Page 1 of 3 [ 42 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

29 Nov 2008, 7:19 pm

ALEXANDRIA, Pa. - The clergyman credited with helping to push Congress to insert the phrase "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance died in Alexandria, Pa., a church official said.

The Rev. George M. Docherty was 97.

Nancy Taylor, historian for the Huntingdon Presbyterian Church, said Docherty died on Thanksgiving at his home in Alexandria, with his wife, Sue, by his side.

Docherty delivered a sermon saying the pledge should acknowledge God in 1952 at Washington's New York Avenue Presbyterian Church, just blocks from the White House.

On Feb. 7, 1954, he delivered it again after learning that President Dwight Eisenhower would be at the church.

Congress inserted the words a few months later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rallied to subvert the first amendment.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


AspieAtheistAlly
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 30 Nov 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 43

01 Dec 2008, 9:35 pm

good riddance to this wankstain. :evil:



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,951
Location:      

01 Dec 2008, 9:37 pm

The First Amendment guarantees the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion; just like it guarantees the freedom OF speech and press, not the freedom FROM speach and press.

I'm sorry to see him go, whether or not he was merely a deluded religionist.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


AspieAtheistAlly
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 30 Nov 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 43

01 Dec 2008, 9:53 pm

Fnord wrote:
The First Amendment guarantees the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion


This is a common misconception. How could you possibly have the freedom of religion, without the freedom to have no religion as well?? the two can't be seperated. As soon as one group of religions ( the thousands of religions that comprise christianity) are allowed to use the government to promote their beliefs, that neccesarilly reduces the freedom of other religions to express thier religion.

A good real case example of this is a Bhuddist temple that was recently built in Garden Grove, Ca. It took almost 10 years to get the permits to build it. That would NEVER happen to a christian church.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,951
Location:      

01 Dec 2008, 10:04 pm

Freedom FROM religion ... in context to the OP, means that no one should be allowed to express their religious beliefs.

Otherwise, I could cite the some arcane reasoning to ensure that anything I find offensive could never be printed or uttered where I might read it or hear it.

Let's call it "Censorship" in our New World Order, then...


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


AspieAtheistAlly
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 30 Nov 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 43

01 Dec 2008, 10:12 pm

Fnord wrote:
Then I could cite the same reasoning to ensure that anything I find offensive could never be printed or uttered where I might read it or hear it.

Let's call it "Censorship" in our New World Order, then...


No, because the Constitution has nothing to say about offensive speech, other than to protect it. The Constitutuion DOES however say that congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion, making the United States a legaly secular country.

The Supreme Court has interpreted that to mean that the government should stay strictly neutral in religious affairs. It should've removed "under god" from the pledge of allegience in the recent court case, but it didn't due to some "standing precedent" clause. Basically, they argued that since the insertion of "under god' wasn't imediately challenged, that it got to stay.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,951
Location:      

01 Dec 2008, 10:22 pm

AspieAtheistAlly wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Then I could cite the same reasoning to ensure that anything I find offensive could never be printed or uttered where I might read it or hear it.

Let's call it "Censorship" in our New World Order, then...

No, because the Constitution has nothing to say about offensive speech, other than to protect it. The Constitutuion DOES however say that congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion, making the United States a legaly secular country.

The Supreme Court has interpreted that to mean that the government should stay strictly neutral in religious affairs. It should've removed "under god" from the pledge of allegience in the recent court case, but it didn't due to some "standing precedent" clause. Basically, they argued that since the insertion of "under god' wasn't imediately challenged, that it got to stay.

Fair enough. Now, when do we remove tax-exempt status on church property?

I can hardly wait ... :twisted:


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,658

01 Dec 2008, 10:34 pm

I am lost...



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

01 Dec 2008, 10:36 pm

Fnord wrote:
Freedom FROM religion ... in context to the OP, means that no one should be allowed to express their religious beliefs.


no one? where the hell did i say no one? i'm talking specifically with matters that deal with the government such as the money they print.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

01 Dec 2008, 10:40 pm

Fnord wrote:
Now, when do we remove tax-exempt status on church property?



when they start getting involved in government affairs.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

01 Dec 2008, 11:43 pm

That seems a rather harsh judgment of this man. Even if you disagree with his views, he was a well-intentioned and patriotic American.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


sinsboldly
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon

02 Dec 2008, 12:15 am

Orwell wrote:
That seems a rather harsh judgment of this man. Even if you disagree with his views, he was a well-intentioned and patriotic American.


oh, well, if he was well intentioned AND a patriot. . . then it is OK.

Merle


_________________
Alis volat propriis
State Motto of Oregon


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

02 Dec 2008, 12:24 am

Orwell wrote:
That seems a rather harsh judgment of this man. Even if you disagree with his views, he was a well-intentioned and patriotic American.


well-intentioned and patriotic (insert nation)

godwin's law.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

02 Dec 2008, 12:34 am

skafather84 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
That seems a rather harsh judgment of this man. Even if you disagree with his views, he was a well-intentioned and patriotic American.


well-intentioned and patriotic (insert nation)

godwin's law.

Calling him a traitor is an exaggeration. In fact, specifically to preclude such nonsense as labeling anyone you disagree with a traitor, the Founders gave treason a very narrow definition in the Constitution.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


AspieAtheistAlly
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 30 Nov 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 43

02 Dec 2008, 1:30 am

Orwell wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
That seems a rather harsh judgment of this man. Even if you disagree with his views, he was a well-intentioned and patriotic American.


well-intentioned and patriotic (insert nation)

godwin's law.

Calling him a traitor is an exaggeration. In fact, specifically to preclude such nonsense as labeling anyone you disagree with a traitor, the Founders gave treason a very narrow definition in the Constitution.


I'd say it's traitorous in that it violates the secular principles that the U.S. was founded on. If you read Thomas Jefferson's Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, it's abundantly clear what he mean when he wrote the first amendment. The U.S. Government was to be strictly secular.

Adding "In god we trust" on all american currency and one nation "under god" was just a bunch of McCarthyistic BS added in the early 1950's.



sinsboldly
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon

02 Dec 2008, 1:43 am

AspieAtheistAlly wrote:
Orwell wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
That seems a rather harsh judgment of this man. Even if you disagree with his views, he was a well-intentioned and patriotic American.


well-intentioned and patriotic (insert nation)

godwin's law.

Calling him a traitor is an exaggeration. In fact, specifically to preclude such nonsense as labeling anyone you disagree with a traitor, the Founders gave treason a very narrow definition in the Constitution.


I'd say it's traitorous in that it violates the secular principles that the U.S. was founded on. If you read Thomas Jefferson's Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, it's abundantly clear what he mean when he wrote the first amendment. The U.S. Government was to be strictly secular.

Adding "In god we trust" on all american currency and one nation "under god" was just a bunch of McCarthyistic BS added in the early 1950's.


The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins.


_________________
Alis volat propriis
State Motto of Oregon