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 7)

chiprj

on Sep 16, 2005

Also, score one to MM for hosting such an emotional debate that has stayed civil. WOOHOO!

Moderateman

on Sep 16, 2005

90 by shadesofgrey
Friday, September 16, 2005

Chiprj:

There aren't enough insightfuls--for your commments here and on other similar threads

I have to agree with that, it's not easy penetrating my think skull, it can be done though.

drmiler

on Sep 16, 2005

If you are wishing for the Federal Government not to have any strings attached then I would guess you would have no problem just handing over billions of dollars of disaster relief to the Louisiana Governor with no questions ask too.

Lee, I didn't say that did I?

They should have "some" say in the schools, but a very limited one

Moderateman

on Sep 16, 2005

#93 by chiprj
Friday, September 16, 2005

Also, score one to MM for hosting such an emotional debate that has stayed civil. WOOHOO!

thank you, unless provoked {something easly done btw} I can listen to others and behave {contrary to popular opinion} heh.

drmiler

on Sep 16, 2005

There are always restrictions on the use of federal money. The catch is, if you don't want to play by the government's rules, you don't have to take their money. Baker already addressed your Pell Grant question--the government says you can use their money, but only if you attend certain institutions. Try using a Pell Grant at your local bartending college--I bet it won't work.

I never stated it would. I also said the same.
(For the record...you missed my point I stated "how to live my "life", not where I go to school.

The "only" thing the feds can do "if" I recieve a pell grant is tell me what "schools" I can or can not attend.

And if you don't like my attidude then ignore my replies. Sorry, but I'm not here to please the almighty universe. Just myself. You're not changing my mind either.

Moderateman

on Sep 16, 2005

#96 by drmiler
Friday, September 16, 2005

never stated it would. I also said the same.
(For the record...you missed my point I stated "how to live my "life", not where I go to school.

The "only" thing the feds can do "if" I recieve a pell grant is tell me what "schools" I can or can not attend.

And if you don't like my attidude then ignore my replies. Sorry, but I'm not here to please the almighty universe. Just myself. You're not changing my mind either.

good for you doc, make it plain, I really hate seeing my words taken completely out of context too.

MM

shadesofgrey

on Sep 16, 2005

And if you don't like my attidude then ignore my replies. Sorry, but I'm not here to please the almighty universe. Just myself. You're not changing my mind either.

Consider it done. It's no fun debating with someone who doesn't understand the art of give and take and civility.

Moderateman

on Sep 16, 2005

98 by shadesofgrey
Friday, September 16, 2005

And if you don't like my attidude then ignore my replies. Sorry, but I'm not here to please the almighty universe. Just myself. You're not changing my mind either.

Consider it done. It's no fun debating with someone who doesn't understand the art of give and take and civility.

ah shades do not give up hon, you got through to me did you not? hmmmmmm???

I am willing to bet you did not think you ever would.

bakerstreet

on Sep 16, 2005

"I never stated it would. I also said the same.
(For the record...you missed my point I stated "how to live my "life", not where I go to school."

That's why your original post doesn't make any sense, doc. No one is telling the kids how to run their lives, they can pray or say 'under God' all they like. We have prayer in schools now. You can sit there and pray to yourself all day as long as you get your work done.

What you can't do is take someone on the state or federal government's payroll and have them affirming religion, which is what this does.

"This is from reply #36. Please note that MM said that 76% of americans believe in "God", not "god" which means 76% profess some sort of "christian" beliefs. That figure does not include the other religions of the world. The pledge of alligence does NOT define an "American"."

If by that you mean Hebrew-Muslim-Christian God, sure, but you'll also find that each religion deals with using God's name in very different ways. Some opt out of the pledge for that reason, too. In that light, even how we REFER to God promotes one flavor of religion or another.

100

Demosthenes Locke

on Sep 16, 2005

What about other words in the pledge. Are you ok with it if I decide to start omitting those as well?

What if I decide that my oath to my country needn't state that I think it's indivisible? I'm unwilling to look at the country as one country divided into smaller jurisdictions, but as individual nation-states that defer to a federal authority for the purpose of coordinating between them. At the end of the day though, it's fully divisible, since it's not "one" in the first place. Something of a stretch, but not too far.

Or better yet, let's say I don't believe in justice for all. Liberty, that's fine, everyone can have that, but some people are just not deserving of justice. Should I be able to omit that part because I don't believe in it? The official pledge should form the base level of expectation. If I feel that as an individual I need or prefer to go beyond that to affirm my oath, then that's my business. It's a framework for the ideals we use to identify ourselves as Americans.

If I can start tearing pieces out, why bother having a pledge in the first place?

101

Lee1776

on Sep 16, 2005

The feds should have very little to no say how the school is run. School standards are set by the "state" not the feds. The only thing the feds should have a say in is that "students" need to be able to compete at a certain level upon completion of a grade.

Sorry Drmiler, I was not trying to sound snotty there. Just showing how far the Federal Government can go in controlling the Federal Dollars. There are many shades as to how much control the Federal Government can take. My statement was to point out how one person can ask for little strings when it comes to school funds, but request big strings for others. There is no standard across the board to control, but that is why we elect representatives to the Federal Government to decide how many string, right?

In the end, I believe that funding don't matter because not all States have the requirement to say the pledge. After doing some research I found that California does require something patriotic, not specifically the pledge:

The relevant portion of California Education Code 52720 reads:

In every public elementary school each day during the school year at the beginning of the first regularly scheduled class or activity period at which the majority of the pupils of the majority of the pupils of the school normally begin the schoolday, there shall be conducted appropriate patriotic exercises. The giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy the requirements of this section.

While the Nevada State law only requires schools to play the National anthem at sporting events and large school assemblies. While looking back at my own childhood I now remember never saying the pledge here in Nevada (some teachers still did), but only in other States that I had lived.

The only requirement dealing with the pledge is the Federal Law first written in 1942 and changed in 1954. This requirement is only that if your going to say the pledge, then this is how you are go to say it. You can find this info in the text findings of the case here:Link

Also, score one to MM for hosting such an emotional debate that has stayed civil. WOOHOO!

IMO, it is because most of those posting here have been either Moderates or Conservative in their views. It is when both extremes of Liberal and Conservative start in, is when everything goes out the window.

Good thread MM, from me too.

102

Moderateman

on Sep 16, 2005

I pledge my heart to the United states of america and to the ideals for which it stand, I shall put no country before america, for we are one nation, indivisable, with liberty and justice for all.

103

shadesofgrey

on Sep 16, 2005

I'll have you know that many around here consider me to be one of those extreme liberals

But I agree--good thread, MM.

104

Moderateman

on Sep 16, 2005

wow a double good thread mm.. I am deeply happy. thank you

105

bakerstreet

on Sep 16, 2005

"What if I decide that my oath to my country needn't state that I think it's indivisible?"

There's nothing in the Constitution that disallows saying "indivisable". There's nothing that says an employee of the government can't promote a political philosophy. You'd need a new amendment to do that. This isn't an arbitrary choosing of two words here, this is two words that were put in a few decades ago for the WRONG reasons, in spite of Constitutional mandates that forbade it.

What the legislators in the 1950's were trying to do was establish an national religious identity to counter Soviet Atheist identity. That was WRONG, just like all the other McCarthyist acts they committed. This isn't some tradition traced back to our founders, this is the same kind of Pat Robertson, bible-as-a-political-tool crap we all throw fits about today.

BUT, just because it is something we did as children it seems 'traditional' and sacrosanct. If we held to things like that for no more reason, we'd own slaves.

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!