Originally Posted by luvtolean

OK, so you believe in selectively applying the rights of the Constitution.

I don't.

You mean "Freedom" right? What is that exactly? I'm tired of people using the Constitution as an excuse to spit on our beloved country's face. How about respect to the greatest nation under GOD? I bet you'd be real pissed & try to kick my a$$ if I went to your house and spat on your walls or pictures up on the mantle. I would never think of living in any country and burn their flag....it's wrong.

I can see the hole you are trying to get me to dig here with "selectively applying the rights of the Constitution," but I believe freedom without "Respect" is inherently dangerous. On this Earth there is no true & complete freedom, there can't be because humans need rules to get along.

[rocket]

Geez LTL you almost sound giddy about the whole thing. Yay we can be a nation of athiests now.

I for one believe this country has been greatly blessed because of it's deference to God. I guess we'll find out either way.

[Mojave954]

Why is this even news? Even back in my day, people had to at least stand. Didn't have to participate but you had to stand. Hell, ya can't even get people to take off their hats anymore.

think our melting pot has burned through.

[luvtolean]

Giddy? Please. It's not like the 9th circuit decided to respect the Second Amendment.

It's not about being a nation of atheists. It's about respecting the Constitution.

I'm not hiding. And it's not spitting in anyone's face to take "God" back out of the Pledge of Allegiance. It doesn't belong there. Period. Our country seemed to do just fine the first 116 years without any pledge. It also seemed to do just fine the first 178 years where you weren't expected to say an oath to God if you pledged to your country.

I don't say this due to some atheist agenda. Nor have I personally ever objected to saying "under God". But that doesn't make it right.

People like the freedoms the Constitution affords them, they should reciprocate by respecting the freedoms it gives others even if they make them uncomfortable.

Most of the people that disagree with me in this thread are ardent supporters of the Second Amendment. Just think, there are plenty of others, like our very own Diane Feinstein, that don't. Do you want to be like her?

"You're free, as long as you AGREE WITH ME!"

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

I find maintaining a separation of church and state anything but inane.

If it said, "under Allah", or "under Satan", would you feel any differently?

Actually as long as you are correctly pointing out that "Under God" was added later, I might add that the concept of seperation of church and state is also recent. The wording in the constitution prohibits the government establishing a religion but it is less clear that 'seperation' was specified. The concept of freedom from religion is even more suspect.

Also HG2 there is much less religion in government now. It has not been that long ago that the Bible was studied in public schools. Also church displays on public squares are not allowed as they were for years.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Like anything it is open to interpretation I guess. But it is widely believed that is it...right there.

[phobiaphobe]

How long has First Amendment been a member? Great to hear from him. Or her.

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Like anything it is open to interpretation I guess. But it is widely believed that is it...right there.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
Yep the state shall not establish a religion

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Nor prohibit the exercise of religion <---- this is the current failure

Freedom of religion is not necessarily freedom from religion

[phobiaphobe]

Originally Posted by Mo Noyz

... I'm Agnostic, so whatever subliminal message was trying to be drilled into my head missed its mark. ...

Did you hear the one about the Dyslexic Agnostic Insomniac?

[phobiaphobe]

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
Yep the state shall not establish a religion...

I think they were using "establishment" as a noun, not a verb.

[phobiaphobe]

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

"...
Nor prohibit the exercise of religion <---- this is the current failure..

.

How does taking a few signs down prevent you from exercizing your religion?

[luvtolean]

As far as it being a new idea. Like it was explained earlier, they wouldn't even have a prayer before the Constitutional Congress.

In the Federalist Papers, which I happen to have handy, Hamilton wrote a few things on the topic:

In No 10[Madison], the passion and problems related to religion : A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government...have in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflammed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for the common good.

Number 51 [Madison] Separation per se:
In a free government, the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights

In number 52 [Madison] (concerning the requirements for gov't officials): Under these reasonable limitations...whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith

In number 57 almost the same thing is repeated

I could keep going. But this is not even close to a new idea. Many early Americans came here fleeing religious persecution.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
Yep the state shall not establish a religion

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Nor prohibit the exercise of religion <---- this is the current failure

Freedom of religion is not necessarily freedom from religion

Ah yes, but the Pledge (containing "under God") is religion by coercion. Not choice.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

Freedom of religion is not necessarily freedom from religion

I asked it before, but to someone else. Would you, SoB, be OK with saying "Under Satan"?

[BDA116]

The 9th circus pissed on the First Amendment in two ways. They are prohibiting the exercise of religion and the freedom of speech by stating that kids can't say the pledge in school.
On top of that, they are pissing on the Constitution by creating law, something judges are NOT allowed to do.
If newdow doesn't want to say the pledge, or a couple words in the pledge, that's fine. But, if some others want to say the pledge as it currently is, they can as well.
What the 9th circus did was un-Constitutional, and will get overturned. Right now it is nothing more than a rally cry for the worst club in the country - a chance for tha ****-filled aclu to get camera time.

[luvtolean]

Nonsense. They are forbidding the pledge containing the verbage, "under God" from being used in school. This protects those that don't want to say it. Would you be upset if it was "under Satan" BDA?

This is an interpretation of the Constitution, and is exactly why the court exists. It is not the creation of law. It is the forbidding of unlawful behavior.

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

How does taking a few signs down prevent you from exercizing your religion?

It does not but there have been many recent occurances of children being punished for the mere possession of a Bible in a public school. Also the same public school openly promotes pagan symbols like "mother earth" on earth day while prohibiting any mention of the real reason for ChristMas.

Also the Federalist papers has mention of the comparison between the president and king. This comparison makes mention of the King Of Englands role as the spiritual head of the Church of England while the president does not have an equivalent position. However I know of no place where the authors mention that religion should be prohibited in public life.

[luvtolean]

A child should not have a Bible taken away. That most certainly is wrong.

You still haven't answered my question.

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

I asked it before, but to someone else. Would you, SoB, be OK with saying "Under Satan"?

Maybe I am under a incorrect assumption but I thought the ruling prohibited the oath not a mandate of it. To answer your question I would not have a problem with it, but would not say it either. I do not have a problem with a Muslim having prayer time but again would not participate. Further I feel the best solution is the elimination of public schools where the state mandates instruction and on what topics.

[BDA116]

If the pledge had the words 'under satan', I would simply not say them, I would not try to force my religious view on others, which is exactly what that yahoo newdow is doing.
And yes, they are CREATING law. That group of activists always has tried to create law, which is why they are the most overturned group of judges in the country.

[luvtolean]

So you are honestly telling me, if your young, 6 YO child was to recite the pledge, daily, saying "under Satan", in class, it wouldn't bother you?