one nation, under god

[Dr.Drock]

Not exactly an accommadating, neighborly type, heh?

Strikes me as the majority must suffer so I get my 2 bits of fame. Either that or it is just a plain ole hateful one.

yeah, there's no way they could be sincere.

they're atheists, for christ's sake

Well maybe sincerely, incredulous, sad and without any hope.

At least bigots are happy to point out their hate and intolerance for all to see on this board.

Thank you for making us all aware.

 

[bravoactual]

ACTON (CBS) – The Pledge of Allegiance is becoming a sore subject in the Acton-Boxborough school district, all because of the words “under God.”

“Atheists and Humanists do not accept the notion of God,” says attorney David Niose.

An Acton family, who is atheist and chooses to remain anonymous, is suing the school district claiming they are discriminating against their children during the pledge. They want the words “under God” taken out

Acton Family Wants “Under God” Removed From Pledge Of Allegiance « CBS Boston

thoughts?

There is NO STATE SPONSERED RELIGION In The United States.

The United States Constitution references Religion Two (02) Times and Two (02) Times Only!!

Article VI
Clause III.

"But No Religious Test Shall Be Required As A Qualification To Any Office of Public Trust Under The United States."

First Amendment.

"Congress Shall Make No Law Respecting An Establishment of Religion, or Prohibiting The Free Excerise Thereof."

The Presidential Oath of Office has no reference to "So Help Me God". Those words were used by the First President of The United States (Under The Constitution) George Washington of Virigina. Presidents since Washtington have used the Sentence, but no such Sentence exists in The Constitution.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

Some people are just plain stupid.


Hook 'em Horns is the slogan and hand signal of The University of Texas at Austin.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Some people are just plain stupid.


Hook 'em Horns is the slogan and hand signal of The University of Texas at Austin.

Exactly right. President and Mrs. Bush are boosters and long time fans of the Texas Longhorns and I imagine every one of those photos was at a University of Texas event.

And it makes one wonder to what lengths the angry left will go to make absurd points, yes?

As for the "So help me God" tradition, that only speaks to the deep religious convictions of the Founders . You don't see religiious teaching incorporated into the U.S. Constitution because they were determined that no religious group or doctrine be given federal authority over the people, nor would any federal authority be able to interfere with any religious group other than those violating the rights of the others.

Nevertheless, almost every state incorporated acknowledgment of a higher power into their Preamble--one or two put it elsewhere in their state constitutions--and that was perfectly acceptable to the Founders and all subsequent administration/cvongresses.

 

[Foxfyre]

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​

​

Thats all fine and dandy, but thats not what ollie was arguing about.
Law or no law one should stand out of respect was the argument.

We didnt need it before 54 it and we certainly didnt need it after. This is the danger of extreme patriotism.

And ALL Americans will appreciate a higher quality of life and a more satisfying society if manners, common decency, respect, and courtesy are promoted in our shared culture. It does not harm children to be expected to rise when the flag passes by, to stand at attention during the National Anthem, or to stand respectfully when the Pledge is recited whether or not one believes in God or anything else. It did not harm us before 1954, it harmed nobody after 1954, and it harms nobody now.

 

[Barb]

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​

​

Thats all fine and dandy, but thats not what ollie was arguing about.
Law or no law one should stand out of respect was the argument.

We didnt need it before 54 it and we certainly didnt need it after. This is the danger of extreme patriotism.

This is the danger of extreme patriotism.

It is also the danger of extreme chauvinism of any stripe, including religion, in this case, or gender.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thats all fine and dandy, but thats not what ollie was arguing about.
Law or no law one should stand out of respect was the argument.

We didnt need it before 54 it and we certainly didnt need it after. This is the danger of extreme patriotism.

And ALL Americans will appreciate a higher quality of life and a more satisfying society if manners, common decency, respect, and courtesy are promoted in our shared culture. It does not harm children to be expected to rise when the flag passes by, to stand at attention during the National Anthem, or to stand respectfully when the Pledge is recited whether or not one believes in God or anything else. It did not harm us before 1954, it harmed nobody after 1954, and it harms nobody now.

Right because having god in our pledge means our society will be better for it. Thats just fucking stupid. You god people have no moral high ground when it comes to being civil in this world. So go blow that sorry argument someplace else.

They put god in for political reasons in 54. Now i am forces to deal with it regardless of my feelings on the subject. We are not a theology, nor should we be ever. The best government is the one who tolerates all( minus criminals and the like) and appeases to everyone. Having the word god does not appease everyone and singles out a select group.

So my cbild will be forced to stand for something he may not believe in? Because you need to be respected? What about his respect? That just gets tossed out the window because "it doesnt harm anyone".

Fuck you.

The reading dysfunction demonstrated by some of those on the Left never ceases to amaze me. I said, inferred, implied, or suggested nothing about society being the better for it if the Pledge is recited, nor did I include any notion of morality into the point made. I don't really expect somebody who responds to a perfectly civil post with a 'fuck you' to have the character or integrity to acknowledge that, however. (Maybe you will be the rare person to change my mind about that?)

What I did say is that it does not harm children in the least to show respect, courtesy and propriety of social custom and that applies to the Pledge as well as in numerous other situations.

As previously posted, the Pledge was recited without 'under God' in it for some 62 years prior to 1954. Nobody was harmed in the process. It has been recited with the phrase 'under God' in it now for about 58 years. Nobody has been harmed in the process. Nobody has changed their religion or religious beliefs because of it. No theocracy has developed. And according to a fairly recent poll, more than 90% of American like the Pledge the way it currently is.

Why should an angry, intolerant minority that is required to do nothing other than not interfere be able to deprive that 90+% of doing something they enjoy doing or find meaningful?

 

[Barb]

And ALL Americans will appreciate a higher quality of life and a more satisfying society if manners, common decency, respect, and courtesy are promoted in our shared culture. It does not harm children to be expected to rise when the flag passes by, to stand at attention during the National Anthem, or to stand respectfully when the Pledge is recited whether or not one believes in God or anything else. It did not harm us before 1954, it harmed nobody after 1954, and it harms nobody now.

Right because having god in our pledge means our society will be better for it. Thats just fucking stupid. You god people have no moral high ground when it comes to being civil in this world. So go blow that sorry argument someplace else.

They put god in for political reasons in 54. Now i am forces to deal with it regardless of my feelings on the subject. We are not a theology, nor should we be ever. The best government is the one who tolerates all( minus criminals and the like) and appeases to everyone. Having the word god does not appease everyone and singles out a select group.

So my cbild will be forced to stand for something he may not believe in? Because you need to be respected? What about his respect? That just gets tossed out the window because "it doesnt harm anyone".

Fuck you.

The reading dysfunction demonstrated by some of those on the Left never ceases to amaze me. I said, inferred, implied, or suggested nothing about society being the better for it if the Pledge is recited, nor did I include any notion of morality into the point made. I don't really expect somebody who responds to a perfectly civil post with a 'fuck you' to have the character or integrity to acknowledge that, however. (Maybe you will be the rare person to change my mind about that?)

What I did say is that it does not harm children in the least to show respect, courtesy and propriety of social custom and that applies to the Pledge as well as in numerous other situations.

As previously posted, the Pledge was recited without 'under God' in it for some 62 years prior to 1954. Nobody was harmed in the process. It has been recited with the phrase 'under God' in it now for about 58 years. Nobody has been harmed in the process. Nobody has changed their religion or religious beliefs because of it. No theocracy has developed. And according to a fairly recent poll, more than 90% of American like the Pledge the way it currently is.

Why should an angry, intolerant minority that is required to do nothing other than not interfere be able to deprive that 90+% of doing something they enjoy doing or find meaningful?

What part of "indivisible" do you see as NOT divisive to a pledge that EACH individual is supposed to be FULLY vested in?

Translating E PLURIBUS UNUM

The general meaning of each Latin word is clear:
Pluribus is related to the English word: "plural."
Unum is related to the English word: "unit."

E Pluribus Unum describes an action: Many uniting into one. An accurate translation of the motto is "Out of many, one" – a phrase that elegantly captures the symbolism on the shield.

The meaning of this motto is better understood when seen in its original classical context.

Discover the source of E Pluribus Unum,
the message carried by the American Eagle.

E Pluribus Unum - Origin and Meaning of the Motto Carried by the American Eagle

asswipes, all of you theocrats.

 

[Foxfyre]

Right because having god in our pledge means our society will be better for it. Thats just fucking stupid. You god people have no moral high ground when it comes to being civil in this world. So go blow that sorry argument someplace else.

They put god in for political reasons in 54. Now i am forces to deal with it regardless of my feelings on the subject. We are not a theology, nor should we be ever. The best government is the one who tolerates all( minus criminals and the like) and appeases to everyone. Having the word god does not appease everyone and singles out a select group.

So my cbild will be forced to stand for something he may not believe in? Because you need to be respected? What about his respect? That just gets tossed out the window because "it doesnt harm anyone".

Fuck you.

The reading dysfunction demonstrated by some of those on the Left never ceases to amaze me. I said, inferred, implied, or suggested nothing about society being the better for it if the Pledge is recited, nor did I include any notion of morality into the point made. I don't really expect somebody who responds to a perfectly civil post with a 'fuck you' to have the character or integrity to acknowledge that, however. (Maybe you will be the rare person to change my mind about that?)

What I did say is that it does not harm children in the least to show respect, courtesy and propriety of social custom and that applies to the Pledge as well as in numerous other situations.

As previously posted, the Pledge was recited without 'under God' in it for some 62 years prior to 1954. Nobody was harmed in the process. It has been recited with the phrase 'under God' in it now for about 58 years. Nobody has been harmed in the process. Nobody has changed their religion or religious beliefs because of it. No theocracy has developed. And according to a fairly recent poll, more than 90% of American like the Pledge the way it currently is.

Why should an angry, intolerant minority that is required to do nothing other than not interfere be able to deprive that 90+% of doing something they enjoy doing or find meaningful?

What part of "indivisible" do you see as NOT divisive to a pledge that EACH individual is supposed to be FULLY vested in?

Translating E PLURIBUS UNUM

The general meaning of each Latin word is clear:
Pluribus is related to the English word: "plural."
Unum is related to the English word: "unit."

E Pluribus Unum describes an action: Many uniting into one. An accurate translation of the motto is "Out of many, one" – a phrase that elegantly captures the symbolism on the shield.

The meaning of this motto is better understood when seen in its original classical context.

Discover the source of E Pluribus Unum,
the message carried by the American Eagle.

E Pluribus Unum - Origin and Meaning of the Motto Carried by the American Eagle

asswipes, all of you theocrats.

So you see an angry, intolerant minority disallowing a 90+% majority from reciting a Pledge that is meaningful to that majority as being less divisive? There are those who don't respect our country or our flag who still demonstrate the courtesy to stand when the Pledge is recited. There are those who very much intend to divide and conquer this country who still maintain the illusion of courtesy by standing when the Pledge is recited. There are many who think the America is nowhere near united who still recite the name of our country. There are those who think the flag doesn't stand for the nation who still stand as custom dicvtates and say the words. Some think their fellow Americans who are the least bit patriotic are asswipes.

If you think a recitation of a harmless but patriotic Pledge makes our nation divisible, that is your prerogative of course. But man oh man, you must think this country is really really fragile.

 

[Liability]

Right because having god in our pledge means our society will be better for it. Thats just fucking stupid. You god people have no moral high ground when it comes to being civil in this world. So go blow that sorry argument someplace else.

They put god in for political reasons in 54. Now i am forces to deal with it regardless of my feelings on the subject. We are not a theology, nor should we be ever. The best government is the one who tolerates all( minus criminals and the like) and appeases to everyone. Having the word god does not appease everyone and singles out a select group.

So my cbild will be forced to stand for something he may not believe in? Because you need to be respected? What about his respect? That just gets tossed out the window because "it doesnt harm anyone".

Fuck you.

The reading dysfunction demonstrated by some of those on the Left never ceases to amaze me. I said, inferred, implied, or suggested nothing about society being the better for it if the Pledge is recited, nor did I include any notion of morality into the point made. I don't really expect somebody who responds to a perfectly civil post with a 'fuck you' to have the character or integrity to acknowledge that, however. (Maybe you will be the rare person to change my mind about that?)

What I did say is that it does not harm children in the least to show respect, courtesy and propriety of social custom and that applies to the Pledge as well as in numerous other situations.

As previously posted, the Pledge was recited without 'under God' in it for some 62 years prior to 1954. Nobody was harmed in the process. It has been recited with the phrase 'under God' in it now for about 58 years. Nobody has been harmed in the process. Nobody has changed their religion or religious beliefs because of it. No theocracy has developed. And according to a fairly recent poll, more than 90% of American like the Pledge the way it currently is.

Why should an angry, intolerant minority that is required to do nothing other than not interfere be able to deprive that 90+% of doing something they enjoy doing or find meaningful?

What part of "indivisible" do you see as NOT divisive to a pledge that EACH individual is supposed to be FULLY vested in?

Translating E PLURIBUS UNUM

The general meaning of each Latin word is clear:
Pluribus is related to the English word: "plural."
Unum is related to the English word: "unit."

E Pluribus Unum describes an action: Many uniting into one. An accurate translation of the motto is "Out of many, one" – a phrase that elegantly captures the symbolism on the shield.

The meaning of this motto is better understood when seen in its original classical context.

Discover the source of E Pluribus Unum,
the message carried by the American Eagle.

E Pluribus Unum - Origin and Meaning of the Motto Carried by the American Eagle

asswipes, all of you theocrats.

The OTHER National Motto is, "In God We Trust."

I like E Pluribus Unum ("from the many, one"), too, though. It works on more than one level.

I like the idea that these two national mottoes are not actually at odds with each other. I do not believe they are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And ALL Americans will appreciate a higher quality of life and a more satisfying society if manners, common decency, respect, and courtesy are promoted in our shared culture. It does not harm children to be expected to rise when the flag passes by, to stand at attention during the National Anthem, or to stand respectfully when the Pledge is recited whether or not one believes in God or anything else. It did not harm us before 1954, it harmed nobody after 1954, and it harms nobody now.

Right because having god in our pledge means our society will be better for it. Thats just fucking stupid. You god people have no moral high ground when it comes to being civil in this world. So go blow that sorry argument someplace else.

They put god in for political reasons in 54. Now i am forces to deal with it regardless of my feelings on the subject. We are not a theology, nor should we be ever. The best government is the one who tolerates all( minus criminals and the like) and appeases to everyone. Having the word god does not appease everyone and singles out a select group.

So my cbild will be forced to stand for something he may not believe in? Because you need to be respected? What about his respect? That just gets tossed out the window because "it doesnt harm anyone".

Fuck you.

The reading dysfunction demonstrated by some of those on the Left never ceases to amaze me. I said, inferred, implied, or suggested nothing about society being the better for it if the Pledge is recited, nor did I include any notion of morality into the point made. I don't really expect somebody who responds to a perfectly civil post with a 'fuck you' to have the character or integrity to acknowledge that, however. (Maybe you will be the rare person to change my mind about that?)

What I did say is that it does not harm children in the least to show respect, courtesy and propriety of social custom and that applies to the Pledge as well as in numerous other situations.

As previously posted, the Pledge was recited without 'under God' in it for some 62 years prior to 1954. Nobody was harmed in the process. It has been recited with the phrase 'under God' in it now for about 58 years. Nobody has been harmed in the process. Nobody has changed their religion or religious beliefs because of it. No theocracy has developed. And according to a fairly recent poll, more than 90% of American like the Pledge the way it currently is.

Why should an angry, intolerant minority that is required to do nothing other than not interfere be able to deprive that 90+% of doing something they enjoy doing or find meaningful?

When you write "What I did say is that it does not harm children in the least to show respect, courtesy and propriety of social custom and that applies to the Pledge as well as in numerous other situations", I respectfully disagree.

To force a child to do something with which s/he is uncomfortable, with which her family is uncomfortable, and with which the decision is not through 50% plus one majority making, then, yes, that is wrong.

 

[Barb]

The reading dysfunction demonstrated by some of those on the Left never ceases to amaze me. I said, inferred, implied, or suggested nothing about society being the better for it if the Pledge is recited, nor did I include any notion of morality into the point made. I don't really expect somebody who responds to a perfectly civil post with a 'fuck you' to have the character or integrity to acknowledge that, however. (Maybe you will be the rare person to change my mind about that?)

What I did say is that it does not harm children in the least to show respect, courtesy and propriety of social custom and that applies to the Pledge as well as in numerous other situations.

As previously posted, the Pledge was recited without 'under God' in it for some 62 years prior to 1954. Nobody was harmed in the process. It has been recited with the phrase 'under God' in it now for about 58 years. Nobody has been harmed in the process. Nobody has changed their religion or religious beliefs because of it. No theocracy has developed. And according to a fairly recent poll, more than 90% of American like the Pledge the way it currently is.

Why should an angry, intolerant minority that is required to do nothing other than not interfere be able to deprive that 90+% of doing something they enjoy doing or find meaningful?

What part of "indivisible" do you see as NOT divisive to a pledge that EACH individual is supposed to be FULLY vested in?

Translating E PLURIBUS UNUM

The general meaning of each Latin word is clear:
Pluribus is related to the English word: "plural."
Unum is related to the English word: "unit."

E Pluribus Unum describes an action: Many uniting into one. An accurate translation of the motto is "Out of many, one" – a phrase that elegantly captures the symbolism on the shield.

The meaning of this motto is better understood when seen in its original classical context.

Discover the source of E Pluribus Unum,
the message carried by the American Eagle.

E Pluribus Unum - Origin and Meaning of the Motto Carried by the American Eagle

asswipes, all of you theocrats.

So you see an angry, intolerant minority disallowing a 90+% majority from reciting a Pledge that is meaningful to that majority as being less divisive? There are those who don't respect our country or our flag who still demonstrate the courtesy to stand when the Pledge is recited. There are those who very much intend to divide and conquer this country who still maintain the illusion of courtesy by standing when the Pledge is recited. There are many who think the America is nowhere near united who still recite the name of our country. There are those who think the flag doesn't stand for the nation who still stand as custom dicvtates and say the words. Some think their fellow Americans who are the least bit patriotic are asswipes.

If you think a recitation of a harmless but patriotic Pledge makes our nation divisible, that is your prerogative of course. But man oh man, you must think this country is really really fragile.

holy mother of god, but you people (oh yes I did, twice) are impervious to reality.

It isn't the pledge, its the GAWD, specifically, it's YOUR gawd that is divisive.

But its okay, I expect you to be willfully obtuse.

 

[Barb]

The reading dysfunction demonstrated by some of those on the Left never ceases to amaze me. I said, inferred, implied, or suggested nothing about society being the better for it if the Pledge is recited, nor did I include any notion of morality into the point made. I don't really expect somebody who responds to a perfectly civil post with a 'fuck you' to have the character or integrity to acknowledge that, however. (Maybe you will be the rare person to change my mind about that?)

What I did say is that it does not harm children in the least to show respect, courtesy and propriety of social custom and that applies to the Pledge as well as in numerous other situations.

As previously posted, the Pledge was recited without 'under God' in it for some 62 years prior to 1954. Nobody was harmed in the process. It has been recited with the phrase 'under God' in it now for about 58 years. Nobody has been harmed in the process. Nobody has changed their religion or religious beliefs because of it. No theocracy has developed. And according to a fairly recent poll, more than 90% of American like the Pledge the way it currently is.

Why should an angry, intolerant minority that is required to do nothing other than not interfere be able to deprive that 90+% of doing something they enjoy doing or find meaningful?

What part of "indivisible" do you see as NOT divisive to a pledge that EACH individual is supposed to be FULLY vested in?

Translating E PLURIBUS UNUM

The general meaning of each Latin word is clear:
Pluribus is related to the English word: "plural."
Unum is related to the English word: "unit."

E Pluribus Unum describes an action: Many uniting into one. An accurate translation of the motto is "Out of many, one" – a phrase that elegantly captures the symbolism on the shield.

The meaning of this motto is better understood when seen in its original classical context.

Discover the source of E Pluribus Unum,
the message carried by the American Eagle.

E Pluribus Unum - Origin and Meaning of the Motto Carried by the American Eagle

asswipes, all of you theocrats.

The OTHER National Motto is, "In God We Trust."

I like E Pluribus Unum ("from the many, one"), too, though. It works on more than one level.

I like the idea that these two national mottoes are not actually at odds with each other. I do not believe they are.

It would be nice to see that your way, it really would. There is evidence of a war for dominion though, and that is troublesome.

 

[Liability]

What part of "indivisible" do you see as NOT divisive to a pledge that EACH individual is supposed to be FULLY vested in?


E Pluribus Unum - Origin and Meaning of the Motto Carried by the American Eagle

asswipes, all of you theocrats.

The OTHER National Motto is, "In God We Trust."

I like E Pluribus Unum ("from the many, one"), too, though. It works on more than one level.

I like the idea that these two national mottoes are not actually at odds with each other. I do not believe they are.

It would be nice to see that your way, it really would. There is evidence of a war for dominion though, and that is troublesome.

I don't see the evidence you speak of. Seriously.

 

[Barb]

The OTHER National Motto is, "In God We Trust."

I like E Pluribus Unum ("from the many, one"), too, though. It works on more than one level.

I like the idea that these two national mottoes are not actually at odds with each other. I do not believe they are.

It would be nice to see that your way, it really would. There is evidence of a war for dominion though, and that is troublesome.

I don't see the evidence you speak of. Seriously.

LOL, even on THIS thread? Oh Kay. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Moonglow]

What part of "indivisible" do you see as NOT divisive to a pledge that EACH individual is supposed to be FULLY vested in?


E Pluribus Unum - Origin and Meaning of the Motto Carried by the American Eagle

asswipes, all of you theocrats.

So you see an angry, intolerant minority disallowing a 90+% majority from reciting a Pledge that is meaningful to that majority as being less divisive? There are those who don't respect our country or our flag who still demonstrate the courtesy to stand when the Pledge is recited. There are those who very much intend to divide and conquer this country who still maintain the illusion of courtesy by standing when the Pledge is recited. There are many who think the America is nowhere near united who still recite the name of our country. There are those who think the flag doesn't stand for the nation who still stand as custom dicvtates and say the words. Some think their fellow Americans who are the least bit patriotic are asswipes.

If you think a recitation of a harmless but patriotic Pledge makes our nation divisible, that is your prerogative of course. But man oh man, you must think this country is really really fragile.

holy mother of god, but you people (oh yes I did, twice) are impervious to reality.

It isn't the pledge, its the GAWD, specifically, it's YOUR gawd that is divisive.

But its okay, I expect you to be willfully obtuse.

To many people religion you can't pledge anything but to their God. So the pledge is an affront to their beliefs. As far as I am concerned the pledge is unnecceassry for anything but nationalism.

 

[Liability]

It would be nice to see that your way, it really would. There is evidence of a war for dominion though, and that is troublesome.

I don't see the evidence you speak of. Seriously.

LOL, even on THIS thread? Oh Kay. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Speak plainly.

What "evidence" is it that you think you see?

 

[Againsheila]

Thats all fine and dandy, but thats not what ollie was arguing about.
Law or no law one should stand out of respect was the argument.

We didnt need it before 54 it and we certainly didnt need it after. This is the danger of extreme patriotism.

And ALL Americans will appreciate a higher quality of life and a more satisfying society if manners, common decency, respect, and courtesy are promoted in our shared culture. It does not harm children to be expected to rise when the flag passes by, to stand at attention during the National Anthem, or to stand respectfully when the Pledge is recited whether or not one believes in God or anything else. It did not harm us before 1954, it harmed nobody after 1954, and it harms nobody now.

Right because having god in our pledge means our society will be better for it. Thats just fucking stupid. You god people have no moral high ground when it comes to being civil in this world. So go blow that sorry argument someplace else.

They put god in for political reasons in 54. Now i am forces to deal with it regardless of my feelings on the subject. We are not a theology, nor should we be ever. The best government is the one who tolerates all( minus criminals and the like) and appeases to everyone. Having the word god does not appease everyone and singles out a select group.

So my cbild will be forced to stand for something he may not believe in? Because you need to be respected? What about his respect? That just gets tossed out the window because "it doesnt harm anyone".

Fuck you.

Do you expect your child to grow up and respect other people, religions, cultures? How can that happen if you can't teach him to respect our own?

I'm guessing your child will NEVER get elected to ANY office and if he is, our country will suffer for it.

As I said before, can you imagine what would happen if ANY of our representatives visited another country and didn't stand for their pledge/anthym?

Think of the president visiting England and not standing for "God Save the Queen".

 

[Mr.Nick]

ACTON (CBS) – The Pledge of Allegiance is becoming a sore subject in the Acton-Boxborough school district, all because of the words “under God.”

“Atheists and Humanists do not accept the notion of God,” says attorney David Niose.

An Acton family, who is atheist and chooses to remain anonymous, is suing the school district claiming they are discriminating against their children during the pledge. They want the words “under God” taken out

Acton Family Wants “Under God” Removed From Pledge Of Allegiance « CBS Boston

thoughts?

No one is forced to say "under God."

If one was (even as a Christian) I would be pissed...

The simple fact the line exists means nothing - not to mention "separation of church and state" is a fucking myth anyways.

I'm more perplexed by the notion 70% of retards actually believe the idea of "separation of church and state" is some form of legislation...

If people are too fucking dumb to know their rights, then they should have no rights..

 

[del]

ACTON (CBS) – The Pledge of Allegiance is becoming a sore subject in the Acton-Boxborough school district, all because of the words “under God.”

“Atheists and Humanists do not accept the notion of God,” says attorney David Niose.

An Acton family, who is atheist and chooses to remain anonymous, is suing the school district claiming they are discriminating against their children during the pledge. They want the words “under God” taken out

Acton Family Wants “Under God” Removed From Pledge Of Allegiance « CBS Boston

thoughts?

No one is forced to say "under God."

If one was (even as a Christian) I would be pissed...

The simple fact the line exists means nothing - not to mention "separation of church and state" is a fucking myth anyways.

I'm more perplexed by the notion 70% of retards actually believe the idea of "separation of church and state" is some form of legislation...

If people are too fucking dumb to know their rights, then they should have no rights..

be careful what you wish for, fermi