Home / One Nation Under God

One Nation Under God

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Once again, we see the aftermath of what happens when we put a stinking liberal on the bench! I’m sorry folks, but I’m furious at this one. This asinine liberal judge, Lawrence K. Karlton decided to make it law that it is unconstitutional for children to say the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom. Yes, before you say he didn’t make it law, he did! He did because he alone decided that it was unconstitutional. Well holy moly, I guess that means those idiotic atheist liberals shouldn’t spend our money because it says GOD on it, right?!

I say it’s unconstitutional not to allow my kids to say the pledge if they want to. If these idiot atheists want to screw their own lives up, then fine but don’t drag your kids into it too. You may be brain-dead, but they still have a chance to succeed in life in areas where you’ve obviously failed.

Nobody is going to MAKE your silly little atheist, liberal offspring say the pledge if they don’t want to. In fact, they could probably go out into the hallway until it was over if need be, or they could simply ignore it and read a book or something. But, to take it away from everyone is ridiculous. Leave it up to lovely San Francisco liberals to screw it up for everyone. I’ll guarantee if anyone ever told my children they couldn’t acknowledge God in school, I’d own them before it was all said and done.

Maybe they should do some research and move every single school in the United States that sits next to or across the street from a church because churches represent God.

Powered by

About Porky

  • You’re coming across as rather Old Testament here-raging, wrathful and comdemning sinners to a fiery Hell.
    If you want to make a reasoned and rational point about a court case or Constitutional issue, how about using some legal or constitutional justification for your opinion. Otherwise, it’s just a “because I say so” tantrum. For example, can you give any evidence that separation of church and state isn’t a CONSERVATIVE principle?
    Carpe Diem

  • I have added the required Amazon link to this article.

  • Bennett

    Or could you provide any data to back up your assertion that all or most athiests are liberals?

    Many conservative business leaders in this country may hide their lack of religion, or faith in a god, or any sort of “day of judgment” by paying lip service to religious leaders, but their “profit at any expense” actions tell a different story.

    Don’t you think?

  • Bill B

    This is well off the ranting authors attempt at making a point, but, here’s as good a place as any to repeat a perspective I read a while back.

    I may have read it here on blogcritics.

    Considering that religion is arguably, presently a rather divisive issue in our nation, both culturally and politically, isn’t it interesting that in the pledge “under God” is plopped right there between “one nation” and “indivisible”.

    “…one nation, under God, indivisible…”

    Ironic eh?

    Come to think of it, the author does a good job of illustrating this point.

  • Valium

    How ironic. A CHRISTIAN saying who is braindead [edited]

  • This article truly is some weak-ass shit. I’d respond to it substantively if it had any redeeming value. [edited]

  • Lowell Skelton

    Interesting… Why on earth would I be spending “your” money? MY money (checks and debit card) have NO “god” anywhere on them. And this series 1960 $10 bill I have, which has NO “god” graffitti on it… I’ll tell you what – I’ll trade you all my “godly” cash for all your things ever positively influenced by atheists. Your Ford vehicle (Henry Ford), your Apple computer (Steve Wozniak), your MS Windows and software (Bill Gates), Linux OS (Linus Torvalds), all of your electrical lights (Thomas Edison) – heck, you’ll end up living in a cave somewhere….

  • dbw

    And if the pledge said, “one nation, under our Lord Jesus Christ”? Would you still defend it? What if it said “one nation, under Allah and his prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him)”? And how about “one nation, under Satan (may he bring unto us the Antichrist)”?

    The long and short of it is, a prayer does NOT belong in our schools. Just because you happen to like the deity that school-sponsored worship references does NOT mean it is acceptable.

    Your post is offensive, uneducated, and [edited].

  • If the words ‘under God’ were not meant to promote a religious view, and to denigrate and belittle those who do not accept this view . . .

    Then I guess “with liberty and justice for all” were not meant to promote liberty, or to denigrate and belittle those who would support tyranny and injustice.

  • dbw

    Well said, Alonzo! Oddly enough, I don’t think “Porky” would disagree with you. I think he’s quite comfortable with belittling atheists.

  • I’m caught in a contradiction. I think Michael Newdow (1) is completely full of shit, and (2) makes a good point in the FOX News article you linked.

    “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,”‘ Newdow said in an interview with AP Radio after the ruling.

    “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.”

    But even if it is a good point, overridingly I wish he’d shut up. He’s not being helpful, just obnoxious.

  • I’m glad you all so thoroughly enjoyed my article! Be sure to buy my book!

  • alethinos59

    I find the athiest’ rather annoying. On the other hand the response by “loving, peaceful” Christians is disgusting. The QUESTION really IS, “what would Jesus do?”

    I seriously doubt He would display such an ugly, hate-filled attitude toward these people…

    As for us AMERICANS… You don’t like the law you can attack it with REASON and INTELLIGENCE.

    The road won’t be easy though. It is well known that “under God” was never part of the original pledge – that, indeed it only was inserted in the early 50’s by McCartyites who thought it would be some type of Holy Water against Communists… What fools! Like a real Communist, wishing to avoid detection would hesitate for a moment to take an oATH he didn’t even believe in anyway…

    God, save us from your most fervent servants!


  • Leaving the Deity out of it for a moment, I wonder if we are placing too much emphasis on the word “god”. To many, the American dollar is god, but it is not my God. To Jews, Christians and Muslims God is the god of Abraham but not necessarily the god which others worship. Notice how careful I have been about the capitalization of the word itself which has many differing definitions. In thinking about the recent resurrection of the Pledge debate it came upon me that “one nation, Under God” quite simply means one nation under humanity. The Bible says we are made in God’s image. Many belief systems conclude that humanity is as much a part of God as God is a part of humanity. As much as Atheists deny the existence of God, I wonder if they could accept another definition for the word itself.

    I’m a liberal when it comes to societal issues. I understand the need for separation of church and state. That being said I also believe that to deny the existence of God or the word itself is idiocy. Belief systems played a major role in the shaping of America, but that doesn’t make America a Christian nation. By eradicating the God concept from our public schools we are doing a disservice to our youth who need to understand how God and the belief therein resulted in what we have today. Give the kids all the facts, folks, from evolution to Creationism. Just as we found our individual way through the world, give kids the chance to do the same. Educate, don’t indoctrinate.

  • alethinos59

    I believe I ORIGINALLY STATED that:



  • I find it curious that out of one side of their mouths Christians are saying this nation is going to hell in a handbasket and then out of the other side they claim this to be a Christian nation founded on Christian principles.

    If I were a Christian I would be hesitant to claim that this is one nation under God.

    As Ghandi once said, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ.”

  • I rather lean towards Maddox’s view on Michael Newdow:

    If his whole beef with the Pledge of Allegiance is that the phrase “under God” violates separation of church and state, then why isn’t he making a fuss about our government observing Christmas? Christmas is a religious holiday, and since our government observes it, how is that separation of church and state? Why isn’t he bitching about that? I’ll tell you why. Because Christmas gives him paid vacation, and hippies like Newdow only bitch about “grand sweeping problems with society” as long as it doesn’t inconvenience them.

  • Joey

    Are you suggesting God/god free zoning? What would the road sign look like?

  • You may find this post on JABBS interesting.

    It’s from the other side of the aisle — the side backed up by the Constitution, and the idea that our country was founded on the principle of separation of church and state.

    Specifically, it refers to President Bush’s sermon at the end of yesterday’s weekly radio address.

  • Apropos of this topic, did you realize that Jefferson’s original documents had lots of references to God and divine guidance in them?

    Apparently, they were removed by Benjamin Franklin, an avowed Deist (he could NOT have been an atheist, since he was a Freemason). So we have “inalienable” rights, not “sacred” ones, and “Nature’s god” rather than “the Lord our God”…

  • WTF

    JABBS needs to change it’s background, I can hardly read it, it’s too dark.

    I did manage to cut and paste to a white background, and what I found was not surprising at all. Typical rehash.

  • Senta Berger

    “It’s from the other side of the aisle — the side backed up by the Constitution, and the idea that our country was founded on the principle of separation of church and state”

    Meaning what?

    That the state is protected from the church or that the church is protected from the state?

    Everyone throws that statement out there, but I can seem to find it in the Constitution. I did read it in the Communist Manifesto once.

    Where exactly does that verbiage reside. Please tell me, I have a need to know.

  • Senta, it’s from the Jeffersoniana. It didn’t make it into the Consitution expicitly, but is discussed in many of the exchanges (letters) between the Founding Fathers.

    Remember, the colony was largely populated by religious ejects from Europe — they had no great love for, and a solid understanding of the potential for damage caused by, a state religion.

  • WTF

    A state religion or the persecution by the state upon their religious beliefs? Or both?

    Good points all, but squishy in the translation.

    I would like to point out that many arguments related to this subject always refer to Federlist papers etc… but when the argument goes bad… the next shot fired is something akin to… “well if it didn’t make it into the constitution, it wasn’t important” I disagree with that stance, but it is a valid argument.

  • The Duke

    Can someone explain why we have a bust of Moses decorating the archway of the Supreme Court, if considerations of OT law wasn’t in the minds of the framers? Or, why is there a congressional chaplain? Habit? What?
    The fabric of our government is full of Christian ethics, decorum, and circumstance. Surely, these are indicators of the bent of the government as promulgated 230 years ago. How can anyone possibly deny that? To do otherwise is revisionism… another ‘ism’ in the litany of …isms.

    The founders all wrote of their experiences with and around a Christian context. Most of them (excluding Hamilton the bastard) spoke English, Hebrew and Greek. They read scriptures and mythology in the original languages. These weren’t a bunch of bumpkins; our intellegence probably wanes by comparison. So, how unclear is it really? Does it lack clarity or does it suffer from our reluctance to embrace the concept?

  • why is there a congressional chaplain?

    This is one of those instances where we often talk as if all of the Founders were in agreement on how American government should work. They didn’t.

    I pulled the quote from you, Duke, about the congressional chaplain because it was a particular sticking point at the beginning of American government.

    James Madison, the Founder who WROTE the Constitution, hated the idea of a Congressional chaplain. He wrote pamphlet after pamphlet after pamphlet lobbying to eradicate the congressional chaplain. He was ignored.

    Just making the point that the Founding Fathers weren’t exactly in unanimous agreement on the United States’s foundation, religious or otherwise. Why reference “the Framers” as if they all had the exact same thoughts and beliefs at all times?

  • Duke, there are scads of Greek and Roman mythological symbols adorning public buildings in the capital — does that mean the Founders were pagans?

    Not to mention Druidic and Gnostic symbols…

  • RogerMDillion

    “I’m glad you all so thoroughly enjoyed my article! Be sure to buy my book!”

    If this post is evidence of your writing style, I’ll have to pass.

  • alethinos59

    For the 3RD time since I am being edited… Lord knows my use of explatives is terrible… Oh, wait, that’s about two dozens others… Including Red State…

    If this post is an example of your writing I’ll have to buy the book, [edited]

    Go ahead and edit this… And then explain why you’ll do such a thing when others in other posts are calling one another Mother F*****…

  • Tony Mahon

    is it just me or is [edited] constantly refering to atheists as idiots.evidently in the modern day people are still not entitled to their religious views, or lack-there-of in this case.how dare we have a different opinion to you sir.we should be so ashamed.clearly you are the all-knowing lord of us all.[edited]
    while were at it why dont we just lock up all the jews, muslims and any other religion that differs in opinion to you in a big camp and make them think about their sins while reciting the pledge of allegience

  • Tony Mahon

    Reply to comment#7
    Beautifully outlined

  • dahvid

    Well, porky, one one hand, being located next to a church is not the sazme as forcing children to practice religious ritual. What you may not understand is what it is like to grow up Jewish in a Christian world; the confusion about religion, the resentment of being forced to bow down, your soul damned to hell because you are different. Did you grow-up being taunted by your classmates about the holocaus, castigated for not being Christian, forced to pray to your tormentors? The resulting resentment and anger a child experiences might be incomprehensible, unless by chance you and yours were forced to bow and pray against your will.

    On the other hand, this is an unfortunate victory for the pc lefties, the rotten core of America. Unfortunately, it is religion that knits the fabric of society, and it is almost a necessary evil, in a manner of speaking. Religious ritual is identical to cult or mass hypnotism, it is the Judeo-Christian ethics that differentiates. The belief in a supreme being is a powerful phenomenon affecting deeply the soul. Thus it is alarming that the religious reference has been removed, because it leaves a vacuum that evil monsters know all too well how to fill.

    It is the tragedy of the human condition that good and noble religion can be twisted.

  • Blue State

    “On the other hand, this is an unfortunate victory for the pc lefties, the rotten core of America.”

    Surely you jest! This is a victory for all Americans whether they like it or not. The problem is that many Christians in this country have tried to have it both ways. They claim both persecution by some tyranical secular front, while at the same time claiming that ALL of the Founding Fathers were devout Christians who wrote the Constitution while reading biblical passages aloud on the Convention floor. How can Christians be persecuted in a Nation that is so completely founded on their values, and in which they hold a 75% majority? The answer, this ruling is a victory for all Americans. If by some strange twist of fate the NeoPagan movement grew in popularity to they point that Wiccans and Pantheists held the majority, this ruling says that Christians will never have to recite a pledge aknowledging that this Nation is bound together in unison and Libertiy under “The Gods.”

  • Such hatred among atheists! Just proves other points I’ve made in the past very well. Thanks for the help!

  • Blue State

    “Nobody is going to MAKE your silly little atheist, liberal offspring say the pledge if they don’t want to. In fact, they could probably go out into the hallway until it was over if need be, or they could simply ignore it and read a book or something.”

    This is your POINT Porky? Wow. way to look out for the little guy. Ever see what Christian love can do to a non-Chrisian’s face when it appears that he is outside of the mainstream? You’ve got it backwards. ANY kid who wants to stand up and recite the pledge can do so at any time. So tell me again about your persecuted majority.

  • Fred



    I must reject the view that the 1789 establishment of the Chaplains to Congress is legitimate legal precedent?

    Reason One – The principles underlying the establishment of the Legislative Chaplains are obviously inconsistent with the “religion is exempt from the cognizance of civil government” type of religious liberty that prevailed during the formative years of the American Republic.

    Reason Two – Congress, during the Early Years of the Republic, never attempted to apply or extend the principles underlying the Chaplainships to other disputes regarding what was or was not an establishment of religion.

    Reason Three – The procedure employed to establish the Chaplain did not involve the use of legislative power upon the religious opinions and sentiments of the people or the manner or methods of the people to render homage to their Creator. The legislative authority of Congress was not employed to select the group of individuals to be victimized by the establishment nor was it engaged to select the religious opinions and sentiments to be established or the modes of worship to be set up or the election and dismissal of the clergy of the establishment..

    Reason Four – The direct and immediate injury inflicted on the equal right of conscience was miniscule. It was technically improper for Congress to use its legislative authority to establish the duty of the people to contribute to the support of the religions of Congress. However, the $500 per year taxed to the public was equal to about two one thousandths of a cent / per American citizen per year.

    Reason Five – In 1811 the House rejected the argument that the principle underlying the Legislative Chaplainships was the “correct principle” underlying the establishment clause, and that Congress by “electing, paying or contracting with their Chaplains” did not violate the principle of the establishment clause.

    Reason Six – In 1839 the House of Representatives rejected the argument that because “ministers of religion have been employed as Chaplains to Congress”, the Constitution does not prohibit the National Government from recognizing the duties and obligations of religion and to make laws that conform to public opinion regarding such. The occasion was a dispute regarding the Post Office law that required the mail to be transported on Sundays. The faction that wanted the law repealed argued that the principle of the First Amendment were those underlying the establishment of the Congressional Chaplains, the reservation of lands for religious purposes and the requiring of oaths by civil officers and witnesses.

    Reason Seven – James Madison, in his “Detached Memoranda”, advised us not let the establishment of the Chaplains have the effect of a legitimate precedent. Madison believed that it was advisable to apply the legal principle that “the law does not consider trivial matters” or to class the establishment with “slight mistakes such as our nature’s frailty may excuse.”

    I conclude that we should not quarrel with the establishment of the Chaplains unless some one attempts to give it the effect of a legitimate precedent.