one nation, under god

[del]

Thanks, glad to be a member of your club.

have you considered philately?

Did you want to define "The American Way"?

no, i'm not suffering from delusions of grandeur.

you seem up to it, though.

 

[Valerie]

have you considered philately?

Did you want to define "The American Way"?

no, i'm not suffering from delusions of grandeur.

you seem up to it, though.

I think Foxy did a pretty good job already...

 

[FactFinder]

Just like the self centered asshole that wants to remove the pledge for all the others that it is meaningful to.

There is nothing ‘self-centered’ about adhering to one’s convictions. They correctly advocate a consistent application of separation doctrine.

‘Under god’ is clearly a meaningless political contrivance, having nothing to do with one’s loyalty to America or patriotism.

Except they want to impose that to the exclusion of everbody else. That is self centered.

So you want a republic only or is at times a democracy that prevails? Should 99% suffer because one is upset?

Does the 99% matter? Or just one self centered one who can't get out of their own way enough to appreciate the wishes of all the others?.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Except they want to impose that to the exclusion of everbody else. That is self centered.

Nonsense.

“Consistent application” means no one’s excluded, no one ‘gets his way.’ Attempting to vilify those holding an unpopular opinion is a tedious authoritarian tactic.

So you want a republic only or is at times a democracy that prevails? Should 99% suffer because one is upset?

What I want is irrelevant.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, whose citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men; as men are incapable of ruling justly. ‘Under god’ is evidence of that.

Does the 99% matter? Or just one self centered one who can't get out of their own way enough to appreciate the wishes of all the others?.

What matters is inalienable rights are not subject to majority rule, regardless how large the majority.

 

[FactFinder]

Except they want to impose that to the exclusion of everbody else. That is self centered.

Nonsense.

“Consistent application” means no one’s excluded, no one ‘gets his way.’ Attempting to vilify those holding an unpopular opinion is a tedious authoritarian tactic.

So you want a republic only or is at times a democracy that prevails? Should 99% suffer because one is upset?

What I want is irrelevant.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, whose citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men; as men are incapable of ruling justly. ‘Under god’ is evidence of that.

Does the 99% matter? Or just one self centered one who can't get out of their own way enough to appreciate the wishes of all the others?.

What matters is inalienable rights are not subject to majority rule, regardless how large the majority.

The 99% have an inalienable right to free speech and freedom of religion. You have no right to squelch that just because you do not want to hear it.

 

[JScott]

Except they want to impose that to the exclusion of everbody else. That is self centered.

Nonsense.

“Consistent application” means no one’s excluded, no one ‘gets his way.’ Attempting to vilify those holding an unpopular opinion is a tedious authoritarian tactic.



What I want is irrelevant.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, whose citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men; as men are incapable of ruling justly. ‘Under god’ is evidence of that.

Does the 99% matter? Or just one self centered one who can't get out of their own way enough to appreciate the wishes of all the others?.

What matters is inalienable rights are not subject to majority rule, regardless how large the majority.

The 99% have an inalienable right to free speech and freedom of religion. You have no right to squelch that just because you do not want to hear it.

And you have no right to force feed your ideology.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nonsense.

“Consistent application” means no one’s excluded, no one ‘gets his way.’ Attempting to vilify those holding an unpopular opinion is a tedious authoritarian tactic.



What I want is irrelevant.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, whose citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men; as men are incapable of ruling justly. ‘Under god’ is evidence of that.



What matters is inalienable rights are not subject to majority rule, regardless how large the majority.

The 99% have an inalienable right to free speech and freedom of religion. You have no right to squelch that just because you do not want to hear it.

And you have no right to force feed your ideology.

You are correct. Nobody has a right to feed their ideology to anybody but their own kids. But we all have a right to express it and no amount of whining about how expressing it is 'forcing it down somebody's throat' or 'feeding it' or anything along those lines changes the fact that we have a right to express our opinions in this country.

There is no unalienable right to have the Pledge YOU want recited used in the schools or any other public forum. There is no unalienable right to have no Pledge at all recited in the schools. The recitation of a Pledge or the absense of a Pledge violates or affects nobody's rights.

Therefore, majority preference is the ONLY logical, reasonable, or fair method to determine what sort of Pledge will be used or whether a Pledge will be used. And the argument that unalienable rights cannot be decided by majority vote is a huge non sequitur when attached to that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

UNLESS, it violates the Constitution.

Foxy, it will be your inalienable right to bitch all you want if SCOTUS ends up ruling against you.

However, this is not an issue submitted for democratic decision until SCOTUS tells you so.

 

[Missourian]

And Jehovah Witnesses refuse to "pledge allegiance" to anything/anyone other than God.

You know what they do about The Pledge in schools????



THEY DON'T SAY IT.


They don't tie up our courts with frivolous bullshit to stop other people from saying it.

will it be frivolous if the catholic church takes obama to court?

because it's the same thing-religious freedom

It's exactly the same, because the the Catholic Church can simply choose not to disseminate birth control without any consequences or ramifications whatsoever, just like individuals can choose to not say "Under God" or even choose not to recite the Pledge.

Oh, wait, they can't...they are forced by law to violate their ethics, morals and religious teachings.

WOW, they are entirely different.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Well I (in my capacity as the Local American Legion Commander) conducted an awards Dinner this evening for 4 of our local HS Students. It was an excellent dinner and I just thought I would share with you all that we started the evening with the Pledge of Allegiance. Including the words under God.

I do not know who in the room said the words and who didn't. And I really could care less. There were a lot of people saying it....... (Of course being in the front of the room and having turned towards the flag everyone else was behind me)

 

[Foxfyre]

And Jehovah Witnesses refuse to "pledge allegiance" to anything/anyone other than God.

You know what they do about The Pledge in schools????



THEY DON'T SAY IT.


They don't tie up our courts with frivolous bullshit to stop other people from saying it.

will it be frivolous if the catholic church takes obama to court?

because it's the same thing-religious freedom

It's exactly the same, because the the Catholic Church can simply choose not to disseminate birth control without any consequences or ramifications whatsoever, just like individuals can choose to not say "Under God" or even choose not to recite the Pledge.

Oh, wait, they can't...they are forced by law to violate their ethics, morals and religious teachings.

WOW, they are entirely different.

You really see no difference in hearing something that is offensive to your religion or ethics, and being required to pay money out of your pocket for something that violates your religion or ethics?

You honestly don't see a difference between these two things?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is no unalienable right to have the Pledge YOU want recited used in the schools or any other public forum. There is no unalienable right to have no Pledge at all recited in the schools.

There is an inalienable right to be free from government coerced compliance, to be compelled by the state to say the pledge when you believe it violates your personal beliefs.

The recitation of a Pledge or the absense of a Pledge violates or affects nobody's rights.

Again, it does of one is forced to do so by the state, subject to some punitive measure.

Therefore, majority preference is the ONLY logical, reasonable, or fair method to determine what sort of Pledge will be used or whether a Pledge will be used. And the argument that unalienable rights cannot be decided by majority vote is a huge non sequitur when attached to that.

‘Under god’ is an unfortunate manifestation of rightist authoritarianism, where compliance is mandated and dissent stifled.

 

[JScott]

The 99% have an inalienable right to free speech and freedom of religion. You have no right to squelch that just because you do not want to hear it.

And you have no right to force feed your ideology.

You are correct. Nobody has a right to feed their ideology to anybody but their own kids. But we all have a right to express it and no amount of whining about how expressing it is 'forcing it down somebody's throat' or 'feeding it' or anything along those lines changes the fact that we have a right to express our opinions in this country.

There is no unalienable right to have the Pledge YOU want recited used in the schools or any other public forum. There is no unalienable right to have no Pledge at all recited in the schools. The recitation of a Pledge or the absense of a Pledge violates or affects nobody's rights.

Therefore, majority preference is the ONLY logical, reasonable, or fair method to determine what sort of Pledge will be used or whether a Pledge will be used. And the argument that unalienable rights cannot be decided by majority vote is a huge non sequitur when attached to that.

People came to this country to escape religious dogma, and rightly so. It seems, however, that wherever religious zealots can squeeze their beliefs into my government they do it and fail to recognize what they are doing. What they are doing is putting a gigantic spiritual wedge between them and others and claiming this government is theirs and theirs alone.

I dont care what belief you have. Live in peace and practice whatever you want but dont be so arrogant to think we all should follow your beliefs. Keep your beliefs out of my government and just govern.

 

[Foxfyre]

And you have no right to force feed your ideology.

You are correct. Nobody has a right to feed their ideology to anybody but their own kids. But we all have a right to express it and no amount of whining about how expressing it is 'forcing it down somebody's throat' or 'feeding it' or anything along those lines changes the fact that we have a right to express our opinions in this country.

There is no unalienable right to have the Pledge YOU want recited used in the schools or any other public forum. There is no unalienable right to have no Pledge at all recited in the schools. The recitation of a Pledge or the absense of a Pledge violates or affects nobody's rights.

Therefore, majority preference is the ONLY logical, reasonable, or fair method to determine what sort of Pledge will be used or whether a Pledge will be used. And the argument that unalienable rights cannot be decided by majority vote is a huge non sequitur when attached to that.

People came to this country to escape religious dogma, and rightly so. It seems, however, that wherever religious zealots can squeeze their beliefs into my government they do it and fail to recognize what they are doing. What they are doing is putting a gigantic spiritual wedge between them and others and claiming this government is theirs and theirs alone.

I dont care what belief you have. Live in peace and practice whatever you want but dont be so arrogant to think we all should follow your beliefs. Keep your beliefs out of my government and just govern.

Exactly. However the Pledge of the Allegiance is not government, is not law, is not regulation, requires nothing of anybody other than non interference and courtesy, and therefore what we do or do not keep out of your government has nothing to do with the Pledge of Allegiance. So please keep your prejudices out of what most of the rest of us find to be a meaningful exercise in patriotism and national unity.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are correct. Nobody has a right to feed their ideology to anybody but their own kids. But we all have a right to express it and no amount of whining about how expressing it is 'forcing it down somebody's throat' or 'feeding it' or anything along those lines changes the fact that we have a right to express our opinions in this country.

There is no unalienable right to have the Pledge YOU want recited used in the schools or any other public forum. There is no unalienable right to have no Pledge at all recited in the schools. The recitation of a Pledge or the absense of a Pledge violates or affects nobody's rights.

Therefore, majority preference is the ONLY logical, reasonable, or fair method to determine what sort of Pledge will be used or whether a Pledge will be used. And the argument that unalienable rights cannot be decided by majority vote is a huge non sequitur when attached to that.

People came to this country to escape religious dogma, and rightly so. It seems, however, that wherever religious zealots can squeeze their beliefs into my government they do it and fail to recognize what they are doing. What they are doing is putting a gigantic spiritual wedge between them and others and claiming this government is theirs and theirs alone.

I dont care what belief you have. Live in peace and practice whatever you want but dont be so arrogant to think we all should follow your beliefs. Keep your beliefs out of my government and just govern.

Exactly. However the Pledge of the Allegiance is not government, is not law, is not regulation, requires nothing of anybody other than non interference and courtesy, and therefore what we do or do not keep out of your government has nothing to do with the Pledge of Allegiance. So please keep your prejudices out of what most of the rest of us find to be a meaningful exercise in patriotism and national unity.

If the pledge is required in a school district's campuses each morning over the PA, then, yes, Foxfyre, the pledge is those things, and I don't think your religious prejudice should rule over others.

 

[Missourian]

will it be frivolous if the catholic church takes obama to court?

because it's the same thing-religious freedom

It's exactly the same, because the the Catholic Church can simply choose not to disseminate birth control without any consequences or ramifications whatsoever, just like individuals can choose to not say "Under God" or even choose not to recite the Pledge.

Oh, wait, they can't...they are forced by law to violate their ethics, morals and religious teachings.

WOW, they are entirely different.

You really see no difference in hearing something that is offensive to your religion or ethics, and being required to pay money out of your pocket for something that violates your religion or ethics?

You honestly don't see a difference between these two things?

I totally see the difference.

One is voluntary with no consequences or ramifications for omitting the section you conscientiously oppose.

The other carries the full force of law with penalties imposed by the government for omitting the section you conscientiously oppose.

The disparity is glaring.

 

[Missourian]

Here you go...the 9th Circuit decision 2010 from the LA Times:

The Pledge of Allegiance to "one nation under God" doesn't violate a citizen's right to be free of state-mandated religion, a divided federal appeals court ruled Thursday in reversing one of its most controversial decisions.

In a 2-1 ruling, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said no federal law requires students to recite the pledge or the religious reference in it.

Michael Newdow | Pledge of Allegiance's God reference now upheld by court - Los Angeles Times​

​

 

[Liability]

Here you go...the 9th Circuit decision 2010 from the LA Times:

The Pledge of Allegiance to "one nation under God" doesn't violate a citizen's right to be free of state-mandated religion, a divided federal appeals court ruled Thursday in reversing one of its most controversial decisions.

In a 2-1 ruling, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said no federal law requires students to recite the pledge or the religious reference in it.

Michael Newdow | Pledge of Allegiance's God reference now upheld by court - Los Angeles Times​

​

Arrrghhh!

Those damn pesky FACTS being used to bludgeon your opposition.

It's almost unfair!



(It is also one of the rare times that I think the 9th Circus was correct.)

 

[MikeK]

Several More: Here He is

The implication in this collection of images is difficult to dismiss. I'll bet William Blatty and William Friedkin (The Exorcist) could do something very interesting with it. And if done carefully there would be no risk of legal damages.

 

[Liability]

Several More: Here He is

The implication in this collection of images is difficult to dismiss. I'll bet William Blatty and William Friediin (The Exorcist) could do something very interesting with it. And if done carefully there would be no risk of legal damages.

Mikkkekkk is still just a fucking dumbass.