Pledge of Allegiance Unconstitutional

[Gujski]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

It takes more than a stack of dollar bills!!! Hell, this is America,,,where is the twenties!!!

You better watch it Mary, this is ATOT, a Charity thread could form any moment for the Chief!

true

 

[Ramsnake]

Originally posted by: Gujski

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

It takes more than a stack of dollar bills!!! Hell, this is America,,,where is the twenties!!!

You better watch it Mary, this is ATOT, a Charity thread could form any moment for the Chief!

true

hehe....

well looking at most of the polls....looks like america is against changing the rule, things would have been different if this was introduced before september 11. knee jerk reaction everywhere these days when anything remotley connected to american traditions is attacked.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 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

Nothing you've quoted or even stated here contradicts me in any way. That he was against establishment of religion is obvious. That he was against declaring religious holidays as he feared that was an establishment of religion is obvious. How does this contradict what I've said?

I've never said Jefferson didn't believe in a god. I simply pointed out that he was not a "Christian" by any reasonable stretch other than tradition. He denied the divinity of Christ, rejected all the writings of Paul and the old testament, and even went so far as to compile his own bible.

So, we've now agreed that establishment is wrong. Let us see if we can now agree on what constitutes establishment. I maintain that any fall from government neutrality on religion falls into establishment. Any mention of a god, or gods in official government business favors some religions over others.

We are so damn close to agreeing here, it's not even funny, BA. We seem to be quibling over what Constitutes establishment. Let's discuss that.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 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.

This is simply untrue. Both Jefferson and Madison described the First as Separating church and state. They used those very words. You can not separate one thing from another, without BOTH being separate from each other. Please, you accuse me of twisting words, than deny that separation was their intent when BOTH used that very phrase to describe the First Amenedment.

By inserting "god" into the pledge, Congress has shown favor for one religion, or a group of religions, over others (but, of course, Eisenhower made it perfectly clear the "god" in the pledge was intended to mean the Christian god) . It breaks government neutrality on religion.

 

[Format C:]

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

Alas poor Carbonyl I must confess that I seem to be at a loss to do that which you have requested. Perhaps you could assist such an uneducated one as I in providing some evidence that researching an issue for one's own self rather than relying on the opinions of anyone on a bulletin board is a more preferable way to form an opinion.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Format C:

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

Alas poor Carbonyl I must confess that I seem to be at a loss to do that which you have requested. Perhaps you could assist such an uneducated one as I in providing some evidence that researching an issue for one's own self rather than relying on the opinions of anyone on a bulletin board is a more preferable way to form an opinion.

Then why join the frey? Facts are facts and I don't care if it comes from a BBS, a college text, a peer reviewed scientific journal or the bible. Sure some sources of information have more validity than others but discounting a bbs is dumb since by it's nature it's just another medium of idea expression. I can't see why you're opposed to the source (BBS) especially when references are posted, such as A1 and others did, for thousands to scutinize (which you chose not to do). Also, a BBS is very convienent and allows one to ask follow up questions instantly where understanding is lacking and post disagreements which then can be refuted and even change your mind. Give it a try.

EDIT: And how do you think we learn things? From other peoples works, reading or talking about them, not usually by trial or error (*unless your a teen or never grew up).

 

[Format C:]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: Format C:

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

Alas poor Carbonyl I must confess that I seem to be at a loss to do that which you have requested. Perhaps you could assist such an uneducated one as I in providing some evidence that researching an issue for one's own self rather than relying on the opinions of anyone on a bulletin board is a more preferable way to form an opinion.

Then why join the frey? Facts are facts and I don't care if it comes from a BBS, a college text, a peer reviewed scientific journal or the bible. Sure some sources of information have more validity than others but discounting a bbs is dumb since by it's nature it's just another medium of idea expression. I can't see why you're opposed to the source (BBS) especially when references are posted, such as A1 and others did, for thousands to scutinize (which you chose not to do). Also, a BBS is very convienent and allows one to ask follow up questions instantly where understanding is lacking and post disagreements which then can be refuted and even change your mind. Give it a try.

EDIT: And how do you think we learn things? From other peoples works, reading or talking about them, not usually by trial or error (*unless your a teen or never grew up).

Was that an example of your "evidence"?

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

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.

i dunno, but i wonder if i'm the only one who saw "POA" and thought "piece of ass"

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: 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.

what amusedone said.

and btw, do you really want to live in a country where there is no separation of church and state?

 

[zod]

I agree with this decision. "Under God" and "In God We Trust" should never have been added. Not only was it not the original intent of our Founding Fathers, it goes 180 degrees from their wish to separate the church from the state.

[rant]Seperation between church and state. No brainer. Take it out. I wouldnt say the pledge after 9th grade because of those stinkin' words. I love my country, and I love the fact that it isn't under any gods. Bad things often happen when nations are under deities. Take it off our money, too. E PLURIBUS ENUM[/rant].

 

[BreakApart]

Nothing you've quoted or even stated here contradicts me in any way.

Perhaps there is an easier way.... I have stated OVER and OVER you have twisted the context of the Jefferson / Danbury Baptist letters. So please explain to us the basic ideas/summary being expressed in both letters. Here is a link-> Linky Now if you are either unable to explain both letters, or un-willing then it will be obvious that you refuse to see what the TRUE context of what Jeffersons comment was. Feel free to look back on my posts about the context of those letters.

That he was against declaring religious holidays as he feared that was an establishment of religion is obvious.

You really should read more, as this is COMPLETELY false. He REFUSED to declare religious holidays DURING his presidency because he FELT -that would be HIM imposing HIS religion on others AND HE REFUSED TO EVER do this. Because as president it would be ASSUMED to carry the weight of the presidency.
QUOTE:
"It is... proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe, a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant, too, that this recommendation is to carry some authority and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription, perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed?... Civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428

Truth be told the government should NOT be prescribing ANY holiday that alienates any AMERICAN. i.e. religious holidays, sexual choice holidays, racial holidays... you get the point, all government holidays should be general in nature...presidents day, Independence Day, etc, etc as these apply to ALL AMERICANS.

I've never said Jefferson didn't believe in a god. I simply pointed out that he was not a "Christian" by any reasonable stretch other than tradition.

Quote:
"I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

Quote:
"They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

Can you explain why a non-Christian as you say, would "swear apon the Altar of God"? Hmmmm... kinda shoots your non-Christian idea all to shreads.

He denied the divinity of Christ, rejected all the writings of Paul and the old testament, and even went so far as to compile his own bible.

See the above quotes, it appears you have been mislead. What Jefferson DID was remove the portions of the bible he believed man had perverted for his own gain.

Quote:
"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

He was simply restoring a book he BELEIVED in, back to the "gospel" he thought it originally was.

So, we've now agreed that establishment is wrong. Let us see if we can now agree on what constitutes establishment. I maintain that any fall from government neutrality on religion falls into establishment. Any mention of a god, or gods in official government business favors some religions over others.

Merriam-Webster definition of "God"
Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
Date: before 12th century
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler

Please show us where it says Christian, or Jesus, or Christian deity anywhere? The only mention is where is says "when used in reference to" Christian Science. Without further context you can't assume that though. So "under God" is not clear enough to ASSUME a Christian God. Sorry friend as i have said before your ENTIRE argument is based on ASSUMING and taking quotes out of context.

We are so damn close to agreeing here, it's not even funny, BA. We seem to be quibling over what Constitutes establishment. Let's discuss that.

Actually we are not even close, you continue to twist, fabricate, and take out of context Jefferson words. Get back to us on the Danbury Baptist Letter summary. I doubt you will though as it WILL prove you wrong.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BreakApart

Nothing you've quoted or even stated here contradicts me in any way.

Perhaps there is an easier way.... I have stated OVER and OVER you have twisted the context of the Jefferson / Danbury Baptist letters. So please explain to us the basic ideas/summary being expressed in both letters. Here is a link-> Linky Now if you are either unable to explain both letters, or un-willing then it will be obvious that you refuse to see what the TRUE context of what Jeffersons comment was. Feel free to look back on my posts about the context of those letters.

That he was against declaring religious holidays as he feared that was an establishment of religion is obvious.

You really should read more, as this is COMPLETELY false. He REFUSED to declare religious holidays DURING his presidency because he FELT -that would be HIM imposing HIS religion on others AND HE REFUSED TO EVER do this. Because as president it would be ASSUMED to carry the weight of the presidency.
QUOTE:
"It is... proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe, a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant, too, that this recommendation is to carry some authority and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription, perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed?... Civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428

Truth be told the government should NOT be prescribing ANY holiday that alienates any AMERICAN. i.e. religious holidays, sexual choice holidays, racial holidays... you get the point, all government holidays should be general in nature...presidents day, Independence Day, etc, etc as these apply to ALL AMERICANS.

I've never said Jefferson didn't believe in a god. I simply pointed out that he was not a "Christian" by any reasonable stretch other than tradition.

Quote:
"I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

Quote:
"They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

Can you explain why a non-Christian as you say, would "swear apon the Altar of God"? Hmmmm... kinda shoots your non-Christian idea all to shreads.

He denied the divinity of Christ, rejected all the writings of Paul and the old testament, and even went so far as to compile his own bible.

See the above quotes, it appears you have been mislead. What Jefferson DID was remove the portions of the bible he believed man had perverted for his own gain.

Quote:
"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

He was simply restoring a book he BELEIVED in, back to the "gospel" he thought it originally was.

So, we've now agreed that establishment is wrong. Let us see if we can now agree on what constitutes establishment. I maintain that any fall from government neutrality on religion falls into establishment. Any mention of a god, or gods in official government business favors some religions over others.

Merriam-Webster definition of "God"
Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
Date: before 12th century
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler

Please show us where it says Christian, or Jesus, or Christian deity anywhere? The only mention is where is says "when used in reference to" Christian Science. Without further context you can't assume that though. So "under God" is not clear enough to ASSUME a Christian God. Sorry friend as i have said before your ENTIRE argument is based on ASSUMING and taking quotes out of context.

We are so damn close to agreeing here, it's not even funny, BA. We seem to be quibling over what Constitutes establishment. Let's discuss that.

Actually we are not even close, you continue to twist, fabricate, and take out of context Jefferson words. Get back to us on the Danbury Baptist Letter summary. I doubt you will though as it WILL prove you wrong.

You have me confused now. I fail to see how you think I'm twisting Jefferson's words. I've repeatedly read the Danbury Baptist letters and do not see how you can think a "Wall of separation" can work only one way? Someone as educated as Jefferson would not use such a strong term as "Wall of separation" did he not mean that church and state must be mutually separate. Furthermore, both he and Madison refer to the First Amendment as a "Separation of church and state." How can you deny that this is the intent and meaning of the First Amendment?

As for his refusal to declare national religious holidays. Why the fsck are you disagreeing with me here? It's an obvious action by Jefferson to keep religion and government separate.

As for the Jefferson bible, in it Jefferson removes any mention of Christ's divinity, resurrection, and miracles. He treats Jesus as a mortal prophet. Much like the Jews and Muslims do. And exactly as a deist would. I've read it. Have you?

You can, if you want to, read the Jefferson bible here

Now, upon reading this and seeing that Jefferson removed any and all deity from Christ, you cannot logically call the man a "Christian." The basis of Christianity is the recognition that Christ is the son of god and therefore divine. Deny this and you are no longer Christian.

"Altar of god" can mean anything, BA. Especially to a Free Mason Deist, of which Jefferson was. One does not have to be Christian to believe in a god.

As for "god" in the context of the pledge. Eisenhower made it perfectly clear who's god it was intended to mean. Christianity and Judaism are the only religions to commonly refer to their god as only "God."

Look, your denials of plain English and historical fact are becoming childish. Your counter points to my points hardly disagree with me, yet you berate me for twisting words. I'm failing to understand just exactly what it is we disagree on.

 

[BreakApart]

I knew you wouldn't summarize the Danbury letters. lol...
This alone proves my point you took his words out of context.

I guess you'll continue to press your agenda regardless of what i say, so good luck to you, this is simply wasting my time now.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BreakApart
I knew you wouldn't summarize the Danbury letters. lol...
This alone proves my point you took his words out of context.

I guess you'll continue to press your agenda regardless of what i say, so good luck to you, this is simply wasting my time now.

What have I taken out of context, BA? You keep claiming this, but have not explained it.

Key text of the Baptists:

"Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty -- That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals -- That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted on the Basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, and such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degradingacknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men"

Paraphrase: Help us! Our state and local governments are religiously corrupt and punish us for not being of their religion. We are worried that the Constitution does not keep government and religion apart. Please clairfy your intentions and what the BofR guarantees us.

Key text of Jefferson:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Paraphrase: The BofR guarantees that the federal government shall remain separate from the church, and vice versa. You have no worries that religion shall intrude upon the federal government and corrupt it, or vice versa... thereby infringing on the rights of those who are not of that religion.

Not only Does Jefferson ensure the Baptists that they are free to worship as they please, but he also ensures them that government shall remain neutral by building a "Wall of separation between church and state." A wall is a two sided barrier, BA. Religion stays out of government, government stays out of religion. It really IS that simple and Jefferson couldn't have made it any clearer.

If you continue to deny this, just who is it that has "an agenda" here? I have no "agenda" BA. I don't know why you would think I do. My only claim here is that any OFFICIAL government mention of a god or gods in a favorable light is showing favor for one religion, or a group of religions over others and is a direct violation of the Establishment Clause as described by both the author of it and his mentor.

BA, what you apparently cannot grasp, but Jefferson could, is that when religion becomes involved in government (As it was in the Baptists home state of Connecticut) then government becomes involved in religion (As it was in the Baptists home state of Connecticut), and cannot remain neutral. It shows favor to one group over another based solely on religion. It doesn't matter if it's one religion, or a group of religions. If it isn't ALL religions including the lack thereof, or none, it breaches the Clause.

Therefore the government MUST build a "wall of separation between the church and the state" keeping both out of each other's affairs completely.

I'm still waiting on how else this exchange could possibly be read.

 

[absolutiza]

Originally posted by: pyonir
they better change their money too then.

the guy who brought this to the supreme court is also bringing the reference to God in money as a case.

 

[THUGSROOK]

at this point - im pretty sure that the constitution is unconstitutional too :disgust:

 

[Moonbeam]

Well I never liked the idea of telling God where to go. OK God, you're gonna be over my Nation, you sneaky little omnipresent rascal you. No trying to slip under us or around us or next to us. You stay over us, hear! Jeez is that lame or what?

 

[zepper00]

I agree with another poster that has written often in this thread that regardless of the intent when (under God) was added, today when the pledge is recited the speaker should be thinking of his/her personal God or Gods or Nature or Chaos (whatever each considers to be his creator) , which in all religions has a true name--not God--Yaweh, Allah, Jehovah etc. And recognizes that it is from their "creator(s)"--not gov't-- that comes all power which is vested in individuals by their nature and assigned by them to their gov'ts as long AS LONG AS THEY USE IT WISELY.

As for me, I am in doubt whether the pledge should be used any more at all until the US gov't gets back much closer to the way the founders intended--not this mixed market/socialism crap we are having to tolerate now.
.bh.

 

[Soulkeeper]

I agree with the ruling
The church has Bush in their pocket
atheists and other religions always get put on the back burner
i would like to see them say in allah we trust or in budha we trust
it isn't right to brain wash small kids in classrooms by making them repeat on a daily basis
the people that feel the court made a bad decision are either partial to the evil ways of the church or have been brain washed themselves into believing that relgion in some way equates to the powers of state which should always remain impartial and fair
patriotism != warshipping gods
if someone wants their kids warshipping a god in school then send them to a private school that's what they are for
i would fight and die for my religious freedom
that is the one thing i value
a great writer once said (roughly)
the day freedom is not our most valued pocession is the day we lose it
and the irony of this is we will also lose money and material things too

well that's all i can say
--Soul_keeper

 

[zepper00]

To Break Away et al.,
Most dictionaries have gone Politically Correct--about the closest to truly correct is American Heritage.
For people to understand each other and engage in meaningful discussion/argument, words have to mean things and the meaning(s) have to be constant. If you have a new meaning, make up a new word!
.bh.

 

This is really stupid, that doc from Cali has no life, he must have been abused by a priest or something.

 

[rsed]

sad isn't it?

 

[xirtam]

Your mom's unconstitutional.

 

[Nefrodite]

Originally posted by: Phocas
This is really stupid, that doc from Cali has no life, he must have been abused by a priest or something.

and theres one of him, and tons of christian groups pushing their agendas through government whether it be to push prayer back into school, evolution out, sneaky bs laws stating that marriage is between only a man and a woman to prevent gays from marrying etc.

guess who pushed the idea of sticking god into the pledge in the first place? yes a nutty religious group. and since many of you got attached to it, you don't care if it is unjust or not

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Phocas
This is really stupid, that doc from Cali has no life, he must have been abused by a priest or something.