Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 9 of 23

Thread: Supreme Court rules in favor of God

  1. #1
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,935

    Default Supreme Court rules in favor of God

    MR Newdom had filed a lawsuit claiming that "In God We Trust" and "Under God" were unconstitutional. The US 9th circuit court of appeals a very liberal court had a different view on it. This decision coming from that court surprises me considering they sided with Newdom on students saying the pledge in schools. A Bush appointed judge said that the pledge is meant to unite us all. The court ruled that the sayings do not violate separation of Church and State.

    Of course I like this decision and I thought it was about time that this anti God movement met a road block. I understand some people dont want God to be anywhere but I believe they are taking it too far, this might prove that point.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Supreme Court rules in favor of God

    So you are saying that, in order to say the pledge of alliegence to my country, I must give recognition to a god that I do not believe in? I am not anti-god. I just don't want your god, or any other, forced down my throat. That is what this relatively late (circa 1954?) change in the pledge does.
    The "In God We Trust" motto grates on me, but it is something that I can, for the most part, ignore. "One nation, under God" is forced on me every time I say the pledge.

    R.I.P. Cyrano and Roxanne.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Supreme Court rules in favor of God

    Quote Originally Posted by M Richardson View Post
    So you are saying that, in order to say the pledge of alliegence to my country, I must give recognition to a god that I do not believe in? I am not anti-god. I just don't want your god, or any other, forced down my throat. That is what this relatively late (circa 1954?) change in the pledge does.
    The "In God We Trust" motto grates on me, but it is something that I can, for the most part, ignore. "One nation, under God" is forced on me every time I say the pledge.
    You have a point but then again is anyone forcing you to say the pledge?

  4. #4

    Default Re: Supreme Court rules in favor of God

    Quote Originally Posted by M Richardson View Post
    So you are saying that, in order to say the pledge of alliegence to my country, I must give recognition to a god that I do not believe in? I am not anti-god. I just don't want your god, or any other, forced down my throat. That is what this relatively late (circa 1954?) change in the pledge does.
    The "In God We Trust" motto grates on me, but it is something that I can, for the most part, ignore. "One nation, under God" is forced on me every time I say the pledge.
    So you are saying that every time you look at or use money, you are able to ignore "In God We Trust", but every time you are forced to say the pledge you can't ignore it. Hmmm....

    How many times per day do you look at or use money? How many times per day or per year are you forced to say the Pledge of Alliegence?

  5. #5

    Default Re: Supreme Court rules in favor of God

    Quote Originally Posted by Chance174 View Post
    You have a point but then again is anyone forcing you to say the pledge?
    I volunteered for the Army, and volunteered for Vietnam, and volunteered to stay in Vietnam for an extra tour. Who has the right to deny me the saying of the pledge?
    As far as the coinage - I don't spend a lot of time reading the inscriptions on the money (I usually don't have it long enough to read!) And that is a passive activity. I know the inscription is there. I don't like it. But I don't have to declare that motto. The pledge is different to me. I am making an affermation - and the addition of the phrase "under God" makes it an untrue statement.
    When I was teaching I said the pledge every single school day. I would just not say the "under God" part - I would say the pledge up to that point, be silent for that phrase, and then resume. Some of my students would question me. Without getting into the particulars, I would just tell them that I preferred it the way I had learned it - without.

    R.I.P. Cyrano and Roxanne.

  6. #6
    Ancient Arachnid Spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    5,424

    Default Re: Supreme Court rules in favor of God

    As one might expect, I agree with M Richardson and couldn't express it any better. I am not anti-God and resent the label (realizing that UGLY probably wouldn't include me). I just don't believe that God belongs everywhere that people want to put Him. There is a place for everything and God does not belong in a government which claims to represent every individual.
    Atrophy: what you get when you win atournament.

  7. #7
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,935

    Default Re: Supreme Court rules in favor of God

    I believe that the explanation by the justice saying the pledge is an affirmation of our wide spreading beliefs. At the time "under God" was added the majority of people probably wanted it and enjoyed it. People like Newbon ( I do not include Spider or Richardson here) want to take up everything. At some point there voice becomes null and numb and even the court probably does not see the validity if there is any in the argument. I served in the military not in war but I volunteered as a believer I enjoy the fact the pledge is the way it is and I say Amen after every time I say it. I could do that without God being in the pledge. The pledge does not indicate what God just God. I know that some are offended but we cant please all the people all the time.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Supreme Court rules in favor of God

    The phrase "under God" was added in the early 50's during the cold war. It was to emphasize the difference between the United States and "godless communism". If you didn't want it, or enjoy it, you were obviously a godless communist. One more example of the isolation of those who do not profess Christianity.
    People like Newbon don't want to take away everything from Christians. They just don't want the government pushing the religion down our throats. How do you suppose it feels to be non-Christian and have a huge, lighted cross sited on public land on a hill dominating the city you live in? What does that say to non-Christians that live in that city? Those "non-denominational" prayers they had in school didn't reflect the mother-goddess, or Mithrias, or Shinto ancestors, etc. They were Christian, with Jesus taken out.
    I have to disagree with you on this one, Ugly. It is the Christians who want to "take everything away". It is the Christians who demand that the symbols of their religion be dominantly placed in public buildings and on public land, it is the Christians who, given the opportunity, would grind all other religious beliefs into obscurity. Not the atheist. Atheists don't proselytize.

    R.I.P. Cyrano and Roxanne.

  9. #9
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,935

    Default Re: Supreme Court rules in favor of God

    We are certainly in a transition period now. In the 50's I would venture to say that the vast majority of people identified themselves as religious, most likely Christian. I am sure we have seen a decline since then and now the Atheist wants to have his way. I agree with the separation of Church and state but we cant forget our heritage and why we are here. Would you have God taken out of the declaration of independence?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •