Goddamn liberals in San Fran's 9th Circuit Keep "Under God" in the pledge!

[theedgeu2]

The so-called "Founding Fathers' were for the most part moneyed powerful men that did things for their own self interests (selfish reasons).

What!? No, no they didn't. They founded this nation under what they believed was best and founded it under god. The laws that are made up are made up from the Bible. They did not do things for themselves or for personal gain/interest.

 

[Knuckle]

What's going to happen when some town in America has enough non-white, and non-Christian, citizens that they become the majority. What if they then democratically elect officials that start passing laws that are not reflective of a Christian nation, but closer to, let's say, the Nation of Islam? I'm betting on Dearborn, Michigan, to be a contender to make history this way someday. What will the remainder of the people in that town do? What a story that will make; and, it will really put to the test what it means to be American. That could get ugly.

 

[deep]

anyways getting back to this decision

it went 2-1, with the dissenting Judge writing a scathing 123-page descent

in 2002 this atheist (Newdow) won in this court 2-1

I am glad God won this time, as an agnostic, I could care less if some people want to trivialize God by putting a nonsense saying like "In God We Trust" or Pyramids, or wheat leaves or any other silly things on currency.


but, if the court struck it down!!!!!
the teabaggers would have gone berserko- wacko,
why give them crack and send them on a rampage?

not every battle is worth winning, some are worth losing even

I am glad we are "One Nation!!! Under God!!!" who gives a rats ?? really?

God, Christian, Bible are nothing more than marketing tools these days

and if we allow it, they can be turned into weapons, clubs to beat people with, but that requires our cooperation.

 

[kramwest1]

What's going to happen when some town in America has enough non-white, and non-Christian, citizens that they become the majority. What if they then democratically elect officials that start passing laws that are not reflective of a Christian nation, but closer to, let's say, the Nation of Islam? I'm betting on Dearborn, Michigan, to be a contender to make history this way someday. What will the remainder of the people in that town do? What a story that will make; and, it will really put to the test what it means to be American. That could get ugly.

I think a very likely (if not already existing) example is a majority Spanish-speaking, Roman Catholic town. I know Christians tend to consider themselves one big, happy family, but throw the Pope into the mix, and it could get ugly. (not to mention making Spanish the primary language)

Un Nacion Abajo De Dios (y El Pope)

 

[kramwest1]

but, if the court struck it down!!!!!
the teabaggers would have gone berserko- wacko,
why give them crack and send them on a rampage?

not every battle is worth winning, some are worth losing even

I am glad we are "One Nation!!! Under God!!!" who gives a rats ?? really?

God, Christian, Bible are nothing more than marketing tools these days

and if we allow it, they can be turned into weapons, clubs to beat people with, but that requires our cooperation.

Very good point.


I still would like to know what people think about the Pledge being an oath using God and forcing people to swear a false oath. Mortal sin?

 

[INDY500]

I still would like to know what people think about the Pledge being an oath using God and forcing people to swear a false oath. Mortal sin?

It's only a false oath if you in fact do not pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands.

Is that the hangup?

 

[coolian2]

i'd like to know why you (royal you, not you specifically, indy) feel like you need people to pledge allegiance anyway.

 

[INDY500]

i'd like to know why you (royal you, not you specifically, indy) feel like you need people to pledge allegiance anyway.

It's a public expression of solidarity and love... for country.

Much like your avatar is a public expression of solidarity and love... for a soccer football club.

 

[namkcuR]

It's a public expression of solidarity and love... for country.

Much like your avatar is a public expression of solidarity and love... for a soccer football club.

Yeah, but that's his expression of solidarity and love, he's not trying to force anyone else to express themselves in that manner. His question was, why do you need other people to express themselves the same way you do?

 

[kramwest1]

It's only a false oath if you in fact do not pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands.

Is that the hangup?

No, it's a false oath if you don't believe in God.
I thought it was a sin to force a nonbeliever to swear an oath to God.

How active do people think the word "God" is in the Pledge?

 

[PhilsFan]

with this, you and progressives that present these arguments are just as guilty as Beck and Tea Partiers

everyone wants to define the so-called 'Founding Fathers' to suit their own agenda

The so-called "Founding Fathers' were for the most part moneyed powerful men that did things for their own self interests (selfish reasons).
If a person without resourses wanted to jump in, say a Thomas Payne, and write a 'Contract for America' a la Newt Gingrich style, he would be allowed on the playing feild to further the agneda.

I don't get the 'deifying' of these politicians of the past and 'demonizing' of current politicians.
People are 'better' today then they were back then.

Exactly. And that was my point. Anyone can say the Founding Fathers was on their side. You can say they were about religion, or you can say they were about progressivism.

I actively don't care what the founding fathers think.

 

[deep]

I actively don't care what the founding fathers think.

Even if we knew, which is impossible. Who cares?

The truth is that the person who makes that claim is just trying to have it their way. Allign their claim of founding father's beliefs with their own.

They can not make a valid case for their position, why their argument or premise is best, so they say, "because Mommy says so, that's why!"

Any cursory study of the 'so called' founding fathers would show that they were hardly a cohesive group, with a consensus opinion. Many times they were more divided than we are today.