Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconsitutional (trouble for "under god" again)
Rudy Canoza
public schools was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge
who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist
who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference
to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free
from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael
Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public
schools.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/14/pledge.ruling.ap/index.html
Maybe we'll get there this time; one has to hope.
Rudy Canoza
time).
Harry K
It will probably take years but I hope the Supremes don't wimp out this
time.
The screams from are already in the air.
Why can't they just abstain - what and be scorned?
The nation is founded Christianity - no it isn't Only the Preamble
even mentions it.
They will -not- admit that the ruling is not that the pledge is
unconstitutional. It rules that it is unconstitutional -as written-.
And that version is not the original. The offensive two words were
inserted back in the late 40s or early 50s. Take them back out and no
problem.
Harry K
Gunner
wrote:
Why cant anyone simply say that "under God" is an optional phrase and
is up to the speaker to use it or not?
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
J.C.
"Gunner" <gunner...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:1fsii1551oasabpo9...@4ax.com...
That's pretty much what the final ruling will amount to. But some people
just have to push the envelope to see just how far they can go. I guess once
the supreme court tells us that the two phrases go together and that you
can't leave out "the free expression of" things will die down until some
other group can come up with another nitpicking issue to use for fund
raising.
Frank White
I recall when the 'under God' bit was introduced. And the whole
class stumbling over it as we stood by our desks reciting the
Pledge...
I would have absolutely no problems with that part being taken out.
Many people would; but, after all, it was the time BEFORE those
words were added that most Conservatives point to as the Golden
Age of America. With things going to Hell, since then.
Obviously it's all the fault of the phrase. ^__^
Which is no more stupid an idea than those who insist it's only
those words that keep the country from going down the toilet...
FW
Jim Elbrecht
While I agree with the gist of your post- that we were more a
commercial enterprise than a religious one- a little fact checking is
in order here.
Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
-snip-
>2. America was NOT founded as a Christian nation. The Framers
> were almost to a man, NOT Christians but Deists.
Most were Christians- see
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qtable.htm
I salute the author of that page as determining the religion of the
founders is not an easy task. Unlike too many of today's polititions,
the men of that age worshipped privately and didn't make their beliefs
part of their politics.
There is an email floating around that says "52 of the 55" Signers of
the Declaration were Deists. First off, there were 56 Signers, and
secondly I have only seen evidence that 3 were *ever* Deists-- and
Jefferson [who happened to write the final draft] was the only one who
doesn't seem to have ever joined a Christian religion.
Otherwise we agree on a lot of what you wrote.
Jim
Elmo
And then we could get back to the story of the little kid who thought
it was "... one naked individual with liberty and justice for all."
>
> I would have absolutely no problems with that part being taken out.
> Many people would; but, after all, it was the time BEFORE those
> words were added that most Conservatives point to as the Golden
> Age of America. With things going to Hell, since then.
>
> Obviously it's all the fault of the phrase. ^__^
>
> Which is no more stupid an idea than those who insist it's only
> those words that keep the country from going down the toilet...
>
> FW
>
--
"It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything.
I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency.
This makes me forever ineligible for public office." - H. L. Mencken
J.C.
"Jim Elbrecht" <elbr...@email.com> wrote in message
news:easii1hr04404qhi9...@4ax.com...
Here is a pop quiz for you guys. What makes anyone think there is anything
regarding "separation of church and state" in the constitution?
--
Some people call this Northeast Hell
We just call it South Texas
J.C.
Gunner
When reciting the Pledge..what some consider a heart felt
statement..others can simply consider a 1 beat pause.
Shrug.
Dwain
gunner...@lightspeed.net says...
I pause between "I pledge" and "liberty and justice for all."
Allegience to a flag??? What were they thinking???
--
"I cannot afford to waste my time making money." - Louis Agassiz
Rudy Canoza
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>>SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in
>>public schools was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge
>>who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist
>>who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.
>>
>>U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference
>>to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free
>>from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
>>
>>Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
>>Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael
>>Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public
>>schools.
>>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/14/pledge.ruling.ap/index.html
>>
>>
>>Maybe we'll get there this time; one has to hope.
>
>
> It will probably take years but I hope the Supremes don't wimp out this
> time.
We can always hope, but that doesn't mean I'm truly
hopeful.
> The screams from are already in the air.
Yep - shrill and anguished as ever.
> Why can't they just abstain - what and be scorned?
> The nation is founded Christianity - no it isn't Only the Preamble
> even mentions it.
No, it doesn't mention religion in any form:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a
more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote
the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of
Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of
America.
> They will -not- admit that the ruling is not that the pledge is
> unconstitutional. It rules that it is unconstitutional -as written-.
Right. But as long as the "official" pledge contains
the words, then the entire pledge is unconstitutional.
Rudy Canoza
> In Re: Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconsitutional (trouble for
> "under god" again) on 14 Sep 2005 19:20:04 -0700, by Harry K, we
> read:
> As I recall the Pledge was introduced somewhere around 1900. The
> Cold War reference to "God" was authorized by Congress.
>
> Neither is traditional or necessary to the Republic, BUT,
> the acknowledged existance of a generic god is key to your
> liberties.
Bullshit.
> Some facts...
>
> 1. The English colonies were not religious in nature.
Not by the time of the Constitutional Convention,
maybe, but Massachusetts in particular were overtly
religious in its founding; that was a significant part
of why Roger Williams left to found Rhode Island. You
are wrong.
> The English colonies were strictly commercial enterprises.
Wrong:
English settlements in America grew up separate from
one another, as a rule. These settlements were
originally called plantations, came to be known as
colonies, and most of them eventually became states
within the United States. The separation was owing in
part to the accident of the location of grants from the
king, in part to the difficulties of land travel in
those days, in part to British mercantile policy, and
in considerable part to religious differences. Most
seventeenth century colonies were conceived of and took
shape as religious communities, though those who came
to them may have had a variety of motives. That they
were conceived as religious communities means that they
were to be made up of people of the same faith (with a
few notable exceptions) and that religion was believed
to be the glue that held them together as well as
sometimes that which distinguished them from the others.
[...]
The Puritans established their church in Massachusetts,
and branch-offs from it were established in other
places in New England, with the notable exception of
Rhode Island. The church was supported by taxation,
attendance upon its services was required of all
inhabitants, and the moral prohibitions enforced by the
civil authorities. The Puritans enforced an orthodoxy
in public utterance as well as in moral behavior. Those
who would not conform were banished from the colony.
They had not come, they said, to form a debating society.
http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosophicalissues/history/foundingrepublic.html
Two private
> settlements were religiously based. There were many churches
> in the colonies and the Bible was a best seller but these
> folks were not today's stereotypical Bible thumpers. That
> occurred in the latter half of the 1800s and was mythologized
> by Hollywood.
>
> 2. America was NOT founded as a Christian nation. The Framers
> were almost to a man, NOT Christians but Deists.
This is true, and is reflected in the fact that there
is no mention of Christ or Christianity *anywhere* in
any of the founding documents.
>
> 3. The Framer's Declaration of Independence refers to Laws of
> Nature and Nature's God and then expressly cites a "Creator"
> as the absolute source of Inherent Rights. These Rights were
> already in the Articles of Confederation and were extacted
> and included in the 1789 Constitution. These "enumerated
> Rights" are know as the Bill of Rights.
>
> 4. There are hundreds of references by the Framers and others
> to virtues and a moral code necessary to the continuance of
> the Republic.
>
> [...]
> Again, this sole source of freedom and liberty is NOT a Christian
> God or a Jewish God or any other god in the Pantheon. But,
> without the "Creator" your Rights could come ONLY from
> government. You wouldn't have them long.
No, that's false. Modern theories of rights are
entirely secular, and also posit that the rights exist
objectively, *not* as something granted or conferred.
Rudy Canoza
Because there is an "official" Pledge, by act of Congress.
Rudy Canoza
A correct reading of the First Amendment.
J.C.
"Dwain" <dw...@nothereanymore.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d9328b84...@news.sonic.net...
Probably "and to the republic for which it stands".
And I suppose the flag would be no different than a football team, or any
other thing that one might pledge an allegiance to. Grow up. What's so
terrible about having something to represent something you might hold dear?
Going through life without a respect for anything at all would be a very
miserable existance I would think.
Rudy Canoza
Get off it. This idea of pledging allegiance to a flag
is patently absurd, and even dangerous and pernicious.
Look at how this notion of allegiance is misused by
aggressive chauvinists (the correct term for most
so-called patriots) in order to coerce and browbeat
people into supporting a particular and narrow view of
what the nation ought to be doing.
I don't want some sleazy scam artist of either party
telling me that I must be willing to die for his
conception of "nation".
Curly Surmudgeon
Read the judgement and you'll discover why his ruling.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asmodeus
@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:
> I don't want some sleazy scam artist of either party
> telling me that I must be willing to die for his
> conception of "nation".
>
Our military dies so you don't have to, scumbag.
--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || Oderint Dum Metuant
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || VRWC Proud Life Member
/ \ AND POSTINGS || http://www.rightwingnation.com
Rudy Canoza
> Rudy Canoza <som...@ph.con> wrote in news:b4hWe.12156$_84.1013
> @newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>
> > I don't want some sleazy scam artist of either party
> > telling me that I must be willing to die for his
> > conception of "nation".
> >
>
> Our military dies so you don't have to, scumbag.
Our military still are sent off to die because some lying shitbag has
told them it is in defense of the flag. That's bullshit.
Asmodeus
news:1126804351.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Our military still are sent off to die
to protect your right to slander and libel them. The fact that
you idiot peaceniks don't get that demonstrates what scum you
are, nothing more, nothing less.
Asmodeus
news:1maji15r2lbpbv9pe...@4ax.com:
> Because in a free republic it is unconstitutional to pledge
> allegiance to the state.
Cite the article and section for that.
Oh, you can't. So you just cooked that up in your sick head.
Gunner
oooooo...this is gonna be good.....<EG>
Gunner
wrote:
If you have to ask that question, you most assuredly wouldnt
understand the answer.
Rudy Canoza
> "Rudy Canoza" <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:1126804351.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Our military still are sent off to die
>
> to protect your right to slander and libel them.
I don't slander or libel them. You don't even know what those words
mean. In fact, you stupid cunt, I don't even criticize them. I *do*
criticize the wrong-headed missions they are sometimes sent to do,
first and foremost their current mission of setting up an Islamic
theocracy in Iraq that will be closely allied with the larger, more
powerful, more dangerous Islamic theocracy in next-door Iran. Well, I
suppose that's not their mission, but it IS what they will achieve.
Nonetheless, AssHoleus, you are straying from the real issue. The real
issue is that a flag is not something for which to die, and it also is
not proper to use notions of misplaced patriotism to try to justify
sending American boys and girls off to die. That's the issue,
AssHoleus. See if you can stay with it, you stupid cunt.
Gunner
>What's so
>terrible about having something to represent something you might hold dear?
In the ops case, that would be welfare, Astroglide and Marx.
Gunner
<bondcATrightwingnationDOTcom> wrote:
>"Rudy Canoza" <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:1126804351.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Our military still are sent off to die
>
>to protect your right to slander and libel them. The fact that
>you idiot peaceniks don't get that demonstrates what scum you
>are, nothing more, nothing less.
They forget its the military that ultimately keeps those of us with
little tolerence for their shit, from simply killing them off enmass.
They want the military gone? Then they should be afraid..very afraid.
Rudy Canoza
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:13:37 -0500, Asmodeus
> <bondcATrightwingnationDOTcom> wrote:
>
> >"Rudy Canoza" <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >news:1126804351.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> >
> >> Our military still are sent off to die
> >
> >to protect your right to slander and libel them. The fact that
> >you idiot peaceniks don't get that demonstrates what scum you
> >are, nothing more, nothing less.
>
>
> They forget its the military that ultimately keeps those of us with
> little tolerence for their shit, from simply killing them off enmass.
>
> They want the military gone? Then they should be afraid..very afraid.
What a stupid and slovenly little strawman you crapped together! Who
the hell talked about eliminating the military? No one, unless you are
counting AssHoleus's own strawman. I certainly haven't advocated it.
I have advocated discrediting the use of "defending the flag" as a
rationale for sending our military men and women off to die for some
asshole's mischaracterization of the national interest.
Rudy Canoza
> In Re: Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconsitutional (trouble for
> Elbrecht, we read:
>
> Affiliation with a church was high of course.
>
> 1. Affilitation with a church had a thousand year tradition
> for Europeans.
> 2. In the colonies, the church was THE center of social
> and political activity.
In *some* of the colonies. Not particularly so in Virginia, which
supplied the greatest share of the founding fathers.
> 3. Attending church was a prerequisite for the socially
> connected.
> 4. Deism was the de facto result of frustration and irritation
> with institutional presumptions.
> 5. Next to the extended family, attending church was a primary
> form of socialization.
>
> What we call Christianity today was in turmoil in
> the 1600 through 1700s. Still recoiling from the Catholic wars
> and Inguisition, the common elements that developed in the
> colonies differed from those in Europe. Many if not most
> Americans considered the supremacy of the individual and family
> over the state and the necessity of private property to be
> prime. These unique values were interwoven with select biblical
> precepts and the Bible was used as a deux ex machina to
> socialize suceeding generations.
>
> The denominations were young and concentrated mostly on matters
> pertinent to the people of the times - how to get along with a
> spouse, how to raise children, ensure a good crop, take care of
> the environment, and political matters. In this sense God was
> more instructor than a remote judge of the human condition.
>
> The Quakers were recently formed and determined that a god was so
> personal that services were lent to contemplation and
> not bombastic sermons.
>
> The climate was frustrating enough that some, like Jefferson,
> essentially threw it all out and either ignored religion
> altogether or paid lip service to a convenient dialogue.
> I think this represented the educated and critical thinkers of
> the times. These were the Deists. Sort of the Unitarians or
> agnostics of today.
>
> From the Declaration, personal letters, Federalist and
> Anti-Federalists papers, etc., it is clear to me that the
> people involved with the separation were not like your
> run-of-the-mill contemorary Christian.
>
> As an aside I should also add that, compared to today, crime in
> the colonies was extremely low. Until the 1800s there was nothing
> that we would identify as a prison.
>
> These are some of my reasons for claiming Deism as a common
> denominator for the Framers.
>
> >Otherwise we agree on a lot of what you wrote.
>
> Understand that church and religion then was not as it
> is today and we will fully agree. :-)
>
>
> >Jim
Goedjn
>
>Again, this sole source of freedom and liberty is NOT a Christian
>God or a Jewish God or any other god in the Pantheon. But,
>without the "Creator" your Rights could come ONLY from
>government. You wouldn't have them long.
>
My right come out of the barrel of a gun.
And while the people who founded the US appear to
have beleived in a god, so did the people who
founded the nation they were rebelling against.
Deism or the lack thereof is irrelevent.
--Goedjn
The Watcher
(snip)
>Why cant anyone simply say that "under God" is an optional phrase and
>is up to the speaker to use it or not?
Then you won't mind the NEXT time some other group comes along and decides to
infringe on your rights? How about when HCI decides to try to outlaw all
handguns? It's just a "minor" concession. We could simply give them the handguns
as an optional step and maybe they'd let us keep the rest of them. :/
Mitch
> <snip>
>
> And I suppose the flag would be no different than a football team, or any
> other thing that one might pledge an allegiance to.
Have you ever paused to consider how pathetic it is to have allegiance
to a football team?
> Grow up.
Neener, neener yourself.
> What's so terrible about having something to
> represent something you might hold dear?
The very clear understanding that idiots quite frequently confuse the
object with the ideal. Witness the retards who think banning flag
burning is a statement of patriotism. It's fetishism.
> Going through life without a respect for anything at all would be a very
> miserable existence I would think.
There is a great deal of difference between respecting the ideals
represented by our flag and the obvious political and religious
coercion that some people try to use it for. See if you can find the
difference.
M
There is only one prayer that respects God, and you only need to say it
once, "Thy will be done." Then shut up and get on with your life.
Begging for favors is weak and foolish. -Me
Rudy Canoza
> J.C. wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > And I suppose the flag would be no different than a football team, or any
> > other thing that one might pledge an allegiance to.
>
> Have you ever paused to consider how pathetic it is to have allegiance
> to a football team?
Yeah, exactly. I grew up a more or less typical kid in L.A. in the
1950s & 1960s, and felt fierce loyalty to the Dodgers, Lakers and Rams
(the first two after they deserted their presumably equally loyal fans
in Brooklyn and Minneapolis). Some time into adulthood, and
particularly after the advent of free agency in baseball in 1973 and
then the frenetic relocation of teams in all sports, I came to see what
a stupid idea that was.
I'm going to adopt a rule with logic in it on the same level as my
four-year-old son's: he roots for the local team unless they're
playing a team with an animal name, e.g. Cubs, Cardinals, Marlins,
Diamondbacks. He likes animals, so it makes perfect sense to me.
>
> > Grow up.
>
> Neener, neener yourself.
>
> > What's so terrible about having something to
> > represent something you might hold dear?
>
> The very clear understanding that idiots quite frequently confuse the
> object with the ideal. Witness the retards who think banning flag
> burning is a statement of patriotism. It's fetishism.
EXACTLY.
>
> > Going through life without a respect for anything at all would be a very
> > miserable existence I would think.
>
> There is a great deal of difference between respecting the ideals
> represented by our flag and the obvious political and religious
> coercion that some people try to use it for. See if you can find the
> difference.
The comment is a strawman, anyway: no one is talking about going
through life without respect for anything at all. I'd fly the flag on
a national holiday (I suppose I'd have to go buy one); I'll even stand
up at the ballpark when the absurd and relatively new "tradition" of
playing the national beer-drinking song takes place. But I will not
declare "allegiance" to the flag.
J.C.
"Mitch" <mitch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1126813901.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> J.C. wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > And I suppose the flag would be no different than a football team, or
any
> > other thing that one might pledge an allegiance to.
>
> Have you ever paused to consider how pathetic it is to have allegiance
> to a football team?
>
> > Grow up.
>
> Neener, neener yourself.
>
> > What's so terrible about having something to
> > represent something you might hold dear?
>
> The very clear understanding that idiots quite frequently confuse the
> object with the ideal. Witness the retards who think banning flag
> burning is a statement of patriotism. It's fetishism.
>
> > Going through life without a respect for anything at all would be a very
> > miserable existence I would think.
>
> There is a great deal of difference between respecting the ideals
> represented by our flag and the obvious political and religious
> coercion that some people try to use it for. See if you can find the
> difference.
I can, that's why I don't get all uptight about it.
Yez
> Get off it. This idea of pledging allegiance to a flag
> is patently absurd, and even dangerous and pernicious.
> Look at how this notion of allegiance is misused by
> aggressive chauvinists (the correct term for most
> so-called patriots) in order to coerce and browbeat
> people into supporting a particular and narrow view of
> what the nation ought to be doing.
>
> I don't want some sleazy scam artist of either party
> telling me that I must be willing to die for his
> conception of "nation".
That was well said Rudy... I also have a problem with the 'Pledge' being
used at all in the lower grades, with or without God because coercing
little kids to swear allegiance to anything is blatant mind washing
indoctrination. How many 7 year olds know what allegiance even is?
How many have the maturity to know if they swear it to anything or
anyone
at all?
Not to mention Eisenhower's intent was *clear* and unacceptable. "From
this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim
in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the
dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."
-President Dwight Eisenhower, upon signing the law that added "under
God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. http://www.bartleby.com/63/88/88.html
'rena
--
"There was a time when religion ruled the world. It is known as The
Dark Ages." -Ruth Hurmence Green
Asmodeus
news:4329ccec...@news.ritternet.com:
> Then you won't mind the NEXT time some other group comes along and
> decides to infringe on your rights?
Nobody infringed on your rights, moron.
Asmodeus
news:ficji1l39h58cr5d9...@4ax.com:
> They want the military gone? Then they should be afraid..very afraid.
Just five minutes ...
Jeff McCann
"Harry K" <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126750804.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in
> > public schools was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge
> > who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist
> > who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.
> >
> > U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference
> > to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free
> > from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
> >
> > Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
> > Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael
> > Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public
> > schools.
> >
> > http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/14/pledge.ruling.ap/index.html
> >
> >
> > Maybe we'll get there this time; one has to hope.
>
> It will probably take years but I hope the Supremes don't wimp out this
> time.
>
> The screams from are already in the air.
>
> Why can't they just abstain - what and be scorned?
> The nation is founded Christianity - no it isn't Only the Preamble
> even mentions it.
Really?
PREAMBLE
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for
the United States of America.
Where is Christianity mentioned? Perhaps you meant the Declaration of
Independence, which refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," a
"Creator," "the Supreme Judge of the world," and "Divine Providence." All
of these offer some support of the Diest view of the founding fathers'
religious orientation, but there is no metion of Christianity.
> They will -not- admit that the ruling is not that the pledge is
> unconstitutional. It rules that it is unconstitutional -as written-.
> And that version is not the original. The offensive two words were
> inserted back in the late 40s or early 50s. Take them back out and no
> problem.
Bingo!! Exactly right. Much ado about very little, indeed.
Jeff
Dana
news:LngWe.12140$_84....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> J.C. wrote:
>
> > "Jim Elbrecht" <elbr...@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:easii1hr04404qhi9...@4ax.com...
> >
> >>commercial enterprise than a religious one- a little fact checking is
> >>in order here.
> >>
> >>Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>-snip-
> >>
> >>>2. America was NOT founded as a Christian nation. The Framers
> >>> were almost to a man, NOT Christians but Deists.
> >>
> >>Most were Christians- see
> >>http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qtable.htm
> >>
> >>I salute the author of that page as determining the religion of the
> >>founders is not an easy task. Unlike too many of today's polititions,
> >>the men of that age worshipped privately and didn't make their beliefs
> >>part of their politics.
> >>
> >>There is an email floating around that says "52 of the 55" Signers of
> >>the Declaration were Deists. First off, there were 56 Signers, and
> >>secondly I have only seen evidence that 3 were *ever* Deists-- and
> >>Jefferson [who happened to write the final draft] was the only one who
> >>doesn't seem to have ever joined a Christian religion.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Here is a pop quiz for you guys. What makes anyone think there is
anything
> > regarding "separation of church and state" in the constitution?
>
Nothing in there about separation of church and state.
Louis Boyd
> "Harry K" <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1126750804.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>They will -not- admit that the ruling is not that the pledge is
>>unconstitutional. It rules that it is unconstitutional -as written-.
>>And that version is not the original. The offensive two words were
>>inserted back in the late 40s or early 50s. Take them back out and no
>>problem.
>
>
> Bingo!! Exactly right. Much ado about very little, indeed.
>
I was in grade school in central Missouri when the change occured.
The addition of "under God" was controversial at the time. Most people
didn't want anyone screwing with "their" pledge.
What does "under God" mean anyway? Under God's care? Under God's
protection? Under God's domination? Under God's boot?
That Congress has the audacity to think they can speak for how God
interacts with the United States is the problem I have with the pledge
as it's presently written. It's entirely possible that God actually
favors Italy, or maybe just Utah, or perhaps doesn't give a damn at all
about politics.
Harry K
>
> PREAMBLE
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
> establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
> defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
> ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for
> the United States of America.
>
> Where is Christianity mentioned? Perhaps you meant the Declaration of
> Independence, which refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," a
> "Creator," "the Supreme Judge of the world," and "Divine Providence." All
> of these offer some support of the Diest view of the founding fathers'
> religious orientation, but there is no metion of Christianity.
>
>
Yep, I misspoke.
> > They will -not- admit that the ruling is not that the pledge is
> > unconstitutional. It rules that it is unconstitutional -as written-.
> > And that version is not the original. The offensive two words were
> > inserted back in the late 40s or early 50s. Take them back out and no
> > problem.
>
> Bingo!! Exactly right. Much ado about very little, indeed.
>
> Jeff
Harry K
Harry K
>
> PREAMBLE
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
> establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
> defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
> ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for
> the United States of America.
>
> Where is Christianity mentioned? Perhaps you meant the Declaration of
> Independence, which refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," a
> "Creator," "the Supreme Judge of the world," and "Divine Providence." All
> of these offer some support of the Diest view of the founding fathers'
> religious orientation, but there is no metion of Christianity.
>
>
Yep, I misspoke.
> > They will -not- admit that the ruling is not that the pledge is
> > unconstitutional. It rules that it is unconstitutional -as written-.
> > And that version is not the original. The offensive two words were
> > inserted back in the late 40s or early 50s. Take them back out and no
> > problem.
>
> Bingo!! Exactly right. Much ado about very little, indeed.
>
> Jeff
Harry K
Rudy Canoza
Yes, there is. At least, there is to people with both
education and critical thinking ability. That
eliminates you.
Rudy Canoza
> Rudy Canoza wrote on alt.california:
>
>
>>Get off it. This idea of pledging allegiance to a flag
>>is patently absurd, and even dangerous and pernicious.
>> Look at how this notion of allegiance is misused by
>>aggressive chauvinists (the correct term for most
>>so-called patriots) in order to coerce and browbeat
>>people into supporting a particular and narrow view of
>>what the nation ought to be doing.
>>
>>I don't want some sleazy scam artist of either party
>>telling me that I must be willing to die for his
>>conception of "nation".
>
>
> That was well said Rudy... I also have a problem with the 'Pledge' being
> used at all in the lower grades, with or without God because coercing
> little kids to swear allegiance to anything is blatant mind washing
> indoctrination. How many 7 year olds know what allegiance even is?
> How many have the maturity to know if they swear it to anything or
> anyone at all?
I think I have a problem with just about any highly
symbolic gesture like that being forced on kids. It's
all wrong, on several levels. First, symbolic
gestures, even if widely supported, should not be
forced on children (apart from their parents); all it
does is teach them that it's acceptable for some
dominant group to compel certain inessential behavior
in others. Second, kids simply don't get the
symbolism, and so ultimately it's cheapened. I still
recall quite well the sing-song-y, rote way in which we
recited the pledge when I was young; it was empty.
>
> Not to mention Eisenhower's intent was *clear* and unacceptable. "From
> this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim
> in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the
> dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."
> -President Dwight Eisenhower, upon signing the law that added "under
> God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. http://www.bartleby.com/63/88/88.html
That's interesting. I hadn't heard of that before.
That diminishes my great respect for Ike a little.
However, I would think that statement would be a real
problem for those who want to keep "under god" in the
pledge, as it sure sounds like establishment of
religion to me.
Dana
You are a liar.
Bob Yates
>>
>> Nothing in there about separation of church and state.
>
>
> Yes, there is. At least, there is to people with both education and
> critical thinking ability. That eliminates you.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Nothing there about the seperation of church and state. Of course you
need to know history and culture of the time and not what you imagine it is.
Rudy Canoza
>>Yes, there is. At least, there is to people with both education and
>>critical thinking ability. That eliminates you.
>
>
> You are a liar.
Nope.
Dana
Curly Surmudgeon
Your inability to fathom the Constitutional separation of power as
elucidated in the First Amendment doesn't mean the prior poster lied. Ad
homenims such as you sling with boring regularity speak more of your lack
of critical thinking skills.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly Surmudgeon
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>> Nothing in there about separation of church and state.
>>
>>
>> Yes, there is. At least, there is to people with both education and
>> critical thinking ability. That eliminates you.
>
> Amendment I
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
>
> Nothing there about the seperation of church and state.
What part of the first line escapes you?
The Watcher
wrote:
>don't...@there.com (The Watcher) wrote in
>news:4329ccec...@news.ritternet.com:
>
>> Then you won't mind the NEXT time some other group comes along and
>> decides to infringe on your rights?
>
>Nobody infringed on your rights, moron.
Yeah, right. I bet if they stuck some OTHER religious slogans in the Pledge of
Allegiance you'd be singing a different tune real quick(out of the other face).
One thing you christians do well(like your role model) is hypocrisy. Onward
christian soldiers, eh?
The Watcher
wrote:
>Jeff McCann wrote:
>> "Harry K" <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1126750804.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>They will -not- admit that the ruling is not that the pledge is
>>>unconstitutional. It rules that it is unconstitutional -as written-.
>>>And that version is not the original. The offensive two words were
>>>inserted back in the late 40s or early 50s. Take them back out and no
>>>problem.
>>
>>
>> Bingo!! Exactly right. Much ado about very little, indeed.
>>
>
>I was in grade school in central Missouri when the change occured.
>The addition of "under God" was controversial at the time. Most people
> didn't want anyone screwing with "their" pledge.
Many christians didn't want anyone screwing with their religion either. They
felt it cheapened their religion.
>
>What does "under God" mean anyway? Under God's care? Under God's
>protection? Under God's domination? Under God's boot?
>
>That Congress has the audacity to think they can speak for how God
>interacts with the United States is the problem I have with the pledge
>as it's presently written. It's entirely possible that God actually
>favors Italy, or maybe just Utah, or perhaps doesn't give a damn at all
>about politics.
During WWII both sides claimed god was on their side. Nobody was able to prove
either side wrong.
Anarchy Reigns
"Rudy Canoza" <som...@ph.con> wrote in message
> Dana wrote:
>>
>> Nothing in there about separation of church and state.
>
> Yes, there is. At least, there is to people with both education and critical
> thinking ability. That eliminates you.
well stated! There is NOT anything in the US constitution about the highly
inflammatory and deliberately ABUSED phrase from a PERSONAL LETTER
from Th Jefferson TO A THE DANBURY BAPTIST in response to THEIR
DEMAND FOR THERE TO BE NO FEDERALLY SPONSORED CHURCH!
The Baptist were adamant about Jefferson preventing FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
CHURCH akin to the reason they broke with the mother country "England" in the
first place. During this time EVERY STATE DID sponsor its own church.
The FIRST AMENDMENT DOES guarantee FREEDOM TO EXERCISE THE
religion of one's choice, even when that religion is atheism! The issue is
about
the federal government coercing the religion of atheism onto THE PEOPLE!
It appears that another civil war is brewing and THIS TIME THEY must be
permanently dealt with since the ability to reason has long since left them!
Atheists (or no-sticks or whatever shimmy-sham they're morphing into for the
moment)
are non-Americans hell bent on destroying the Christian principled nation that
they
are dependent on for their very parasitic existence! Round-up the Newdow ilk
and drop them off into Cuba...without a parachute! Send these ant-God
destroyers
from our midst!
We do NOT have the constitution OUR FOUNDING FATHERS wrote nor the REPUBLIC
they created! It's past time for ALL REAL AMERICANS TO PUSH BACK THE TRASHY
DESTROYING VERMIN!
tada...@yahoo.com
Strabo wrote:
> In Re: Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconsitutional (trouble for
> "under god" again) on 14 Sep 2005 19:20:04 -0700, by Harry K, we
> read:
>
> >
> >Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >> SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in
> >> public schools was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge
> >> who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist
> >> who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.
> >>
> >> U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference
> >> to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free
> >> from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
> >>
> >> Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
> >> Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael
> >> Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public
> >> schools.
> >>
> >> http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/14/pledge.ruling.ap/index.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Maybe we'll get there this time; one has to hope.
> >
> >It will probably take years but I hope the Supremes don't wimp out this
> >time.
> >
> >The screams from are already in the air.
> >
> >Why can't they just abstain - what and be scorned?
> >The nation is founded Christianity - no it isn't Only the Preamble
> >even mentions it.
> >
> >unconstitutional. It rules that it is unconstitutional -as written-.
> >And that version is not the original. The offensive two words were
> >inserted back in the late 40s or early 50s. Take them back out and no
> >problem.
>
> Cold War reference to "God" was authorized by Congress.
>
> Neither is traditional or necessary to the Republic, BUT,
> the acknowledged existance of a generic god is key to your
> liberties.
>
>
> Some facts...
>
> 1. The English colonies were not religious in nature. The English
> colonies were strictly commercial enterprises. Two private
> settlements were religiously based. There were many churches
> in the colonies and the Bible was a best seller but these
> folks were not today's stereotypical Bible thumpers. That
> occurred in the latter half of the 1800s and was mythologized
> by Hollywood.
>
> 2. America was NOT founded as a Christian nation. The Framers
> were almost to a man, NOT Christians but Deists.
>
> Nature and Nature's God and then expressly cites a "Creator"
> as the absolute source of Inherent Rights. These Rights were
> already in the Articles of Confederation and were extacted
> and included in the 1789 Constitution. These "enumerated
> Rights" are know as the Bill of Rights.
>
> 4. There are hundreds of references by the Framers and others
> to virtues and a moral code necessary to the continuance of
> the Republic.
>
> These facts are critically important if you are to maintain
> any semblance of individual freedom and liberty. Here's why.
>
> In all governments before 1776, liberty was granted to people
> (the subjects or commoners) by government (a King). What the
> King may give, the King may take away.
>
> Knowing this, the Framers intentionally bypassed government as
> the source of people's liberty and determined that a creative
> force was the source of liberty. For the first time, individuals
> had *freedom*.
>
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
> created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
> certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty
> and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights,
> Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers
> from the consent of the governed..."
Actually, this quote from Jefferson seems to be some sort of garbled
mix is the the Stoic viewpoint with a modern (at the time) view of
just government. If Jefferson had a dialog with Socrates, he would
have to admit that death is the inalienable right, the only inalienable
freedom is the ability to choose our attitude to whatever bondage we
are subjected to. Jefferson would have to explain how an *inalienable*
right would have to be secured by the Government. Jefferson is perhaps
the beginning of our thoughtless reliance on government.
After Darwin, when it started becoming clear that Deism was untenable,
an
American philosophy called Pragmatism developed. In Pragmatism, rights
are justified as useful inventions. For instance, Oliver Wendel Holmes
justification of freedom of thought as creating a "marketplace of
ideas".
>
> American Government then, cannot take away what it has not
> given.
>
> Again, this sole source of freedom and liberty is NOT a Christian
> God or a Jewish God or any other god in the Pantheon. But,
> without the "Creator" your Rights could come ONLY from
> government. You wouldn't have them long.
Note that the Consitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting
the establishment of religion". That would include the establishment
of Deism. That whould include the establishment of the God of
Jefferson.
That would include the true religion, whatever that is. So your
argument that Deism is the true religion that our nation operates
under, even if factual, misses the issue.
Thomas Nulla
>That's the downside of symbols, they are easy to use
>to manipulate emotion in the unwary and incapacitated.
Truer words are seldom spoken.
Governments rely on this fact to rule their populations even more than the
use of force, and the mass religions depend almost entirely on it.
Being able to distinguish symbols from the things they symbolize is very
useful in understanding and countering those who control by manipulating
the meanings of symbols.
Unfortunately, the world seems to be mostly inhabited by the "unwary and
incapacitated."
--
Thomas
"Driven by fear, we have succumbed to the age-old temptation to sacrifice
liberty on the pretense of obtaining security. Love of security, unfortu-
nately, all too often vanquishes love of liberty." Rep. Ron Paul, R-TX
J.C.
"Curly Surmudgeon" <cu...@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote in message
news:11ikp92...@corp.supernews.com...
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:36:05 -0500, Bob Yates wrote:
>
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Nothing in there about separation of church and state.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, there is. At least, there is to people with both education and
> >> critical thinking ability. That eliminates you.
> >
> > Amendment I
> >
> > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> > prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> > speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> > assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
> >
> > Nothing there about the seperation of church and state.
>
> What part of the first line escapes you?
You're version of it mainly. How do you stretch "make no law respecting or
prohibiting" to be "separating"?
--
Some people call this Northeast Hell
We just call it South Texas
J.C.
Rudy Canoza
Say something next time, fuckwit.
Rudy Canoza
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:36:05 -0500, Bob Yates wrote:
>
>
>>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>>>Nothing in there about separation of church and state.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, there is. At least, there is to people with both education and
>>>critical thinking ability. That eliminates you.
>>
>>Amendment I
>>
>>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>>prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
>>speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
>>assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
>>
>>Nothing there about the seperation of church and state.
>
>
> What part of the first line escapes you?
All of it escapes him.
Curly Surmudgeon
When government makes a law (regulation, act, rule, executive order, etc)
requiring kids to honor god they'v eviolated "make no law respecting."
Did you really need my explanation?
Rudy Canoza
> In Re: Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconsitutional (trouble for
> "under god" again) on 15 Sep 2005 12:51:41 -0700, by Mitch, we
> read:
>
>
>>J.C. wrote:
>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>And I suppose the flag would be no different than a football team, or any
>>>other thing that one might pledge an allegiance to.
>>
>>Have you ever paused to consider how pathetic it is to have allegiance
>>to a football team?
>>
>>
>>>Grow up.
>>
>>Neener, neener yourself.
>>
>>
>>>What's so terrible about having something to
>>>represent something you might hold dear?
>>
>>The very clear understanding that idiots quite frequently confuse the
>>object with the ideal. Witness the retards who think banning flag
>>burning is a statement of patriotism. It's fetishism.
>
>
> The flag has indeed become a fetish. For some it is
> unnecessary other than as a banner.
>
> However, as history has shown, fetishes, rituals, heroic myths
> and relics, are necessary for the general population.
History has shown no such thing. History has shown
that some clever but morally bankrupt people have been
very adept at manipulating the items on your list in
order to manipulate populations, while flim-flaming the
populaces into believing these things have some kind of
"sacred" quality for which they (populace) should
willingly die.
>>>Going through life without a respect for anything at all would be a very
>>>miserable existence I would think.
>>
>>There is a great deal of difference between respecting the ideals
>>represented by our flag and the obvious political and religious
>>coercion that some people try to use it for. See if you can find the
>>difference.
>
>
> That's the downside of symbols, they are easy to use
> to manipulate emotion in the unwary and incapacitated.
>
>
>
>>M
>>
>>There is only one prayer that respects God, and you only need to say it
>>once, "Thy will be done." Then shut up and get on with your life.
>>Begging for favors is weak and foolish. -Me
>
>
>
>
Rudy Canoza
> In Re: Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconsitutional (trouble for
> "under god" again) on 15 Sep 2005 20:15:15 GMT, by Yez, we read:
>
>
>>Rudy Canoza wrote on alt.california:
>>
>>
>>>Get off it. This idea of pledging allegiance to a flag
>>>is patently absurd, and even dangerous and pernicious.
>>> Look at how this notion of allegiance is misused by
>>>aggressive chauvinists (the correct term for most
>>>so-called patriots) in order to coerce and browbeat
>>>people into supporting a particular and narrow view of
>>>what the nation ought to be doing.
>>>
>>>I don't want some sleazy scam artist of either party
>>>telling me that I must be willing to die for his
>>>conception of "nation".
>>
>>That was well said Rudy... I also have a problem with the 'Pledge' being
>>used at all in the lower grades, with or without God because coercing
>>little kids to swear allegiance to anything is blatant mind washing
>>indoctrination. How many 7 year olds know what allegiance even is?
>>How many have the maturity to know if they swear it to anything or
>>anyone
>>at all?
>
>
> Not brainwashing but brainfilling. Socialization must occur early
> in life for conditoning to work.
>
>
>
>>Not to mention Eisenhower's intent was *clear* and unacceptable. "From
>>this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim
>>in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the
>>dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."
>>-President Dwight Eisenhower, upon signing the law that added "under
>>God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. http://www.bartleby.com/63/88/88.html
>>
>>'rena
>
>
> You need perspective as well as some cultural history.
>
> Eisenhower did not pass the legislation and it was a popular
> notion at the time.
The popularity of it is irrelevant. Eisenhower's
interpretation of it quite likely was both the popular
one *and* the legislative intent. I sure as heck hope
that Mr. Newdow introduces Eisenhower's and others'
statements about what the inclusion of "under god" in
the pledge means as part of his case.
>
> Perhaps if you'd fought at Iwo Jima or in the Normandy
> invasion you'd have a charitable understanding of the
> intended preparation for the next world war.
What does that have to do with the inclusion of "under
god" in the pledge? Nothing, as far as I can tell.
>
> As for the pledge, the intent was to ensure an early bond between
> the citizen and the republic.
Actually, the original pledge was entirely non-specific
about *which* republic was to be the object of one's
allegiance:
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the
Republic for which it stands, one nation,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The pledge was written by a Socialist Christian,
Francis Bellamy, in August 1892; I guess the late
publication date means that citizens from 1789 through
1891 were denied the opportunity to form an early bond
with the republic. The asterisked "to" was added in
October 1892.
> The belief was that the American
> republic was inherently opposed to war and only through
> a committed citizenry could another world war be prevented.
There is nothing in this seemingly authoritative short
history of the pledge,
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm, to suggest that
interpretation.
Rudy Canoza
> In Re: Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconsitutional (trouble for
> "under god" again) on Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:33:09 GMT, by Rudy
> Canoza, we read:
> The 1st A. merely says that government shall not establish
> a religion.
Exactly right. And the *intended effect* of this
prohibition against establishment is the separation of
church and state. That is the correct interpretation
of the clause.
> The Jefferson letter often at issue, assured
> the Danbury church that government would not create a
> competing domination.
>
> The least you people of superior intellect and ability
> should do, is to stop trying to distort facts and simply
> say that you don't like religion and want it eliminated.
I personally don't have any use for religion, but I
have no wish to see it eliminated. What I want is to
make clear to religious bigots that they may not, in
any way, get government support for their religious
views, views that I see as no different from ignorant
superstition.
J.C.
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:16:47 +0000, J.C. wrote:
>
> >
> > "Curly Surmudgeon" <cu...@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote in message
> > news:11ikp92...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:36:05 -0500, Bob Yates wrote:
> >>
> >> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Nothing in there about separation of church and state.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, there is. At least, there is to people with both education and
> >> >> critical thinking ability. That eliminates you.
> >> >
> >> > Amendment I
> >> >
> >> > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or
> >> > prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> >> > speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> >> > assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
> >> >
> >> > Nothing there about the seperation of church and state.
> >>
> >> What part of the first line escapes you?
> >
> >
> > You're version of it mainly. How do you stretch "make no law respecting
or
> > prohibiting" to be "separating"?
>
> When government makes a law (regulation, act, rule, executive order, etc)
> requiring kids to honor god they'v eviolated "make no law respecting."
> Did you really need my explanation?
So, what law has been made respecting religion? I like my explanation of
that clause much better. "Congress shall make no law". Just stop right
there. The tells me that congress should not get involved in matters of
religion one way or the other. And further, as there is supposed to be no
law, the government should not get involved in religion one way or another
either. And further, that means that if anyone wishes to express their
religious beliefs anywhere, anytime, anyplace, no one involved in any
government entity what so ever should try to stop them.
I know all the "how would you feel if the Muslim mantra was recited every
day in school" and all that BS. Well, the answer to that is in the
constitution as well. If people don't like the way religion is exhibited
they should amend the constitution to spell out specifically what they want
regarding religion. Is that too difficult to understand?
Rudy Canoza
> "Rudy Canoza" <som...@ph.con> wrote in message
> news:V1rWe.12220$9i4....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>Dana wrote:
>>
>>>Nothing in there about separation of church and state.
>>
>>Yes, there is. At least, there is to people with both education and critical
>>thinking ability. That eliminates you.
>
>
> well stated! There is NOT anything in the US constitution about the highly
> inflammatory and deliberately ABUSED phrase from a PERSONAL LETTER
> from Th Jefferson TO A THE DANBURY BAPTIST in response to THEIR
> DEMAND FOR THERE TO BE NO FEDERALLY SPONSORED CHURCH!
This "Danbury letter" is very much misunderstood.
Here's what some superstitious believer wrote in a
citation I found on the web:
Tell me please, where in the Constitution it states
this [the separation of church and state]? The only
place that this phrase appears is in Thomas
Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, in which
he states that the First Amemdment "builds a wall of
separation between church and state." This is not an
official constitutional document, it is merely a
letter of explanation as to why he had not declared
a day of thanksgiving as his predecessors did. He
used it to counter what he saw as an emerging
Federalist plan to exploit the thanksgiving day
issue to smear him, once again, as an infidel. The
Danbury Letter was completely ignored as a legal
argument until Justice Black unearthed it in the
'40s. It never had, and should not now have any
Constitutional relevence.
Well, apart from the fact that the first amendment is
*clearly* traced back to a draft of "A Bill for
Establishing Religious Freedom" that Jefferson wrote
for the state of Virginia, and that James Madison
helped promote to the Virginia legislature; and apart
from the fact that James Madison is the author of the
First Amendment, and knew Jefferson's thinking on the
issue, then I suppose the idea that Jefferson's opinion
is to be given "no Constitutional relevance" might be
correct <giggle>.
It is very clear that the authors of the First
Amendment *intended* for a wall of separation between
church and state to exist.
>
> The Baptist were adamant about Jefferson preventing FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
> CHURCH akin to the reason they broke with the mother country "England" in the
> first place. During this time EVERY STATE DID sponsor its own church.
>
> The FIRST AMENDMENT DOES guarantee FREEDOM TO EXERCISE THE
> religion of one's choice, even when that religion is atheism! The issue is
> about the federal government coercing the religion of atheism
onto THE PEOPLE!
No; and why do you YELL so much?
The issue is whether the government may coerce *any*
statement of belief on anyone. The term "one nation
under god" in the pledge is a statement of belief in
god. That is establishment of religion, period.
Rudy Canoza
He previously collaborated with Thomas Jefferson on the
writing of an act of the Virginia state legislature
establishing complete freedom of religion in that
state, an act which also "de-established" the Anglican
church in that state as the officially recognized religion.
Jefferson is the first prominent politician and
founding father to have used the expression "wall of
separation" regarding church and state, but Madison
undoubtedly was aware of the sentiment in general as
well as Jefferson's use of it. Madison himself used
the term "separation" even more powerfully in an essay
entitled "Monopolies":
Strongly guarded as is the separation between
religion and Government in the Constitution of the
United States, the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by
precedents already furnished in their short history.
Note that Madison speaks even more broadly than
Jefferson: Madison writes of a separation between
*religion* and government, not merely "church" and state.
The intent of the authors of the First Amendment is
clear: the establishment clause was INTENDED to create
a wall of separation between religion and state.
Rudy Canoza
Rubbish. The word "inalienable" when applied to rights
does not mean the rights *cannot* be violated, with the
violations coming almost entirely from government/state
that, prior to the Declaration, generally were NOT held
to derive their powers from the consent of the
governed. It means, rather, that the rights MAY not,
morally and justly, be violated. You also cannot
coherently separate the notion that governments are
instituted to secure the rights from Jefferson's
reasoning about government only deriving its just
powers from the consent of the governed. Jefferson was
saying, in essence, that prior conceptions of the
theory and origin of government were morally wrong, and
led to wrong beliefs that the inalienable rights could
justly be violated. He was laying the groundwork for
the idea that government may not justly violate the
rights he had previously stated.
> Jefferson is perhaps
> the beginning of our thoughtless reliance on government.
The Democratic Party, which makes much of Jefferson's
writings on liberty in the social and intellectual
aspects of life, certainly see themselves as his heirs.
But in their overriding commitment to statism in the
economy, they jettison Jefferson entirely.
Rudy Canoza
James Madison, who authored the First Amendment, and
Thomas Jefferson, with whom Madison collaborated in
promoting a religious freedom act in the Virginia state
legislature, and which act is recognized as the
progenitor of the First Amendment, saw the
establishment clause in this way: as creating a wall
Rudy Canoza
When you add "under god" by act of Congress, and the
President signs it into law; and when the Knights of
Columbus, at whose behest the law was passed, are an
overtly religious group; and when everyone connected
with the expression and its inclusion intended it to
indicate a *statement of belief in god*, then the law
establishes a particular religious belief as the law of
the land. When you further make the recitation of the
pledge mandatory, OR strongly pressure schools to use
it as a fulfilment of some obligation to conduct a
patriotic ceremony, and when there is clearly a
coercive atmosphere created for children who may not
wish to engage in the exercise, then you have
established religion.
This should not be hard to understand.
> I like my explanation of
> that clause much better. "Congress shall make no law". Just stop right
> there.
Congress DID make a law. They passed a law creating an
"official" version of the pledge of allegiance that
included an overt statement of religious belief. That
is prohibited by the Constitution.
> The tells me that congress should not get involved in matters of
> religion one way or the other.
They did: they amended the pledge, with the force of law.
Gunner
wrote:
>Gunner lied:
>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:13:37 -0500, Asmodeus
>> <bondcATrightwingnationDOTcom> wrote:
>>
>> >"Rudy Canoza" <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> >news:1126804351.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>> >
>> >> Our military still are sent off to die
>> >
>> >to protect your right to slander and libel them. The fact that
>> >you idiot peaceniks don't get that demonstrates what scum you
>> >are, nothing more, nothing less.
>>
>>
>> They forget its the military that ultimately keeps those of us with
>> little tolerence for their shit, from simply killing them off enmass.
>>
>> They want the military gone? Then they should be afraid..very afraid.
>
>What a stupid and slovenly little strawman you crapped together! Who
>the hell talked about eliminating the military? No one, unless you are
>counting AssHoleus's own strawman. I certainly haven't advocated it.
>I have advocated discrediting the use of "defending the flag" as a
>rationale for sending our military men and women off to die for some
>asshole's mischaracterization of the national interest.
I counted 5 lies or misdirections in Rudy;s post. Can anyone spot
more?
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Gunner
>This is the new version .........
>
>I pledge allegiance to the Bush that stold the United States election
>And to the republicans for which he stands
>One nation under the anti-Christ moron Bush
>Without liberty,
>Just ass for all.
>
Oh oh...looks like another one is off his meds.
If this was the 60s, Id say he got a bad tab of Orange Sunshine.
Gunner
wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:07:29 GMT, Gunner <gunner...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>(snip)
>>Why cant anyone simply say that "under God" is an optional phrase and
>>is up to the speaker to use it or not?
>
>Then you won't mind the NEXT time some other group comes along and decides to
>infringe on your rights? How about when HCI decides to try to outlaw all
>handguns? It's just a "minor" concession. We could simply give them the handguns
>as an optional step and maybe they'd let us keep the rest of them. :/
Actually..it is an option of you decide to own a firearm or not. The
antis in both cases are trying to prevent both ownership of firearms
or speaking the "under god" words, if one choses too. In no case do I
see the pros on either side requireing you to say the words or own a
gun.
'Captain' Kirk DeHaan
And here again we get into interpretation of the Constitution. They
spent a lot of time wording this document. The meaning is quite plain.
The only interpretation that might be needed is the correlation of the
meaning of the words in the days when the document was written.
>
>
>> The Jefferson letter often at issue, assured
>> the Danbury church that government would not create a
>> competing domination.
>>
>> The least you people of superior intellect and ability should do, is
>> to stop trying to distort facts and simply say that you don't like
>> religion and want it eliminated.
>
>
> I personally don't have any use for religion, but I have no wish to see
> it eliminated. What I want is to make clear to religious bigots that
> they may not, in any way, get government support for their religious
> views, views that I see as no different from ignorant superstition.
Kirk
Rudy Canoza
> On 15 Sep 2005 10:54:52 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notg...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Gunner lied:
>>
>>>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:13:37 -0500, Asmodeus
>>><bondcATrightwingnationDOTcom> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Rudy Canoza" <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>news:1126804351.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Our military still are sent off to die
>>>>
>>>>to protect your right to slander and libel them. The fact that
>>>>you idiot peaceniks don't get that demonstrates what scum you
>>>>are, nothing more, nothing less.
>>>
>>>
>>>They forget its the military that ultimately keeps those of us with
>>>little tolerence for their shit, from simply killing them off enmass.
>>>
>>>They want the military gone? Then they should be afraid..very afraid.
>>
>>What a stupid and slovenly little strawman you crapped together! Who
>>the hell talked about eliminating the military? No one, unless you are
>>counting AssHoleus's own strawman. I certainly haven't advocated it.
>>I have advocated discrediting the use of "defending the flag" as a
>>rationale for sending our military men and women off to die for some
>>asshole's mischaracterization of the national interest.
>
>
> I counted 5 lies or misdirections in Rudy;s post.
No, you didn't. I counted two lies in your response:
1. That you detected any lies in my post;
2. That you can count.
Rudy Canoza
Right. It's necessary.
> They spent a lot of time wording this document.
Right.
> The meaning is quite plain.
Wrong.
> The only interpretation that might be needed is the correlation of the
> meaning of the words in the days when the document was written.
So you just contradicted yourself.
Asmodeus
news:432a7588...@news.ritternet.com:
> Yeah, right. I bet if they stuck some OTHER religious slogans in
> the Pledge of Allegiance
Stuff it. What's next, you idiots trying to take the reference
to God out of the Declaration of Independence?
It's over anyway. Your leftist SCOTUS is a thing if the past.
--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || Oderint Dum Metuant
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || VRWC Proud Life Member
/ \ AND POSTINGS || http://www.rightwingnation.com
The Watcher
>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:37:18 GMT, don't...@there.com (The Watcher)
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:07:29 GMT, Gunner <gunner...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>>
>>(snip)
>>>Why cant anyone simply say that "under God" is an optional phrase and
>>>is up to the speaker to use it or not?
>>
>>Then you won't mind the NEXT time some other group comes along and decides to
>>infringe on your rights? How about when HCI decides to try to outlaw all
>>handguns? It's just a "minor" concession. We could simply give them the handguns
>>as an optional step and maybe they'd let us keep the rest of them. :/
>
>
>Actually..it is an option of you decide to own a firearm or not. The
>antis in both cases are trying to prevent both ownership of firearms
>or speaking the "under god" words, if one choses too. In no case do I
>see the pros on either side requireing you to say the words or own a
>gun.
Then you are in denial. When they declare THIS as the OFFICIAL Pledge of
Allegiance of the United States of America they are speaking for all citizens,
whether they have that right or not. That's why many Americans(Atheists and
others) have problems with religious slogans in the pledge or on the official
currency of the federal government. You say the words by proxy whether you speak
them or not.
Rudy Canoza
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:37:18 GMT, don't...@there.com (The Watcher)
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:07:29 GMT, Gunner <gunner...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
> >
> >(snip)
> >>Why cant anyone simply say that "under God" is an optional phrase and
> >>is up to the speaker to use it or not?
> >
> >Then you won't mind the NEXT time some other group comes along and decides to
> >infringe on your rights? How about when HCI decides to try to outlaw all
> >handguns? It's just a "minor" concession. We could simply give them the handguns
> >as an optional step and maybe they'd let us keep the rest of them. :/
>
>
> Actually..it is an option of you decide to own a firearm or not.
But is not really an option to participate in the patriotic exercise in
school that may contain a religious reference to which you object.
> The antis in both cases are trying to prevent both ownership of firearms
> or speaking the "under god" words,
No one is trying to prevent anyone from holding a religious belief or
from having the freedom to exercise it as he sees fit. They are trying
to prevent the state from compelling others to participate in your
exercise.
Your examples are not parallel at all. If one doesn't wish to own a
firearm, then one doesn't have to. But if I don't wish to be compelled
to participate in an overt declaration of faith in god, I shouldn't
have to draw attention to myself by refusing to stand, or leaving the
room.
> if one choses too. In no case do I
> see the pros on either side requireing you to say the words or own a
> gun.
Of course there is pressure to say the words, you imbecile. Children
don't like to be singled out for negative attention. Even if they're
very strong kids and willing to take the opprobrium that comes with
being an outsider, they shouldn't *have* to do that, when the reason
for it is clearly unconstitutional.
Gunner Asch
wrote:
Oh really? Provide cites. As far as Im concerned, and most who are
not atheists will likely agree..the "Under G-d" portion is optional.
Which reminds me. When are you going to throw all your money away?
After all..if you own any..you are by proxy agreeing that " In God we
trust"
Id be happy to take it off your hands.
Gunner, Buddhist
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>Gunner wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:37:18 GMT, don't...@there.com (The Watcher)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:07:29 GMT, Gunner <gunner...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >(snip)
>> >>Why cant anyone simply say that "under God" is an optional phrase and
>> >>is up to the speaker to use it or not?
>> >
>> >Then you won't mind the NEXT time some other group comes along and decides to
>> >infringe on your rights? How about when HCI decides to try to outlaw all
>> >handguns? It's just a "minor" concession. We could simply give them the handguns
>> >as an optional step and maybe they'd let us keep the rest of them. :/
>>
>>
>> Actually..it is an option of you decide to own a firearm or not.
>
>But is not really an option to participate in the patriotic exercise in
>school that may contain a religious reference to which you object.
Sure it is. You may simply NOT say the two "offensive" words.
>
>
>> The antis in both cases are trying to prevent both ownership of firearms
>> or speaking the "under god" words,
>
>No one is trying to prevent anyone from holding a religious belief or
>from having the freedom to exercise it as he sees fit. They are trying
>to prevent the state from compelling others to participate in your
>exercise.
Where are you compelled to say "under g-d"??? And yes, others ARE
trying to forbid people from exercising it. (religious freedom)
>
>Your examples are not parallel at all. If one doesn't wish to own a
>firearm, then one doesn't have to. But if I don't wish to be compelled
>to participate in an overt declaration of faith in god, I shouldn't
>have to draw attention to myself by refusing to stand, or leaving the
>room.
>\
YOu simply dont say those two words. Simple
>
>> if one choses too. In no case do I
>> see the pros on either side requireing you to say the words or own a
>> gun.
>
>Of course there is pressure to say the words, you imbecile. Children
>don't like to be singled out for negative attention. Even if they're
>very strong kids and willing to take the opprobrium that comes with
>being an outsider, they shouldn't *have* to do that, when the reason
>for it is clearly unconstitutional.
Please point out the law forcing you. Or are you saying that those
who are too feeble minded or weak to resist peer pressure should have
all peer pressure removed? Like sex, drugs and criminal actions?
How do you propose to do that? Forbid them? Pass a law?
Thanks for the compliment Rudy. Coming from a moronic buffoon such as
yourself...its a statement of admiration.
The Watcher
It's not too complicated. Like I already explained, the pledge is adopted as the
OFFICIAL pledge of allegiance of the United States of America, which means it
represents the entire United States of America. Since 1954 it was adopted WITH
the "under god" in it, not optional. The OFFICIAL pledge of allegiance of the
United States of America contains the words "under god". Your denial does not
change that. Is that too complicated for you?
>
>Which reminds me. When are you going to throw all your money away?
>After all..if you own any..you are by proxy agreeing that " In God we
>trust"
Unless I cross it off. BTW, I agree, and we should also eliminate all religious
slogans from official currency too. While we're at it we should also quit paying
for ministers with taxpayer money too. The Supreme Court ALMOST came out and
agreed with that one, but since the US has been violating the Constitution so
long on that one they didn't have the guts to stop it.
>
>Id be happy to take it off your hands.
I bet you would. You do seem to be ready to compromise fairly quickly.
The Watcher
>On 16 Sep 2005 16:20:44 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notg...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Gunner wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:37:18 GMT, don't...@there.com (The Watcher)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:07:29 GMT, Gunner <gunner...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >(snip)
>>> >>Why cant anyone simply say that "under God" is an optional phrase and
>>> >>is up to the speaker to use it or not?
>>> >
>>> >Then you won't mind the NEXT time some other group comes along and decides to
>>> >infringe on your rights? How about when HCI decides to try to outlaw all
>>> >handguns? It's just a "minor" concession. We could simply give them the handguns
>>> >as an optional step and maybe they'd let us keep the rest of them. :/
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually..it is an option of you decide to own a firearm or not.
>>
>>But is not really an option to participate in the patriotic exercise in
>>school that may contain a religious reference to which you object.
>
>Sure it is. You may simply NOT say the two "offensive" words.
Yeah, it's SO simple, isn't it? Somebody hasn't been paying attention to the
whole problem. :/
>>
>>
>>> The antis in both cases are trying to prevent both ownership of firearms
>>> or speaking the "under god" words,
>>
>>No one is trying to prevent anyone from holding a religious belief or
>>from having the freedom to exercise it as he sees fit. They are trying
>>to prevent the state from compelling others to participate in your
>>exercise.
>
>Where are you compelled to say "under g-d"??? And yes, others ARE
>trying to forbid people from exercising it. (religious freedom)
People were compelled to say "under god" in school" just like they were
compelled to say prayers. The god squads used peer pressure in the schools to
try to force their agenda on everyone. That's why the Supreme Court threw
teacher-led prayer out of public schools.
>>
>>Your examples are not parallel at all. If one doesn't wish to own a
>>firearm, then one doesn't have to. But if I don't wish to be compelled
>>to participate in an overt declaration of faith in god, I shouldn't
>>have to draw attention to myself by refusing to stand, or leaving the
>>room.
>>\
>
>YOu simply dont say those two words. Simple
>
If you don't need to say them, they don't NEED to be in the OFFICIAL pledge of
the country. Simple, isn't it?
>>
>>> if one choses too. In no case do I
>>> see the pros on either side requireing you to say the words or own a
>>> gun.
>>
>>Of course there is pressure to say the words, you imbecile. Children
>>don't like to be singled out for negative attention. Even if they're
>>very strong kids and willing to take the opprobrium that comes with
>>being an outsider, they shouldn't *have* to do that, when the reason
>>for it is clearly unconstitutional.
>
>Please point out the law forcing you. Or are you saying that those
>who are too feeble minded or weak to resist peer pressure should have
>all peer pressure removed? Like sex, drugs and criminal actions?
Interesting you should pick sex as your first example. Children ARE protected
from being pressured into sex by the law, aren't they? Do you want to change
those laws too? Wanna toss them to the wolves now? Gonna dump the "feeble minded
or weak" and let them fend for themselves?
>
>How do you propose to do that? Forbid them? Pass a law?
No need to. Plenty of laws already exist.
(snip)
>Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
>for torturing the cat." Gunner
Think of it as having the government knock the shit out of you for violating the
rights of your neighbors. Some people just insist on trying to violate others'
rights.
Asmodeus
news:9cqni1d9qmv8soj4d...@4ax.com:
> Oh really? Provide cites. As far as Im concerned, and most who are
> not atheists will likely agree..the "Under G-d" portion is optional.
What makes this so ludicrous is that if the phrase had been, "One
nation under the mother goddess," or "One nation under Allah," or
"One nation under the Great Tree Spirit," the liberals would now
be screaming "bigot! intolerance! religious freedom! diversity!"
Asmodeus
news:432c097...@news.ritternet.com:
> People were compelled to say "under god" in school" just like they
> were compelled to say prayers.
Bullshit.
Harry K
In what way is it BS? It happens to be the truth just not at the same
time IIRC. Back in the 40s as a 6yoa the school day started with a
prayer and the pledge. At that time the pledge did not contain the
offensive words.
Try telling a 6yoa that they can obstain from doing something the
entire class is doing. Yeah, that works great if you want your child
ostrasized.
Harry K
Asmodeus
news:1126964834.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Try telling a 6yoa that they can obstain from doing something the
> entire class is doing. Yeah, that works great if you want your child
> ostrasized.
The peers would never know one way or another, since they're
all facing the flag saying the pledge, you moron.
Gunner Asch
wrote:
Compromise? Its not my belief that its important. So its hardly a
compromise on my part. Im just not going to force my world view on
others.
Gunner Buddhist.
Gunner Asch
<bondcATrightwingnationDOTcom> wrote:
>Gunner Asch <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in
>news:9cqni1d9qmv8soj4d...@4ax.com:
>
>> Oh really? Provide cites. As far as Im concerned, and most who are
>> not atheists will likely agree..the "Under G-d" portion is optional.
>
>What makes this so ludicrous is that if the phrase had been, "One
>nation under the mother goddess," or "One nation under Allah," or
>"One nation under the Great Tree Spirit," the liberals would now
>be screaming "bigot! intolerance! religious freedom! diversity!"
Ayup.
Gunner
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>>
>>Sure it is. You may simply NOT say the two "offensive" words.
>
>Yeah, it's SO simple, isn't it? Somebody hasn't been paying attention to the
>whole problem. :/
>>>
So you are claiming children and adults are being held at gun point
and forced to say "under god"?
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
Gunner Asch
wrote:
60 yrs ago, Jim Crow was in effect. Are you claiming it still is?
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
Pope Secola VI
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:17:46 -0500, Asmodeus
> <bondcATrightwingnationDOTcom> wrote:
>
>
>>Gunner Asch <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in
>>news:9cqni1d9qmv8soj4d...@4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>>Oh really? Provide cites. As far as Im concerned, and most who are
>>>not atheists will likely agree..the "Under G-d" portion is optional.
>>
>>What makes this so ludicrous is that if the phrase had been, "One
>>nation under the mother goddess," or "One nation under Allah," or
>>"One nation under the Great Tree Spirit," the liberals would now
>>be screaming "bigot! intolerance! religious freedom! diversity!"
>
>
> Ayup.
>
> Gunner
>
And they keep wondering why home schooling continues to grow by leaps
and bounds.
Many home schools start the day with the pledge of allegiance and a
reading from the bible.
With this expect the enrollment at Religious supported primay and
secondary schools, (Catholic, Lutheran, 7th Day Adventist, even southern
Baptist), to take off again.
Since every public school gets funding based on the number of students
they have in school, it will be a glorious day when public schools are
turned into sanitary land fills and incompetent public school teachers
are walking the street unemployed.
--
There are in fact two things, Science and opinion,
the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.
Hippocrates
467-377 B.C.
Louis Boyd
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:26:27 GMT, don't...@there.com (The Watcher)
> wrote:
>
>
>>>Sure it is. You may simply NOT say the two "offensive" words.
>>
>>Yeah, it's SO simple, isn't it? Somebody hasn't been paying attention to the
>>whole problem. :/
>>
> So you are claiming children and adults are being held at gun point
> and forced to say "under god"?
If children and adults were being forced at gunpoint they'd have an
easier time recognizing the evil of state sponsored religion. State
sponsored religion is always ok with the masses as long as it's "their"
brand of religion. That's why it's a good thing the US is a republic
and not a democracy.