"Under God"

[strandinthewind]

From the NY Times (www.nytimes.com)

Atheist Presents Case for Taking God From Pledge
By LINDA GREENHOUSE

Published: March 25, 2004

WASHINGTON, March 24 — Michael A. Newdow stood before the justices of the Supreme Court on Wednesday, pointed to one of the courtroom's two American flags and declared: "I am an atheist. I don't believe in God."

With passion and precision, he then proceeded to argue his own case for why the daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in his daughter's public school classroom violates the Constitution as long as the pledge contains the words "under God."

Dr. Newdow, a nonpracticing lawyer who makes his living as an emergency room doctor, may not win his case. In fact, justices across the ideological spectrum appeared to be searching for reasons he should lose, either on jurisdictional grounds or on the merits. But no one who managed to get a seat in the courtroom is likely ever to forget his spell-binding performance.

That includes the justices, whom Dr. Newdow engaged in repartee that, while never disrespectful, bore a closer resemblance to dinner-table one-upmanship than to formal courtroom discourse. For example, when Dr. Newdow described "under God" as a divisive addition to the pledge, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist asked him what the vote in Congress had been 50 years ago when the phrase was inserted.

The vote was unanimous, Dr. Newdow said.

"Well, that doesn't sound divisive," the chief justice observed.

Dr. Newdow shot back, "That's only because no atheist can get elected to public office."

The courtroom audience broke into applause, an exceedingly rare event that left the chief justice temporarily nonplussed. He appeared to collect himself for a moment, and then sternly warned the audience that the courtroom would be cleared "if there's any more clapping."

Earlier, Dr. Newdow responded to Justice Stephen G. Breyer's suggestion that "under God" had acquired such a broad meaning and "civic context" that "it's meant to include virtually everybody, and the few whom it doesn't include don't have to take the pledge."

"I don't think that I can include `under God' to mean `no God,' " Dr. Newdow replied. "I deny the existence of God." He added, "Government needs to stay out of this business altogether."

The current Pledge of Allegiance was defended by Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson and by Terence J. Cassidy, the lawyer for the Elk Grove school district in California where Dr. Newdow's daughter attends elementary school.

Both lawyers were appealing a decision won by Dr. Newdow in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco. That court ruled last year that the addition of "under God" turned the pledge into a "profession of religious belief" and made it constitutionally unsuitable for daily recitation in the public schools. Congress added the phrase at the height of the cold war in an effort to distinguish the American system from "Godless Communism."

One justice, Antonin Scalia, was sharply critical of the appeals court's ruling in a speech he gave before the case reached the Supreme Court. As a result, Dr. Newdow asked Justice Scalia to recuse himself, and the justice complied, without comment, when the court accepted the case in October. His absence raises the possibility of a 4-to-4 tie, which would automatically affirm the Ninth Circuit's ruling without setting a binding precedent elsewhere.

Solicitor General Olson told the justices that the appeals court misunderstood the pledge. The phrase "under God" did not place the pledge in the category of religious expressions that the Supreme Court has found unconstitutional, he said, for example "state-sponsored prayers, religious rituals or ceremonies, or the requirement of teaching or not teaching a religious doctrine."

Rather, Mr. Olson said, "under God" was one of various "civic and ceremonial acknowledgments of the indisputable historical fact that caused the framers of our Constitution and the signers of the Declaration of Independence to say that they had the right to revolt and start a new country." He said the framers believed "that God gave them the right to declare their independence when the king has not been living up to the unalienable principles given to them by God."

That description of the pledge appeared to gain little traction as the argument proceeded. "I do assume that if you read the pledge carefully, the reference to `under God' means something more than a mere description of how somebody else once thought," Justice David H. Souter said to Dr. Newdow moments later.

Justice Souter's question for Dr. Newdow was whether, even assuming that schoolchildren were being asked "as a technical matter" to make a personal religious affirmation, the recitation had become in practice "so tepid, so diluted, so far, let's say, from a compulsory prayer that in fact it should be, in effect, beneath the constitutional radar." Was it the case, Justice Souter asked, that by "the way we live and think and work in schools and in civic society in which the pledge is made, that whatever is distinctively religious as an affirmation is simply lost?"

Dr. Newdow replied: "That is a view that you may choose to take and the majority of Americans may choose to take. But it's not the view I take, and when I see the flag and I think of pledging allegiance, it's like I'm getting slapped in the face every time, bam, you know, `this is a nation under God, your religious belief system is wrong.' "

Before the justices can decide the merits of the case, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, No. 02-1624, they must resolve doubts about whether Dr. Newdow had standing to bring his lawsuit, either on his own behalf or on behalf of his daughter, who is now 9 years old. A court does not have jurisdiction in the absence of a plaintiff with standing.

Dr. Newdow was never married to the child's mother, Sandra Banning, who has custody and has told the court in a brief filed by Kenneth W. Starr, the former independent counsel, that she is giving her daughter a religious upbringing and wants her to say the pledge with "under God." The justices spent about half of the one-hour argument posing questions about standing and sparring with Dr. Newdow on the subject.

It remained unclear whether Dr. Newdow persuaded them, but he was obviously prepared for the argument. He told the justices, "I am saying I as her father have a right to know that when she goes into the public schools she's not going to be told every morning to stand up, put her hand over her heart, and say your father is wrong, which is what she's told every morning."

"Well, she does have a right not to participate," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor observed.

In 1943, 11 years before Congress added "under God," the court ruled that no one could be compelled to say the Pledge of Allegiance. That case was brought by Jehovah's Witnesses, whose religion forbids saluting the flag.

Dr. Newdow said opting out was a "huge imposition to put on a small child."

He continued: "Government is doing this to my child. They're putting her in a milieu where she says, `Hey, the government is saying that there is a God and my dad says no,' and that's an injury to me."

Dr. Newdow, 50, often spoke very rapidly but never appeared to lose his footing during the 30 minutes the court gave him. He managed a trick that far more experienced lawyers rarely accomplish: to bring the argument to a symmetrical and seemingly unhurried ending just as the red light comes on.

"There's a principle here," he told the justices in his closing moments, "and I'm hoping the court will uphold this principle so that we can finally go back and have every American want to stand up, face the flag, place their hand over their heart and pledge to one nation, indivisible, not divided by religion, with liberty and justice for all."

[strandinthewind]

This is such an interesting legal case to me. Mr. Newdow legally has the upper hand because the First Amendment of the Cost. prohibits the Fed. Govt. from establish a religion. Here, the phrase "under God" was added in the 1950's for that express purpose. It was added to assert that America is a society based on God, presumably the Christian God. Interestingly, the word "God" was purposefully left out of the Const. for that exact reason.

Then again, come on, is it really that horrible of a thing to say under God? Is that really establishing a religion?

My personal feeling is it should not be in the POA. I think it is a lie in that clearly we are not "one nation under God" and I think the Govt. should never really address religion in this way.

Fire Away!

[gldstwmn]

Some observations: A doctor/lawyer? You're kidding me with this stuff, right?:laugh: Did you see Catch Me If You Can?
So "Fat Tony" Scalia will recuse himself from this case but not from the one with his friend "Uncle Dick" Cheney vs. The Sierra Club?:mad:
Dr. Newdow has an excellent point. However, I think his chances of winning this are slim and none. Kudos to him for getting it heard, at least.

[strandinthewind]

I know - poor Scalia "Quack Quack" - what a jerk. Scalia has a history of this as set forth here http://ethics.surfwax.com/files/Legal_Ethics.html

I think the Court will uphold the phrase in the POA and note a child can opt out. This is consistent with the prior case mentioned where the Court found no one can be compelled to say the POA. So, the forcing of religion down the throats of the 30 million or so unwilling American Atheists will prevail. Again, this is just one more step in the attempt to make everyone in America think one way and that one way is the Christian way. Note: I think Christianity is great and that everyone should be one to experience that greatness. However, I fully recognize that my way is not the law and nor should it be in a free society that is not and was never intended to be a theocracy. Yet, the fundamentalist Christians will never see that distinction and will continue to spin this as an affront to God Himself.

Also and interestingly (at least to me :laugh: ) - I thought about getting my JD/MD but was unwilling to put in the seven to 10 or so years required :laugh: So, I spent three years and got my JD (Juris Doctorate).

[dissention]

It shouldn't be in the POA because of the simple fact that this country is not made up of people who all believe in God. And there is a seperation of church and state; the addition of "under God" in the fifties was absurd, IMO.

Scalia? Ugh. He needs to go away.

[darklinensuit]

I believe in G-d but support the doctor 100%. No child should have to be different every day because of religion or lack thereof. Shame on any school that would expect a little kid to do that.
When I taught elementary we skipped the Pledges, including the one to the TX flag. (I'm not making this up.) I'm all for promoting good citizenship and respect for the flag, but WTF does this particular practice add to a child's character and education? I said the Pledge as a child, and I can't say that it did more for me than a current events lesson would have, for example. People want to pay me to make kids stand at attention to recite the same words every day? Easy money, but I'll pass.

- Jake

[estranged4life]

being a non-religious person, the words "Under God" do not offend me...

I think if they are alterate the pledge, the words "Under God" should be replaced with the words "In Greed We Lust".

As for the line "With liberty & justice for all...", <i><b>Yeah...right</b></i> that seems to apply only if you are wealthy.

Brian j.

[dissention]

Originally posted by estranged4life
I think if they are alterate the pledge, the words "Under God" should be replaced with the words "In Greed We Lust".

As for the line "With liberty & justice for all...", <i><b>Yeah...right</b></i> that seems to apply only if you are wealthy.

Brian j.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I knew there was a reason I liked you, Brian.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[ryan8472]

At my school, they have someone recite the pledge over the intercom, and we are forced to stand and say it with the guy. Well, we arent forced to recite it, but the teachers always get mad if you don't. Now I consider myself to be fairly patriotic, but I don't feel that we should have to say this if we don't want to. I do agree that the 'under god' part is unneccesary though.

[GardenStateGirlie]

When I went to high school, we said the pledge every morning. There was one particular kid I graduated with that was raised as a Jehovah. Whenever we had any activities related to holidays or things of that nature, he would not participate...same thing goes for soluting the flag. He would stand there with his head bowed down and his arms behind his back and that was fine for him and his family as well. All the while, he was respectful. So, IMO, it can be done in a tactful manner. She can still rise for the pledge but it doesn't mean she has to say it. She and her father may not believe in God but I would hope they believe in our country or i'd assume they'd be living elsewhere. JMO.

As far as having added that to the pledge in the 50s, there has always been a fine line between seperation of church and state which IMO, is ALWAYS towed and skewed.

[dissention]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
When I went to high school, we said the pledge every morning. There was one particular kid I graduated with that was raised as a Jehovah. Whenever we had any activities related to holidays or things of that nature, he would not participate...same thing goes for soluting the flag. He would stand there with his head bowed down and his arms behind his back and that was fine for him and his family as well. All the while, he was respectful. So, IMO, it can be done in a tactful manner. She can still rise for the pledge but it doesn't mean she has to say it. She and her father may not believe in God but I would hope they believe in our country or i'd assume they'd be living elsewhere. JMO.

As far as having added that to the pledge in the 50s, there has always been a fine line between seperation of church and state which IMO, is ALWAYS towed and skewed.

Yeah, but the funny thing is that in public schools, you're not allowed to put up pictures of the baby Jesus or any kind of religious symbol around Christmastime, yet it's okay to salute a flag and it's nation "under God."

It smacks of hypocrisy, negates common sense, and neither should be allowed.

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by dissention
It smacks of hypocrisy, negates common sense, and neither should be allowed.

I never said that it didn't. However, what i'm saying is this: if we have to cater to one, we have to cater to all. The next thing you know we'll be making like the South Park episode with Philip Glass doing the school play for the kids. Perhaps I need to re-read the article but in no way do I see signs of the child being FORCED into saying "one nation under God." She can stand there and be fine with it. To me, it sounds like the mother wants her to say it and the father does not. Sounds like more of a parental/custody type thing to get back at one another than an actual genuine concern for whether or not she's saying the word "God." If "God" is the "worse" thing that every comes out of that childs mouth, he should be so lucky.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
. . . If "God" is the "worse" thing that every comes out of that childs mouth, he should be so lucky.

:laugh: touche' - esp. in this day and age.

The argument against choosing not to say the "under God" part is complicated. As ryan8472 mentioned, there is pressure to go against what you bleive and say it anyway in order not to anger the teacher. Also, peer pressure amongst kids can be brutal, esp. in very religious areas, like the rural South. So, I think from that perspective for some there really is no option not to say it. That is wrong IMO.

The question is does it establish a religion? As noted by the Court, the term God could mean anything or any God, not just the Judeo Christian God, which clearly was its original intent.

I think it ought to be removed since the godless ways of Commuinism are no longer a threat. I mean if that was the sole purpose of putting it there - then it has served its purpose.

I find this debate fascinating :cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
I never said that it didn't. However, what i'm saying is this: if we have to cater to one, we have to cater to all. The next thing you know we'll be making like the South Park episode with Philip Glass doing the school play for the kids. Perhaps I need to re-read the article but in no way do I see signs of the child being FORCED into saying "one nation under God." She can stand there and be fine with it. To me, it sounds like the mother wants her to say it and the father does not. Sounds like more of a parental/custody type thing to get back at one another than an actual genuine concern for whether or not she's saying the word "God." If "God" is the "worse" thing that every comes out of that childs mouth, he should be so lucky.

She doesn't have to say it, but the point is that in a public school, she shouldn't be put in the position of even having to say it or not. It should be left out, plain and simple. If public schools want to include "under God" in any of it's activities, they should expect these type of things to happen. What would be the difference between saying "under God" and a teacher asking her class to say a religious prayer with her? They aren't being forced, but the teacher is suggesting it. What if she asked them to say a Jewish, Buddhist, or Islamic prayer or asked them to call their God out? There would be quite an uproar. Therefore, leave God home. Don't trot him out at the taxpayers expense.

[Races Are Run]

Originally posted by dissention
She doesn't have to say it, but the point is that in a public school, she shouldn't be put in the position of even having to say it or not. It should be left out, plain and simple. If public schools want to include "under God" in any of it's activities, they should expect these type of things to happen. What would be the difference between saying "under God" and a teacher asking her class to say a religious prayer with her? They aren't being forced, but the teacher is suggesting it. What if she asked them to say a Jewish, Buddhist, or Islamic prayer or asked them to call their God out? There would be quite an uproar. Therefore, leave God home. Don't trot him out at the taxpayers expense.

NOt only that, but peer pressure is outta control at young ages. How many elementary school kids do you think are going to say "I'm not going to say the pledge, I'll just stand in protest."

Ya, right!

I can't even believe that this is up for debate. Anyone with a second grade education (how ironic) can figure out that this is a no brainer. Religion should not be in schools, period. The only exception is for historical education (the crusades, the inquisition, the holocaust, the Taliban, the Infidata).....

Well...... I guess religion doesn't have a great historical record.

Although without religion, we wouldn't have all the beautiful cathedrals and antiquities. But, I think I'd rather have peace and understanding than a bunch of buildings.

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by dissention
She doesn't have to say it, but the point is that in a public school, she shouldn't be put in the position of even having to say it or not. It should be left out, plain and simple. If public schools want to include "under God" in any of it's activities, they should expect these type of things to happen. What would be the difference between saying "under God" and a teacher asking her class to say a religious prayer with her? They aren't being forced, but the teacher is suggesting it. What if she asked them to say a Jewish, Buddhist, or Islamic prayer or asked them to call their God out? There would be quite an uproar. Therefore, leave God home. Don't trot him out at the taxpayers expense.

It's been in place since the 50s. I assume this man was born in probably the late 40s or early 50s. Is he all of the sudden an athiest? I just find **** like this to be annoying. It's been going on for years...why all of the sudden does he take issue with it? Something isn't clear here. I mean, yes, he has a daughter now but still...I think there's something in this story that doesn't add up.

I suppose we could then say that World History in which religion plays a rather large part in, should not be taught in school. It touches on the basis of ALL religions. If you're going to take this non-denominational stance then I suppose we ought to do it for everything and not just the pledge. No matter what you do, certain aspects of religion are going to be touched upon. Is he going to pull his daughter out of a history class because she's learning about God(s) and religion? Just another thought...

[dissention]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
It's been in place since the 50s. I assume this man was born in probably the late 40s or early 50s. Is he all of the sudden an athiest? I just find **** like this to be annoying. It's been going on for years...why all of the sudden does he take issue with it? Something isn't clear here. I mean, yes, he has a daughter now but still...I think there's something in this story that doesn't add up.

I suppose we could then say that World History in which religion plays a rather large part in, should not be taught in school. It touches on the basis of ALL religions. If you're going to take this non-denominational stance then I suppose we ought to do it for everything and not just the pledge. No matter what you do, certain aspects of religion are going to be touched upon. Is he going to pull his daughter out of a history class because she's learning about God(s) and religion? Just another thought...

Maybe he came from an atheist household. They weren't that uncommon in the forties, fifties, sixties, or above. Just look at Madeline Murray O'Hare. Maybe he became disenchanted with organized religion and realized that there is no God. Who really knows?

The point is, it was not in the original POA and it was added in quite recently. Something doesn't add up there. There is no reason to add anything about God in the POA and if they feel they must, then they need to remove it from the public school system. If they want to keep it in, amend it further so that it can encompass all beliefs and views of God, not just a narrowminded one that white males came up with in the fifties to push their religion. I suspect that it was done as a "F*ck you" to the communists and socialists, it was the era of McCarthy after all.

As for the history class, it's totally different. It touches on certain beliefs and doesn't purport the beliefs to be facts. They aren't saying that we, the people, at this time are living "under God." An athesist is not going to take issue with the beliefs of the Puritans who founded this nation to be offensive. They will, however, take offense to the blanket statement that we live in this country "under God."

JMO. :)

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by dissention
Maybe he came from an atheist household. They weren't that uncommon in the forties, fifties, sixties, or above. Just look at Madeline Murray O'Hare. Maybe he became disenchanted with organized religion and realized that there is no God. Who really knows?

The point is, it was not in the original POA and it was added in quite recently. Something doesn't add up there. There is no reason to add anything about God in the POA and if they feel they must, then they need to remove it from the public school system. If they want to keep it in, amend it further so that it can encompass all beliefs and views of God, not just a narrowminded one that white males came up with in the fifties to push their religion. I suspect that it was done as a "F*ck you" to the communists and socialists, it was the era of McCarthy after all.

As for the history class, it's totally different. It touches on certain beliefs and doesn't purport the beliefs to be facts. They aren't saying that we, the people, at this time are living "under God." An athesist is not going to take issue with the beliefs of the Puritans who founded this nation to be offensive. They will, however, take offense to the blanket statement that we live in this country "under God."

JMO. :)

"One f'd up nation, under God(s)...or not, indivisable, except during re-election years when we're at war...with liberty and justice for some..." :laugh:

[GypsySorcerer]

I knew this topic would wind up here. :laugh:

Well, I believe in separation of church and state. Being a Christian, however, I am not offended by the words "Under God" in the pledge. I can see how non-Christians would take offense, though.

It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules on this. They were able to get around the issue of government offices being closed on Sunday.

[estranged4life]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
"One f'd up nation, under God(s)...or not, indivisable, except during re-election years when we're at war...with liberty and justice for some..." :laugh:

Shouldn't it be "with liberty and justice for some...<b>If the Price Is Right®</b>"

Brian "C'mon on down" j.

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by estranged4life
Shouldn't it be "with liberty and justice for some...<b>If the Price Is Right®</b>"

Brian "C'mon on down" j.

Good call, Brian :nod: Could we be any more disenchanted??

[estranged4life]

I can <b>easily</b> be more disenchanted if need be :)

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
any more disenchanted??

Is this the new Stevie boxed set title?;)

I agree with dissention, religion should be taught in a public school in the context of history and culture. It has no place in a school's formal practices.

- Jake

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
Is this the new Stevie boxed set title?;)

After Stevie goes out on a date with you, yes :laugh:

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
After Stevie goes out on a date with you, yes :laugh:

We're even. I recall Mick referring to the Paper The Cage Tour after his time with you.:cool:

- Jake

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
We're even. I recall Mick referring to the Paper The Cage Tour after his time with you.:cool:

- Jake

Actually, word on the street is all your ex-girlfriends will be contributing to the album :wavey:

Even. ;)

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
Actually, word on the street is all your ex-girlfriends will be contributing to the album :wavey:

Even. ;)

Actually, word on the 'pike is that Mick is the only one who'll admit to a shared history and contribute to your album.:wavey:

Odd.;)

- Jake

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
Actually, word on the 'pike is that Mick is the only one who'll admit to a shared history and contribute to your album.:wavey:

Odd.;)

- Jake

"Jake doesn't have anything
not even dvd or cable
I'll never get a ring
cause his money can't buy.
He says he can't believe
Hippie Hollow isn't the place for me
Looked deep into his eyes...no love."

Ass. ;)

[laurie816]

What does Dr. Newdow do with all the money he makes as a doctor??

Doesn't every monetary demonation have "In God We Trust" stamped on it somewhere??

Isn't the Treasury Dept. a part of the Government?? (I never did well in Social Studies) Does this not count as the separation of Church and State?? Doesn't every state have a Treasury dept?? Am I making any sense??:laugh:

I mean, if he is such a strong Atheist, should he not accept money for his job?? Wouldn't that go against his beliefs??

I agree with Garden State Girlie, there is something more to this, the original article stated that his daughter's mother IS religious and wants her daughter raised that way, or at least with some beliefs, the father clearly doesn't, which leads me to believe there is more of a personal issue at stake, rather than his constitutional rights.

In any case, I DO believe Dr. Newdow should worship or not worship any deity he chooses. I believe he should practice or not practice any religion he sees fit. His daughter can be respectful of both his beliefs and the beliefs of her mother (and her fellow classmates as well) and just stand quietly, think about the day ahead and when she's old enough, let her make up her OWN mind.

[strandinthewind]

Well that is his point. He thinks "In God We Trust" should not be on the currency either. He thinks the govt. should make no reference to God in any way because that is an establishment of religion by the Fed. Govt. Interestingly, you can extrapolate his argument that "under God" unanimously passed because no atheist can ever be elected to the "In God We Trust" on the money. In other words, there is no other way to have currency in the U.S. Thus, he must use it even if he takes offense at the phrase, which I am sure he does :laugh:

Again, I think the govt. should remove all references to the Judeo Christian God in every aspect period. Or, they should say something like "one nation under God, whatever that is to you," etc.

Far more fascinating is the Christian and other religious groups' reaction to this. They are blinded with fury by the notion that it is okay in America to be an atheist. I think that shows insecurity on their part. Again, why must govt. validate Christianity. Chistianity is a strong institution on its own. Yet, people see the removal of the false representation of "on nation under God" as an event worthy of Old Testament Wrath of God stuff.

Interestingly, I also think people confuse politicians praying on their own free will with govt. est. religion. I think if the Senate wants to pray, they should. But it should not be mandatory, etc.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
They are blinded with fury by the notion that it is okay in America to be an atheist. I think that shows insecurity on their part.

When don't they show insincerity? :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
When don't they show insincerity? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I mean I had someone tell me I was going to Hell in a handbasket because I thought the Chief Justice of the AL Sup. Ct. ought to follow the rule of law and remove the 2 ton monument to the 10 Commandments in AL that was put there for the sole reason to say Christians rule in AL and if you do not like it get out. I was like I am probably going to Hell for many reasons, but denying the existence of God is not one of them :laugh:

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I mean I had someone tell me I was going to Hell in a handbasket because I thought the Chief Justice of the AL Sup. Ct. ought to follow the rule of law and remove the 2 ton monument to the 10 Commandments in AL that was put there for the sole reason to say Christians rule in AL and if you do not like it get out. I was like I am probably going to Hell for many reasons, but denying the existence of God is not one of them :laugh:

FYI, Jews write the Commandments differently from Christians, and I don't mean in Hebrew. Our first is "I am the Lord Thy G-d." (I know, it's a statement.) Christians combine our first & second, and then separate two later ones that we have as one. My point is, the way the Judge had them written is not MY way, so I guess I'll keep you company in hell.:wavey:

- Jake

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
FYI, Jews write the Commandments differently from Christians, and I don't mean in Hebrew. Our first is "I am the Lord Thy G-d." (I know, it's a statement.) Christians combine our first & second, and then separate two later ones that we have as one. My point is, the way the Judge had them written is not MY way, so I guess I'll keep you company in hell.:wavey:

- Jake

Again, the best we can hope for is a golden gazeebo on the outskirts of heaven :cool:

Yes, the judge rewrote the Commandments - bless his heart :laugh:

Interestingly, my fav. was when the 11th Cir. in response to the judge's argument that the 10 Commandment did not est. a religion, replied something to the effect of "its pretty hard to get around 'I am the Lord Thy God - You shall have no other Gods before me" :shrug:

Also, Jake why do you spell "God" "G-D" ? Just curious and no offense intended.

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by strandinthewind

Also, Jake why do you spell "God" "G-D" ? Just curious and no offense intended.

Actually, I usually write "G-d".
Most ancient Jews were forbidden to speak the name of G-d, emphasizing the distinction between the holy & the profane.
Today we don't know what that name was.
Many modern Jews won't refer to G-d in a complete word, the implication being that G-d cannot be summed up in a real word the way a horse can be. It's the same old idea of a holy distinctiveness.

- Jake

[strandinthewind]

A Ha!!!!!

BTW - what do you mean by "Today we don't know what that name was." God has a secret name?

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
God has a secret name?

Lindsey Buckingham. ;) :laugh:

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
A Ha!!!!!

BTW - what do you mean by "Today we don't know what that name was." God has a secret name?

I keep telling you to read The Book Of J.
Some kooky theories within, but this part is commonly accepted.
The Torah was written in stages by four authors (individuals or small groups) as evidenced by what they each call G-d. The earliest author, the Jahwist, gave G-d a name, and only the high priest was allowed to say it (and only rarely) by the time of Jesus (Hence that scene in The Life Of Brian!!). Since Hebrew is written without vowels, and there was no oral tradition of saying the name that could survive, we don't know how to pronounce it. Some Christians corrupted the Hbrew into the word Jehovah, if that rings a bell.

- Jake

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
Lindsey Buckingham. ;) :laugh:

I don't think the Almighty would appreciate that you and Merf have ogled his ass in the Mirage video.:distress:

- Jake

[dissention]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
I don't think the Almighty would appreciate that you and Merf have ogled his ass in the Mirage video.:distress:

- Jake

That's not the only thing that folks oogle at. ;)

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by dissention
That's not the only thing that folks oogle at. ;)

It certainly is not ;)

[dissention]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
It certainly is not ;)

:eek: Get yer mind outta the gutter!

[The Tower]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
It certainly is not ;)

DITTO! Although, there is quite a lot to be said about his ass from the Mirage video!

:blob2: :nod:

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by dissention
:eek: Get yer mind outta the gutter!

Why, whatever do you mean, dissention? ;) :laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
Why, whatever do you mean, dissention? ;) :laugh:

I was referring to his crotch...





















...ety cowboy hat!

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by dissention
I was referring to his crotch...





















...ety cowboy hat!

God bless linen pants. Oh, and leather too....

::debates posting animated picture from doc:: ;)

[dissention]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
God bless linen pants. Oh, and leather too....

::debates posting animated picture from doc:: ;)

For your sake, I hope he doesn't sock-stuff. :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by laurie816
What does Dr. Newdow do with all the money he makes as a doctor??

Doesn't every monetary demonation have "In God We Trust" stamped on it somewhere??


Yes it does.

Isn't the Treasury Dept. a part of the Government?? (I never did well in Social Studies)
[/B][/QUOTE]

Yes the Treasury is a part of the United States government. However, the treasury does not issue money. The Federal Reserve Board does. It is neither federal nor a reserve. Every state does not have a federal treasury but a state treasury. The states do not issue money and have not since the Confederacy, if I'm not mistaken. Some states, such as Nevada recognize precious metals, such as silver, as a form of commerce.

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by dissention
For your sake, I hope he doesn't sock-stuff. :laugh:

Hmm...i don't know.....

http://users.snip.net/~njdevilsangel83/fondle.gif

Naaaah.... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

That picture? Is SO foul....lol

[dissention]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
Hmm...i don't know.....

http://users.snip.net/~njdevilsangel83/fondle.gif

Naaaah.... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

That picture? Is SO foul....lol

:eek: :laugh:

He's probably got a bad case of clingage. :laugh:

Maybe you'll luck out and find that you both rock out in leopard print thongs. ;)

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by dissention
:eek: :laugh:

He's probably got a bad case of clingage. :laugh:

Maybe you'll luck out and find that you both rock out in leopard print thongs. ;)

Whatever he has, everytime I saw the documentary and then when Gary, a guy from another board made this and I saw it, I couldn't stop laughing.

You and Jake.....one of these days..... ::holds up fists:: :distress: :laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
Whatever he has, everytime I saw the documentary and then when Gary, a guy from another board made this and I saw it, I couldn't stop laughing.

You and Jake.....one of these days..... ::holds up fists:: :distress: :laugh:

:laugh:

It took me a minute to realize what it was and then I see a hand pushing some delicate things up... :laugh:

The three of us live in the gutter, doll. Our posts border on the pornographic. :laugh:

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by dissention
The three of us live in the gutter, doll. Our posts border on the pornographic. :laugh:

:laugh: So true...

It would take the three of us to turn a post initially about the pledge of allegiance into Lindsey adjusting :nod:

[dissention]

I'm such a dirtbag ( :laugh: ):

I shouldn't wear these so tight
I really shouldn't wear leather
It's been so long since I've gone for linen
Forgotten what loose pants are for

I should adjust on the double...
I think I'm in trouble
Trouble
Yes, I think I'm in trouble

[dissention]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
:laugh: So true...

It would take the three of us to turn a post initially about the pledge of allegiance into Lindsey adjusting :nod:

:laugh:

"I pledge allegiance to porno posts of Lindsey's clingage. And to leather pants, for how they tighten, one message board, discussing Lindsey's pants, tight and uncomfortable, with vulgarity and embarassment for all."

:laugh:

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by dissention
I'm such a dirtbag ( :laugh: ):

I shouldn't wear these so tight
I really shouldn't wear leather
It's been so long since I've gone for linen
Forgotten what loose pants are for

I should adjust on the double...
I think I'm in trouble
Trouble
Yes, I think I'm in trouble

LOL!! <333

Sunflowers and your pants fascinate me
You have trouble when you need to pee
You can't go runnin' down the hill
not fast, you'll be hurting...
oh yea, you'll be hurting...

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by dissention
:laugh:

"I pledge allegiance to porno posts of Lindsey's clingage. And to leather pants, for how they tighten, one message board, discussing Lindsey's pants, tight and uncomfortable, with vulgarity and embarassment for all."

:laugh:

I think you might have to be sig'd :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[estranged4life]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
A Ha!!!!!

God has a secret name?

it's Jim-Bob...He was going to name His son Billy-Bob, But thankfully better taste (apparently) prevailed.

[dissention]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
LOL!! <333

Sunflowers and your pants fascinate me
You have trouble when you need to pee
You can't go runnin' down the hill
not fast, you'll be hurting...
oh yea, you'll be hurting...

:laugh:

How about:

They were frail
He said "Every night, these pants with break my cajones"
Well, he should have known from the first
He'd have an aching bulge
But he loved those pants from the start
And not all the margarine in the world could remove him...
From those pants...

;)

[dissention]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
I think you might have to be sig'd :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

:laugh: I'll think about it. :laugh:

Oh, alright. Make me a banner with that pledge and I'll be sure to include it. :laugh:

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by dissention
:laugh: I'll think about it. :laugh:

Oh, alright. Make me a banner with that pledge and I'll be sure to include it. :laugh:

I'm so doing that. And you will sport said banner :nod:

LMAO at the last song...

[dissention]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
I'm so doing that. And you will sport said banner :nod:

LMAO at the last song...

:laugh: With pride, my dear. You must, too. ;)

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by dissention
:laugh:

How about:

They were frail
He said "Every night, these pants with break my cajones"
Well, he should have known from the first
He'd have an aching bulge
But he loved those pants from the start
And not all the margarine in the world could remove him...
From those pants...

;)

Grow up.
Don't you think it's inappropriate to be wasting board space with song parodies about what a Mac member wears?
I'm appalled.:distress:



























:wavey: :D

- Jake

[dissention]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
Grow up.
Don't you think it's inappropriate to be wasting board space with song parodies about what a Mac member wears?
I'm appalled.:distress:

























:wavey: :D

- Jake

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Lookin for the bulge
in his pants so filled
oh he shifted and moved it
now its crotch overspill

Lookin for BULGE
Lookin out for BUUUU UUHHHHH UUHHHH UULLLLLLLL GGGGEEEEE

:cool:

[Alison]

Boy your people are hard-up, or very board.:distress:

[strandinthewind]

BOTH :cool:

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Lookin for the bulge
in his pants so filled
oh he shifted and moved it
now its crotch overspill

Lookin for BULGE
Lookin out for BUUUU UUHHHHH UUHHHH UULLLLLLLL GGGGEEEEE

:cool:

LMAO :laugh: :laugh:

Dissention...how could we forget about Jason being the other mind with us? :laugh:

Every night every day
in my crotch there is pain
I could say i'll change
but i'll just rearrange
in leather pants that are new
leather pants that are new
I wish I could wear red too
Stevie, my leather pants are neeeew

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Lookin for the bulge
in his pants so filled
oh he shifted and moved it
now its crotch overspill

Lookin for BULGE
Lookin out for BUUUU UUHHHHH UUHHHH UULLLLLLLL GGGGEEEEE

:cool:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I? Love it.

Adjustments of my package, now your time has come
Pretty yellow briefs ride up my bum
Reach your hand down, down
Reach your hand down, down

Spread your twiggy legs and adjust that friggin' fly
Move the diamonds from that position
Wipe the tear from your eye
Reach your hand down, down
Reach your hand down, down

Ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch
Ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch
Ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch
Ouch...

When the leather starts to cling and pinch your stones
That's when you've got to reach, reach down home
Reach your hand down, down
Reach that hand down, down
Reach your hand, down
Reach that hand down

:laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
LMAO :laugh: :laugh:

Dissention...how could we forget about Jason being the other mind with us? :laugh:

Every night every day
in my crotch there is pain
I could say i'll change
but i'll just rearrange
in leather pants that are new
leather pants that are new
I wish I could wear red too
Stevie, my leather pants are neeeew

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: They get better and better!

And Jason is another smut peddler. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


(Count em Stevie :eek: )

Two, ah-three, ah-four!
Two, ah-three, ah-four!
Two, ah-three, ah-four!

I really should be saying oooo there tight.
I really should rearrange somemore.
It’s been so long since I freed ya.
But you're makin' your way to the floor :eek:

Oy - I see you've more than doubled . . .
I think I’m in trouble,
I think I’m in trouble.

:cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
[B . . . And Jason is another smut peddler. :laugh: [/B]

I think my last one proved that :cool: :wavey:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


(Count em Stevie :eek: )

Two, ah-three, ah-four!
Two, ah-three, ah-four!
Two, ah-three, ah-four!

I really should be saying oooo there tight.
I really should rearrange somemore.
It’s been so long since I freed ya.
But you're makin' your way to the floor :eek:

Oy - I see you've more than doubled . . .
I think I’m in trouble,
I think I’m in trouble.

:cool:

Oy! :laugh:

[dissention]

Linen was spacey; leather was tight
He could've chosen comfort, but he chose to go tight
Crotch swollen, swollen quite big
The final days of Lindsey and his paternal gig
Lindsey and his paternal gig

She could not get him to give her more kids
Too tight pants had fixed him just right
No more little Bucky's could she call her own
The final days of Lindsey giving Kristen more kids
Kristen more kids

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by dissention
Linen was spacey; leather was tight
He could've chosen comfort, but he chose to go tight
Crotch swollen, swollen quite big
The final days of Lindsey and his paternal gig
Lindsey and his paternal gig

She could not get him to give her more kids
Too tight pants had fixed him just right
No more little Bucky's could she call her own
The final days of Lindsey giving Kristen more kids
Kristen more kids

LOL...you so PG'd this parody...it could have taken a turn for the worse :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

bunp - per people requesting a view

[wondergirl9847]

I click on a thread about the Pledge and it's turned into smutty Lindsey crotch talk!! :eek:

I am SO ashamed of you all!!! Disgusting, this is an OUTRAGE!!!!!! :mad::mad:






























Not really. :lol: LMAO!!!!!

[strandinthewind]

LOL - Christy - we should have pm's you to get in on the fun last Friday!!!!!

[wondergirl9847]

That crotch animation is friggin hilarious!! :laugh:

Yeah, you got some nerve, buddy, leaving me outta the smut talk! :mad:

LOL!!!!

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
bunp - per people requesting a view

:laugh: Pun intended? :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

who me :cool:

[gldstwmn]

http://www.tribnet.com/news/story/4913718p-4848428c.html

Student takes 'under God' out of pledge, feels the heat

MARTHA MODEEN; The News Tribune

A Spanaway Lake High School senior has been banned from TV production assignments for the rest of the year because he altered the Pledge of Allegiance during a student-produced broadcast.

The student, Kenny Hess, removed the words "under God" from the pledge, which is shown with an American flag background on classroom TV throughout the school. Hess also declined to recite the phrase and, instead read, "one nation ... indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."


School officials said they've punished Hess for misusing school equipment to deliver a personal message.


"He made a poor choice," said Mark Wenzel, Bethel School District spokesman.


Hess apologized and now wants his broadcasting privileges restored. He's also drawn sympathy from a California physician, who last week argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that the words "under God" should be removed from the pledge because it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.


"Good for him," said Michael Newdow.


Every day, students at Spanaway Lake and other schools across the state begin their day by reciting the pledge, as required by state law.


Hess, an avowed atheist since sixth grade, thinks he's forced to listen to a religious statement when he hears the pledge. Last week, his world current events class debated Newdow's case. After one student said, "Christians are forcing us to listen to this," Hess vowed that he could make students not listen to the words. The phrase "under God" was added to the pledge by congressional vote in 1954, during the Cold War.


"I took it out to prove we don't have to hear it," Hess said.


On Tuesday, several Spanaway Lake students and teachers complained after hearing the altered pledge.


On Wednesday, school officials told Hess he would be permitted only to read books during his broadcasting class.


Hess, 18, plans a career in broadcasting and wants to finish his assignments.


"I want my privileges back," he said. "It's not right to take them away."


School officials said Hess should have chosen to write an article for the school paper or produce an opinion piece for the school newscast.


Administrators said Hess' actions put the school out of sync with state law, though lawyers note that there is no criminal or civil penalty for not saying the pledge. State law allows students to remain silent during the pledge.


The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that "under God" is unconstitutional. But that ruling is on hold while the the U.S. Supreme Court considers the matter.


"Our interpretation as a school district is that the law says we say the pledge," said Greg Eisnaugle, Spanaway Lake principal. "'Under God' is still in it. If the court says it comes out, that's what we'll do."


The 9th Circuit Court ruling raises legal issues, said Stewart Jay, a University of Washington constitutional law professor.


"If I were this kid's lawyer, I'd argue that he was asked to do something illegal," he said. "Accordingly, he can't be disciplined."


Newdow thinks Hess was upholding the constitution, which bars the government from involving itself in religion.


"It's incredible he would be penalized for this," Newdow said.


Hess has drawn sympathy from the Humanists of Washington, whose membership is composed largely of atheists.


"Good grief, this is severe," said Barbara Dority, HOW president. "This could have been used as a learning experience. It's too bad that the adults in this situation reacted as they did."


Hess on Thursday sat in class but refused to read books until his punishment is reconsidered by school officials.


"I told them I wasn't going to read anything until I talk to the principal," he said.

[strandinthewind]

So I guess all of the people that said it that way until about 1956 were similarly poor in their choices :rolleyes:

[darklinensuit]

That disciplinary action is ridiculous. What state is this in?

- Jake

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
That disciplinary action is ridiculous. What state is this in?

- Jake

Washington.

[diamondsnake]

Originally posted by ryan8472
At my school, they have someone recite the pledge over the intercom, and we are forced to stand and say it with the guy. Well, we arent forced to recite it, but the teachers always get mad if you don't.

My teacher gives me a dirty look when I don't say the pledge, but why should I?