This shit makes me so sick. What's next FUCKERS! Is the flag unconstitutional because it has red WHITE and blue in it, But not black or yellow!!!! Is the national anthem unconstitutional then becaus it mentions the afore mentioned flag!!!
posted
Every coin and bill must be unconstitutional also because they all have the phrase "In God We Trust" on them. That's it, turn in all your money . . .
posted
Personally, as an atheist myself, I don't see why there needs to be mention of god in the pledge or on currency. If we're a nation tolerant of all beliefs, it doesn't make much sense to endorse a specific belief or religeon as a country. On the other hand, I also accept that I'm part of a small minority and religeon is a part of all human cultures and probably stronger than the fabric of any nation's government system so it's perfectly understandable. I don't really care about god being mentioned on coins or in the pledge, I don't see it as violating my civil rights or even coming close to that. What makes no sense is why these people need to completely eliminate the pledge. How 'bout just deleting the "under god" part or changing it to "one nation united" or something? Wow, tough concept. In the grand scheme of much more important things, who cares? I wish these assholes would get off my side.
posted
I agree with you completely Steve. I guess my other issue is the fucking money we waste on this sort of thing - does this guy believe that if he stops the Pledge from being used in schools that he is protecting the separation of Church and State? I think this is a minor blip on the radar and I don't see it snowballing into teaching the Bible in Public schools. I also hate when these bastards treat Atheism as a religeon... Posts: 559 | From: Blaine, MN | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you two. Although certain people take things like this tooo literally it is their choice to believe what they want and think what they want. Under god obviously is referring to "god", in the christianity sense. In other references it could easily be "god" any god any religion believes in. Unfortunately because it is based on christianity it is such a big issue. Oh well, lets spend another billion dollars removing it from money, and paying for court shit.
-------------------- Gisel, I was looking at the picture page and I do have to admit, you look pretty good for a gaming female. Having said that, don't expect any sympathy when we meet on the battlefield. I am a fighter first, lover second. Posts: 2220 | From: Prescott, WI, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Truly my whole point behind this is why is it even a fucking issue. Already your child is basically allowed to skip out of it if he/she wishes. But now we have to change the text of it just to not offend the ears of your children!!
My whole point is i just don't see how this small item limits your right to practice any religion you chose....
All these people that spilt hairs about political correctness can shampoo my crotch.
Posts: 2331 | From: Rosemount | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have my own personal faith in "something" but I at this point can only honestly call myself a monotheist. I dislike and generally think more and more every day organized religion is detrimental to any personality, and certainly society in general. I tend to belive interpersonally in a "greater power" but will question who, what, where, and how it exists for my entire life.
So the word "God" to me does mean something and not neccissarily jesus or buda or whatever else. That is the reason i have no problem reciting the FULL unabridged vesion of the pledge of aligence. I just don't see how the word god reffers to anything specifically.
Posts: 2331 | From: Rosemount | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tranyland will be ..."one nation under Trany"... If anyone has a problem with that they can shampoo Chad's crotch.
Posts: 740 | From: Tranyland Pending | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've shampooed Chad's crotch and it's actually rather enjoyable (you get used to the smell, which goes away once you're done)
Just for the sake of argument (and I enjoy arguing), what if the Pledge was "one nation under Allah" because Muslim was the more recognized religion at the time? Would you Catholics, Lutherens and Christians out there be "OK" with it because Allah just means the One God? Also set aside the fact that Muslim terrorists hate us (most Muslims do not)...
Posts: 559 | From: Blaine, MN | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't "God" a general term that covers - allah, buddah, the christian god, and whatever else someone wants to worship? I feel that one nation under god is pretty generic.
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The lawsuit was brought by a California atheist who did not want his second-grade daughter to be forced to listen to the pledge."
Fucking Kalifornia ! !
When is everyone finally going to figure out that nothing good is ever going to come out of that state and force it out of the union. At least build a fucking wall along the entire Mexican/US border and the border of Kalifornia and the rest of the normal states.
Here's a little information about the national motto printed on all currency and coins:
quote:A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States.
In God We Trust
The use of the national motto on both U.S. coins and currency notes is required by two statutes, 31 U.S.C. 5112(d) (1) and 5114(b), respectively. The motto was not adopted for use on U.S. paper currency until 1957. It first appeared on the 1935G Series $1 Silver Certificate, but didn't appear on U.S. Federal Reserve Notes until the Series 1963 currency. This use of the national motto has been challenged in court many times over the years that it has been in use, and has been consistently upheld by the various courts of this country, including the U.S. Supreme Court as recently as 1977.
The Department of the Treasury and the Department of Justice intend to actively defend against challenges to the use of the national motto. In 1992, a challenge was filed and successfully defeated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
. . .and some information about the final change in the Pledge of Allegiance:
quote:The last change in the Pledge of Allegiance occurred on June 14 (Flag Day), 1954 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved adding the words "under God". As he authorized this change he said: "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."
I don't see any reference to any one deity or god associated with a specific religion, so only a commie-atheist with a syntax complex would have a problem with it. Posts: 620 | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My main problem with the whole thing is that the Pledge or any other saying or verse or psalm should not be required by law to be read, sang, or said. That in itself is our christian right wing government forcing its views on us. We are a free-thinking society that should be allowed to be free-thinking.
quote:Originally posted by Crack_Dealer: My main problem with the whole thing is that the Pledge or any other saying or verse or psalm should not be required by law to be read, sang, or said. That in itself is our christian right wing government forcing its views on us. We are a free-thinking society that should be allowed to be free-thinking.
No. It's the liberal media and leftist veiw reading much more out of it than was ever intended.
Posts: 2331 | From: Rosemount | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
If you were to read ANYTHING other than YOUR agenda-based media machines, you would see that this prick that started this shit, has, just like many of the other fucks in the world, an alterior motive, and this is just the easiest thing that he could do " leagally " to get his name in the media, and get some " respect ". he did, after all, make the most overturned court in the land, rule in his favor, and as we will see, there opinion will not mean SHIT.
He is a " legal " dork, who wants to re-write all the laws having to do with parental custody and shit like that....
Oh,
and what is it other than your drugs that gives you such deep insight and understanding of right and wrong...oh ,and other than being a virus, and robbing the earth of oxygen, what is it that you do???
Posts: 771 | From: Farmington | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[finger]](graemlins/finger.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
What's next FUCKERS! Is the flag unconstitutional because it has red WHITE and blue in it, But not black or yellow!!!! 
![[shoot]](graemlins/shootout.gif)
![[fight]](graemlins/fight.gif)
![[knife]](graemlins/knifed.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[brd]](graemlins/brdflick.gif)
