This is Exactly What's Wrong With America!!

Activist Judges!! California's Shame!!

Published on September 15, 2005 By Moderateman In US Domestic

.. District Judge Lawrence Karlton rules in favor of atheist Michael Newdow.

This is a perfect example of what Plagues the United States, One man on a personal mission to destroy God and one Judge with no sense ruling in favor of this complete waste of human flesh.

There is something inherently wrong when a small percentage of people What I like to label the Godless ones can ram there views down the throat of the vast majority of Americans that DO believe in GOD>!!!

Just another reason to hate living in such a LIBERAL state filled with liberal activist judges legislating law from the bench!!!

How can ONE judge assume that the MAJORITY of people would even begin to agree with this heinous decision is beyond me.

The courts have grown much to powerful and are not shy about exercising that power either.

This is a prime example of Democracy gone wrong and something that needs to be addressed and corrected, we need to take back the power of LAWMAKING from the courts and put it where it belongs in the hands and votes of the PEOPLE!!!

Comments (Page 1)

Island Dog

on Sep 15, 2005

Another great contribution from the liberal community.

Moderateman

on Sep 15, 2005

Reply By: Island DogPosted: Thursday, September 15, 2005Another great contribution from the liberal community

this particular decision makes me want to "hunt" liberal judges down" and do away with them.
They are destroying the fabric of america.

ParaTed2k

on Sep 15, 2005

With "judges" like this, who needs a school board?

Moderateman

on Sep 15, 2005

#3 by ParaTed2k
Thursday, September 15, 2005

With "judges" like this, who needs a school board?

I believe this is another reason to get as many conservative judges on the supreme court, to stop this madness.

Leauki

on Sep 15, 2005

"complete waste of human flesh"?

Because he managed to get a judge to agree with him on a subject you happen to feeel strongly about?

Are you out on a crusade to convince people that the atheist is right in pointing to Christianity as a bad influence?

bakerstreet

on Sep 15, 2005

I have to disagree. If you go back and look at why "Under God" was added, and when it was added, I don't think you can dispute the fact that this it was to establish a national religious identity. No, granted, it wasn't to promote one particular religion, but it most certainly was to establish the US as something apart from "godless" communism.

I think we have to be honest and see this for what it is. If Pat Robertson tomorrow decided that we needed to say 'under God', it would be rejected outright. Most people just don't understand that this was a creation of anti-communist politics, not the founding fathers.

Rightwinger

on Sep 15, 2005

I believe this is another reason to get as many conservative judges on the supreme court, to stop this madness.

---Modman

Because he managed to get a judge to agree with him on a subject you happen to feeel strongly about?

--Leauki

Well, see....the liberal judges do often seem to rule more from personal opinion rather than constitutional law, which is what they're supposed to do.

Michael Newdow is a headline-grabber and scumbag trying to push his (non)beliefs on the rest of us. He needs to get a life.

Rightwinger

on Sep 15, 2005

have to disagree. If you go back and look at why "Under God" was added, and when it was added, I don't think you can dispute the fact that this it was to establish a national religious identity. No, granted, it wasn't to promote one particular religion, but it most certainly was to establish the US as something apart from "godless" communism.
I think we have to be honest and see this for what it is. If Pat Robertson tomorrow decided that we needed to say 'under God', it would be rejected outright. Most people just don't understand that this was a creation of anti-communist politics, not the founding fathers.

True, but what if they had said "Under ~~a~~ God", instead. Do you think that would have precluded this problem? I doubt it. Newdow wants all references to religion ripped out of public life.

Moderateman

on Sep 15, 2005

#5 by Leauki
Thursday, September 15, 2005

Because he managed to get a judge to agree with him on a subject you happen to feeel strongly about?

Are you out on a crusade to convince people that the atheist is right in pointing to Christianity as a bad influence?

first not a christian me that is, second he has been on this crusade along with the liberals left since 1963 {the liberals not neudow}

Moderateman

on Sep 15, 2005

#6 by BakerStreet
Thursday, September 15, 2005

I remember when it happened baker I was alive and already in school, was in IKES admin.

Moderateman

on Sep 15, 2005

#7 by Rightwinger
Thursday, September 15, 2005

Well, see....the liberal judges do often seem to rule more from personal opinion rather than constitutional law, which is what they're supposed to do.

exactly... they do not follow LAW, the follow feelings.

Moderateman

on Sep 15, 2005

#8 by Rightwinger
Thursday, September 15, 2005

but what if they had said "Under ~~a~~ God", instead. Do you think that would have precluded this problem? I doubt it. Newdow wants all references to religion ripped out of public life.

there is no way having Under God inserted today could pass.

the left would see to that.

bakerstreet

on Sep 15, 2005

It doesn't matter if it was the God, or if it was any god. What matters is that it was an state-sanctioned statement against Atheism. To me, that's no different than a state-sanctioned attack on Hinduism or any belief system.

Moderateman

on Sep 15, 2005

13 by BakerStreet
Thursday, September 15, 2005

It doesn't matter if it was the God, or if it was any god. What matters is that it was an state-sanctioned statement against Atheism. To me, that's no different than a state-sanctioned attack on Hinduism or any belief system.

since for the most part we tend to AGREE on most things, we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one baker. K?

bakerstreet

on Sep 15, 2005

" we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one baker. K?"

Sure. I just think you kind of mischaracterize this. If you condemn the 'godless ones' for imposing their will, I think you should go back and look and I think you'll find this was a governmental attempt to shove God down the throats of the 'godless ones'.

Or at least say openly that the US isn't 'godless'. The government should take no stance on the existance of God at all.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!