Now religious statements are hate crimes...

Ms Ann Thrope said:
So do I.

It seems she's only using those tools that are available to her at this time. Love it or hate it, she's playing by the rules already in place. :shrug:
Click to expand...


Sorry...but I feel that she's 'grandstanding'. If she wanted to remove the words "under God" from the pledge, she didn't have to go the route of 'hate speech' to make her point. She could've just used the fact that it wasn't entered into the pledge until the mid 1950's, in a fit of fear and hysteria, but she chose a path that can only bring noteriety and the lessening of her credibility. It's like the last person to get into the fight who just walks up and kicks the guy when he's down, screaming "Oh yeah"...:shrug:With a nod to Squiggy..."Lead, follow, or get out of the way"...;)
 
I understand that is your opinion, and while I respect it, I don't share it.

who's down? those in favor of keeping the Pledge as it is? don't think so... they're the majority I'm afraid... :(
 
With a nod to Squiggy..."Lead, follow, or get out of the way"...
Click to expand...

Ok...I'm getting a sense of whats wrong with this thread. First of all...she isn't the one contesting it. She represents the party bringing the suit...Her argument is legitimate and has merit. No...that isn't saying that the pledge is a hate crime. Its saying that those words were added in an act that CAN be defined as a hate crime.

Anymore words you fellas would like to twist? :D
 
Gonz said:
Are you saying that the Pledge of Allegiance is hate speech?
Click to expand...




I dont see that anywhere. it can be if it incites violence such as this situation. but by itself it is not
 
Squiggy said:
Ok...I'm getting a sense of whats wrong with this thread. First of all...she isn't the one contesting it. She represents the party bringing the suit...Her argument is legitimate and has merit. No...that isn't saying that the pledge is a hate crime. Its saying that those words were added in an act that CAN be defined as a hate crime.

Anymore words you fellas would like to twist? :D
Click to expand...

Twisted? I'll tell you what's twisted. The lady representing those who want the pledge changed. She couldn't think of any other reason to change it, so she lumped it in under hate speech? Give me a break, Squiggy. If it can't stand on it's own merit, then she shouldn't have taken the case in the first place. Trying to tie it in with the Democratic senators vitriol in the 1950's, while notable, has no bearing on whether or not this suit will pass muster...The whole phrase under God, while nice, had no business being introduced in the first place. I can agree with that sentiment, but by linking it to an idiot's speech, it sounds lame. Like my opinion, or not, but most of the US is going to see it that way, also...
 
just curious Gato, how do you feel about those who want it changed at all? not just her but some of the ones who sya wed like it out
 
freako104 said:
just curious Gato, how do you feel about those who want it changed at all? not just her but some of the ones who sya wed like it out
Click to expand...


Are they being honest about it, and letting it stand on it's own merits, or are they lumping it together with things that are irrelevant? I've already said that, if they want it out, just say so, and don't add anything to it. If they say 'It's unconstitutional because of the seperation of church and state", or "It was added during the 1950's in order to differentiate us from the communist bloc nations", then, go for it. Let it fly, and be approved, or defeated, as the courts allow. I, personally, couldn't care less one way or the other if the government changes how the pledge reads. I do care, however, about the way those changes are made. ;)
 
allright gotcha. Like you I think it should be done legally in this case since it can be taken to court. under the ideas of what you said about it being put in there in the 50's as an anti communist statement or as being govt endorsed religion.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Are they being honest about it, and letting it stand on it's own merits, or are they lumping it together with things that are irrelevant? I've already said that, if they want it out, just say so, and don't add anything to it. If they say 'It's unconstitutional because of the seperation of church and state", or "It was added during the 1950's in order to differentiate us from the communist bloc nations", then, go for it. Let it fly, and be approved, or defeated, as the courts allow. I, personally, couldn't care less one way or the other if the government changes how the pledge reads. I do care, however, about the way those changes are made. ;)
Click to expand...



:confuse3: It still seems you are confusing the words. She is saying that it was put in to differentiate Americans from communists. And further, that it equates to aetheists=communists and therefore unamerican.

And when was the last time you saw a congressional act put through just because someone "just says so"?
 
Squiggy said:
:confuse3: It still seems you are confusing the words. She is saying that it was put in to differentiate Americans from communists. And further, that it equates to aetheists=communists and therefore unamerican.

And when was the last time you saw a congressional act put through just because someone "just says so"?
Click to expand...

Not since the Democrats became a party. :D

Actually, it has to do with everything wrong in this country today. In order to further a view that can be seen as odious to the public, both parties tend to bury bills inside other, more worthwhile, legislation. That's why we have such a huge problem with pork, and mud-slinging. Let's say that congressman 'A' wants to have the US government spend 250,000,000 in his district on the mating rituals of the common cockroach to supply jobs to his constituency and get himself re-elected. In order to get this waste of tax-money passed, he buries his proposal in a health-benefits package for medicare. If congressman 'B' votes against this bill because of the pork, then congressman 'A' and his party will rake 'B' over the coals in the next election because he voted against a health-care package.


Now do you get why this bothers me? It's not about what's right or wrong anymore. It's about re-election, and waste. I just wish for once that a congress with a clear conscience would get voted in, but, it's probably never going to happen...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top