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 3)

Moderateman

on Sep 15, 2005

#28 by COL Gene
Thursday, September 15, 2005

Moderateman

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

we it seems we do have some common ground gene, I appreciate your support.

Rightwinger

on Sep 15, 2005

not considering the fact that they aren't always going to be the majority.

You don't think believers will always outnumber atheists?

Why act in ways that your opponents may someday use to abuse you?

Then why should we take the time or chance to champion anything?

You can't define the US religiously without being innacurate.

I disagree....we ARE a religious nation, no matter what the Left says or tries; among the first settlers to come here from Europe were those who came to escape religious persecution and ultimately established this nation as a haven for any and all faiths. That would include atheism, of course.
I'd just like to know how "under God" is 'hurting' Michael Newdow or anyone, for that matter? He doesn't believe...okay, so? Don't say it. Don't listen to it. Hum something while those two words are being said. But don't force me NOT to say it. That infringes on MY rights.

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

No, it represents the nation as a whole. A nation made up of many faiths and belief systems.
Does a one dollar bill amount to anything less than a hundred cents just because God is mentioned on it? No, and I'm sure Michael Newdow, as offended as he may be, tries as hard as he can to rack up as many of them as possible. Which is what he's doing now.

bakerstreet

on Sep 15, 2005

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

So you don't think people trying to create a national identity don't seek to define Americans? Atheists aren't Americans? When the coin says "In God WE Trust", "We" shouldn't apply to all of us? If in 2008 a Democratic congress and President pass legislation stateing that America grants

I don't think you can recast this to suit your argument. This was enacted to define what Americans are to spite what Soviets were. They had no right to define America religiously. Let the polls do that, or our collective expression.

This is a hypocritical bunch of garbage. You guys believe it now while you are on top, and hope no one remembers when you are trying to combat the exact same thing when a new definition of "American" is imposed that you don't want to be associated with.

Moderateman

on Sep 15, 2005

this is in response to rightwingers latest post:

the last poll or survey taken shows over 76% of americans have a belief in GOD.

bakerstreet

on Sep 15, 2005

"the last poll or survey taken shows over 76% of americans have a belief in GOD."

There's 300 million Americans. So 24% of Americans, roughly 72 MILLION people don't fit the definition of American set forth by the McCarthyist pledge.

I wonder how many of Americans believe in God and disagree with the pledge, like me. If it is anywhere clost to the number of Atheists, your majority is looking pretty thin.

ParaTed2k

on Sep 15, 2005

The point is, Federal Judges shouldn't have crap to say about how schools are run. Public schools are local government entities. NOT FEDERAL

9th Kangaroo Court of Shlameals, go back to smoking your dope and SHUT YOUR FACE!!!

(((my apologies to pot smokers for the association with those rapists of justice))))

bakerstreet

on Sep 15, 2005

" The point is, Federal Judges shouldn't have crap to say about how schools are run. Public schools are local government entities. NOT FEDERAL

9th Kangaroo Court of Shlameals, go back to smoking your dope and SHUT YOUR FACE!!!"

Nope, that is ignorant of the fact that this pledge was enacted by the FEDERAL Congress in 1954, at the behest of the President of the United States, after being lobbied by the Knights of Columbus and various other religious leaders and organizations of the time.

We'll see how the outraged here feel when the ACLU lobbies the next Democratic Congress to have kids reciting tolerance pledges of homosexuality or any number of other perspectives you differ with.

chiprj

on Sep 15, 2005

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.

Now, see, I disagree there. They can not keep you from expressing your worship just as they can't sponsor it. As has been posted elsewhere, public schools do allow prayer groups, moments of silence, that sort of thing.

Someone slips in an "under God" in their version - that's religious expression.

Someone say, "just omit those two little words" - that's setting someone up as different.

ParaTed2k

on Sep 15, 2005

True, so the logical (and legal) action would be to repeal that law, putting it back in the hands of the local school board.... but no, these rapists of justice aren't happy doing that, they have to go even further with their crackwhore ideas and call the whole thing unconstitutional.

Spit in their "blame America First" hatemongering, pathetic faces!

bakerstreet

on Sep 15, 2005

What "whole thing"? They want two words taken out that shouldn't have been put in in the first place.

I remember a few people here had opinions about the "We are family" cartoon in schools, and the "tolerance" pledge that they were going to take. If it doesn't hurt an Atheist to deal with state-sponsered "Under God" pledges, I wonder why we care if our kids are pressed to pledge tolerance of homosexuality... they can opt not to, right?

"Spit in their "blame America First" hatemongering, pathetic faces!'

So I assume that goes for me, too. How divisive you folks get. It's truly all or nothing in your little fascist world, isn't it? Me, I call your statement a lot more hatemongering. I dread the day you meet that attitude in reverse from those who outnumber you, because I will suffer too.

ParaTed2k

on Sep 15, 2005

But apparently to the wastes of human flesh infesting the 9th Kangaroo Court of Shlameals, it is ok to offer Muslim kids a room for them to do the prayers required by their religion.

Teaching Paganism is fine

Anything that isn't Judeo/Christian is okey dokey.

Well, they show their prejudice little peabrains. Crackwhores shouldn't be judges!!

ParaTed2k

on Sep 15, 2005

No Bakerstreet, I don't say spit in your face. You are merely an American making a point. That is your right and even if I disagree, I respect that. What I don't respect is a bunch of pinheads who get paid to smoke dope and inflict their diseased minds on the rest of us.

Your opinions are not legally binding. The vomit of these terrorist loving pinworms is. They don't care what the Constitution or the law says, they only care to see their hallucinations enacted.

bakerstreet

on Sep 15, 2005

No, para, I think you just want to oppose anything they do, regardless with how it could later be used against you.

Almost 1/4th of the nation, 70+ million people don't believe in God according to the poll cited above. Yet the Pledge doesn't represent them. They aren't represented by "In God We Trust". Add to that those who do believe in God and differ with you on these national definitions. Think of the how close the last elections have been. You don't see how you could easily end up in the minority on some very important issues?

I don't think this is nearly as cut-and-dried as you think. Like I say, wait until the next cartoon that calls for your kid to pledge acceptance to homosexuality comes down the pike. We'll see if you think your kids are harmed by opting out in a class full of kids who don't and then look down their nose at your kids for it.

ParaTed2k

on Sep 15, 2005

I already said, if they had have merely struck down the 1954 Federal Law concerning the Pledge of Allegience in schools, I would be all for that, I would congratulate them for finally pulling their blockheads out of their butts and making a sound decision.

My kids have already been put in the postion to opt out of things in class we disagree with. In one case it was because of an R rated version of "Romeo & Julliette". I called the teacher to complain about both the inappropriateness of that film and the waste of education time watching a film is (in lieu of reading the book). I was told that the kids were told that if they objected to this film they could be given a hall pass to go to the library.

In other words, we have been faced with that question. We weren't told that the whole school district should be changed for our standards. In fact the teacher asked if I wouldn't be happier with my kids in private school.

So don't lecture me on what I would or wouldn't do in specific situations. I understand that the entire church and state thing isn't that cut and dry. I'm merely pointing out that the monkeys in the 9th Circuit could have merely struck down a federal law, which would leave the question where it belongs (at the local level). However, the power hungy apes couldn't do that, that wouldn't feed their egos. The little dictators aren't happy if they aren't running the country. Piss On 'em!

bakerstreet

on Sep 15, 2005

Courts rule on cases they are given, Para. Do you think they have the right to crawl over US law like some search engine and arbitrarily pick federal legislation to overturn?. You can bet you'd not like it if they did.

They can't rule on laws that they aren't tasked to judge. The judge was asked here whether to dismiss Newdow's case, and the judge said no. Where it goes from there isn't decided yet.

It might just have the effect you say you'd be happy with. What is there to be outraged at? If you have no problem with 'under God' being taken out, then why are you outraged? Maybe you should look at what was decided. If you have no problem with them ruling what legislators did in 1954 was wrong, maybe you aren't really in opposition to this ruling.

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!