god as the root of all evil

Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side' Ruth Gledhill, Times Online, September 27,2005 see blog: Religious Societies are Worse Off Than Secular

The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”

US Senate resolves to violate the constitution

Google search: senate resolution pledge gave: Senators call Pledge decision 'stupid' On June 27, 2002 Senator Robert Byrd said that the judges who ruled that the words 'under God' should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance was stupid. No need to be so low, Mr. Bryd, but you are absolutely wrong. You voted for this in 1954 and you were wrong then and wrong now. The phrase is a religious phrase. "God" is a religious concept. Putting it into the Pledge was in violation of the constitution. It should be removed. I write this today because the senate just pledged the same thing unanamously after the most recent ruling. google: senate resolution pledge 2005 Senate Approves Talent Resolution Condemning a Federal Court Ruling that the Pledge is Unconstitutional So U.S. Senator Jim Talent (R-Mo.) is the person responsible for this latest stupidity. 109th CONGRESS 1st Session S. RES. 243

RESOLUTION
Expressing Support for the Pledge of Allegiance.

That's reasonable.

Whereas on June 26, 2002, a 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Newdow v. United States Congress that the words `under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance violate the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution when recited voluntarily by students in public schools;

True.

Whereas on March 4, 2003, the United States Senate passed a resolution disapproving of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Newdow by a vote of 94-0;

Stupid.

Whereas on June 14, 2004, the Supreme Court of the United States dismissed the case, citing the plaintiff's lack of standing;

VERY stupid. They avoided the issue!

Whereas on January 3, 2005, the same plaintiff and 4 other parents and their minor children filed a second suit in the Eastern District of California challenging the words `under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance;

True.

Whereas on September 14, 2005, the Eastern District of California declined to dismiss the new Newdow case, holding that the Ninth Circuit's earlier ruling that the words `under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance violate the Establishment Clause was still binding precedent;

Good for them!

Whereas this country was founded on religious freedom by the Founding Fathers, many of whom were deeply religious;

IRRELEVANT!

Whereas the First Amendment to the United States Constitution embodies principles intended to guarantee freedom of religion both through the free exercise thereof and by prohibiting the Government from establishing a religion;

True.

Whereas Congress, in 1954, added the words `under God' to the Pledge of Allegiance;

Unfortunately true.

Whereas Congress, in 1954, believed it was acting constitutionally when it revised the Pledge of Allegiance;

Clearly they were wrong!

Whereas the Pledge of Allegiance has for more than 50 years included references to the United States flag, to our country having been established as a union `under God', and to this country being dedicated to securing `liberty and justice for all';

Well, this is an argument to keep slavery - we had it 100 years, didn't we? So it is right and we should keep it!

Whereas the 107th Congress overwhelmingly passed a resolution disapproving of the panel decision of the Ninth Circuit in Newdow, and overwhelmingly passed legislation recodifying Federal law that establishes the Pledge of Allegiance in order to demonstrate Congress's opinion that voluntarily reciting the Pledge in public schools is constitutional;

That was stupid.

Whereas the Senate believes that the Pledge of Allegiance, as revised in 1954, as recodified in 2002, and as recognized in a resolution in 2003, is a fully constitutional expression of patriotism;

Oops. You were wrong.

Whereas the National Motto, patriotic songs, United States legal tender, and engravings on Federal buildings also refer to `God'; and

IRRELEVANT! Also, all of those have to go too!

Whereas in accordance with decisions of the United States Supreme Court, public school students are already protected from being compelled to recite the Pledge of Allegiance: Now, therefore, be it

BAD ARGUMENT! First, little children DO NOT KNOW that they do not need to say it. Secondly, those who realize that they don't have to say it will feel compelled by their teacher and peers to do so. They are forced by social pressure to say 'under god'. HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF THE PLEDGE WERE: I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation under Santa Clause, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.

Resolved,

SEC. 1. That the Senate strongly disapproves of the September 14, 2005, decision by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in Newdow, et al. v. The Congress of the United States of America, et al.

SEC. 2. That the Senate authorizes and instructs the Senate Legal Counsel to continue to cooperate fully with the Attorney General in this case in order to vigorously defend the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance.

This was a unanimous vote.

America is a nation without a distinct criminal class "with the possible exception of Congress." -- Mark Twain

Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself. --Mark Twain

Becket Fund doesn't get it

Becket Fund Vows Immediate Appeal to Preserve the Pledge Sep 14, 2005.

For generations, public school students have enjoyed the constitutional right to opt out of the Pledge if conscience dictates, and that's as it should be.

-- Anthony Picarello, President & General Counsel for The Becket Fund Unfortunately Mr. Picarello does not understand something about children: they don't know and are not told that they can "opt out". Furthermore, any child who does not say the pledge like everyone else can get severe social ostracism. That is, the system forces the child to say something false (that a god exists). This is highly unethical. FINALLY, the solution is obvious: just remove 'under god' from the Pledge:

I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

This is yet another intentional (?) misunderstanding of the facts by a religious group. (The most egregious of these are the Intelligent Design Advocates.) Picarello is putting up a big fuss about not having a pledge: "If you don't want to say the Pledge then don't, but don't try to force others not to say it". This is bad logic. Newdow and others are aiming only to remove the constitutionally illegal religious content of the pledge. Two words should never have been added by congress in the first place and they should be gone. Picarello uses blatantly poor logic to imply that this is an effort to prevent the entire pledge from being said. Of course this is intended to incite patriotic objections. But removing the illegal religious content of the pledge would allow all peoples to say the entire Pledge with clear conscience. The poor logic of religious people should be flagged and flogged every time it is put forth in the public arena.

Pledge of Allegiance

I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation that denies god exists, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

-- Michael Newdow's brave new form of the Pledge of Allegiance, CNN, September 14, 2005 If that makes you mad, then here's another variation that to consider:

I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under Casper the Ghost, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

(Casper is far more likely to exist than a god, so you should have no objection to this.)

cat religion

When the spiritual teacher and his disciples began their evening meditation, the cat who lived in the monastery made such noise that it distracted them. So the teacher ordered that the cat be tied up during the evening practice. Years later, when the teacher died, the cat continued to be tied up during the meditation session. And when the cat eventually died, another cat was brought to the monastery and tied up. Centuries later, learned descendants of the spiritual teacher wrote scholarly treatises about the religious significance of tying up a cat for meditation practice.

Zen Stories

creeping theocracy: the source

Roberts Hearings Likely to Enter Religious Territory, By Shailagh Murray, Washington Post, Monday, September 5, 2005; Page A06.

Bush helped to trigger the debate in summer 2002, after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals banned the Pledge of Allegiance in schools because of the "under God" clause. "We need common-sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God, and those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench," Bush declared then.

HE IS WRONG! Our rights come from the Constitution, which was written by people. The Constitution does NOT mention a diety! At inauguration Bush swore he would "uphold the constitution":

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
- Presidential Oaths of Office

Bush's statement in 2002 means that he following a religious idea that contradicts the Constitution. Is the President of the United States is upholding the Constitution of the United States or is he upholding the fusing of church and state?

Supernatural selection

Supernatural selection Mark Fiore cartoon rips apart 'intelligent design'.

Origin of the Novel Species Noodleous doubleous: Evidence for Intelligent Design

Origin of the Novel Species Noodleous doubleous: Evidence for Intelligent Design