally posted by Damn True


Your last statement is fundamentally correct. But the overiding theme here is not the pledge of allegience it is the movement to eliminate all expression of faith.

By removing the reference to God, you're not dissallowing expression of faith. You're just stopping people who may not have faith in God from having to express their faith.

Nobody's saying you can't still express your faith. But INDIVIDUAL people should be allowed to CHOOSE if they want to or not. They shouldn't be forced to acknowledge something that they don't neccessarily believe in.

[M.W.]

Originally posted by I Are Baboon


I don't think it does elimnate their freedome of religion right. Removing God from the Pledge would eliminate the forcing of a God on people. People are still free to practice religion as they so choose.

Personally, I don't care that much either way. They could leave it as is, and I'd be fine with it. I said the Pledge a million times growing up, and was never offended by saying "Under God."

Honestly I don't care either, given the fact that I'm not even from the US. I just don't see what's wrong with removing it. It doesn't HURT anyone, and it will probably make a fair number of people happier/more comfortable.

[Zonic Man]

Don't worry, the 9th circut is notorious for being overturned by the Court. They WILL get overturned on that decision. Under the fact that separation doctrine goes to separating the gov. from endorsing SPECIFIC religions...I.E. no christmas tree on the County Seat's front law and a sign saying "Merry Xmas" with a nativity scene...but a xmas tree, with a star of david, and whatever they use for quamsa and a sign saying "Seasons Greetings" is okay.

basically, it is likely to be overturned on the theory that "God" is universal and does not support one particular religion, thus the state or government is not "sponsoring" one religion over another.

Damn 9th circut. When will they ever learn.

BTW: Court is 5-4 conservative/interpretationalist presently, with 2 more conservatives upcoming from Bush (Stevens is like a million years old and Ginsburg gets sick every other month).

[Damn True]

Originally posted by M.W.


By removing the reference to God, you're not dissallowing expression of faith. You're just stopping people who may not have faith in God from having to express their faith.

Nobody's saying you can't still express your faith. But INDIVIDUAL people should be allowed to CHOOSE if they want to or not. They shouldn't be forced to acknowledge something that they don't neccessarily believe in.

I can't recall anyone being expelled from school for a failure to express faith or a lack thereof. Nobody is forcing the kids to say it. However there are innumerable cases like the one I mentioned before where kids have gotten in trouble for wearing crosses, holding prayer meetings on school grounds, even things as benign as wearing a t-shirt from a bible camp. But we are trying to force the kids that want to say it to stop so they don't offend someone.

[Spud]

Originally posted by Damn True


I can't recall anyone being expelled from school for a failure to express faith or a lack thereof. Nobody is forcing the kids to say it. However there are innumerable cases like the one I mentioned before where kids have gotten in trouble for wearing crosses, holding prayer meetings on school grounds, even things as benign as wearing a t-shirt from a bible camp. But we are trying to force the kids that want to say it to stop so they don't offend someone.

Must not have gone to school in rural Idaho. Lots of examples here.....

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by Zonic Man
Don't worry, the 9th circut is notorious for being overturned by the Court. They WILL get overturned on that decision. Under the fact that separation doctrine goes to separating the gov. from endorsing SPECIFIC religions...I.E. no christmas tree on the County Seat's front law and a sign saying "Merry Xmas" with a nativity scene...but a xmas tree, with a star of david, and whatever they use for quamsa and a sign saying "Seasons Greetings" is okay.

basically, it is likely to be overturned on the theory that "God" is universal and does not support one particular religion, thus the state or government is not "sponsoring" one religion over another.

Damn 9th circut. When will they ever learn.

BTW: Court is 5-4 conservative/interpretationalist presently, with 2 more conservatives upcoming from Bush (Stevens is like a million years old and Ginsburg gets sick every other month).

Hmmm...interesting points, ZM. Good post.

[dirtgirl]

Please vote in my poll. :) It is here (http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23377)

[eric strt6]

Originally posted by Damn True


I can't recall anyone being expelled from school for a failure to express faith or a lack thereof. Nobody is forcing the kids to say it. However there are innumerable cases like the one I mentioned before where kids have gotten in trouble for wearing crosses, holding prayer meetings on school grounds, even things as benign as wearing a t-shirt from a bible camp. But we are trying to force the kids that want to say it to stop so they don't offend someone.

meet me. I was suspended for not reciting the pledge on exactly these grounds [ I refused to say under god and I still do] in Jr High 1971, Santa Monica Unified School District.

[M.W.]

Originally posted by Damn True


I can't recall anyone being expelled from school for a failure to express faith or a lack thereof. Nobody is forcing the kids to say it. However there are innumerable cases like the one I mentioned before where kids have gotten in trouble for wearing crosses, holding prayer meetings on school grounds, even things as benign as wearing a t-shirt from a bible camp. But we are trying to force the kids that want to say it to stop so they don't offend someone.

Honestly, I think that kicking kids out of school for wearing crosses and such, is complete sh*t. But if I'm gonna get in trouble for wearing my Bad Religion shirt, or kids are gonna get in trouble for wearing their Little Devil shirts, then it should be universal.

And what about the kids at my school who would yell at me and proclaim that I was going to hell and blah blah blah? I always got in trouble for arguing back at them, but they never got in trouble for claiming that I was going to be eternally damned, which I think is more offensive...

[Random]

Originally posted by eric strt6


meet me. I was suspended for not reciting the pledge on exactly these grounds [ I refused to say under god and I still do] in Jr High 1971, Santa Monica Unified School District.

Thats nuts I did a quick check on Supreme court and Pledge and came up with this case

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) - Court overturns Gobitis but is broader in its scope. No one can be forced to salute the flag or say the pledge of allegiance if it violates the individual conscience.

I never said it in school and I never had problems with any teachers or students. I even had some teachers that didn't say it.

[Freak]

Next thing you know, the song "God Bless America" will be banned!! :rolleyes: :p

[M.W.]

Originally posted by eric strt6


meet me. I was suspended for not reciting the pledge on exactly these grounds [ I refused to say under god and I still do] in Jr High 1971, Santa Monica Unified School District.

On a similar note, I once had to stay in after class because I didn't sing the french anthem passionately enough. (I went through french immersion, and this one teacher always made us sing the french anthem. And I guess I wasn't inspired enough by the anthem of another country that I have no ties to for her...)

[SK6]

Originally posted by I Are Baboon
Court Declares Pledge Of Allegiance Unconstitutional
2:35 PM EDT,June 26, 2002
By DAVID KRAVETS, The Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court ruled today that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and cannot be recited in schools.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a 1954 act of Congress inserting the phrase “under God” after the words “one nation” in the pledge. The court said the phrase violates the so-called Establishment Clause in the Constitution that requires a separation of church and state.

“A profession that we are a nation `under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation `under Jesus,' a nation `under Vishnu,' a nation `under Zeus,' or a nation `under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion,” Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote for the three-judge panel.

The court, in the nation's first ruling of its kind, said that when President Eisenhower signed the 1954 legislation, he wrote that “millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.”

The court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has said students cannot hold religious invocations at graduations and cannot be compelled to recite the pledge. But when the pledge is recited in a classroom, a student who objects is confronted with an “unacceptable choice between participating and protesting,” the appeals court said.

“Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge,” the court said.

Those judges can go F*ck themselves. Don't like it? move back to your own f*ckin country.

Jeese, no wonder it was easy for these morons to destroy the WTC, our government let 'em.

[M.W.]

Originally posted by sirknight6


Don't like it? move back to your own f*ckin country.


Yes, all Americans must believe in God...

[eric strt6]

Originally posted by Random


Thats nuts I did a quick check on Supreme court and Pledge and came up with this case



I never said it in school and I never had problems with any teachers or students. I even had some teachers that didn't say it.

and wallace never barred blacks from the front of a bus. Laws and Court rulings are generally ignored when the majority in a region feel passionatly about something. in the 70's Santa Monica was extremly right wing WASP, The general accepted practice for dealing with non conformance was to receive a "swat" [read hit with a large (up to 3 ft long) wooden paddle in front of your classmates.

[SK6]

A littlw weird that the more we remove God from our country the more it goes to hell..........

Why am I the minority?

Remember majority rules? when did the minority decide whats best for the majority? These folks need to be glad they have freedom living here!!!

My parents amd family did when they emigrated here...........

[BikeGeek]

Originally posted by Zonic Man
basically, it is likely to be overturned on the theory that "God" is universal and does not support one particular religion, thus the state or government is not "sponsoring" one religion over another.

I don't think "God" (the name, not the deity) is universal. "God" is a Christian name for the supreme being, just like Allah is the Muslim name for the supreme being. In a sense, Christianity is being promoted over other religions. Looking at the time frame that the "under God" was added, it makes sense, the US was a Christian nation.

Should the "under God" be removed? Probably not, but there has to be a way to state a nation's faith in the Almighty without offending anyone...except I guess the Atheists since they don't believe in a supreme being. They're all going to Hell anyway so screw them. :devil:

Just kidding atheists! I don't believe in Hell either. :)

edit: it would be so much easier if people would realize that the Almighty probably doesn't even care what name we give It. They're all names for the same thing. IMHO

[Spud]

Originally posted by sirknight6


Those judges can go F*ck themselves. Don't like it? move back to your own f*ckin country.

Jeese, no wonder it was easy for these morons to destroy the WTC, our government let 'em.

:p The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals destroyed the WTC? :p And all this time I thought it was a group of fanatics driven by religious zeal.... :rolleyes:

[ibismojo]

Originally posted by sirknight6
Those judges can go F*ck themselves. Don't like it? move back to your own f*ckin country.

Jeese, no wonder it was easy for these morons to destroy the WTC, our government let 'em.

what a bitch.

[SK6]

Fine,

Stop paying the f*ckin teachers!!!!!!!

It says God on the back of the dollar bill!!!!

Heceforth, it is unconstitutional to pay these A$$holes!!!!!!!!

[El Jefe]

Originally posted by sirknight6


Those judges can go F*ck themselves. Don't like it? move back to your own f*ckin country.

Jeese, no wonder it was easy for these morons to destroy the WTC, our government let 'em.

Whoa hoss, back up. If you don't like something that goes on here in America, you have the right to speak up about it and to lobby for change. This country was founded on the idea of freedom. Because we are free to express our opinions and views, some things people think and say may not agree with your belief system. They have the right to express their views without threat of harm or expulsion by the government or by the citizens.
I can't stand when people say stupid things like "Don't like it? Move back to your own f*ckin country." ...but I won't try to stop you from saying it. It's your opinion and you have a right to it as long as you don't actually make someone do it.

Oh yeah, and I think the judges are right on with this.

[dirtgirl]

Originally posted by BikeGeek
edit: it would be so much easier if people would realize that the Almighty probably doesn't even care what name we give It. They're all names for the same thing. IMHO

Yes, I should be more explicit:

Everyone, it doesn't matter what you call me (God, Allah, dirtgirl).

:D :D :D

[BikeGeek]

Originally posted by sirknight6
It says God on the back of the dollar bill!!!!


Yeah...we need to print all new money too. ;) :p

[BikeGeek]

Originally posted by dirtgirl


Yes, I should be more explicit:

Everyone, it doesn't matter what you call me (God, Allah, dirtgirl).

:D :D :D

How about Pookie? or Snookums?

[I Are Baboon]

guys, try to keep the conversation calm. I'd hate to close this thread.

[BikeGeek]

Originally posted by I Are Baboon
guys, try to keep the conversation calm. I'd hate to close this thread.

Sorry, I'll refrain from referring to dirtgirl as Pookie or Snookums in the future.

[eric strt6]

Originally posted by I Are Baboon
guys, try to keep the conversation calm. I'd hate to close this thread.

so the"girls" can be as nasty as they want to be?:D

[El Jefe]

Originally posted by eric strt6


so the"girls" can be as nasty as they want to be?:D
let's hope. :eek: :devil: :D

[BikeGeek]

Originally posted by eric strt6


so the"girls" can be as nasty as they want to be?:D

Only if they don't scream out "oh God!" while in the act of being nasty. That will only get them in trouble. :rolleyes:

[SK6]

Originally posted by El Jefe


Whoa hoss, back up. If you don't like something that goes on here in America, you have the right to speak up about it and to lobby for change. This country was founded on the idea of freedom. Because we are free to express our opinions and views, some things people think and say may not agree with your belief system. They have the right to express their views without threat of harm or expulsion by the government or by the citizens.
I can't stand when people say stupid things like "Don't like it? Move back to your own f*ckin country." ...but I won't try to stop you from saying it. It's your opinion and you have a right to it as long as you don't actually make someone do it.

Oh yeah, and I think the judges are right on with this.

Hate me you may, but I'm right on the money. When our forefathers included "freedom of religion", it ment choose your denomination, not godlessness. Every document that founded and forged our great country was BASED on God!!!!
Period, you cannot even come close to beggining an argument on that point.

Next, It was because of morons that make this ruling in the first place help find our land, to get away from opinionation of the Government.

next, it was a christian orginazation that founded our public school system.

Our country was founded based on CHRISTIAN principles.

so what you call a stupid statement pisses you off because of were we came from. like you said, you are entitled to your own opinion like the rest of us.

Every negative comment about God and removal of God from our country, is just another way to get away without having any accountability..................

peace.

(PS, these are my own opinions largly founded upon fact. I mean no insult to any Monkey nor target any monkey here personally, nor there personall beliefs)


Even if ther wrong!!! :p

:D

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by eric strt6


so the"girls" can be as nasty as they want to be?:D

Girls being nasty will always be encouraged on the :monkey:

[SK6]

Originally posted by BikeGeek


Sorry, I'll refrain from referring to dirtgirl as Pookie or Snookums in the future.


ahh, ditto!!!

LOL!!!!

Really, No need for personall attacks, nor will I tolerate it..........

A little thing called respect!!


for example:

"I respect nasty Girls!!!"

:p

:D

[eric strt6]

Originally posted by BikeGeek


Only if they don't scream out "oh God!" while in the act of being nasty. That will only get them in trouble. :rolleyes:

IMHO they can scream anything they want in those circumstances

[dirtgirl]

Originally posted by BikeGeek


Only if they don't scream out "oh God!" while in the act of being nasty. That will only get them in trouble. :rolleyes:

Yea, I don't want girls screaming out my name(S) when they are with other people....

:eek: :D

[Damn True]

Originally posted by BikeGeek


I don't think "God" (the name, not the deity) is universal. "God" is a Christian name for the supreme being, just like Allah is the Muslim name for the supreme being. In a sense, Christianity is being promoted over other religions. Looking at the time frame that the "under God" was added, it makes sense, the US was a Christian nation.




Still is.

The VAST majority of the US populace are "Christian" (blanket inclusion of religions that accept God-Jesus-Holy Spirit) including Catholic and Protestant.

So why is it that when we are supposed to be "By the people-For the people." the will of the majority of the people gets subverted by a vocal minority?

[SK6]

Originally posted by eric strt6


IMHO they can scream anything they want in those circumstaces

Aaahhhh HA!!!!!


:p


:D

[ibismojo]

hmm...separation of church and state....i'd say screw the government and let the damn church run this country. let the "majority" get what they want. I'll be moving to England when that happens, cause Canadians are retarded lameasses...........alright alright, you know i was joking about the whole moving thing, right :thumb: :D

[Damn True]

Originally posted by M.W.


Honestly, I think that kicking kids out of school for wearing crosses and such, is complete sh*t. But if I'm gonna get in trouble for wearing my Bad Religion shirt, or kids are gonna get in trouble for wearing their Little Devil shirts, then it should be universal.

And what about the kids at my school who would yell at me and proclaim that I was going to hell and blah blah blah? I always got in trouble for arguing back at them, but they never got in trouble for claiming that I was going to be eternally damned, which I think is more offensive...


On a side note:
I really dig Bad Religion.

[Spud]

Originally posted by Damn True



Still is.

The VAST majority of the US populace are "Christian" (blanket inclusion of religions that accept God-Jesus-Holy Spirit) including Catholic and Protestant.

So why is it that when we are supposed to be "By the people-For the people." the will of the majority of the people gets subverted by a vocal minority?

Majority rule is always mentioned, but what is overlooked? Minority Rights - i.e. equal protection. Think of the Jim Crow laws of the South prior to the civil rights movement. Majority rule was pretty dang handy unless you were on the short end of the stick.

[SK6]

Originally posted by Spud


Majority rule is always mentioned, but what is overlooked? Minority Rights - i.e. equal protection. Think of the Jim Crow laws of the South prior to the civil rights movement. Majority rule was pretty dang handy unless you were on the short end of the stick.

Man kind corrupts, not God......

Being human makes everything we do faleable(sp?).

so, here we go in a circle again.......:rolleyes:


LOL!!!!!

:p

:D

[Damn True]

Originally posted by sirknight6


Every negative comment about God and removal of God from our country, is just another way to get away without having any accountability..................



[/SIZE]

You hit the proverbial nail right on the head.

[El Jefe]

Originally posted by sirknight6


Hate me you may, but I'm right on the money. When our forefathers included "freedom of religion", it ment choose your denomination, not godlessness. Every document that founded and forged our great country was BASED on God!!!!
Period, you cannot even come close to beggining an argument on that point.

Next, It was because of morons that make this ruling in the first place help find our land, to get away from opinionation of the Government.

next, it was a christian orginazation that founded our public school system.

Our country was founded based on CHRISTIAN principles.

so what you call a stupid statement pisses you off because of were we came from. like you said, you are entitled to your own opinion like the rest of us.

Every negative comment about God and removal of God from our country, is just another way to get away without having any accountability..................

peace.

(PS, these are my own opinions largly founded upon fact. I mean no insult to any Monkey nor target any monkey here personally, nor there personall beliefs)


Even if ther wrong!!! :p

:D


I never said anything about hating you. Just because I can't stand what you said about "getting the f......" does not mean I hate you.

You're absolutely correct that this nation was founded on christianity. As we as a nation have grown, the presence and influence of other religions, and the idea of no religion has become a reality. Is it change for the better? Well, I guess it depends on your personal views and beliefs. I have not expressed my personal beliefs because they are in fact irrelevent to this thread. I have the right to my beliefs, and I have the right not to have the government ask me to believe anything else.

I do think it somewhat ironic that money has "In God We Trust" printed on it, but that's a different discussion topic.

By the way, I vote Republican in case you're accusing me of being a flaming liberal.....not that there's anything wrong with that.

[SK6]

Originally posted by El Jefe
I never said anything about hating you. Just because I can't stand what you said about "getting the f......" does not mean I hate you.

You're absolutely correct that this nation was founded on christianity. As we as a nation have grown, the presence and influence of other religions, and the idea of no religion has become a reality. Is it change for the better? Well, I guess it depends on your personal views and beliefs. I have not expressed my personal beliefs because they are in fact irrelevent to this thread. I have the right to my beliefs, and I have the right not to have the government ask me to believe anything else.

I do think it somewhat ironic that money has "In God We Trust" printed on it, but that's a different discussion topic.

By the way, I vote Republican in case you're accusing me of being a flaming liberal.....not that there's anything wrong with that.

ROFLMAO!!!!!

That was SO politically correctly put it's scarey!!!! LOL!!!!!

peace!!!!:thumb:

[ibismojo]

Originally posted by El Jefe
I never said anything about hating you. Just because I can't stand what you said about "getting the f......" does not mean I hate you.

You're absolutely correct that this nation was founded on christianity. As we as a nation have grown, the presence and influence of other religions, and the idea of no religion has become a reality. Is it change for the better? Well, I guess it depends on your personal views and beliefs. I have not expressed my personal beliefs because they are in fact irrelevent to this thread. I have the right to my beliefs, and I have the right not to have the government ask me to believe anything else.

I do think it somewhat ironic that money has "In God We Trust" printed on it, but that's a different discussion topic.

By the way, I vote Republican in case you're accusing me of being a flaming liberal.....not that there's anything wrong with that.

Republican's drink Guiness??!! No way!! Republican's are so cool now! :D Nothing wrong with Republicans but I swear, there must have been a better candidate than George Bush. He seems like a swell guy but he's just an idiot most of the time it's embarassing.

[El Jefe]

Originally posted by sirknight6


ROFLMAO!!!!!

That was SO politically correctly put it's scarey!!!! LOL!!!!!

peace!!!!:thumb:

Haha! You're right. Too much time spent working for a university.... I have to rewrite audit reports sometimes because certain terms could possibly be construed as offensive. So I can have someone arrested on fraud charges, but I can't say they committed fraud. :rolleyes:

[SK6]

Originally posted by ibismojo


Republican's drink Guiness??!! No way!! Republican's are so cool now! :D Nothing wrong with Republicans but I swear, there must have been a better candidate than George Bush. He seems like a swell guy but he's just an idiot most of the time it's embarassing.


true dat,


BUT,

he is kicking the ever lovin' hell out of those terrorists!!!!!

[SK6]

Originally posted by El Jefe


Haha! You're right. Too much time spent working for a university.... I have to rewrite audit reports sometimes because certain terms could possibly be construed as offensive. So I can have someone arrested on fraud charges, but I can't say they committed fraud. :rolleyes:

A leason I too must learn!!!!!

Or

A skill I too must learn!!!!!

LOL!!!!

[ibismojo]

Originally posted by sirknight6



true dat,


BUT,

he is kicking the ever lovin' hell out of those terrorists!!!!!

perhaps for this presidential term....but we could be screwed later on. someone out there is paying very close attention to the politics in this country.

it's funny how things shift so dramatically with each president. when clinton was president, we made significant progress in brain treatment for disorders such as Parkinson's disease. the use of stem cells helped a lot but now that Bush is in office...everyone just kinda stopped what they're doing or moved to europe to continue the research.

edit: now that reminds me of the last south park episode...hehe. Woohoo!! new one tonight! finally...after all these months (3 btw).

[eric strt6]

OK here is a prayer that we can all agree on


Grant me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot change.
The
courage to change the things I can. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of
those I had to kill today because they pissed me off. And also, help me to
be careful of the toes I step on today. As they may be connected to the ass
I may have to kiss tomorrow. Help me to always give 100% at work... 12% on
Monday, 23% on Tuesday, 40% on Wednesday, 20% on Thursday, and 5% on
Friday.
And help me to remember when I'm having a really bad day, and it seems that
people are trying to piss me off...

It takes 42 muscles to frown and only 4 to extend my middle finger
and say, "Bite me." Amen

[El Jefe]

Originally posted by ibismojo


Republican's drink Guiness??!! No way!! Republican's are so cool now! :D Nothing wrong with Republicans but I swear, there must have been a better candidate than George Bush. He seems like a swell guy but he's just an idiot most of the time it's embarassing.

Wow, I guess I am a Republican. Although I do have some views that fall well outside of party lines, so I don't vote straight ticket. Oh, and Bush? He was the lesser of the two evils. Now more importantly, Guinness. I bleed Guinness. I drank one while riding a road century last year, and this year on my birthday (this coming Sunday) I'll be tossing back a couple Pub Draughts before, during and after my ride.:D

[El Jefe]

Originally posted by sirknight6


A leason I too must learn!!!!!

Or

A skill I too must learn!!!!!

LOL!!!!

What's that, fraud? It's easy. :eek: I mean... umm oh you mean that pc crap. Yeah it took me a while, but I think I have it down pat now.

:thumb:

[dirtgirl]

Originally posted by ibismojo


perhaps for this presidential term....but we could be screwed later on. someone out there is paying very close attention to the politics in this country.

it's funny how things shift so dramatically with each president. when clinton was president, we made significant progress in brain treatment for disorders such as Parkinson's disease. the use of stem cells helped a lot but now that Bush is in office...everyone just kinda stopped what they're doing or moved to europe to continue the research.

oh no, thats a whole other thread right there... don't get me started... sigh. valuable time is being lost in the search for cures because of political agendas.

[ibismojo]

Originally posted by El Jefe


Wow, I guess I am a Republican. Although I do have some views that fall well outside of party lines, so I don't vote straight ticket. Oh, and Bush? He was the lesser of the two evils. Now more importantly, Guinness. I bleed Guinness. I drank one while riding a road century last year, and this year on my birthday (this coming Sunday) I'll be tossing back a couple Pub Draughts before, during and after my ride.:D

you should have been at Paul McCartney's wedding. Not that I was there or anything but the dude brought a truckload of Guinness kegs. And I'm talking about a serious truckload. Wish I could remember where I saw the picture.

[SK6]

Originally posted by El Jefe


Wow, I guess I am a Republican. Although I do have some views that fall well outside of party lines, so I don't vote straight ticket. Oh, and Bush? He was the lesser of the two evils. Now more importantly, Guinness. I bleed Guinness. I drank one while riding a road century last year, and this year on my birthday (this coming Sunday) I'll be tossing back a couple Pub Draughts before, during and after my ride.:D

It's all just relative, since,

Leatherface is my hero!!!!

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by sirknight6


It's all just relative, since,

Leatherface is my hero!!!!

There we go...I was wondering how I was going to get dragged into this one ;)

[Spud]

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20020611/capt.1023811277.ireland_mccartney_wedding_lrl104.j pg

[ibismojo]

Originally posted by dirtgirl


oh no, thats a whole other thread right there... don't get me started... sigh. valuable time is being lost in the search for cures because of political agendas.

well....i wouldn't take stem cell research too lightly. as a researcher or scientist....you should have the highest regards to ethics and morals. and not every researcher and scientist have that sadly.

[ibismojo]

Originally posted by Spud
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20020611/capt.1023811277.ireland_mccartney_wedding_lrl104.j pg

nice, there we go :D

[El Jefe]

Originally posted by Spud
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20020611/capt.1023811277.ireland_mccartney_wedding_lrl104.j pg Oh man, I may have to go spank my monkey after seeing that one.:eek: :monkey: :D

[Spud]

Originally posted by ibismojo


nice, there we go :D

One of my most memorable scenes from touring Europe at the Tender age of 19 was the Heiniken Tanker Truck delivering to pubs in Amsterdam.... :love:

[ibismojo]

Originally posted by Spud


One of my most memorable scenes from touring Europe at the Tender age of 19 was the Heiniken Tanker Truck delivering to pubs in Amsterdam.... :love:

I'd like to see a Tanker Truck deliver Budweiser in Amseterdam :D

edit: better yet, let's make it Pabst Blue Ribbon.

"Heiniken?! F*ck that sh*t! Pabst Blue Ribbon!"
-- Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet

[ohio]

Originally posted by Spud


Must not have gone to school in rural Idaho. Lots of examples here.....

Ditto for public school in Ohio. We had prayers at the flag every morning. I had to kneel with my fellow wrestlers while our Coach asked Jesus to help us win. We had li'l Jesus crosses up in some of our classrooms...

That was all public school. Once I was old enough to know what it meant, I felt very uncomfortable saying "under God." It could easily be removed without making little christian children feel uncomfortable all over the US every time they say "One nation indivisible." They can still express their devotion to god anytime they want to, or not express it anytime they don't want to.

This IS a different issue than children being discriminated against for expressing their beliefs.

[eric strt6]

Originally posted by Spud


One of my most memorable scenes from touring Europe at the Tender age of 19 was the Heiniken Tanker Truck delivering to pubs in Amsterdam.... :love:

mine was being first in line two days in a row for the free Heiniken brewery tour and tasting [toss back 8-10 freeone in 15 minutes then stumble over to the Karel Apfel to purchase the stuff that made Amsterdam famous

[SK6]

Originally posted by eric strt6


mine was being first in line two days in a row for the free Heiniken brewery tour and tasting [toss back 8-10 freeone in 15 minutes then stumble over to the Karel Apfel to purchase the stuff that made Amsterdam famous

Mine was drinking a Legends will reciting the Pledge of allegiance!!!!:p


:D

:rolleyes:

:D

[ohio]

Originally posted by El Jefe

You're absolutely correct that this nation was founded on christianity. As we as a nation have grown, the presence and influence of other religions, and the idea of no religion has become a reality.

Exactly. The country was founded by Christians... but in an amazing stroke of genius they recognized that while they fell under that umbrella they had different beliefs, therefore it was best to allow for ANY belief system to find a place comfortably in US society, as its practices didn't infringe on the rights of others. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

edit: Wow, I'm a little behind in this discussion. Ummmm... yeah, beer's alright.

Just because I'm Jewish doesn't mean that any venture I start has the stamp of the star of David it, and anyone involved needs to pray to Yahweh. The governments job is not to encourage the majority belief system (the majority , by it's very nature of being most of society, already does that well enough itself through it's weighted influence on societal norms), but to protect the practice of all of them.

[Toshi]

Originally posted by Damn True
The VAST majority of the US populace are "Christian" (blanket inclusion of religions that accept God-Jesus-Holy Spirit) including Catholic and Protestant.

So why is it that when we are supposed to be "By the people-For the people." the will of the majority of the people gets subverted by a vocal minority?
From the Federalist Paper #10, by James Madison:
Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.


Source: http://memory.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_10.html

If we take the vocal, active Christian component of our population to be a faction (and I think this is a fair characterization), then it seems quite clear that the founding fathers didn't want their (or any radical group) voice to prevail. Furthermore, since they took the trouble of including the right of freedom of religion, it shows that they recognized that they, while perhaps a majority at the time, did not exclusively hold the truth.

With these tidbits of history in mind, it can be seen that a government "by the people and for the people" doesn't necessarily mean one in which the majority has its way.

[SK6]

Originally posted by Toshi

From the Federalist Paper #10, by James Madison:


Source: http://memory.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_10.html

If we take the vocal, active Christian component of our population to be a faction (and I think this is a fair characterization), then it seems quite clear that the founding fathers didn't want their (or any radical group) voice to prevail. Furthermore, since they took the trouble of including the right of freedom of religion, it shows that they recognized that they, while perhaps a majority at the time, did not exclusively hold the truth.

With these tidbits of history in mind, it can be seen that a government "by the people and for the people" doesn't necessarily mean one in which the majority has its way.

because I'm a Christian, your calling me a factionist.............???

(you will soon be hearing a knock on your door, followed by a loud crash, then, you WILL be grabed and forced to ride ALL downhill courses in the world, Backwards and UP the hill while reciting 1 million Hail Mry's and 100,000 Our Father's!!! That'll teach ya!!!!!! Oh yeah, and all the while, we, shall rejoice in a frothy beverage while you..........won't!)


LOL!!!! I could NOT resist!

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by eric strt6


meet me. I was suspended for not reciting the pledge on exactly these grounds [ I refused to say under god and I still do] in Jr High 1971, Santa Monica Unified School District.


Eric strt6 defender of not saying God, or as he says "god" since 1972:)

The good "old" pledge is optional. Nobody needs to say any of it.

It's funny the pledge has been attacked from the right for making relgious people pledge allegiance to a false idol...

I don't say it, because I said once, and like weding vows, don't think they need to repeated every day.

Whoo hoo, new stuf to talk about!

[eric strt6]

Originally posted by ummbikes



Eric strt6 defender of not saying God, or as he says "god" since 1972:)

The good "old" pledge is optional. Nobody needs to say any of it.

It's funny the pledge has been attacked from the right for making relgious people pledge allegiance to a false idol...

I don't say it, because I said once, and like weding vows, don't think they need to repeated every day.

Whoo hoo, new stuf to talk about!

You know nothing of my religion, in which it it forbidden to speak our "gods" name out loud or in public . I leave it at this I have mine you have yours, they don't mix. but show respect for beliefs that are different and try to understand....

[narlus]

Originally posted by kafin8ed
how bout "one nation on two wheels..." i like the sounda that...

nah, parliament-funkadelic had it right:

One Nation, Under A Groove

:D

apologies if someone has already posted this. haven't waded through the thread yet.

[eric strt6]

Originally posted by narlus


nah, parliament-funkadelic had it right:

One Nation, Under A Groove

:D

apologies if someone has already posted this. haven't waded through the thread yet.

I am Mr Wiggles the Worm and these are my two ladies "Giggles & Squirm":D

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by eric strt6


You know nothing of my religion, in which it it forbidden to speak our "gods" name out loud or in public . I leave it at this I have mine you have yours, they don't mix. but show respect for beliefs that are different and try to understand....

Umm yes, just when you pulled in my Christianity when discussing sending rescue teams out for pets...

Practice it brother, so I may see the way.

[eric strt6]

Originally posted by ummbikes


Umm yes, just when you pulled in my Christianity when discussing sending rescue teams out for pets...

Practice it brother, so I may see the way.

Point taken, apology extended

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by eric strt6


Point taken, apology extended

Good 'nuff :) It's all good.

[BMXman]

Originally posted by I Are Baboon


I agree with that. Hopefully they will ratify the Pledge and not abolish it altogether. It should be used to pledge your allegiance to the USA, not to a god. It'd be a shame to see them eliminate the Pledge entirely.

Pledge my allegiance to the USA???...yeah because the USA has certainly shown some allegiance to me and my people..I think not!

oops wrong subject...BTW I always hated the pledge ever since I started school......D

[Joe Pozer]

Originally posted by BMXman


Pledge my allegiance to the USA???...yeah because the USA has certainly shown some allegiance to me and my people..I think not!

oops wrong subject...BTW I always hated the pledge ever since I started school......D

Well, no country per say can show allegiance but I do still believe that the US offers the best opportunity for an individual to succeed. Hence the reason why so many individuals from foreign countries (some risking their lives) migrate to this country.

Yes, there is still much racism...yes, there is still much proverty...but most importantly a person as the opportunity to succeed and improve their lives. That's something that's not possible in other countries. You are stuck in the same level in society that you were born into.

[LeatherFace]

I just read what DT said about "no one is making them say it" and I have to disagree. I remember being in first grade (in Catholic school, no less) and being taught the pledge of allegience, along with just about every prayer, rhyme, and song, and not really pondering what I was saying. You were expected to say it, you were taught to say it, and it all wasn't necessarily explained to you. I remember thinking "what does indivisible mean?" but I said it anyway.

So why does the word "God" have to be in the pledge anyway?

[DH40]

This is a very long thread, did anyone mention that this
country was not founded by Christians?

T FF's were Atheists, Deists, Agnostics and Unitarians, and Don't Give a Damns..

now let's all have a sandwich

[Joe Pozer]

Originally posted by DH40


now let's all have a sandwich

You got roast beef?

[bomberz1qr20]

How 'bout "One nation under dog..."

[Sniper]

Originally posted by sirknight6


Hate me you may, but I'm right on the money. When our forefathers included "freedom of religion", it ment choose your denomination, not godlessness. Every document that founded and forged our great country was BASED on God!!!!
Period, you cannot even come close to beggining an argument on that point.

Next, It was because of morons that make this ruling in the first place help find our land, to get away from opinionation of the Government.

next, it was a christian orginazation that founded our public school system.

Our country was founded based on CHRISTIAN principles.

so what you call a stupid statement pisses you off because of were we came from. like you said, you are entitled to your own opinion like the rest of us.

Every negative comment about God and removal of God from our country, is just another way to get away without having any accountability..................

peace.

(PS, these are my own opinions largly founded upon fact. I mean no insult to any Monkey nor target any monkey here personally, nor there personall beliefs)


Even if ther wrong!!! :p

:D




preach that on a reservation....

the way i see it, the only people who have THE RIGHT to say 'go back to your effin country' are native americans.

[Damn True]

Originally posted by LeatherFace
I just read what DT said about "no one is making them say it" and I have to disagree. I remember being in first grade (in Catholic school, no less) and being taught the pledge of allegience, along with just about every prayer, rhyme, and song, and not really pondering what I was saying. You were expected to say it, you were taught to say it, and it all wasn't necessarily explained to you. I remember thinking "what does indivisible mean?" but I said it anyway.

So why does the word "God" have to be in the pledge anyway?

Those kinds of explainations are what parents are for.

Daddy, we learned the pledge of ambulance today.

Son, its called the pledge of allegience, and no matter what that liberal wacko teachers union freak tells you it includes the word God.

-or-

Son, its called the pledge of allegience, and no matter what that liberal wacko teachers union freak says you don't have to say the word God.

[SK6]

Originally posted by astral


preach that on a reservation....

the way i see it, the only people who have THE RIGHT to say 'go back to your effin country' are native americans.

Tis a good point, but I apologize to NO ONE for that!!!! Why you may ask, well, I was not there, nor responsiblefor what occured.

A travisty non-the-less.....................

Oppression sucks!!! I'm a direct result of it.

[narlus]

Originally posted by sirknight6


Those judges can go F*ck themselves. Don't like it? move back to your own f*ckin country.

Jeese, no wonder it was easy for these morons to destroy the WTC, our government let 'em.

let me get this right, you're a moderator? :rolleyes:

good choice, RM. :dead:

[RideMonkey]

Originally posted by sirknight6


Those judges can go F*ck themselves. Don't like it? move back to your own f*ckin country.

Jeese, no wonder it was easy for these morons to destroy the WTC, our government let 'em.

Its my country and I don't like it one bit. Separation of church and state is a founding principle of this country. Its about time that was recognized. I'd like to see "In God We trust" removed from the dollar as well. I don't "Trust In God", but I do trust that dollar in my hand.

As for the WTC comment, one of the most asinine things I have ever heard. Our country is AT WAR!!! This is not some obscure little conflict in some far flung part of the world that affects none of us here at home. It affects all of us. Our economy is imploding, partly due to investors fears of another terrible attack to our cities. Our friends and families are losing their jobs.

If you don't have the sense to speak out in favor of our government in this terrible episode in our history, then its YOU that needs to leave.

I have always wanted to do something worth while in my life. This site may not have any important social impact, but the least I can do is spread the word to the few thousand that will listen:

Our country, our way of life, our very survival is threatened!! Speak out in support of this great country before its too late!!

If you can't do that, you are not my brother in this great nation.

[Babar]

Separation of church and state was originally came from founding fathers to avoid what it happened in England (Church Of England), they did not want Church of USA. Doing Nasty stuff at em.

According those some experts and writing.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Joe Pozer


Yes, there is still much racism...yes, there is still much proverty...but most importantly a person as the opportunity to succeed and improve their lives. That's something that's not possible in other countries. You are stuck in the same level in society that you were born into.

Ahh...I'd have to disagree with you on that one. Not everyone has an opportunity to succeed and improve his or her life. Sure, there may be cases where people overcame tremendous odds, but bottom line is, the majority of the folks in the US of A do not have access to the resources to get them where they dream to go. I mean, look at us...we have the luxury to have computers and the time to sit at them all day pontificating about everyone else who is not like us. We are in priviledged positions, and for the world's richest nation, there are too many people in poverty in this country. Now...would you like the long or the abridged sociology lesson? ;)

[Shortbus]

What's this about other girls calling dirtgirl while getting nasty??? :p Now you haf ma imaginashun going and it's not even 8am :rolleyes:




Anyways, once thing I definitely agree with in this thread is that the farther we drift (ARE drifting) from GOD, the closer to hell/anarchy we ARE getting. Just simply look @ the news everyday...

Someone also mentioned that they don't trust god, but they trust $$$$. That's a perfect example of my previous paragraph... $$$ gets you mountain bikes and cars, but it can never buy you happiness.

[dmvprof]

Originally posted by Damn True


I'm not talking specificly about religion. Moreso the clamping down on your right to say what you believe to be true lest it offend somone.

OK, you can dish it out, lets see if you can take it.

Your arbitrary, unsubstantial belief in the Bible is at best dillusional. The dogma of the bible is in direct contradiction with the world around us that we observe, and yet you still believe it. When people deny truth that is based on observable evidence that is repeatable it makes me question their sanity. Eithor you are brainwashed or are clinging to your beliefs because they form your image of who you are in such a deep way, that to acknowledge the facts before you would be to discrediting your entire life and the beliefs and dogma instilled into you by your parents and the church. Your ego would come crashing down if you accepted the facts, so in effect, your mind has evoked a defense mechanism that has allowed it to deny reason and rational thought for the sake of your ego and the worldview that you have developed, no matter how arbitrary it is. You sir, are the victim of a meme, I suggest you search for a cure.



Originally posted by Damn True



But you have to do so quietly so as not to offend anyone. Which by doing so infringes on the tennants of my faith that state I am supposed to preach the good news and carry the light of Jesus into the darkness of the world.

By disallowing that you are preventing freedom of "religion


You live in a secular country. And to correct waht IBISMOJO said, our founding fathers were not christian. This includes George Washington, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams. These were all men of the enlightenment, and could only be described as deists. In fact, Thomas Jefferson once reffered to the revelation of John as the "ravings of a madman".

You are free to evangelize, but you are not free to do it with the sponsorship of the government. So to equate this ruling as infringing on your freedom of religion is absolutely and completely absurd. By your reasoning, as weak as it is, the pledge should not only mention , "Under God", it should include "Buddah, Confusios, Allah, Zues, and Hercules, etc... Otherwise, the government is directly supporting a Judeo-Christian religion, and that, my dillusional friend, is a violation of the constitution that so many have fought and died for.

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by dmvprof


OK, you can dish it out, lets see if you can take it.

Your arbitrary, unsubstantial belief in the Bible is at best dillusional. The dogma of the bible is in direct contradiction with the world around us that we observe, and yet you still believe it. When people deny truth that is based on observable evidence that is repeatable it makes me question their sanity. Eithor you are brainwashed or are clinging to your beliefs because they form your image of who you are in such a deep way, that to acknowledge the facts before you would be to discrediting your entire life and the beliefs and dogma instilled into you by your parents and the church. Your ego would come crashing down if you accepted the facts, so in effect, your mind has evoked a defense mechanism that has allowed it to deny reason and rational thought for the sake of your ego and the worldview that you have developed, no matter how arbitrary it is. You sir, are the victim of a meme, I suggest you search for a cure.






You live in a secular country. And to correct waht IBISMOJO said, our founding fathers were not christian. This includes George Washington, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams. These were all men of the enlightenment, and could only be described as deists. In fact, Thomas Jefferson once reffered to the revelation of John as the "ravings of a madman".

You are free to evangelize, but you are not free to do it with the sponsorship of the government. So to equate this ruling as infringing on your freedom of religion is absolutely and completely absurd. By your reasoning, as weak as it is, the pledge should not only mention , "Under God", it should include "Buddah, Confusios, Allah, Zues, and Hercules, etc... Otherwise, the government is directly supporting a Judeo-Christian religion, and that, my dillusional friend, is a violation of the constitution that so many have fought and died for.

:eek:

[Shortbus]

Your arbitrary, unsubstantial belief in the Bible is at best dillusional.

I think that was uncalled for. But now let's see what YOU believe in.

The dogma of the bible is in direct contradiction with the world around us that we observe, and yet you still believe it.

So you'd rather trust in the world around you and what you can OBSERVE it I suppose? I.e. all the latest mass marketing of brain-washing products in the like of Britney Spears Music? Or maybe all those Nike adds that get you to pay 140 bucks for a shoe that cost them less than 30 cents to manufacture???

The Dogma of the bible is in direct contradiction wif the world around us IF you take what that bible has to say LITTERALLY. Problem is, when books are interpreted litterally, you usually end up with religious fanatics who support their distorted vision of a holy book (i.e. O. Binladen). The true meaning of holy books is usually underlying the first impressions they give.

MOREOVER, I don't think you TRUELY understand what faith means. People who run around trying to JUSTIFY, EXPLAIN, PROVE the existance of God (for example saying that the bible is in contradiction with our modern world) , are all after a lost cause. If you could PROVE the existence of God, then there would be no more FAITH. Faith is based on being grateful and appreciating what has been offered as a gift to you, life.

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by dmvprof


OK, you can dish it out, lets see if you can take it.

Your arbitrary, unsubstantial belief in the Bible is at best dillusional. The dogma of the bible is in direct contradiction with the world around us that we observe, and yet you still believe it. When people deny truth that is based on observable evidence that is repeatable it makes me question their sanity. Eithor you are brainwashed or are clinging to your beliefs because they form your image of who you are in such a deep way, that to acknowledge the facts before you would be to discrediting your entire life and the beliefs and dogma instilled into you by your parents and the church. Your ego would come crashing down if you accepted the facts, so in effect, your mind has evoked a defense mechanism that has allowed it to deny reason and rational thought for the sake of your ego and the worldview that you have developed, no matter how arbitrary it is. You sir, are the victim of a meme, I suggest you search for a cure.


Oh man. It is obvious that you have not done any serious studies as far as historical and archaeological proof of Christianity goes. Big words don't mean much if you can't back it up with research.

If you REALLY believe that (that belief in Christianity is essentially a surrender of rational thought, and that we're all 'victims of a meme') then you need to spend some serious time (a few years, not a few days or even weeks) researching the historical and archaeological proof for the existence of Jesus, proof of His resurrection, and all of that. Josh McDowell did the same thing - spent a few years researching it - so he could DISPROVE Christianity. He's now one of the most hardcore Christians, and for a reason - the concrete evidence convinced him.

In all honesty, I do not mean to be rude, but I REALLY get tired of people saying stuff like this. Yes, you will NEVER find 100% proof for Christianity. That would defeat the entire purpose - to accept Him out of our own free will, instead of being coerced into believing. But you won't find 100% proof for a lot of science's 'theories' today either. I think it's a bit telling that every single archaeological discovery has done nothing but CONFIRM Biblical history (or 'stories' as people love to call them). There's a reason you don't hear much of an outcry from the scientific community concerning Biblical archaeological discoveries. It's because they can't say much when the discoveries confirm 'the meme we're victim to.'

Yeah, I may be flamed and shot and tarred and feathered for saying this, but then again, what sort of Christian am I if I don't speak out for what I believe in?

[dmvprof]

Originally posted by Shortbus


I think that was uncalled for. But now let's see what YOU believe in.


He complained about "worrying about hurting other peoples feelings". So I'm only playing his game.


Originally posted by Shortbus
So you'd rather trust in the world around you and what you can OBSERVE it I suppose? I.e. all the latest mass marketing of brain-washing products in the like of Britney Spears Music? Or maybe all those Nike adds that get you to pay 140 bucks for a shoe that cost them less than 30 cents to manufacture???


You are referring to cultural and market properties that are irrelevant. I'm speaking about archeology, geology, astronomy, cosmology, biology, etc...


Originally posted by Shortbus
The Dogma of the bible is in direct contradiction wif the world around us IF you take what that bible has to say LITTERALLY. Problem is, when books are interpreted litterally, you usually end up with religious fanatics who support their distorted vision of a holy book (i.e. O. Binladen). The true meaning of holy books is usually underlying the first impressions they give.


I could just about guarantee you that 'Damn True' is one of the funamentalist xians. And when you water the bible down with contextual interpretations and you pick and choose what is metaphorical, you end up with a book that can tell you nothing. If the bible is meant to be interpreted that way, then who has the wisdom or authority to decide what is literal and what isn't?


Originally posted by Shortbus
MOREOVER, I don't think you TRUELY understand what faith means. People who run around trying to JUSTIFY, EXPLAIN, PROVE the existance of God (for example saying that the bible is in contradiction with our modern world) , are all after a lost cause. If you could PROVE the existence of God, then there would be no more FAITH. Faith is based on being grateful and appreciating what has been offered as a gift to you, life.

You go out on a limb when you tell me what I don't understand. But to satisfy your conjecture, I'll explain my view of faith. If I have faith in something, it means I don't have proof, therefore science is not a part of it. So I don't need proof for faith. But one thing is for certain, any faith I have, while unsupported by facts, will not contradict them as the bible does. Faith in accord with science what I believe in. Science is driven by faith. Ideas are formed in ones head without science, and through faith in the ideas science is applied to achieve proof.

Did you know that in the 16th century the Catholic church embraced science as the means by which we would prove the factuality of the bible. Then when they results came in, they changed their tune and began to spew dogma and then claimed the infallability of the pope.

[fourgivn1]

A quick reply to Shortbus.

You're right. Trying to prove the existence of God IS, in and of itself, a lost cause.

BUT gathering evidence in favor of His existence, and of the life, death, resurrection and ascendance of Jesus, is something different, and I think we can agree on that. Gathering evidence is the same thing courts do for cases they're trying. There will never be 100% proof for Christianity, but when the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of it, I'm not going to NOT believe in it just because I can't find 100% concrete proof. Then, there'd be no reason for faith.

[fourgivn1]

By the way, when DID the results come in? Disproving Christianity once and for all, that is.

[dmvprof]

Originally posted by fourgivn1
A quick reply to Shortbus.

but when the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of it,


Fourgiv

Put up or shut up.

I realize I'm somewhat new here, so I'll let the crack about me "obviously not knowing" slide. Before I lower the boom, let me just ask you where is your overwhelming evidence? Ken Hamm, ROFLMAO....

[fourgivn1]

BTW, Shortbus, I wasn't arguing with you...might have come off as such. I was just sort of 'adding/clarifying.' :)

[fourgivn1]

dmvprof, my purpose here was not to slander your name or make fun of you. If you're trying to bug or upset me or make fun of me, have a ball.

I did not say "Sit still while I provide you with evidence I've found." I SAID, and I quote,

"you need to spend some serious time (a few years, not a few days or even weeks) researching the historical and archaeological proof for the existence of Jesus, proof of His resurrection, and all of that."

I don't contain the entire sum of knowledge of the evidence in favor of Christianity in my head. That's why I read books and research stuff I'm interested in. You can do the same.

[fourgivn1]

I'll add one more thing, and then 'shut up.' :)

I'm not here to convert the entire board to Christianity. However, I will ALWAYS defend what I believe in. No less would be expected of a believer of any religion. I'm not going to waste time arguing why/why not Christianity is 'the right religion.' You will either go do research, or you won't. That's your choice. But making jokes isn't helping out.

[dmvprof]

You see what you have done dontcha. You have claimed that I don't know anything because there is evidence out there that proves that I don't know what I'm talking about. And when I ask you to back it up, you bail out.

Typical christian response.

If you were to inquire what evidence I have, well, let me just say that this thread would triple in size very quickly.


So come on fourgivn, just post a link regarding the "evidence" that you are so familiar with. Just one little link, you can do it cantcha? Show me a little respect, and I'll do the same. I have friendly respectful discussions with Theologins quite often. You may even learn something about christianity that you didn't know, and of course, I wouldn't expect you to believe an infidel like me, I'd use a reference.

[fourgivn1]

Actually, I don't remember claiming you don't know anything.

Here's a link......http://www.josh.org. It's the website of the guy I told you about, Josh McDowell.

As far as providing evidence to back it up (in other words, starting a debate, and arguing the case for Christianity right here and now), there's one very simple reason I'm not doing so. It is because you're just as capable of researching to find that evidence as I am. By the tone you're using, it is obvious that you DON'T respect me. You say such things as "typical Christian response," and you're putting words in my mouth (saying I'm claiming you don't know anything.)

I will be glad to give you respect, providing you do the same. Otherwise, I won't bother to reply.

For the record, I DO apologize if anything I said was offensive. As I said, my purpose here is not to convert everyone (or even anyone), but when people imply that I'm 'brainwashed' or that I'm 'clinging to my beliefs because my world would crash down if I did not' it bugs me a bit. I don't 'cling' to them because I'll be destroyed if I don't. I 'cling' to them because there are facts in support of Christianity. Just as there are facts in support of scientific discoveries.

A side note (this was added just after my post asking where you live). I don't WANT you to post all your evidence. It WOULD take up too much room. I CAN say for a fact that if you refer me to books and stuff like that, I will go read them. I DEVOUR books of any sort. I may be Christian, but I will read pretty much ANYTHING. (Well, not the Satanic Bible, but then again, you can figure out why not. :)) Both of us posting here, trying to disprove the other, arguing, would not serve a constructive purpose.

[fourgivn1]

On a COMPLETELY different topic (and not that I'm trying to change the topic - far from it), where in Georgia are you from? I used to live in Canton, if you know where that is, for about 5 years.

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by dmvprof
You see what you have done dontcha. You have claimed that I don't know anything because there is evidence out there that proves that I don't know what I'm talking about. And when I ask you to back it up, you bail out.

Typical christian response.

If you were to inquire what evidence I have, well, let me just say that this thread would triple in size very quickly.


So come on fourgivn, just post a link regarding the "evidence" that you are so familiar with. Just one little link, you can do it cantcha? Show me a little respect, and I'll do the same. I have friendly respectful discussions with Theologins quite often. You may even learn something about christianity that you didn't know, and of course, I wouldn't expect you to believe an infidel like me, I'd use a reference.

You're painting your arguments with too broad a brush and coming across as a narrow minded and mean spirted.

Are you narrow minded, and mean spirited?

Are you trying to be divisive?

What is your agenda?

Why are you here?

Welcome to the board, lower your rancor to simple disagreement, and it just might be fun to discuss our lives with you.


Peace

Rob

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by dmvprof



Fourgiv

Put up or shut up.

I realize I'm somewhat new here, so I'll let the crack about me "obviously not knowing" slide. Before I lower the boom, let me just ask you where is your overwhelming evidence? Ken Hamm, ROFLMAO....

Hey dmvprof...You are new here and I am not saying that you cannot express your views, but this thread is turning from a interesting argument about the pledge of allegiance and its unconstitutionality to you and forgiv having a holy war. Tone it down...both of you. You aren't going to disprove each other, and you should respect the other's view, and I don't think the comment "put up or shut up" shows much respect. Agree to disagree and be done with it already.

[fourgivn1]

Yeah, I should probably apologize to, uhm, the entire board in general, for turning this post into a Christian vs. non-Christian battlefield. I don't apologize for 'sticking up' for what I believe in, but if I've bugged anyone or been divisive myself I do apologize for repulsing other Monkeys. :D

[I Are Baboon]

I salute the flag, I pledge my allegiance to the USA, and I will be happy to keep repeating the Pledge, with or without the words "Under God."

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by fourgivn1
Yeah, I should probably apologize to, uhm, the entire board in general, for turning this post into a Christian vs. non-Christian battlefield. I don't apologize for 'sticking up' for what I believe in, but if I've bugged anyone or been divisive myself I do apologize for repulsing other Monkeys. :D

Apology appreciated--and sticking up for what you believe in is an admirable trait and I was not repulsed, but there comes a time when arguing in circles doesn't get anyone anywhere because some one else's views are just as strong as yours, albeit opposite of them ;)

[Quadari]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet or not, but we should all remember that the phrase "under god" was ADDED by congress in 1954 right during the red scare, McCarthy-ism, etc.

Now that all that nastiness is over, why do we need to keep it?

[Instigator]

Wow, thanks LF things were starting to get nasty.

Ok, I don't have a lot of knowledge in any of this other than spending the last 40 minutes reading it all.

For me the pledge of allegiance could stay the way it is or have under god taken out. I can appreciate and respect other peoples views on this subject and religion (or lack of).

I think all of us here wishes this world to be a better, kinder (except keep the nasty girls) more forgiving place.

Please always respect each other.

[Zonic Man]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


Hey dmvprof...You are new here and I am not saying that you cannot express your views, but this thread is turning from a interesting argument about the pledge of allegiance and its unconstitutionality to you and forgiv having a holy war. Tone it down...both of you. You aren't going to disprove each other, and you should respect the other's view, and I don't think the comment "put up or shut up" shows much respect. Agree to disagree and be done with it already.

Oh please.

Dmvprof has said some of the only intelligent, non B.S. things in this thread.

I don't see any disrespect in his posts, either. Perhaps reading comprehension should be studied by more people?

[Shortbus]

forgivin1,

No harm done i know u weren't disagreeing wif me... I do apologize for adding fuel to the fire and helping turn this thread around a bit. But those comments were really uncalled for (as I noted earlier) and I feel this newer member doesn't really realize how we like to "discuss" things on RM without starting to scream and shout and pulling each others hair out :p


Anyways back to the real topic:

What about those girls calling each other then? :devil:



As for the side-topic we have here (the pledge of allegiance) ;), I guess people feel SO strongly about saying under god that they would go as far as making it UNCONSTITUTIONAL??? that's what i don't understand...

[Damn True]

Originally posted by dmvprof


OK, you can dish it out, lets see if you can take it.

Your arbitrary, unsubstantial belief in the Bible is at best dillusional. The dogma of the bible is in direct contradiction with the world around us that we observe, and yet you still believe it. When people deny truth that is based on observable evidence that is repeatable it makes me question their sanity. Eithor you are brainwashed or are clinging to your beliefs because they form your image of who you are in such a deep way, that to acknowledge the facts before you would be to discrediting your entire life and the beliefs and dogma instilled into you by your parents and the church. Your ego would come crashing down if you accepted the facts, so in effect, your mind has evoked a defense mechanism that has allowed it to deny reason and rational thought for the sake of your ego and the worldview that you have developed, no matter how arbitrary it is. You sir, are the victim of a meme, I suggest you search for a cure.

This is so rich! Who the heck are you anyway? I love it when someone says that because I believe that Christ is my Lord and Savior that I am somehow brainwashed and non-thinking. Prove the "big bang", evolution, or any of a laundry list of scientific assumptions. You can't, you just believe them to be true. Non-thinker. Yup the teachings of Jesus are in contradiction to much of what goes on today. Therin lies the problem. The farther this country gets from God the closer it is getting to going straight to Hell. Far better men have attempted to provoke me. I can take it.




You live in a secular country. And to correct waht IBISMOJO said, our founding fathers were not christian. This includes George Washington, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams. These were all men of the enlightenment, and could only be described as deists. In fact, Thomas Jefferson once reffered to the revelation of John as the "ravings of a madman".

You are free to evangelize, but you are not free to do it with the sponsorship of the government. So to equate this ruling as infringing on your freedom of religion is absolutely and completely absurd. By your reasoning, as weak as it is, the pledge should not only mention , "Under God", it should include "Buddah, Confusios, Allah, Zues, and Hercules, etc... Otherwise, the government is directly supporting a Judeo-Christian religion, and that, my dillusional friend, is a violation of the constitution that so many have fought and died for.



You are so wrong on so many counts. First of all thank you for your psycological assesment of me based on what you have gleaned since you joined the monkey on June 12th. Amazing. In scarecly more than two weeks you have me all figured out. Faith hating, which is what you sir are demonstrating is no different in its origins than the motivations for terrorism. You are afraid. Afraid of the way we live. Afraid of the conviction that comes in admission of the truth. Afraid that you will be faced with the fact that much of your life has been lived serving sin. That fear stings. As long as faith haters can deny the existance or validity of God they can continue their "live and let live" that is causing the death of their souls. I pity you. I hope that someday your anger and fear are resolved.

I would hope that at some point in the last two weeks you would have picked up on the fact that we don't insult each other here. Apparently your vast and glorious intellect missed that little tidbit.

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Zonic Man


Oh please.

Dmvprof has said some of the only intelligent, non B.S. things in this thread.

I don't see any disrespect in his posts, either. Perhaps reading comprehension should be studied by more people?

Right.

He is being divisive, inflamatory, insulting......no wonder you don't see a problem with his posts.

[Damn True]

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
GEORGE WASHINGTON--
Presidt. and deputy from Virginia

...and some other old dudes.


We gotta burn the money. In God We Trust.

We gotta get that NY cop to stop singing God Bless America.

We gotta tear the ten commandments off the wall of the Supreme Court Chamber.

We gotta get rid of the benediction at the begining of each session of Congress.

We gotta take "So help me God" out of the oath of office.

Tell me again how this country is not formed on Judeo-Christian values. I love that story. It's a funny one.

[Damn True]

Anytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today people cry, "Separation of Church and State". Many people think this statement appears in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced. However, the words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:

I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. (1)
The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers. Williams had said:
When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world...(2)

The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.

The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture. The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs. Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.

There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another. Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity.

Each form of government has a guiding principle: monarchy in which the guiding principle is honor; aristocracy in which the guiding principle is moderation; republican democracy in which the guiding principle is virtue; despotism in which the guiding principle is fear. Without people of the United States upholding good moral conduct, society soon degenerates into a corrupt system where people misuse the authority of government to obtain what they want at the expense of others. The U.S. Constitution is the form of our government, but the power is in the virtue of the people. The virtue desired of the people is shown in the Bible. This is why Biblical morality was taught in public schools until the early 1960's. Government officials were required to declare their belief in God even to be allowed to hold a public office until a case in the U.S. Supreme Court called Torcaso v. Watkins (Oct. 1960). God was seen as the author of natural law and morality. If one did not believe in God one could not operate from a proper moral base. And by not having a foundation from which to work, one would destroy the community. The two primary places where morality is taught are the family and the church. The church was allowed to influence the government in righteousness an d justice so that virtue would be upheld. Not allowing the church to influence the state is detrimental to the country and destroys our foundation of righteousness and justice. It is absolutely necessary for the church to influence the state in virtue because without virtue our government will crumble -- the representatives will look after their own good instead of the country's.

[Shortbus]

Dmvprof has said some of the only intelligent, non B.S. things in this thread.


Right when everyone's asking to act like matue eople.... :rolleyes:

[Damn True]

Government was never meant to be our master as in a ruthless monarchy or dictatorship. Instead, it was to be our servant. The founding fathers believed that the people have full power to govern themselves and that people chose to give up some of their rights for the general good and the protection of rights. Each person should be self-governed and this is why virtue is so important. Government was meant to serve the people by protecting their liberty and rights, not serve by an enormous amount of social programs. The authors of the Constitution wanted the government to have as little power as possible so that if authority was misused it would not cause as much damage. Yet they wanted government to have enough authority to protect the rights of the people. The worldview at the time of the founding of our government was a view held by the Bible: that Man's heart is corrupt and if the opportunity to advance oneself at the expense of another arose, more often than not, we would choose to do so. They firmly believed this and that's why an enormous effort to set up checks and balances took place. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. They wanted to make certain that no man could take away rights given by God. They also did not set up the government as a true democracy, because they believed, as mentioned earlier, Man tends towards wickedness. Just because the majority wants something does not mean that it should be granted, because the majority could easily err. Government was not to be run by whatever the majority wanted but instead by principle, specifically the principles of the Bible.

Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.(3) We can go back in history and look at what the founding fathers wrote to know where they were getting their ideas. This is exactly what two professors did. Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible. The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government. If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government. An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..." The founding fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial, legislative, and executive. As mentioned earlier, the founding fathers strongly believed that Man was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary to separate the powers of the government. For instance, the President has the power to execute laws but not make them, and Congress has the power to make laws but not to judge the people. The simple principle of checks and balances came from the Bible to protect people from tyranny. The President of the United States is free to influence Congress, although he can not exercise authority over it because they are separated. Since this is true, why should the church not be allowed to influence the state? People have read too much into the phrase "separation of church and state", which is to be a separation of civil authority from ecclesiastical authority, not moral values. Congress has passed laws that it is illegal to murder and steal, which is the legislation of morality. These standards of morality are found in the Bible. Should we remove them from law because the church should be separated from the state?

Our founding fathers who formed the government also formed the educational system of the day. John Witherspoon did not attend the Constitutional Convention although he was President of New Jersey College in 1768 (known as Princeton since 1896) and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. His influence on the Constitution was far ranging in that he taught nine of fifty-five original delegates. He fought firmly for religious freedom and said, "God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that unjust attempts to destroy the one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both."(4)

In October 1961 the Supreme Court of the United States removed prayer from schools in a case called Engel v. Vitale. The case said that because the U.S. Constitution prohibits any law respecting an establishment of religion officials of public schools may not compose public prayer even if the prayer is denominationally neutral, and that pupils may choose to remain silent or be excused while the prayer is being recited. For 185 years prayer was allowed in public and the Constitutional Convention itself was opened with prayer. If the founding fathers didn't want prayer in government why did they pray publicly in official meetings? It is sometimes said that it is permissible to pray in school as long as it is silent. Although, "In Omaha, Nebraska, 10-year old James Gierke was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during free time... the boy was forbidden by his teacher to open his Bible at school and was told doing so was against the law."(4) The U.S. Supreme Court with no precedent in any court history said prayer will be removed from school. Yet the Supreme Court in January, 1844 in a case named Vidal v. Girard's Executors, a school was to be built in which no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever was to be allowed to even step on the property of the school. They argued over whether a layman could teach or not, but they agreed that, "...there is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz. a pure system of morality." This has been the precedent throughout 185 years. Although this case is from 1844, it illustrates the point. The prayer in question was not even lengthy or denominationally geared. It was this: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country." What price have we paid by removing this simple acknowledgment of God's protecting hand in our lives? Birth rates for unwed girls from 15-19; sexually transmitted diseases among 10-14 year olds; pre-marital sex increased; violent crime; adolescent homicide have all gone up considerably from 1961 to the 1990's -- even after taking into account population growth. The Bible, before 1961, was used extensively in curriculum. After the Bible was removed, scholastic aptitude test scores dropped considerably.

There is no such thing as a pluralistic society; there will always be one dominant view. Someone's morality is going to be taught -- but whose? Secular Humanism is a religion that teaches that through Man's ability we will reach universal peace and unity and make heaven on earth. They promote a way of life that systematically excludes God and all religion in the traditional sense. That Man is the highest point to which nature has evolved, and he can rely on only himself and that the universe was not created, but instead is self-existing. They believe that Man has the potential to be good in and of himself. All of this of course is in direct conflict with not only the teachings of the Bible but even the lessons of history. In June 1961 in a case called Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." The Supreme Court declared Secular Humanism to be a religion. The American Humanist Association certifies counselors who enjoy the same legal status as ordained ministers. Since the Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a religion, why is it being allowed to be taught in schools? The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity. This is exactly what our founding fathers tried to stop from happening with the first amendment.

1. Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings, Merrill D. Peterson, ed. (NY: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), p. 510, January 1, 1802.

2. John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution (MI: Baker Book House, 1987), p. 243.

3. M.E. Bradford, A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution (Marlborough, N.H.: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1982), p. 4-5.

4. John Witherspoon, "Sermon on the Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men" May 17, 1776; quoted and Cited by Collins, President Witherspoon, I:197-98.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Damn True



I would hope that at some point in the last two weeks you would have picked up on the fact that we don't insult each other here. Apparently your vast and glorious intellect missed that little tidbit. Jerk.

C'mon True...name calling isn't called for. I realize you are insensed by this, but lowering yourself to this is really uncalled for.

[Damn True]

You are right.

Edited.

[fourgivn1]

I"m sorry, but when you said that, it reminded me of Lesley Nielsen in Naked Gun, when he's arguing with that guy...

"Let's be civilized about this....Mr. POOPYPANTS!!"

*ROTFLOL*

Just caught me in an odd mood. Sorry. :rolleyes:

[Clark Kent]

I think we are missing the basic and MOST IMPORTANT point of this whole debate... That would be that if we need a silly banning like this to ensure the seperation of church and state...
WHY CANT I BUY BREWSKIES ON A SUNDAY?


i mean for gods sakes, I have needs ya know. :D





:monkey:

[dmvprof]

Originally posted by ummbikes


You're painting your arguments with too broad a brush and coming across as a narrow minded and mean spirted.


OK, thanks for the criticism.

You come across as apathetic, condescending, and detached.

Originally posted by ummbikes
Are you narrow minded, and mean spirited?



My mind is broad, yet I have come to conclusions, and I believe you have misinterpreted my confidence in them as narrowmindedness.

Mean spirited. Well let me say I believe that what christians believe about non believers is pretty offensive. And that part of their mission from god is to change what I believe.

Originally posted by ummbikes
Are you trying to be divisive?


I guess, but that is nothing more than expressing what side of a discussion you are on. Maybe you oughta try it instead of harrassing people that have.

Originally posted by ummbikes
What is your agenda?


To overthrow the world and make cars illegal and replace the Interstate system with some awesome singletrack.

Originally posted by ummbikes

Why are you here?


Back to the religious stuff again I see.

Originally posted by ummbikes
Welcome to the board, lower your rancor to simple disagreement, and it just might be fun to discuss our lives with you.

Peace

Rob

What's wrong with rancor?

In addition to riding bikes, I like to Coach 6 year old TBall and I'm building a tree house. What's going on with you?

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by fourgivn1
I"m sorry, but when you said that, it reminded me of Lesley Nielsen in Naked Gun, when he's arguing with that guy...

"Let's be civilized about this....Mr. POOPYPANTS!!"

*ROTFLOL*

Just caught me in an odd mood. Sorry. :rolleyes:


See...Now that's more like it. Meet you in the sandbox ;)

[fourgivn1]

I think that's one of the things that keeps me from being a total jerk (well, depending upon whom you are talking to *LOL*) - the fact that one minute, I can be waging Christian holy war, and the next, laughing my @$$ off at Lesley Nielsen.

[Shortbus]

Meet you in the sandbox


Shortbus<-- runs to the sandbox wif a waterhose to turn it into mud

MUDFIGHT!!!!!! :p ;)

[Damn True]

I'm not joking, and don't call me Shirley.

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=297973#post297973

[BikeGeek]

Originally posted by Damn True
So why is it that when we are supposed to be "By the people-For the people." the will of the majority of the people gets subverted by a vocal minority?

My mistake. I didn't realize that "by the people, for the people" meant only those people that believe what you believe. I thought it meant everyone. So sorry.

[dmvprof]

Damn True,

I'm not scared of very much. I've been around quite a bit of death. What is interesting is your accusation of my fear is really a reflection of the fear that you have and is the foundation of your faith. You are the one that fears hell or "being apart from god", not me.

As for the rest of it, how about your own interpretation. You don't have to cut and paste, you can post links to your references.

[Damn True]

Presidential Oath of office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.


Military Enlistment oath:
I, ___________________________________, do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed overme, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

[ummbikes]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dmvprof



You come across as apathetic, condescending, and detached.

You are, clearly, a master of observation.

My mind is broad, yet I have come to conclusions, and I believe you have misinterpreted my confidence in them as narrowmindedness.

Yes, of course, you a the prime example of "open mindedness". How silly of me not to notice.


Mean spirited. Well let me say I believe that what christians believe about non believers is pretty offensive. And that part of their mission from god is to change what I believe.

You are so right, when jesus asks us to "love each other" , thats just BAD!



I guess, but that is nothing more than expressing what side of a discussion you are on. Maybe you oughta try it instead of harrassing people that have.

Are you so thinned skinned, that me asking you to mellow out a little is harrassment? You should see how I am when people disrespect Amy Grant ;)



To overthrow the world and make cars illegal and replace the Interstate system with some awesome singletrack.

You almost had me here, but I like my cars...Single track is good....



Back to the religious stuff again I see.

Huh?





What's wrong with rancor?

It is fine, if you are just trying to get attention, and are three years old.

In addition to riding bikes, I like to Coach 6 year old TBall and I'm building a tree house. What's going on with you? [/B][/QUOTE

Let's see I also coach, I'm a parent, I am a trail advocate, I pay my taxes, brush and floss, put the seat down...

[fourgivn1]

FEAR is not the foundation of Christianity. (Or, at the least, I should say that it should NOT be. Anyone who is a Christian and DOES actually FEAR God - as in being afraid of Him - is sort of forgetting that having accepted Jesus as their savior sort of takes care of having to BE afraid.) I don't fear hell or being apart from God, and I don't think Damn True does either. Any Christian who has read the Bible (I'd hope they all do) knows they're going to heaven.

[fourgivn1]

I'm Christian, but I don't like Amy Grant either.

No disrespect intended, ummbikes! Please don't hurt me! :D

[Damn True]

Originally posted by dmvprof
Damn True,

I'm not scared of very much. I've been around quite a bit of death. What is interesting is your accusation of my fear is really a reflection of the fear that you have and is the foundation of your faith. You are the one that fears hell or "being apart from god", not me.

As for the rest of it, how about your own interpretation. You don't have to cut and paste, you can post links to your references.

Someone posted that this thread is not a discussion of the validity of the Bible or Christianity, but a discussion of the merits of have a ref to God in the Pledge. I am going to adhere to that suggestion and not continue to entertain your efforts to inflame.

But, since you asked, my referance is the one true word of God. It is indisputible.

http://www.bible.org/netbible

[fourgivn1]

For the record, I'm on Damn True's side. (As if I needed to say that. I think my posts said it. :D) Especially about the Bible remark. :)

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by fourgivn1
I'm Christian, but I don't like Amy Grant either.

No disrespect intended, ummbikes! Please don't hurt me! :D

Thats it we just can't be friends now...:p

I don't care for either, I'm more of a Supertones, and POD kind of guy.

[Joe Pozer]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


Ahh...I'd have to disagree with you on that one. Not everyone has an opportunity to succeed and improve his or her life. Sure, there may be cases where people overcame tremendous odds, but bottom line is, the majority of the folks in the US of A do not have access to the resources to get them where they dream to go. I mean, look at us...we have the luxury to have computers and the time to sit at them all day pontificating about everyone else who is not like us. We are in priviledged positions, and for the world's richest nation, there are too many people in poverty in this country. Now...would you like the long or the abridged sociology lesson? ;)

I don't know why but the word pontificating makes me laugh. I'm going to try and work it into my daily conversations. :p

I completely understand where you are coming from. I realize that many people who come from impoverished backgrounds and/or come from a single parent households in which the parent can't spend much time with the child have the odds stacked against them.
That being said, I don't fall for the victim mentality that many people use as an excuse to fail in our society. Yes, at this point in my life I have the priviledge to sit here in front of my PC and have a discussion with a friend who lives all the way in Colorado. But that hasn't always been the case in my life. It wasn't until I got to college that I actually got to work on a PC because my parents were too poor to afford one for the home. I did not grow up rich, in fact my parents had to work second jobs as janitors to help make ends meet. Not a very pleasent job which I know first hand since I spent many evenings, including weekends, helping them. When your are in high school the last thing you want to do is spend your weekend picking garbage, sweeping floors, and cleaning bathrooms but it was something we had to do in order to pay the bills and put food on the table. The thing is that my parents didn't sit there and bitch about it nor did I use this as an excuse to fail in school. I didn't complain about how unfair the American system is, instead I took advantage of it, got some grants, went to college, studied my arse off and now I'm in a position where I can live reasonably well and help out my folks.

Now, I will add the fact that I'm very lucky to have two very loving parents which gave everything they had to me and my sister. What they lacked in money they more than made up in love and spending lots of time with us.

But I just think that too many people fall for the victim mentality and prefer to blame society for their failures instead of taking responsability for their own actions.

Anyway, sorry for being so wordy and now I will step off my soapbox before I get pushed off.

[fourgivn1]

Yeah, Supertones/POD rocks! You might want to check out Pillar as well, if you have never heard of them....

www.pillarmusic.com

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by dmvprof


I'm not scared of very much.

I'm afraid of clowns and people who dress up in animal costumes (like Mickey Mouse) and the mere idea of Mardi Gras freaks me out

[Damn True]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


I'm afraid of clowns and people who dress up in animal costumes (like Mickey Mouse) and the mere idea of Mardi Gras freaks me out

Yeah, clowns are creepy. But few things are as scary as the idea of Hillary Clinton as President.

[fourgivn1]

I'm afraid of carnies.

You know, circus people. Big hands. Smell like cabbage.

:rolleyes:

[Toshi]

Please, will both sides of this mini holy war stop trying to "prove" that they are correct? The Christians clearly believe in something with a strong conviction, and saying that they are irrational or sheep a) isn't making any friends, and b) is insulting. I went to Jesuit school, so most of my high school friends were Catholic. I'm not so presumptuous as to write them all of as being weak minded. Are you? On the other hand, the Christians need to stop inserting religious commentary into every discussion. Maybe that's who you are, but that's still annoying. And the world is not going to end, despite what the Bible may or may not say. That belief is irrational, imo. :eek:

Ari, yes, the 1954 addition of "under God" has been brought up, but your point that it was during the red scare is interesting...

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by Damn True


Yeah, clowns are creepy. But few things are as scary as the idea of Hillary Clinton as President.

Yeah, I'll have to back you on this one.

Hmm...How about Jesse Camp for president? *LOL*

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Joe Pozer


I don't know why but the word pontificating makes me laugh. I'm going to try and work it into my daily conversations. :p

I completely understand where you are coming from. I realize that many people who come from impoverished backgrounds and/or come from a single parent households in which the parent can't spend much time with the child have the odds stacked against them.
That being said, I don't fall for the victim mentality that many people use as an excuse to fail in our society. Yes, at this point in my life I have the priviledge to sit here in front of my PC and have a discussion with a friend who lives all the way in Colorado. But that hasn't always been the case in my life. It wasn't until I got to college that I actually got to work on a PC because my parents were too poor to afford one for the home. I did not grow up rich, in fact my parents had to work second jobs as janitors to help make ends meet. Not a very pleasent job which I know first hand since I spent many evenings, including weekends, helping them. When your are in high school the last thing you want to do is spend your weekend picking garbage, sweeping floors, and cleaning bathrooms but it was something we had to do in order to pay the bills and put food on the table. The thing is that my parents didn't sit there and bitch about it nor did I use this as an excuse to fail in school. I didn't complain about how unfair the American system is, instead I took advantage of it, got some grants, went to college, studied my arse off and now I'm in a position where I can live reasonably well and help out my folks.

Now, I will add the fact that I'm very lucky to have two very loving parents which gave everything they had to me and my sister. What they lacked in money they more than made up in love and spending lots of time with us.

But I just think that too many people fall for the victim mentality and prefer to blame society for their failures instead of taking responsability for their own actions.

Anyway, sorry for being so wordy and now I will step off my soapbox before I get pushed off.

I love using the word "pontificating"...isn't it a great word? And thanks for sharing your personal view about it Joe...now that you give your side of the story, I can see that you were very fortunate in having two parents who wanted the best for you. Unfortunately, and you have recognized this too, not everyone is as lucky as you have been. ;)

[Damn True]

I might vote for Camp over Clinton.

Where does he stand on NAFTA?


Even more frightening:
Barbra Boxer or Diane Feinstien with real power. Can you say no more Mt. Bike access to the woods?

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Damn True


Yeah, clowns are creepy. But few things are as scary as the idea of Hillary Clinton as President.

I think that this may be in our future though...I would be really surprised if Dubya was elected for a second term. And the democrats don't have any great runners this year (like they really have since, well, since...Kennedy?)

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by Damn True
I might vote for Camp over Clinton.

Where does he stand on NAFTA?



I'm not even sure Jesse Camp can STAND most of the time, much less on any issue...always looks like he's high on something. :p

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Damn True
I might vote for Camp over Clinton.

Where does he stand on NAFTA?




I don't know how you feel about NAFTA, but I am really against it...shall we start another thread to discuss this one? ;)

[Damn True]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


I think that this may be in our future though...I would be really surprised if Dubya was elected for a second term. And the democrats don't have any great runners this year (like they really have since, well, since...Kennedy?)

The funny part is that Kennedy's 1960 platform bears a far greater resemblance to a modern Republican platform than anything even remotely considerd Democrat. Yet he is held up by many as the greatest of Democrats.

[Damn True]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


I don't know how you feel about NAFTA, but I am really against it...shall we start another thread to discuss this one? ;)

You are out in "left" (lol, I kill me) field on many things, but I agree with you on this one.

[fourgivn1]

Another funny thing....today the word 'Democrat' is commonly associated with being on the 'left', pro-choice, anti-Christian, etc. I'm not saying those are always true, but they're sort of stereotypes. Jimmy Carter was a Democrat, yet anyone who knows anything about him knows he was proud to say he was a 'born again' Christian. :confused: Things that make you go hmm...

[llkoolkeg]

that mandates the separation of church and state. Religion has had much to do with the creation and development of this nation and it is as ingrained into our collective "American" culture as firearms.

The Establishment Clause, which this judge and others have twisted into a Trojan Horse to attack any acknowledgement of religion, is a constitutional protection against the establishment of a state, i.e. official, religion. There is nothing that says, however, that the two must be kept completely separate, like some sort of chemical elements that explode when combined.

The Pledge says "under God" and does not specify one to be inclusive. If you don't personally believe in God, great! You're not a Founding Father, though. Just don't say those terribly offensive words and go about your day. How pitiful that a small, vocal minority of aggressive atheists who never contributed crap to our nation suddenly have the power to judicially legislate away(in contradiction to the Separation of Powers Clause) something that the majority of Americans not only tolerate, but value.:confused:

[Zonic Man]

Originally posted by Damn True


Right.

He is being divisive, inflamatory, insulting......no wonder you don't see a problem with his posts.

Hey! Chalk up another one for True...way to go man!

Wooo hooo! More put downs! Yippee!

(Can't we make fun of people's religions now?)

[DH40]

In Utah, separation of Church and State = 2 blocks.

Oh, and also, there is no God.

[Zonic Man]

Originally posted by dmvprof
Damn True,

I'm not scared of very much. I've been around quite a bit of death. What is interesting is your accusation of my fear is really a reflection of the fear that you have and is the foundation of your faith. You are the one that fears hell or "being apart from god", not me.

As for the rest of it, how about your own interpretation. You don't have to cut and paste, you can post links to your references.

For the record, I love this guy.

I once told a Sister at my church about the bible banging that goes on around Ridemonkey.

She said (regarding the thumpers), "It must suck to be that narrow minded, eh? Just feel sorry for them."

[Damn True]

Typical Jed.

Add nothing constructive to the conversation other than your little quips.

[Zonic Man]

Originally posted by Damn True
Typical Jed.

Add nothing constructive to the conversation other than your little quips.

Rather that spout a bunch of BS?

Oh, and Mr. Smartypants, I'm the only one who actually addressed the court's findings and the connection between the Constitutionality of the Pledge and God. But you must of been too caught up in your super christian babble to understand that.

See below:

Originally posted by Zonic Man
Don't worry, the 9th circut is notorious for being overturned by the Court. They WILL get overturned on that decision. Under the fact that separation doctrine goes to separating the gov. from endorsing SPECIFIC religions...I.E. no christmas tree on the County Seat's front law and a sign saying "Merry Xmas" with a nativity scene...but a xmas tree, with a star of david, and whatever they use for quamsa and a sign saying "Seasons Greetings" is okay.

basically, it is likely to be overturned on the theory that "God" is universal and does not support one particular religion, thus the state or government is not "sponsoring" one religion over another.

Damn 9th circut. When will they ever learn.

BTW: Court is 5-4 conservative/interpretationalist presently, with 2 more conservatives upcoming from Bush (Stevens is like a million years old and Ginsburg gets sick every other month).

That was posted early after the decision came out yesterday.

[Zonic Man]

Originally posted by fourgivn1
Another funny thing....today the word 'Democrat' is commonly associated with being on the 'left', pro-choice, anti-Christian, etc. I'm not saying those are always true, but they're sort of stereotypes. Jimmy Carter was a Democrat, yet anyone who knows anything about him knows he was proud to say he was a 'born again' Christian. :confused: Things that make you go hmm...

The "South" is primarily democrat, and that is where the majority of this country's thumper ideals come from, ironically.

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Zonic Man


Rather that spout a bunch of BS?

Oh, and Mr. Smartypants, I'm the only one who actually addressed the court's findings and the connection between the Constitutionality of the Pledge and God. But you must of been too caught up in your super christian babble to understand that.

See below:



That was posted early after the decision came out yesterday.

So the Bible is BS? What do the sisters teach at that church? :D :confused:

My bad. I did read that post and found it interesting and encouraging. I sincerely hope that the 9th circut court of Berkley gets overturned again as you predict.

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Zonic Man


The "South" is primarily democrat, and that is where the majority of this country's thumper ideals come from, ironically.

Holy generalizations batman!

Thumper......that's cute.

[Zonic Man]

Originally posted by Damn True


Holy generalizations batman!

Thumper......that's cute.

Thanks.

And as for generalizations....have you looked at caucus reports from the "southern" states south of the mason dixon? Over the last, say FIFTY years? Primarily democrat in both the House and the Senate. I think it's safe to make that generalization.

Oh yeah, primarily democrat in their state governments as well. Hell, even Florida is primarily democratic....except for everybody's buddy Jeb.

[El Jefe]

Hey, I came over to this board to avoid some of the flaming that goes on with other boards. Good natured ribbing is always fun, but this thing is neither good-natured, nor fun anymore. ("It's not funny....it's not fun..." hehe, random Howard / Stuttering John / Billy Crystal reference thrown in for kicks)

Atheists and agnostics - you've stated your opinions, thanks. While you're asking to be left alone from the bible thumping, you continually antagonize the situation by throwing in argument point after point. I could see why DT and others may feel like the questioning of the validity of their beliefs has started to become a personal attack. It only antagonizes the situation.


Christians - you've stated your opinions, thanks. If I am correct, the teachings of Christianity do include that of free agency - The right for people to choose reject God and the doctrine and teachings of Christianity. Now that you've stated your position and beliefs, please stop trying to cram it down the mouths of those who don't have the appetite for it. It only antagonizes the situation.

Those of other religions (Taoists, Buddists, Muslims, Jews, Hindu....) - Doesn't seem like there's much coming from this corner, so thanks for not piling on.


This thread really has evolved ( no darwinist reference intended ;) )into a mean-spirited battle. Let's cool it down ok?

(Sorry, I'm not a mod, but this was just getting too much to handle.)

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by Zonic Man

But you must of been too caught up in your super christian babble to understand that.


I'm not a super Christian. I'm just a regular, run-of-the-mill Christian. :D

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by El Jefe
Hey, I came over to this board to avoid some of the flaming that goes on with other boards. Good natured ribbing is always fun, but this thing is neither good-natured, nor fun anymore. ("It's not funny....it's not fun..." hehe, random Howard / Stuttering John / Billy Crystal reference thrown in for kicks)

Atheists and agnostics - you've stated your opinions, thanks. While you're asking to be left alone from the bible thumping, you continually antagonize the situation by throwing in argument point after point. I could see why DT and others may feel like the questioning of the validity of their beliefs has started to become a personal attack. It only antagonizes the situation.


Christians - you've stated your opinions, thanks. If I am correct, the teachings of Christianity do include that of free agency - The right for people to choose reject God and the doctrine and teachings of Christianity. Now that you've stated your position and beliefs, please stop trying to cram it down the mouths of those who don't have the appetite for it. It only antagonizes the situation.

Those of other religions (Taoists, Buddists, Muslims, Jews, Hindu....) - Doesn't seem like there's much coming from this corner, so thanks for not piling on.


This thread really has evolved ( no darwinist reference intended ;) )into a mean-spirited battle. Let's cool it down ok?

(Sorry, I'm not a mod, but this was just getting too much to handle.)

Second that one...great points El Jefe

[Damn True]

Agreed.
We were having an intelligent though heated debate until a few individuals decided to add personal attacks to their arguments. I guess that's what some people do when their rebuttal lacks substance.

I tend to defend when attacked. I let myself get sucked into exactly what they were trying to accomplish. My bad.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Damn True
Agreed.
We were having an intelligent though heated debate until a few individuals decided to add personal attacks to their arguments. I guess that's what some people do when their rebuttal lacks substance.

I tend to defend when attacked. I let myself get sucked into exactly what they were trying to accomplish. My bad.

Think it's time to "unsubscribe" to this thread and let it die?

[Zonic Man]

Originally posted by Damn True
Agreed.
We were having an intelligent though heated debate until a few individuals decided to add personal attacks to their arguments. I guess that's what some people do when their rebuttal lacks substance.

LOL. Like what you are doing right there?

Originally posted by Damn True

I tend to defend when attacked. I let myself get sucked into exactly what they were trying to accomplish. My bad.

LOL. x 2

[-BB-]

OK... I don't feel like reding 4 pages of posts to see if this was already stated so here it is anyway.

The pledge was started in the 1800's but...
Did you know that "UNDER GOD" was only added to the pledge in 1954 (by Trueman?) to counter the Athiest bent of the Soviet Union.

Take it how you will... but this is how/when it happened.

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by Damn True
Agreed.
We were having an intelligent though heated debate until a few individuals decided to add personal attacks to their arguments. I guess that's what some people do when their rebuttal lacks substance.

I tend to defend when attacked. I let myself get sucked into exactly what they were trying to accomplish. My bad.

This is very true...on the one hand, us arguing and slandering other people doesn't help us convey our points any easier. On the other hand, the same thing goes for the 'other side.' If you look at my initial long posting in response to dmvprof, although somewhat heated, it wasn't disrespecting him. If you look at his response, you can obviously tell he doesn't think much at all of anything I had to say...it bordered on 'making fun' of what I had to say. When people do that, it just rubs ya the wrong way.

yeah, I think it's time to unsubscribe, for the good of all Monkeys here. :)

[El Jefe]

Originally posted by Damn True
Agreed.
We were having an intelligent though heated debate until a few individuals decided to add personal attacks to their arguments. I guess that's what some people do when their rebuttal lacks substance.

I tend to defend when attacked. I let myself get sucked into exactly what they were trying to accomplish. My bad.

DT, please, please don't stir the pot anymore. "rebuttal lacks substance..." This just begs for a flame response and I'm sure there are folks chomping at the bit.

Though initially this looks like a call for peace from you, you still aren't accepting responsibility for your own antagonistic words. "I let myself get sucked into exactly what they were trying to accomplish." Come on DT, now you're the one sucking people in to flaming.

Please stop.

[fourgivn1]

Hey....

Let's just have a Ridemonkey Religion Board Smackdown and be done with it. I'm going to get my tights and cape.

:o:

:D

[Shortbus]

I personally think this thread turned into an ugly war on page 11, when dmvprof started spewing nasty uncalled for comments about christianity. Most stuff before that were valid points from either sides. But that's just me...

[El Jefe]

Originally posted by Shortbus
I personally think this thread turned into an ugly war on page 11, when dmvprof started spewing nasty uncalled for comments about christianity. Most stuff before that were valid points from either sides. But that's just me... In a 10 round fight, it doesn't really matter who threw the first punch.

[fourgivn1]

Yeah, but we don't like it when we get our ears bit. :D

[Shortbus]

ya you're right :p

"why can't we all just.... GET ALONG?"


:p:p:p

[Babar]

This is most hottest and longest i personally ever read....

I wish i was smart enough to do at least semi interlectual discussion...

Ok im hitting the books now...

[ibismojo]

Originally posted by dmvprof


You live in a secular country. And to correct waht IBISMOJO said, our founding fathers were not christian. This includes George Washington, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams. These were all men of the enlightenment, and could only be described as deists. In fact, Thomas Jefferson once reffered to the revelation of John as the "ravings of a madman".


i thought i said christian principles...i guess not.

[SHWA]

Kids shouldnt have to say anything about god.

If they want to wear a cross they should be allowed to.... it doesnt upset anyone thats a load of sh*t. If you want to practice religion knock yourself out... but if you dont want to you shouldnt have to

[Sniper]

Originally posted by sirknight6


Tis a good point, but I apologize to NO ONE for that!!!! Why you may ask, well, I was not there, nor responsiblefor what occured.

A travisty non-the-less.....................

Oppression sucks!!! I'm a direct result of it.


no you weren't there, but you're still reaping the rewards by claiming the land as your own and telling others to get lost!!!

yeah oppression sucks, and being a product of it does not give you a right to oppress those who disagree w/you. people who came here legally have every right to be here and think and worship and feel what they want just as you do. and if you don't like it, you're just as free to leave. whether you were there or not, you're still standing on stolen land.

[VTinCT]

Originally posted by BikeGeek


edit: it would be so much easier if people would realize that the Almighty probably doesn't even care what name we give It. They're all names for the same thing. IMHO

I'm glad I was reading all of these... I was about to say the same thing! Great friggin point!:thumb:

[Sniper]

Originally posted by VTinCT


I'm glad I was reading all of these... I was about to say the same thing! Great friggin point!:thumb:

ever say IMHO out loud? it sounds funny.

[VTinCT]

Originally posted by astral


ever say IMHO out loud? it sounds funny.

:think: IMHO...immm-ho...I'm a ho!:eek: :p

[fourgivn1]

I'd like to note one thing.

I can definitely agree on the whole 'oppression' thing. Just because we (Christians) believe something doesn't mean we get to run around and bash those who do not believe, and make fun of them, and push 'em down and oppress them. That's not what Christianity is even all about. However, I will also say that there's a sort of 'fine line' we have to ride. On the one hand, none of us want to turn this board into a pulpit. On the other hand, when someone asks a question like "Is pornography immoral" or "What do you think about them taking the words 'under God' out of the pledge of allegiance", we don't really have a choice but to answer as we believe, which is to say, to answer according to what our authority - God's Word - is.

So to get to the point, I don't think it should be wrong for anyone, whether it be Christian, Hindu, Satanic, whatever, to answer any question posed on this website based on what they believe. After all, our belief sets (not just of Christians) are a huge part of our lives, and in some cases, they ARE our lives.

AS LONG AS we keep it at just an answer. It's not the actual statement of how we feel about a certain subject that raises hackles; it is how others react to it, and how long we let it go on for, that raises them. And if all groups of people from all belief sets, and all walks of life, can't simply state their beliefs on a subject, then no group of people should be able to, because a statement of belief is not an attempt to convert anyone or oppress anyone.

[Sniper]

Originally posted by fourgivn1
I'd like to note one thing.

I can definitely agree on the whole 'oppression' thing. Just because we (Christians) believe something doesn't mean we get to run around and bash those who do not believe, and make fun of them, and push 'em down and oppress them. That's not what Christianity is even all about. However, I will also say that there's a sort of 'fine line' we have to ride. On the one hand, none of us want to turn this board into a pulpit. On the other hand, when someone asks a question like "Is pornography immoral" or "What do you think about them taking the words 'under God' out of the pledge of allegiance", we don't really have a choice but to answer as we believe, which is to say, to answer according to what our authority - God's Word - is.

So to get to the point, I don't think it should be wrong for anyone, whether it be Christian, Hindu, Satanic, whatever, to answer any question posed on this website based on what they believe. After all, our belief sets (not just of Christians) are a huge part of our lives, and in some cases, they ARE our lives.

AS LONG AS we keep it at just an answer. It's not the actual statement of how we feel about a certain subject that raises hackles; it is how others react to it, and how long we let it go on for, that raises them. And if all groups of people from all belief sets, and all walks of life, can't simply state their beliefs on a subject, then no group of people should be able to, because a statement of belief is not an attempt to convert anyone or oppress anyone.

just so you know, the only thing i thought was oppressive on this thread was the comment about getting the f_ck out of the country if you don't like it. i have a huge problem with that statement when it's not coming from a native american.

[gecko]

In Ontario we used to say the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of each day. I believe it was grade 2 that we replaced it with "a moment of silent prayer".

Everyone in the school had a moment to pray to whoever they wanted in their heads without disturbing anyone, and no religion was endorsed, looked down on, or neglected.

I'm not saying this is the ideal solution, personally I think there's lots of time before school to pray until your lil heart is content, so why bring it into a classroom?

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by astral


just so you know, the only thing i thought was oppressive on this thread was the comment about getting the f_ck out of the country if you don't like it. i have a huge problem with that statement when it's not coming from a native american.

I think that's something we definitely agree on :o: :) I meant oppressive in a 'liberal' sort of way. No, not as in left *L* I meant used liberally, for instance, if I started to say speak about something I believed (not preaching), and someone started to say they felt oppressed. I'm sure you picked up on this. :) If I can't do THAT, then NO one should be able to, to keep it fair

[dg806]

(DG singing)....
Allah loves the little children, all the children of the world,
Red, yellow, black and white, loaded down with dynamite,
Allah loves the little children of the world!!

And people follow this?? Go figure!!:confused: