Pledge of Allegiance Unconstitutional

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Format C:

Originally posted by: Lucky
Well Im off to bed but I'd encourage you to re-read the thread (yea, i know, torture), specifically some of amused one's posts regarding the religious affinity of our founding fathers.

I'd encourage you to do some research for yourself and NOT rely on the biased postings of anyone on a bulletin board.

The quotes I posted have verifiable cites. If anyone reads anything, read them and draw the only logical conclusion one can about the separation of church and state.

 

[Format C:]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: Format C:

Originally posted by: Lucky
Well Im off to bed but I'd encourage you to re-read the thread (yea, i know, torture), specifically some of amused one's posts regarding the religious affinity of our founding fathers.

I'd encourage you to do some research for yourself and NOT rely on the biased postings of anyone on a bulletin board.

The quotes I posted have verifiable cites. If anyone reads anything, read them and draw the only logical conclusion one can about the separation of church and state.

Yes by all means do that because The Great Amusing One has posted EVERYTHING that could ever possibly have any relevance whatsoever to the discussion at hand. Be certain you don't look around for yourself and stumble onto anything else that might present a different perspective and lead yourself into confusion. All you need to know has been provided to you by His Illustriousness Amusing One. Thou shalt not committeth the sin of seeking knowledge for yourself.

How exceedingly arrogant and full of yourself you are.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Format C:

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: Format C:

Originally posted by: Lucky
Well Im off to bed but I'd encourage you to re-read the thread (yea, i know, torture), specifically some of amused one's posts regarding the religious affinity of our founding fathers.

I'd encourage you to do some research for yourself and NOT rely on the biased postings of anyone on a bulletin board.

The quotes I posted have verifiable cites. If anyone reads anything, read them and draw the only logical conclusion one can about the separation of church and state.

Yes by all means do that because The Great Amusing One has posted EVERYTHING that could ever possibly have any relevance whatsoever to the discussion at hand. Be certain you don't look around for yourself and stumble onto anything else that might present a different perspective and lead yourself into confusion. All you need to know has been provided to you by His Illustriousness Amusing One. Thou shalt not committeth the sin of seeking knowledge for yourself.

How exceedingly arrogant and full of yourself you are.

Nope, not arrogant or full, just sure. Why? Because I've looked at the Establishment issue for years from both sides, just as I looked at the Second Amendment issue. I've looked at both sides of the argument objectively. I'm not storming in here arguing from a position of ignorance or with a preconceived notion taught to me by Sunday school teachers, religious fanatics posing as historians, or atheist activists.

What I've found is undeniably an original intent by our founders to keep religion and state separate. In EVERY quote I've seen by the authors of the First referencing the Establishment clause, I've seen nothing that contradicts this. I've seen a lot of spin that tries to deny plain english, but I've seen nothing that contradicts my carefully thought out position.

Now, you can sit there throwing ad hominems at me all day, or actually enter the debate with factual evidence to the contrary. The choice is yours.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: Format C:

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: Format C:

Originally posted by: Lucky
Well Im off to bed but I'd encourage you to re-read the thread (yea, i know, torture), specifically some of amused one's posts regarding the religious affinity of our founding fathers.

I'd encourage you to do some research for yourself and NOT rely on the biased postings of anyone on a bulletin board.

The quotes I posted have verifiable cites. If anyone reads anything, read them and draw the only logical conclusion one can about the separation of church and state.

Yes by all means do that because The Great Amusing One has posted EVERYTHING that could ever possibly have any relevance whatsoever to the discussion at hand. Be certain you don't look around for yourself and stumble onto anything else that might present a different perspective and lead yourself into confusion. All you need to know has been provided to you by His Illustriousness Amusing One. Thou shalt not committeth the sin of seeking knowledge for yourself.

How exceedingly arrogant and full of yourself you are.

WTF have you contributed to this thread? All you can do is take a sh!t on amused one and not be able to back it up! You whine like a bitch that he is biased but when called to prove any innacuracies you launch into a senseless tirade!

Troll somewhere else.

 

[Format C:]

Thou shalt not point out The Emporer has no clothes lest the Court Jester becometh enraged.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Format C:
Thou shalt not point out The Emporer has no clothes lest the Court Jester becometh enraged.

More pointless ad hominems. Let us know when you have something to contribute to this thread, OK?

 

[Format C:]

CONTRIBUTE! CONTRIBUTE! The Emporer demandeth his tithe. So let it be written, so let it be done.

 

[Amused]

 

[xirtam]

That's a false metaphor, Format C:.

Do you have any evidence that he's wrong, or are you just going to call him a naked emperor?

"Look everyone! He's doing the happy dance! How *Amusing*!"

I respect your opinions, AmusedOne, and agree with most of them. I consider myself to be a Christian and conservative on most issues... increasingly growing libertarian as some of my colleagues appear to be too closed-minded for their own good. I'd apologize on their behalf, but it would do no good.

 

[Amused]

Thanks for the kind words, xirtam.

 

[Format C:]

Originally posted by: xirtam
That's a false metaphor, Format C:.

Do you have any evidence that he's wrong, or are you just going to call him a naked emperor?

"Look everyone! He's doing the happy dance! How *Amusing*!"

I respect your opinions, AmusedOne, and agree with most of them. I consider myself to be a Christian and conservative on most issues... increasingly growing libertarian as some of my colleagues appear to be too closed-minded for their own good. I'd apologize on their behalf, but it would do no good.

I'm going to call him just what he is. Arrogant and full of himself and overestimating of his self import. Someone who thinks that HIS interpretations, opinions, and conclusions are the only ones that should matter to anyone and there is no way anyone could ever possibly reach a different conclusion than he and if one does then they're just simply wrong. That sentiment is evident with almost every post he makes. I would dare say that if all of the Founding Fathers were to rise from the grave en masse and tell him firsthand what they thought he would be arguing with them if they happened to contradict what he has decided they meant.

 

[xirtam]

I'm going to call him just what he is. Arrogant and full of himself and overestimating of his self import. Someone who thinks that HIS interpretations, opinions, and conclusions are the only ones that should matter to anyone and there is no way anyone could ever possibly reach a different conclusion than he and if one does then they're just simply wrong. That sentiment is evident with almost every post he makes. I would dare say that if all of the Founding Fathers were to rise from the grave en masse and tell him firsthand what they thought he would be arguing with them if they happened to contradict what he has decided they meant.

That's pretty arrogant of you to assert these things without providing proper evidence for him to come to a different conclusion.

I mean, give the guy a fighting chance. He's made points that haven't been well refuted. Why? I think it's because they're true. I wouldn't want to debate it with him. And I'm pretty good at arguing sides I don't necessarily agree with. Oops? Was that an arrogant and "full-of-myself" thing to say?

Try Formatting C:. I bet AmusedOne would be willing to listen to *valid* opposing viewpoints. I haven't seen his points adequately refuted in this thread, so it wouldn't make any sense for him to change his position.

There is no guy named "Founding Father." Thomas Jefferson, were he to rise from his grave, would probably continue bashing on some of the other Founding Fathers for believing in a God who was capable of bringing about these "things" called miracles. He was a deist. Some of the other Founding Fathers were theists.

Did their belief in God unite them in the quest to form a new country? I don't think so. They couldn't even agree on who He was/is. They would all tell you... were they to rise from their graves... that they were united for the common purpose of forming this new nation. And by God--sorry, couldn't resist--they did.

You're acting like our Amused friend is closed-minded, when in reality, your post makes it sound like you know *exactly* what all of them would say were they to rise from the dead. We can't go on what they *would* say. We have to go on what they *did* say. And AmusedOne has illustrated some of these points. You, "I dare say," have not.

 

[Format C:]

The quotes I posted have verifiable cites. If anyone reads anything, read them and draw the only logical conclusion one can about the separation of church and state.

There are many more examples but that one will suffice quite nicely. Arrogant, full of himself, overestimating of his own self import AND (thank you for the help) closed-minded.

I've advocated that everyone do their own research and reach their own opinion based on that and not the opinions, limited citations, and conclusions of ANYONE on a bulletin board. I think that is a rather intelligent and reasonable suggestion. If you would rather not do that but instead place your intellect into the hands of another then by all means carry on with your blind march. As for me, I shall continue to rely on more than just one man's limited, and yes, biased, assesment.

 

[Zebo]

Format C: Eight posts of adhom without presenting any evidence make you look like what your trying to paint a1 as. IMO

 

[Red Dawn]

JoeBlow

Funny, how you liberals can read into things or ignore other things as it suits your needs.

Hey Joe, How does believing in ther seperation of Chirch and State make one Liberal? Is a prerequisite for being a conservative or a Moderate mean one has to be a follower of Jesus, Jehovah or Allah according to the Book of Limbaugh?

 

[JoeBaD]

Joeblow?

Is that what's on your mind Red Dawn?

It's a shame you and your buds on the board are going to lose.

You are in the minority of opinion and the Supreme Court will overrule. With Souter, Ginsberg, Stevens, and probably Beyers, dissenting, of course.

But bottom line is - YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE !!!

Tough shait for you.

(JoeBaD wiping a tear from his eyes)

 

[BreakApart]

it prevents a lot more than that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Please show us this law Congress passed respecting an establishment of religion, that appears to be what the court ruled on? is it not?

I'm waiting.....
Still Waiting....
Please show us the law.....?


Again there is NOTHING in the Constitution stating a separation of church and state, to say otherwise is a flat out lie.

 

[Red Dawn]

But bottom line is - YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE !!!

I'm not going to lose a thing Bubba. If you believe that changing the POA because we were a frightened Nation was the right thing then fine, it's something I would expect from sheep like you.

 

[JoeBaD]

I'm not going to lose a thing Bubba. If you believe that changing the POA because we were a frightened Nation was the right thing then fine, it's something I would expect from sheep like you.

Get over it Red Dawn. It happened over almost 50 years ago. So what!

 

[Red Dawn]

Get over it Red Dawn. It happened over almost 50 years ago. So what!

I'm over it. I'm also not the one with my panties in a wad over the decision regarding the POA. This is another era in American History were the Nation as a whole is frightened because of the 9/11 attacks. Maybe those like you are shaking in your boots and any thing that might rock the boat causes those like you to pee their pants.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Get over it Red Dawn. It happened over almost 50 years ago. So what!

I'm over it. I'm also not the one with my panties in a wad over the decision regarding the POA. This is another era in American History were the Nation as a whole is frightened because of the 9/11 attacks. Maybe those like you are shaking in your boots and any thing that might rock the boat causes those like you to pee their pants.

lol Red Dawn, you never fail to impress me with your ability to creatively insult someone...

Am I the only one who finds it sad that this thread has been hijacked by two people who a) have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, and b) really don't care?

Oh well.

 

[Red Dawn]

Am I the only one who finds it sad that this thread has been hijacked by two people who a) have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, and b) really don't care?

I care..enough to mock those who are talking out their asses

 

[Stark]

the fact is, athiesm isn't a religion. a religion requires the belief in a diety.

see scientology

 

[BreakApart]

As AmusedOne so enjoys taking Jefferson's words out of context allow me to show EXACTLY what Jefferson ment by: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"


Jefferson feared this country would be destroyed if we EVER established a state mandated by law religion.

Quote:
"I have been just reading the new constitution of Spain. One of its fundamental bases is expressed in these words: 'The Roman Catholic religion, the only true one, is, and always shall be, that of the Spanish nation. The government protects it by wise and just laws, and prohibits the exercise of any other whatever.' Now I wish this presented to those who question what [a bookseller] may sell or we may buy, with a request to strike out the words, 'Roman Catholic,' and to insert the denomination of their own religion. This would ascertain the code of dogmas which each wishes should domineer over the opinions of all others, and be taken, like the Spanish religion, under the 'protection of wise and just laws.' It would show to what they wish to reduce the liberty for which one generation has sacrificed life and happiness. It would present our boasted freedom of religion as a thing of theory only, and not of practice, as what would be a poor exchange for the theoretic thraldom, but practical freedom of Europe." --Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814. ME 14:128

Here he CLEARLY explains his worst fear that a country would limit religious freedom by law.

Again here he CLEARLY states his worst fear of a state established religion.

Quote:
"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800

Myself i can't agree more with Jefferson, any religion established by law has such potential for corruption that it will eventually become a destructive force. Let's also not forget any established by law religion will outlaw others religions, which also goes directly against; "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"


To say Jefferson didn't believe in God is another bold face lie, he did, he simply REFUSED to impose his religious opinion on others. For that we can all envy the man, i hope we can agree. (pretty sad Red you clearly impose your religious, or lack there of opinion on others, over and over, the last quote is for you Red Dawn)

Quote:
"We have no right to prejudice another in his civil enjoyments because he is of another church." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:546

 

[BadNewsBears]

Could be like this. "Our nation was founded by those who believed in god"