Posted on 06/16/2004 3:34:01 AM PDT by Huber
Edited on 06/16/2004 3:39:30 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
No he isn't.
Huntington advocates our Christian beliefs and a system of government that is based on them as core to our civilization. According to Huntington "Unbelievers ... do not have the right to impose their atheism on all those Americans whose beliefs now and historically have defined America as a religious nation."
Psalm 14:1.
I have friends who are atheists that I consider to be highly decent and honorable people, and I'm glad to consider them my friends. I think most atheists know well that they're in the minority and are actually pretty content to live and let live. The ones that I have a problem with are those who despise Christians, and they also usually seem to be the same ones who hate America and want to take her down from within. Michael Newdow is a classic example of one of these types.
There is a valuable lesson to all Americans in the pledge. It is one of humility. We may be a great nation, but only as long as we remember that we are so by God's grace.
PS: It appears that a number of posters are entirely misinterpreting Huntington's piece based on it's title. Huntington's point is that the very reasons that Nudow cites as offensive to him are important reasons why we do need to keep under God in the pledge.
PPS: This is a good place to remind everyone, by the way, that there is, of course, no comma before "under God"!
You nailed it!
I don't believe in atheists.
They are merely a social construct.
Newdow and other sour-grapes-style activist atheists are dorks. It's basic common sense that America remains largely a Christian country with most people believing in God. To waste so much time in their lives fretting and whining about this is absurd. No literate, sane, intelligent, adult American is in any way suffering under a coercive menace by Christian theocrats in modern America. The Constitution does not mandate protecting atheists from having to observe the open display of religious symbols or from hearing religious discourse. Merely by mentioning the word "God" does not in any way subject someone to an "establishment of religion" (a government church, membership in which would be necessary for civic rights such as voting, property ownership, or freedom from punitive taxes, etc.).
What a dork. Pathetic.
Actually his kids have a lost look to them.
On Dennis Miller's show last night, this clown made a statement to the effect that the Constitution guarantees people the right not to be offended. He also stated that his daughter was "proud of her dad" because of his efforts. The audience was a little rowdy and I expected to hear someone shout, "LIAR!" -- but nobody did. She wasn't proud of him; he made her school life a living hell.
What does feeling like an outsider have to do with anything? I've been an "outsider" many times in my life, but I don't see that as a justification for bringing in the courts and legislature. Feh. Feelings on the matter are irrelevant. And it isn't like anyone is making him say the pledge of allegiance every day at gunpoint.
"Morality" is a cute name for Game Theory. "Internalizing Christianity" has exactly nothing to do with the moral codes of most atheists who claim to have one.
In that sense, one could say that they are using mathematics as their absolute authority. Christian morals just happen to coincide with the mathematics more often than not. Which isn't particularly surprising since moral action maximizes utility for a group of individuals. Societies with inferior moral systems (i.e. diverge too far from the mathematical optimums) cannot compete with societies that have superior moral systems over the long run.
Merely by mentioning the word "God" does not in any way subject someone to an "establishment of religion" (a government church, membership in which would be necessary for civic rights such as voting, property ownership, or freedom from punitive taxes, etc.).
What a dork. Pathetic.
-48-
______________________________________
See post # 51.. -- Justice Thomas makes that same point about the word 'God' in the pledge.
He even agrees that its 'pathetic', but then goes on to say the pledge is nevertheless unconstitutional.
-- Smart fella, Thomas..
If the president merely were to say, "I believe in God. Jesus Christ is my personal savior and I believe that America should be guided by Christian values..." the mere statement does not create an "establishment of religion." Atheists and non-Christians might not like it. They might disagree strongly with the president or even be offended. But their "rights" have not been violated in terms of anything having to do with the "establishment" clause. Likewise, if a kid stands up in class and says the same thing, there is no "establishment" of religion created. Religious speech and religious displays which have no legal or legislatively binding aspect are not violations of some mythical "Separation of Church & State" principle.
The secular humanist totalitarianism of modern America liberals is not authorized by the U.S. Constitution. They have made this up in their own delusional fantasies, fears, and bigotry. They waste their time by dedicating their lives to such phobic reactions and anti-Christian hatred. It's absurd. And on an intellectual level it represents a woeful misunderstanding of what America is about.
Merely by mentioning the word "God" does not in any way subject someone to an "establishment of religion"
See post # 51.. -- Justice Thomas makes that same point about the word 'God' in the pledge.
He even agrees that its 'pathetic', --- but then goes on to say the pledge is nevertheless unconstitutional.
-- Smart fella, Thomas..
There is a lot of confusion about this. If the president merely were to say, "I believe in God. Jesus Christ is my personal savior and I believe that America should be guided by Christian values..." the mere statement does not create an "establishment of religion." Atheists and non-Christians might not like it. They might disagree strongly with the president or even be offended. But their "rights" have not been violated in terms of anything having to do with the "establishment" clause. Likewise, if a kid stands up in class and says the same thing, there is no "establishment" of religion created. Religious speech and religious displays which have no legal or legislatively binding aspect are not violations of some mythical "Separation of Church & State" principle.
True enough, but as Justice Thomas admits, requiring a child to acknowledge a 'God', is coercive, --- thus unconstitutional.
The secular humanist totalitarianism of modern America liberals is not authorized by the U.S. Constitution.
Nor is the insistence of a moral majority on a pledge to 'God'.
They have made this up in their own delusional fantasies, fears, and bigotry.
As do those who over-zealously oppose them. -- The whole issue is 'pathetic', in that sense, as you noted, & as Thomas and I agree.
They waste their time by dedicating their lives to such phobic reactions and anti-Christian hatred. It's absurd. And on an intellectual level it represents a woeful misunderstanding of what America is about.
Yep, -- its a howling absurdity..
>>>>Newdow is a fool...
>>Matthew 5:22?
No, Psalms 14:1...
The only problem with your argument is that the courts have already ruled that no one can ever be forced to recite the pledge.
Justice Thomas on Elk Grove v Newdow
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1154185/posts
Justice Thomas addresses that problem in his comments:
"-- In its current form, reciting the Pledge entails pledging allegiance to "the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God.".
--- pledging allegiance is "to declare a belief " that now includes that this is "one Nation under God."
It is difficult to see how this does not entail an affirmation that God exists.
Whether or not we classify affirming the existence of God as a "formal religious exercise" akin to prayer, it must present the same or similar constitutional problems.
To be sure, such an affirmation is not a prayer, and I admit that this might be a significant distinction. But the Court has squarely held that the government cannot require a person to "declare his belief in God."
("We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion' (rejecting attempt to distinguish worship from other forms of religious speech).
And the Court has said, in my view questionably, that the Establishment Clause "prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief."
I conclude that, as a matter of our precedent, the Pledge policy is unconstitutional.
Justice Thomas
No he doesn't. The fact that the pledge is strictly voluntary, so no one is forced to affirm the existence of God, renders Thomas' argument moot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.