NEWS: Federal Judge Rules "Under God" Unconstitutional in Pledge

as posted by spamandham
If this isn't idolatry, it's hard to imagine what is.

Interpretations are clouded by political agendas and ideology, are they not?
As such, your use of "idolatry" is but one interpretation, whereas, to others, like me, it is simply national tradition and indication of the Christian roots of this nation when founded by the Founding Fathers.

I am sure that this Federal judge had no problem when taking his oath of office when he said, "So help me God", huh?
Unconstitutional? Does he have any comment to that?

Anyhow, the ruling will be overturned.
I am waiting for the day when some wacky Federal judge proclaims the Constitution as unconstitutional.....







seekerof

[edit on 14-9-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
I am sure that this judge had no problem when taking his oath of office did he when he said, "So help me God", huh?

The funny thing is this will end up in the Supreme Court (which will of course strike down the decision) and they open their session with "God Save the United States and this Honorable Court"

I have never seen religon being persecuted, at least not christian religon. They persecuted the jews, the arabs, the witches, the druids, the buddists, the hindu, the indians, the athiests, but never them being persecuted.

Hmmm, what national holidays? Christmas and Thanksgiving! Not Hannakuh and Yule.

How many presidents were christian? 43 in a row!!!!!!!!!!!!

How can you be persecuted? That is like a white man complaining to a former black female slave that he is being persecuted!

All I can say is, thank god,(pun intended).

Now if they will let gays are given the rights of marriage as us ordinary straight folk. I would be pretty dang happy.

Originally posted by Seekerof
As such, your use of "idolatry" is but one interpretation, whereas, to others, like me, it is simply national tradition and indication of the Christian roots of this nation when founded by the Founding Fathers.

I wasn't talking specifically about the 'under god' part, but the pledge as a whole, which has nothing to do with Christian roots and everything to do with raising the state to the level of a minor deity in the minds of the populace.

Originally posted by Seekerof
I am sure that this Federal judge had no problem when taking his oath of office when he said, "So help me God", huh?
Unconstitutional? Does he have any comment to that?

The oaths of office do not require a reference to god(s). They are intended to be whatever the individual finds most binding. The same holds for witnesses in court. You are not obligated to say "so help me god", or to put your hand on the Bible. Those are just typically the oaths people choose. You could be right though.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Anyhow, the ruling will be overturned.

Don't be so certain. A precedence has been set, and a higher court will have to explain why it was not a valid ruling. The burdon is no longer to show why it is unconstitutional, but to show why it is. That's a more daunting task.

Originally posted by shots
See that is exactly why I dislike the use of wikipedia as a reference. Anyone can put up what they want and some will take it as fact when there is nothing factual at all about it

Makes mental note to go and change the Bellamy salute to Gore Salute

With that said, I think they should take the judge out and castrate him

Gore salute? What the hell are you talking about?

But why should I care. That last bit you said has invalidated anything you have ever said or will ever say.

It's not a big deal but they should get rid of it.

thanks,

Originally posted by shots
See that is exactly why I dislike the use of wikipedia as a reference. Anyone can put up what they want and some will take it as fact when there is nothing factual at all about it

See you say that yet I have you on record of referencing Wikipedia in a thread you also lambast the use of the site in. Do you even pay attention to the sites you visit shots?

I was going to reply to this thread, yet once again i find myself asking WTF is this about? because everyone is on there own tangents Is it me or has this board really gone down hill?

IDK, haven't been here long enough. I was looking for information on Katrina on google and several links took me to this site.

Anyways, I haven't found any examples of christians being persecuted. Hard to find when the last time it happened was when Jesus was crucified by the Romans. Since then it has been Christians on Jews, Arabs, Blacks, Hindu, Witches, so forth.

I would like to see the legal reasons to keep this in since it seems to be illegal. It was added because a bunch of right wing extremists got their way. Just like Prohibition! Right Wing crazies got power and created the Mob/Mafia in America! Funny story on Prohibition, people on row boats would go to Canada and buy beer and as long as they didn't say they were going to America Canada would sell it, even in some cases if the person said something like Cuba, on a row boat.

Originally posted by xmotex
It clearly does represent an endorsement of specific religions, as not all religions (Buddhism for example) embrace the concept of a singular God. "Religion" is not a synonym for "monotheism".

It is also true as was posted before, that "under God" was not a part of the original pledge, it was added during the McCarthy years.

sweet! someone is thinking critically! i agree completely and further expand on my original statement;
this nation was founded with religious tolerance for only those who believe in a monotheistic doctrine.

hindus, buddhists, athiests, all seem to be left out of our declaration of independence and pledge.

so was this country flawed since it's inception? or should we keep it a country that it monotheistic in principle? if we leave it as monotheistic as the founders established, there cannot be justification in removal of "God" from the pledge on an all encompassing, religious freedom arguement. although i do think it was incorrect for it to be added in the first place.

anyway, if we are to be truly a godless state, we would have to change our declaration of independence and our pledge to exclude God. how we would then justify any morals or rights i have no idea. but i am sure something would be thought of...

for example... CUZ MY MOMMA SAID SO!
daved

Originally posted by subz

Originally posted by shots
See that is exactly why I dislike the use of wikipedia as a reference. Anyone can put up what they want and some will take it as fact when there is nothing factual at all about it

See you say that yet I have you on record of referencing Wikipedia in a thread you also lambast the use of the site in. Do you even pay attention to the sites you visit shots?

So what and yes I do look at the sites I use and I pointed out to your use of it the same as I did when flinx used it. You fail to mention that I also backed up the info as posted on wikipedia was also posted on another site that holds more creditability then wkipedia does. Actually there are 59 sites that say the very same thing as wikipedia does and that is why I used it that one since unlike you I back it up with addition facts from more then lousy wikedpia. And you say it is me looking for the arguments all the time :shk:

Here just a few of them

www.baghdadmuseum.org...

www.xclimbing.net...

www.wicso.com...

You want to see the other 40 look them up


My applogies to Fred for going OT back to your normal channel.

[edit on 9/15/2005 by shots]