Do you know what "Under God" in the pledge is intended to convey?

According to the recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision on Newdow v. Rio Linda Unified School District, it means that we have a limited form of government. That's right, being "under God" means that our government is limited, it draws a stark contrast to those totalitarian theocracies which are not very limited forms of government. I know this doesn't make much sense, but the entire majority decision in question doesn't make a lot of sense. Apparently if you pass legislation which specifically adds two words which seem roughly religious and serving a religious purpose it's really about limited government.

Congressman Rabaut:

From the root of atheism stems the evil weed of communism and its branches of materialism and political dictatorship. Unless we are willing to affirm our belief in the existence of God and His creator-creature relation to man, we drop man himself to the significance of a grain of sand and open the floodgates to tyranny and oppression.

Congressman Bolton:

The significant import of our action today . . . is that we are officially recognizing once again this Nation’s adherence to our belief in a divine spirit, and that henceforth millions of our citizens will be acknowledging this belief every time they pledge allegiance to our flag.

 To put it bluntly, no judge familiar with the history of the Pledge could in good conscience believe, as today’s majority purports to do, that the words “under God” were inserted into the Pledge for any purpose other than an explicitly and predominantly religious one: “to recognize the power and the universality of God in our pledge of allegiance;” to “acknowledge the dependence of our people, and our Government upon the moral direction and the restraints of religion,” 100 Cong. Rec. 7590-91 (1954); and to indoctrinate schoolchildren in the belief that God exists, id. at 5915, 6919. Nor could any judge familiar with controlling Supreme Court precedent seriously deny that carrying out such an indoctrination in a public school classroom unconstitutionally forces many young children either to profess a religious belief antithetical to their personal views or to declare themselves through their silence or nonparticipation to be protesting nonbelievers, thereby subjecting themselves to hostility and ridicule.

Nope. Hogwash. According to the majority it means that we have a limited form of government. Yes, because "Under God" conveys to "Godless Communists" who are "Atheistic" and "Atheist Americans is a contradiction in terms" we are to take the fact that people who expressly said this added the words "Under God" to the pledge to convey how limited our government is.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/11/05-17257.pdf
You know, school is hard enough without being outed as an atheist by a silly recited pledge hijacked by religious fervor in the 1950s to force children to be told that their parents beliefs are wrong and that God and patriotism go hand in hand.

To recite the pledge is not to describe the United States; instead it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice and -- since 1954 -- monotheism

-- 9th Circuit decision in Newdow v. Elk Ridge

Phelps Injunction maintained.

I hope all these laws get repealed soon. It's such utter crap.

The dumbasses on Fox talking about it was just idiotic.



If you allow anybody to sell icecream 50 meters away from the funeral. You must allow them to be there. Basically if it is public property they get to protest whatever they want. BS stay away laws are absolute crap and they remind me of Bush-era Free Speech Zones.

They protest because God tells them to inform others of our impending doom of God's wrath as we are all doomed because we skirted God's law. They don't protest the funerals because of Don't Ask Don't Tell, they protest the funerals because dead soldiers, like 9/11, and any and all disasters that kill American lives are signs of God's wrath. What ignorant tools Fox has...

Inherit the Wind, all answers are right.

Thankfully we don't need to pass a law to make it illegal to teach anything but evolution. It's legal to teach evolution, there's a requirement to teach science in science class, and teaching religion is not legal. So we're only left with evolution. Although, some of the latest sneaky laws from the right are always trying to set that asunder. The current idea is to non-discrimination against religious viewpoints law attempted in a number of southern states. The idea is basically that you make it illegal for schools to have people suffer grade-wise for their religious beliefs. If you are asked what the age of the Earth is and you write down 6,011 (4004 + 2008 - 1) you're right, regardless that it's closer to 4.5 billion years old (.000133% as much as you should have answered). They don't get you marked as wrong. Some say teachers can teach other views as well.

I predict that under such a law, it would be a near requirement for students to promptly convert... to discordianism.

Malaclypse the Younger: Everything is true.
Greater Poop: Even false things?
Mal2: Even false things are true.
Greater Poop: How can that be?
Mal2: I don't know, man, I didn't do it.

Straight A's.

Idea of The Day: Outlaw 50+ Abortions.

In the trend the right has in attempting to undercut and undermine a woman's right to choose the anti-choice crowd should seek to pass a law limiting the number of abortions a women can have to 50. This will serve several major functions for their crusade to control the wombs of people attached to said wombs.

First: As the law would probably never kick in, nobody would have standing to challenge the law.

Second: It would require tracking of abortions to make sure women haven't reached their quota. Can you say scare tactic?

Third: The support for the cause would be considerably eroded due to the high quota. Honestly, you're protecting woman who has had 50 abortions. FIFTY! Rather than a protection of all women and an argument about body sovereignty and medical choices it makes the pro-choice folks seem like they really want her to have that fifty-first abortion.

The current wedge of focusing on late-term abortions is a disaster as most are conducted for medical reasons on non-viable fetuses or those due to kill off their mothers. The pro-life people are forced to lie their asses off to pretend that isn't the case.

My law would be unchallengeable, seem absurdly trivial, and serve to start eroding Roe v Wade. Whereas I am a firm supporter of a woman's right to choose and moreover support infanticide in a number of situations (not to directly equate the two) I think from an idea point of view this law is pure gold.