syntax252

Well I think you are wrong about that. An attack of one's views is what a debate is all about. As long as one attacks another's point of view it is not ad hom, because it does not satisfy the "hominem" part of the ad hom label. From merriam Webster: Main Entry: [1]ad ho·mi·nem Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m Function: adjective Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person Date: 1598 1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect 2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made So, you can see that an ad hom is an attack on the person and not the person's position. And who are you to determine who's points are "valid" and who's are not? Could one not argue that what you accuse me of doing is precisely what you are doing? Well, I don't like it without "under God", so why is your preferrence more important than mine? I said that I would draw the line on atheist fanatics far sooner than others might, not that the line must be drawn sooner. We live in a secular society that has existed, and served us very nicely for some 230 odd years. it is only recently that atheist fanatics like Newdow and others have tried to use the courts to mold America into their view of what America should be. The fact that they are meeting with resistence should be of no surprise to anyone. As I have said many many times before in this thread, it is the job of the courts to judge whether the pledge--in it's current form--is unconstitutional. So far, they have not, and it ain't.

You are right. I was misreading it. I will edit my post.

THE DEMOCRATS LAMENT ****************** 'Twas the month of November And all through the land All Democrat members Were wringing their hands They still couldn't push The thought from their minds That they'd not lose to bush If more votes they could find They'd lost in the Senate They'd lost in the house And the next White House tenant Would still be that louse. "There must be a reason" They cried in dismay "This SHOULD be a season To be happy and gay" "He stole the election That's what he's done Because every projection Showed WE had it won" "Those people are silly That's what's occured Those red state hillbillies Have judgment that's blurred" "They've too much religion controlling their lives And not even a smidgen of secular drives" "And don't forget Murdock And his dastardly crews They kept spewing a crock On the Fox Evening News" "We'll recount the ballots, That's what we'll do And if THAT doesn't do it We've got lawyers, WE'LL SUE" Then they wrote to the papers To lodge their complaints And raised all kinds of vapors With little restraint But regardless how often And how hard they tried There was no way to soften The harm to their pride So give up the fuss You poor folks colored Blue The reason you lost wasn't us -- IT WAS YOU -- JD

You know tiny, I have noticed the same thing around here. Funny that you should mention it.

But that is the point. There is no "legal" enforcement of the pledge of allegience, or of the dreaded words. It it completely V-O-L-U-N-T-A-R-Y. Well, as I said before, there are people who think that any referrence to God is somehow damaging to children. I do not consider that to be a reasonable position to take and I would venture that the courts will see it as I do. This is not an example af an ad hom attack. that is another red herring. I didn't say that you were a fanatic, I just said that the government should pay no more attention to atheist fanatics than they do to religious fanatics. If you want to think that I was referring to you personally there is nothing I can do about that. And as to the referrence to other religious observances that our government officially recognizes, well there are those who think that all of those things should be banned too. They are, in my opinion, atheist fanatics. I have had conversations with atheist fanatics who were willing to state that if a church catches fire that the fire department should not respond because the fire department is paid for with tax money. The question becomes where do we draw the line in appeasing atheist fanatics? In my opinion, we draw the line far sooner that other people might draw that line, but is is, in the final analysis, the job of the courts to make that decision and we will all have to live with whatever that decision is....

And what makes you think that "under God" is the only referrence to religion in our government affairs? Can you think of any other ways in which the government either acknowledges religion or engages in religious affaires? Christmas holidays? Easter? A chaplin in the congress? A chaplin for our armed services? "In God we trust" on our money? EGAD How did we last so long?

Well, I guess that depends on how one defines "secular government."

In life there are few absolutes, taxes and death being two. While we all are relieved that we are not governed over by the pope or by some other religious leader, it is quire feasible for a secular government to acknowledge the existence of God even if that existence is entirely in the minds of man. Only the very most fanatical secularist would object to that and they should not be paid any more attention than is paid to the very most fanatical of religious zelots.

I quite agree that it was a nod in the direction of religion, and I understand it was also meant to underscore the difference between America and communist countries, but I can't see where it imperils anyone's right to a secular government any more that referrences to "natures God" does in the Declaration of Indepebdence. Agreed.

If that is indeed the case, then I offer my apologies to Sayonara. Perhaps I misunderstood where he was comming from on this issue.

They do not, because they point out that those students who were forced or coerced into saying the pledge, resisted their teachers, took the case to court, and they won! That is the proper way to confront a problem with the teaching staff, not to outlaw the pledge or the words "under God." And again--they said "hell,no" and it was they who prevailed in court, not the teachers. Is it starting to sink in yet? That is what I have been trying to explain to you all along--that we already have legislation in place to take care of any coersion of our students.

This comes down to the fact that because an Atheist does not believe in God, that he wants all other people to be disallowed from making any referrence to God. That it patently unamerican on it's face. As I said earlier, it would be akin to the Amish demanding that no child be allowed to have his/her picrure taken for the class yearbook, because the Amish do not believe in having their pictures taken. The Amish are smarter than that, but would any of us support the Amish if they tried to promote such nonsense?

I just love this. Here is a guy who has offered no convincing evidence for his side--that kids are somehow "forced" to say the pledge--and then when he encounters opposition to his point of view, he cries "troll." Is this what passes for debate on this forum?

But you are mistaken in thinking that the Constitution protects you from hearing the "G" word. It does not. Remember---"or the free exercise therof......"

If you took the time to read the thread, you would know....

Nobody is "having" any body do anything. It is voluntary.

Which, of course, is not the issue here, since the government is not "foisting anything onto anybody.