Mad as HELL!

ME | 03-04-03 | strmchsertx

[TXnMA]

And I would guess that you are Skywarn-trained, and that your callsign has a "5" in it...

N5AOB

[TXnMA]

And I would guess that you are Skywarn-trained, and that your callsign has a "5" in it...

N5AOB

[TXnMA]

What's with this double-post nonsense? I know I only hit "Post" once...

[strmchsertx]

To those interested, I also posted an article called "On the rock, we shall stand." It was posted on 6-27-02. It deals with the subject of religion and politics. Some of you might find it interesting. I don't quite know how to cut and paste or I'd do so.

[Ramius]

What's with this double-post nonsense? I know I only hit "Post" once...

What are you talking about??? :-)

[bonesmccoy]

GD RIGht!

"I'm sick and tired of being forthright and magnaminous."

[Ramius]

What's with this double-post nonsense? I know I only hit "Post" once...

What are you talking about??? :-)

[TXnMA]

< LOL! >

< LOL! >

[Ramius]

Well... it's only fair to note that the 9th circuit is the single MOST overturned court in U.S. jurisprudence history. They are certainly in the running for the most irrelevant court in the country.

[zlala]

We have a fun and collegial relationship that way. :-)

LOL -- thanks, I needed that!

[boltCutter]

It is a sad testament to the depths of ignorance and superstition to which our society has fallen when irrefragible arguments for the correctness of conservatism can be made by doing nothing more than providing academic scholiums to existing, relevant material and objectively measurable reality. And no, I do not think that belief in God is necessarily ignorant OR superstitious. But that's another tangent.
The controlling legal passage at hand in this discussion reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Nothing more than a scholium on English grammar can clear this up immediately.
1.) To say that "Congress shall make no law..." means, just that. I challenge anyone to find any clause, statement, section or; to wit, any law written in USC (which constitutes all laws established by Congress) that has anything to do at all with the Pledge of Allegiance; much less a law that in any way prohibits or infringes on the recitation of it. In other words, this clause speaks only to specific laws as coded in USC and enacted by Congress, not policies, governement procedural mandates, local law or whatever else.
2.) "...respecting an establishment of religion..." means, you guessed it, just that. There are no laws in USC that respect "an establishment of religion", which distinguishes said establishment as a particular sect, order, or denomination of religion, not religion itself. While the term 'God' may be specific to some subset of religion, that alone does not establish your case, Mr. 'Bad_Samaritan'. For example, this clause tells us that Congress may pass no law that favors Presbyterians over Baptists, for example, but says nothing more.
3.) Given that your argument at least fails point one (1), it is then required of Congress to pass no law "...prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." which is so determined subjectively and may indeed involve recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, or the use of the term 'God' in it. In interpreting the law, the judiciary likewise may pass no judgement to that same effect. Notice that there is no provision therein for those who might take umbrage at the verbal recitation of the word "God", or who might see such a verbalization as in any way untoward.
In other words, you lose. There is simply no constitutional basis whatsoever for these typical 'anti-God' claims made so often in American jurisprudence. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution simply doesn't even speak to the matters you draw in your posted complaint, other than to counter your claims clearly and without ambiguity.
For over fifty years we have been failing to educate our children in the most basic core subjects and, with all due repsect, your post only illustrates that point. They all race off to graduate school and the ivory towers of imagined brilliance, only to find themselves flailing and falling down on the most basic of facts and comprehension. But I digress.

[swheats]

No storms lately to chase? Now you have to deal with the real world. The storms' been brewing for a long time my FRiend on the homefront. Glad to have you aboard.

[judicial meanz]

I am very proud of you. You are the future.

The left would have you believe we are losing this, but the opposite is true. Us conservatives will outlast them.

Right now,plenty of conservatives are fighting tyranny and terrorism overseas, while they whine at home.

More conservatives are making a difference at home with their common sense approach to the anti-war movement.

Young conservatives like you are taking a stand in the face of incredible pressure and winning.

Dont worry passenger. Just because we have jobs, businesses to run, or other duties doesnt mean that they can't make us mad and really find out how numerous we are when we finally respond to their stupidity.

[RottiBiz]

Well said, strmchsertx. Excellent post.

Thanks for the ping, Ed.

[RottiBiz]

Kudos, Passenger. Very nice post.

Your first day here. Welcome to Free Republic!

[forktail]

The Pledge may not be spoken under penalty of law. Think about that, and remember what country this is. It's appalling, really.

Well, much like Roe v Wade, putting the morality aside I'm not sure legally The Pledge belongs in school. We cannot pick and choose what school should be telling our children (aside from teaching them). So if we don't want teachers telling our children that war is evil then we shouldn't be making them pledge allegiance to the flag.

Now don't take that to mean that I hate the flag or The Pledge. In fact, I like the Pledge I don't have any issue with it on a personal level. If my school district were to ban it I would teach my son to recite it. The country did well without it before it came into existance and I'm pretty sure it will be fine without it.

[Search4Truth]

I hear ya brother. Fret not, for we are many.

[Houmatt]

This ONE man who is trying to get God out of the pledge, needs to be stopped. ONE MAN. That's pretty pathetic.

Relax. It will be thrown out.

1) The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overturned court in the land.

2) This guy, I believe his name is Newdow, claimed to be an atheist who had filed that lawsuit on the behalf of his daughter. Turns out, not a word of it is true. Which means Newdow at the very least purjured himself, which is more than enough grounds to throw the suit out.

Since the next stop is the US Supreme Court, I can guarantee this will happen.

[RightOnline]

Nice rant. Ditto. :)

[Houmatt]

Welcome to FR. You have a long way to go. Your education begins now...

No kidding.

First and foremost, Iraq actually accounts for a small amount of what we get from the Middle East, oilwise. So the oil argument is flimsy at least.

Second, there is no separation of church and state. That phrase does not appear, implied or explicit, anywhere in the US Constitution.

Now before you bring in SCOTUS, may I remind you our government is made of three branches: The Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch. It is not the job of the Judicial Branch (The US Supreme Court) to create laws, only to interpret them as they apply to the Constitution, as well as the Constitution itself. But what they did with that particular ruling was create something from nothing, which is not their job to do. That responsibility lies with Congress. Which makes that decision wholly unconstitutional, just like Roe v Wade.