Federal Judge Rejects Lawsuit Against Pledge and ‘In God We Trust’
- Posted on October 1, 2010 at 4:32pm by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
A federal judge in Wisconsin has rejected a lawsuit by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation seeking to have the phrase “In God We Trust” and the Pledge of Allegiance removed from the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center in Washington, D.C.
U.S. District Judge William Conley ruled that the group did not have proper standing in the case, since it could not prove that the engravings were connected to a specific Congressional appropriation. As Newsmax reports, Conley reminded the group in his ruling that Supreme Court precedent dictates that taxpayers can’t bring a suit alleging injury unless the injury is tied to such a measure:
“Plaintiffs fail to establish standing because they cannot point to any specific Congressional appropriation for the allegedly unconstitutional concurrent resolution,” he wrote.
Still, Conley didn’t rule on whether or not the phrases, already chiseled into stone at the visitor center, violate separation of church and state. That has left the suit’s authors optimistic.
“We did not lose on the merits, it’s procedural,” FFRF’s presidnet Annie Laurie Gaylor told CNS News. “And the merits we want to address, because the administration did write a brief on the merits and it’s just full of distorted history and the distorted perception of the separation of church and state that is required by our Constitution.”
Gaylord added that the dismissal was “not unexpected” and the group plans to re-file the suit in Washington, D.C.
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, told CNS News that he was “extremely pleased” that the judge agreed that the suit should be dismissed. Sekulow was representing 50 members of Congress who decided to fight the lawsuit.
“This challenge was another misguided attempt to alter history and purge America of religious references,” Sekulow said.
CNS News compiled a list of the 50 Congressional members (47 House members and 3 Senators) who defended the National Moto and Pledge:
Sens Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.); Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA.), the chairman of the the chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus; Reps. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.); Todd Akin (R-Mo.); Rodney Alexander (R-La.); Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.); Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.); Rob Bishop (R-Utah); Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.); Roy Blunt (R-Mo.); John Boehner (R-Ohio); John Boozman (R-Ark.); Dan Burton (R-Ind.); Eric Cantor (R-Va.); Mike Conaway (R-Texas); Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.); Scott Garrett (R-N.J.); Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.); Ralph Hall (R-Texas); Gregg Harper (R-Miss.); Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas); Bob Inglis (R-S.C.); Sam Johnson (R-Texas); Walter Jones (R-N.C.); Jim Jordan (R-Ohio); Steve King (R-Iowa); John Kline (R-Minn.); Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.); Don Manzullo (R-Ill.); Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.); Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.); Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.); Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.); Candice Miller (R-Mich.); Jeff Miller (R-Fla.); Jerry Moran (R-Kan.); Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas); Mike Pence (R-Ind.); Joseph Pitts (R-Pa.); Ted Poe (R-Texas); John Shadegg (R-Ariz.); John Shimkus (R-Ill.); Bill Shuster (R-Pa.); Mark Souder (R-Ind.); Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.); Zack Wamp (R-Tenn.); Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), and Don Young (R-Alaska).
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 688 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 537 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 466 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 374 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 334 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 308 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 316 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 217 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 301 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 308 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (168)
veritas51322
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 5:36pmOne for The Gipper!
Report Post »wingedwolf
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 5:34pmOh, finally……thank you.
Report Post »pajamash
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 5:33pm“And the merits we want to address, because the administration did write a brief on the merits and it’s just full of distorted history and the distorted perception of the separation of church and state that is required by our Constitution.”
It is Annie that has the distorted perception of separation of church and state.
Report Post »Red Neckerson
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 5:27pmI highly reccomend anyone who is concerned with the direction this country is heading read “The Pledge” by author William Murray. It is cuurently available on Amazon.com
It shows how well entrenched the marxists are in America today.
Report Post »Rillobymorning
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 5:26pmDisappointing that my Congressman, (R) Mac Thornberry, isn’t on this list
Report Post »CoFX
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 5:14pmGaylord argues over “the distorted perception of the separation of church and state that is required by our Constitution”. Please point out to me exctly where in the Constitution it calls for separation of Church and State. Have fun looking for it – it’s not in there.
You are living in a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles. There is a simple way to avoid the intrusion of any religion in your life however – move to Antarctica.
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 5:50pmI didn’t know anybody else knew that given the amount of times people misquote it!
Report Post »Crainial Access
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 5:10pmIt is amazing how some try to distort the intentions of our founding fathers and re-write history to serve their own beliefs. The belief in god played such an important role in the founding of this great country.
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 5:07pmMrbutcher if it truly doesn’t bother you, why waste your time defacing currency. There are alot bigger things to get worked up about, don’t dwell on things that most people support and only a very small fraction of Americans are offended by.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 5:03pmTo the progressive mind, “freedom of religion” translates to “freedom from having to be reminded that Christians exist.”
Report Post »Rowgue
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 5:19pmLOL. They aren’t even hiding it here. The people attempting the challenge are the “Freedom from Religion Foundation”.
Report Post »steve4u55
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 4:55pmDemocrats are a godless bunch
Report Post »The Head
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 4:54pmtolerance hmmm ………………seems as though the atheist among us need a lesson.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 4:53pmThe courts are avoiding the issue. First, the Supreme Court in 2004 refused to hear the case of a father suing to prevent his child from being forced to utter “under God” by saying the pledge in a public school; the high court noted his lack of standing. Now, another federal court is following suit. The question is why. The Supreme Court, I believe, has already upheld the right of Congress to say a prayer before opening session, arguing that it has more of the character of tradition than religion. Perhaps this rationale cannot be extended to the pledge and to money, so they would prefer to avoid it on technicalities. Perhaps the courts understand that successful lawsuits forcing Los Angeles to remove exclusively Christian symbols (the cross) from city seals is more on point for national money and the nation’s pledge. The addition of “in God we trust” and “under God” were only added in the middle of the 20th century by die-hard anti-USSR Cold Warriors who sought to highlight our religious freedoms versus the forced secularism of the Soviets, so it is hard for Scalia to point to the traditions of the founding fathers, as an originalist, in support of these two references to religion in the public sphere. While Scalia no doubt will invent some creative way out of his strict constructionism to achieve the outcome he subjectively wants, perhaps Kennedy would swing the court the other way. So better to dodge the question rather than create mass riots over such trivial (but legitimate) violations of the anti-Establishment clause. But one thing is certain: the courts’ silence on this issue is deafening.
Report Post »Rowgue
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 5:08pmThey aren’t avoiding the issue. You have to be able to show that an issue has or will immenently cause injury to the plantiff in order to establish standing. You have to be able to prove that some right bestowed by the constitution is being violated or supressed.
If anybody could bring any case before the court regardless of standing our court system would be even more of a circus than it already is. This is why the ambulance chasing lawyers need to recruit clients that have actually been affected by a companies conduct in order to file a class action lawsuit. They can’t simply file the suit themselves in order to profit. They have to actually be representing somebody that was or will be actually affected by the issue.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 5:43pmABC writes: “so it is hard for Scalia to point to the traditions of the founding fathers, as an originalist, in support of these two references to religion in the public sphere.”
Our Constitution does not forbid expressions of religion in the public sphere, by private or public citizens.
Our Constitution says the government has no business meddling in religion at all, so that all people will remain free to express it anywhere and everywhere at any time.
Thus, no establishing any state religions, and no limiting any expression of religion of any sort at any place or any time, by any Congressional act. It’s really quite simple.
Report Post »Barry Soetoro
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 4:53pmSharia, or Islamic law once implemented in America, will solve such disagreements. It will no longer matter that separation of church and state is not actually found in the U.S. Constitution. The founders understood that it’s best to keep government out of religion, as opposed to religion out of government. But I digress, the Constitution is just a living, mutable and easily ignored document of negative Liberties. Sharia law can fix this too!
Report Post »Susan Harkins
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 5:43pm“But I digress, the Constitution is just a living, mutable and easily ignored document of negative Liberties.”
ROFL! When hell freezes; Anny get your gun!
(Yes, I know the comment was ‘tongue-in-cheek’) ;)
Report Post »unionrockstar
Posted on October 3, 2010 at 11:37pmBarry Soetoro
Report Post »If you ever see me refer to Barry……..It‘s not you I’m talking about
Just a heads up
DagneyT
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 4:53pmJay Sekulow & his group are true Americans HEROES! God bless them for standing up for Him!
Report Post »CapitalistforGod
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 4:51pmI would would like to Thank you, Judge William Conley for your decision. “We The People” Welcome all the light we can get, in such dark times as these. May the lord bless you for your Wise decision!
Report Post »joseph Fawcett
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 4:50pmWill they ever stop attacking the foundations of this counrty, why don’t they go live somewhere else that they would fit in better?
I hope that they never win in these lawsuits.
Hope you can see my personal website http://www.josephfawcettart.com. I am a new western artist and could use the exposure. hope you like my work, thanks
Report Post »TruthTalker
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 11:13pmFawcett, Checked out the ranch. I think I will book a vacation for my family. Thanks for the tip.
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 4:50pmas an atheist, i can care less about the two words in the pledge that were added in 1954 or “in god we trust” being on the currency. the only thing worse than religion is the attempts to ban it and legislate it to the shadows. —-if you don‘t like the words in the pledge then don’t say ‘em. if you don‘t like what’s written on the dollar, get a black sharpie and cross it out. that’s what i do. these litigious atheist groups who want to purge all religious references from public life make the rest of us look bad. i do not support them. they are very misguided.
Report Post »DagneyT
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 5:03pmThank you for your honesty.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 5:26pmRight you are, Mr. Butcher. I’m Catholic, and I’ve heard about just about every anti-Catholic statement there is, but I can’t imagine a sorrier pursuit than going to court every time I was “offended” by something someone said or put up on a Web site.
Report Post »Susan Harkins
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 5:35pmWell stated. As an agnostic, I never had issue with the numerous references to God. And if our Founding Fathers had purposely omitted all references to religion, in our institutions, I would still not have an issue with it.
It is quite clear that some people have no life, and choose to “invent a cause for conflict”. Get over it, folks. This was and is part of our AMERICAN HISTORY. A personal challenge to all *******, spoiled, disgruntled, activists: Stop with the frivolous ideological lawsuits and find ways to ADD something positive to Amerca’s history, for a change! It is easier to burn down a house than to build one. Choose the latter, and build your namesake in a constructive way.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 5:38pmMrbutcher writes: “as an atheist, i can care less … the only thing worse than religion”
You mean, the only thing worse than *other* religions. Atheism is a religion. The fact that it recognizes no deity doesn’t make it other than a religion, Shinto recognizes no deity.
There is no human being absent religion. Ask any anthropologist. It is as sure an indicator of **** sapiens as is an upright stance with two legs, two arms, and two eyes. Anyone who claims to be without religion lies to himself.
The notion that Atheism is the opposite of religion is a very clever sleight of hand on the part of secular humanists who wish to establish Atheism as the State Religion. We can see the typical symptoms that our Founders wished to avoid, pace the 1st Amendment, in everything they do.
The abolishment of all heretical speech, the elimination of expression on the part of any competing religion, and the disenfranchisment of non-practitioners from public office. That is the purpose of the Atheist sect that advanced this lawsuit.
Atheism is most surely a religion, one that seeks to be the State Religion of America, in contravention of our Founding principles and religious liberties.
Report Post »overlumber
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 8:23pmI was like you are…. “but now I am found”. What you and I missed all those year is we might not have believed in God, but He certainly believes in us. May I call you Paul?
Report Post »unionrockstar
Posted on October 3, 2010 at 8:08pmMrButcher;
Report Post »Even though we disagree, you sound like a very likeable guy.
What most people don‘t get is that just because someone is an atheist doesn’t make them a bad person. They are just as entitled as we are to cling to their own opinion. I have no idea why you believe the way you do but if it is because we are trusting in something that we can‘t prove or by taking someone else’s word in order to form our opinion. Please allow me to make just one observation. Everything in life that we believe comes from the words of others.
Here’s my point. When we listen to the weather forecast; we are actually trusting in the word of another person. We don’t actually do the research we only trust and obey (if they say it’s going to rain most of us will believe it). Now; we can choose to ignore the forecast or trust the forecast. Either way we cannot change the truth. The truth will prevail whether we trust in it or not.
Also God will still love you either way. There‘s just one catch and I’m sure you know what Christians think that is.
Have a great day and vote in November
I’m pretty sure we can agree on that
Ryan Beaulieu
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 4:49pmThis lawsuit was an absolute joke. Glad the judge ruled the way he did. These petty attacks from all this organizations to attack religion, whether it’s “In God we Trust” or “One nation under god” is down right ridiculous. Cases like this shouldn’t even make it to a judge. All these ridiculous lawsuits is what ties up our judicial system and costs us money. What a joke.
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 8:49pmThe technical issue of STANDING is a two edged sword. You won‘t like it when it’s used against you. Did you KNOW that a citizen doesn‘t have standing according to the courts who ruled against all efforts to out Obama’s documents.
WE NO LONGER HAVE JUSTICE.. RULED BY TECHNICAL RULES.
Report Post »cheezwhiz
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 4:48pmWhy do democrats hate God ?
Report Post »And our country ?
DagneyT
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 5:01pmWish I knew, my friend, wish I knew!
Report Post »Barry Soetoro
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 5:25pmMy friend Al Lah and I, after pondering your offensive accusation over brats and beer, want you to know that we don’t hate God. We hate you and your freedom for self determination under a Constitutional Republic form of government that safeguards the rights of individuals. Democrats, as the name implies, prefer majority or mob rule which by definition is antithetical to a Republic’s respect for individual rights. In addition we would like to suggest you give credit where credit is due, the correct terminology is progressive socialist democrats.
Report Post »Freelancer
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 4:46pmImagine that…. Not ONE democrap in that entire list…. Go figure.
Report Post »DagneyT
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 4:55pmAmen, brother!
Report Post »DagneyT
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 4:59pmUmmm….didn‘t you mean ’dumbocrap’? ;-)
Report Post »aintgonnatakeit
Posted on October 2, 2010 at 9:59amExactly what I noticed! Pretty pathetic they can’t even support the GOP on protecting the pledge!!! Unbelievable.
Report Post »Asher
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 4:46pmAll the people supporting the pledge and the words “in God we Trust” are Republicans! *lol*
Report Post »rfycom
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 4:43pmOK People here we go. We need to hold God to a higher standard. What is he/she doing? I’m beginning to side with Bill Maher on this. Religion is clobbering our planet. Geeeezzzzzz
You believers got to pray harder or something.
Yes you can be a conservative and not be a believer. You can be good without God.
Beer time
Report Post »Rowgue
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 4:56pmYou’re correct to a point. You can be be a consertavite and not be religious. I would put myself into that category. You can also be a good person without believing in god. They are not mutually exclusive. It works both ways however.
Believing in god does not preclude someone from thinking rationally or being intelligent. I don’t personally believe in god or religion, but the words “in god we trust” or “under god” don’t bother me in the least.
DagneyT
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 4:57pmYour comment reveals your lack of understanding of the difference in ‘religion’ and God our loving Father. Sad. I will pray for you, and will hope you will research the truth of the Bible.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 5:09pmWell, you can be good without believing in God–that much is true. But without God, where does your standard for judging good and evil come from? The fact that there can be good atheists doesn‘t mean that there’s not a God so much as it means that God has inscribed his moral law on the hearts even of those who deny Him.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 5:22pmRfycom writes: “You can be good without God.”
Heh heh heh! Never fails to amuse watching the Atheist, in his abject blindness, assuming his “good” just appeared out of a vaccuum on its own.
The Atheist never seems to grasp that he was raised and acculturated in a profoundly Christian society, and was thus fully and permanently imprinted with the Christian notions of good and evil.
The American Atheist never seems to grasp that an Arab Atheist might have an utterly different…and repellant…notion of “good”. Nor would it occur to the American Atheist, from whence the Arab Atheist drew *his* morals.
Athiests are like small children….
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 5:25pmRfycom writes: “you can be a conservative and not be a believer”
No, you can’t. An Atheist might be “conservative”, in the sense that his personal tastes and appetites resemble that of a Conservative, but there is nothing motivating an Atheist apart from his personal tastes and appetites. No transcendant values, he is his own “god”, so to speak.
An Atheist isn’t any good in a pinch, there is nothing worth sacrificing for when you are your own god.
It is hard to subscribe to the notion that “all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”, when you reject the notion of a Creator…..
Report Post »Susan Harkins
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 5:56pmProspero, no offense, but you sound as idealogically driven and extreme against Atheists as the atheist fools that the article speaks about. Next thing, you will state that Agnosticism is also a religion. From my semi-informed point-of-view, it looks like we have a situation, where a pot is calling a kettle, a ‘racist’..LOL.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 6:06pmSusan Harkin babbles: “you sound as idealogically driven … as the atheist fools”
I was unaware that being ideologically driven was a flaw, Susan. Perhaps you should expand on your implication that there is something flawed about ideology?
And as flattering as it is that you’ve chosen to turn your eyes upon me, personally, there remains the numerous points I’ve made, all of which are cogently expressed in very good English. Did you desire to address the actual points, or did you just want to feast yourself upon my person?
Susan Harkin babbles: “where a pot is calling a kettle”
When you tire of ogling me, perhaps you’d like to cite what I called the Atheist that puts me in their camp. You see, only you have brought up “ideologically driven”….
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 6:09pmSusan Harkins babbles: “a ‘racist’”
Oh, and perhaps you’d like to explain how race, in any way shape or form, applies to anything either I or my opponent have written.
Curious how you inject “ideological” and “racist” into a conversation in which they were never mentioned, then argue with yourself. If you desire a conversation with yourself, you needn’t employ a public forum. Perhaps you hadn’t realized that yet…
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 6:12pmSusan Harkins babbles: “Next thing, you will state that Agnosticism is also a religion.”
Agnostic is Greek for “ignoramus”. I hardly consider being ignorant a religion, do you?
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 6:18pm@ Prospero
Report Post »Don’t mean to interrupt your tempest of words, but shouldn’t you be looking into what Caliban is up to?
RightTiger
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 6:26pmProspero, your comments upset me as an Atheist and a Conservative. I am for minimal government and following the constitution as close as possible, but I can’t be a true conservative without being a Christian?? That just doesn’t make sense.
Moral code can come from society, but it can also come from within. The golden rule applies here.
Also as an atheist, the pledge of allegiance and the words ‘in god we trust’ on our money do not bother me at all.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 6:27pmHah hah hah! Yes, I suppose I should find out what that nasty beast of a man is about….
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 6:31pmRighttiger asks: “I can’t be a true conservative without being a Christian?? That just doesn’t make sense.”
What property of our natural rights makes them unalienable by any man?
Report Post »RightTiger
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 6:39pmProspero asks, “What property of our natural rights makes them unalienable by any man?”
If I was born in the 1700s, I’d have probably thought they were endowed to us by a creator also, but a lot has been discovered since then and I choose to base my opinion on more recent findings.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 6:51pmRighttiger writes: “I’d have probably thought they were endowed to us by a creator also, but a lot has been discovered since then”
I’m unaware that anyone has discovered that there is no God.
Since the only reason our rights are inalienable is that they issue from an authority higher than man, and you recognize no authority higher than man, then we have no inalienable rights.
Ergo, you are not Conservative, you only resemble one.
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 8:46pmFWIW, I consider an athiest as a conservative by his/her actions just as I consider any person of faith a conservative by his/her actions.
I understand the athiest position but simply strongly disagree. BUT, I welcome your fellowship in the cause of liberty. Hey, some here think Mormons aren’t Christians which is simply religious ignorance and bigotry BUT I welcome their fellowhip in the cause for liberty.
Report Post »Silversmith
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 9:10pmFascinating argument this. And one that we can all gain from. However, if the arena the debate takes place in (America )is destroyed, and freedom of speech and choice of worship are gone, won’t you wish then that you had found common ground today to shore up the Republic? Without the liberty afforded you by this Constitutional Republic — all that you could debate will mean nothing.
Silversmith
Report Post »A1955Rosie
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 9:57pmPeople can be good w/out God but it takes a strong moral dicipline. 10 commandments are still a great thing. Don’t steel from me, don’t kill me, don’t lie to me. You would expect the same. You may not understand this but many people truely believe in God despite what has happened in organized religion. We live His examples and even when times are hard, it is a source of comfort, courage and pride that no other can provide. It is the laws of this Country and until it’s changed CORRECTLY it shall remain that way.
Report Post »Nature777
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 4:41pmThose 50 statesmen are brave for standing up for what is right.
Report Post »AngryTexanFromAmarillo
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 4:51pmis it just me or were ALL of those men listed Republican?
Report Post »AmericanPatriot01
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 4:55pmJust another example of the progressive agenda trying to remove “GOD” from our life, country and our government. It really amazes me how they believe that altering our history and the founders intentions would benefit the citizens of the USA. Arrogance and Ignorance are the trademarks of tyranny and treason.
Report Post »AngryTexanFromAmarillo
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 5:00pmI’ve been searching for a e-mail address for this judge. if someone finds it please post it here so we can all send letters of support and thanks to this great man…I was amazed to find out Obama appointed him…funny even the Devil can get a few things right every now and then lol
Report Post »independentvoteril
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 9:17pm@AngryTexanFromAmarillo No I noticed that right away I went and read it again and unless I am seeing things they were all REPUBLICANS.. tells us what the DEMOCRATS are made of or they would have contacted their reps to make sure they did.. so now they know just how PROGRESSIVE their reps are..
Report Post »Marylou7
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 10:03pmYes ANGRYTEXAN they are all Republicans. Funny how so many Dems (around election time) claim to be Christians yet they are constantly trying to remove God from everywhere.
Report Post »umrebels1991
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 11:21pm@Angrytexanfromamarillo
No, it is not just you. They were ALL Republican. Just shows that only Republicans (however few) and the Tea Party are willing to stand up for what this country was founded on.
And I’m happy to say that two names on there were from my state of MS; one is my district representative that I voted for.
Report Post »Jeetman
Posted on October 2, 2010 at 4:06am@ Nature777
I noticed that too. It should be no surprise that not ONE Dumbocrat fought for our most beloved motto. It’s so sad actually. Hopefully, people will remember these Marxists, Communists and vote their asses out!!!!
Report Post »Republic
Posted on October 2, 2010 at 8:38amRepublicans!
Report Post »adifftake
Posted on October 2, 2010 at 9:52amso if anyone wanted a list of men and women who aren’t progressives, would this be the list?
FreedomOfSpeech
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 4:41pmA bit of sanity for a change.
Report Post »Post-Progressive American
Posted on October 2, 2010 at 6:26amIt is frivolous and inappropriate lawsuits like this one that make me ashamed, politically, to be an atheist.
The phrases “under God,” “In God We Trust,” and others like them should remain. The phrases, prayer in school, the Ten Commandments in courthouses…these represent what is best in America. They represent the foundation upon which America was built and should be celebrated, not obliterated.
Report Post »VM
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 4:38pmA judgment in the right direction. All such law suits appearing everywhere should be thrown out.
Report Post »Egullsklaw
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 5:50pmThrown out for the wrong reason. The Constitution gauntees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Throw the case out the charge the filers with malicious mischief. Sentence them to the front row of a different church every Sunday for at least six months.
Report Post »ron the veteran
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 7:13pmits time to throw out any judges, congressmen and senators who didnt support it. they are all being exposed for the antiamericans they are. and its time to clean house. its time to defend our nation from this communist attempt to destroy america. are we men or mice? all it takes is for good men to do nothing for evil to take root and spread. its time for all God fearing freedom loving americans to stand tall and put them all up on charges and lock them away for the rest of their lives. get your asses to the polls and vote these commie lovers out. then demand that they be brought up on charges for violation the oath they took to defend the constitution and hold new congressional hearings on antiamericans we will know who the leaders are tomorrow at their dc rally. so keep those cameras rolling and your video equipment recording so we get pictures of them all. its time to hold them all to account for their treasonous acts. we the people are the ones who hold the power, its time we exercise that right.
Report Post »roughneck.seay
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 8:02pmI’m glad it was dismissed eather way, but I have to agree with Egullsklaw.
Report Post »danglingbags
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 9:04pmIt is …………..IN GOLD WE TRUST NOT GOD!!!!!!!!!
Call Goldline today…..They were the ones that were called to congressional hearings for allegedly duping investors. Now that is a record you can stand behind.
staythecourse
Posted on October 2, 2010 at 12:16amCNS News compiled a list of the 50 Congressional members (47 House members and 3 Senators) who defended the National Moto and Pledge:
it is indeed sad that was all there were in Congress who supported this fight against freedom FOR religion.
Report Post »staythecourse
Posted on October 2, 2010 at 12:37amI am intrigued by something. My first time thru the educational system I graduated with a degree in Anthropology. Back in those days, religion was defined in my Anthro studies something along the lines of “a belief system that a people hold that helps them to define themselves in relation to the greater world around them – it is a belief system that helps give meaning and establishes appropriate behavior and norms for that culture”. There may have been something in there about “institutions” within a culture, I don’t really remember. The Sociology definition defined “religion” according to a more currently accepted concept of religion and churches as established within Western /European traditions.
The question I raise is…these anti “religion” groups proclaim freedom from religion, but from a truly more objective perspective (which is what Anthropology always attempted to offer) they are actually proclaiming a belief system that is very very much a religion of its own. I know they don’t see it as a “religion” but it is a belief system that is defining themselves in relation to the greater world around them and defines for them appropriate behavior standards. From the anthropological perspective THAT IS RELIGION..
And since their beliefs ARE a religion, then the Government should be standing up to prevent THEIR “religion” from being imposed in a dictatorial fashion on the rest of us.
Of course, one of the things I do find interesting is that I have searched and searched for that “anthropological” definition of religion that I was trained in back in the 70’s and I can’t find it anywhere. I find that in and of itself, very interesting
Report Post »UPSETVET
Posted on October 2, 2010 at 8:44amIt‘s good to know that some federal judges make correct interpretations of law and don’t decide cases based on their own personal opinion or try to establish a non-exiting law to decide an issue.
Report Post »UPSETVET
Posted on October 2, 2010 at 8:47amI couldn’t help but notice there are NO DEMOCRATS on the list.
Report Post »walkwithme1966
Posted on October 2, 2010 at 12:29pmhttp://wp.me/pYLB7-9a
Report Post »Peters
Posted on October 2, 2010 at 1:17pmEssentially, there are two things going on here that dwarf the legal issues. To properly know them, to observe them, we have to look at two primary liberal movements operating below the surface that ideologically take us far beyond the basic and simple principles of separation of church and state.
To properly frame the issue then, in its entirety, to understand it with certainty, we have to observe the consistency in which the Liberal Movement pursues its agenda. And most importantly, to our mission, we must recognize the old guard of the Republican Party doesn’t quite understand how to fight things of this nature; it’s foreign thinking to them as it clearly doesn’t want to be bothered with such detail of social evolution; it’s far easier to allow the winds of change to wisp across their backs than reverse direction after moving along in a trend that has been giving their careers great momentum for such a long time now.
But the GOP, they’re standing at the edges of Liberalism’s flat-earth ideology and we’re all standing behind them insisting they not lead us one more step in the same direction that we’ve been socially and culturally exhausted by. We are pleading with them to take it to task to understand liberalism, to understand what our American society is fighting against, and then come to the battle field ready to destroy it, not to find ways of getting along with it. The GOP needs to incubate an understanding of this to know the time for compromise is long gone.
But importantly, understand also, it was Liberalism that made this a decree. The Tea Party is simply rising up against it. The GOP is having a hard time understanding that, accepting it . . . they consider Liberalism to be part of the family and find it difficult to accept the truth, that part of their family, a long time family member of our democracy, is intent on burning down the house while we sleep.
It has to be widely and firmly understood, a consensus built, that Liberalism has no intention of getting along with us at any point in time. In fact, it’s quite easy to lay out a case against Obama and his administration, his twenty five to thirty percent of the population, that their battle plan takes no prisoners, shows no mercy in the face of opposition; there is only compliance; all that resists gets destroyed. This has to be understood; it’s a gauge of seriousness where we find ourselves far into the red.
And with that said, back to those two underlying issues, principles that are at the heart of this so called “separation of church and state:”
1. Liberalism knows that it must dismantle the constitution to go forward.
2. Removing the importance of our God, the God that is referenced throughout the founder’s plans, the same and very God that was present in the hearts and minds of the founders as they created their plan of governance over man, over us, created in the image of our God, is viewed as being synonymous with the power of the constitution in that Liberalism recognizes that our constitution is a cultural and engrained belief system that is very much tied to our beliefs in God. But most importantly, our God.
To put it simply, for Liberalism to accomplish its goals of dismantling the constitution, it must first destroy the image of God because it’s recognized by Liberalism that God is the glue that holds the constitution, our society and culture as we know it together. Remove God, and everything constitutionally fortified is vulnerable to collapse . . . everything goes up for claim and reconstruction on the principles that there’s a presence, or reference of a “god.” Everything that contains “God” or a notion of “God” or a feeling of “God” will be subject to be rewritten.
Make no mistake; there is a broad and underlying acceptance of this notion within the Liberal Movement. And then take notice, understanding this makes it very clear, this broad acceptance is consistent with the knowledge that Liberalism isn’t to be negotiated with. Liberalism doesn’t step onto the battlefield with any other idea but to destroy all that gets in their way of attaining its mission . . . of conquering us, socially and culturally. The Republican Party, the old GOP, they don’t seem to understand this concept though; that this isn’t a gentlemen’s game any longer.
The battlefield is calling for socio-political warriors that are armed and dangerous, but all the GOP seems to want to send us are toy soldiers that can be marched along in a pretend game of give and take. Meanwhile, we’re standing united at the edge . . . the old GOP is looking down in front of us wondering if another fall will hurt much and if it will go quickly. They probably do not even notice that we’ve turned around to plant our feet and walk into the headwinds of Liberalism’s unpleasant ideas of “change.”
Take notice of these things and carry them with you wherever you go, wherever you find Liberalism . . . understanding that we seek peace and unity, but that it comes through strength and resolve . . . and faith.
Report Post »cph1
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 7:54amAnyone who doesn’t like the ideals that this country is based on should go and live some where else.
Report Post »