Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Attacks on Pledge Ruling Bolster Its Logic


Attacks on Pledge Ruling Bolster Its Logic

6/28/02

Though support for the court ruling was limited in the leading U.S. papers, the criticisms of the decision in some ways backed up the court's reasoning. Several critics adopted the position of the appeals court's dissenter, saying that "under God" is not an establishment of religion because it is a "rote civic exercise" (New York Times, 6/27/02), a "harmless civic recitation" (Newsday, 6/28/02) with "such a minimal religious effect" (New York Times, 6/28/02). "God's name is just a frill, a space-filler in the unthinking torrent of much daily conversation," claimed Fisher in the Washington Post (6/27/02).

But at the same time, many opponents of the decision warned that it could provoke a powerful, emotional response from believers. The New York Times(6/27/02) warned that it was "inviting a political backlash," whose effects Rosen spelled out in the paper the next day: "That ruling will almost certainly galvanize Republicans to push for the appointment of conservative judges who will seek to place religion in the center of public life." The Washington Post (6/27/02) noted that the ruling " can only serve to generate unnecessary political battles and create a fundraising bonanza for the many groups who will rush to its defense.
"

As I've posted several times, there's nothing more politically correct than "God Bless America", "In God We Trust", "Merry Christmas", "God Bless You" and what's worse is that these Orwellians want us to accept doublethink and newspeak without question. Why there's nothing religious about "Under God" (another politically correct phrase) in our pledge.

OK, then why do religious institutions and persons want "Under God" in the pledge?

Bill O'Reilly once said that the term "God" was a secular term, the out the other side of his mouth said basically that we all knew who this "God" was. It's a nudge, nudge, wink, wink breaking of the spirit of the Law while trying to appear to uphold the Law.

Surely their "Concept of a God Theory" doesn't need to be enforced by Government to get people to worship. Surely this wonderful enity that thinks so much of itself that it proclaims itself to be God and it's followers saved from responsibility for their actions after death need not fill the churches with political correctness enforced individuals. Can not their "Concept of a God Theory" win souls without cheating?

If you recite the phrase "Under God" because you are forced to do so can you be considered to believe?

All religions tell one truth and then deny that truth. That's the illusion projected upon us by the delusional mind. All religions tell us that Satan thinks it is God. After having just told the truth they then go on to tell you that their Satan is the one true God.

Another part of this attack goes like this...

Granted, some of the defenders stood up for the Pledge because of, rather than despite, its religious content. "The sentiment that this is a land blessed has been accepted since Pilgrim days," asserted the Daily News (6/27/02). The Tribune's Kass (6/27/02) wondered whether his children will be "jailed for having any dangerous and heretical beliefs, like a belief in God."

Jailed for having any dangerous and heretical beliefs, like a belief in God?

As an Atheist I can tell you that I'm a US Sovereign and I defend the US Federal Constitution which guarantees the right to worship. Worship whatever you like as long as you don't make that which you worship required by Law for others to believe as you do.

Here's a link to this posts article.


Yours in Sovereignty,
JW




0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home