• Larry

    Patriotic Porky Pig didn’t have to say “under God”. Neither do I

  • Frank

    Is this a joke!

  • ronald

    We need to stop these fascests NOW. It is time for a Constitutional Amendment clarifying that no claws of the First Amendment applies to ATHIESTS.

  • Sister Geraldine Marie, R.N.

    Oh, well. Why stop at the Pledge? Go around Washington’s monuments, government buildings, the 50 States of the Union, etc., and see how many references to God there are!

    This country was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles (but hasn’t always lived up to them!)–nevertheless, the USA is not a godless country. We need to follow the will of God in all we think, speak and act. That alone will guarantee our success as a country.


  • Larry

    Sister Gerry, no matter how many times you repeat the same nonsense, it doesn’t make it true. There is no such thing as “Judeo-Christian principles”. You can’t tell me what they are and why our country is allegedly founded upon them.

    When you say such things, you are really trying to pretend that Christians are entitled to privileges over all other people and deserve favor by government. Nothing can be further from the truth. Does Jesus tell you that lying is OK if you do it in his name?

    The USA is not a Christian nation. It is an Everything nation. Not just for your faith, but all and none.

    Just admit it, you hate religious freedom.

  • opheliart


    “The USA is not a Christian nation. It is an Everything nation. Not just for your faith, but all and none.”

    Like an Everything Bagel? Sorry, that just popped into my head when I read your comment 🙂


  • Larry

    The Everything Bagel, the most ecumenical of all starchy baked goods.

    A perfect example of how our religious freedoms work. All sorts of things are thrown on the same bagel together as it bakes.

  • Doc Anthony

    “There is no such thing as Judeo-Christian principles” ??

    Oh no no no. Statements like that one constitute pure idiocy. Or perhaps mere ignorance. Either way, Larry must improve his failing score on this issue.

    Everytime the U.S. Congress or a state legislature (or a city council) opens its sessions with a prayer invocation, are they not openly affirming and demonstrating the following key Judeo-Christian principles?

    (1) God exists (Gen 1:1)
    (2) Atheism is totally false (Ps 14:1)
    (3) God is personal (not impersonal), and therefore can be conversed with by human persons (see the Lord’s Prayer, Matt 6:9-13)..

    Those are all Judeo-Christian principles. Fess up to it already.

    And by the way, Sis. Geraldine Marie is correct. Look at these pretty photographs of the New York Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. What do you see?


  • Larry

    “(1) God exists (Gen 1:1)
    (2) Atheism is totally false (Ps 14:1)
    (3) God is personal (not impersonal), and therefore can be conversed with by human persons (see the Lord’s Prayer, Matt 6:9-13)..”

    Our nation is not founded on ANY OF THESE IDEAS or organized under any of them as principles.

    The 10 Commandments are NOT the law of the land. Nor are such symbols in isolation. The cameraman should have used a wide angle to get some of the elements having nothing to do with the Bible Only 3 commandments are laws. The most universal and least having to do with Christian ideas.

    And no, every time the U.S. Congress or a state legislature (or a city council) opens its sessions with a prayer invocation, they are affirming their own faith. Not any endorsed by our government. (See the 1st Amendment)

    You really ought to take a remedial civics class. Your knowledge of our government is less than a 2nd grader’s. So you and the twisted sister are full of crap and hate our freedom.

  • gilhcan

    Better reading and/or listening might provide a more honest understanding of the resentment on the part of non-theists of being forced into theistic expressions in order to pledge allegiance to our country’s flag. It is very wrong, dishonest, and even nasty to distort the motives of non-theists who are not in agreement with the beliefs of theists.

    “Until” is the operative word. Those who do not share theistic beliefs are taking a stand against the practices of those who persist in defying our Constitution by inserting religion into our civil practices of government. That same nasty behavior has been condoned for far too long by presidents, defense secretaries, and the joint chiefs of military staff in their unconstitutional efforts to require all Air Force members, even those who are not theists, to swear to a god with their promise to defend this nation.

    First of all, the pledge to our flag was only instituted in the late 19th century. Until the middle of the 20th century, it was without any reference to any god, it was a genuine pledge to what the flag of our nation represented, our non-religious government. It was only in the early 1950s that religious extremists dared to insult those without religious beliefs by initiating their campaign to violate our Constitution and turn the flag into a religious symbol and the pledge to the country that flag represented into a prayer by inserting the words “under God” into that pledge.

    Since that time, I have refused to join in the pledge. I have become so annoyed by the insulting behavior of religious people–and the majority of pledge users who don’t give any thought to anything they are saying or doing–that I have refused to join in what was originally, and for many years, a purely civil pledge to a civil symbol for a civil nation. For years now, as religious extremists have tried more and more to distort the pledge into a prayer, I have refused to join in the “under God” addition to the pledge. For some years, as religious extremists have asserted themselves more and more, I have refused to even stand and join in the recitation of any part of that pledge.

    Our nation is not “under God,” it is under our Constitution and whatever constitutional laws have been passed since that document was written in 1787 and accepted by the people soon after. Our nation remains a civil government in spite of the distorted ambitions of any religious extremists who would like to make it otherwise.

    If those religious extremists succeed, we will drift more and more into the religious battles we have been increasingly witnessing. We will drift even more into the murderous, inhumane history that dirties so much of Christian history, so much of all religious history, and that has been embroiling the Middle East for far too long. We are seeing the latter instigated once more in Iraq with the rise of what some call ISIS or ISA. We have watched for too long the inhumane, murderous ways Israel has treated Palestine and Palestinians.

    What more do we need to awaken us to the horrid dangers that always result when religion and government, church and state, are blended?

  • gilhcan

    Doc Anthony: You are as wrong as it is possible to be wrong. This nation was not founded as any religious nation. It is a purely civil nation, no matter how much you and other religious extremists try to distort its history and the proofs of its founding documents.

    The history of religion includes so much evil that that the Framers of our Constitution, who knew their history very well, explicitly ordered a separation of religion and government, church and state, in our democratic experiment over 200 years ago. Every time anyone has attempted to violate that Constitutional requirement by twisting this democracy into a theocracy, as you do, we have taken the proverbial “two steps backward, one step forward” in the needed efforts to reassemble as a democracy under our Constitution.

    Religion has nothing to teach those who are eager for civility in a civil democracy. A study of the history of religion, and the current events of religion that we have witnessed in the Middle East for too many years, proves the poisonous nature of attempting to insert religious beliefs into any culture. We have suffered miserably by participating in those efforts.

    Religious beliefs are personal. They are defended by the very first clause of the First Amendment to our Constitution. By its very nature of needing to be free, religion implies the equally natural demand of the right to be free from religion.

  • gilhcan

    You are dead wrong, Sister. I hope you know nursing better than you know the history of this nation, its Constitution, and democracy.

    This nation was founded on purely secular ideas of ethical democracy that had nothing to do with any religion or church. To ensure that clean and safe founding be maintained, the separation of religion and government, church and state, were added as the very first human right in the First Amendment of our Constitution.

    Yes, it was determined that religion be free. That means two things. No one, because of their religious beliefs, can do any harm to anyone else. Also, the freedom of religion very distinctly implies the right to be free of religion.

  • Pingback: Why I stopped saying America’s Pledge of Allegiance | On Freedom()

  • Craig R

    Fascests? Claws? lol

  • Yousef Khouri Ibn Al-Libnani

    How does it not apply to EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN, given the 14th and 15th amendments?

    In fact Thomas Jefferson was adamant that “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God”.

    So to whom should we listen, you or the Author of the DoI?

  • Doug Jens

    Not often am I at events where the audience is coerced to stand for christian propaganda but, the next time I’ll initially stand so there is no question that I am able to, then sit as the christian propaganda begins.

    You christians really need to get some respect for your various god ideas going. Are you seriously going to force people to bow to your concepts while holding to the premise that your god sent you to Earth to test your free will? Or, are you worried that without force your gods will fade away and disappear?

  • Tim

    Sit down and shut up?? Nah, I will stand up and pledge, say, sing, shout or pray as I see fit to exercise my right of free speech!

    If you are an atheist you can sit and be silent: it does not offend me! You can single yourself out — but that is your right: to say / express what you want. Take courage and take a stand – oops, I mean seat.

    The Supreme Court long ago decided that this country is a Christian nation in actual legal cases. They reviewed hundreds of pages of historical documents of each of the original States and their constitutions (many of which mention Jesus Christ or God directly), and considered the Declaration of Independence (which quotes the Bible in about 27 places) and took account of the fact that roughly more than half the Puritans had actual theological training when they reviewed many other lines of evidence for their decision.

    By the way, the same SCOTUS also decided that secular humanism is a religion!! That also was decided a while ago. Go read history.

    The process of expunging this information and many other facts from our history books has been slow and steady by those who oppose God but God cannot be expunged from the hearts of the people. The atheistic side is doomed to failure as long as people ask the question where did we come from?

    Unlike those highly educated into imbecility with the myth of evolution ( an exercise in imaginative morphing of goo to you ) the reasonable people of our culture realize there must be a God to explain origin. We detest the state sponsored religion of secular humanism for which we are forced to pay with our tax dollars while it is being shoved down our children’s throats via the lies of macroevolution taught in state standardized common core-like biology classes.

    You see: we have complaints too and they concern the fraudulent use of our money for teaching so-called science. It’s fraud under the understanding that macro-evolutionary theory is false by quantitative and logical standards of real sciences such as physical chemistry, biochemistry, mathematical probability, thermodynamics, etc.

    Let’s make a deal: you sit down and be silent while we take the teaching of evolutionary theory out of all the schools paid for with public tax dollars! What do you say? In the name of freedom, should you resist both of our groups practicing our religions? After al,l you would not want to be seen as being religiously intolerant, do you?

  • Larry

    Tim, either you are a parody troll or about as ignorant as an American citizen can be. I will give you the benefit of a doubt and go with ignorance for arguments sake.

    “The Supreme Court long ago decided that this country is a Christian nation in actual legal cases.”

    Can you name the case specifically? I would love to see what David Barton inspired lying about history website you got that from.

    There is just far too much stupid being put up there for one post to tackle all at once. [Btw all creationists are bible thumping liars. I will elaborate upon request]

    Please for heavens sake, don’t vote. Whatever candidate you feel is appropriate is probably going to be one of the most backwards plum ignorant inbreed to ever take office.

  • Tim

    Larry, I will let the court speak for itself by quotes of its justices. Please visit the following site http://www.afn.org/~govern/Christian_Nation.html and find the information I have quoted below as partial answer. Read the other referenced info in the quote for more data::

    John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and one of the three men most responsible for the writing of the Constitution declared:
    “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty-as well as privilege and interest- of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Still sounds like the Founding Fathers knew this was a Christian nation.
    This view, that we were a Christian nation, was hold for almost 150 years until the Everson v. Board of Education ruling in 1947. Before that momentous ruling, even the Supreme Court knew that we were a Christian nation. In 1892 the Court stated:
    “No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people…This is a Christian nation.” There it is again! From the Supreme Court of the United States. This court went on to cite 87 precedents (prior actions, words, and rulings) to conclude that this was a “Christian nation”.

    You see there really is a basis to argue this point. NB: I did not say theocracy but said a Christian nation, but I also would oppose a theocracy unless the Lord Jesus came back to establish it himself because unredeemed and or unperfected human nature would lead to selfish rule over others — like all political parties today.

  • Tim

    I am reasonably well trained in the quantitative sciences and have held discussions with others of similar educational background. They have never given a reasonable answer to problems with evolution that even scientists of prominent name within their own fields recognize as true problems.

    Here are a few well known problems:
    -the origin of the information density within the DNA
    -the problem of entropy increasing while ordered structures result
    -the tiny near-zero mathematical probability of generating DNA by random
    natural processes
    -the chicken and egg problem of proteins called ribosomes needed to
    create proteins like ribosomes
    -the concept of irreducible complexity as an absolute block to macro-evolution
    -the virtual absolute absence of thousands of gradations of transitional fossils
    missing from the so-called evolutionary tree
    -the presence of polystriate fossils in the geologic strata supposedly millions
    of years old
    -wide range of chronometric results for rock ages by different methods
    -the circularity of reasoning age dating strata by the bones and vice versa

    You get the idea: I well aware of data that many informed but dishonest atheists will not even broach in public for fear of being unable to answer
    legitimate questions that creationists would raise!

  • Larry

    So I was right, you can’t name the case and you are relying on a revisionist fiction website.

    John Jay’s supreme court is the most historically insignificant one because the doctrine of judicial review came subsequent to him. So what you got is a case of out of context, conflated or fabricated quotes used by people with an anti-democratic theocratic purpose.

    Try reading history from reliable honest sources. Not the third hand David Barton based lies.

    Btw by Christian nation you mean that Christians are the only faith recognized by law and government. That is clearly never been the case. Separation of church and state predates the constitution by a century with the works of Roger Williams and William Penn.

    You need a remedial civic cases as well. Elementary school kids know more about history and our government than you.

  • Elijah

    I know huh? What a bunch of nuts.

  • Elijah

    Amen, preach it brother.

  • Larry

    So that means you are not ignorant. You are a liar. I doubt you are qualified to speak about biological scence as a professional in the field. You would have said that instead of the “quantifiable science” background bullcrap. The fact that you reference the nonsense of ID, an idea which was proven to be warmed over biblical creationism with jargon thrown in, makes you even less credible.

    You are a liar not only because you are trying to pretend scientific issues prevent the acceptance of evolution. but because as a creationist, you deny your own faith. creationism is dishonest because it posits the notion that Christian belief can be proven true by objective evidence and observation. Of course no creationist will ever accept the logical implication of such ideas. That their belief can be disproven by the same methods. It denies that faith is the basis for belief, which it most certainly is.

    So you may be well informed of the latest iteration of the same arguments which were considered ridiculous more centuries ago, but it just makes you pigheaded and dishonest. Not credible or knowledagble.

    Btw scientists who have problems with evolution and those who do not accept it are 2 different things. So that makes your post even more dishonest.

    Lying for the lord is still lying. whatever notions of morality you claim from Chrstianity are a sham. Any sin is forgivable if you ae doing it for Jesus.

  • Shawnie5

    Larry, now be sensible. You can find acknowledgements of the Christian roots of our laws and institutions in Supreme Court decisions from all time periods.

    If you go back to 1844 you find Vidal vs. Girard’s Executors, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/43/127/case.html

    “It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania. But this proposition is to be received with its appropriate qualifications, and in connection with the bill of rights of that state, as found in its constitution of government. The Constitution of 1790 (and the like provision will, in substance, be found in the Constitution of 1776, and in the existing Constitution of 1838), expressly declares, “That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishment or modes of worship.”…Language more comprehensive for the complete protection of every variety of religious opinion could scarcely be used, and it must have been intended to extend equally to all sects, whether they believed in Christianity or not, and whether they were Jews or infidels. So that we are compelled to admit that although Christianity be a part of the common law of the state, yet it is so in this qualified sense, that its divine origin and truth are admitted, and therefore it is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against, to the annoyance of believers or the injury of the public. Such was the doctrine of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Updegraff v. Commonwealth.”

    Fast forward to 1892 and you have Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/143/457/case.html

    “There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While, because of a general recognition of this truth, the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 11 S. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that “Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; . . . not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.”…If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find every where a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters, note the following: the form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, “In the name of God, amen;” the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing every where under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.”

    Fast forward again to 1931, and United States vs. Macintosh acknowledges simply that “We are a Christian people (Holy Trinity Church v. United States,143 U. S. 457, 143 U. S. 470-471), according to one another the equal right of religious freedom and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God.” https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/283/605/case.html

    Now you are welcome to argue all you want that these views expressed by SCOTUS justices from various phases of our country’s history are wrong-headed and should be repudiated. But it is foolishness in the extreme to try to claim that they don’t exist. The founders and those who followed them would have considered your stubborn assertions pecular indeed. They were, after all, educated people who were well-versed in the history both of our nation and of western civilization in general.

  • Shawnie5

    “Btw by Christian nation you mean that Christians are the only faith recognized by law and government. That is clearly never been the case.”

    And that has clearly never been the assertion, either. Please deal with other posters’ actual arguments instead of what you imagine they secretly mean by them. Thanks.

  • Larry

    Meaning you want to imply Christianity is to be considered favored by our government and laws?

    Because that was what Tim was claiming. It certainly is not supported by your block quote. Its telling that you are quoting a case which has nothing to do with religious freedom, the establishment or free exercise clause. It was a case involving immigrant labor and statutory interpretation. Your quote was pure dicta, of no value in precedence or application.

    Justice Bewer who you are quoting didn’t even make such claims when the statement was made.
    “But in what sense can it be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that people are in any matter compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Neither is it Christian in the sense that all of its citizens are either in fact or name Christian. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. ”

  • Larry

    That was EXACTLY what Tim was saying. Christians are favored by our government and all others should remain quiet.

    That is ALWAYS the assertion made by people saying “America is a Christian Nation”. If it wasn’t the case, people would not be so keen on declaring such things in response to issues of the Separation of Church and State.

    When you talk of “Christian roots” you don’t bother to explicate them further as to why it is relevant to the subject. All you do is pluck out some quotes and keep the discussion as vague as possible. So who has to care? Nobody. Its just self-satisfied ramblings.

    Unless you are willing to come out and claim that Christianity has special preference in our laws and government, your whole spiel is just wheel spinning. Making vague and implications which have no inherent meaning.

    Whatever role you think Christianity has in our foundation, it means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things since we have a religiously neutral government and laws. Separation of Church and State, that great idea conceived by Anabaptist sects such as Roger Williams and William Penn has grown beyond its Christian roots to apply to all faiths and beliefs. Is it Christian anymore? No. It is universal.

  • Larry

    Btw on the Vidal case which is quoted way way out of context

    “The Vidal case was decided under Pennsylvania common law, not on constitutional grounds. Apparently, it was only in the U.S. Supreme Court because of diversity of citizenship (Vidal was French). Girard, apparently a Deist, was very wealthy and left a charitable trust for the education of orphans which provided that no cleric could ever proselytize on the property of the school and orphanage. Vidal, et al, were Girard’s next of kin and they sought to have the trust declared void on the ground that it was anti-Christian. It would seem that their motive was greed, not piety.

    The Christian Right sites strongly imply that the “religious” side won the Vidal case. Not so, Vidal lost. The trust was upheld.

    I find it really amusing that the same folks who are always attacking Everson v. Board of Ed. or Ewing Township, a case which the religious side won, extol the virtues of Vidal v. Girard’s Executor, a case which the “religious” side lost.”

  • tim

    Whether you want to admit it or not, I gave you a small list of the many problems that honest people recognize as problems with evolutionary theory. You apparently cannot answer even one of them!

    Go look up Dr Behe’s book on “Irreducible Complexity”; at last reckoning he was not yet a believer but was honest enough to admit the problem is there.

    And yes, I have utter contempt for the BS of evolutionism because it does not meet the standards of true science – what I call quantitative science – you know– the hard sciences that I named. It is a BS exercise in imaginative morphing of goo to you, frog to prince, sod to god etc. If people, cannot rigorously prove macro-evolution (not finding let’s say even 50 % of fossils being of the expected transitional forms why should you expect us to believe it after over 1 million non-transitional fossils have been found since Darwin?).

    Hey, put on your thinking cap and stop regurgitating verbiage that some idiotic biased professor spouted from some like himself! Answer the question: where is the expected great majority of transitional fossils???

    What you do not realize is that evolutionism is an unprovable faith in a secular view of origin with the propagation of said faith being paid for by public tax dollars and resulting in virtually no benefit to science or the public. In fact, some have argued well that the teaching of evolutionary theory is racist and thus has hindered a true science of races ( the subtitle of Darwin’s book “The Origin of Species” was “and the preservation of favored races” – Hitler found that Darwin’s material was “useful” )

    Also note: you cannot logically deductively prove our origin in God but the inductive method ( first cause ) and the logical holes in all other other theories of origin leave only one other reasonable alternative: special creation. You remember your calculus don’t you? Induction works in math/calculus/number theory – doesn’t?

    I do not hide behind ID. Like many of the founders of this country, I also believe in God; but yet “hard” quantitative science works well for me. There is no contradiction. I had been on the other side of the fence but I am educated more fully now. Many unfortunately have missed it, been mistaken because they have been mis-educated. Better yet: they have mythed it, been myth-taken and been myth-educated because they believe the myth of evolutionism: a false intolerant secular humanistic unprovable view of origin based on the premise that matter in random motion eventually begets everything including ordering information accounting for the incredible interdependence amid all the diversity in the entire biosphere. I see awesome design implying an awesome designer.

    Let me know next time you see a tornado rip through a junk yard and produce a 747 !!

    God’s opinion in scripture is this: The fool hath said in his heart: there is no God.

    You seem like a reasonably smart guy. Have you ever read the Bible through and asked God to prove or reveal himself to you? King James Version is reputed to be fifth or sixth grade reading level. We can all manage that !!

  • Shawnie5

    No more wikipedia, please. Study the actual cases.

    Now of course it makes not one jot of difference what the actual situation at issue was, or whether the religious side won or lost, or whether the courts words about religion are a binding issue or not. What matters is the recognition of every generation of legal minds before this, purely as a matter of course, that this is indeed a christian nation which reverences God and therefore reverences others’ liberty of conscience for the very reason that we are all created in the Imago Dei and therefore are entitled, by virtue of human birth alone, to our lives and the freedom to choose how to live it. This is Judeo-Christianity’s unique contribution to western civilization and the liberties we hold dear would not be possible without it.

    You guys crack me up with how busily you go about tryng to deny this writing, minimize that one, discredit that one over there — much like a group of kiddies playing Whack-a-Mole and stamping their little feet in exasperation. You will never be able to rewrite this country’s history no matter how hard you work at it. There’s simply too much of it–far more than atheist echo-chambers can deal with, and everyone with even a modicum of education knows it. What you CAN do, however, is appreciate and take full advantage of your freedom to believe or not believe whatever you please and live accordingly. Your camp, whenever and wherever in possession of power, has never been able to stomach that.

  • s

    “That was EXACTLY what Tim was saying. Christians are favored by our government and all others should remain quiet.”

    Please do not augment cluelessness with dishonesty. Tim said that about being “silent” in a sarcastic sense and you know that quite well. Implying of course that you and your ilk would certainly not keep silent while core tenets of your particular “faith,” (for faith it definitely is) were systematically erased for the sake of ideology — and he was right about that. Of course, we don’t ask you to keep silent.

  • Shawnie5

    From me. Backspaced over my own name.

  • Larry

    And people just blurt out “We are a Christian Nation” when the subject is the Establishment Clause because they want to give homage to US history. Riiight. Next, you will have a bridge to sell me.

    The statement is always used to pretend Christians deserve some privilege over every other faith and in our laws/government.

    My core belief is that the separation of church and state protects both. One cannot protect free exercise of religion if government without it. Entanglement of government with religion always leads to discrimination.

    Do you have a problem with these beliefs? You sound like you do.

  • Larry

    The minute you referenced Behe, you lost any credibility you thought you had. ID is not a scientific theory. It is warmed over Biblical Creationism with psuedoscientific jargon thrown in to sound intelligent. Fact of the matter is, its proponents admitted in public that:
    1. They used word substitution with Biblical Creationist Texts
    2. It can only be taken seriously by Christian Fundamentalists
    3. None of its proponents were willing to subject its ideas to qualifications for expert witness
    4. Its intelligent designer is the Biblical God
    5. It requires the supernatural, making it always unacceptable for being taken seriously as science.

    Creationists had their chance to display the scientific merits of their ideas in the Dover Case and ran like scared little rabbits. I am not going to take your rehashed blatherings seriously.

    You have contempt for evolution because your religious beliefs demand it. Lying for the Lord. You lack the requisite knowledge and training to challenge it on scientific merits. There is no sense in pretending otherwise.

    Whatever problems you have with evolution seem to come from a lack of knowledge as to what it really is or a desire not to find out. There are enough fallacies and complete myths you have bandied about to list which display this. I can direct you to various websites which address your alleged faults. But you are probably well aware of them and will chose to ignore them.

    Dishonesty is the nature of Creationism. You deny your faith and pretend otherwise to impress others into belief in your brand of Christianity. You will never accept the idea your Christian belief can be disproven by science, yet you want to show that it can. That means you will never abide by the rules set for acceptable objective scientific study. A Creationist is a goal post shifter.

    -First they pretend there are scientific flaws with evolution despite the overwhelming acceptance in the field, its confluence with other studies and the lack of any scientific theories to the contrary, its applicability in interpreting research in the field, and clear examples of its existence

    -After that, they start shifting the goalposts to blather about the tyranny of “Naturalist Materialsm” which denies their supernatural voodoo from acceptance a priori. Never mind that exclusion of the supernatural is precisely what keeps science credible and objective. It doesn’t allow their nonsense so they have to attack it.

    -Then they blather about conflating Evolution with the Nazis and why they think it is philosophically bad for an number of spurious nonsense reasons having nothing to do with science.

    -Then they admit their belief is entirely based on faith and essentially accidentally refute Creationism. Creationism denies faith in public.

  • Larry

    Shawnie you took 2 quotes out of context on cases having zero to do with religious freedom. I wonder why you bothered to look at those cases. Oh I know, various Dominionist websites reference it.

    Your talk of Imago Dei is utter nonsense since even the Churches didn’t take it too seriously as they were extolling sectarian conflict, genocide and authoritarian government.

    We owe our concepts of religious freedom from those not so orthodox religious groups (whose ideas you generally oppose on principle) who were persecuted by fellow Christians based on their religious beliefs. Whatever you think Christianity contributed to our notions of freedom, they also were the opponents of them as well. But you won’t ever admit to something like that. It goes against your apologetic revisionist nature.

    “This is Judeo-Christianity’s unique contribution to western civilization and the liberties we hold dear would not be possible without it.”

    So goddamn what!

    What does that have anything to do with the separation of church and state?

    What does that have anything to do with this article?

    Its an irrelevancy.

  • Shawnie5

    “Shawnie you took 2 quotes out of context on cases having zero to do with religious freedom”

    Larry dear, if we are acknowledged by our founders and our judiciary to be a Christian nation when the subject is citizenship, or anything else, then we are no less a Christian nation when the subject is religious freedom. What part of that do you not understand? To acknowledge our history and roots takes nothing away from religious freedom. It is the SOURCE of our religious freedom. It would be much more dangerous to our religious liberty to try to revise away that historical reality–except it quite obviously can’t be done with any kind of honesty or credibility.

    “I wonder why you bothered to look at those cases. Oh I know, various Dominionist websites reference it.”

    Project much? I have no need of propagandist websites, unlike you, because I actually have an education. I wish the same were true of you. We could actually discuss these things then.

    “So goddamn what!”

    Stamp those tootsies, now. But be careful of your BP.

    “What does that have anything to do with the separation of church and state?”

    More than you’ll ever be able to get your head around, clearly.

  • Shawnie5

    “The statement is always used to pretend Christians deserve some privilege over every other faith and in our laws/government.”

    LOL! Is that another one of your laws of thermodynamics? If that is what it “always” means to such a mind-reader as yourself, then what pray tell did it mean to the SCOTUS justices that “blurted it out” in the aforementioned cases?

    “Do you have a problem with these beliefs? You sound like you do.”

    Not even in the slightest. There is nothing worse for the vitality of the church than establishment. That is what has been wrong with the church in Europe since the beginning — they managed to enshrine Judeo-Christian morality into the laws and ethical systems but they failed to speak to and move the hearts of the common people because they were essentially state-funded bureaucrats with all the fervor and diligence for which bureaucrats are famous. No, I do not want that. I want a church that neither dictates to the state nor is beholden to it, and a state that does not interfere with the work of the church. That does not mean, however, that we must pretend that our concepts of justice, liberty and human worth owe nothing to the Judeo-Christian tradition, or that religion does not exercise a beneficial influence over our citizens that translates into more virtuous government and society. All of the founders knew that.

  • Larry

    Shawnie, unless you want to chime in on the subject, a conflict having to do with the Establishment Clause (the separation of church and state) you are blowing hot air as usual.

  • Tim


    Apparently you do not understand the logic of the concept of irreducible complexity. Most rational people understand that structure / design generally determine limits to function regarding many things. It works with mousetraps, machines, biological structures, organisms, ecosystems, biospheres,stars, galaxies and even organizations, and etc. If you do not understand this take some science courses.

    When this concept is applied to evolution it results huge conceptual hurdles for macro-evolution. The bible talks about a fixity of kinds (or some say species). In order for one species to change into another gradually over many generations it would require a slow change in structure per evolutionism (or a sudden massive introduction of information in the form of new DNA/genetic info over a very short time).

    Evolving organisms with skeletons that change over many generations should also leave many skeletal remains of a gradually changing structure. From reptiles to birds, for instance, there should be a wealth of fossils/skeletal remains showing a gradation or continuum of change from (presumably) leg to wing. The record would expected to be fairly blurred as to structural clustering of particular kinds/species and groups. This is what the application of probability and logic would demand. The majority of the skeletal record should be transitional. After, a million plus fossils since Darwin there is barely scant evidence of this sort and even all of that is questionable in many honest minds. Similar types of reasoning can be applied in different ways also to sub-cellular organelles, cells, tissues, organs, etc.

    The basic problem is that with changing structure you would also see/predict change in function. A full wing helps flight and a full leg supports running but a half wing/half leg does virtually no good in neither the air nor on the ground. Many structural gradations in between are analogously disadvantaged. Unfortunately, per evolutionary theory changing structure results in natural selection (dis)advantages in terms of survival (dis)advantage and/or reproductive (dis)advantage. And this would in turn result in a fixity of species (~”kinds” in the bible).

    Mark these words well: this type of questioning will ultimately destroy the lie of evolution. But you can
    “sit” while many others mention God in the pledge. Hopefully, when you highlight publicly your disdain for God, you will also highlight the question of origin for people. Ultimately, macro-evolutionism will find its place on the scientific ash heap in history with other nonsense.

    In response to your blather : Show me at least 50% of the fossils being transitional. Where is the expected majority of transitional fossils? I ask again : Where are these expected historical forensic proofs of evolution. Let me point out to you: were these evidences provided long ago, brilliant people who now question evolution would not be coming to understand in increasing numbers that evolutionism is sham science. You might want to try panspermia with a loop in time similar to Sir Hoyle Fredrick who also calculated the probability of random generation of the simplest living cell at one in ten to the 40,000th power. Goo to you ? Really??

    In addition, you know very little what my religious beliefs “demand”!

    In addition, I do not need to lie for the Lord; my interest is scientific truth and that is best found in unbiased, real quantitative science which questions and seeks answers.

  • StarWish624

    I learned it back in the day before the change. I refuse to go along with the masses. I just say it the way it was originally written, and simply take a breath and watch the stupid parroting of the hijacking phrase, and laugh under my breath at those that say it
    Our separation of church and state is one of our strengths, and envied internationally by those who KNOW what having church involved with state means. I can get ugly really fast.

  • Larry

    Don’t flatter yourself Tim.

    Nobody in the scientific community takes “concept of irreducible complexity” seriously. Therefore it is not something that can be relied upon as an objectively credible theory in the field. No need to take your word on the subject seriously whatsoever.

    Its nonsense. It all comes down to warmed over “God in the Gaps”. You can’t think of a solution to a question and say “God did it” and make no further study.

    Creationism is absolutely useless. It spurs no furtherance of knowledge, it provides no objectively credible interpretation of data, it is a dishonest representation of your religious belief.

    The basic problem here is you really don’t understand the theory of evolution and are completely unwilling to educate yourself on it. Btw there is no difference between Evolution and Macro-Evolution. It is all the same thing. Dishonest creationists came up with the distinction because scientific discoveries have outpaced their rhetoric and they must concede some parts without looking completely foolish.

    You are not a scientist, you are not a biologist. Nothing you say on such subjects carries any weight. I don’t have to debate you. I don’t even feel the need to convince you otherwise. Evolution exists regardless of belief. The evidence speaks for itself. You don’t have the education, background, experience or skills to upend it.

    “this type of questioning will ultimately destroy the lie of evolution.”

    Because scientists don’t ask questions. Riiiight. You really have no idea how ideas are accepted in science.

    “In addition, you know very little what my religious beliefs “demand”!”

    I know you are willing to pretend you know something on a subject yet exhibit willful ignorance, just to protect your religious belief. I know you are willing to lie about the nature of your belief and deny faith. That was all apparent from your posts. You are probably not Catholic either. They declared Creationism to be a sham.
    See the encyclical titled Truth cannot Displace Truth

    Creationism REQUIRES one to be a fundamentalist Christian and requires supernatural belief. Both of these invalidate it as anything to be taken seriously as science.
    “In addition, I do not need to lie for the Lord; my interest is scientific truth and that is best found in unbiased, real quantitative science which questions and seeks answers.”

    But you are not willing to learn a damn thing on the subject of biology before discussing it. So obviously your statement is not true. You are also have been engaging in false dichotomy the entire time. Attacks on evolution are not support for creationism. You have to give positive support for creationism for it to be taken seriously. There is none. Nor will there ever be any.

  • Chevy

    I taught my son to omit the words “under God” when he recited the Pledge of Allegiance, but I guess I didn’t go far enough. I should have abstained from the rote recitation way back when and taught him to do the same. My thought at the time was that we were patriotic Americans and could thus participate in the Pledge to that limited extent.

    Religionists will use any excuse to force their beliefs down the throats of the innocent and gullible. 911 led to the singing of “God Bless America” during the seventh inning stretch at Yankee Stadium. When it plays now, I sit and keep my hat on. I have no problem honoring the victims of 911, but I will not pay lip service to a god who made them sacrificial lambs. GBA is NOT our national anthem and I do not have to rise and remove my cap in the name of any god.

    Americans should bow to no god and no king!

    Chevy, South Hadley, MA

  • Tim


    If I could flatter myself I would simply be following your bad example.

    Irreducible complexity is brother to the argument from design. That family is now on the block!
    And they ain’t a movin’ any time soon.

    Don’t want God in the gaps? But you want goo in the gaps? Do you really want to step in that …?

    Its evolutionism that is useless to science and racist at its core! Darwin’s time was non-PC times, thus his initial subtitle.

    Micro-evolution of irradiated fruit flies only gave disadvantaged fruit fly progeny, but alas, no spiders, beetles, etc. No macro-evolution occurs no matter how hard you believe it. Macro-evolution is not scientific because you cannot observe it.

    Genetic info represents order/design and mutational influences are heavily in favor of destruction of genetic information. So, what mechanism do the experts believe creates new favorable genetic to offset this problem?

    And yes, though hypothesis testing is used in science but so is “questioning” … hey Galileo, hey Copernicus.

    Also, you can keep guessing my religious stripe; Catholic encyclicals have been disagreed with by those of many a stripe. And again: hey Galileo, hey Copernicus.

    By the way: Did you find the expected majority of transitional fossils yet??
    Can’t your scientific experts tell you where they are? Maybe lost in the Smithsonian?
    No fossils? Sounds like a necessary evidence for evolution is missing – not an explanation for how evolution occurred that’s missing — but necessary/expected physical evidence is simply not there! Hmmmm! Let me guess: you want me to take it on faith!!

    Do you know why many use the term “missing link”? Damn, most of the chain isn’t there!

    Do you know why we do not say the Evolutionary Law but use the term “theory”?

    When did anyone actually observe macro-evolution occurring?/ Obviously never!

    Please note: to believe creation as per the bible does require faith but to believe
    evolutionism also requires faith and that is a truth which your side is loath to admit!
    If it were admitted government monies funding its teaching and propagation in schools would
    be at risk of discontinuance. Gee, who did you say is lying?

    Don’t want attacks on evolutionism? Don’t like creation science? Then take both faith positions on origin out of curricula in schools or permit teaching both. I want equal time and influence for my tax dollars.

  • Larry

    You admitted yourself, you don’t know jack about biology in any way which would make your statements credible as someone with requisite knowledge to challenge its operational theories in a meaningful way. (“All your “quantifiable sciences” background nonsense) So I can take your talk of fruit flies and macro-evolution and ignore it as regurgitations from creationists sites of people with no idea what they are talking about.

    “Don’t want God in the gaps? But you want goo in the gaps? ”

    YES!!! You can measure goo. God has no place in a lab and has no objectively observable existence. This statement alone pegs your adherence to scientific principles as nill. You don’t give a crap about science or proper education as long as you can shoehorn your religious belief in there.

    Show me where one can find peer reviewed scientific support for creationist by professional biological science journals. They do not exist. Nothing you blather about has any level of credibility by those in the know.

    You are simply regugitating premises which betray a complete lack of knowledge of evolutionary theory. (Like ignoring that it is a process which builds upon previous efforts and making noise about pure randomness)

    You would like to think evolution has no use in science, but the reality is that it works for everyone in the field of biology for interpretation of studies and data in a way no other SCIENTIFIC theory does. There is no support for Creationism from any professional or academic biological science organization. The people whose job it is to apply working scientific theories to their work.

    If any scientific theory could supplant it, its proponent would be the most important and celebrated person in the field. Scientists actively look for alternatives if they can plausibly exist. I emphasize scientific because ID is not science. Its not even religion. Its a rhetorical tool to give fundamentalist Christianity a level of credibility which only comes through dishonest representation.

    “By the way: Did you find the expected majority of transitional fossils yet??”

    Yes, but you aren’t going to bother looking for them. There are plenty of websites and sources you can reference for them. But you won’t.

    “Do you know why many use the term “missing link”? Damn, most of the chain isn’t there!”
    Tiktaalik would like a word with you. 🙂

    The fallacy of your argument betrays ignorance of the fossilization process as well. You are not a biologist or paleontologist, therefore you ask the wrong questions.

    “When did anyone actually observe macro-evolution occurring?”

    This betrays ignorance of paleontology, biology and the nature of historical scientific studies. It is observed through the past evidence accumulated over 100 years and its marks are left all over our genomes.

    “evolutionism also requires faith ”

    Just wishful thinking on your part. Evolution would not be so universally accepted in scientific fields all over the world if that were the case. Creationism requires faith because it has no evidence whatsoever to support it. Even its proponents admit that they do not care about evidence to support its belief.

    From the Ham/Nye debates:
    Q: What would it take to get you to change your position
    Hamm: Nothing
    Nye: Evidence

    That says it all. A creationist will make up any story, tell any lie and make any argument to support their position. It is neither rational nor objective. You lie about your faith when you support creationism. Making it poor even from a religious standpoint.

  • Shawnie5

    Tim, if you really want to discuss these details you’re going to have to go elsewhere. Larry didn’t even know what irreducible complexity was until he/she looked it up on wikipedia, and all you’ll ever get out of him/her are blind, emotional attacks on your personal truthfulness and your background. Sadly, those are the only argumentative tools available to those without knowledge.

  • The K of C got the offensive ‘under god’ phrase inserted into the pledge when I was in 7th grade. When it was announced, I pledged (!) to refuse to stand and recite it ever again, and I never did. I don’t care what kind of superstitious medieval nonsense others want to believe but I am not about to let them force me to acknowledge it. http://www.godisimaginary.com

  • Faith is a pisspoor substitute for thinking. If you knew 9 more things, you would be an idiot.

  • Dennis Middlebrooks

    Ronald misspelled Atheists as well!

  • Dennis Middlebrooks

    Gee, I wonder why so many of our federal buildings and monuments (like the Supreme Court, Lincoln Memorial and the Capital) are based pagan Greek and Roman architecture, and why early busts of the leading Founders showed them with Roman tunics or laurels? And where did the Senate come from? The Bible or Ancient pagan Rome?

  • Doneck

    The Muslims subscribe to the same principles, so why do you exclude them? They are Judeo-Christian-Islamic principles.

  • Doneck

    I fortunately hadn’t been confronted with this intimidating phrase because it came after I had completed high school. While a child, however, I did comply with the public school rules, although silently questioning why I should ever declare an allegiance to a flag–to a piece of cloth? That made no sense to me: shouldn’t that have been regarded as idolatry anyway (1 John 5:21)? Anyway, my allegiance is to the Republic, with or without uttering a coerced pledge.

  • Larry

    Shawnie, as usual you are full of it. I am fully aware of irreducible complexity. I just do not take it seriously. It is merely “The Bible says so” for the naive/dishonest. The only one who got flustered was Tim. His response to the God in the Gaps statement alone showed a lack of focus. The Ham/Nye exchange I quoted tells us everything we need to know about the level of honest objective discussion a Creationist is willing to tolerate.

    ID is philosophically retarded as well. it posits life is so complex you cannot attribute it to possible human design and therefore consider God the designer. But the problem is one could never initially make the assumption that it was designed in the first place. We perceive design based on what we are capable of creating ourselves. Since we are incapable of creating living beings, we cannot assume it is designed. Therefore cannot conclude a designer.

    David Hume had Creationist nonsense refuted a century before Darwin’s birth just on the philosophical flaws of the “argument from design”. Darwin merely provided the scientific basis for telling Creationists to go stuff themselves. After a century or so, they still don’t get the hint.

  • Tim

    I believe your observation and judgment is correct: Larry seems to me to be caught up
    in the “religious” fervor of his irreligious secular humanism/religion.

  • Tim

    News flash: neither the evolution side nor the creationist side has a video of the origin of the human race. Both sides look at forensic historical evidence and come to conclusions.

    Evolution is simply an unreasonable conclusion because critical evidence is missing.

    Look at it as a simple syllogism: it’s KIND OF a modus tollens situation:
    If macro-evolution occurred then a plethora of gradations of transitional fossils should exist for every limb of the macro-evolutionary tree.
    No such plethorae of transitional fossils exist.
    Therefore, it is not true that macro-evolution occurred.

    Furthermore: if macro-evolution is not true and if we know that macro-evolution is not true then teaching macro-evolution would be LYING! Spending the public tax dollars to teach a lie would be fraudulent or improper use of public tax money. I object to that.

    Without something being observable, testable and repeatable it a stretch to call it scientifically provable. Evolutionism is like creationism — a belief system based on an interpretation of certain evidence. It is more a historical inquiry than science. The rest of biology is is fine with me and very useful and scientific.

    Some brilliant people realize these things about evolutionism and some brilliant people do not. I have dealt with scientific people of both stripes. I have had too many science courses and too much exposure to miss the many times evolution has been inserted into the course without any good scientific reason. However, regardless of anyone’s background they do have a right to judge evolutionism based on its logic. And yes, professor or peon, they can declare it logically to be nonsense without being a scientist. To think otherwise, smacks of pure intellectual elitism, detestable hubris and indulging in avoidable stupidity.

    Design / special creation is the only other logical alternative left when evolution is discarded by logic. Logical examination of the truth of a position is also valid, so one can make a logical and historical inquiry – even regarding supposed scientific truths.
    Logic precedes science because science is based on logic, as well as, quantification, measurement, etc. Thus, bringing in other historical sources is within the realm of answering questions that science cannot and should not attempt to answer -such as origin of humanity.

    As suggested previously: if the transitional fossil record was of the necessary state to prove evolutionism we would not be having this discussion. You ignored that fact throughout most of our our discussions.

    Sorry Larry : The goo never did, nor will it ever, evolve into a guy ( or gal ). And I did not even get into the problems of accounting for simultaneous evolution of reproductively compatible male and female forms of the so called transitional forms! Please also note that throughout our discussions I did not quote much bible at all. What’s
    that you whisper now? (“There’s hope for Tim. Some science might be rubbing off on him!).

    Oh I almost forgot to ask again! Where are those transitional fossils?? I checked your berkeley site and one reference concerns these very type of arguments about the need of transitional fossils to support the THEORY of evolution. Oh well! Oh well! As for Tiktaalik, it is a interesting transitional fossil wanna be – but alas, only ONE POSSIBILITY. Scientists made similar types of assertions about Archaeopteryx now regarded as a hoax by some. Now, I will tell you again: evolutionism NEEDS the MAJORITY of fossils to be transitional. By my estimate, if there are 1 million to 40 million fossils, then the evolutionist side is just shy of 1 to 40 million examples of transitional fossils behind.Hmmmm! Belief in macro-evolution with that lack of evidence held up as truth sure sounds like faith me!

    Just think if you were on “our” side with that kind of faith you might be raising the dead!!

  • ben

    Wait a minute. You’re the one who believes in an invisible all powerful being that rules the entire universe while being concerned about what we eat and where we put our penises and we’re nuts? Please.

  • samuel Johnston

    When I became a licensed attorney I took an oath to uphold the Constitution. I take that seriously. I have not said the pledge of allegiance for the last forty years.
    It is silly and hardly worth analyzing , much less litigating. It is clearly just a propaganda effort to attempt to instill some group’s idea of patriotism. Even as that, its value is dubious.

  • Arlyne

    From the time I was able to think independently, and before I knew the word itself, I’ve been an atheist. Initially the pervasive use of the word “God,” on our public (and some private) buildings, on our money, within our military, and goodness knows where else, made no impression on me. But, as time went on, I gradually became aware that use of that word excluded millions of people, including me. I am not “under God,” for, for me to think so I would have to be delusional. Is my opinion the majority? I think not, which makes it more important that my beliefs be recognized and respected. (Before that last sentence gives someone a hissy fit, recognizing and respecting a belief does not mean you have to adopt it for your own personal beliefs. Because it’s mine doesn’t mean it has to be yours.) This is a democracy, not a theocracy, our money and our public buildings to the contrary. And that means that we are all citizens, all equal, each with the same one vote. I am offended every time I hear someone call our nation a “Christian nation.” We are more than that. We are a democratic nation.

  • Larry

    “neither the evolution side nor the creationist side has a video of the origin of the human race. Both sides look at forensic historical evidence and come to conclusions.”

    Wrong. Creationists look at no evidence whatsoever. They cannot be bothered to educate themselves on the subject beyond what works for their religious belief. No evidence exists to support Creationism.

    “Evolution is simply an unreasonable conclusion because critical evidence is missing.”

    Wrong again. Your view of what evidence is missing or critical is not going to be relevant since you do not work in the field, have the education/experience nor have been willing to read what people in the field say on the subject. You claim expertise which you have not earned. Therefore your opinion on the subject carries no credible weight.

    “If macro-evolution occurred then a plethora of gradations of transitional fossils should exist for every limb of the macro-evolutionary tree.”

    You continue to be wrong. You do not understand the process of fossilization. It does not preserve everything living. Not everything fossilized is clearly identified either, not all living things die in conditions which allow for the process. Of course anyone who had a good faith interest in the subject can look this up, but you won’t because you are dependent on dishonest presentations

    Your definition of observable is woefully limited and incorrect as well. Especially when dealing with processes far greater than human perceptual limits. Historic analysis and interpretation is observation in a scientific sense. What you are telling me is you don’t understand scientific research processes nor want to.

    “Design / special creation is the only other logical alternative left”

    Very wrong. You assume a dichotomy exists without bothering to show your view can even be supported. Since there is no evidence to support design, it is not a viable alternative. Scientific ideas require independent proof and evidence. They are not accepted by implication or by attacking existing ideas in of themselves.

    “God did it” can never be a scientific explanation for anything. It cannot be observed, it cannot produce evidence, lead to objective studies nor can ever be credible in of itself outside of whatever cult you belong to at the time.

    You have shown me that you are willfully ignorant. We can add dishonest as well since you clearly deny the basis of your own religious belief, faith.

  • VJ

    You need to be some homework. Out forefathers explicitly ordered separation of church and state? Not even close.

    Use google, it’s your friend.

  • Chris

    You realize that the pledge was instilled in the first place to honor those who have fought and died for our country, so that you can have you religion, or lack of it… I find it upsetting that someone as intelligent as yourself wouldn’t realize this. The pledge was never meant as a prayer, if you think that is so and your best protests come from a group of people refusing to say it, then you are radicalizing yourself. We were a nation formed on the principle of unity, So on behalf of all of the Veterans that have fought and died for YOU, I shake my head at your protests and I get off my feet face the flag and say the pledge like a true American.

  • Chris

    Sweet heart, stop pretending you know stuff. You are embarrassing your cause. In your fifth grade civics, or higher education class as you would refer to it as, you most likely got to the section in which you discussed the principles of state power.

    It is understood that the power to control religious practices is outside of federal control. Your argument is actually harmful to the status quo because the government cannot organize these as you said in line 6-7. What blocks them is because way back in the day 😉 when the framers of the federal constitution considered this subject, they decided against any type of national religious establishment. It was decided that was to be a State matter. The First Amendment to the Constitution assured that the Federal government was powerless over religious matters, except in assuring that there was no national establishment and in guaranteeing the free exercise of religion.

    The reason why we should just leave it as it is follows right along with the arguments that put it back into place.
    1) It signifies respect not religion.
    We can understand that the phrase “under God” is in the pledge, that’s why I’m typing this.. However, not having it in the pledge does not harm it either. You see, the pledge was instilled to show respect for the many men and women that have died. Those same men and women that died so you can open a random tab on your computer and slander their success, their aspirations. When did object become more important than people?

    2) It doesn’t specify a higher being.
    No where in the pledge does it relate to a higher being. You hear the word God and immediately cringe. That’s ok, I don’t care if you don’t believe in a higher power. What I wish to help you grasp, is that the pledge says “under god.” Go ask most five year old kids where god is. Do you know where they will point? That’s right, up; it doesn’t matter if they are Atheist. The pledge symbolized a place not a deity. It gives us a solid reference point, I’m sure if you were to ask yourself, Lary, you would point up too, regardless of religion. You know the word God is associated with up.

    So, I encourage you to ponder this. Don’t make hasty reply and remember you are free.

  • Chris

    …and where did we come from?

  • brenda metcalf

    Just because you were “brain washed” in to the insanity of ” believing and worshiping a ghost” don’t expect normal thinking people to follow “blindly”.

  • pongladi

    Perfect reply !!! you can tell his whole state is full of crap just like their whole religion.

  • pongladi

    right Chevy :>)

  • pongladi

    Perfectly Stated Arlyne

  • Adam

    Quit using veterans. We’re not all religious. I a combat veteran of Iraq despise the under God part of the pledge and really the whole pledge.

  • Pingback: Religious Persecution is Coming… | A Day in the Life of an English Student()

  • Jamie

    Excuse me, but last time I checked, ATHEIST and FASCIST weren’t synonymous.

    The issue is not that atheists are welcomed freely into a country that seems to deplore them. The issue is that in order to honor the country they love, American atheists have to pledge allegiance to a god they don’t believe in.

    How would you like it if the pledge said “one nation under Allah”? That is the exact situation every American atheist is put in today. As a matter of fact, it’s the situation everyone who doesn’t believe in the Christian god is put in. What is that thing Christians are supposed to do again? Was it treat people how you would want to be treated? You sure don’t act like you believe it…

  • Jamie

    Technically, it was founded on freedom of religion. And that freedom of religion comes with freedom from religion. Plus, do you know how many divisions of theists there are? And within those divisions there are more divisions. Within those divisions there are more divisions. The “will of God” is different to each one of those divisions. Which one is right? Why is it right? Why should a country filled with all of those divisions subject to the will of that one division? And why are all of the other ones wrong? If you ask me, we need to be one nation, whether it’s under God or not.

  • Dogg1

    To me it’s all mumbo-jumbo. Want me to stand up, I’ll stand up. Want me to recite it, I’ll recite it. Same as an event that has prayers. I’ll stand up and sit down and say the mumbo-jumbo. I’m not interested in making a show of my nonbelief. That’s just me. Not all nonbelievers feel the same way. It’s not as if we’re some group with a shared ideology. I am happy to discuss my nonbelief with others if they want to hear about it. If they don’t, that’s OK too. But I might be the guy next to you in church at someone’s wedding singing and talking along with the service, who doesn’t believe a word of what he’s saying or singing.

  • asherthefox

    Indeed! Without God or Christ, there wouldn’t have been an America to call home for everyone of every nationality.

  • craig

    lol, what god are you talking about?

  • craig

    Wow! hook line and sinker here. Don’t believe everything you hear my friend.