House passes Pledge of Allegiance shield

[AJ]

Approves measure meant to protect ‘under God’ phrase from activist judge

WASHINGTON — The House, citing the nation's religious origins, voted Wednesday to protect the Pledge of Allegiance from federal judges who might try to stop schoolchildren and others from reciting it because of the phrase "under God

AMEN
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,204395,00.html

[Jim]

Thank God

Now that we got that done we need to get these public schools to stop teaching science and stick to teaching the myth of Christianity. I mean every God fearing American knows the earth has only been around 6000 years and I know I didn't come from no damn dirty ape.

I say it's time for a good old fashioned book burning party. We could have one everyday right after our children Pledge their undying love for this country under the one and only God.

God bless America, and nobody else.

[ecchi]

If the word 'God' offends you say 'god' (with a small g), and let it mean whichever god you believe in.

And you do not believe in any god, then why are you moaning? If there is no god, then both 'God' and 'god' are meaningless, and saying them just to keep someone happy should be no problem to you. After all, if there is no god, then they are just words.

[SirMoby]

I know I didn't come from no damn dirty ape.
Spoken like a true ape :)

[pjo]

This is not about your topic, but I do agree with One Nation Under God. We were created a United States under this and we need to stay this way.
Now I need help with a question...please; Is it democracy itself that leads to the national characteristics, or do the characteristics of democracy lead nations toward establishing democracy as opposed to other forms of goverment? I am an older than average college student and goverment class is not my fortee', if you can help please I would appericate it. Thank you

[SirMoby]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,204395,00.html

"We should not and cannot rewrite history to ignore our spiritual heritage," said Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn. "It surrounds us. It cries out for our country to honor God."

What this idiot seems to forget is the history of the pledge. It was created by a Christian Socialist. Only in 1954 after a great deal of pressure from the Knights Of Columbus, an organization that did not even exist when our country was founded, did "God" enter the pledge.

Any attempt to bypass the Supreme Court is illegal, unconstitutional and should not be done by people that believe in democracy. Maybe people that believe in fascism would approve or socialists like the creator but certainly not people that believe in liberty.

[ecchi]

Is it democracy itself that leads to the national characteristics, or do the characteristics of democracy lead nations toward establishing democracy as opposed to other forms of goverment?
This should really have been posted as a new thread but in answer to it:
I doubt if democracy leads to national characteristics, because if so all countries that are democracies would have the same national characteristics, and they don't. Also, countries that became democracies after years of totalitarian rule do not suddenly change their "national characteristics", for the most part the people are the same, they just get to vote. Take a look at Russia and Iraq for example.

I would also disagree with the hypothesis "characteristics of democracy lead nations toward establishing democracy", I would say that the majority of people the world over would prefer that their country was a democracy (unless they get the chance to rule). Those that are not democracies, are not democracies because some person or group of people have forced their way into power with big guns (or big bows or big swords, depending on how long that group or family has maintained power), not because the people of that country are the sort that want to be ruled by a totalitarian government.

In short, IMHO democracy and national characteristics are apples and oranges. Totally separate things, neither influencing the other.

[dana]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,204395,00.html

"We should not and cannot rewrite history to ignore our spiritual heritage," said Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn. "It surrounds us. It cries out for our country to honor God."

What this idiot seems to forget is the history of the pledge. .......
I suspect this idiot also conveniently forgot about why the US is a secular country in the first place. Christians were very much in the minority when the country was founded. Our forefathers had had enough organized religion, Church of England and Catholicism, and were mostly Deists. The Christians were afraid they would be left out of a theocracy and be persecuted, maybe executed. It was Christians who lobbied Franklin to opine on a secular state. That we are a secular state and were founded as such is a fact of history. "Under God" should be tossed out.

[Linkster]

Well - Im gonna stay out of the religious side since most that know me know that I abhor the attempts over the last 50 years to Christianize government - and S Moby has it absolutely correct - the founders had no intention of religion ever entering into our republican government - and most of the signees to the constitution even wrote long diatribes about that separation being kept intact or the democracy would fail - and become the same thing we had just fought for our independence from

ecchi - your example of Iraq is a bad choice - as after the rule of Britain in the early 1900s (following WWI) Iraq was a democracy - right up until the USA wanted some help against Iran (remember the hostage crisis and the Iran-Iraq war) so some highly placed US government officials (some who are in power right now as a matter of fact) back then helped the military take over Iraq and depose the president. They armed Saddam and some other generals to fight against the sects that were aiding Iran (this will come out in Saddams trial Im sure if we dont cover up the news coming out of Iraq with this new multimillion dollar news bribe that was put out for bid a few days ago)
Once Saddam and the other generals were armed (which funny as it may seem included the fertilizer and other ingredients for chemical weapons used by Saddam) they took over power - the democracy was shot down - and this was just 30 years ago

I guess my point is that if we wanted a democracy so bad in Iraq why did we help get rid of it 30 years ago? I guess we'll just have to wait and see what Cheney and Rumsfeld say to that since they were both involved back then

[ecchi]

ecchi - your example of Iraq is a bad choice
Your knowledge of history is better than mine, but what you say about the country does not lessen it's use as an example my original point, in fact it strengthens it.

which funny as it may seem included the fertiliser and other ingredients for chemical weapons used by Saddam
Yes, did you see the guys arrested in Britain a few months ago as terrorists, they were charged with "being in possession of fertiliser". (That is not a joke, it is true.)

[boortzland]

The constitution only says that the government can not pass any laws that will establish a religion. That does not mean our values, and our Christianity must be completely absent from government. We have "In God we trust" on our money. The Declaration of Independence starts out "We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights". Sounds to me like their values and faith had a big part of why the worked so hard not to insert their beleifs and create a theocracy. They were afraid of what happened with England. But they did not EXCLUDE their faith from their doctrine. You can not seperate any individual from their beleifs. We are what we beleive. Our values guide our decisions, and guided theirs.
"Under God" is a generic term and does not establish any PATICULAR SECT OR RELIGION. It could mean Ala, Jesus, Buda, or for that matter any number of pagan gods.

So, in short, "under god should stay.

[Tommy]

boortzland
with all due respect.... your wrong

it says...... and this is from memory
congress shall pass no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion

the key word here being RESPECTING

in the 1950 Congress added the words "under god" to the pledge of allegiance

that is a clear sign of respecting a religion

and it was done for religious reasons
it was put there to show the difference between god fearing Americans and atheist communists during the cold war


I really dont think it could be any simpler

[boortzland]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Respecting AN ESTABLISHMENT...big difference. This does not mean we have to exclude generic terms such as "Under God". You are taking it out of context. The key word is ESTABLISHMENT.

[Tommy]

ok fine have it your way ... The key word is ESTABLISHMENT

under god, in god we trust etc etc etc

is respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion

go look up establishment :-)

I am not taking it out of context
there is no way any resonable person can take that out of context

[Tommy]

Congress shall pass no law
means congress cant do shit, it has no power ....

respecting an establisment
refers to investing political power in a particular religious faith or body
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment

when you recognize some ones name on your money or in an important thing like the pledge of allegiance
that is a sign of respect or did they write in those words because it means nothing

to me its very basic stuff
I believe anyone that puts aside their ideology and look at it with an open mind can see that

[Tommy]

also I wanna add

if your right and i am wrong then why would there be a need for any kind of Pledge of Allegiance shield
you wanna know why
because they know it violates the constitution and even though they have planted their judges in the SC
it is so text book that there is no way its gonna stand
thats why they threw it out on a technicality last time

I have spent uncountable hours thinking about the first amendment
when everyone is asleep I sometimes just lay in bed thinking about it

it sounds crazy but there is soooo much in wrapped up in that first sentence that no one even realizes

if I could do my life over I would wanna be a first amendment attorney

[ecchi]

congress shall pass no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion

That has to be the worst worded law I have ever read. Establishment can have two meanings ("setting up" and "an organisation") and so can respecting ("with reference to" and "showing respect to"). In other words, this law can mean:
"congress shall pass no law that shows respect to a religion"
or
"congress shall pass no law which sets up a religion"
or
"congress shall pass no law has anything to do with a religion"
or
"congress shall pass no law that shows respect to setting up a religion"

[Tommy]

That has to be the worst worded law I have ever read. Establishment can have two meanings ("setting up" and "an organisation") and so can respecting ("with reference to" and "showing respect to"). In other words, this law can mean:
"congress shall pass no law that shows respect to a religion"
or
"congress shall pass no law which sets up a religion"
or
"congress shall pass no law has anything to do with a religion"
or
"congress shall pass no law that shows respect to setting up a religion"

not if you think about the words, go over and define each word like you were a child then and only then it becomes perfectly clear

I use to see it like bortzland and yourself but like i said after thinking about it a lot ......



congress shall pass no law which sets up a religion
like bortzland said the keyword is establishment
it would have to say
congress shall pass no law establishing a or any religion

the word establishment changes the context



congress shall pass no law has anything to do with a religion
think about the word: respecting
when you respect somebody or something you show that how ??



congress shall pass no law that shows respect to setting up a religion
the same argument as the first one


ask yourself this

why is it the first sentence of the first amendment
when your making a list of things don't you normally-always write the most important things first

think about whats implied there

[SirMoby]

"Under God" is a generic term and does not establish any PATICULAR SECT OR RELIGION. It could mean Ala, Jesus, Buda, or for that matter any number of pagan gods.
Wow. I would be shocked but this is typical of people that believe that America has roots in Christianity.

"Ala" does not mean God and "Buda" is the capital of Hungary. Jesus was the son of God and a virgin. "Allah" is the Arabic name for God to Christians, Jews and Muslims. "Buddha" is not a god in any way as the Buddhists do not believe in gods.

Did you notice the term "Creator" and not God when the USA was formed? In many religions "Creator" is not a god.

"In God We Trust" was added to the dollar in 1957 about the same time that the Christian arm of the Masons (a very secretive organization) had "One nation under God" added to the pledge which was created by a socialist preacher and not someone that supported democracy or freedom of religion.

To you this may all sound like the people that started this great country wanted God to be part of it. If you spend even a little time educating yourself on the issue you will very quickly discover that you are wrong.

Please spend an hour researching the people that created this country, other religions or the Masons (people that hide their identity and intentions) and then write something based on facts that you've found.

[ecchi]

think about the words, go over and define each word
That is what I did in my post. Trouble is, two of the words have two different meanings, leading to four totally different possible meanings of this law. For example, unless congress spit on the Catholic Church they break this law. I realise what it is supposed to mean, but it is so ambiguous that any halfway decent lawyer could make it invalid in court.

Bottom line: Regardless if this is a good or bad law, it was written by an illiterate asshole who obviously considers Roman Moroni his first language.

[questions]

Linkster, I thought America helped to arm Iran.

[boortzland]

Explain to me how having "In God We Trust" on the money, or "Under God" in the pledge of allegence (which no one is forced to recite) violates any ones rights, or forces them to observe any paticular religion? This whole argument to me is more political correctness run amuck.

[questions]

"Suck it in, suck it in, if your or Rin Tin Tin, or Ann Bolin. Make a desperate move or else they'll win and then begin to see what you do to me this MTV is not for free, it's so PC it's killing me..." the immortal words of Blues Traveler

[SirMoby]

Explain to me how having "In God We Trust" on the money, or "Under God" in the pledge of allegence (which no one is forced to recite) violates any ones rights, or forces them to observe any paticular religion? This whole argument to me is more political correctness run amuck.
In your first post on this issue you make it very clear that you have no information about other religions. Not even enough to understand that religion can be based on something other then fear of a powerful being.

I suggest that you spend a little time educator yourself. You have Internet access, you can read and seem intelligent enough to research certain issues so why not. Instead you come back, still with a closed mind and ask people to force feed you the information.

Imagine your children going to public school and every day at 8:15 everyone in class stands up and says a prayer to Allah. How would you feel about that?

Just answer that one question.

[boortzland]

Imagine your children going to public school and every day at 8:15 everyone in class stands up and says a prayer to Allah. How would you feel about that?
Just answer that one question.

Since the pledge of allegence is neither required nor does it mention any specific god, your premis for the question is not correct. The pledge is not a prayer. It is there to inspire in young minds to have a sense of patriotism.

My child would say the pledge of allegence and understand its meaning. As a parent I would object if the school took on the roll of indoctrinating them in any religious training, including Christianity, unless of coarse i send them to a Christian scholl for that kind of training.

Of coarse if they stood up and said a prayer to Allah I would object.

[ecchi]

I went to a Roman Catholic school, my mother was Catholic and wanted me brought up in the faith. However the Religious Instruction lessons included all major faiths. It is called 'education'. I was not being 'indoctrinated' into the Muslim, Jewish, etc. religions, I was learning about them, and about the way other people worship. In the same way I would expect non-Catholics to learn about my religion without being 'indoctrinated'. I managed it, all the kids I went to school managed it. So what, you saying people who do not believe in God are less intelligent and more gullible than us Catholics? Sorry, that is not true. It is just stupid parents demanding that their kids leave school without a full education. Well I suppose we need someone to flip burgers in MacDonalds.

[SirMoby]

Since the pledge of allegence is neither required nor does it mention any specific god, your premis for the question is not correct. The pledge is not a prayer.
The words are "Under God" and not "Under A God". The words were put in there by a Catholic group that has been lobbying for forced prayer in schools and not our founding fathers.

You even admit that you would object to your children sitting in a room filled with people saying "Under Allah" but you don't care if people that don't believe in a god or your God should be subject to everyone saying "Under God".

Isn't that hypocritical?

[boortzland]

The words are "Under God" and not "Under A God". The words were put in there by a Catholic group that has been lobbying for forced prayer in schools and not our founding fathers.

You even admit that you would object to your children sitting in a room filled with people saying "Under Allah" but you don't care if people that don't believe in a god or your God should be subject to everyone saying "Under God".

Isn't that hypocritical?

No hopocracy here..the pledge does not specify a Catholic god, a Christian god, or a Mussilim god. And no one os forcing anyone to pray. And i would object to forced prayer of any kind in the government schools.

Ecchi..
I think religious schools are different. It's one thing when a religious group forms their own school and people pay to send there kinds there. but it is a completely different thing to send them to be educated by the government on tax payer dollars, and then have them conduct the religious education. That would be indoctrination, because we'd get their approved view of each denomination.

But still, the issue with the pledge... this is not a prayer, it passes no laws establishing a religion, and does not mention a specific god. "God" to me, means something completely different that gods of other religions, as I've said.

[Linkster]

Boortzland - I think the point that you are missing is that by saying the word god you are automaticlly limiting the religions in play - so that you understand - there are a large amount of religions that dont use the word "god" - it is limited to catholic/christian teachings only which is a small percentage of the worlds religions.
Moby is right as to the history of why those words were added to both money and to the pledge - it was all during a period of time in our history when if you were anything but christian you were not only looked down upon, but there were actually groups around that would go out and actively harras other religions and "nationalities" - a real good example is the KKK - if you think that all they did was burn some crosses and kill a few negroes you have been taught the distilled version - hopefully you dont come from a background like I did where if you were italian, irish, jewish or just about any other than white christian anglo - you were shot at, yes I had a cross burned on my yard when I was a young boy in Florida (sorry - Im italian), and that was just the norm.
Of course that kind of mentality doesnt exist these days- everyone should be able to live in peace and harmony - even the illegal mexicans that come across the border - right? Cause we all live "under god"

[Simon IA Cash]

Religious people often seem to feel some sort of bond with other religious people, irrespective of religion. One girl I met told me "My dad doesn't care what religion I marry, as long as the guy believes in God." And while religious squabblers can hold hands together in their mutual acceptance of a higher power, atheists become marginalized. I don't really care if it's under God, god, a god, a divine potato, it's all nonsense to me, and that people are forced to pledge any allegiance to any higher power frustrates me to no end.

The USA is not a Christian country, not an officially religious nation. There are religious states, and as much as the USA likes to bend the rules against its otherwise not-so-god-fearing citizens, it ain't one of them. One nation under god has no business in the constitution, especially considering the subversion of the government to god. What's at the top of the power-chain, afterall? While not a prayer, it is an affirmation of divine dominance that has no place in a public school with free religious (or irreligious) thought.

For anyone that thinks "under god" should still be there, have you ever tried, for one minute, to imagine what it's actually like to NOT believe in God? This "what's the big deal?" attitude misses the point. It's not something you just shrug off. Right to no religion is as valid as right to religion. "Under god" is a very definitive and powerful statement to an already impressionable youth.

[boortzland]

Religious people often seem to feel some sort of bond with other religious people, irrespective of religion. One girl I met told me "My dad doesn't care what religion I marry, as long as the guy believes in God." And while religious squabblers can hold hands together in their mutual acceptance of a higher power, atheists become marginalized. I don't really care if it's under God, god, a god, a divine potato, it's all nonsense to me, and that people are forced to pledge any allegiance to any higher power frustrates me to no end.

The USA is not a Christian country, not an officially religious nation. There are religious states, and as much as the USA likes to bend the rules against its otherwise not-so-god-fearing citizens, it ain't one of them. One nation under god has no business in the constitution, especially considering the subversion of the government to god. What's at the top of the power-chain, afterall? While not a prayer, it is an affirmation of divine dominance that has no place in a public school with free religious (or irreligious) thought.

For anyone that thinks "under god" should still be there, have you ever tried, for one minute, to imagine what it's actually like to NOT believe in God? This "what's the big deal?" attitude misses the point. It's not something you just shrug off. Right to no religion is as valid as right to religion. "Under god" is a very definitive and powerful statement to an already impressionable youth.

I suppose you would prefer no values, complete absense of religous faith, every one with the freedom to do anything they want, the degredation of society as a whole. In fact, you would prefer the masses submit to the athiest???

I dont get it..NO ONE IS FORCED TO SAY THE PLEDGE!! It has no force or effect. I would not want to live in a country where the leaders were absent of faith. In fact, in this country an athiest could not get elected to the White House. Even slick willie put on the pretense of faith to help his efforts while campaining.

You are right that the "right to no religion" is valid. The pledge does not violate that right. There is no right that requires elected officials to not have faith or express their faith in the excecution of their duties. There is no right, not to be offended.

Officially we are not defined as a "Christian Nation", but the fact is 80% of this nation is of "Judeo-Christian faiths". I'm not going to pardon my faith, nor am I going to force it on any one. If folks are uncomfortable being around people reciting the pledge, they can stick their fingers in their ears or leave as far as I'm concerned. THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED.

[SirMoby]

I suppose you would prefer no values, complete absense of religous faith, every one with the freedom to do anything they want, the degredation of society as a whole. In fact, you would prefer the masses submit to the athiest???
I see the source of your anger is your own jump to the wrong conclusion.

I have very strong values and in fact my family values and other values are much stronger then most of my church going neighbors. Don't confuse religeon with values.

I simply lost faith in a religion that worships a god that needs the help of a recovering alcoholic. I've spent most of my life living among Washington insiders and to believe that God speaks to a member of this family is insane.

You have admitted twice that if everyone said "One Nation Under Allah" that you would protect yet you expect others to listen to a class mentioning the god that you worship.

I don't understand the hypocracy here.

[Tommy]

for me the road to atheism started back in high school during religion class

we were doing noah's ark and I got in a little bit of trouble for pointing out that there is no way Noah could get all those animals in a boat :-)

I know today that is one of the things that atheists like to sort of... tease the faithful about


the teachers name was..... brother Richard, (st Agnes high school)
he started yelling things at me like that's what the devil wants you to believe, and that I better get my head straight with god etc etc

of course when your 14 and big black guy in a robe starts yelling at you in front of a class you back down pretty fast

but i knew then that I was right and just by his reaction I could tell ... something was very wrong

[Tommy]

Hey boortzland

I gotta hand it to you
your a bit out numbered here and your sticking to your guns pretty good
a lot of people would have just said screw it by now

let me ask you one thing

lets try and pretend we are in high school
and every day EVERYBODY in the class gets up puts their hand over their heart and recites the pledge

and I don't

I of course stand out like a sore thumb

whats my life gonna be like in high school

am I gonna be "in" with the popular crowd
am I gonna be welcome at the GOOD lunch tables

could I end up being the last person picked in sports games

whats my chances of getting picked on, or getting my ass kicked by the bullies

whats my chances of taking Mary Jane to the movies on sat night

[boortzland]

Hey boortzland

I gotta hand it to you
your a bit out numbered here and your sticking to your guns pretty good
a lot of people would have just said screw it by now

let me ask you one thing

lets try and pretend we are in high school
and every day EVERYBODY in the class gets up puts their hand over their heart and recites the pledge

and I don't

I of course stand out like a sore thumb

whats my life gonna be like in high school

am I gonna be "in" with the popular crowd
am I gonna be welcome at the GOOD lunch tables

could I end up being the last person picked in sports games

whats my chances of getting picked on, or getting my ass kicked by the bullies

whats my chances of taking Mary Jane to the movies on sat night

All of the items you have listed might me unfortunate, and may well be an effect of not standing for the pledge. Hey, we do the same thing at baseball games, the singing of the national anthem. If you do not stand, you may well get ostrasized, it may not be a religeous song, but the premise is the same. In neither case does the constitution protect you from criticism. We have no RIGHT to not be offended, not right to expect the absense off all religous symbols & saying from our view, or out of our range of hearing. If you live in a majority Mussilim country, would you walk around with a big Crucifix displayed around your neck? In those countries, you could be be-headed for that. Here, all you have to do is obstain from the reciting of the pledge or leave the room.

I feel about this like i do those that say, we cant fly the American flag because it might offend someone...if they dont like the flag...move. If they dont like "Under God" and cant deal with a generic term like god on the money on in the pledge, they need to move to a country where they dont have to see and hear these things. You cant force the majority of society to conform to a few individuals that feel offended. And...since the pledge does not ESTABLISH A RELIGION, nor force ANYONE TO SAY IT,...well ive said all this before.

I'm also sick of companies bowing to this PC crap. Even Walmart, whom as you know i have shown support for in the past, is no longer allowing greeters to say "Merry Christmas" because they dont want to offend non-Christians. It's Happy Holidays, and the chools are now calling "Chistmas Vacation" winter break for the same reason.

I guess we are all supposed to be ashamed of our faith and keep it in our homes. It's ok to teach classes so that kids will tolerate homosexuals and divorce, but they cant even see Religous symbols, sing traditinal Christmas songs, like we have in this country for 230 years.

[Tommy]

big stores owned by big corporations that cater to the huge masses

should say merry Christmas

but little stores... family owned

how can you tell a small Jewish shop owner to say merry Christmas

at home he teaches his kids the family's faith
then he brings his son to work in the store during the busy season and
and the son is gonna think what ??????when he sees all the Christmas stuff hanging in the store
he cant have a christmas tree at home but in the store dad is a hippocrate

the thing that a lot of people ... mostly Christians don't understand

is that most people don't react well to outside influences that go against the family's religious teachings


but at least to me a lot of Christians seem to think its perfectly OK as long as its never done to them

i gotta wonder if the sitation was reversed and they were a minor religion
would they be standing up and saying the stores should have something showing respect for Eid al-Adha

[boortzland]

big stores owned by big corporations that cater to the huge masses

should say merry Christmas

but little stores... family owned

how can you tell a small Jewish shop owner to say merry Christmas

at home he teaches his kids the family's faith
then he brings his son to work in the store during the busy season and
and the son is gonna think what ??????when he sees all the Christmas stuff hanging in the store
he cant have a christmas tree at home but in the store dad is a hippocrate

the thing that a lot of people ... mostly Christians don't understand

is that most people don't react well to outside influences that go against the family's religious teachings


but at least to me a lot of Christians seem to think its perfectly OK as long as its never done to them

i gotta wonder if the sitation was reversed and they were a minor religion
would they be standing up and saying the stores should have something showing respect for Eid al-Adha

If i walked in to a family owned Jewish store, I would expect to hear Happy Huanukka (?spelling?), but my point was more simple. As a majority Christian Nation the PC crowd has bullied us "Right-Wing Christians" into not being able to express our selves because someone might be offened. Merry Christmas is not and expression of "F/U you friggin Jew, or Mussilim, it is a Christian way of wishing someone all of the joy of our most holy holiday. If you are offended by me wishing you "Merry Christmas" then you are the one with the problem. If someone in a turbin wishes me the "Peace of Allah", I take that as a compliment that that person is wishing me well. If he calls me and infidel, i may be offended, but I have no CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT not to be offended.

[SirMoby]

If i walked in to a family owned Jewish store, I would expect to hear Happy Huanukka (?spelling?), but my point was more simple. As a majority Christian Nation the PC crowd has bullied us "Right-Wing Christians" into not being able to express our selves because someone might be offened. Merry Christmas is not and expression of "F/U you friggin Jew, or Mussilim, it is a Christian way of wishing someone all of the joy of our most holy holiday. If you are offended by me wishing you "Merry Christmas" then you are the one with the problem. If someone in a turbin wishes me the "Peace of Allah", I take that as a compliment that that person is wishing me well. If he calls me and infidel, i may be offended, but I have no CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT not to be offended.
We all understand that but in THIS thread you posted that you would be offended if everyone stood up in a room with your children in it and mentioned Allah.

That's hypocrisy.

[boortzland]

We all understand that but in THIS thread you posted that you would be offended if everyone stood up in a room with your children in it and mentioned Allah.

That's hypocrisy.

no hypocracy...My kids would not be in that school. I dont live in Iraq, nor do they live in Hamtrammick Michigan. I would be offended but I do not have the right to tell them what they can worship, recite etc. The great thing about the USA is i have FREEDOM. What a concept. if I dont like what a school is teaching, i can move them to another school, another city, county, state, or country.

again..there is no right not to be offended..but now you're going in circles.

[Tommy]

If i walked in to a family owned Jewish store, I would expect to hear Happy Huanukka (?spelling?), but my point was more simple. As a majority Christian Nation the PC crowd has bullied us "Right-Wing Christians" into not being able to express our selves because someone might be offened. Merry Christmas is not and expression of "F/U you friggin Jew, or Mussilim, it is a Christian way of wishing someone all of the joy of our most holy holiday. If you are offended by me wishing you "Merry Christmas" then you are the one with the problem. If someone in a turbin wishes me the "Peace of Allah", I take that as a compliment that that person is wishing me well. If he calls me and infidel, i may be offended, but I have no CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT not to be offended.


but Boortz aren't they free to express their religious holidays any way they want.
isnt that what freedom is about


isn't this whole merry Christmas thing striking at the very core of freedom of religion AND freedom of expression

doesn't the constitution protect a persons right to say happy holidays or whatever


you express your religion your way and another person does it his way.
whats wrong with that????

I always thought happy holidays was a short way of saying merry xmass and happy new year

[boortzland]

but Boortz aren't they free to express their religious holidays any way they want.
isnt that what freedom is about


isn't this whole merry Christmas thing striking at the very core of freedom of religion AND freedom of expression

doesn't the constitution protect a persons right to say happy holidays or whatever


you express your religion your way and another person does it his way.
whats wrong with that????

I always thought happy holidays was a short way of saying merry xmass and happy new year

The only thing thats wrong with it is, they changed it to be PC, not because thats what they preferred. They can says what ever they want, and yes that is freedom. The whole PC thing is to satisfy a few that may become offended, and by doing so, they may have pissed of the majority. I'm not saying we will stop shopping in places that say happy holidays, but its sad when a few people can force the masses to submit, just so they wont be offended...companies today are becomming chicken-shi%....pardon my french.

[Tommy]

I dont think its a P.C. religious thing
I love christmas
I spend about a week putting lights up on my house
(yes I am one of those loons)

99.9% of people who don't believe in god could care less if a store said merry xmas or happy holidays

more likely its a money thing
printing happy holidays is a lot cheaper and easier

then merry christmas happy hanukkah happy new years etc etc

[SirMoby]

no hypocracy...My kids would not be in that school.
But it's your tax dollars paying for that school.

[Linkster]

I was going to give up on this until I noticed the tagline that mentioned Cain - and that explains it all - I think the 3 comments I heard from Cain that made up my mind in a hurry:

"Cain was asked why he didn't have health insurance for his employees. "Well, I can afford it for my secretary," he said. "But I can't afford it for my workers." - from when he was CEO of Godfathers Pizza

"he believes God had a hand on the founding of America, and he says people have no right to redefine what God has defined."

"I'm one of these people who feel very strongly that there is no ambiguity about the intent of our founding fathers that God would be a part of the foundation, morally, of this country,"

He obviously missed the day they taught the Constitution in grade school