Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire He's at it again ....

Remember the guy who tried to get "under God" removed from the Pledge?? ..... take a peek at this.

Un-friggin' real!!

Think he better find something else to occupy his time. Big Guy upstairs is gonna get tired of him, give him a nice brain tumor or something if he isn't careful!

Wouldn't surprise me if it was a lead tumor!

May God have mercy on his soul . . . . .

BMT

put him in a foxhole in Iraq and see if he is still an atheist!

Better yet, make him drive a fuel tanker from Bagdad to Fellujah!

A M E N !

The thing that makes me sick is that the court would give credence to this guy's suit by hearing the case instead of summarily dismissing it.

don't forget to have written on the tanker "hey you muslims-lick my feet!"

That guy is an Alpha Henry if I ever saw one. We need to be more pro-active against guys like him. Not sure what we can do other than write our congressmen.
He definitely needs an "attitude adjustment", like a tour of duty in Iraq.
Don

But, he keeps LOSING in court! Who's paying the lawyers? How long are lawyers going to waste their time on a loser? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

As long as someone pays them, they are the only ones that really benefit from this kind of trash!

This twit is a doctor with a law degree too. He doesn't have to pay any lawyer fees to make a nuisance of himself.

But you would think the other fees incurred by fightng a case thru the Federal Courts would be prohibitively expensive.

He evidently has more money than sense <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

For the record, the court has to hear an argument on the case before it can dismiss it. That is what happened here. He made his argument, and was dismissed.

BMT

I wonder if this genius (my apologies to all geniuses) knows the fact that the Supreme Court starts each new year's session with a chaplain envoking a prayer over the court. Is he going to sue to have them cease and desists <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

I think we've carried this thing, the seperation between church and state way too far. The constitution is NOT a living agreement. It is not for the extreme to think "outside the box" and come up with a definition far from the true meaning, though it seems like we've extended it so far that after a while the extreme becomes the norm.

What benifit does society gain by filing such frivolous lawsuits?

How's this for a hideous worst case scenario....

A seriously misguided Democrat gets elected President. ( It's happened before)

And does a stupid thing. (High probability)

He converts to Islam between the election and the swearing-in ceremony.

Then insists on having a Mullah present so he can put his hand on the Koran and praise Allah on the Capitol Steps.

Then our kids could say," one nation under Allah with liberty....."

It makes me shudder just to think about it. I admit this is a far-fetched scenario, but it, or something similiar is not impossible. It's easy to root for the home team, but what happens when the other side comes up to bat.

Separation of church and state is a very good idea. It in no way interferes with anyone's right to worship as they please. However it does keep anyone from forcing there particular brand of beliefs on anyone else. Nice work Mr. Jefferson.

This ego maniac fool of a lawyer is not as stupid as he appears.

Elmo

Institutionalized atheism is also a state religion, which is exactly what this guy and others are after.

State sponsored religions always corrupt the religion, which is exactly why there should be no state sponored religion. That is a far cry from erasing God from our country and history.

458 Lott

I'm inclined to think the guy is more about self promotion than anything else. I'm not sure exactly what his agenda is, but I don't think he is advocating Institutionalized Atheism, but rather an absense of religeous reference at governmental functions. There is a big difference between the two.

Regarding the second part of your post, I am in total agreement with you

Elmo



I'm just putting a nasty WHAT IF out on the table for all to consider.

This issue surrounds the first amendment prohibition against a state established religion. This clause was inserted to preclude the US from ever establishing a religion as was done in England and led to terrible persecution for any who would not join. To evaluate how the early government, many of whom signed the original documents, viewed what a violation of this clause constituted, consider that in the late 1700's Congress commissioned a printing of the Bible. To suggest then that a prayer in any forum would infringe upon the establishment clause, would seem nothing short of silly or disingenuious.

The Supreme Court took a very liberal posture in deciding, in the case of school prayer, that this clause was violated. I believe they were wrong. Regardless, ever since prayer was abolished from the schools, our country, and in fact the rest of the world, have begun a steady downhill slide into decadence.

So does a prayer at the inaugeration constitute the establishment of religion? To consider it so is utterly rediculous, in my mind.

RickyD

I agree on all points.

What I'd like to hear is how everyone here would feel, if that prayer came out of the Koran instead of the Bible.

Elmo