If it weren't for those swine and Fund A Mental Cases like them us Atheists wouldn't be as wary of the Christian Movement in this country. Of course it is still a religion just like Islam and the rest so it does pay to be somewhat wary .
If it weren't for those swine and Fund A Mental Cases like them us Atheists wouldn't be as wary of the Christian Movement in this country. Of course it is still a religion just like Islam and the rest so it does pay to be somewhat wary .Yeah really though. If Pat Robertson and Falwell would STFU there wouldn't be any problems with even a chance of this ruling standing.
Proves my point about you.Originally posted by: Red Dawn If it weren't for those swine and Fund A Mental Cases like them us Atheists wouldn't be as wary of the Christian Movement in this country. Of course it is still a religion just like Islam and the rest so it does pay to be somewhat wary .
When it comes to the Mythology you are promoting you bet I think it's nonsense .After reading your posts for a while, I find it hard to believe that you do NOT have an agenda to force your beliefs on others. You certainly are quick to say that everyone else's beliefs are nonsense.
The only point you have is on the top of your head bunky.Proves my point about you.
Originally posted by: Jimbo
oh i see, anyone that doesn't agree with you gets the liberal tag. its ussually thrown in to pad a statement, and a bad habit you should break.
You should follow your own advice before you expect anyone else to.
Measuring time by a calender based off the birth of a religious figure does not equate to endorsing said religion. "Year of our Lord" = "A.D." Plus it was customary to reference time in that manner back then. Your argument is thin.Quoted directly from the Constitution: "Year of our Lord" It's at the bottom where all the signatures are silly boy.
sorry bubba, i was not resorting to name calling in that thread but repeating your own words against you. i was mocking you.. pathetic that you didn't notice indeed.
Wow that reads like some pasty face has an inferiority complex regarding his race. WHat's your defugalty there Jimbo?Tired or carry the burden of the whiteman on your narrow shoulders ?DONT BELIEVE ANYTHING THIS WHTE BOY SAYS. HE IS HERE TO CAUSE FITNA AND CONFUSION. HE SHOULD BE OSTRACIZED. GO HOME WHTE BOY! DONT GIVE HIM CHIT. INFILTRATOR. SPY. PERPETRATOR AND WANNABE
Originally posted by: BreakApart
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say separation of Church and State... It says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, "
This means they may NOT establish a state sponsored religion-which we don't have!. That's all it says, it has nothing to do with a separation at all. Your mixing up a quote by (1) individual which is completely separate from anything to do with the Constitution, with what?s really in the Constitution. Sad when Americans don't even know what's actually in the document.
AmusedOne said: "then why do we find no mention whatsoever of Jesus, Christ, Christian or Bible in America's founding documents? --not in the Declaration of Independence nor in the Constitution of the United States. In fact, the Constitution does not even make a single reference to any "god."
Why do you feel the need to lie in order to press your argument?
Quoted directly from the Constitution: "Year of our Lord" It's at the bottom where all the signatures are silly boy. Clearly this mention of "our Lord" in the same document you "claim" outlines the separation of church a state is either a contradiction or you fabricated this entire separation argument. Hmmm very interesting...
Quoted from Declaration of Independence: "endowed by their Creator" also quoted: "divine Providence"
Opps, what's this more mentions of religion in historical documents, seems your wrong again. :rollseyes:
AmusedOne said: "it goes 180 degrees from their wish to separate the church from the state"
See above you are only spreading FUD... sad, really sad.
How pathetic people have to fabricate words into the Constitution in order to spread this FUD...
Well, always nice to swing by OT to see the FUD being spread, just never quits. lol....
Originally posted by: JoeBaD
For those of you more knowledgeable about legal matters than myself:
Why are the federal courts involved in this at all? Is it because the school district accepts federal money? When in history did the evolution occur that the federal gov't has, in effect, veto power over what happens in a community's school house?
Just curious
Originally posted by: JoeBaD
For those of you more knowledgeable about legal matters than myself:
Why are the federal courts involved in this at all? Is it because the school district accepts federal money? When in history did the evolution occur that the federal gov't has, in effect, veto power over what happens in a community's school house?
Just curious
Originally posted by: JoeBaD
I see nothing in the XIV Amendment addressing this, at least, not on the face of it. Educate me.
Oh,
and "The Year of the Lord" is most certainly a declaration of belief. The Constitution was a very thought out and debated document. Words were not in there due soley to custom.
Funny, how you liberals can read into things or ignore other things as it suits your needs.
Flimsy reasoning? The quote is bogas, the cite is non-existent. Get over it. Just
because you make attacks to the man (in this case, the people who proved it was bogas)
does not invalidate the fact that Barton is a repeated fraud.
Barton was obviously easily swayed. When caught in his obvious frauds, he no longer
included the quotes, and has retracted almost as many quotes as he's allowed to remain
published. He doesn't care, because the damage is done. The quotes live in the minds of
mindless followers like you who believe if it is written, it must be true.
that the quote may not have come from Adamssuspects
The quotes live in the minds of mindless followers like you who believe if it is
written, it must be true.
It isn't important. The fact that the entire US government would approve such wording
in ANY context is important.
Irrelevant. When you have something relevant, let me know.
Originally posted by: JoeBaD
AmusedOne,
I don't accept dismissals from the liberal airheads.
LinkIt's the silly season. Of course with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that's perennial, but it's sillier than ever now. That is: the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a lower court and declared that the Pledge of Allegiance, as specified by Congress, is unconstitutional because it contains the phrase "Under God", mandated by Congress in 1953 during the Seventy Years War and repeated by schoolchildren ever since.
This isn't the first time someone has tried to get that changed. Mad Madeline also tried but was notably unsuccessful. She's got her replacement now, a self-proclaimed militant atheist and non-practicing physician who is also a lawyer and who moved from Florida to California for reasons not very clear but which I suspect had to do with his perception of the courts in Florida and California. He has sued on behalf of his (presumably existing: I have seen no evidence that she exists, but one supposes she does) second grade daughter who, he contends, is harmed by the sight of a classroom full of children reciting the Pledge. It was not alleged that anyone tried to force the daughter to herself say the dread words "Under God."
Of course, it doesn't matter a lot whether we have the words "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance. We got along without that for nearly 200 years. On the other hand, it's not all that controversial to say that the US thrives by the favor of God. It's not as if admitting that we are not quite autonomously sovereign is a bad thing; that we need once in a while to understand that there are limits to our power; that there is more to consider than the might of our armed forces. That reeking tube and iron shard can carry you only so far...
The Framers would have approved of the Pledge: George Washington, nominal Episcopalian but more devoted to the Masons and Deism than to the Thirty-nine Articles, never ceased to thank Divine Providence in his public speeches. John Marshall opened the Supreme Court with the intonation they still use, "God save the United States and this honorable Court." If you want precedent on the intentions of the Framers there is plenty to hand: this was to be a tolerant Christian nation, not persecuting anyone for religious beliefs, but not ashamed to profess them. And by Christian they definitely included Unitarians and Deists. No one used the term "Judao-Christian" in those days, but I doubt the Framers would have had much problem with it. And of course the Establishment Clause applied only to the Federal Government anyway. The states were free to have established churches, and most of them did at the time the Bill of Rights were adopted. It would be another fifty years before the last state disestablished its tax-supported church.
Courts in their never ceasing usurpations of power from legislatures, have said that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights and applies it to the States. No one who adopted the 14th Amendment had the slightest supposition of that -- and of course the courts don't say that the Second Amendment is incorporated, nor several other provisions of the Bill of Rights. We are all taught to be obedient sheep in the face of the courts because we can't imagine what else to do.
Which is why the 9th Circuit ruling won't stand for long. For once the people are up in arms. Congress is within an ace of telling California to ignore the silly court and its ruling, which in fact is what ought to be done. The Courts will see this and act quickly before people begin to get the notion that just because you put robes on a lawyer and call the creature "Your Honor", you have not necessarily made an honorable person and you certainly have not conferred infallibility.
There was a time when Courts realized what Hamilton made clear in The Federalist: the Courts are the weakest branch of government. They have no soldiers and not much in the way of police. They can be defied or ignored, and the trick is to prop them up and get people to act as if a decree from a court is unquestionable even if it is massively silly. There was a time when courts would have protected themselves against imbecilities like this "Under God" ruling by saying that the chap who brought the suit is a gratuitous interloper, who has not himself been harmed by the pledge, and has not shown that his daughter has been harmed by being required to listen as a classroom of kids recites the pledge.
If someone were proposing to exclude her from class for not saying "Under God" or for substituting "Under The Ceiling" or "Under Herby" for the proscribed phrase there might be some standing to sue. Given the nature of the litigant I would be surprised if he hadn't tried to get the girl to do something that would actually cause her harm just to increase his chances. He told the newspapers that this is about him, not her, but he must know that he has no standing to sue, and the theory that he can sue on the grounds that his daughter is being harmed by being required to listen to others recite the Pledge is patently ludicrous.
The courts had an out, but of course in their arrogance the 9th Circuit didn't take it. Now the Supreme Court will have to rush in and save the day before the sheep look up and see there are no gods up there, just nine lawyers in robes.
It really doesn't matter whether we publicly acknowledge that this is a nation Under God or not. Either we are or we are not, and what our children say in school every morning won't change that. It does matter that we, as a people, understand that if there is no fountain of justice -- if man really is the measure of all things -- we had better act as if there is a Law beyond our making and changing. Whether we are a nation Under God is more up to us than the Almighty, Who seems to have left that sort of thing up to us.
As to the consequences of living without limits or law, I refer you to C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, or the novel That Hideous Strength. Or even Kipling's Recessional. Beliefs have consequences; and the Sin of Pride is ever tempting to all.
Originally posted by: BreakApart
AmusedOne... sad, so sad you only see what you wish rather than the context of Jeffersons letter.
"I contemplate with sovereign 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."
Jefferson Letter
When he mentions the separation of church and state he is addressing the fact that they desire and agreed there should be NO STATE sponsored religion. This FACT is supported by the letter itself, it was a response to a religious group-(Danbury Baptist Association) who was thanking him for ensuring they had a free choice of religion rather than a STATE MANDATED ONE, such as roman catholic or some such.
Reading into it as you have done is not only insulting but decietful on your part. NO WHERE does it mention a desire to outlaw all forms of religious expresion from governement. As a matter of FACT it does say: we are ALL (including governement) allowed to freely exercise religion. Your facts are as twisted as your agenda.
You may want to read up on history as you so clevery did not take that letter in the context of the times. In those days many of the worlds governements were corrupted by STATE SPONSERED RELIGIOUS figures. Which any sane person can see is exactly why we pledged to NEVER allow a STATE sponsored religion to gain government control. It has NOTHING to do with a seperation of religious expresion from governement. Oppps that must be what the second part of the first amemndment was talking about: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Originally posted by: montanafan
Flimsy reasoning? The quote is bogas, the cite is non-existent. Get over it. Just
because you make attacks to the man (in this case, the people who proved it was bogas)
does not invalidate the fact that Barton is a repeated fraud.
Barton was obviously easily swayed. When caught in his obvious frauds, he no longer
included the quotes, and has retracted almost as many quotes as he's allowed to remain
published. He doesn't care, because the damage is done. The quotes live in the minds of
mindless followers like you who believe if it is written, it must be true.
First of all, this isn't about Barton, I don't think much of him either but at least he
did cite where he got the quote and that author cited where he got the quote which
was from Thornton.
Jim Allison, the man you?re citing, doesn?t even have the nerve to say that he has proven
anything. He says that hethat the quote may not have come from Adamssuspects
because of the lack of quotation marks around it in the 1860 book and even admits that it
may just have been a typo by some poor overworked typesetter in in mid-19th century.
You then take this somewhat ambivalent statement as fact that the respected historian
Thornton lied in his book. You and Allison can have all the suspicions you want, but I
choose to believe that an historian writing a book just 34 years after Adams? death when
members of his family were still around to question the validity of the quote and did not,
is probably more credible.
The quotes live in the minds of mindless followers like you who believe if it is
written, it must be true.
Don?t you see that the above quote applies to you as well? This is something I?ve been
fighting in the public school system for a long time now. Kids see some director?s spin
on history or facts in a movie and then take it as fact. They hear something on TV or read
it in a newpaper and think, well it must be true or it wouldn?t have been allowed to be
there. It?s so hard to teach the difference between opinion and fact to kids
today because they don?t read with a critical eye or hear with a critical ear.
That?s why I take such issue with you citing Allison?s opinion as fact. He and you
have every right to read Thornton?s quote of Adams with a critical eye and form the
opinion that the quote may not have come from Adams because of the lack of
quotation marks, but please don?t try to pass it off as proven fact. Likewise, I can?t
prove that the words came out of Adams? mouth, but I am of the opinion that it did
because of the reasons I stated earlier.
I don?t get anywhere near as upset about the debate concerning the Pledge of Allegiance
as I do about debates that contain the misrepresentation of facts.
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DONT BELIEVE ANYTHING THIS WHTE BOY SAYS. HE IS HERE TO CAUSE FITNA AND CONFUSION. HE SHOULD BE OSTRACIZED. GO HOME WHTE BOY! DONT GIVE HIM CHIT. INFILTRATOR. SPY. PERPETRATOR AND WANNABE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow that reads like some pasty face has an inferiority complex regarding his race. WHat's your defugalty there Jimbo?Tired or carry the burden of the whiteman on your narrow shoulders ?
Jefferson was opposed to declaring religious fastings and hollidays in his official duties as president. It stands to reason that he was opposed to government doing the same, since, at the time, he was the head of our government.