KANANASKIS, Alberta (AP) - President Bush on Thursday called a federal appeals court ruling that challenged the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance “out of step with the traditions and history of America” and promised to appoint judges who affirm God’s role in the public square. “America is a nation … that values our relationship with an Almighty,” Bush told reporters as he began a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at a summit of world industrial powers. “The declaration of God in the Pledge of Allegiance doesn’t violate rights. As a matter of fact, it’s a confirmation of the fact that we received our rights from God, as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence.” The president said the country needs “commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God.” Those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench," he said.
—“Oh, Mr. President? May I respectfully request that you bite me?”
Beelzebubba, that’s almost the same question I’ve been asking myself a lot this past day or so about pretty much every politician: idiot or weasel? Or both?
Why are atheists the bad guys? Why do these fundies think The Atheists have somehow come together to stamp out God? What about all the other non-JudeoChristian-God theistic and polytheistic belief systems out there? Are they not hated as well? Is it worse in these haters’ eyes to not believe in a God than to believe in the Wrong God?
I really don’t understand all this atheist bashing (and generalizing): “The Atheists should be happy now,” “Where will The Atheists stop,” “Why do the minority Atheists get to have their way over us, the Christian majority?”
What is it these hypocrites are so afraid of that they have to demonize a whole group of (unrelated, no agenda) people? If they weren’t so weak in their convictions a little triviality like this wouldn’t faze them.
What’s truly ironic about all the atheist-bashing in the wake of this ruling is that the case was not brought by atheists, but by Hindu immigrants, i.e. theists.
I’ve seen this posted in another thread, too. Watched Today show this am for a moment and there was this guy on, who I thought had been introduced as “the guy” who started the lawsuit, 'cause his 2nd grade daughter’s school had mandatory PoA, and he was atheist. (a well spoken one, mind you).
Now, I understand that you can’t tell by looking and so on, but, well, had I needed to classify the guy, I’d have gone for WM, and he didn’t have a discernable accent that seemed to be from India etc…
“America is a nation … that values our relationship with an Almighty,”
Eh. Some of us do; some of us don’t. Whether more of us do than don’t depends on what you mean by “values our relationship” – believes in God: yes; is regularly observant (i.e., goes to church or temple or mosque): no.
"“The declaration of God in the Pledge of Allegiance doesn’t violate rights. As a matter of fact, it’s a confirmation of the fact that we received our rights from God, as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence.”
Yeah, well, the courts decide what violates rights, so the first sentence is one man’s opinion, and he’s entitled to it. And the Declarationdoes say our rights come from God (" . . . they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights . . .")
“commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God.”
Where rights derive from is as a legal matter largely irrelevant to the question of whether a goverment action infringes on those rights. Just because you think your right to free speech came from God doesn’t mean your neighbor can’t infringe upon it.
“Those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench.”
That’s frightening – the implication that theistic orthodoxy should be a prerequisite for serving on the bench – regardless of qualifications. This is IMO the most alarming and offensive thing he said.
Oh, how mistaken you are, mr President. It violates the right not to believe. Land of the Free, and all that. Might ring a bell.
Whether you’re a Christian or not: how hard is it to see that a religiously phrased Pledge won’t hold up in a nation with a constitutional separation of church and state?
You can disagree with said separation, but since it’s there, the judge made the logical -and right- call.
Of course, I think the idea of 6 year olds pledging allegiance (religiously or not) to their nation every morning is ridiculous to begin with. But that’s just me.
Since when has the Declaration of Independence carried any weight in a legal sense? It’s not like the United States existed when it was written. We might as well look to the Magna Carta for an example as to how we should view our country.
Mea culpa. Thirdhand information led me to believe it was a Hindu family. I tried to post right afterward but the hamsters were being little rodentic snots…
Oh, c’mon, SPOOFE. The Declaration of Independence was adopted in 1776, and the Constitution in 1787. Many of the same people who signed the former attended the convention to draw up the latter. In a very real sense, the entire purpose of drawing up the Constitution was to set out and protect the rights referred to, and redress the wrongs complained of, in the Declaration of Independence.
The Magna Carta, in contrast, was signed in 1215. In England. To protect the rights of noble lords.
This is not to say the Declaration of Independence has much relevance as a legal document; it does not, beyond the sphere of establishing the reasons for the creation of the country, and shedding some light on the motivations of the Founding Fathers. But it’s a hell of a lot more relevant to the subject than the Magna Carta.
Jeez, the level of hysteria around here on this “under God” thing is starting to alarm me.
" The document conceded by John and set with his seal in 1215, however, was not what we know today as Magna Carta but rather a set of baronial stipulations, now lost, known as the “Articles of the barons.” After John and his barons agreed on the final provisions and additional wording changes, they issued a formal version on June 19, and it is this document that came to be known as Magna Carta. Of great significance to future generations was a minor wording change, the replacement of the term “any baron” with “any freeman” in stipulating to whom the provisions applied. Over time, it would help justify the application of the Charter’s provisions to a greater part of the population. While freemen were a minority in 13th-century England, the term would eventually include all English, just as “We the People” would come to apply to all Americans in this century "
What’s worse is that none of this has anything to do with whether or not you believe in God.
The Constitution is not set up to run religious expression in the United States. Its sole purpose is to define the areas that the federal and state governments are allowed to meddle in. Taxes. War. Spending. That kind of shit.
As the separation of church and state makes clear, the government has no business dictating any kind of religion. It has no business making children declare their faith in God. That’s not their job.
Would these people be happier if the government ordered daily Wiccan ceremonies to the Sun goddess? How about 3 times a day calls to prayer?
What’s worse, of all things to adjudicate, two words in a ceremony that’s been in use for a half-century seems pretty silly to me. If Bush wanted to galvanize the right into giving more money to the Republicans, and divert serious questions about his committment to Constitutional rights, this was an answer to his prayers.
