What the hell?!?

But how do you know that for sure Dan? Are you referencing this from somewhere?
 
Mo> I'm simply reading the words, written in plain English.
Of course, it also helps that I'm not reading any particular inference into it. It doesn't seem that many otherwise sensible people are able to do that anymore.
 
Oh, I see. I just wanted to make sure that what you are saying is your interpretation.
 
No, I don't believe what I was saying was my "interpretation", but rather simply quoting the literal meaning of the words as based on the English language and the rules of the language.

IOW, what the words mean with NO interpretation.
 
Mo> Yes, that's exactly what I mean when I say that some people are incapable of reading the words without adding in their own little twist.

Of course, I think the author of that book goes a little overboard with his particular interpretation because he has a clear agenda.
 
:lol:

Turns out this whole thing is the result of an idiot with a chip on his shoulder.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/07/11/pledge.daughter.ap/index.html

Ends up there may not be a case after all.
Some legal experts said the mother's revelation that the girl herself willingly recites the pledge in class could cast doubts on the legitimacy of the case.

Courts can only hear cases in which there is an injured party, and if there is no injury there is no grounds for a case, said Rory Little, a Hastings College of the Law professor who follows the 9th Circuit.

The federal courts can't address anything unless it's a case of controversy," Little said. "You have to have injury."
Click to expand...
 
I'm glad this guy has won this.

If you want to say "under god", then that is your right. But forcing atheists to pledge this breaches the separation of church and state. It is a must that this be optional.

Personally, I don't see why there needs to be any mention of god on money either. The US, last time I heard, was a secular country.

As for patriotism...of course, I'm going to be biased, because Australia really isn't patriotic at all, but if I were forced to make a similar pledge here, ESPECIALLY with mention of god in it, I would be calling a lawyer.
 
I still am not sure I agree with it. I guess I "don't know how to interpret English", according to Dan.
If someone does not believe in God, then acknowledging him as a "witness" doesn't make sense to me. Anyway, that's my thought.
 
This case is certainly not about God. It is really about politics. The guy who wrote the pledge intended it to unite the country and all of its various cultures and religions. He would have been quite upset to learn that during the paranoid McCarthy era the "under God" was added to separate the U.S. from the "Godless" communists. He wanted it to bring together different religious groups not alienate the ones withg different views. It is patently un-Constitutional as is "In God We Trust" and religious oaths swearing people in in public courts. A lot of this is hold over from a time when religous deversity meant lutherans and episcopalians and when unalienable rights bestowed by a creator were only actually for those with a lighter skin tone.

That being said, it just might not be worth fighting for at the moment if ever. It would accompish very little. It's not like anyone is forced to say it anyway, at least hopefully. That was deemed in-Constitutional years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top