Thursday, September 05, 2013



MA: Supreme Court to hear pledge in schools case

"In what is seen as a potential bellwether hearing for the nation, Massachusetts' highest court is scheduled to begin listening to the argument Wednesday that the Pledge of Allegiance, specifically the phrase, 'under God,' violates students' rights.

The Supreme Judicial Court will consider Doe v. Action-Boxborough Regional School District and it is expected to rule whether the pledge violates students’ rights."

Source

36 comments:

Anonymous said...

Funny how these atheists always hide in the shadows as, "anonymous". Are they afraid to stand up for what they claim to believe in?

In an effort to help ease the unemployment crisis in our country, and to simply provide the population with a fun activity that can bring us all together, i propose putting a $50. bounty on the head of every atheist. If you bring one in alive, you get only $5. Now let's go and have some fun!

Anonymous said...

What is 1:56 AM saying as he or she is also "Anonymous". Even simply inserting some randon name is no less anonymous, and so is anyone who doesn't give a genuine name with an ID form of address.
The second paragraph of Anonymous 1:56 AM's post suggests s/he belongs to the KKK or something like it.

Bird of Paradise said...

Annon 1:56 I am also tired of these athiests wanks demanding we all live by their naoorw ideas

Joey said...

I think that atheists fall into this category.
2Co_4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Joh_8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
Joh_8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
Joh_8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Anonymous said...

Atheist want no mention of religion while forcing every one to abide by THEIR religion!

Old Bob said...

Gee, my 1954 Cub Scout Wolf book had the pledge without "under god". Why did the Knights of Columbus push this into the pledge and alienate all non Christian, Jews, and Muslim? I know of some non religious people whose names are military memorials, why should they be excluded? BTW, the oath that we swore when entering the military has the line about god optional...

Anonymous said...

4:04 Live your religion, but do not try to push it onto others who do not want it.

Sivad Selim said...

@1:56 - You are the perfect example of how religion and mental illness complement one another.

Joey said...

5:56 AM That is exactly what the atheists are attempting to do. Every man is religious, if he does not have a god he makes one - himself which is humanism. Christians are commanded to warn the unbeliever of his destiny.
Eze 33:8 When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
Eze 33:9 Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

Anonymous said...

Hum, the pledge isn't saying the pledger is under God, they are saying that the country is.
This is either true or false - but no-one can establish the truth or falsity of the statement currently.

Anonymous said...

Joey qualifies as a troll for unnecessarily long quotes from the Bible, as though these can prove his point or are in themselves any authority (ref. "Argument from Authority fallacy").
Theists only like to call Atheism a "religion" so they can argue on equal terms, but one is the antithesis of the other - like calling baldness a hairstyle.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Joey = Luke (sounds like him!)

Joey said...

2:59 AM My name is Joey and I don't post under 'Anonymous'. I am not ashamed of my faith or my Savior. Perhaps the reason you don't like Scripture is that you are guilty.

Anonymous said...

2:27 AM and 2:59 AM.
I, like the apostle Paul, can say -2Ti 1:12 For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.
BUT ON THE OTHER HAND I MAY BE GUILTY OF THIS -
Mat 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand why they are trying this as most school district have saying the pledge as optional since students may object to it due to religious views (should not take a vow using God's name - et your yes be yes and your no be no) or they just choose not to want to say it.

Anonymous said...

Joey and 4.32 (if not one and the same person) - you sound just like the self-righteous Pharisees who Jesus condemned. At least I'm not guilty of that or being a gullible religionist who spouts forth ancient scripture like a Pavlovian dog (since you happened to compare me to a dog in such a "Christian" way!).

Joey said...

Anonymous 2:11: I do not post 'anonymous' generally. You are correct this time because I did so accidently. For that I am sorry.
I did not compare you with a dog, those are the exact words that Jesus spoke.
Generally when a stone is thrown at a pack of dogs the only who yelps is the one that got hit.
It must have hit you.

Anonymous said...

Oh wow Joey - yet again you compare me to a dog (and that was your obvious intention in both cases). Typical "Christian" duplicity (which is a sin!).

Anonymous said...

Well at least a dog is less judgemental and less hypocritical than so-called Christians like Joey. In fact most dogs are rather nice compared with so many venom-spewing reptil-religionoids!

Joey said...

anonymous 3:28 and 5:50 A dog is an unbeliever that ridicules, mocks, and or curses the Word of God. I did not say you were a dog but that you responded like one.
Did you or did you not mock and ridicule the Word of God?
Why do you always post as anonymous? Is it that you don't want your thoughts to be known for what they are?

Anonymous said...

Joey spewed "Did you or did you not mock and ridicule the Word of God?"

Where is your scientific proof that there is such a thing as the "Word of God"? Do have have recordings of this? Were you there when God supposedly spoke? Come back when you have some actual facts. BTW, you should put your talking dog on America's Got Talent.

Anonymous said...

Joey -even if that is your actual name, it might as well be anonymous if it has no other kind of identifying features. And when it suits you, you can always switch to 'anonymous', as indeed you admit to doing after being guessed at!
As for the "Word of God", you arrogantly assume that everyone believes, or should believe, in your kind of "god" and its "word". If I believed in Zeus or Thor would you laugh or mock me? Maybe you might be too polite, but you would think me deluded. Well I think you are deluded for believing in a god called Jahweh, who was the tribal war god of the ancient Hebrews in the Middle East. That was also the god that the Jesus of the Bible was meant to be the "son" of, by some weird insemination of an earthly virgin (in fact much like pagan gods used to do with human women).
For your own sake and sanity, "Joey", why not live in the real World instead of some fantasy one like a modern movie or computer game.
signed by - GET REAL

Joey said...

Anonymous 1:54 and 2:56.
One proof is seen in the many lives that have changed for the better.
If you are right and I am wrong then I have lost nothing since I enjoy my life and the things I know. However if I am right and you are wrong then you have lost everything.
All men are sinners, including me, Christians are not perfect, just forgiven.

Joey said...

In September, 1993 a river barge struck a bridge that crossed a bayou. The bridge was badly damaged and an Amtrak fell into the bayou killing 47 passengers. It was determined that the warning system had failed to warn the train of the danger thus causing the deaths.
Cristians are commanded to give such a warning of impending death to all unbelievers. I have attempted to do just that.

Have I become your enemy because I told you the truth?

Anonymous said...

"One proof is seen in the many lives that have changed for the better."

What a load of BS. Still waiting for your scientific proof, buddy boy.

Anonymous said...

Has Joey ever heard of "Pascal's Wager" - perhaps not as he wouldn't be proposing such a pathetic argument.

As for the train analogy, it doesn't work, especially as "God" allows so many painful deaths - "his wonders to perform".

Lives can be changed for the better by many influences that don't require any particular religion or any religion at all!

You, Joey, have no monopoly on the TRUTH, or can know more about it than anyone else.

Joey said...

To those who are interested:
Anonymous 3:29. The many fulfilled prophecies that have been fulfilled to the last detail. If you care to know you might go to;
http://www.reasons.org/articles/articles/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible

Anoter is the prophecy that in the last days that 'scoffers will come'. Many will not believe regardless of this.

Anonymous said...

Oh Joey, you sound like a simple guy. It's so obvious that people will scoff at silly beliefs.
So-called prophecies can be self-fulfilled, as for example, the gospel accounts were made to fit the old Jewish expectations about their Messiah, like he had to be born in Bethlehem and of the line of David, etc.. But that is inconsistent with other recorded facts (well look it up yourself if you have any interest in your own religion, but don't go to the self-serving biased sources like those you have just made a link to (did your pastor feed you this link?) Think and research for yourself!!

Joey said...

Anonymous 3:14. You said 'So-called prophecies can be self-fulfilled, as for example, the gospel accounts were made to fit the old Jewish expectations about their Messiah'
You know this how? I posted my source, can you do the same?

Anonymous said...

Even Christian biblical scholars know that the Jewish author of the "Matthew" gospel was trying to link the birth of Jesus with the Isaiah prophesies (though why wasn't Jesus named Emmanuel?). The gospel authors didn't write their accounts as pure history but as theology - eg. different gospels indicate different locations and timelines for the birth and childhood of Jesus (though "Mark" doesn't mention it at all, and significantly that is considered the oldest and ultimate source of the other gospels).
Just as a matter of interest, Joey, how do you relate the fact that it was Joseph who was of the line of David, yet Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus?

Joey said...

Anonymous 2:28AM; In Matthew, where unquestionably we have the genealogy of Joseph, we are told (Mat_1:16); that Joseph was the son of Jacob. In what sense, then, could he be called in Luke "the son of Heli"? He could not be by natural generation the son both of Jacob and of Heli. But in Luke it is not said that Heli begat Joseph, so that the natural explanation is that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, who was, like himself, a descendant of David. That he should in that case be called "son of Heli" ("son" is not in the Greek, but rightly supplied by the translators) would be in accord with Jewish usage.

Compare (1Sa_24:16).

The conclusion is therefore inevitable that in Luke we have Mary's genealogy; and Joseph was "son of Heli" because espoused to Heli's daughter. The genealogy in Luke is Mary's, whose father, Heli, was descended from David.
Joseph was what is called the legal father of Jesus.

Anonymous said...

Yep, you wriggle out of it by saying Joseph was the "legal" father of Jesus, despite the obvious inference in the Old Testament of a direct MALE blood line.
So what excuse are you now going to propose about Jesus the Messiah not being named Emmanuel as prophesised, without resorting to that being just a description of his status or blaming the form of translation - but "his name shall be called Emmanuel"- ??
By the way, it is clear from your wording that you are using somebody else's words - your own pastor? Try arguing for yourself or at least citing your sources!

Anonymous said...

OK, so Joseph was not the father of Jesus. Jesus was most likely a woman, a clone of his mother. Since God does not have DNA and Joseph did not knock her up, Jesus would have to have the same DNA as his mother, making him a clone of her.

Joey said...

Anonymous 3:22AM. Mary and Joseph named the baby Jesus because the angel that appeared to Joseph instructed them to do so. In a previous verse the Bible says that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, making Him the 'Son of God'.
I have been posting my sources, where are yours?
2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
I think you are blind to the truth and that it will serve no usful purpose to further our discussion.

Anonymous said...

"I have been posting my sources, where are yours?"

You mean the book of fairy tales you call the bible? I can also quote Harry Potter books, which are just a valid as your quotes. How do you know the bible is real? Were you there when it was written?

Anonymous said...

1:37 Your final sentence would suit extemely well as my last statement to you. You use biblical text without any logical backing, and as for my sources they are in every large library of the western world, if you bother to look (while a lot is available online too if you weren't too scared to look).
The whole theatrical, anthropomorphic non-sense of the Bible should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence Even the self-justifying remarks of an unmarried pregnant girl who claimed she was a virgin visited by an "angel" who told her to call her son a name different to the prophecy of the Messiah's name. Wow people are so naive!