It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

In ___ we trust / So help me God / One nation under God

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Atheist Sues to Thwart Inauguration Prayer

SAN FRANCISCO - An atheist who sued because he did not want his young daughter exposed to the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance has filed a suit to bar the saying of a prayer at President Bush's inauguration.

Michael Newdow notes that two ministers delivered Christian invocations at Bush's first inaugural ceremony in 2001, and that plans call for a minister to do the same before Bush takes the oath of office Jan. 20.
Story


What's next? Is he going to sue the treasury dept for having in God we trust on every penny, nickel, and quarter??
Go away! Does he want this country to believe in nothing?
We got One nation under God, So help god, and in God we trust...
This guy needs a shoe up his ass...




posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   
legal recourse is the wrong way to do it, but Michael Newdow is right. Enough is enough. God (or any other diety) has no official place in a democracy (or a republic for that matter)



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   
God has had a very prominent place in this nation since the beginning and there has never been a problem until the marxists started attacking everything having to do with pro-social values. Anyone who posits otherwise has no sense of history.



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Interesting pont, but I pose this question. If not a Nation under God, then what? A nation is only as strong as her pillars, when they begin crumbling, then, well.............The U.S. ends up like evry other Nation, and is that what we really want?



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
because he did not want his young daughter exposed to the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance

So bad parenting is reason enough to consider this change, huh?....B/c I believe that’s all this is based upon...plain and simple

They guy doesn't have enough faith in his daughter's decision making (regardless of her age) to be exposed to reality...so the natural response is to sue someone....


Sad really....

*Ignore my avatar.....
*



[edit on 1/13/2005 by EnronOutrunHomerun]



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnronOutrunHomerun
So bad parenting is reason enough to consider this change, huh?....B/c I believe that’s all this is based upon...plain and simple
They guy doesn't have enough faith in his daughter's decision making (regardless of her age) to be exposed to reality...so the natural response is to sue someone....

Sad really....
[edit on 1/13/2005 by EnronOutrunHomerun]


Alright I can understand people being mad at him for this suit, but bad parenting? Because he doesn't have the same beliefs as you hes a bad father? He doesn't want his 8 year old daughter exposed to religion, doesn't make him a bad father, it makes him overprotected yes, but not a bad father. Someday she'll make her choice about God, and its a parents right to teach their beliefs onto their kid. Secondly, why not consider the change? I'm not saying we should make the change, but at least consider it since this is a democracy, and even the constiution does state: to uphold the rights of the minority. This guy is in a minority, so we cannot trample his rights, and i believe we are suppose to keep state and religion separate so why not consider the change? Maybe we should have a national vote on it. Finally, I'm still shocked on how you can critized someones parenting without knowing them.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Okay...first off - when did I say it was bad parenting b/c he doesn't have the same beliefs as me...or for that matter, when did I say I haven’t considered the positive sides of such a change? I think my avatar clearly marks my "denomination" in the same check-off-box as this man....Don't make me out to be some narrow-minded bigot b/c I expressed my opinion...

Now...perhaps I may have made a rushed statement...however....

Upon first glance...my first impression of this guy....I don't think that the character of a person who sues b/c they don't want their children to be exposed to a minute aspect of religion in every day life is very admirable - and I don't believe he has anyone but his own concerns in mind...Chances are he's one of these people who tells their kids that they can do anything they want in life and that the world is their playground...now watch daddy play....

But that's an assumption and I have nothing to base that upon...You see, it all boils down to first impressions again....

So whether you're shocked at my reasoning or not - I'm not taking back what I said.....This little girl will grow up to be whoever she wants to be, but it's clear to me that her father is irresponsible and paints with quite a larger brush than I apparently do......



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Wow, yes "GOd" has been important since the beginning, because we pledged to GOD since the beginning, right? Wrong.

The pledge wasn't even written or chanted in classrooms until 1893, over a century after the creation of the US. It's original wording was:

"I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."


The "Under God" line wasn't added until 1954 thanks to the Knights of Columbus. They preached that we had to save America from "Godless communists." If there was a rumor that communists liked cheese products, it probably would have read "One nation, against cheese, for liberty and justice for all."

Seriously people, you think this has ANYTHING to do with religion? Please. It's another horrendous attack of communism and other forms of government. We brainwash our children into thinking ANY system of government other than ademocratic republic exactly like ours is EVIl, why not slip propoganda into our nation's pledge?

Seems logical to me.

Article Here



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   
When that guy can get a Jew or a Wiccan in the White House, we'll change the way we do things to accomodate their religious practice.

Until then, keep on truckin buddy. You waste your time with fodder why we big boys go after the big game.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Jeez, saying "under God" is not "accomodating" ANYONE'S religious beliefs. If a Jew was in the White House, we'd probably still say "under God"... Jews are monotheistic as well as the uber Christian leaders we have now.

I don't speak that line of the pledge because I personally do not believe a government is blessed by God. I don't believe America as a nation is protected by God, I don't think the country of Israel is God's chosen kingdom, and I don't think that any Wiccan, Hindu, or Islamic diety is going to save us or anyone else as a government.

Taking out "under God" is not going to get anyone else in the White House that couldn't get in before. The people arguing and voting over this matter are not the people reciting the pledge everyday. Does ANYONE care what the actual schoolchildren think about the issue? Most of the ones I've talked to say the same 2 things, either they don't say the pledge, or they DONT EVEN CARE WHAT IT SAYS.

I honestly believe realigious zealouts are infecting this country with a plague of prejudice, hatred, and intolerance. I don't think its because of the pledge.

If this man is so concerned about his daughter saying the pledge- maybe he should be fighting some bigger battles- like, ohhh, I don't know, the distortion taught to her from her hisoty textbook.

Obviously he's too concerned with his own religious (or anti religious) quest to take a moment to see what she actually IS learning.

[edit on 1-13-05 by Scat]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scat
If this man is so concerned about his daughter saying the pledge- maybe he should be fighting some bigger battles- like, ohhh, I don't know, the distortion taught to her from her hisoty textbook.

Obviously he's too concerned with his own religious (or anti religious) quest to take a moment to see what she actually IS learning.

Long time no see Scat...


I completely agree....As I've stated before - the guy is simply unfocused and cannot see beyond his own nose - there should be more important wrongs for him to right in this little girl's life....especially when the possible outcome would make the conflicting viewpoint’s fathers equally upset…

[edit on 1/14/2005 by EnronOutrunHomerun]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Actually Scat, I was talking about the swearing in (I think that was the topic).

In any case, I don't care if we take God off everything. Makes no difference to me. I also don't think I'll get any credit in heaven for backing God on some money.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I was talking about the Pledge to be said at the inaguaration. It just so happens that one of the only places left that says the pledge ona daily basis is in fact our schools. THis is the same man that tried to band the pledge in his daughters school- that's where I got my steam from.

Sorry if I didn't explain


Oh! And Enron! I was checking out your avatar last night and completely ignored the username! Hello again!



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
What's next? Is he going to sue the treasury dept for having in God we trust on every penny, nickel, and quarter??
Go away! Does he want this country to believe in nothing?
We got One nation under God, So help god, and in God we trust...

Yes, what is next? Is Bush going to have all christians praying along with him on national TV?
The government is no place for religion. The references to "god" were not always there. They were added.


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
God has had a very prominent place in this nation since the beginning and there has never been a problem until the marxists started attacking everything having to do with pro-social values. Anyone who posits otherwise has no sense of history.


I disagree. Here's why:

In the 1960's, many people of different Christian denominations believed that racial integration was against God's Law because it led to the "mixing of seed". The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) mounted boycotts against restaurants and hotels that served people of all races equally.

Many decades ago, some Christian denominations quoted Gospel passages which blamed the Jews for executing Jesus.

A century and a half ago, some Christians supported institution of slavery by quotations from the Bible.

Now we have homosexual hatred and abortion clinic bombings.

That's just a few. Here are some other past conflicts.....

www.religioustolerance.org...

They've always found a reason to hate some group of people for some reason. Quite ironic, since they all claim to be religions revolving around the practice of love.

Where there's religion, there's always been conflict...

www.religioustolerance.org...



[edit on 18-1-2005 by Damned]



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 08:30 PM
link   
me no like god, in the name of god it has spreed so many blood.

[edit on 6-4-2005 by ulshadow]



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Oh no she hears under God! She might convert! Oh no we cant have that
. Some people seriously need to get a life and stop comlaining about every little thing.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   
God was not intended to be in the pledge. The reason it is there because in 1954 the Knights of Columbus,a religious organization, persuaded President Eisonhower to add the words. is this right to do that? The way it looks is that he did this to enhance his standing with patriotic voters and to make him look like he was battling against goddless communism. See the original pledge goe " I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." written by Francis Bellamy in 1892. the author did not put god in it so why should it be today. why dont we go ahead and change our declaration of independence while were at it. we dont change Shakesperes writings nor Stephen Kings, so why Francis Bellamy. You tell me.



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Impressive....very impressive post (B) So, with that said, this conversation should now lean to Understanding how come the Church plays such a major role on whats wriiten on United States Currency as well
"In God We Trust".

Would it be that we are still paying the Vatican back for the money, labor and men we took on our early journeys to find the "States".

Or is it much bigger as "The words say "In God We Trust" might mean early money was used for trade on a trust system meaning the trust to build this was given by the vatican thus stating the word "God".

something to think about???



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   
The word "god " has every right to be there..... this nation was founded by christians... don't like it.... then leave!



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   
I admire the persons guts and the fact that he/she has money to blow on legal fees. However this person is taking the wrong approach to the problem. The person in question should gain backing to run for office . Athiests in america need to band and providing there political beilefs arent two differnt they should work towards the common goal of getting rid of the term god in allegiances.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join