New twist to pledge case. Little girl wanted to say 'under God'. Dad used her.

[Lincoln]

It's a lot easier to burn a strawman...

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

Uh, when was I talking through my ass?

Start from your first post, work from there.

When I said that Christians should be banned from saying "under GodHmm, that must be it. Shame that I don't recall saying it, but I don't have any ears near my ass. What are your ears doing there?

Your spraying it all over, if you don't want to hear an opposing viewpoint, why not just talk to yourself?
That's what you've been doing, I have yet to see you acknowledge one thing I said here.

Chris, believe me, you really need to get some shuteye.

You really need to move past thinking a cutsey personal insult makes your case.

Your position is incorrect constitutionally, as was shown, you haven't a leg to satnd on, unless your going to attempt to claim athism is a religion, which is ludicrous.

[Roland]

"...unless your going to attempt to claim athism is a religion, which is ludicrous."

Do you claim that therefore atheism isn't protected under freedom FROM religion ?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Lincoln:

You seem to be basing your entire case on proving that various judges and other authority figures were Christian.

So what?

I don't care if they justified their actions by claiming that God, tarot cards, or little green goblins that live in their sock drawers dictate all of their policies: not unless I object to the policies, anyhow.

But if they come up with a ceremonial ritual oath to that effect and say "OK, you don't really have to play this game, but if you want to be my friend, you must sing it to the goblin in my sock drawer"...

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Roland
Do you claim that therefore atheism isn't protected under freedom FROM religion ?

I posted the first amendment Roland.

Show me how "Under god" violates the seperation.

[drake]

All of this argument over 2 simple words. What a joke

[Roland]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Show me how "Under god" violates the seperation.

I've asked a general question relating to a (possibly?) general statement of yours.

Is there not only freedom OF religion, but also freedom FROM religion - in general, whatever it means for this case ?

[JohnIII]

Originally posted by Chris 62
To quote you Sean, Er, so?

This is relivent to the conversation in what way?

I don't knw, that's why I'm asking you. Why is it relevant that communists were also atheists?

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Roland
I've asked a general question relating to a (possibly?) general statement of yours.

Is there not only freedom OF religion, but also freedom FROM religion - in general, whatever it means for this case ?

This is all it says Roland:

Amendment I

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.

Look at the first line, your a lawyer, you tell me.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by JohnIII

I don't knw, that's why I'm asking you. Why is it relevant that communists were also atheists?

It's not to me, I didn't bring that up.

[Lincoln]

It means whatever the current Supreme Court wants it to mean.

[Roland]

"Look at the first line, your a lawyer, you tell me."

It says "of religion", not necessarily of a specific religion. While some argued that an equal support for all religions would be ok, the SC followed Madison in that this would amount to establishing religion. While the SC may not have followed through on this principle of neutrality in all cases, to my knowledge it is still the established case law (and IMO the correct interpretation).

"It means whateve the current Supreme Court wants it to mean."

With this new found belief in the SC, do you think Roe v Wade is right ?

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Roland
It says "of religion", not necessarily of a specific religion. While some argued that an equal support for all religions would be ok, the SC followed Madison in that this would amount to establishing religion. While the SC may not have followed through on this principle of neutrality in all cases, to my knowledge it is still the established case law (and IMO the correct interpretation).

And that means what exactly?

In plain langauge, if you please.

[Jack the Bodiless]

State neutrality towards religion.

Separation of Church and State.

[Lincoln]

I was being sarcastic. I think that Roe v Wade is a good example of what the court is capable of. I cite the SC because they contain a wealth of information that should cause one to research the issue further. That research will lead to the fact that 'God' is not a forbidden word in public or private.