Fed. appeals court upholds 'under God' in pledge

[airbud]

And atheists heads explode as a result! Hallelujah!

SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court upheld the use of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who said the references to God are unconstitutional and infringe on his religious beliefs.

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0031103038.html

 

[joanne]

Well then, that must mean that we "could" change the wording to............."in (the) Creator we trust",.........or..."in Allah we trust"....right ??


joanne

 

[delldude]

This separation of church and state issue has long been perverted from its original intent mainly by the unprogressive left. The founders intent was that no government would tell you who to worship ala state sponsored religion.
Many a tax dollar went to lawyers bank accounts who exploited this issue for monetary gain. And it has been exploited.
Since the early 1900's there has been a slow continual effort to rewrite history and to exclude God from this country and this countries long founded history drawn together on a Judeo Christian based society.

IN GOD WE TRUST

Me too................

 

[airbud]

Well then, that must mean that we "could" change the wording to............."in (the) Creator we trust",.........or..."in Allah we trust"....right ??


joanne

Nope, the ruling was in favor of no change.

 

[delldude]

Nope, the ruling was in favor of no change.

I thought we are in the era of change they can believe in......

 

[airbud]

I thought we are in the era of change they can believe in......

Haha so true. It amazes me how all the all whiney atheists (who are in the very small minority) want to force change upon the majority. Over something they could care less about, but find the time to become offended over? Its ridiculous. They enjoy the freedoms given to citizens of this country at the same time spit on every other aspect of it. To themselves all they are worth is a sack of water and plasma. Yet try to force that upon the majority. Pathetic.

 

[Garfield1966]

This separation of church and state issue has long been perverted from its original intent mainly by the unprogressive left. The founders intent was that no government would tell you who to worship ala state sponsored religion.
Many a tax dollar went to lawyers bank accounts who exploited this issue for monetary gain. And it has been exploited.
Since the early 1900's there has been a slow continual effort to rewrite history and to exclude God from this country and this countries long founded history drawn together on a Judeo Christian based society.

IN GOD WE TRUST

Me too................

I think you are missing something. When the state allows the 10 commandments or a nativity scene or any other representation of religious dogma it is endorsing that dogma.

If people would stop putting their religion in public arenas we would not have to waste the money fighting it. As I have said numerous times, unless you want someone to put their satanic do-hicky right beside the christmass tree then it is a violation of the 14th at the very least. Any religious dogma on publicly funded property is clearly a violation of the 1st as far as I am concerned.

 

[delldude]

I don't quite see it that way Gar.

No one says "Thou must worship the Christ child" or keep walking.

Allowing a display and endorsing the religion are two different things.

"You will worship Jesus or go to the Gulag"......that work for you?

 

[Garfield1966]

I guess when I see a big X-mass tree on the front lawn of the court house or some other local government building I feel like it's being tossed in my face. I pay taxes as well. I testify at court and I have to swear to god. What happens if I say I do not believe in god and I'm not going to swear? Is the jury still going to treat me the same? Will my promise to tell the truth suffice? By having me swear to god that is endorsing the states belief in some higher being. I do not subscribe to that belief but I am forced to abide by it. I have not believed in god for a very long time. I decided I did not agree with the pledge so I did not recite it in school. Stood quietly and looked out the window or thought. I was questioned by my teacher and ridiculed by students.

Quite a few people think that this country is based on christian beliefs. If that is the case then there is every reason to believe that the god being referred to in a swearing in, the pledge ... etc is the christian god not some generic higher being. I do not see how that is not an endorsement of religion.

I have been sworn in on several occasions and each time I bit my tongue and said "I do". I lied each time. I do not swear to god to do anything. I still told the truth and I always will. But why should i have to lie in order to do it? I am sure not willing to bet my freedom on the jury to treat me the same if I were to say no. I think a few on this board would hold it against me. I am supposed to entrust my life to a jury not too?

I keep asking this and have yet to receive an answer: why does religion have to be public? Why can't people keep religion private in their homes and places of prayer?

 

[delldude]

In this country.....due to the Founders insight you have the exclusive right to believe or not believe in a God of your choosing. That's one of the main reasons they left their homes to come here, and why there is no exclusive reference in the Constitution.
However, the principles of democracy have some relation to religious principles and laws but here do not specifically endorse one religion over another or lack of belief either.

You must know that as a non believer, being forced to believe is on the same page as being forced to worship a God or religion not of your choosing.

As to the swearing on a Bible...that's interesting....never gave that any thought.

If a jury swayed a verdict on a witnesses testimony based on no belief in a God of their choosing would make a tasty and interesting road for an appeal.

 

[Garfield1966]

I understand that but the implication seems to be that the 'thou shalt not kill' thing is the sole domain of the religious. I look at the DOI and COTUS and see common sense. I don't kill because I do not want to be killed. Same for stealing, screwing my neighbors wife, and all the rest of them. I don't do those things because I would not ant them done to me and because I just plain don't think they are good things to do. I arrived at those thoughts independent of religious convictions. I think religion looked at life and codified common sense. I think describing the US as a Commonsense/Judeo/Christian country might be closer to the truth.

In away I am though. When I am forced to swear to god, am I not being forced to believe in that? I feel like I am, at least superficially. no one can force anyone to think/believe anything (at least not till mind reading becomes a reality) because you cannot read my thoughts. But on the surface, I am forced to believe in someones god and I am forced to swear an oath to this god. To me that is forcing me to believe in this god.

Sure it would be an interesting case but short of someone saying "I convicted the SOB because anyone who does not believe in god and wont swear to tell the truth must be guilty" I do not see how you would prove it.

 

[delldude]

In away I am though. When I am forced to swear to god, am I not being forced to believe in that? I feel like I am, at least superficially. no one can force anyone to think/believe anything (at least not till mind reading becomes a reality) because you cannot read my thoughts. But on the surface, I am forced to believe in someones god and I am forced to swear an oath to this god. To me that is forcing me to believe in this god.

That is interesting.....so one does not believe in God......so you don't believe in what you are swearing to.....but in essence they are asking you above and beyond all reproach will you be truthful?

Maybe we need a Miranda thing only to call it the Garfield exclusion?

"Do you swear that you are about to give the truth and whole truth so help you God?*

*Unless you do not believe in a higher being we are authorized to accept your verbal guarantee you will tell the truth totally and without prejudice unless you belong to some type organized crime family, then all bets are off.

 

[tech2101]

That is interesting.....so one does not believe in God......so you don't believe in what you are swearing to.....but in essence they are asking you above and beyond all reproach will you be truthful?

Maybe we need a Miranda thing only to call it the Garfield exclusion?

"Do you swear that you are about to give the truth and whole truth so help you God?*

*Unless you do not believe in a higher being we are authorized to accept your verbal guarantee you will tell the truth totally and without prejudice unless you belong to some type organized crime family, then all bets are off.

You were on the right track until you mocked him with the organized crime bs.

What would be wrong with "I swear to tell the truth. Knowing that if I do not, I will be charged with perjury."

Would it make you feel better if I said "on my mother's grave"...

Make up any slogan you want. To a non-believer, it all is the same.

Maybe we should have courts that are denominational. Why not start a Catholic court, Protestant court, Muslim court, Mormon court...

In my opinion, that is exactly what the writers of our Constitution were trying to prevent.

 

[Garfield1966]

You were on the right track until you mocked him with the organized crime bs.

What would be wrong with "I swear to tell the truth. Knowing that if I do not, I will be charged with perjury."

Would it make you feel better if I said "on my mother's grave"...

Make up any slogan you want. To a non-believer, it all is the same.

Maybe we should have courts that are denominational. Why not start a Catholic court, Protestant court, Muslim court, Mormon court...

In my opinion, that is exactly what the writers of our Constitution were trying to prevent.

Take a breath Tech Dell and I PM back and forth and I am pretty sure he only meant the Mafia thing as a joke and that is how I took it.

I do believe that while some of the founders were indeed religious I do not believe that they intended for the government to be religious. I do not think that not mentioning god in the COTUS was an oversight. I believe it was intentional. The original pledge made no mention of god. Currency did not have god on it. Go was added after the fact and in my opinion in violation of the COTUS and the intent of it's writers.

Unfortunately, most people do not think it is worth fighting for the small things. The thing is it starts with the small things and grows. Fighting for ones right to attend a prom is every bit as important as fighting for ones right to attend the school of ones choice regardless of skin color.

No one bothered to fight putting god in the pledge and on our money and now religion is invading all manner of things. God should have stayed private, now it is the point of contention. I suspect if there is a go, that is not what it wants.

 

[airbud]

No one bothered to fight putting god in the pledge and on our money and now religion is invading all manner of things. God should have stayed private, now it is the point of contention. I suspect if there is a go, that is not what it wants.

Hallelujah! Welcome to the real world! BTW how does a devout atheist surmises what god would want?