Pledge of Allegiance Unconstitutional

[Scipionix]

Red Dawn logic primer:

1. I am an atheist, therefore I must be right. Everyone else is wrong.
2. Any mention of "God" is a concerted effort by "Fund A Mental" ists to brainwash me.
3. Christian "Fund A Mental"ists are exactly equivalent to Muslim terrorists
4. Muslim terorists kill people and want to take over the world.
5. Anyone who believes that not removing any mention of "God" from public life must want to kill people and take over the world.
6. I am an atheist, therefore I must be right.
7. Given 6 supra, I need only insult people and never actually argue.

 

[montanafan]

I guess it's the teacher in me that won't let me give up on you. I'm going to try one more time to explain this to you very slowly and very clearly.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

No where is Thornton called a "liar." Only Barton. Barton took a quote from Thornton, and credited it to Adams... When even Thornton's book does not do so... because it is THORNTON'S words, not Adams' words.

Now, here is the quote from Thornton's book, the way Thornton wrote it, from the site that you linked to:

..."Thornton's sentence reads as follows:


The highest glory of the American Revolution, said John Quincy Adams, was this: it
connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principle
of Christianity (italics in the original)...."

You see that I have placed in bold the contradictions between what you said and what Thornton said as quoted by Allison to make it easier for you to compare the two just in case you have a reading comprehension problem.

Then you said:

Plus, there is NO historical reference or cite for this quote, nor was the quote in quotation marks in the book... as there is for every other direct quote in Thornton's book.

Now part of this is true and that is where the differing opinions come to bear. There is no cite for this quote in Thornton's book. Some other quotes were not cited and they have not been questioned and as I said, this quote attributed to Adams by Thornton was not questioned at the time just 34 years after Adams' death, but it does make it legitimately questionable.

Also, the quote is not in quotation marks, though it is italicized as Allison states: "Sometimes portions of the quotations are italicized for emphasis", but still, it is another reasonable criticism of the way in which the quote is presented that could make some question it's validity.

The problem is that you are not just questioning it's validity or stating an opinion that the quote is suspect. You are stating as fact that Adams did not speak the quote and now, that:

Barton took a quote from Thornton, and credited it to Adams... When even Thornton's book does not do so...

Even Allison doesn't go that far with regards to Thornton's quoting of Adams and I don't know where in the world you got the part about Barton crediting the quote to Adams when Thornton didn't??????

In no way whatsoever does Allison say he has proven that the quote is untrue, only that he does not think it should be treated as credible without Thornton citing his source. That is Allison's opinion. You do understand the difference between opinion and fact don't you?

And lastly, since citations are so important to you, could you give me one for what you said here:

Even when he [Barton] and Federer retract them and admit they are frauds,

I know that Barton did not use the quote in any later books or videos, but I have never heard of him retracting it or admiting that it was a fraud. Same for Federer. I don't mind learning new facts though.

 

[Format C:]

Regardless of the debate about the pledge the one thing that is most obvious in this thread is that those who profess themselves atheist or agnostic are in fact neither. By their own vehemence they proclaim ever more loudly the truth that they DO believe in God, they're just pissed off at him.

 

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by: Format C:
Regardless of the debate about the pledge the one thing that is most obvious in this thread is that those who profess themselves atheist or agnostic are in fact neither. By their own vehemence they proclaim ever more loudly the truth that they DO believe in God, they're just pissed off at him.

Had bad would their brains pop if someone headed a successful movement to declare "Atheism" as a religion?
Their own arguments would be used against them every time they wished to screw with ANOTHER religion.

That would be funny!

 

[LuNoTiCK]

People comcomplain and bitch about everything too much. What a buncha morons.

 

[Red Dawn]

Regardless of the debate about the pledge the one thing that is most obvious in this thread is that those who profess themselves atheist or agnostic are in fact neither. By their own vehemence they proclaim ever more loudly the truth that they DO believe in God, they're just pissed off at him.

Yeah, try to convince yourself of that Jesus Boy because I'm not buying it.

Had bad would their brains pop if someone headed a successful movement to declare "Atheism" as a religion?

That would be terrible because that would categorize us Atheists with Morons like you.

 

[Nefrodite]

Originally posted by: Jimbo

Originally posted by: Format C:
Regardless of the debate about the pledge the one thing that is most obvious in this thread is that those who profess themselves atheist or agnostic are in fact neither. By their own vehemence they proclaim ever more loudly the truth that they DO believe in God, they're just pissed off at him.

Had bad would their brains pop if someone headed a successful movement to declare "Atheism" as a religion?
Their own arguments would be used against them every time they wished to screw with ANOTHER religion.

That would be funny!

the fact is, athiesm isn't a religion. a religion requires the belief in a diety.
the statement that you do not believe in a diety does not automatically mean that the diety must exist, otherwise santa claus and the easter bunny would go under the same line of thought. you don't believe in santa claus? oh i'll catagorize your lack of belief in santa claus as a religion




and even if you did for arguements sake consider athiesm/agnostism etc religions, it doesn't make your arguement any stronger. it makes it even weaker as the pledge then discriminates against a religion.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BreakApart

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.

Again it is easy to see where you either ASSUME something or fabricate what you feel is missing, such a weak way to make your case. All the twisting or assuming in the world does not dismiss the fact that Jefferson did not support your claims.

I have stated the facts as they are without all this assuming and such.

Keep digging AmusedOne you may yet find the supporting statements you need.

Fabricate? What have I fabricated? In Jefferson's OWN FREAKIN' WORDS you have him saying he does not believe in the government declaring religious holidays.

Let's see, first Jefferson describes the First Amendment as a "wall of separation between the church and the state," then he states that he does not believe, as a government official, he should be declaring religious holidays.

What more do you need, besides to stop living in denial?

 

[Scipionix]

AmusedOne and BreakApart:

And they say libertarians and conservatives agree 85% of the time

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: montanafanI know that Barton did not use the quote in any later books or videos, but I have never heard of him retracting it or admiting that it was a fraud. Same for Federer. I don't mind learning new facts though.

Barton is a Fraud (many times over), what do you expect? It appears you will defend him and his fraud to the bitter end.

Oh well.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Scipionix
AmusedOne and BreakApart:

And they say libertarians and conservatives agree 85% of the time

We do.

What some conservatives cannot understand though, is that a religiously neutral government PROTECTS our religious freedom.

I strongly suspect that many conservatives would sing a vastly different tune were the majority religion in the US not Christian. You'd hear them screaming "Separation of church and state" from every street corner and internet message board so loud, your ears would bleed.

 

[BreakApart]

AmusedOne,
Keep spouting that non-sense if you wish, I have already corrected ALL your mis-statements.
See my last few posts.... your statements are so flimsy it took little more than common sense to correct you.

So sad when you resort to mis-statements and assuming things inorder to support your agenda. Heck if this is the best evidence your kind have to press this agenda then i can sleep easy knowing it'll never stand. Nighty night...

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: Scipionix
AmusedOne and BreakApart:

And they say libertarians and conservatives agree 85% of the time

We do.

What some conservatives cannot understand though, is that a religiously neutral government PROTECTS our religious freedom.

I strongly suspect that many conservatives would sing a vastly different tune were the majority religion in the US not Christian. You'd hear them screaming "Separation of church and state" from every street corner and internet message board so loud, your ears would bleed.

Even the conservatives who aren't Christian?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BreakApart
AmusedOne,
Keep spouting that non-sense if you wish, I have already corrected ALL your mis-statements.
See my last few posts.... your statements are so flimsy it took little more than common sense to correct you.

So sad when you resort to mis-statements and assuming things inorder to support your agenda. Heck if this is the best evidence your kind have to press this agenda then i can sleep easy knowing it'll never stand. Nighty night...

My agenda as a libertarian is freedom, and the original intent of our Founding Fathers. Nothing more, nothing less.

Nothing I have said here is flimsy. I've read your arguments and responded to them with factual historical evidence that proves you wrong. You can walk away with your ass in your hands claiming victory all you want. It wont make it so.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: JoeBaD
AmusedOne,

I don't accept dismissals from the liberal airheads.

The most hillarious thing here, is that you think I'm "liberal."

Ask around, I think you'll be surprised. Most liberals here think I'm hardcore conservative.

In fact, I'm libertarian.

One need not be liberal to be agnostic, and support the separation of the church from the state.

As for any dismissals I may give, it's not up to you to accept them or not. You don't have a choice. If I choose to no longer listen to you, I wont... and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

Blah Now that's funny JOE!

Carbonyl>white>roman catholic>LIBERAL and supports the separation of the church from the state.
AmusedOne >stickman>angnostic>libertarian and supports the separation of the church from the state.


No matter how you slice it fact is "under god" was introduced in the 50's to promote religous christian indoctrination of children. It was admitted by Eiserhower when he signed it! And no matter how you slice it our forefather and consitiution did not want to promote (nor deny) religion. Read Above AGAIN. Your political affiliation should be totally irrelevent if you use logic.

If you want make the agrument that christianity is good for kids and society so we need an amendment to change the 1st do so... Lot tougher to argue that position though without major research.

 

[HardwareAddicted]

Originally posted by: Red DawnYeah, try to convince yourself of that Jesus Boy because I'm not buying it.

He believes in you....

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
AmusedOne >stickman>

Ah! I see you've seen my self portrait

 

[BreakApart]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: Scipionix
AmusedOne and BreakApart:

And they say libertarians and conservatives agree 85% of the time

We do.

What some conservatives cannot understand though, is that a religiously neutral government PROTECTS our religious freedom.

I strongly suspect that many conservatives would sing a vastly different tune were the majority religion in the US not Christian. You'd hear them screaming "Separation of church and state" from every street corner and internet message board so loud, your ears would bleed.

Still mis-stating what this is all about i see AmusedOne...
This has little to do with religiously neutral government...
What bothers me is this time honored tradition of the liberal agenda and their revisionist history. (i.e. attempting to rewrite history using fabricated evidence.)

-The facts are the pledge was already voluntary... (voluntary is not forcing by ANY stretch of the imagination)
-The Constitution states congress may NOT establish a state religion. (NOWHERE does it say separation of church and state)
-Jefferson was quoted saying "separation of church and state" in a letter responding to a Baptist Association that had thanked him for ensuring the country would never create a state sponsored religion, which may have excluded their religion. Plain and simple that's all he said.
-AmusedOne begins bringing out all these other Jefferson choices he made as President which has ZERO basis on the separation of church and state issue/misquote/misstatement he intended to use.

The funniest part of all this is the fervor Athiests have taken in pushing their beliefs on the rest of us. Intolerance has become the religion of Athiests, simple as that.

 

[Red Dawn]

nm

 

[xirtam]

I think AmusedOne's brought up some very good and very valid points. I sure hate to see conservatives taking his statements, blowing them out of proportion, and beating him over the head with it. Why can't people take the argument for what it's worth? What with RedDawn's bashing and BreakApart's thrashing characteristic, I'm wondering why we can't just look at the situation and realize that there's no way in heck that we're one nation under God. I still don't think that the fact that the DoI predates the Constitution has any bearing at all as to whether or not it represents the writers' ideals. It was the *reason* we became a nation. The Constitution was just the implementation. By the way, I agree that a religiously neutral political stance protects religious freedom.

If anything, we've become one nation over God -- prideful and arrogant country that we are. We decide who terrorists are and then kill them. We stick our political nose in global affairs that don't concern us. We spy on our own citizens. We lie for the sake of our prosperity.

America is not a Christian nation. I am a Christian.

I see nothing contradictory in those two statements. And I'm not going to force a brainless "one nation under God" line from students all across America who grow to resent it. The very fact that we're even whining about this issue proves that we're not united in our opinion about God.

I move that not only we scrap the "Under God" from the pledge of allegiance, but we also take out the word "United" from USA.

I am tired of the political blame games, though. Halting public prayer in schools *didn't* cause the collapse of America, and neither will removing "under God" from the pledge of allegiance. It's not like it's the end of the world. It's amazing how much response there is to this topic though. Even maxing the evolution thread. Kudos.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BreakApart

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: Scipionix
AmusedOne and BreakApart:

And they say libertarians and conservatives agree 85% of the time

We do.

What some conservatives cannot understand though, is that a religiously neutral government PROTECTS our religious freedom.

I strongly suspect that many conservatives would sing a vastly different tune were the majority religion in the US not Christian. You'd hear them screaming "Separation of church and state" from every street corner and internet message board so loud, your ears would bleed.

Still mis-stating what this is all about i see AmusedOne...
This has little to do with religiously neutral government...
What bothers me is this time honored tradition of the liberal agenda and their revisionist history. (i.e. attempting to rewrite history using fabricated evidence.)

-The facts are the pledge was already voluntary... (voluntary is not forcing by ANY stretch of the imagination)
-The Constitution states congress may NOT establish a state religion. (NOWHERE does it say separation of church and state)
-Jefferson was quoted saying "separation of church and state" in a letter responding to a Baptist Association that had thanked him for ensuring the country would never create a state sponsored religion, which may have excluded their religion. Plain and simple that's all he said.
-AmusedOne begins bringing out all these other Jefferson choices he made as President which has ZERO basis on the separation of church and state issue/misquote/misstatement he intended to use.

The funniest part of all this is the fervor Athiests have taken in pushing their beliefs on the rest of us. Intolerance has become the religion of Athiests, simple as that.

I'm not an atheist. Get your facts straight if you're going to try and pigeon hole me.

This is not pushing anyone's beliefs on you. Having a pledge for the entire US population that has a phrase in it that excludes a minority is YOU pushing YOUR beliefs on others. Not the other way around.

Tell me, would you support the pledge had it been amended to say "Under Budha?" "Under Vishnu?" "Under Allah?" About the only religion to call their god "God" and have few other popular names for it is Christianity. Eisenhower made it perfectly clear what the intent of the amendment to the Pledge was, and it was a clear violation of the estblishment clause by your OR my definition.

Really now, who is pushing their beliefs on who?

As for Jefferson, well... I pretty much summed that up in my previous post. You've added nothing new but further denials of fact.

Here's a hint: A government endorsement of religion IS, for all intents and purposes, an establishment of religion.

 

[BreakApart]

AmusedOne,
The Atheist comment was not ment to target you... my bad, i should have clearly separated that remark. It was simply an observation that has become very clear lately.

I see no point debating the separation issue further as you continue to fabricate/twist the wording to suit your agenda. Nothing more i can do, as i have already established your complete fabrications of the facts. Remember this tho, once this ruling is over-turned it will have created a precedent for further clarification of what the Constitution actually says; and it won't be the twisted version you have created.

On a side note:
School vouchers passed today which also goes DIRECTLY against this fabricated separation you keep spouting. Seems it will be twice in (1) week where your fabricated separation is dismissed, and my position is supported.

;P

AmusedOne, you and Red always seem to make me laugh, perhaps it's the wacky agendas you have.

 

[Red Dawn]

AmusedOne, you and Red always seem to make me laugh, perhaps it's the wacky agendas you have.

Or perhaps your head shoved up your ass shoulder deep has you tickled pink!

 

[Ramsnake]

Originally posted by: BreakApart
AmusedOne,
The Atheist comment was not ment to target you... my bad, i should have clearly separated that remark. It was simply an observation that has become very clear lately.

I see no point debating the separation issue further as you continue to fabricate/twist the wording to suit your agenda. Nothing more i can do, as i have already established your complete fabrications of the facts. Remember this tho, once this ruling is over-turned it will have created a precedent for further clarification of what the Constitution actually says; and it won't be the twisted version you have created.

On a side note:
School vouchers passed today which also goes DIRECTLY against this fabricated separation you keep spouting. Seems it will be twice in (1) week where your fabricated separation is dismissed, and my position is supported.

;P

AmusedOne, you and Red always seem to make me laugh, perhaps it's the wacky agendas you have.

i agree that RD has been a little harsh here and there, but after so much discussion, i still dont see the reason why a few christians should be offended with that ruling. people have been posting messages on how 95% of the american population want the god part......now that is just a shameless lie , a shameless lie that will send people stating that lie straight to hell. there was a poll sometime back @ATOT and what do we see there???? 65% supporting the ruling.

 

[Gaard]

Or perhaps your head shoved up your ass shoulder deep has you tickled pink!

This thread needs more smiles, so...
Beating The Court...

They walked in tandem, each of the ninety-three students filing into the already crowded auditorium. With rich maroon gowns flowing and the traditional caps, they looked almost as grown up as they felt. Dads swallowed hard behind broad smiles, and moms freely brushed away tears.

This class would not pray during the commencements--not by choice but because of a recent court ruling prohibiting it. The principal and several students were careful to stay within the guidelines allowed by the ruling.

They gave inspirational and challenging speeches, but no one mentioned divine guidance and no one asked for blessings on the
graduates or their families. The speeches were nice, but they were routine. Until the final speech received a standing ovation.

A solitary student walked proudly to the microphone. He stood still and silent for just a moment, and then he delivered his speech---a resounding sneeze. The rest of the students rose immediately to their feet, and in unison they said, "God bless you."

The audience exploded into applause. The graduating class found a unique way to invoke God's blessing on their future---with or without the court's approval.