'Pledge' Mom: My Daughter Is No Atheist

Fox News ^ | Monday, July 15, 2002 | Fox News

[Isadora Duncan]

brought up by the weak-minded

Is that how you handle everything in your life? Being insulting? I pity you.

[BartMar]

"Is that how you handle everything in your life? Being insulting? I pity you."

Since when is being truthful insulting?

[homeschool mama]

**Holy cat, how many times did Banning say "um"? That frequency must be up there with "a," "an" and "the" in her vocabulary.**

Sandy was quite nervous speaking in such a setting. Give her a break, k?

[Isadora Duncan]

Someone disagreeing with your interpretation of the Constitution does not make them weak minded nor does it make your truth anymore the truth than theirs. We've learned throughout the country's history that one man's truth is another man's misinterpretation. Supreme Court Justices' Constitutional exegesis throughout its conception are a prime example. The 21st Amendment alone indicates a reversal of an interpretation. Your rendering does not make it a correct reading.

Many learned people see the "Establishment" cause as simply that: the country may not ESTABLISH a religion, i.e., the Church of America, and require people to attend. The language of the Constitution itself is not that esoteric. Some have only chosen to make it so.

[BartMar]

"Someone disagreeing with your interpretation of the Constitution does not make them weak minded"

You weren't disagreeing with my interpretation of the Constitution, you were saying that the use of "Lord" in the date constituted mentioning god in the Constitution.

"The 21st Amendment alone indicates a reversal of an interpretation."

LOL The 21st Amendment isn't a reversal of an interpretation; it is a reversal of an amendment.

"Your rendering does not make it a correct reading."

I'd bet money I'm right.

[Isadora Duncan]

And how do you think the original amendment came about? By someone interpreting the Constitution to read a particular way.

And you'd lose.

And this is enough of that. You see it your way, I think you're wrong, as do millions of other people. You have your opinion and you're entitled to it. It definitely does not make you right, nor does it make me wrong.

It's time to end this exchange and move on. Right will always prevail. Arguing about it will accomplish nothing. I'm done.

[Dales]

BTW, try and find the word "god" in the Declaration of Independence.

OK. Let's.

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Wow, I found it in the very first sentence! You don't read very well, apparently. And look at all these other references to God using other words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And then later

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions

and

And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

[BartMar]

Okay, I screwed that up. I should have asked for a show in the Declaration of Christianity's god. Ain't there.

[BartMar]

"And how do you think the original amendment came about? By someone interpreting the Constitution to read a particular way."

No, Dummy, the purpose of specific amendments are not generated by how someone interprets the Constitution.

"And you'd lose."

Nope.

"Right will always prevail."

Thank goodness it will prevail over the Christian Taliban.

[Dales]

Please show where the God mentioned in the pledge is a different God than the one mentioned in the Declaration. Ain't there.

Your point was blown to hell long ago.

Anyone who spent more than a half an hour reading the writings of the various men involved in the founding of our country could not even begin to attempt to make a serious argument that they wanted religion out of government.

Hell, at the time of the adoption of the US Constitution, most states HAD official state religions. The US Congress, by the first amendment, was forbidden from doing anything to interfere with that.

[Hard_Pill_To_Swallow]

The Pledge of Allegiance is our sacred oath of citizenship. You do not have to believe in God to be a U.S. citizen. If an atheist makes this oath to a "nation under God", he is not making a true statement of belief. As long as atheists are allowed to be citizens of this country, they should not be required, in stating the official Pledge authorized by our government, to perjure themselves. The 9th Circuit decision does not make the Pledge itself unconstitutional. It simply reverts the Pledge back to the pre-1954 version, without those additional words.

[Hard_Pill_To_Swallow]

See post #111. I meant to address it to you good folks as well.

[Huck]

http://wilstar.com/holidays/wash_thanks.html

[BartMar]

Nice document signed by a Deist written in a Deist tone of voice.

[Huck]

It’s a nice document that totally demolishes your argument that “The Founding Fathers wanted religon out of our government. Legislating “under god” into the oath puts religion into our government.” Washington, clearly, was a founding father, and the Thanksgiving document is far more overtly religious than the “under God” you complain so much about. Troll.

[rollo tomasi]

You "separatist" make me laugh. Founders created federalism which tilted power to the States (Opposite of what is happening today).

“The whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their justice and the state constitutions.” Joseph Story, appointed by that "deist" who actually knows a lot about the intent of the US Constitution, James Madison, WHO WAS WELL AWARE OF STORY'S BELIEFS BEFORE APPOINTING HIM TO THE USSC (Funny thing, Story had a Federalist bent in some ways, which is why he probably was not Madison's first choice, but a choice none-the-less)

Some States still had official State Churches long after the Constitution was ratified. Gee, you "libertarians" sure have a tyrannical, strong central Federal government bent in your argument, I mean come on, you sure as hell don't follow the ideas of Franklin, Madison (Democrat-Republican), Jefferson (Democrat-Republican), etc... who PUBLICALLY had no problem with certain States and their religious "fever".

Funny, I do not remember reading anything about Thomas Jefferson sending in the army in order to stop Massachusetts from perpetuating the Congregational Church as their State Church and require $$$ from individual towns going towards "institutions of public worship of *gasp* God... *gasp*".

I mean how the hell did God get into the Constitution of State governments. "I demand an oligarchy to put a stop to that." That is what you strong central types want, right, a Federal tyrannical government that treats the 10th Amendment like toilet paper? Show the quotes from those private letters, after all actions of our Founding "Deists" don't mean squat, right?