Atheist who challenged pledge words 'under God' sues again

[Brad]

digitonomy:

This is the part I don’t get - how is some guy going to the courts, in an effort to protect his right to raise his daughter without religious interference from the government, shoving something down YOUR unwilling throat?

A public school that forcibly removes God from everything in it is no place I want to send my kid to. Thus, it is shoving a mainstream materialist naturalism philosophy down my kid’s throat OR down most of the kid’s throats in my neighborhood for who I have to support this philosophy with my tax dollars.

Think about what it means to remove completely everything God from public education . That is the root of this movement sponsored by Newdow and other ACLU sympathizers. You would get argument against God in science (as many such arguments exist), you would get arguments for cloning, embryo research, abortion, and euthanasia. You would potentially get to study all kinds of philosphies and historical revisionism as long as it opposed God.

 

[Brad]

ToddC:

Thomas Jefferson started the whole church and state thing.

The courts misinterpreted his intentions.

Jefferson used this phrase in response to a letter from a Baptist Church that was concerned that the Ammendment regarding restricting the “establishment” of a religion would eventually lead to the government being able to make decisions regarding religion throughout the land (boy were they prophetic). Jefferson assured them that this was not the case. He insisted that there is a wall of separation - that keeps the government from interfering with religious practices. He DID NOT mean this as something that would keep the government from supporting religion as can be proven by other writings by him that suggest the opposite.

 

[Digitonomy]

ToddC:

Under the Establishment Clause, as originally intended (I believe), the NATIONAL government can not support a religion. It does NOT prohibit states from doing so. Somewhere along the line, the separation of church and state went awry. Now look at our society.

You are correct, the establishment clause did not originally apply to the states. If you believe the application of the first amendment (as well as other amendments) to the states marks the point when “the separation of church and state went awry”, that date would be July 9, 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified.

 

[Digitonomy]

Lisa N:

Frankly I think (as I have said time and time again) that this has NOTHING to do with the raising of his daughter. That IMO should be between him and his wife. I think he is using this case to attack religion and specifically Christianity. It’s a red herring.

He’s stated his motives. If you believe them to be false, so be it. The constitutional question remains.
Lisa N:

I have asked you several times, how do the words “under God” ESTABLISH A RELIGION???

In the same way the Ohio motto respects an establishment of religion.

Maybe it doesn’t. If the court so rules, good - one more issue settled.

 

[4_marks]

Solution. When everyone else gets up to say the pledge, just begin to recite the “Our Father” in protest. If enough people join in everytime the new Pledge is recited, it will demonstrate that God-fearing people are not just going to just roll over and play dead when it comes to the rampant “Athiezing” of this society.
When they ask, say it is your First Amendment right guaranteed by the Constitution for Freedom of Expression. If they persist, and/or censure, get a movement started to bring the case all the way to the Supreme Court. Maybe, if you are lucky, they will declare the First Amendment unconstitutional and an age of true Libertarianism will have begun.

 

[Digitonomy]

4 marks:

Solution. When everyone else gets up to say the pledge, just begin to recite the “Our Father” in protest.

But should you join the Protestants in saying the doxology at the end?

 

[Exporter]

Drew98 http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/user_offline.gif vbmenu_register(“postmenu_389179”, true);
Regular Member

Drew98, the manner in which you have posted on the thread is consistant with you being AN ATHIEST.

It does seem strange that an Atheist would have sought out a Catholic Forum. There was another Athiest on this Forum this week, his screen name is Tlaloc. He has disappeared.

Drew98, look at the pyramid on a $1.00 bill. Look at the apex. You see an eye don’t you. Do you know the origin and derivation of that eye on the $1.00 bill? Do you think it is a religious symbol? How would you, as an Atheist, talk about that particular symbol on our money? I do not believe any Christian has filed a law suit about this “eye”.

 

[4_marks]

digitonomy:

But should you join the Protestants in saying the doxology at the end?

Why not? It’s found in the Didache (which we accept as part of the Deposit of Faith by Tradition), and we Catholics recite it together at every Mass.

 

[Lisa_N]

digitonomy:

He’s stated his motives. If you believe them to be false, so be it.

I do. Right now he’s blathering about President Bush’s inauguration and how the word God is mentioned. He is ‘offended’ by that. Well golly I bet if he forum shops, he can find a judge who can divine a Constitutional right never to be offended. THey did find that “right to privacy” somewhere betweeen the lines. I firmly believe the man is an egotistical blowhard who is enjoying the attention. He is hostile to religion and first used his own daughter to further his agenda. Now he’s rounded up some more people (who are anonymous!) to take his sword into battle. How pathetic.

digitonomy:

The constitutional question remains.In the same way the Ohio motto respects an establishment of religion.

Maybe it doesn’t. If the court so rules, good - one more issue settled.

The Ohio case is the opinion of a particular court I take it? Or was it simply a threat that the state capitulated on like the recent case of the removal of a tiny cross for the City of Los Angeles’ seal. Also “with God all things are possible” is a lot more of a statement than ‘under God.’

I think the courts will shake this out at some point. I hope that we have more strict constitutionalists on the bench at that point.

Lisa N

 

[Digitonomy]

digitonomy:

In the same way the Ohio motto respects an establishment of religion.

Maybe it doesn’t. If the court so rules, good - one more issue settled.

Update: In reviewing the Ohio motto case the past few minutes, I learned something I was unaware of: Ohio’s use of the motto “With God, all things are possible” was upheld in an appeals court in 2001, and the case was not appealed to SCOTUS. Based on that, I think the odds are slightly better than even that the Supreme Court will OK the “under God” addition to the pledge, should they review it at some point. Which I hope they do.

 

[Digitonomy]

Brad:

Has the constitution been ammended since 1954 or did the politicians just trample over the constitution when “under God” was added?

I assume we’ll get the lower court’s decision on this in the next year or so.

 

[Brad]

digitonomy:

I assume we’ll get the lower court’s decision on this in the next year or so.

I’m not holding my breath - especially if it ends up going through San Francisco’s appellate court, considering they base their decisions on their subjective view of the world rather than original intent.

 

[Lisa_N]

Brad:

I’m not holding my breath - especially if it ends up going through San Francisco’s appellate court, considering they base their decisions on their subjective view of the world rather than original intent.

Subjective is too nice Brad. Perverted is more like it. I really detest the 9th Circuit. And I LIVE here! UGH!

Lisa N

 

[Drew98]

Exporter:

Drew98, the manner in which you have posted on the thread is consistant with you being AN ATHIEST.

You didn’t need to analyze my posts to figure that out - you could have just looked at my profile.

Exporter:

It does seem strange that an Atheist would have sought out a Catholic Forum.

And I find it strange that you find it strange. I like to expose myself to other perspectives and see how those who disagree with me react to my reasoning. To throw my ideas to the wolves and see how well they survive. It’s one way of protecting myself from error. Perhaps you think it strange because you’re so convinced you have the truth that considering alternate viewpoints can only lead you away from the truth.

Exporter:

Drew98, look at the pyramid on a $1.00 bill. Look at the apex. You see an eye don’t you. Do you know the origin and derivation of that eye on the $1.00 bill?

I don’t know anything about the eye. You’ll have to bring me up to speed on this if you want to discuss further.

 

[gilliam]

The Great Seal of the US is on the one dollar bill.

*The reverse, sometimes referred to as the spiritual side of the seal, contains the 13-step pyramid with the year 1776 in Roman numerals on the base. At the summit of the pyramid is the Eye of Providence in a triangle surrounded by a Glory (rays of light) and above it appears the motto **Annuit Coeptis (Providence has Favored Our Undertakings). Along the lower circumference of the design appear the words Novus Ordo Seclorum, heralding the beginning of the new American era in 1776.
*
Ref: the booklet in PDF format from the U.S. Department of State.

 

[thirsty4uolord]

Gosh I really thought my answer was best.
Guess I’ll have to work on my prayers.

thirsty4uolord:

Hello And Bless All

Why all the anger with this obvious servant for the Devil.
Be careful not to let his foolish work for Satan cause evil and anger in our hearts. Get behind us Satan!!!
However I have a suggestion . We should file a class action law suit (all Christians) against this slave of Satan for the emotional and mental distress he has caused all peoples of good faith, Imagine that! However has one whom wishes to serve my lord suing isn’t in my Spirtuallity.I know that on the other hand that success is the greatest revenge because your enemies can die from everything under the sun but they can not however live with your success.
So for me only one thing left to do is pray for this man and pray that the lord will come into his heart. By doing this I can serve my lord and give the Devil a little boot in the behind !!!

 

[theTaxCollector]

digitonomy:

…The Declaration doesn’t have the force of law…

While this may be true, it is the obvious foundation of the United Stated of America. It gives the exact reasons the founders use for the establishment of a new country. One of these reasons is that the state must appeal to a Higher Authority. The Declaration is carefully worded to ensure that its readers know that the type of change the founders were attempting was not to be taken lightly.

However, they sincerely held the belief that the state of Great Britain had usurped the rights given to them by that Higher Authority. As a country, if we fail to recoginze that there is a Higher Authority, we are negating the basic premise of our right to be a nation.

It is completely hypocritical, regardless of some perceived “rights” that are found in the Constitution.