SCOTUS tells Newdow to piss off

[Imran Siddiqui]

he just wants them to stop "asking" his daughter to pledge allegiance to their God.

And she can refuse. Whoop-te-doo! And she apparently wants to be asked and wants to do it.

the analogy would for those teachers to "ask" you to pledge allegiance to their ideology and don't deny you'd think about the potential recriminations should you refuse - that's called coercion.

Then coercion is just about everything done by people in authority. Your boss asks you to do something, if you refuse you'd think of potential recriminations, that's coercion. If your professor asks you turn in a paper, if you refuse, you'd think of potential reciminations, that's coercion. If the government asks you for user fees or taxes, if you refuse, you'd think of potential recriminations, that's coercion.

Basically I really don't see anything wrong with coercion in the way you are using it because it is done all the time, for all sorts of things.

Do you know children who refused?

Yes, I was good friends in school with a Jehovah's Witness who refused to even stand for the pledge.

Small kids who don't recite the pledge, especially in the Bible Belt where atheists and non-Christians are really looked down upon by many people, are inviting potential trouble and they know it.

Says the man in Kansas, who has such great information on the South.

Do you think the football team and coach that prays before games are just mumbling? Do you think the player who refuses to participate in the coach's prayer has absolutely no expectation of any retaliation?

So since players before football games who pray don't mumble that means that kids saying the pledge don't mumble? When's the last time you've been in a grade school?!

And besides, I find absolutely nothing wrong with a pre-game prayer. If you don't feel that way, no one is forcing you to participate. If you feel the coach may retaliate against you because you aren't the same religion, sue based on discrimination or get a grip. Likewise, if you feel a teacher may retaliate against you because you don't say the pledge, then sue based on discrimination or get a grip.

[Straybow]

Hell, tonight O'Reilly insinuated atheists are cockroaches when he said there will be more of them coming out of the woodwork to challenge the pledge. That's how many "Christians" react to atheists, with disdain. Children can see this... The pledge was enacted as a political ploy against the godless commies...the hated godless commies... A child who refuses to recite the pledge is "associating" with these hated people...

No, atheists aren't cockroaches. Only the atheists who seek to impose their antireligious agenda are cockroaches. Like the commies, who definitely had an antireligious agenda. The "under God" was added to trip them up, blow their cover as "loyal opposition" (which they definitely were not at that time).

An honest atheist, who admits his belief that there is no God is just as much an emotional decision as belief in God, is not disdained by the Christian. It is the dishonest atheist, the blinkered materialist who insists on placing the same blinkers on the rest of us, who is disdained.

[MrFun]

I wonder if I can strike it rich by suing every person that says something that I hear, that offends me.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

That is such a proposterous idea that it offends me.


(Prepare for a call from my lawyer.)

[MrFun]

damn you

[Imran Siddiqui]

That smily offends me... and I'm 2/3rds of a lawyer!

[MrFun]

2/3rds of being a cheesy lawyer, to be more precise.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Better than being a raccoon lover at least .

[MrFun]

it's King of Raccoons -- get it right you lowly peon

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Imran,

You work on a cut of the damages?

See I got this pain and suffering case resulting from migraines associated with reading some specific posts.

Interested?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd have to pass the bar first, Ogie .

Though I can get you a great lawyer to deal with Mr Fun .

[MrFun]

good luck on that, Imran

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Straybow


An honest atheist, who admits his belief that there is no God is just as much an emotional decision as belief in God, is not disdained by the Christian. It is the dishonest atheist, the blinkered materialist who insists on placing the same blinkers on the rest of us, who is disdained.

I'm an honest atheist and my decision not to believe in the supernatural is not based on emotion but rationality.


Do Christians believe in Vishnu? Or Marduk?

How about Heimdall, guardian of the Rainbow Bridge, or Ama Terasu, or Lugh, or Anubis?

If you believe in one set of supernatural occurrences, I fail to see why you wouldn't believe in the others- they all seem to me equally improbable and equally absurd.
Nice stories in some cases, though.

" Only the atheists who seek to impose their antireligious agenda are cockroaches. "

I take issue with any fringe group, religious or political (such as say, the Knights of Columbus) who agitate to get their supernatural or political agenda imposed in a pledge that previously lacked reference to any otherworldly beings.

It seems that Elizabeth I of England may have been on to something four hundred years before this religiously inspired fervour in America, when, in an even more dangerous age for the profession or non-profession of faith, she is alleged to have said she had no desire to make windows into men's souls.

Which is precisely what adding a reference to 'god' or 'a god' in the pledge does. Is it the business of anyone else whether or not you believe in god, gods, or the man in the moon?

Equally, whether I profess a belief in humankind and reason rather than credence in supernatural events should be of no business to anybody else.

Yet again Imran argues a general case from his specific circumstances- you mock Berzerker's knowledge of what occurs in the South because you live there, Imran- do you live all over the South, and if you do, could you let us know which tutelary deity invested you with this power of being present in multiple locations?



"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason: The Morning Daylight appears plainer when you put out your Candle."

-- Benjamin Franklin: Poor Richard's Almanack, publ. 1758

"....the priests indeed have heretofore thought proper to ascribe to me religious, or rather anti-religious sentiments, of their own fabric, but such as soothed their resentments against the act of Virginia for establishing religious freedom. They wished him to be thought atheist, deist, or devil, who could advocate freedom from their religious dictations. But I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we were accountable to him, and not to the priests.

I never told my own religion, nor scrutinized that of another.

I never attempted to make a convert, nor wished to change another's creed.

I have ever judged of the religion of others by their lives......it is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read. By the same test the world must judge me.

But this does not satisfy the priesthood.

They must have a positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities. My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest."

Thomas Jefferson

To Mrs. Samuel H. Smith Monticello, August 6, 1816

[MrFun]

Originally posted by molly bloom

If you believe in one set of supernatural occurrences, I fail to see why you wouldn't believe in the others- they all seem to me equally improbable and equally absurd.
Nice stories in some cases, though.

Christianity, Judahism, and Islam are monotheistic religions, because they believe in the existence of only one God so how could one choose to believe in other spirits without violating their faith?

To the faithful, God has already proven his existence to them even if others refuse to believe in God's existence.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

And she can refuse. Whoop-te-doo! And she apparently wants to be asked and wants to do it.

And if she refuses? You aren't getting it, coercion is involved in her decision. If she refuses she likely understands that other students who are "God-fearing"and perhaps teachers will treat her with disdain if not worse. That makes the pledge coercive...

Then coercion is just about everything done by people in authority. Your boss asks you to do something, if you refuse you'd think of potential recriminations, that's coercion.

You're confusing state and private "coercion", employers don't have to abide by the 1st Amendment. Furthermore, that is a contract, you the employee agree to do certain tasks in exchange for what you want, money.

If your professor asks you turn in a paper, if you refuse, you'd think of potential reciminations, that's coercion.

That's part of the contract, you pay for an education and you do your part to get educated. When the school is private there is a contract both sides must abide by, when the school is public, there is a contract both sides must abide by - but the public school's side of the contract includes limitations - the Constitution.

If the government asks you for user fees or taxes, if you refuse, you'd think of potential recriminations, that's coercion.

User fees are not coervice, they too are part of a contract. It isn't coercion to fulfill your end of a deal... You made the decision to sign on the dotted line...

Basically I really don't see anything wrong with coercion in the way you are using it because it is done all the time, for all sorts of things.

The state is prohibited from using coercion on this issue, that's the difference. You want to argue the pledge is constitutional because coercion exists elsewhere, that is an illogical argument. Are you now going to admit coercion exists in her decision? You just tried to justify that coercion by identifying coercion with other examples.

Yes, I was good friends in school with a Jehovah's Witness who refused to even stand for the pledge.

You didn't answer my other questions, and now it appears you knew 1 person. To quote you, "Whoop-te-doo". How you can claim no child who refuses to recite the pledge feels coerced based on 1 person is illogical.

Says the man in Kansas, who has such great information on the South.

I didn't mention the south, I said the Bible Belt. Kansas is part of the Bible Belt. Are you going to deny kids who refused to recite the pledge have been mistreated? Are you going to claim no child has ever felt coerced to recite the pledge even though they didn't agree with it?

So since players before football games who pray don't mumble that means that kids saying the pledge don't mumble? When's the last time you've been in a grade school?!

You were the one claiming children just mumble the pledge, you need the proof. I merely pointed out the obvious, some places view the pledge and prayer more seriously than others. I've seen footage of children reciting the pledge and they were doing it with zeal, not indifference. The fact it's been 30 years since I was in grade school is about as irrelevant as the rest of your post.

And besides, I find absolutely nothing wrong with a pre-game prayer. If you don't feel that way, no one is forcing you to participate. If you feel the coach may retaliate against you because you aren't the same religion, sue based on discrimination or get a grip. Likewise, if you feel a teacher may retaliate against you because you don't say the pledge, then sue based on discrimination or get a grip.

Tell that to all the Christian parents should public schools coerce their kids to pledge allegiance to Satan. Many religious folk take their religion seriously, and you're telling them to get a grip if their public school coerces their kids to make an affirmation in violation of their religion. And telling people to get a grip should their government violate the laws it must abide by is...well...again...ILLOGICAL.

Straybow -

No, atheists aren't cockroaches. Only the atheists who seek to impose their antireligious agenda are cockroaches. Like the commies, who definitely had an antireligious agenda. The "under God" was added to trip them up, blow their cover as "loyal opposition" (which they definitely were not at that time).

How are atheists who don't want you taking their money to coerce their kids into affirming your religious beliefs "imposing" on you? Romans came to Christians and told them they could practice their religion but they must pay homage to the gods of Rome. Were the Christians who refused "imposing" upon the Romans? Sheesh!

An honest atheist, who admits his belief that there is no God is just as much an emotional decision as belief in God, is not disdained by the Christian.

Irrelevant, that has nothing to do with atheists who don't want you using the state to impose your religion on their children.

It is the dishonest atheist, the blinkered materialist who insists on placing the same blinkers on the rest of us, who is disdained.

Actually, you're wrong there too. All it takes for many religious people to start treating atheists badly is for the atheist to admit what they are.

Mr Fun -

I wonder if I can strike it rich by suing every person that says something that I hear, that offends me.

I'll repeat the obvious, this isn't about hearing offensive words etc... It's about the state coercing children to affirm the state's religious proclamation. There's a difference between hearing offensive words and being coerced to repeat them as an affirmation of belief.