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

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I'd like to see a push to get "Under Yahweh" "Under Jehovah" "Under Allah" or "Under Jesus" in the Pledge just to see who responds then.

It doesn't bother me as much now that I never say the Pledge, but I thought making someone whose a nonbeliever swear an oath under God is a mortal sin for all involved. No?

As long as more people find out that "Under God" was added during the McCarthy era of the '50s, some justice has been done.

And "In God We Trust" on our money? :lol::lol::lol:
If there is a God, I'm guessing that tweaks him/her more than a little.

Yeah, "In God We Trust" but keep the receipt just in case. :wink:
 
I'd like to see a push to get "Under Yahweh" "Under Jehovah" "Under Allah" or "Under Jesus" in the Pledge just to see who responds then.

The God of public religion isn't the personal God of Jesus, Mohammed or Abraham. The Founders understood the difference which is why they referred to Nature's God or the Creator rather than use Christian imagery. This allows for tolerance and reverence to "coexist" in the public square.

As long as more people find out that "Under God" was added during the McCarthy era of the '50s, some justice has been done.

Alaska and Hawaii were added during the McCarthy era of the '50s. Doesn't make them any less legitimate does it?
 
The God of public religion isn't the personal God of Jesus, Mohammed or Abraham. The Founders understood the difference which is why they referred to Nature's God or the Creator rather than use Christian imagery. This allows for tolerance and reverence to "coexist" in the public square.
I'll remember you said this next time you get up in arms when someone says this isn't a judeo-christian country.

Alaska and Hawaii were added during the McCarthy era of the '50s. Doesn't make them any less legitimate does it?
I think you missed the point.
 
Alaska and Hawaii were added during the McCarthy era of the '50s. Doesn't make them any less legitimate does it?


aside from McCarthy or the 1950s


give me a rational reason why Hawaii or Alaska are part of the United States?

Cuba makes more sense than Hawaii, geographically.

It would be interesting if Canada had bought Florida from Spain.
 
aside from McCarthy or the 1950s


give me a rational reason why Hawaii or Alaska are part of the United States?

We needed Hawaii to provide us our 44th president and Alaska to provide the 45th. :wink:
Cuba makes more sense than Hawaii, geographically.
And they make more sense than Vermont, politically.
It would be interesting if Canada had bought Florida from Spain.
I hear the ice fishing is pretty poor in Florida. We would have traded them Vermont for Florida eventually.
 
I'll remember you said this next time you get up in arms when someone says this isn't a judeo-christian country.

None of what I said conflicts with the fact this country was founded by, and reflects the traditions, ethics and beliefs of, readers of the Holy Bible and the ethos in which they freely choose to live.
 
None of what I said conflicts with the fact this country was founded by, and reflects the traditions, ethics and beliefs of, readers of the Holy Bible and the ethos in which they freely choose to live.
Which is all meaningless talk. Religion and ethics aren't synonymous. Ethics existed before religion.

The less we talk about religion in politics, the better. For the common good. The only people who lose are those trying to use religion to consolidate power. And they deserve to lose.
 
None of what I said conflicts with the fact this country was founded by, and reflects the traditions, ethics and beliefs of, readers of the Holy Bible and the ethos in which they freely choose to live.

I like how you get very technical when it comes to finding equality in the Constitution yet you have no problem believing and selling these vague thoughts. Very telling.

Where do you find these traditions, ethics, or beliefs that can solely be found in the Holy Bible reflected in the Constitution?
 
BVS, I think most people understand the difference between "A Christian Nation" and "a nation of Christians." I submit we are the latter.

You say we are neither?
 
BVS, I think most people understand the difference between "A Christian Nation" and "a nation of Christians." I submit we are the latter.

You say we are neither?

First of all, yes most should understand this difference but I don't think a lot do, especially those that align with the further right. You can't be oblivious to this? I mean just be honest with yourself.

I would say we're a nation that's majority Christian. That being said when it comes to the public sector, law, etc that shoudn't mean a thing.
 
BVS, I think most people understand the difference between "A Christian Nation" and "a nation of Christians." I submit we are the latter.

You say we are neither?

So if we are "a nation of Christians," what does that make all the Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus, not to mention atheists and agnostics? Second-class citizens?
 
So if we are "a nation of Christians," what does that make all the Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus, not to mention atheists and agnostics? Second-class citizens?

Minorities?
True, it would be more accurate to say "mostly a nation of Christians" which is no doubt becoming more diverse in belief as well as in skin color and background. But I thought that was understood.
 
Miniority entities that don't matter.

The founders were white straight Christian(supposedly) males, so that's how it should be.

Have you learned nothing from the Tea Party?
 
Miniority entities that don't matter.

The founders were white straight Christian(supposedly) males, so that's how it should be.

Have you learned nothing from the Tea Party?

Is that what you've learned from Tea Parties and Glenn Beck? Me, I've been reminded just how much the Founders feared a powerful and intrusive government and wrote the Constitution to check and restrict that power.

Some people would rather not be reminded of that it seems.
 
Is that what you've learned from Tea Parties and Glenn Beck?
It's one of the things. I've seen the Tea Party members, the AM radio hacks, and even yourself get up in arms when Obama suggests we are not a Judeo-Christian nation or such comments that are in the similar realm. I'm glad to see you are stepping away from that, even if it's just a little.

And yes, you, Beck and the others have been reinforcing for years the thought that minorities really shouldn't matter, we were here first and we like it the way it was. You've even admitted and stood up very fondly for your belief that you wished it was like it was back in the 50's, and you weren't talking about the cars. Status quo!!!

Me, I've been reminded just how much the Founders feared a powerful and intrusive government and wrote the Constitution to check and restrict that power.

Some people would rather not be reminded of that it seems.

:lol: You defended the intrusive Patriot Act, you were pretty quiet during Bush's bailouts, so please tell me what changed? What has Obama actually done that has been more intrusive than Bush?

I'm reminded how much the tea partiers are raging uninformed hypocrites.
 
Is that what you've learned from Tea Parties and Glenn Beck? Me, I've been reminded just how much the Founders feared a powerful and intrusive government and wrote the Constitution to check and restrict that power.

Some people would rather not be reminded of that it seems.
Glenn Beck and the Tea Party movement completely bastardize everything the founders of the country stand for.

Some people would rather not be informed of that, it seems.

The beginnings of this country were about being progressive, more than anything. They wouldn't want us to pretend it's not 2010. They'd want us to keep evolving.

The Tea Party movement wishes we were back in the 1950s. Before we started respecting minorities. Before we started respecting the value of secularism. Back when a good war could solve all of our problems.

The Tea Party movement is borderline retarded, is my point.
 
The beginnings of this country were about being progressive, more than anything .

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom