Athiest sues again to ban "Under God"

[Tonio]

I don't care one way or the other, I'm just pointing out some fundamentals that people are missing. The words have been changed three times already. I wonder if the first three times caused such a big stink. I just think it's silly to get all worked up over something that isn't in it's original version in the first place.

I think it's a big deal because it's official, and because children all over America say it at the beginning of every school day. (In my school, we had two Jehovah's Witnesses who wouldn't say the Pledge. I found out years later that the sect regards the flag as a graven image.)

Some people believe it's unAmerican to have an official loyalty oath in the first place. What do you think?

 

[ylexot]

or to add the words "under Gaia" to please the New Agers

The phrase "under God" already includes Gaia. It is a completely non-denominational phrase. The only people excluded are atheists, so they do have a legitimate argument.

 

[Tonio]

The phrase "under God" already includes Gaia. It is a completely non-denominational phrase. The only people excluded are atheists, so they do have a legitimate argument.

What about all the religions that don't have a monothestic God, like Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism and animism?

 

[ylexot]

What about all the religions that don't have a monothestic God, like Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism and animism?

That's all included too.

 

[vraiblonde]

I think it's stupid that some people are so offended by the words "under God" that they would spend their time suing to have it removed. Who friggin' cares???

I used to be in favor of having it taken out, but not anymore. The freaks have cried and whined so much that I'm now completely and totally against them and their assinine cause.

 

[Tonio]

That's all included too.

How so? Those religions don't have the concept of a single Supreme Being. "God" applies to only the monothestic religions.

 

[vraiblonde]

Some people believe it's unAmerican to have an official loyalty oath in the first place. What do you think?

You MUST be kidding. If you don't want to pledge loyalty to the country you live in, GET THE HELL OUT!

I have no interest in nutties and their goofy ideas. There are people in this country that think we should do away with private property and live in communes like hippies. I pay them no mind, either, because their mental illness isn't my problem and it's not even remotely interesting.

 

[Tonio]

I think it's stupid that some people are so offended by the words "under God" that they would spend their time suing to have it removed. Who friggin' cares???

I used to be in favor of having it taken out, but not anymore. The freaks have cried and whined so much that I'm now completely and totally against them and their assinine cause.

While I think it's a matter of principle, I'm not offended by the phrase. In fact, I bet most athiests feel the same way. I do think it's sad that Congress in the 1950s felt so insecure about their patriotism that they felt they had to add the phrase in a pathetic attempt to prove that we were better than the godless Commies. That never needed to be proven--our way of life (democracy, religious freedom, freedom of speech and free enterprise) speaks for itself.

 

[Tonio]

There are people in this country that think we should do away with private property and live in communes like hippies.

I haven't heard much of them since the early '70s. Pathetically hopeless case of misguided idealism, in my opinion. That could also be said of socialism in general.

 

[Tonio]

You MUST be kidding. If you don't want to pledge loyalty to the country you live in, GET THE HELL OUT!

I agree. I think they were objecting to making the pledge mandatory, although I'm not sure.

 

[vraiblonde]

I agree. I think they were objecting to making the pledge mandatory, although I'm not sure.

I doubt it. This is America and there's no such thing as a "mandatory" recital. Imagine, if you will, what would happen if some kid was so much as reprimanded for not reciting the Pledge.

Susan Sarandon or one of those other nutjobs was going off about how we should do away with the Pledge because it's offensive to people who live in other countries and people who don't think America is so terrific. Like I'm going to listen to a fake person who mutilates their body in order to get a movie role.

 

[Tonio]

Like I'm going to listen to a fake person who mutilates their body in order to get a movie role.

Details, please.

 

[PrchJrkr]

Details, please.

 

[vraiblonde]

Details, please.

http://awfulplasticsurgery.com/

 

[kom526]

If these people object to "under god" being in the pledge, what about "In God We Trust" on their money. If they are so offended I will ease their torment by graciously taking the offensive monetary materials off of their hands.

 

[Mikeinsmd]

It's in there because this country was founded on Judeao/Christian fundamentalist beliefs. I don't give a rats azz who I offend!!! Don't like it? Don't say it or GET OUT~!! Try going to another country and raise a stink like this and see what they do to you!

 

[Ken King]

Like the article stated this is already running a 0-4 handicap and probably won't be given much credence by any court (though it is in the Ninth Circuit and we know how fruity the Californian judges are). What would be sweet would be to make the filers pay for the costs the government incurs to defend these type suits when they get defeated again. That would certainly keep future morons from filing additional suits on the same matter.

 

[Tonio]

It's in there because this country was founded on Judeao/Christian fundamentalist beliefs.

I've heard that a thousand times and I still don't understand the basis for that claim. Freedom, democracy, and free enterprise are not exclusive to Judeo/Christianity. And how about our home state of Maryland, which was founded on the basis of freedom of religion?

 

[Ken King]

I've heard that a thousand times and I still don't understand the basis for that claim. Freedom, democracy, and free enterprise are not exclusive to Judeo/Christianity. And how about our home state of Maryland, which was founded on the basis of freedom of religion?

Really? Have you ever read the following?

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And how about our home state? It was founded on the principle of freedom of religion and not freedom from religion.

 

[Tonio]

Good points, Ken. Of course the Founders' faith influenced the Declaration and the Constitution. That doesn't mean they intended to establish a state religion, official or unofficial.

And I think your comment about "freedom from religion" misses my point. Our government should be neutral when it comes to different religious faiths, especially in America's official statement of patriotism. While I don't think "under God" in the Pledge causes tangible harm to people (despite Newdow's boneheaded claims), I think it does go against the principle of freedom of religion.