#15 by little_whip Thursday, September 15, 2005

this particular decision makes me want to "hunt" liberal judges down" and do away with them. Careful there, MM, threatening a federal judge is a felony. You don't want a little social visit from men in dark suits, do ya?

fuck em if a governer can threaten the president and get away with it.. fuck em.

#16 by BakerStreet Thursday, September 15, 2005

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

agreed and deal!

I feel that my faith in God has been insulted and my right to express my religious beliefs has been trampled on. I DEMAND that they stop stepping on me! I'm going to sue. Sure I don't live in CA but that's not the point...I should still get to sue and bitch and moan until I get my way.

Elie I hadn't seen this article before I wrote mine!

You're right though....."The courts have grown much to powerful and are not shy about exercising that power either." It is about time they stop doing that! Trying criminals is one thing and even upholding people's rights is good too but this I believe is too much!

"but this I believe is too much!"

How? If there were an effort to put "one nation, seeking enlightenment" in the Pledge, people would have a cow.

This is a holdover not of our noble creation, but of a sick period of our history wherein we tried to use a hypocritical image to set ourselves apart from the Soviets. It was an 'in your face' by McCarthyist thinkers towards those here and abroad who weren't "red blooded Americans".

Why should we hold on to such? To pretend that we are a nation upholding God's existance is as hypocritical as the Soviets pretending to be Atheistic when in reality many, if not most, held to their traditional religious beliefs.

19 by lifehappens Thursday, September 15, 2005

feel that my faith in God has been insulted and my right to express my religious beliefs has been trampled on. I DEMAND that they stop stepping on me! I'm going to sue. Sure I don't live in CA but that's not the point...I should still get to sue and bitch and moan until I get my way.

so do I and if more of us were not only vocal but tied the courts up with suits demanding we be heard we might get our way.

20 by foreverserenity Thursday, September 15, 2005

Elie I hadn't seen this article before I wrote mine! You're right though....."The courts have grown much to powerful and are not shy about exercising that power either." It is about time they stop doing that! Trying criminals is one thing and even upholding people's rights is good too but this I believe is too much!

tis ok no one had "dibs" on any subject.

#21 by BakerStreet Thursday, September 15, 2005

How? If there were an effort to put "one nation, seeking enlightenment" in the Pledge, people would have a cow.

and that sentence is what's wrong with america baker. there is not a dman thing wrong with seeking enlightenment.

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.

See, I don't look at it that way. The number of atheists in this country is miniscule next to the number of believers in/of any faith, no matter the Deity. Not that atheists shouldn't count, but when you're in the vaaaaaaast minority, you should just shut your piehole and let sleeping dogs lie. Especially when those dogs aren't actually hurting you in any way that you don't let them.

As always, the majority enjoys their "rights", not considering the fact that they aren't always going to be the majority. Why act in ways that your opponents may someday use to abuse you? I don't want Hillary passing legislation that defines me as an American. Why sanction it, then?

No offense, but I know for a FACT that if Hillary made some statement of national identity you guys disagreed with, you'd be up in arms whether it hurt you or not. Are you hurt when the California congress passes a law granting legitimacy to gay marriage? If next week Democrats pass legislation granting spanish "official" status alongside English, will it bother you? Any statement defining us "officially" needs to be accurate. You can't define the US religiously without being innacurate.

When you say "In God We Trust" on a coin, does that money just represent part of the nation?

Newdow wants all references to religion ripped out of public life.

While this may be completely true, he is, in fact, trying to keep the use of "under God" out of the school houses during the pledge. Those are two completely different thing. One is impossible, ridiculous and would be illegal, the other is a change he thinks can and should be made.

Let me ask this - If Congress released a new, official version of the pledge that left out the "under God", would you change how you say it? Would you teach your children differently? Would you have your children add it in at school? I'd still say it with the "under God" and I'd have my kids (if I had any) do it, too.

but when you're in the vaaaaaaast minority, you should just shut your piehole and let sleeping dogs lie. Especially when those dogs aren't actually hurting you in any way that you don't let them.

It's always easy to say that and feel that way as a member of the vaaaaaaaast majority.

Moderateman

I agree 100%. To take GOD out of America is WRONG.

So much of our angst toward liberals comes from the fact that they want to define us as Americans against our will. The next time one of these "tolerance" discussions comes up around here, I'm going to remember that definitions only matter if you are somehow harmed by them.

Sometime in the next decade or two, we'll have a Democrat president and congress. When that time comes and we start being redefined as being accepting of homosexuality, etc., I'll see how you guys feel about it. Hillary's definition of what an American should be doesn't hurt you, does it?

"I agree 100%. To take GOD out of America is WRONG."

Speaks volumes.

Let me ask this - If Congress released a new, official version of the pledge that left out the "under God", would you change how you say it? Would you teach your children differently? Would you have your children add it in at school? I'd still say it with the "under God" and I'd have my kids (if I had any) do it, too.

hi chiprj been a while I was alive when the pledge had "no under God" in it I learned to change how I said the plege I guess the children here will learn too, because sure as I am alive the california schools will have someone listening to hear if any children say the offending Under god while reciting the NEW PLEDGE.

29 by BakerStreet Thursday, September 15, 2005

So much of our angst toward liberals comes from the fact that they want to define us as Americans against our will. The next time one of these "tolerance" discussions comes up around here, I'm going to remember that definitions only matter if you are somehow harmed by them.

no MY angst as you call it from liberals wanting to REDefine ME.