Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Pledge' Mom: My Daughter Is No Atheist
Fox News ^ | Monday, July 15, 2002 | Fox News

Posted on 07/15/2002 7:40:49 AM PDT by fortress

Edited on 04/22/2004 12:34:09 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

NEW YORK

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: baseless; newdow; pledge
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-116 last
To: BartMar
brought up by the weak-minded

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

101 posted on 07/20/2002 7:34:27 AM PDT by Isadora Duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

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

Since when is being truthful insulting?
102 posted on 07/20/2002 6:39:19 PM PDT by BartMar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
**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?

103 posted on 07/21/2002 6:08:46 PM PDT by homeschool mama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: BartMar
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.

104 posted on 07/21/2002 8:33:15 PM PDT by Isadora Duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Isadora Duncan
"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.
105 posted on 07/22/2002 7:28:28 PM PDT by BartMar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: BartMar
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.

106 posted on 07/23/2002 8:06:11 AM PDT by Isadora Duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: BartMar
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.

107 posted on 07/23/2002 8:28:53 AM PDT by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Dales
Okay, I screwed that up. I should have asked for a show in the Declaration of Christianity's god. Ain't there.
108 posted on 07/23/2002 7:37:37 PM PDT by BartMar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Isadora Duncan
"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.



109 posted on 07/23/2002 7:41:13 PM PDT by BartMar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: BartMar
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.

110 posted on 07/23/2002 7:47:00 PM PDT by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Dales
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.
111 posted on 09/21/2002 11:10:44 AM PDT by Hard_Pill_To_Swallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: BartMar; Isadora Duncan
See post #111. I meant to address it to you good folks as well.
112 posted on 09/21/2002 11:13:11 AM PDT by Hard_Pill_To_Swallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: BartMar

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


113 posted on 04/20/2009 5:40:46 AM PDT by Huck ("He that lives on hope will die fasting"- Ben Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanac)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Huck

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


114 posted on 04/20/2009 6:42:15 PM PDT by BartMar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: BartMar

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.


115 posted on 04/21/2009 5:02:23 AM PDT by Huck ("He that lives on hope will die fasting"- Ben Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanac)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: BartMar
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?
116 posted on 04/21/2009 5:45:11 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-116 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson