I think people forget that the guy who brought suit actually has no standing first of all. AND his daughter DOES IN FACT believe in God and is religious and wants to say the pledge.

Anyways, I think he's just a trouble maker looking for attention wasting taxpayer's money. And he's violating his daughter's rights.

Also, why not just make it optional? If you want to say the pledge, with or without the "under God" part? I think that's a good compromise.

I also think we should remove it from the currency. It seems weird to me.

Incidentally, does anyone know if swearing in, taking oaths in public service and in court still include using the bible or the words "so help you God?". I think that would be relevant also.

Sounds good to me.



Mojo, how do you feel about the fact that that article cites evidence-about teen birth rates- that is completely made up? How do you feel about the fact that it cites a court case upholding the seperation between church and state as evidence in its attempt to claim that no such seperation should exist. That itself is a glaring example of deception by omission. In short, how can you trust the author of this article to actually represent history in a trustworthy manner if you know that s/he is at the very least a sloppy journalist.

Willravel, i addressed your article in posts 36 and 37, perhaps you'd do me the honor of responding, instead of making yourself scarce. Tell me how you feel about constitutionality as a function of court interpretation?

I think citing the lack of bible in school vs. moral decline may have merit, but I agree with not in this discussion of constitutionality, especially when you are telling me that there facts are wrong.

As far as your assertation about the Separation example used in the text, could you maybe be misreading it? Are you making mention to the Maryland case? Could you maybe steer me to where you're looking at?

The "moral decline" that they implied was at least in part based on false statistics. Statistics whose only link to morality is based completely on opinion. There are sourced statistics refuting their unsourced statistics in post 35.
I posted the facts of the case a few posts before this, but in here they are again:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=367&invol=488

Here's a brief summary of torcaso v. watkins with colors by filtherton:

Ok. Well the point made by the article, is that the FF wanted it that way, the declaration of a belief in a diety. I can't attest to the truth of that one way or the other, but the fact that it was law until challenged in the 60's does give merit to the thought, no?

How so? Sodomy laws were on the books up until a few years ago, and i think the blowjob/cunnilingus enjoying majority all know how much merit those laws have. Unless i missed your point, which given my state of mind lately is quite possible.

Read the article? So the article trumps the dozen or so books I've read by and about the founders? Including the 3 I've read of Jefferson?

No. Your article is revisionist history. Read de Toqueville.

Dp, please forgive

Well since it is "right revisionist rhetoric" you could point me towards how it is so, bring something to the table that shows me the truth. Show me where the framers ever intended there to be this magical "wall of separation", tell why all of them were Masons, deists, and most importantly and overwhelmingly Christian; show me how Jeffersons idea of a contract government, how man being endowed by his creator, the author of nature and law, is flawed?

Annuit Coeptis

Well, one of the evidences that your source is flawed is that Roger Williams was not a Danbury Baptist. In fact, he lived over a century earlier and was only a Baptist for a few months.

There are a lot of things that are "not in the Constitution" verbatim but are definitely implied by the wording, for instance, "seperation of powers".

Another reason I know your source to be wrong is the suggestion that the triune goverment was inspired by Isaiah 33:22. I have read Madison's notes on the Constitutional convention and not a word suggests that any verse in the Bible inspired anything with regards to the founding and formation of the US government.

The burden of proof is on you, not me. I know that the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion. If you aren't aware of it too, it is hardly my problem.

Well for a decent discussion it is on you. Telling us you've read a "dozen or so books" doesn't mean jack to me, especially when you don't put forth any of the idea's mentioned in said books. I'm assuming you're relatively new here seeing as to you have a rookie tag, I'm not trying to harp on you for that p.s., just for future reference and application, it would be nice if you are trying to get into a thread such this you interject more then "this is wrong, revisionist history etc." maybe tell us why, cite some sources, throw an article out there you found yourself.

Mojo, how can you trust the author of this article, especially in light of its obvious lack of commitment to factual information, more than you trust McDuffie? I'm just curious as to your criteria for determining a source's credibility.

It's not a matter of trusting or not trusting Mcduffie. First off, on the issue of Roger Williams that was my fault, he was a baptist preacher, just not one of the Danbury baptist preachers having been born some 200 years earlier. The article merely says Williams was a prominent baptist preacher, and he was the one who had originally talked about separation of Church and State in his sermon "The Garden in the Wilderness." My bad, misread it.

Again going off of what I said earlier Mcduffie never put anything out there except a few quick one liners regarding the actual thread, and he few posts about Atheism. All I'm saying is I could say I'm a genius on constitutional law and that I have read X amount of books proving anything you say wrong, but we both know that you would think me a douchelander if I put none of my information or facts forward. I was merely trying to tell McDuffie for the sake of discussion he might want to infer some of his knowledge, would benefit the threads and everyone reading it.

Criteria as far as judging credibility.... Well so far the only thing we have been able to assertain as far as the particular article in question goes is that the birth facts are wrong, I couldn't tell you one way or the other, I'm admittedly ignorant to the facts there. Secondly that McDuffie claims they are wrong because he has read a dozen books. And thirdly the article confusingly uses a case of Separation of Church and State in spite of it's own argument.

Me personally though, I'll read what most people have to say, once they start getting to whacky or blatantly false I stop reading. Does that help any?

Yes it does. I'm generally the same way.

I generally try and avoid arguing facts on the internet because everyone's credibility is such an uncertainty. All anyone on the internet really has is an opinion. That's why i've mostly been avoiding politics.

You seem to not understand what's going on here. This is not a debate between you and me, it's a debate between the authors of the books I've read and the author of the article you cited.

When I have to choose between Madison, Monroe, Jefferson, et al and 'some guy on the internet', I will choose Madison, Monroe, Jefferson et al everytime.

Well maybe you would do all of us here the favor and tell us what they said.

This guy is pathetic..he needs to grow up and go on with his life. I'm no right-wing religious conservative, but his argument is a little to radical for me to even think about supporting it.

How is he pathetic?