The Pulse

[Guest MrRant]

Did anyone watch the show? I watched the Bill O'Reilly vs The Athesist guy that got "Under God" taken out of the Pledge, and jesus christ did O'Reilly destroy him. It made me feel so good to see a guy who cares more about himself than anyone else get shown up like that.

 

After all... the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

[Guest razazteca]

I am not a fan of O'Reilly, how he went from Accurrent Affair to national news is beyond me. Who else was on the show as contributors/reporters?

[Guest MrRant]

Geraldo and also Shepard Smith. I can't name the 2 women off hand.

[Guest LooseCannon]

After all... the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

I'm not one to argue that "under god" needs to be taken out of the pledge. I think it's pretty harmless. But we are dealing with Constitutional rights here, and from my point of view, rights aren't subject to democratic whims. The Bill of Rights were written as a check against the "tyranny of the majority."

[Guest NoCalMike]

The fact that anyone even took the "under god" issue to court amazes me. Personally, I don't care either way. I am not christian, I question the exsitence of (a)god, yet I can careless if it is in the pledge or not. I wouldn't be offended if classmates said it. On the otherhand, I don't get why christians or any believers care either. As if the pledge is the only way to communicate your faith. "Under God" wasn't originally in it, but so many feel it NEEDS to be in it......whatever, either way doesn't really bother me.

[Guest LooseCannon]

The fact that anyone even took the "under god" issue to court amazes me. Personally, I don't care either way. I am not christian, I question the exsitence of (a)god, yet I can careless if it is in the pledge or not. I wouldn't be offended if classmates said it. On the otherhand, I don't get why christians or any believers care either. As if the pledge is the only way to communicate your faith. "Under God" wasn't originally in it, but so many feel it NEEDS to be in it......whatever, either way doesn't really bother me.

Those are my thoughts precisely on the matter.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

No one sincerely felt it needed to be in the Pledge, you morons. It was added in 1954 in a thoroughly cynical and self-serving attempt to distinguish the United States from the godless Soviet Union and the "evil empire" of communism.

 

And yes, the guy who initiated the lawsuit is an idiot; we have much more pressing concerns at the moment, but that doesn't change the fact that the words "under God" have absolutely no business being part of the official oath of loyalty to a secular nation.

[Guest LooseCannon]

No one sincerely felt it needed to be in the Pledge, you morons.

 

In the aftermath of the ruling, many reactions I've seen, seem to indicate that someone feels it's needed. I've heard some rather dire predictions come out of this. But perhaps you just believe those people are being insincere?

 

. It was added in 1954 in a thoroughly cynical and self-serving attempt to distinguish the United States from the godless Soviet Union and the "evil empire" of communism.

 

Thanks for the history lesson. Next time tell me something I don't know.

 

And yes, the guy who initiated the lawsuit is an idiot; we have much more pressing concerns at the moment, but that doesn't change the fact that the words "under God" have absolutely no business being part of the official oath of loyalty to a secular nation.

 

What are these more pressing concerns that make it so that the courts just don't have time for this? The Supreme Court doesn't have 2 hours to spare for some perfunctory oral arguments before they inevitably reverse the decision? I know the whole thing is waste of time, but the courts aren't being taken from anything all that pressing.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

But perhaps you just believe those people are being insincere

No, I meant that the people who added it in 1954 were being insincere.

 

Next time tell me something I don't know

Sure. Arguments are meaningless without context.

 

What are these more pressing concerns that make it so that the courts just don't have time for this

Not the courts, the nation. It's not time that is in demand but unity. I'm all for the excision of "under God" but this is neither the proper time nor is this case the proper platform.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Marney, have you looked at the Declaration of Independence lately?

[Guest bob_barron]

I'm a HUGE HUGE HUUUUUGE O'Reilly fan so I loved the Pulse of course. I always take joy in seeing O'Reilly destroy someone and he did it.

 

I also enjoyed the segment on the guy stealing from dead people.

 

It was awesome watching O'Reilly Factor and then getting to watch him on the Pulse. I can't wait for next weeks show

[Guest LooseCannon]

I hope you're not suggesting that because the Declaration of Independance has a couple of passing references to a generic god, that it gives license to christians to imprint godly references on any public forum or entity that they want to.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

What LooseCannon said.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

I would hardly call the Declaration of Independence mention of God has a passing reference.

 

The mother of the girl who "felt threatened" saying the pledge said her daughter is a practicing christian, and had no problem saying the pledge. What a great guy using your daughter for your self gains.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

I hope TP doesn't tank because I can see the headlines from Fox-haters...

 

"Plug is pulled on The Pulse"

 

"Pulse is DOA with viewers"

 

etc.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

References to God here are hardly passing. They are, in fact, the essence of the entire document.

[Guest DrTom]

"References to God here are hardly passing. They are, in fact, the essence of the entire document."

 

So? It's a vital piece of the nation's history, and it would be an absolute travesty not to display it because of a few mentions of God.

 

"Because of the principles upon which the nation has developed, religion has become a part of the fabric of society." -- former Chief Justice Warren Burger, 1983. I agree completely. Even as an atheist, I think the historical significance of things like the Declaration of Independence outweighs the fact that it was written by a religious man.

 

When an atheist thinks that all the bickering over religion is stupid, it probably is.

[Guest Vyce]

While it was fun to watch O'Reilly destroy someone (and I can't think of a better choic than that asshole.....even if you completely agree that the pledge should not include "under God", I think you have to admitt that this guy who brought the lawsuit is one HUGE self-centered, self-righteous prick with nothing better to do with his time), I think the pledge controversy was the trivial part of the broadcast.

 

Was no one else scared SHITLESS by Geraldo's piece? We have Mexicans smuggling what looks very much to be Arab terrorists into this country. They're getting in EASY. If that doesn't fucking scare you, I don't know what will. That was the real news story of the program.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

What scares me is that Geraldo still has a job. If the terrorists want to kill Americans, he's one guy I'll gladly hand over.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"Was no one else scared SHITLESS by Geraldo's piece? We have Mexicans smuggling what looks very much to be Arab terrorists into this country."

 

Hell, if the cops pull over some Mexican carting along some Arab dudes the ACLU will probably sue over racial profiling or something.

[Guest EricMM]

Did anyone hear the O'Reily piece about the woman who sued the Subway system of New York for 14 million dollars when she was hit by a train after she tried to commit suicide and failed? The jury actually decided that it was "only" 30 percent her fault, so they deducted her pay to 10 million.

 

/flatly ten million taxpayer dollars /flatly

 

Jeez

[Guest bob_barron]

Yea I saw that- what a load of shit.

 

O'Reilly is God

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"Did anyone hear the O'Reily piece about the woman who sued the Subway system of New York for 14 million dollars when she was hit by a train after she tried to commit suicide and failed? The jury actually decided that it was "only" 30 percent her fault, so they deducted her pay to 10 million."

 

Yeah, I saw that segment. God I hate lawyers. I loved how O'Reilly got the last word in on that bloodsucker at the end. BTW: How does someone get 30% of the blame for trying to get hit by a subway anyway? Was 1/3 of her body in the way?

[Guest EricMM]

Next time people complain about a lack of money or too many taxes, the reply should be "every state has to put 600 million dollars into yearly lawsuit funds!!! America you're greedy bitches!!"

 

I got that number off a news program discussing the police brutality thing, where they were discussing that the boy could get seven figure settlement. This is just rediculous... What does seven figures buy that you need so much? AAAAAAARGH.

 

Ten million dollars alone could be used SO much better

[Guest LooseCannon]

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

References to God here are hardly passing. They are, in fact, the essence of the entire document.

 

We could argue that point, but it hardly matters. I'll rephrase my post adopting your language.

 

"I hope you're not suggesting that because the essence of the Declaration of Independance is derived from a couple of references to a generic god, that it gives license to all types of theists to use government machinery to imprint godly references on any public forum or entity that they want to."

 

If you are, I'd suggest you take a look at the first two clauses of the first amendment. They, after all, actually have legal effect.

 

And considering that I took the original post to be in response to Marney's statement that "the words 'under God' have absolutely no business being part of the official oath of loyalty to a secular nation," I query you as to how you would read the first amendment to conclude that the United States has anything but a secular government.

[Guest LooseCannon]

"References to God here are hardly passing. They are, in fact, the essence of the entire document."

 

So?  It's a vital piece of the nation's history, and it would be an absolute travesty not to display it because of a few mentions of God.

 

"Because of the principles upon which the nation has developed, religion has become a part of the fabric of society." -- former Chief Justice Warren Burger, 1983.  I agree completely.  Even as an atheist, I think the historical significance of things like the Declaration of Independence outweighs the fact that it was written by a religious man.

 

When an atheist thinks that all the bickering over religion is stupid, it probably is.

I don't think anyone wants to edit the declaration of independance or that anyone would argue that religion is not a part of the fabric of society.

 

But that has little to nothing to do with the issue of government endorsement of religion.

 

Though perhaps, indeed, this is not the best time for society to be having this debate. And the guy that brought the pledge case does seem to be a bit of self-serving asshole.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Secular means "no specific religion" not "no God." A secular nation (especially one in which 90% are God fearing) can make reference to God.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

But that has little to nothing to do with the issue of government endorsement of religion.

An endorsement of God is not an endorsement of religion.

[Guest LooseCannon]

From Merriam-Webster

 

Secular:

 

1. Worldly rather than spiritual.

2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body.

 

There are a couple other old, antiquated definitions as well, such as "lasting from century to century," but they don't seem relevant to our purposes.

 

I suppose you can twist the second one to suit your needs. But I don't find your argument consistent with the first one.

 

I don't find your god/religion distinction persuasive, but I don't think I could dissuade you of it either.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

An endorsement of God is not an endorsement of religion.

What complete nonsense. Religion is by definition the postulate of a god (or equivalent).