One Nation Under God! Amen.Follow

I agree with you Smash religion should not be brought into the classroom.

My point is this guy is a rabid anti-religious zeleot. He could give *** all about whether his brat makes her own decision. He wants to impose his own views on her and is damned if she has anyone give her an opposing view. I don't have a problem with religion per say I have a problem with the d1ck heads who push it on me. These same d1ck heads exist in the anti camp as well and he is one of them.

I have a problem with sunday school, hell with orginized religion but what are going to tell a guy who is convinced his kid will burn for all eternity if he doesn't send them? This nut job can't claim everlasting burning fire.

True. He's still a wack job. Give to charity = good. Kill = bad. Thats instilling morals. Hate religion because... instills hate.

By the way I read up on the guy when this first came out however long ago and is why I don't like him.

Old, tired argument. Passing a law that incorperates the word "God" into the Pledge of Allegience is passing a law that effects the practicing of any religion not tied to a single god. Shinto, or Hinuism for example

It's been tested doezens of times, there's no confusion over the framer's intent of the wording. Only semantic argument by right wing christian groups trying to revise the meaning of the Bill of Rights.

Git, people raise their children to hate what they hate, whether it's by subtlety or overt preaching. It's the way things are.

It's up to the child to decide what she'll believe.

As for me, I believe in God. I still don't think it has a place in our pledge. If we continue doing things the way we've always done them, using the excuse "Well, it's tradition," we'd still have quite a few practices running rampant in society that we scorn today.

As for this, this is my big question :

Can someone explain to me what the hell an atheist minister is ?

Yeah, I'm sure. If you want to argue Constitutional law with me, now's the time.

Here's how I like to debate. State an argument, why you belive it falid and what it's based on. Then I'll agree or disagree and do the same with a counterargument.

Whenever you're ready.

It's such a pointless game of tug of war.

Athiests won't stop ******** until God is reduced to a text-book, and christians won't be happy until...... actually, can christians Be happy and still go to heaven?

personaly i could careless if god is brought up. just don't complain when my kid doesn't get up to recite it.

So if we take it off our money, Smash, should we take it out of our historical documents? Maybe light them on fire along with all the books and albums we don't like? Make a big pile and have a good old **** book/album/historical document/money burning?

This nonsensical desire to scrub the word God out of existence, yet I heard you say "Oh, God!" at least a dozen times during our visit, invoking his name whenever you felt the need to make a point. Rather strange, don't you think?

Totem

Way to miss the point, Totem.

There's a difference between historical documents with no legal standing (i.e. Declaration of Independence) and a Government-sanctioned endorsement of a particular religion.

And who cares what the hell Smash says personally? It doesn't have any bearing on the argument. I could be the world's most devout Christian and still see that it's wrong for the government to endorse it.

Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, where he was trying to make it clear that the governement was not going to establish a national religion when rumor started that the Congregationalists where going to become the "National Religion". This is where the original statement of a seperation of Church and State started.



Jefferson stated it clearly in the letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Not that we should remove any reference to God.

Let's start at the truth and work our way from there. The "atheists" and some in the judicial system are taking the same approach as other special interest groups and using a belief that the common American is not going to truly know the intent or origin of the "Seperation of Church and State" and thus manipulate the situation to their favor.

The technicality that was established in my opinion is a slap in the face to those trying to change the constitution. Go back and try it again, this time don't use an 8 year old as the reason.