You can believe anything - if you ignore enough

Inhaler? so that's what you're calling the little man these days?

Thanks Bill, for looking that up. It's the way I've felt for a very long time...It has always amazed me how both sides do their best to tell the masses what they can or can not do.

What everyone is ignoring is that no one, especially children, have ever taken the pledge seriously.

Well, actually the U.S. Supreme Court isn't supposed to decide their rulings based on popular majority thought. Their function is to act as a third "check and balance" against the Executive office and the Legistature. Their entire job is to hear challenges *against* laws written into being by the President and the Legislature, and to determine whether those laws *violate* the Constitution. Popular sentiment has nothing to do with it.

To a large degree, this is also the provence of all Federal judges. It's just that the U.S. Supreme court is the last resort for appeals up the chain. Technically, though, a Federal judge of any stripe should first and foremost be deciding whether a state law of any sort, or a federal law, violates the provisions and intent of the U.S. Consititution. Again, majority sentiment should have nothing to do with it.

The Federal courts are really the ONLY line of protection that the commonweal of this nation has against legislation by the other two branches of government. The federal courts are the one and only real oversight we have to ensure that politicians do not put laws into effect that violate our rights as citizens, as provided by the U.S. Constitution.

To put it another way, it is the very purpose of the Federal courts to protect *all* members of the nation from laws put into effect by the majority of the nation, if those laws violate principles of the constitution. Majority will can and should prevail except where the majority will clearly violates the constitution. This is why even if 99 percent of America voted to repeal the first amendment rights to free speech, for example, Federal judges would be duty-bound to overturn such laws if challenged in federal courst.

So just because a federal judge rules against "majority opinion" does not mean they are being "activist". Instead, they are just doing their job.

Remember, a federal judge cannot try a case and make such a decision unless the case is brought to court. Which means lots of time and money spent by the private sector. Many laws go uncontested because not enough private money can be raised to bring suit against the law.

No, you have that backwards.

If you want to say "Under God" then do it, but don't tell me it has to be in the pledge or on the money.

Complete, total, and utter bullshit.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/amend_1.htm

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=14678

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman

But then you already knew this, now didn't you?

For those of you who don't follow such things, this is a common (and frequently deliberate) misconception promoted by the religious right and those who disagree with the entire concept of Separation. 'Preventing the establishment of a national religion' was most definitely A motivation of the Founders, however it was not their SOLE motivation. Madison, Jefferson, and Paine just to name a few all spoke out against any entanglement of religion and government, and publically endorsed the idea that they should be kept entirely separate.



I can list three by name: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. 'God' in the pledge is capitalized, and is being used as a proper noun. In english 'God' is the name used for the Jehovahn godhead figure referred to collectively as the 'God of Abraham' revered by all three of the aforementioned religions.

Now I've got one for you.... can you please explain to me what secular purpose the inclusion of the phrase 'under God' in the Pledge serves? If you're unfamiliar with the concept behind this question, please refer again to the third link I posted re Lemon V Kurtzman. (You did read the links, didn't you?)



True on the first part, but you blew it on the second. You can't have freedom of religion without freedom from religon. It simply isn't possible. Basic rights must apply to everyone or they're meaningless. This is the United States, and we all have the same basic rights here... which means if you can force me to acknowledge any god at all, I have the same right.

Trust me, you do NOT want this to happen. Believe me on this. Why don't you want this to happen? Because I'll make damned sure I pick one you won't like. I hope you're looking forward to the idea of giving blood sacrifices to Satan or engaging in orgies dedicated to Dionysius..... such orgies aren't strictly speaking heterosexual by the way.



Odd how pretty much the entire rest of your post seems to ignore this part.



Whether I like it or not is, like the point itself, completely and totally irrelevant. Constitutional law isn't determined by popularity contests.



Actually yes, there in fact is exactly that. Go back and read over those links again. Government can neither endorse nor discourage religious belief, and has limited ability to discourage religious practice. (Generally only in cases where such practices violate existing secular law, such as various sacrifical practices, various sexual practices, and drug use... or where government is directly involved as in the Pledge or the various Ten Commandments postings.)



Incorrect.... the bottom line is that the Pledge itself is not unconstitutional, but the insertion of a religious statement is. Whether or not it endorses a specifically national or state religion (which it does) is irrelevant.



Except that they already have this right. The addition of 'under God' to the Pledge doesn't give people any legitimate rights that they didn't already posess. What it DOES do is push the idea that we are somehow 'one nation, under God' which simply are not and never have been. We are 'one nation under the Law,' and that law is the Constitution.... man's law. Not God's. And considering that over somewhat more than 200 years we've managed to ban slavery, enfranchise all citizens, extend that franchise and citizenship to all people regardless of race, gender, or religious background, and generally stop treating racial, religious and ethnic minorities like domesticated animals..... something no non-secular society in human history has ever managed to accomplish in roughly six thousand years of recorded history... I'll go with man's law thanks. God's track record ain't so good here.



If you want to, knock yourself out. Don't expect the government to step in to endorse you saying it however.

Theism. Monotheism in particular. Christianity by origin. The Knights of Columbus didn't have in inserted in order to honor Thor. Since there are a lot of atheists and polytheists who are tax paying citizens of this country, obviously we are not one nation under god.

edit: should have read the rest of the posts. Excellent reply Corwin!

All I have to say to that is....
Amen

If actual Luciferian gnostics were less concerned about the unfortunate decline of planet Earth, then I'm sure they'd back you up. It looks like we'll have to skip the blood sacrifices and head straight for the orgies!