Lightning
Active member
- Joined
- May 14, 2012
- Messages
- 342
- Reaction score
- 118
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
If you didn't do that, then why didn't you answer teh following question "Doesn't the "entire evangelical Christian" community go on a rampage whenever some atheist openly says that they don't like "under god" in the pledge and "in god we trust" on the money or that saying "merry Christmas" to everyone is offensive to those who are not Christian?" with a soimple "yes"? Instead of saying "yes" you tried to defend them.
The thing is that the Christian community's ability to freely express their religious beliefs is being threatened just like the atheists ability to freely express their disbelief is being threatened. The "entire" Christian community does not go on a "rampage". This is why I didn't say "yes" and this is why you're wrong.
They actually have a legitimate complaint. The pledge is nothing more than a tool of indoctrination. The "Under God" was added because it was an attempt at anti-atheist indoctrination.
Maybe.... or maybe its the person who proposed the idea was a Christian who had support, political connections, etc. and it was agreed upon by the people added those two words that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles..... :shrug:
And I do not see how it would be "legimate" if its not a legally binding document? How is the supreme court going to rule on something that doesn't necessarily exist in their books?