Judge: School Pledge Is Unconstitutional

Judge: School Pledge Is Unconstitutional
September 15, 2005 4:08 AM EDT

SAN FRANCISCO - An atheist seeking to strike the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools has won a major battle in his quest to force the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue again.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton sided with atheist Michael Newdow in ruling Wednesday that the pledge's reference to God violates the rights of children in three school districts to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

The latest decision could set up another church-state showdown at a time when the Supreme Court is in flux. John Roberts, who would succeed the late William H. Rehnquist as chief justice, is undergoing confirmation hearings, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is retiring when a successor is confirmed.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.

Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.

Newdow is hoping to get the high court to remove the pledge's reference to God and restore its pre-1954 wording, "one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

"All it has to do is put the pledge as it was before, and say that we are one nation, indivisible, instead of dividing us on religious basis," Newdow told The Associated Press.

Karlton said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts in Sacramento County, where the plaintiffs' children attend.

The order would not extend beyond those districts unless it is affirmed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in which case it could apply to nine western states, or the Supreme Court, which would apply to all states.

Superintendent Steven Ladd of Elk Grove Unified School District said the pledge will be recited until the school receives the judge's restraining order, which could happen any day.

"Our board has long supported the Pledge of Allegiance as an appropriate patriotic exercise for willing students," he said.

Karlton, appointed to the Sacramento bench by President Carter, wrote that the case concerned "the ongoing struggle as to the role of religion in the civil life of this nation" and added that his opinion "will satisfy no one involved in that debate."

In the Supreme Court's 5-3 ruling dismissing Newdow's previous case, justices Rehnquist, O'Connor and Clarence Thomas accused the majority of using Newdow's standing to dodge the harder constitutional issue. In their dissent, they said they would have upheld "under God" as constitutional.

The Becket Fund, a religious rights group that is a party to the case, said it would immediately appeal the case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. If the court does not change its precedent, the group would go to the Supreme Court.

"It's a way to get this issue to the Supreme Court for a final decision to be made," said fund attorney Jared Leland.

The decisions by Karlton and the appeals court conflict with an August opinion by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. That court upheld a Virginia law requiring public schools lead daily Pledge of Allegiance recitation, which is similar to the requirement in California.

Professors, politicians, pundits, religious groups and others immediately weighed in on the latest decision. Richard Ellis, a Willamette University politics professor who wrote "To the Flag: The Unlikely History of the Pledge of Allegiance," said the stakes are high.

"For some people, the pledge is a statement that the United States is a chosen nation, that the United States is a nation under God, that it is God's chosen nation," Ellis said. "For others," he said, "it reflects their belief in God."

For Newdow, that's precisely the problem.

"Imagine every morning if the teachers had the children stand up, place their hands over their hearts, and say, 'We are one nation that denies God exists,'" he said.

"I think that everybody would not be sitting here saying, 'Oh, what harm is that?' They'd be furious. And that's exactly what goes on against atheists. And it shouldn't."

This is the type of this which wastes the courts time an costs us all money. I mean really, it's our Pledge of Allegiance! If these parents are so concerned about this are they watching what TV is being viewed at home by the child to make sure he/she stays clear of God refrences and why can't the child just leave the classroom until this is done?
Next thing well have to do is insert all the different Gods into the Pledge just to make sure that we cover all religions equally!
Imagine it....One Nation, Under God..Allah...Buddah..Satan...
WHAT A WASTE of time and resources!!!

very,very,very sad.


shit like this makes me so pissed.

i agree with you guys...which is AMAZING.


it's the same bullshit that contributes to the downfall of America. Everyone gets offended and then people get offended by others getting offended.


stay home and pray to who you want, but in school shut the fuck up and pay respect to the founding fathers. that's life, god damnit! we all have to go through things we dont approve of or dont like at all!


fucking sissies.

I have no feelings towards this, because we don't have the pledge or anything similar where I live, so this has nothing to do with me. But, this does make me wonder... if Christianity was the minority religion in America, and Buddhism was the majority religion, would you want to swear your allegiance to Buddha every morning, or make a pledge that states "under Buddha".??

Under buddha.. that must suck.. he's a pretty hefty guy! :eek:

Don'#t get me wrong, i'm not saying that this judge is right. He's probably just another guy stuck too fdar up his own ass, trying to make a difference when all he's doing is pissing everyone off.... a real "liberal". lol But, i'm just trying to make you guys see it from a different angle. :)

Yep, I agree too. And I'm an aethiest!! I will agree that it would be wrong for public scools to make children say a specific prayer out loud but this isn't the case. It's a pledge of allegiance to the country, not to God himself. I've always seen it as tradition more than anything else. Just words, that all.

This is in our local news a lot since the guy who started it is from San Fran. When you hear this guy talk its obvious he's just some arogant asshole trying to make a name for himself by stirring up trouble. I can imagine his next move will be trying to get the "In God We Trust" off of our currency.

The whole situation kind of reminds me of a discussion I had with a Buddhist monk a while back. I had to go an interview monks at a local Thai Buddhist temple for a paper I was doing for an Eastern Religions class. At that time there was a bunch of controversy here in San Jose about a statue that was put up in the city's main park. It was meant to be a symbol of the city's Hispanic population and was of the snake god Queztacoatl. A group of fundamentalist Christians were protesting it saying it was evil and didn't belong in a public park. I asked the monks what they thought about it and they said the statue was only a piece of stone and as such had no capacity for evil. The only "evil" was what was being generated by those who were calling it "evil". For if they had not labled it as so, the "evil" would not exist. So, back to the issue at hand, the words "One nation under God" are only religious and/or offensive if the person stating or listening to them chooses them to be so. otherwise they are just words.



Does this make any sense or am I just rambling???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GHoSToKeR

I have no feelings towards this, because we don't have the pledge or anything similar where I live, so this has nothing to do with me. But, this does make me wonder... if Christianity was the minority religion in America, and Buddhism was the majority religion, would you want to swear your allegiance to Buddha every morning, or make a pledge that states "under Buddha".??

Under buddha.. that must suck.. he's a pretty hefty guy! :eek:

---

if the history of the country was based on the founding fathers praying to buddha, then the same applies. christianity isnt some superior religion. its the same crock of shit as wahabbism or voodoo....all speculation relying on the manipulation of the weak-minded to survive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fengzi

Yep, I agree too. And I'm an aethiest!! I will agree that it would be wrong for public scools to make children say a specific prayer out loud but this isn't the case. It's a pledge of allegiance to the country, not to God himself. I've always seen it as tradition more than anything else. Just words, that all.

This is in our local news a lot since the guy who started it is from San Fran. When you hear this guy talk its obvious he's just some arogant asshole trying to make a name for himself by stirring up trouble. I can imagine his next move will be trying to get the "In God We Trust" off of our currency.

The whole situation kind of reminds me of a discussion I had with a Buddhist monk a while back. I had to go an interview monks at a local Thai Buddhist temple for a paper I was doing for an Eastern Religions class. At that time there was a bunch of controversy here in San Jose about a statue that was put up in the city's main park. It was meant to be a symbol of the city's Hispanic population and was of the snake god Queztacoatl. A group of fundamentalist Christians were protesting it saying it was evil and didn't belong in a public park. I asked the monks what they thought about it and they said the statue was only a piece of stone and as such had no capacity for evil. The only "evil" was what was being generated by those who were calling it "evil". For if they had not labled it as so, the "evil" would not exist. So, back to the issue at hand, the words "One nation under God" are only religious and/or offensive if the person stating or listening to them chooses them to be so. otherwise they are just words.



Does this make any sense or am I just rambling???

---

well you are rambing...but you do make alot of sense...the same rhetoric applies to "racism"/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GHoSToKeR

Under buddha.. that must suck.. he's a pretty hefty guy! :eek:

---

Could be worse. It could always be One Nation Under Ganesh :p

Oh well, just another sample of the new America...enjoy

It's called the Establishment Clause, folks. Gotta love the Constitution.

If you're gonna talk about how great democracy is and even try to spread the shit around the world, don't be upset when that very principle brings some things to the front you may not agree with.

This is the kind of thing that restores some of my faith in America.

It's not about whether or not God should be mentioned in the pledge or even if there should be a pledge at all, it's about the fact that we live in a country where logically thought out objections to even long held traditions are officially heard and given merit.

It's beautiful, I tell you.

it is cool,but they will be saying the pledge in no time.

Its California..and liberals...This isnt a surprise at all. Its gona get sent to 9th circuit again...the most liberal Court in america...then gona get sent back to Supreme Court where the new Supreme Court Justice John Roberts will say it ISNT Unconstitutional..and the lil kids can get back to saying the 15 second song at beginning of class.

Personally, I would do away with the pledge altogether, but that's just me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F L E S H

Personally, I would do away with the pledge altogether, but that's just me.

---

I agree. In many schools, they basically force you to recite the pledge every morning. Of course, you can refuse, but then it makes you look unpatriotic and the other kids look down upon you. Why put a kid through that? And What does the pledge have to do with education anyway? Teachers can use that time, I dont know, to teach their subject for another minute or so, which adds up to like another 200 minutes during a school year, or almost three classfuls of lessons .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhallg2k

It's called the Establishment Clause, folks. Gotta love the Constitution.
If you're gonna talk about how great democracy is and even try to spread the shit around the world, don't be upset when that very principle brings some things to the front you may not agree with.
This is the kind of thing that restores some of my faith in America.
It's not about whether or not God should be mentioned in the pledge or even if there should be a pledge at all, it's about the fact that we live in a country where logically thought out objections to even long held traditions are officially heard and given merit.
It's beautiful, I tell you.

---

Bhallg2K got it right!

To respond to some of the things mentioned in the other posts above:

Children that have to "leave the classroom" during a religious pledge could be singled out and harassed, or ostracized, by other students.

Those Buddhist monks from Thailand are NOT qualified to speak for Americans. Their calling people that are in favor of separation of church and state â??evilâ?� is ridiculous.

â??In God We Trustâ?� does not belong on the currency, because a growing minority of people do NOT even believe in, much less â??Trustâ?�, a god (or gods). I would think that the religious would also object to this commercialization of their beliefs.

I wrote, "Those Buddhist monks from Thailand are NOT qualified to speak for Americans. Their calling people that are in favor of separation of church and state 'evil' is ridiculous."

Just to clarify a little better:
The fundamentalist Christians that were opposed to the park's Hispanic religous statue would probably be in favor of mixing religion and government as long as the religion was their's. Possibly, the Buddhists were trying to say this, and it was misunderstood. In any case, religous statues, of any kind, do not belong in public parks.

What I find funniest, though, is that nowhere else in North America or Europe or any of the "developped nations" do we hear any debate about religion in government. I never heard about evolution vs creationism in Sweden, or taking God out of a pledge (since no other country has a pledge that school kids have to recite every morning, something like brainwashing to me), or taking God off the currency in Germany.

Hurray for the US! Leading the way in debates that were over in other nations about 100 years ago!

id be careful to label countries like germany and france as developed,,,they are in shambles.....thats why their leaders only discuss our issues.if they keep bringing up their own countries serious economic problems the people might get angry.oh well.

thats the price you pay for being worlds most successfull country ever.

i dont really think public schools serve a vital function.

the dumbest people ive met graduated high school...coincidentally the smartest ones i know DIDNT

so what difference does it make if theyre told god is real?
if they're going to think for themselves they will. if not, theyll probably be christian anyway.

If you live in America and don't question how or why we're the melting pot of the world, or why your pathetic life is even occuring, or you don't ponder why you weren't born in Uzbekistan rather than where you actually were, or don't recognize your fore-fathers by not even acknowledging the fact that someone had to put ,even, them here, then I'd say you're an imbecile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

I wrote, "Those Buddhist monks from Thailand are NOT qualified to speak for Americans. Their calling people that are in favor of separation of church and state 'evil' is ridiculous."

Just to clarify a little better:
The fundamentalist Christians that were opposed to the park's Hispanic religous statue would probably be in favor of mixing religion and government as long as the religion was their's. Possibly, the Buddhists were trying to say this, and it was misunderstood. In any case, religous statues, of any kind, do not belong in public parks.

---

Actually the monks I spoke with were referring to whether or not the statue itself was evil, not neccesarily about the fundemantalist Christians who oposed the statue. Nor was ther any discussion about the seperation of church and state as this really wasn't what the controvery was about. Queztacoatl is a symbol from ancient Mayan times and few people took it to have any religious signifigance at all. Just a few hard core Christians who were pissed because hundreds of years ago Mayans would offer sacrifices to it and therefore it was "evil".

What they meant is that an object can be neither evil or good until somebody labels it as so. The fundamentalist Christians labled the statue as evil therebye creating the evil. Kind of like the old "if a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" type of idea.

The monks themselves were actually American citizens. I interviewed them at a local temple, not in Thailand itself. So I would consider them qualified to discuss this issue.

Ironically most people in San Jose really hate the statue because it cost thousands of dollars of taxpayers money and literally looks like a pile of shit. See what I mean??

damn thats an evil statue! whats it got to say about american soceity? :)there was another evil statue put up in NYC at ground zero also...

Congratulations Amsterdam!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You've successfully given the two most ignorant statements ever to grace these message boards!!!!!

Now, you have a choice of three prizes!!! Will you go for the brand new complete set of professional golf clubs, the trip for two to Ibiza or a shiny new car? What will it be? Tick tock, tick tock....

:eek: OWNED.

People mention that children would be ridiculed if they leave the class or refuse to say the pledge. I don't see why they should leave or refuse to say it at all. Just don't say the words "One Nation under God". When I was a kid I would say "One Nation" and then "Indivisable...", just leaving out the " under God" part. No one ever knew and I never felt that hearing those words was trying to coerce me to become religious. If you are so weak minded that hearing those words spoken by others is causing you mental distress you have a lot more problems than just the Pledge.

it's sad.

thankfully this will be reversed by the new supreme court in the coming months and years.

The words should be be sticken from the pledge or be optional but the whole arguement is pretty petty on both sides

so this is a priority for americans?



amazing...

Bah everyday as a kid I recited a similar pledge (and the same one) in canada and the us. It's no big deal. I'm an atheist as well, ponder the existence of god but thats about it pondering ;).

People take separation of church and state too literally sometimes.....If your children are brainwashed by that drivel than your not doing your job as a parent......I find ALL religion personally offensive but do I go out proselytizing about the fallacies and idiocy of religion....nope(although I do enjoy exposing the faults inherent in said religions there's no reason to go out and try to legally enforce your viewpoint, I would never force a catholic school to teach evolution, although no worries there as the pope recognizes it now). Only wacko's do that and im only weird so far. If people want to believe in Santa and the Tooth fairy or invisible Pink Unicorns power to ya unless you start hurting people claiming they(the invisible things) told you too.

Howdy LT,

Well..it looks like ya did yer homework on this,and you make a mighty convincin argument,that appears to pull the rug out from under my argument,that the phrase" under God",is an affirmation of the historical perspective of America. But because this country was and is,more than just the sum of the founding fathers and our presidents,my argument and position,still stands.

I believe that this is also a part of a bigger effort,to deny religious liberty to the religious,to prevent the exercise of religion,which also interferes with freedom of speech,ie,the aetheists can go around denying God all they want-but the religious aren't allowed to affirm God,in the public square.

Christians are still the majority in this country and this country is traditionally Christian,that the majority must be made to bow and scrape,and be silenced, before a fraction of the populace,is wrong.

Aetheists seek to deny not only God,but their own spirituality,therefore,one could argue,that aetheists are only 'moral',because of laws that bind them and hold them accountable if they commit any crimes. If one believes that we are no higher than animals and that we don't have a soul,there's no reason to be 'moral',the Golden Rule,implies karmic action,which is spiritual in nature,a true aetheist would reject such an association with the karmic..because it is counter to their belief's. Just as with the homosexual agenda,the aetheist agenda is to change the nature of America,to suit the whims and desires of a fraction of the populace..directly contrary to the will of the People.

Have a good one ...

PS: the 'homework ' I refer to,is the prepared response at the aetheist org,of Founding Father quotes made to make them look as though they all were really just aetheists pretending to be Christians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fengzi

Actually the monks I spoke with were referring to whether or not the statue itself was evil, not neccesarily about the fundemantalist Christians who oposed the statue. Nor was ther any discussion about the seperation of church and state as this really wasn't what the controvery was about. Queztacoatl is a symbol from ancient Mayan times and few people took it to have any religious signifigance at all. Just a few hard core Christians who were pissed because hundreds of years ago Mayans would offer sacrifices to it and therefore it was "evil".

What they meant is that an object can be neither evil or good until somebody labels it as so. The fundamentalist Christians labled the statue as evil therebye creating the evil. Kind of like the old "if a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" type of idea.

The monks themselves were actually American citizens. I interviewed them at a local temple, not in Thailand itself. So I would consider them qualified to discuss this issue.

Ironically most people in San Jose really hate the statue because it cost thousands of dollars of taxpayers money and literally looks like a pile of shit. See what I mean??

---

Howdy Fengzi,

Yup..it does look like a pile of shit..lol.

Clearly,it is a graven image of a false god,akin to the 'golden calf',and has no place in the public square,because Christianity is the majority religion in the States..I find the statue to be blasphemous,and an attempt to characterize America into something it ain't..a non-Christian society.

Have a good one ...

Howdsy Torog! :D

Nice reply.. here's what I think, though I understand if you ignore me in regards to this subject because, well, i'm not American, but hey, I can try! :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Torog

Well..it looks like ya did yer homework on this,and you make a mighty convincin argument,that appears to pull the rug out from under my argument,that the phrase" under God",is an affirmation of the historical perspective of America. But because this country was and is,more than just the sum of the founding fathers and our presidents,my argument and position,still stands.

---

First of all i'm going to agree with you. Your country is more than the sum of just your founding fathers and presidents. You country is one of the most diverse countries in the world. You have people of every ethnicity living inside your borders, helping to make your country what it is today. To invite such diversity in culture is to invite diversity of religion. I don't think i'm wrong in saying that almost every religion and belief system has an ambassador in America. In a country that teaches patriotism, and tries to instill a belief that every citizen is united under the flag, why then would youwant to alienate a large number of your citizens by claiming it is one nation under God with a capital G?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Torog

I believe that this is also a part of a bigger effort,to deny religious liberty to the religious,to prevent the exercise of religion,which also interferes with freedom of speech,ie,the aetheists can go around denying God all they want-but the religious aren't allowed to affirm God,in the public square.

---

Not so. In fact it is quite the opposite. When every person is given the freedom of speech and expression, than it should be an equal field. One religion should not be given voice over others. If every religion has the right to expression in a country, then one signle religion should not be given precident over others. If you are going to say One Nation Under God, then you should say One Nation Under All Gods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Torog

Christians are still the majority in this country and this country is traditionally Christian,that the majority must be made to bow and scrape,and be silenced, before a fraction of the populace,is wrong.

---

It is also wrong that the minority be made to bow and scrape and be silence before the majority. Isn't this one of the shining examples of why Democracy is so great? That everybody has an equal voice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Torog

Aetheists seek to deny not only God,but their own spirituality,therefore,one could argue,that aetheists are only 'moral',because of laws that bind them and hold them accountable if they commit any crimes. If one believes that we are no higher than animals and that we don't have a soul,there's no reason to be 'moral',the Golden Rule,implies karmic action,which is spiritual in nature,a true aetheist would reject such an association with the karmic..because it is counter to their belief's.

---

Again i'll have to disagree. You say that atheists deny God, well this may be so but not in the way you imply it. If somebody was to abstain from eating beef because they didn't like it you could say that this person is denying beef, but in actual fact this person would just be choosing against it. Religion and the idea of God does not suit everybody, no matter how much you want it to be so.

Many atheists are extremely spiritual. (Spirituality and religion are not one and the same. In fact, I would say that modern religion has lost most of it's spirituality and has become bogged down in beaurocracy). Take Buddhists for example; they are extremely spiritual people, but do not believe in any God, as such.

The existence of God does not define our morals, neither does religion. To be atheist is not to be led astray. It is simply a lifestyle choice, an assessment of the situation and a drawn conclusion. You'll find that most people these days have some sense of right and wrong, although the finer points are sometimes harder to agree on. You must admit that everybody has a different set or morals, even within one religious organisation. You yourself are a Christian who happens to smoke Cannabis and believes that morally you are doing nothing wrong. One of your Christian counterparts, however, may look down upon the act of smoking and consider it a sin. Your individual morals would be clashing, but both believe that you are right. This shows that everybody can make their own morals, and no matter what religion you belong to (or even if you don't), most of the time everybody drawns the same conclusions in respect to what is morally right or wrong, though of course not everybody agrees on everything. To say that one person's set of morals is wrong and yours is right isd extremely ignorant and narrow-minded. I disagree with certain things but can understand and accept when other people do ot share my belief.

Man, i've typed too much already today! Sorry for the rambling. lol :)

Peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Torog

Howdy LT,

Well..it looks like ya did yer homework on this,and you make a mighty convincin argument,that appears to pull the rug out from under my argument,that the phrase" under God",is an affirmation of the historical perspective of America. But because this country was and is,more than just the sum of the founding fathers and our presidents,my argument and position,still stands.

I believe that this is also a part of a bigger effort,to deny religious liberty to the religious,to prevent the exercise of religion,which also interferes with freedom of speech,ie,the aetheists can go around denying God all they want-but the religious aren't allowed to affirm God,in the public square.

I don't know of too many atheists asking Christians for tax dollars to practice their beliefs or lack thereof.

Christians are still the majority in this country and this country is traditionally Christian,that the majority must be made to bow and scrape,and be silenced, before a fraction of the populace,is wrong.

This country used to be traditonally slave-owning. Times change.

And no one is asking Christians to "bow and scrape and be silenced," just keep thy religion to thine own self. It's what Christians have wanted from everyone else by default from the very beginning.

Aetheists seek to deny not only God,but their own spirituality,therefore,one could argue,that aetheists are only 'moral',because of laws that bind them and hold them accountable if they commit any crimes. If one believes that we are no higher than animals and that we don't have a soul,there's no reason to be 'moral',the Golden Rule,implies karmic action,which is spiritual in nature,a true aetheist would reject such an association with the karmic..because it is counter to their belief's. Just as with the homosexual agenda,the aetheist agenda is to change the nature of America,to suit the whims and desires of a fraction of the populace..directly contrary to the will of the People.

I guess one could make the argument that atheists are only moral because of law. But one could also make the argument that Christians aren't moral even with law and religion (see: Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Oral Roberts, Peter Popoff, Tobert Tilton, Melissa Scott, Benny Hinn, Westboro Baptist Church, pedophile priests, the Inquisition, witch trials, etc). No one group has a monopoly on the lack of morality.

And why do you presume to know what everyone's agenda is? Couldn't it just as easily be that those who don't believe in God want someone to take a hard look at the Establishment Clause and stop the tax-funded imposing of Christian will? Moreover, the Constitution says that everyone is created equal - and has been amended to actually mean it - so why are a non-believer's or homosexual's wants and desires not valid? And how do their wishes interfere with you? Are you going to stop being a Christian if "under God" disappears from a twenty? Is a Christian marriage going to be nullified if a couple of fudge packers tie the knot?

We live in a democracy where everyone should be heard. To simply say that because Christians are the majority and it should be their way or no way implies a desire for tyrannical rule - what we're supposed to be fighting against.

Beyond that, imagine, if you will, if the roles were reversed. Wouldn't you want your side heard?

Have a good one ...

PS: the 'homework ' I refer to,is the prepared response at the aetheist org,of Founding Father quotes made to make them look as though they all were really just aetheists pretending to be Christians.

---

I had to type something here for this to post.

Ok, that just looks ridiculous; like you've been ganged up on.

Ya your post was much better than mine, anyway. I'm hungover. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GHoSToKeR

Ya your post was much better than mine, anyway. I'm hungover. lol

---

Howdy GhostToker and bhallg2k,

I think that both of your replies were good,I'm trying to be more open-minded,but it ain't easy..because I believe that Christianity is the only true religion and the rest are just wasting their time..for instance,I believe that the final revelation of an enlightened bhuudhist,is to realize-that one can only enter Heaven..through Jesus Christ. I was born and raised,in the Bible Belt,to us folks,people who don't believe in God and Jesus Christ,are strange and not to be trusted much..but I'm trying to come around and be more open-minded..lol.

Have a good one !

Hey Torog,

I completely understand. Nobody would be a part of a religion without believing that their's is the one true religion. But yu have to realise that everybody who believes in a religion believes that their religion is the one true religion, no matter what religion they're a part of. Whether you think you're right or not, the fact of the matter is that everybody believes they are right, and therefore all but one must be wrong, and nobody currently knows which ones are wrong and which is right. So one shouldn't be given precidence over the others. This may be hard to dunderstand, but I believe that all religions are equally wrong and equally right.