Supreme Court rules to keep "under god" in the pledge

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by lsugrad00, Jun 14, 2004.

  1. Bengal B

    Bengal B Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2002
    Messages:
    47,986
    Likes Received:
    22,994
    If #4 isn't a basis for laws then why can't I buy a bottle of whiskey on Sundays in East Baton Rouge Parish? You can buy beer but not before noon and stores can't sell hard liquor or wine all day Sunday but restaurants can sell liquor and wine by the drink.
     
  2. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    no kidding, this infuriates me on a regular basis. i am very serious, i get really really mad about this. damnit why are you religious freaks keeping me from buying what i want when i want? what the hell is the problem?
     
  3. M.O.M

    M.O.M Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    Messages:
    264
    Likes Received:
    2
    The USSC shouldn't have even heard this case.
    Big picture, this further bastardizes the purpose and reason for the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment.
    And, the 14th Amendment, is the tool the secular religious fanatics have used to construct the *wall* around state and local authorities not present in the Constitution until the 1960's.
    In case one is ignorant of history, the purpose of the 14th Amendment had absolutely nothing to do with a rampant fear of schoolkids saying a prayer in state and local schools throughout the country.
    Rather, it had everything to do with the fact that prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendement, black folks were slaves and were truly treated as second-class citizens strictly on the basis of race. They were not provided equal protection, they were not provided due process. It had nothing to do with state and local religious efforts.
    As an aside, its a further bastardization of the 14th Amendment that was meant to *help* black Americans as a tool to *hurt* them in an attempt to strike down state sponsored racial preference efforts.
    For those slow of mind, the Constitutions says that "Congress shall not establish..", nothing is said of state and local authorities.
    Therefore, for the USSC to even get to the issue of state and locals and religious issues, they must stretch the true meaning of the 14th Amendment to ridiculous lengths.
     
  4. LOTTERY

    LOTTERY Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    good post, i never thought of that. B/C of media always assumed the establishment clause applied to all forms of government.
     
  5. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    if you want to take a states rights angle, then all schools that say the pledge should be denied any federal money.
     
  6. G_MAN113

    G_MAN113 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,386
    Likes Received:
    19
    Yeah, but the federal money all has "In God We Trust" printed on it.
     
  7. lsugrad00

    lsugrad00 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2003
    Messages:
    1,868
    Likes Received:
    141
    Wow I didn't know that blue laws were federal. :dis: :dis: :dis:
     
  8. ChineseBandit

    ChineseBandit Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Messages:
    760
    Likes Received:
    12
    Surely this trivializes the idea of oppression.

    Tell your daughter that most people in the US believe in God and whatever she believes she will have to deal with this belief being expressed quite often. The purpose of the establishment clause was to prohibit an official state religion. The kind of oppression the pilgrims put up with in their native lands prevented them from obtaining the status of full citizens entirely due to their nonconformity to the official religion of the state. "Monotheism" is not a denomination that can logically be codified into an official state religion. It's far too broad a concept and no one, including the little girl in question, is actually forced to say these lines anyway. No governmental penalty will come if she refuses, which is entirely the point.

    I'm agnostic and I couldn't care less about "under God."
     
  9. col reb

    col reb Founding Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2003
    Messages:
    2,934
    Likes Received:
    387
    You are the one that will be held accountable for her. You can tell her that you and her mother created her. Make up all you want to. But if I lived in your fantasy world, I would tell her to "party on." Why should you care if she has illigitimate child once a year? Your government will provide. Granddaddy is not responsible. If my child were male, I would tell him to take what he wanted. (If he were man enough) If your wife looked good to me, I would just kick your butt, even if it meant death to you, and take her for my own. When I tired of her, I would kill her and pick out another "looker." That way, the strong would prevail. And why do you keep using the lower case "i"? A subconscience deferrial to the "GREAT, I AM?" STAND TALL MIKE 69
     
  10. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    you talk to me like i am some sort of liberal when in reality i am probably more fiscally conservative than anyone on this board. i dont want the government to provide. i want them to do almost nothing. i am more in favor of small government than anyone. i am not some sort of "do what you feel, let the gov't provide" liberal.

    i find it funny that you say i am in the fantasy world, and you are the one worshipping the holy ghost. i dont even believe in ghosts or any superstitions or fantasies.
     

Share This Page