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

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
What you Europeans fail to grasp is that the phrase "Under God" is not ideological but merely descriptive:

We burned women to death in Salem, Mass. -- in the name of God (they were witches, after all; if we let them live, they'd eventually encourage our children to read Harry Potter).

We exterminated whole peoples living in North America -- because God gave this land to us, not them (and how do we know? God told us so).

We justified the existence of slavery in the South -- in the name of God (blacks being the children of Ham and therefore condemned to servitude; as Kent Brockman once said, "It's in the Bible, people!").

We passed laws against the employment of the Irish -- in the name of God (Who, everyone knows, is a Protestant).

We looked the other way as the Ku Klux Klan ran amok, committing violence against blacks, Jews, and Catholics -- while marching under the symbol of the Cross.

We curtailed federal investigations of abortion clinic bombing -- because those bombing were the work of God-loving Christians.

We are a nation Under God -- in much the same way that Italy was once a nation Under Mussolini. God help us all.

Martin Luther King also liberated his black compatriots 'in the name of God'

Abraham Lincoln together with Christian abolitionists freed the slaves 'under God'

Many single mothers and their children are cared for daily by Christians 'under God' and many fight to save the lives of children from the likes of "Dr" Peter Singer and his minnions 'under God'.

The KKK was shamed and eliminated as a viable force in society by black and white Christians 'under God'

It is probably better to be under God than to be under Stalin, ot Mao, Pol Pot or several other great atheist leaders I could mention. Or maybe renouned atheists like Peter Singer should lead this nation into enlightenment.

[Jack the Bodiless]

"I believe people need to know the truth," said Smith. "I think we need to know the agenda of the liberal court, that they would make a decision predicated on the little girl being offended when, in fact, she never was. ... They made a decision without delving into the truth of the story. It would appear to me they don't want the truth of the story, but rather they want a hypothetical case upon which to make the decision."

The rights and wrongs of this case are not dependent on whether one specific kid is offended or not. It is clearly wrong to require non-Christian kids to pledge a belief in God, even if this kid is actually a Christian. Is the article suggesting that non-Christian kids do not exist?

"The daughter has said she disagrees totally with what the father is doing," Pastor Wiley Drake of First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park told WorldNetDaily. "I'm upset and I hope there will be others who are upset. It's time for God lovers to stand up and fight the God haters."

The parents are "embroiled in a custody battle". So the mother is probably behind this. I think it's unlikely that an 8-year-old kid would voluntarily grab a mike and declaim "I disagree totally with what my father is doing".

And note Drake's ludicrous histrionics. If you don't agree that non-Christian kids should be coerced into affirming belief in God, you're a "God-hater".

As WND reported, Drake led a hundred demonstrators in a four-hour rally outside of Judge Goodwin's Pasadena house last week to protest the court ruling. Drake plans a similar event outside Judge Stephen Reinhardt's Marina Del Rey, Calif. home on Saturday. Reinhardt joined Goodwin in the 2-1 decision.

"Reinhardt is a renegrade judge and his wife is Ramona Ripston, the executive director of the ACLU in Southern Calif.," said Drake. "The ACLU has always tried to get rid of God."

So Drake is a raving nutcase. He appears to be a liability to his own cause. If I were Goodwin or Reinhardt...

I wish that these fanatical atheists (No, that does not mean that every atheist is a fanatic.) would stop trying to cram their religion down people's throats.

How is a reluctance to compel people to make a religious statement "trying to cram their religion down people's throats"? Why is it that when Christians (not all Christians, but a vocal minority) squeal about their rights being trampled on, it is always their imagined right to oppress others that's at stake?

Why do some atheists have such a vehement hatred for a God that they claim does not exist? Do they also hate Tinkerbell, Snow White and the seven drawfs? What a horrible thing it must be to actually have to hear something that you don't agree with. Should we also force people to turn their radios down so that people do not have to hear anything they do not agree with? Why don't these people just start burning books that they do not agree with so that no one has to have their eyes offended?

If others wish to profess a belief in God (or Tinkerbell, or Snow White and the seven drawfs) they are free to do so. If they seek to compel ME, or others, to profess a belief in God (or Tinkerbell, or Snow White and the seven drawfs) which we do not have, they must expect resistance.

Certain Christians are seeking to create, or perpetuate, a climate in which atheists must lie about their beliefs to avoid intimidation. That was the intent of the alteration to the Pledge, as Eisenhower clearly stated.

This is a clash of principles: liberty versus tyranny. And I am sure that Goodwin and Reinhardt will see that, thanks to the efforts of Drake and his placard-waving fundies outside their homes.

[Lincoln]

The point is of course that no one is compelling you are anyone to say the pledge. Some atheists simply want to censor the word so that people do not have to hear it?

[Saint Marcus]

and rightly so.

[MarkG]

lincoln, it's like smoking

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by Lincoln
The point is of course that no one is compelling you are anyone to say the pledge. Some atheists simply want to censor the word so that people do not have to hear it?

Unpleasant things can happen to kids who conspicuously don't say the pledge (bullying and intimidation).

Also, what happens to soldiers who refuse the pledge? It doesn't just affect schoolkids.

[Jon Miller]

Theists want to be under God

Atheists want to not be under God

I would think that Athiests would just not care, since they don't beleive in God

wanting to be not under God seems more anti-God then not beleiving in God

Jon Miller

[Lincoln]

I don't know. I just wonder why people get so upset hearing about fictious beings? Maybe they only wish that God was not real. I am deeply offended by the way by anyone who would say that God was not real. I might just have to take a double dose of Prozak if that ever happened.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

Unpleasant things can happen to kids who conspicuously don't say the pledge (bullying and intimidation).

Also, what happens to soldiers who refuse the pledge? It doesn't just affect schoolkids.

Actually Jack, I think the whole thing is stupid from both sides. This is just all more entertainment since Elien Gonzales went back to cuba.

[Carver]

Originally posted by Sprayber


What does Rodney King have to do with this?

Drake knows. See thread "Police Brutality at LA".

[DinoDoc]

Jack: 1) Could you explain to me how under God, In God We Trust, The Star Spangled Banner, God Bless America, the chaplain for Congress, etc. amount to a governmental suppression of your beliefs?

2) Soldiers are irrelevent to this case.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Jack: 1) Could you explain to me how under God, In God We Trust, The Star Spangled Banner, God Bless America, the chaplain for Congress, etc. amount to a governmental suppression of your beliefs?

2) Soldiers are irrelevent to this case.

1) It's a point of principle. Atheists should not be compelled or expected to lie. It's like expecting Christians to swear that "there is one God, Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet".

Furthermore, this ties in with Bush Senior's alleged remark that atheists don't deserve to be U.S. citizens, precisely because of "under God". WTF is a religious statement doing in a pledge of allegiance to the nation-state? How is this not an establishment of religion?

2) It's the same pledge. If soldiers are compelled to say it, then you are deemed unfit to serve unless you are a monotheist (or a liar).

[Jon Miller]

it's not saying you beleive in god

it is saying, that if there is a god, the US is under that god

Jon Miller

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I don't know. I just wonder why people get so upset hearing about fictious beings? Maybe they only wish that God was not real. I am deeply offended by the way by anyone who would say that God was not real. I might just have to take a double dose of Prozak if that ever happened.

If you really are so indifferent about having mentions of god in the pledge, then why are you so concerned over atheistic efforts to have the term "under God" removed?

[Lincoln]

I think it shows that they are afraid of something -- maybe there is a God??? God forbid!