Oh, so that’s what’s “wrong with America” now. Ya know, it used to be them “uppity niggers” that was “wrong with America”. You know, them ones who was so whiny that they couldn’t just ride in the back of the bus like they was s’posed ta. Then it was them faggots who were so whiny that they wanted to ruin the good ol’ institution of marriage. Now it’s the atheists. Guess it’s always something, huh? Wish I could tell you how I feel about you, but this isn’t the Pit.
Wow. That’s a remarkably poor argument. Equating Martin Hyde’s opposition to the removing the words “Under God” from the Pledge with racism lacks either foundation or taste.
You’re better than that, blowero.
I didn’t equate shit with shit. I was talking about people in the majority who claim that the minority is “ruining America”. You have completely misconstrued my point, and you, sir, ought to be better than that.
And another thing - I am really FED UP with people who can’t grasp an analogy, and can only see things in the simplest of terms, e.g. “Gosh, Blowero - you just said racism is exactly equivalent to religious freedom.” What’s sad is that I KNEW somebody was going to do that, because it happens EVERY FUCKING TIME.:rolleyes:
It happens EVERY FUCKING TIME because its a poor argument and in poor taste EVERY FUCKING TIME it’s done.
There’s no reason to drudge up the analogy of racism against “uppity niggers” other than the appeal to emotion provided by your shocking choice of subject.
You’re smart enough to be able to make your point without resorting to cheap shots. Although my own brain power is sorely lacking compared to many on this board, I’d hope that others would call me on it if I resorted to saying that your arguments were like terrorists seeking to impose their religious views on the American majority through fear and hate.
The arguments in favor of leaving the words “Under God” in the Pledge rarely, if ever, rely on the same type of crap “logic” that underlied segregation and racism in America. So your analogy fails on its own merits, as well as on good taste.
On this board, at least, I hope that we can keep our arguments civil, even when political discourse around us descends into hysteria and cheap tricks.
And while I’m on a roll:
You have no idea what the phrase “tyranny of the majority” means. It doesn’t refer to torture or what have you, so your snide “I’ve seen worse” comment is out of order. It simply refers to a state of affairs when the wishes of the majority eclipse the rights of the minority. And the implication in Breyer’s line of questioning - that unification under God is allright as long as it only infringes on a few rights, is contrary to the principle that rights are for everyone, not just the majority. And I find the “you’re free not to recite it” argument unconvincing. Assuming you’re a theist, you know perfectly well that you would be screaming like a banshee if your daughter had to attend a class that led an organized recitation of their commitment to “no god” every morning, whether she were “free not to recite it” or not.
It’s not supposed to be a statement of belief at all. The “under God” part was added during the McCarthy era. It doesn’t NEED to be a statement of belief. The goverment is not supposed to endorse mandatory “statements of belief”.
I’m sorry you don’t understand the difference between freedom for everyone vs. freedom only for the majority. I’m sorry that escapes you.
False.
Sorry, you’re wrong. My comparison was apropos.
Martin Hyde’s comment “Most of the people in this thread are all just parts of what is truly wrong with America”, was a cheap shot, borne of the same kind of ignorance as anyone who blithely dismisses the rights of any minority group.
I don’t know how you can possibly think I was accusing him of racism. That just reflects an utter inability to comprehend what an analogy is.
I disagree. I think it very much IS “crap logic”. “It’s o.k. because the majority wants it that way” is a pitiful argument to make in a supposedly free society. But I suppose you will continue to obfuscate with your “Oh my gosh he said that guy was a racist” nonsense.
Whatever. Spare me your mock outrage.:rolleyes:
Now really, what’s the chance of that? Haven’t you learned by now that the Court rules, not necessarily according to the Constitution, but according to the personal whims of the jurists themselves.
The Court has already demonstrated that it is willing to prostitute itself to an agenda when it ruled that a state’s law that forbade an elective medical proceedure was a violation of privacy.
And most recently, despite the Fourteenth Amendment’s gurantee of equal protection of the law, ruled that it is acceptable practice for a state university to discriminate according to race.
I am a Christian. I find governmental use of “under God” in a political pledge to be blasphemous. It must be removed from the Pledge of Alliegiance because its continued use is an affront to the sanctity we ought to be according to the Almighty.
Blowero, I was referring to the Pledge as a statement of belief in American values, not as a statement of belief in a deity.
As such, it has tremendous value. Personally, I find it has equivalent utility with or without the two words in dispute, and I’m a pretty devout Catholic.
I wouldn’t be upset terribly if the words were removed. I really think it should be a legislative decision, though. That’s how the words got there in the first place.
I have always found, in my life, two kinds of atheists. First is the kind that have no use for religion, but have no problem with its place in society and in the lives of others. The second kind is hostile to religion and contemptuous of its role in the evolution of our society, its morality, its traditions, and its law.
No question which camp you fall into, eh?
You mean like good minorities vs. uppity minorities?
Sorry couldn’t resist:).
Personally, I don’t care about ‘In God We Trust’ or ‘Under God’. Okay, granted, I’m a Christian. And not a legal scholar, so, take what I say with a grain of salt.
If I wander around telling people there is a God, am I establishing a religion?
I’d argue no. Claiming the existence of a higher power does not constitute a religion. A religion is a system of beliefs … not just ‘There is a God’, but ‘There is a God, and He wants us to…’ or ‘There is a God, and His nature is…’
On the other hand, maybe I could start a new ‘religion’, where the only belief is that there is a God. I could call it ‘Take it or Leave It’-ism. All the followers agree there is a God, but don’t really care.
Now, the ‘Under God’ phrase was thrown into the Pledge for silly reasons. But taking it out now would probably do more harm than good.
No, but if you made all the schoolchildren in the country stand up and say this nation is “Under God” every morning, you would.
Sadly, I agree. Look at all the anti-gay backlash from the same-sex marriage issue.
This is very true especially in this political season. I think that Bush is secretly hoping for the court to rule in favor of Newdow. The dems are perceived (whether is true or not) as being hostle (or at least less friendly) towards religion and this case could make great ammo for the republicans this season. A ruling in favor of Newdow would also give the republicans the issue of court appointments to hold over the democrats. It would also create a public backlash that would move the enitre campaign to the right which would be a disfavor for Kerry.
I believe in God, but I don’t support government pledges. Whether they include God or not.
Just a side note…
Did I read, “She’s just seven years old…and he’s been in a custody battle for eight years.”
How’s that work? 
You are confusing private action with government action.
The First Amendment protects you if you wish to start a church and expressly prohibits government from doing so.
I also think its odd that the arguement seems to be that “under God” is meaningless…
Now, I’m no longer terribly religious, but I was brought up old school Catholic. And I understand that there is some prohibition about “taking God’s name in vain.” Which I was brought up to mean not only swearing (Goddammit got your mouth washed out in Sunday School) but also using the word God casually. i.e. vain - lacking substance or worth. Wouldn’t a mere ceremonial use of the word God mean that we were actually asking our Christian majority to break a commandment. Or, when our Christian majority uses the word God, as they cannot use the word in vain, does that not imply the word is more than ceremonial.
Hm. My point, I think it has been evaded. Endorsing the ‘fact’ that there is a God does not equate to endorsing a religion, in my view. Whether the government does it, or a private individual.
No, but you are not the government, nor are you, as the government, responsible for determining the official words of a national loyalty oath.
Isn’t that akin to saying that you don’t mind them teaching creationism so long as the kids aren’t tested on it?