God hater loses in court.

Actually, the phrase "under God" wasn't even originally in the pledge, so why not restore the pledge to the way it was originally written? I hardly think that my suggesting that would make me a God-hater, now, would it?

I do hear whining (incessant), coming from those anxious to present themselves as "Loyal Christians"... from that minority who eagerly make a Public Statement (spectacle) of their conformity and "piety".
Of course, these Grandstanders are isually ignorant of the Biblical admonitions against oath-taking:
"But I say unto you, swear not at all..." (Matthew 5:34)
"Swear not, neither by Heaven nor by Earth, neither by any other oath". (James 5:12)

Not ALL Christian sects agree re: oath-taking... but it seems as if the most militant sects swear by it... :wink:

Does oath taking apply to the office of president? I wouldn't think that it did.

Why is this going to be about Bush and not Newdow? He's the one causing an issue.

You can't hate what does not exist without being mental some way.

In his view, if God doesn't exist then he should live his life that way, not disrupt what others want to do. If you chose to be Godless then that is your concern not anyone elses. If he become president then he can chose not to have a prayer. It is Bushs party and he can do so if he wishs.

Would you object to a Muslim having a cleric recite a prayer at their swearing in party?

We the godless choose to not have the nonexistent God crammed down our throats at every outing. No hate, just demand for personal rights.

When the godless become the majority, the rules can be changed. 'till then, we'll just have to deal with it. No one is forcing Nedow to attend the inaugeration. He is free to stay home and avoid being exposed to a prayer.

We live in a representative state that is supposed to protect every citizen from a tyrany of the majority. While it doesn't always happen, we will push to get our civil rights at every venue.

A tyrany of the minority is no better.

Absense of tyrany by the majority is not by fiat tyrany by anyone. I don't intend to pursue such a stupid argument any further.

Good, I am glad to see you have come to your senses.

We ain't gonna win this one, Edgar. But I, for one, appreciate the fact that you keep fighting the good fight.

I guess we have to be satisfied with giving our arguments in opposition...and then resign ourselves to letting 'em suck up to their silly god. They are frightened of the god (the god is rather barbaric, remember) ...and are trying to dodge its considerable wrath.

And in their defense...if I thought for a moment the god they suppose exists...actually existed....I'd probably be kissing its ass at every possible opportunity also.

Precisely.

Baldimo: The title of your thread is misleading...but I'm sure you know that. Read this letter from Michael, and I'm sure you'll amend that title.

A letter from Rev. Dr. Newdow
Hi, I'm Mike Newdow, the Plaintiff in a lawsuit to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Because many people have asked me why I'm doing this, and many have made it clear that they think I shouldn't, I'm writing this brief note to explain.

The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." As I understand it, this resulted from the Framers' awareness of the persecution and animosity that inevitably accompanies state religions. With this in mind, they made the decision to ensure religious freedom by keeping the government out of that sensitive area. Personally, I think this was a good idea. And even if I didn't, it's one of the fundamental rules of our society. Thus, when I see our Pledge of Allegiance containing the words "under God," I see a gross violation of one of our foremost Constitutional mandates.

Many people have suggested that this violation is nothing to worry about, and that I shouldn't be "wasting my time" on such an endeavor. Those who make this suggestion are virtually all believers in God, who apparently are blind to the injuries the current Pledge causes. When I ask if they would hold the same opinion if the Pledge said "one Nation under white people," they immediately say no. And why not? Granted, the analogy isn't perfect: since "under God" pertains to a religious belief and "white people" reflects an immutable genetic characteristic. But, constitutionally, there is no difference: the resultant harm is that a minority population is made to feel like "outsiders" in both situations. So why is it okay to do this to atheists and not to African-Americans?

It's worse than that. Not only is this the Pledge of Allegiance, but it is a pledge that is recited in public schools throughout the land. Thus, the government indoctrinates every schoolchild - every school day of the year - with a belief in God, and a belief that our Nation, as an entity, is one "under God." What of those parents who choose not to inculcate their children with such a belief? Where is the religious freedom so precious to our democratic ideals? What is the difference between "one Nation under God" and "one Nation under Jesus"? And what would we all be saying if we heard that Russia had their children recite "one Nation under no god" every day?

"One Nation under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance is infuriating to me - as much as "one Nation under white people," "one Nation under Jesus," or "one Nation under no god" would be. We are a nation of laws - to be applied equally for every citizen. That a religious belief - the one category of belief that is specifically forbidden by the Constitution - has been inserted by the government into the Nation's Pledge is offensive, unconscionable, unconstitutional and wrong. Since no one else has righted that wrong, I'm doing it. To end the offense. To strengthen the Constitution.

These guys know there is no "hatred of god" in the equation, they just want to hawk stupid arguments to push peoples' buttons.

Baldimo, who posted that we should give tsunami victims nothing in aid unless we got a "back scratch" for it in return.....now proudly starts a thread about how someone Godless gets what he deserves. I feel certain Heaven is overrun with angels and a host of the Saints rejoicing in Baldimo's name and preparing a double wide for him on the South Side.

I never said only for a "back scratch", I said we shouldn't offer money unless they request it. I'm not that cold hearted.

Wow if I'm not mistaken you just called me a redneck, quite mature of you.

...and I'm sure you'll be raptly engaged in watching the ceremony, and getting your throat crammed with God, right? No, probably not. But even with 100 other channels or activities to choose from at that moment, you choose to characterize it as if you're being held in shackles in some dungeon. Get a grip.

Snood, you're getting tiresome. It's a greater issue than the one event and you know it.