K-House eNews, 3-16-04: PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
Jason Gastrich
"Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD..." Psalm 33:12
On March 24, 2004, The United States Supreme Court will hear testimony in
the "Pledge of Allegiance Case" - to determine whether the words "under God"
will be allowed to remain in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.
There will be a great many political and legal arguments presented in this
case, but the bottom line question is, will America be a nation that has
places itself ultimately under God's authority, or will America deteriorate
into a nation that claims to be its own god? Will America remain under the
Law of God, or will America say, "I can determine my own truth." (?)
The issue is not one of individual liberty. Michael Newdow, the atheist who
is fighting to have the Pledge changed, is free to reject God and go about
his daily business regardless of whether the words "under God" remain in the
Pledge. Any child who chooses - right now - may abstain from reciting the
Pledge in school. Freedom of religion is the blessing offered to those
living in a nation that believes that rights are given by God and not by
government.
This is an important concept to understand. Atheism and humanism, which
promise freedom from God and His rules, do not lead to true freedom.
Stalin, in his power-hungry atheism, felt justified in murdering millions of
his own people because they did not submit to his atheistic Communist ideal.
Kim Jong Il of North Korea is currently murdering countless Christians and
political dissidents because they threaten the power he holds in his
atheistic empire. When God is the true Lord of a nation, there is freedom
because the rulers recognize a higher authority to Whom they must also
submit. When the rulers of nations consider themselves to be gods, then any
crime can be justified in order to further their agendas.
As a nation "under God" America claims to stand under God's authority, with
God and His Law as the true head of the country. If America fails to remain
in that position, then the only Law left to guide her is the personal
opinion of judges and the popular opinion of the masses - which are as solid
than half-set pudding. By breaking the 1st Commandment and saying, "We are
our own god, we can decide what is right and what is wrong of ourselves,"
America opens its door to laws based on justifications rather than on
Justice, on faulty human rationalizations rather than on Righteousness.
Unfortunately, since America has long allowed itself to be pushed away from
its pledged position "under God," the Supreme Court justices have already
made several monumentally ungodly decisions these past several decades -
without fear of impeachment. If America fails to truly live as a nation
"under God" there hardly seems reason to keep the words in the Pledge.
However, we believe the majority of Americans do want to remain a nation
under God, and we ask all such Americans to please pray for this upcoming
Supreme Court case, that the justices will be able to wade through all the
arguments and legalese and will make wise, just, God-fearing decisions in
this case and in all the future cases that come before them.
Related Links:
. ACLJ's Jay Sekulow to Discuss Constitutionality of the Pledge of
Allegiance - ACLJ
. Old Bridge officials support God in pledge - Home News Tribune
. U.S. v. Newdow Information - ACLJ
This article is from Koinonia House's weekly email. http://khouse.org
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 60,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free
indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ
has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
Richard Clayton
> PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
>
> "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD..." Psalm 33:12
>
> On March 24, 2004, The United States Supreme Court will hear testimony in
> the "Pledge of Allegiance Case" - to determine whether the words "under God"
> will be allowed to remain in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.
>
> There will be a great many political and legal arguments presented in this
> case, but the bottom line question is, will America be a nation that has
> places itself ultimately under God's authority, or will America deteriorate
> into a nation that claims to be its own god? Will America remain under the
> Law of God, or will America say, "I can determine my own truth." (?)
>
> The issue is not one of individual liberty. Michael Newdow, the atheist who
> is fighting to have the Pledge changed, is free to reject God and go about
> his daily business regardless of whether the words "under God" remain in the
> Pledge. Any child who chooses - right now - may abstain from reciting the
> Pledge in school. Freedom of religion is the blessing offered to those
> living in a nation that believes that rights are given by God and not by
> government.
<snip>
No, Jason, your source is mistaken and so are you. The issue is whether
the United States government has the right to include an explicit
endorsement of religion in our national pledge.
Look at it from a more pragmatic angle: Islam is currently a
fast-growing religion in the United States, and some estimates I have
seen suggest Muslims may outnumber Christians in this country within a
generation or two. How would you feel about your grandchildren pledging
allegiance to "one Nation, under Allah and His prophet Muhammad"?
I do not find that any worse than "one Nation, under God" but I bet
*you* do.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
"Pranksters like you will endure the penalty game... LIVING OCTOPUS IN
YOUR PANTS!" -- Angelic Layer fansub
Stanley Friesen
>PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
>
>
>"Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD..." Psalm 33:12
>
>On March 24, 2004, The United States Supreme Court will hear testimony in
>the "Pledge of Allegiance Case" - to determine whether the words "under God"
>will be allowed to remain in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.
>
>There will be a great many political and legal arguments presented in this
>case, but the bottom line question is, will America be a nation that has
>places itself ultimately under God's authority,
As that would be a violation of its very Constitution, I would hope not.
It is the responsibility of *each* *citizen* to choose in what manner
they will or will not place themselves under God's authority. It is not
the place of the US government to try to influence of control that
choice.
> or will America deteriorate into a nation that claims to be its own god?
This is not the only alternative. It can also *continue* to do what it
has done for many years now, and simply stay out of the issue of who God
is and is not.
> Will America remain under the Law of God,
It has *never* been under the Law of God. The Constitution forbids it
to be so, and has for lo these many years (>220). So it cannot "remain"
where it has never been.
>< or will America say, "I can determine my own truth." (?)
This is not the only alternative. It can also continue to let religious
organizations address the issue of ultimate truth, and simply stay out
of the issue.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
David
> Jason Gastrich wrote:
> > PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
> >
> > "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD..." Psalm 33:12
> >
> > On March 24, 2004, The United States Supreme Court will hear testimony in
> > the "Pledge of Allegiance Case" - to determine whether the words "under God"
> > will be allowed to remain in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.
> >
> > There will be a great many political and legal arguments presented in this
> > case, but the bottom line question is, will America be a nation that has
> > places itself ultimately under God's authority, or will America deteriorate
> > into a nation that claims to be its own god? Will America remain under the
> > Law of God, or will America say, "I can determine my own truth." (?)
<snip>
> <snip>
> No, Jason, your source is mistaken and so are you. The issue is whether
> the United States government has the right to include an explicit
> endorsement of religion in our national pledge.
<snip>
> How would you feel about your grandchildren pledging
> allegiance to "one Nation, under Allah and His prophet Muhammad"?
>
> I do not find that any worse than "one Nation, under God" but I bet
> *you* do.
Hi Richard, I think Jason's gradchildren would have had all the muslims
deported before they could change the constitution. Or worse!
David
David Wise
I'm serious, EXACTLY when did that happen? You don't have to provide
the complete precise date; just the year would suffice.
While you're at it, just when did the National Motto become "In God We
Trust"? And what was it before then and since when?
I am asking these question most sincerely and do expect an honest and
direct answer.
"Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message news:<4YT5c.7493$h85....@twister.socal.rr.com>...
Ann Broomhead
>
>
> "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD..." Psalm 33:12
>
> On March 24, 2004, The United States Supreme Court will hear testimony in
> the "Pledge of Allegiance Case" - to determine whether the words "under God"
> will be allowed to remain in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.
>
> There will be a great many political and legal arguments presented in this
> case, but the bottom line question is, will America be a nation that has
<snip>
I was in first grade when that phrase was added to the Pledge, and it
gave me a lot of trouble. Earlier, I had had to deal with "with
liberty and justice for all" (because I knew that a lot of things
weren't fair in my country). I decided that I was pledging myself to
do my part to achieve that ideal nation.
But how could I put God over my nation? How could I persuade a deity
to favor my country? I was just one little kid! This was impossible.
I finally decided that it was going to have to be the sum of the faith
of all believers that did that.
So, yes, take it out of the Pledge. It is just too distressing to the
small children who are the ones taking the Pledge *every day*.
Pfusand
That which does not destroy us
has made its last mistake.
-- Unspoken motto of the pantope crew
Ken Shaw
Stanley Friesen wrote:
> "Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>
>
>>PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
>>
>>
>>"Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD..." Psalm 33:12
>>
>>On March 24, 2004, The United States Supreme Court will hear testimony in
>>the "Pledge of Allegiance Case" - to determine whether the words "under God"
>>will be allowed to remain in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.
>>
>>There will be a great many political and legal arguments presented in this
>>case, but the bottom line question is, will America be a nation that has
>>places itself ultimately under God's authority,
>
>
> As that would be a violation of its very Constitution, I would hope not.
> It is the responsibility of *each* *citizen* to choose in what manner
> they will or will not place themselves under God's authority. It is not
> the place of the US government to try to influence of control that
> choice.
>
>
>>or will America deteriorate into a nation that claims to be its own god?
>
>
> This is not the only alternative. It can also *continue* to do what it
> has done for many years now, and simply stay out of the issue of who God
> is and is not.
>
>
>> Will America remain under the Law of God,
>
>
> It has *never* been under the Law of God. The Constitution forbids it
> to be so, and has for lo these many years (>220). So it cannot "remain"
> where it has never been.
>
<pedantic>
actually lo these 214 years.
</pedantic>
Ken
Steve the Sauropodman
During the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin proposed to
the members that they begin each day with a prayer to God for
guidance. Franklin's suggestion was soundly defeated. In fact, the
very reason, the Founding Fathers, especially, Jefferson, opposed the
idea was that they were all quite knowledgable, of the dangers of
State Approved religion.
The pledge was written in 1892 by socialist Francis Bellamy. He
composed it for Youth's Companion magazine, in celebration of the
nation's first Columbus Day. The original pledge did not reference
God, nor did it reference the United States. In 1923, members of the
American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, formed a
body called the National Flag Conference. The flag enthusiasts feared
that the new immigrants coming to the US might misconstrue the pledge
as allowing them to remain loyal to their native lands.
The AmerLeg and DAR, took it upon themselves to change the pledge's
wording. "I pledge alligience to my flag..." became "I pledge
alligence to the flag of the United States." In 1924, "...of America"
was added.
As for the "...under God," portion of the Pledge, it was included in
1954, during the height of the "Red Menace" Communist witch hunts.
Cheers,
"It may be true that you can't fool all the people all the time, but
you can fool enough of them to rule a large country."
Will Durant
Dave Oldridge
> PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
>
>
> "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD..." Psalm 33:12
>
> On March 24, 2004, The United States Supreme Court will hear testimony
> in the "Pledge of Allegiance Case" - to determine whether the words
> "under God" will be allowed to remain in the U.S. Pledge of
> Allegiance.
>
> There will be a great many political and legal arguments presented in
> this case, but the bottom line question is, will America be a nation
> that has places itself ultimately under God's authority, or will
> America deteriorate into a nation that claims to be its own god? Will
> America remain under the Law of God, or will America say, "I can
> determine my own truth." (?)
You should rephrase this. Will America ever come under the Law of God or
will America continue to say "I can determine my own truth?"
Because, if you put it in the pledge and then continue business as usual,
the pledge will simply be a lie. Ordering people to lie by government
fiat seems to be a fundamentalist obsession these days.
Some of you seem to have confused freedom of religion with the freedom to
force your religion on your neighbours as blatantly as you can. Now SOME
of that IS protected. You can adorn your house with pentagrams or
pictures of Satan and probably nobody can stop you as long as you don't
violate any zoning laws. But you cannot insist that your neighbours'
children shout "Hail Satan" in school or recite the Lord's prayer
backwards. You may not think this is a "good thing" but I certainly do!
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
AC
Jason Gastrich <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote:
> PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
<snip>
Read the 1st Amendment, Jason. 'nuff said.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Mark VandeWettering
> PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
>
>
> "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD..." Psalm 33:12
>
> On March 24, 2004, The United States Supreme Court will hear testimony in
> the "Pledge of Allegiance Case" - to determine whether the words "under God"
> will be allowed to remain in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.
>
> There will be a great many political and legal arguments presented in this
> case, but the bottom line question is, will America be a nation that has
> places itself ultimately under God's authority, or will America deteriorate
> into a nation that claims to be its own god? Will America remain under the
> Law of God, or will America say, "I can determine my own truth." (?)
I certainly hope that America will decide to allow each person to discover
their own truth. This is, after all, the primary purpose of the wall of
separation between church and state that the Founding Fathers envisioned as
one of the most important and fundamental liberties that individuals enjoy.
The history of the pledge is actually rather interesting. A brief synopsis
can be found here:
http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag/1bfc_pledge.html
Note that the original pledge was written by Francis Bellamy, a
Baptist minister, but somehow failed to include the "under God"
clause. He apparently also considered adding "equality" to "liberty and
justice", but felt that it would not pass the inspection of the school
superintendents, who opposed equal rights for blacks and women.
The "under God" clause was not added until 1954, by Eisenhower.
> The issue is not one of individual liberty.
On the contrary, that is precisely the issue.
> Michael Newdow, the atheist who is fighting to have the Pledge
> changed, is free to reject God and go about his daily business
> regardless of whether the words "under God" remain in the Pledge. Any
> child who chooses - right now - may abstain from reciting the Pledge
> in school. Freedom of religion is the blessing offered to those
> living in a nation that believes that rights are given by God and not
> by government.
The Supreme Court has ruled on similar subjects in the past. While
individual students may of course pray in public schools, such schools
are not allowed to lead such prayers themselves, even if students may
opt out of such services themselves.
Relevant SCOTUS cases can be found at:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html
> This is an important concept to understand. Atheism and humanism,
> which promise freedom from God and His rules, do not lead to true
> freedom. Stalin, in his power-hungry atheism, felt justified in
> murdering millions of his own people because they did not submit
> to his atheistic Communist ideal. Kim Jong Il of North Korea is
> currently murdering countless Christians and political dissidents
> because they threaten the power he holds in his atheistic empire. When
> God is the true Lord of a nation, there is freedom because the rulers
> recognize a higher authority to Whom they must also submit. When the
> rulers of nations consider themselves to be gods, then any crime can
> be justified in order to further their agendas.
*sigh*
Atheists aren't free from God and his rules. They simply don't believe
he exists. That does not mean that they are not free from rules,
or that they view the human condition as some kind of free for all,
anything goes endeavor. One might ask why atheists are under-represented
in prisons if the opposite were true.
Christianity itself doesn't have the most sterling of records in terms
of upholding human rights, so I'd speak a bit softer when talking about
Stalin and Kim Jong Il.
> As a nation "under God" America claims to stand under God's authority,
> with God and His Law as the true head of the country. If America
> fails to remain in that position, then the only Law left to guide
> her is the personal opinion of judges and the popular opinion of the
> masses - which are as solid than half-set pudding. By breaking the
> 1st Commandment and saying, "We are our own god, we can decide what
> is right and what is wrong of ourselves," America opens its door to
> laws based on justifications rather than on Justice, on faulty human
> rationalizations rather than on Righteousness.
Piffle.
> Unfortunately, since America has long allowed itself to be pushed away from
> its pledged position "under God,"
You mean since 1954? We got along with the Constitution and without the
Pledge for over a century, and for more than fifty years more without the
words "under God"...
> the Supreme Court justices have already made several monumentally
> ungodly decisions these past several decades - without fear of
> impeachment. If America fails to truly live as a nation "under God"
> there hardly seems reason to keep the words in the Pledge.
But America is not and never has been a nation "under God".
> However, we believe the majority of Americans do want to remain a
> nation under God, and we ask all such Americans to please pray for
> this upcoming Supreme Court case, that the justices will be able to
> wade through all the arguments and legalese and will make wise, just,
> God-fearing decisions in this case and in all the future cases that
> come before them.
The tyranny of the majority is not relevent: the rights of the
individual as codified in the First Amendment protect each individuals
right to decide his religion in opposition to the majority, and renders
the majority powerless to use the power of government to do otherwise.
It is surprising to me the number of theists who seem to misunderstand
this notion.
Mark
Hank
> PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
>
> "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD..." Psalm 33:12
>
> On March 24, 2004, The United States Supreme Court will hear testimony in
> the "Pledge of Allegiance Case" - to determine whether the words "under God"
> will be allowed to remain in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.
Some people obviously have WAY too much time on their hands.
<snip>
--
Assimilate a pitiful little species like you? I think not! - Q of Borg
Lord Calvert
>
>I'm serious, EXACTLY when did that happen? You don't have to provide
>the complete precise date; just the year would suffice.
>While you're at it, just when did the National Motto become "In God We
>Trust"? And what was it before then and since when?
The National Motto was changed in 1955, shortly after Congress altered the
Pledge of Allegiance against the will of the author's family in 1954. Before
1955 the National Motto was "E Pluribus Unum" meaning "Out of many, one." It
was a motto which celebrated plurality instead of dictatorial theocracy. It was
a side effect of Joe McCarthy's drug-induced police-state mentality.
"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no
official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics,
nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess
by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit
an exception, they do not now occur to us." - US Supreme Court, West Virginia
v. Barnette (1943), the case which upheld that compulsory recitation of the
Pledge was both unconstitutional and un-American.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
R.Schenck
> PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
>
>
> "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD..." Psalm 33:12
>
> On March 24, 2004, The United States Supreme Court will hear testimony in
> the "Pledge of Allegiance Case" - to determine whether the words "under God"
> will be allowed to remain in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.
>
> There will be a great many political and legal arguments presented in this
> case, but the bottom line question is, will America be a nation that has
> places itself ultimately under God's authority, or will America deteriorate
> into a nation that claims to be its own god?
well, if thats the question then we do not place ourselves under god's
authority. The country respects an equality of religions, and does
not endorse anyone in particular as being official, or even teh very
existance of some sort of god as being official.
>Will America remain under the
> Law of God,
we've never been under the law of any god.
> or will America say, "I can determine my own truth." (?)
seems like we are going to stick with the way we have allways done
things. Seems liek the issue is going to be interpreted in terms of
the Constitution, not the bible.
>
> The issue is not one of individual liberty.
Yes it is.
>Michael Newdow, the atheist who
> is fighting to have the Pledge changed, is free to reject God and go about
> his daily business regardless of whether the words "under God" remain in the
> Pledge. Any child who chooses - right now - may abstain from reciting the
> Pledge in school.
i don't neccesarily agree with his claim in this case, but the
arguement is that theschool officials are authority figures backed by
the governement and that his childs atheistic beleifs are being
encombered by having the teacher receit the pledge as it is.
>Freedom of religion is the blessing offered to those
> living in a nation that believes that rights are given by God and not by
> government.
wow, thats so hypocritical its amazing a person can acutally say it
and not be braindead.
>
> This is an important concept to understand. Atheism and humanism, which
> promise freedom from God and His rules, do not lead to true freedom.
Lie.
> Stalin, in his power-hungry atheism, felt justified in murdering millions of
> his own people because they did not submit to his atheistic Communist ideal.
> Kim Jong Il of North Korea is currently murdering countless Christians and
> political dissidents because they threaten the power he holds in his
> atheistic empire. When God is the true Lord of a nation, there is freedom
> because the rulers recognize a higher authority to Whom they must also
> submit. When the rulers of nations consider themselves to be gods, then any
> crime can be justified in order to further their agendas.
This is absolutely pathetic and disgusting. More people have died in
religious wars and massacres prompted and even perpetrated by
religious leaders than the atheistic equivalents. The writer of this
article is a moron, whoever the heck he is. For him to so blindly
make such an idiotic statement like that and ignore the cases where
the exact opposite is true is blatant and rampant dishonesty.
>
> As a nation "under God" America claims to stand under God's authority, with
> God and His Law as the true head of the country. If America fails to remain
> in that position, then the only Law left to guide her is
The Constitution. It will never be superseded by any religious
document or the religious feelings of the few.
>the personal
> opinion of judges and the popular opinion of the masses - which are as solid
> than half-set pudding. By breaking the 1st Commandment and saying, "We are
> our own god, we can decide what is right and what is wrong of ourselves,"
> America opens its door to laws based on justifications rather than on
> Justice, on faulty human rationalizations rather than on Righteousness.
ah, so the author wants us to make the worhsip of any god outside of
christianity illegal now eh? good luck with that.
>
> Unfortunately, since America has long allowed itself to be pushed away from
> its pledged position "under God," the Supreme Court justices have already
> made several monumentally ungodly decisions these past several decades -
> without fear of impeachment.
saying the SC judges should be impeached because you disagree with
some of their decisions is a joke.
> If America fails to truly live as a nation
> "under God" there hardly seems reason to keep the words in the Pledge.
since they weren't in there in the first place...
>
> However, we believe the majority of Americans do want to remain a nation
> under God,
no they don't, certainly not in the way this guy is saying.
> and we ask all such Americans to please pray for this upcoming
> Supreme Court case, that the justices will be able to wade through all the
> arguments and legalese and will make wise, just, God-fearing decisions in
> this case and in all the future cases that come before them.
good, pray. you guys want things to be done religiously, then i
suggest that you not interfere in any other way than praying. If it
doesn't work out, then i guess you guys will have to admit that god
works in mysterious ways.
why are the religious making such a hoot over a loyalty pledge written
up by a socialist anyway???
snip
Ernest Major
>
>On March 24, 2004, The United States Supreme Court will hear testimony in
>the "Pledge of Allegiance Case" - to determine whether the words "under God"
>will be allowed to remain in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.
>
>There will be a great many political and legal arguments presented in this
>case, but the bottom line question is, will America be a nation that has
>places itself ultimately under God's authority, or will America deteriorate
>into a nation that claims to be its own god? Will America remain under the
>Law of God, or will America say, "I can determine my own truth." (?)
>
>The issue is not one of individual liberty. Michael Newdow, the atheist who
>is fighting to have the Pledge changed, is free to reject God and go about
>his daily business regardless of whether the words "under God" remain in the
>Pledge. Any child who chooses - right now - may abstain from reciting the
>Pledge in school. Freedom of religion is the blessing offered to those
>living in a nation that believes that rights are given by God and not by
>government.
I don't much expect you to be a supporter of the Constitution of the
United States of America, but as a putative evangelical Christian should
not the associated vexillolatry lead you to be opposed to the Pledge of
Allegiance.
--
alias Ernest Major
Lord Calvert
>up by a socialist anyway???
Because the Religious Right ARE socialists. They are the ones who have been
fighting for the complete dominance of the power of the state over individual
freedoms and now they're getting it.
commutator
>
>
> "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD..." Psalm 33:12
>
> On March 24, 2004, The United States Supreme Court will hear testimony in
> the "Pledge of Allegiance Case" - to determine whether the words "under God"
> will be allowed to remain in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.
>
> There will be a great many political and legal arguments presented in this
> case, but the bottom line question is, will America be a nation that has
> places itself ultimately under God's authority, or will America deteriorate
> into a nation that claims to be its own god? Will America remain under the
> Law of God, or will America say, "I can determine my own truth." (?)
>
> The issue is not one of individual liberty. Michael Newdow, the atheist who
> is fighting to have the Pledge changed, is free to reject God and go about
> his daily business regardless of whether the words "under God" remain in the
> Pledge. Any child who chooses - right now - may abstain from reciting the
> Pledge in school. Freedom of religion is the blessing offered to those
> living in a nation that believes that rights are given by God and not by
> government.
Hypocritical. If the "under God" is stricken than children who
believe in this can freely still say so in their pledge. The issue is
that for a nation to show true religious freedom it's government and
conditions cannot be designed so as to promote a single religion.
Secondly, the pressure to conform is high in school settings is high
so promoting an individual religion in such a setting is even more
unconstitutional.
> This is an important concept to understand. Atheism and humanism, which
> promise freedom from God and His rules, do not lead to true freedom.
Neither does belief in God. "If I let you go, do u think you could
fly?"
> Stalin, in his power-hungry atheism, felt justified in murdering millions of
> his own people because they did not submit to his atheistic Communist ideal.
> Kim Jong Il of North Korea is currently murdering countless Christians and
> political dissidents because they threaten the power he holds in his
> atheistic empire.
And the Christians had their crusades. The holy pilgrims wiped out
the native Americans. What's you point? If it's people can be cruel
I agree, if it's non-religious people are crueler than religious ones
you are sorely mistaken.
> When God is the true Lord of a nation, there is freedom
> because the rulers recognize a higher authority to Whom they must also
> submit. When the rulers of nations consider themselves to be gods, then any
> crime can be justified in order to further their agendas.
Like in Afghanistan with the Taliban?
Like in Saudi Arabia?
Like the Salem witch trials?
Like Hamas?
"In the name of God" has been used as a justification for genocide and
murder on a daily basis by religious leaders.
Rulers of nations are held in check by international laws (like human
rights) and the fact that other nations are willing to go to war to
uphold said laws.
Justification for murder and genocide is found in many places: BOTH
religion and in the search of power.
> As a nation "under God" America claims to stand under God's authority, with
> God and His Law as the true head of the country.
Not constitutionally. There is a disticnt seperation of church and
state for a reason.
> If America fails to remain
> in that position, then the only Law left to guide her is the personal
> opinion of judges and the popular opinion of the masses - which are as solid
> than half-set pudding.
The supreme court was designed as a check against the overextension of
government (i.e. furthering it's own agenda like with Stalin). The
judges make decisions based on the laws which have already been laid
down for the states. Secondly, we live in a DEMOCRACY hence the
opinion of the masses matters whether you like it or not.
> By breaking the 1st Commandment and saying, "We are
> our own god, we can decide what is right and what is wrong of ourselves,"
> America opens its door to laws based on justifications rather than on
> Justice, on faulty human rationalizations rather than on Righteousness.
I don't see the first commandment broken. There is no declaration of
"we are our own God" only "we are capable of writing our own laws for
society". Didn't the Xian God say "God helps those who help
themselves" and things of that nature?
> Unfortunately, since America has long allowed itself to be pushed away from
> its pledged position "under God," the Supreme Court justices have already
> made several monumentally ungodly decisions these past several decades -
> without fear of impeachment. If America fails to truly live as a nation
> "under God" there hardly seems reason to keep the words in the Pledge.
The bible says things of the nature such as "burn witches", "stone
homosexuals", and sell your raped daughter to the man who raped her.
These laws hardly seems a basis for modern society. Once again
"religious freedom" if I believe in multiple Gods who are you to tell
me "No. You must live under my concept of God!"
> However, we believe the majority of Americans do want to remain a nation
> under God, and we ask all such Americans to please pray for this upcoming
> Supreme Court case, that the justices will be able to wade through all the
> arguments and legalese and will make wise, just, God-fearing decisions in
> this case and in all the future cases that come before them.
A wise and just decision can be made without fear of God. I still
cannot understand why fear of an all-loving God is promoted in
Xianity...
Simply put I am an atheist/agnostic in a land of religious freedom how
could the government be justified in saying I must bow to their
concept of God?
Finally to quote the quotes you've posted:
> John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free
> indeed."
>
> Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ
> has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage."
If we are so free than why must we fear God and force others to bow to
him? To truly have freedom in society you must have TOLERANCE. If
your own bible says I am free than I should be free to believe what I
want. Why are u trying to force me to follow your notion of God?
Jason Gastrich
> "Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
> news:<4YT5c.7493$h85....@twister.socal.rr.com>...
>> PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
>>
>>
>> "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD..." Psalm 33:12
>>
>> On March 24, 2004, The United States Supreme Court will hear
>> testimony in the "Pledge of Allegiance Case" - to determine whether
>> the words "under God" will be allowed to remain in the U.S. Pledge
>> of Allegiance.
>>
>> There will be a great many political and legal arguments presented
>> in this case, but the bottom line question is, will America be a
>> nation that has places itself ultimately under God's authority, or
>> ...
> <snip>
Hi Amy,
Nice to meet you.
> I was in first grade when that phrase was added to the Pledge, and it
> gave me a lot of trouble. Earlier, I had had to deal with "with
> liberty and justice for all" (because I knew that a lot of things
> weren't fair in my country). I decided that I was pledging myself to
> do my part to achieve that ideal nation.
>
> But how could I put God over my nation? How could I persuade a deity
> to favor my country? I was just one little kid! This was impossible.
>
> I finally decided that it was going to have to be the sum of the faith
> of all believers that did that.
>
> So, yes, take it out of the Pledge. It is just too distressing to the
> small children who are the ones taking the Pledge *every day*.
Did you seek medical attention for your suffering? Did you seek damages?
Do you suffer, today from saying the pledge as a child? Can you prove that
it was "too distressing to (OTHER) small children"?
Sincerely,
Jason
Thomas H. Faller
"vexillolatry". Every time I see that word, a vibratiunculation goes
down my back.
Tom Faller
Mike Dworetsky
"David Wise" <dwi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ad30b67a.04031...@posting.google.com...
> Jason, since when had we been "one nation under God"?
>
> I'm serious, EXACTLY when did that happen? You don't have to provide
> the complete precise date; just the year would suffice.
>
It was inserted by Eisenhower at the peak of McCarthyism as a counter to
Soviet "Godlessness".
> While you're at it, just when did the National Motto become "In God We
> Trust"? And what was it before then and since when?
>
> I am asking these question most sincerely and do expect an honest and
> direct answer.
>
Jason probably has no idea, but "In God We Trust" was first placed on coins
during the American Civil War, largely to comfort those who had lost members
of their families in the fighting.
The Motto of the United States remains "E Pluribus Unum".
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
Richard S. Crawford
I still think that the ultimate purpose of many of these fanatic
right-wing Christian fundamentalists is the "Talibanization" of the
United States. By misrepresenting both Christianity and the history of
the United States (by suggesting that the Founders had in mind a nation
led by "Judeo-Christian values" and not by human values, when, in fact,
the Founders wanted nothing of the sort), they believe that they can
usher in a theocratic regime (that is to say -- because there has
apparently been some confusion elsewhere on what "theocratic" means -- a
regime in which the political leaders are the religious leaders and base
national governance on religious ideals). If the dribblings of most of
these right-wing fundamentalists are any indication, I would guess that
the "Christian theocracy" that they have in mind would be just as
repressive and militaristic and backwards as the Taliban was in
Afghanistan prior to the American invasion.
Of course, it will be okay, because the Christian theocracy would be
based on "Our God" and not "Their heathen god."
Thomas H. Faller
Whoa... Watch for the crocodile tears...
Jason has no moral sense. "Right" to him is what you can prove in court.
If Jason thinks he owns the high ground, he can use any means and any
arguments to impose his view of America on others.
Righteousness makes Right!
Fight! Fight! Fight!
Tom Faller
Frank Pericope
>
>
> "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD..." Psalm 33:12
Didn't someone say something--a bit more recently than Psalms--about
the poor and meek being the ones to be blessed? And the peacemakers
and their ilk? Now, help me out here, it's on the tip of my tongue:
who was it said that...?
Oh, and does anyone remember if He also said blessings would flow to
the wealthiest and most frightfully well-armed?
>
> On March 24, 2004, The United States Supreme Court will hear testimony in
> the "Pledge of Allegiance Case" - to determine whether the words "under God"
> will be allowed to remain in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.
>
> There will be a great many political and legal arguments presented in this
> case, but the bottom line question is, will America be a nation that has
> places itself ultimately under God's authority, or will America deteriorate
> into a nation that claims to be its own god? Will America remain under the
> Law of God, or will America say, "I can determine my own truth." (?)
Aside from proposing a false dichotomy, is the author advocating a
*national* relationship with Christ over a personal one?
Is this nationwide relationship to be enforced? And if so: how and by
whom?
>
> The issue is not one of individual liberty.
Oh, yes it is.
>Michael Newdow, the atheist who
> is fighting to have the Pledge changed, is free to reject God and go about
> his daily business regardless of whether the words "under God" remain in the
> Pledge. Any child who chooses - right now - may abstain from reciting the
> Pledge in school.
So long as they're willing to suffer the possible approbations of
their peers, their teacher, the administration, the board, and their
community. But hey, no pressure.
Of course, were the relatively recently inserted words "under God"
removed, you and I would remain free to embrace God and go about our
daily business regardless also. As we were before the Pledge was
instituted, and as we were before the words in question were added to
the Pledge.
And all would remain free to pray in school. (Though why some would
choose to disobey Christ's instructions to pray in private I don't
know. I suppose one could ask someone who posts his prayers on the
web, so all might see his righteousness.)
>Freedom of religion is the blessing offered to those
> living in a nation that believes that rights are given by God and not by
> government.
According to our Constitution, the unalienable rights that citizens of
this earthly kingdom (sorry, Constitutional Republic) enjoy were given
them "...by their Creator". Not "our" Creator; "their". If Michael
Nedow decided his creator was a turtle, well, it seems to me that is
from whom/what he may derive his unalienable rights. Freedom of
religion is the blessing experienced by anyone living under a
constitution that enshrines it. It does not depend on God.
"...for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends
rain on the just and on the unjust." Doesn't seem to matter what
country they're in.
>
> This is an important concept to understand. Atheism and humanism, which
> promise freedom from God and His rules, do not lead to true freedom.
Whatever the author may think of Atheism and humanism is irrelevant;
our civil society is neither. It is secular, of necessity, because it
is of the world and not just in it. And what secularism leads to, it
seems clear, is true freedom of religion.
> Stalin, in his power-hungry atheism, felt justified in murdering millions of
> his own people because they did not submit to his atheistic Communist ideal.
> Kim Jong Il of North Korea is currently murdering countless Christians and
> political dissidents because they threaten the power he holds in his
> atheistic empire.
Those in power often use whatever means will best retain and extend
it, whether it be in the name of God or to spite it. How many were
killed by the powers that be by the Inquisitions, the witch-trials,
and the Crusades? Christians have no better a record of resisting the
temptations of power than non-Christians, so far as I can tell.
Countries which have or used to have official churches from whence
civil power derived were and are hardly more kind than those who did
or do not.
When God is the true Lord of a nation, there is freedom
> because the rulers recognize a higher authority to Whom they must also
> submit. When the rulers of nations consider themselves to be gods, then any
> crime can be justified in order to further their agendas.
In the U.S. the government is established by, for, and of the people.
Not by, for, or of anyone's God.
>
> As a nation "under God" America claims to stand under God's authority, with
> God and His Law as the true head of the country. If America fails to remain
> in that position, then the only Law left to guide her is the personal
> opinion of judges and the popular opinion of the masses - which are as solid
> than half-set pudding.
"As solid than..."? His writing is as solid as his reasoning, I see.
By breaking the 1st Commandment and saying, "We are
> our own god, we can decide what is right and what is wrong of ourselves,"
> America opens its door to laws based on justifications rather than on
> Justice, on faulty human rationalizations rather than on Righteousness.
I don't think I am my own God. But as He didn't provide us a
constitution, and we needed one, human beings wrote one. They
established and ordained the document, no one else. The author may
find comfort in the thought that God had a hand in it, but there is no
scripture to support it.
>
> Unfortunately, since America has long allowed itself to be pushed away from
> its pledged position "under God,"
How did America fare under the 'founding fathers', who recited no such
pledge? How did it fare up until "under God" was inserted during the
cold war?
the Supreme Court justices have already
> made several monumentally ungodly decisions these past several decades -
> without fear of impeachment.
The entire reason SCOTUS justices are appointed for life is so that
they may rule on constitutional matters without fear that social tides
will depose them. It is a check on popularism, and is among the
reasons for the success of our system of government--such as it is.
If America fails to truly live as a nation
> "under God" there hardly seems reason to keep the words in the Pledge.
At last we agree. And unless one is prepared to scrap the Constitution
and force everyone in the nation to live under one's particular God
(or concept thereof) or leave, we will never be a single nation under
God. So...
[I wonder if Jason is a closet Christian Reconstructionist, that he
would paste this post in apparent support?]
>
> However, we believe the majority of Americans do want to remain a nation
> under God,
Another reason our government is constructed as it is, with checks and
balances and limits on direct representation, is to avoid the tyranny
of the mob. To wish for pure majority rule is to wish for the
destruction of this country.
and we ask all such Americans to please pray for this upcoming
> Supreme Court case, that the justices will be able to wade through all the
> arguments and legalese and will make wise, just, God-fearing
Um, I'd prefer Constitutionally sound. Leave the God-fearing to the
citizens.
decisions in
> this case and in all the future cases that come before them.
>
> Related Links:
> . ACLJ's Jay Sekulow to Discuss Constitutionality of the Pledge of
> Allegiance - ACLJ
> . Old Bridge officials support God in pledge - Home News Tribune
> . U.S. v. Newdow Information - ACLJ
>
>
> This article is from Koinonia House's weekly email. http://khouse.org
>
>
> --------
>
>
> Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
> http://www.jcsm.org
> Over 60,000 web pages!
>
> John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free
> indeed."
>
> Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ
> has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage."
>
> ICQ#: 20731140
> AIM: MrJasonGastrich
> YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
BTW: Jason_Serves_Jason
- F.
Frank Pericope
I am a 43 year-old Christian man. I am motivated
to minister to Christians in jeopardy. First Jason
wanted me to approach him privately, and then he
told me never to contact him again, and then he
addressed a post to me. What's up with that?
NOTE: The e-mail address above is spam bucket, but until I set up a
new account to replace the one that Jason terminated in a fit of
pique, go ahead and use it anyway.
Eric Gill
<snip>
> Did you seek medical attention for your suffering? Did you seek
> damages? Do you suffer, today from saying the pledge as a child? Can
> you prove that it was "too distressing to (OTHER) small children"?
Hello Not-Going-To-Be-A-Doctor Jason.
Is playing "attack the victim" considered normal where you are from?
<snip>
Mark VandeWettering
So, your carefully considered Christian response is to mock her and to
discount her distress?
Mark
> Sincerely,
> Jason
Lord Calvert
>during the American Civil War, largely to comfort those who had lost members
>of their families in the fighting.
This is not true. The phrase was placed on one relatively limited coin but not
as a comfort to families who had lost sons and brothers in the war. It was a
deliberate attempt to Christianize the country by a member of the totalitarian
National Reform Association, Reverend MR Watkinson, a group who for a century
and a half has been trying to overthrow the Constitution and replace it with
Mosaic law. Watkinson managed to convince Secretary Chase to include the phrase
on a limited two-cent coin who did it behind Lincoln's back.
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/igwt1.htm
>The Motto of the United States remains "E Pluribus Unum".
Also incorrect. The motto was changed to "In God We Trust" in 1955 as part of
another crusade to Christianize the US government...the McCarthy Red-Scare
craze.
Meteorite Debris
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 08:17:57 +0000 (UTC) the ET form known as Jason
Gastrich<newsg...@jcsm.org> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
> Atheism and humanism, which
> promise freedom from God and His rules, do not lead to true freedom.
> Stalin, in his power-hungry atheism, felt justified in murdering millions of
> his own people because they did not submit to his atheistic Communist ideal.
> Kim Jong Il of North Korea is currently murdering countless Christians and
> political dissidents because they threaten the power he holds in his
> atheistic empire. When God is the true Lord of a nation, there is freedom
> because the rulers recognize a higher authority to Whom they must also
> submit. When the rulers of nations consider themselves to be gods, then any
> crime can be justified in order to further their agendas
Standard ad hom blah blah blah
--
epicurus1*at*optusnet*dot*com*dot*au
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet -
Evil Atheist Conspiracy
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Shhh. Be very quiet, I'm hunting automorons. Heh heh.
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov
Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS - 9217 21A9 9C3F EB0B E302 AD0E 69C5 0F06 402E 0943
Alan Jeffery
"Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
news:4YT5c.7493$h85....@twister.socal.rr.com...
> PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
>
Jason
Are you aware that NZ has a regular church-going population that does not
exceed 16% of the population? That the groups that have the strongest
religious (Xian) beliefs (Maori and Pacific Islanders) also have the highest
criminal offending rate, as well as non-marital pregnancies?
Despite that we have a (relatively) low violent offending rate, and no one
has to recite a pledge of allegience of any sort at school.
Have you any explanation for that?
<sound of crickets chirping>
Alan Jeffery
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.605 / Virus Database: 385 - Release Date: 1/03/2004
Jason Gastrich
> "Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
> news:4YT5c.7493$h85....@twister.socal.rr.com...
>> PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
>>
> <snip of self-righteous inaccuracies>
>
> Jason
>
> Are you aware that NZ has a regular church-going population that does
> not exceed 16% of the population? That the groups that have the
> strongest religious (Xian) beliefs (Maori and Pacific Islanders) also
> have the highest criminal offending rate, as well as non-marital
> pregnancies?
>
> Despite that we have a (relatively) low violent offending rate, and
> no one has to recite a pledge of allegience of any sort at school.
>
> Have you any explanation for that?
>
> <sound of crickets chirping>
>
> Alan Jeffery
Did you know that America is the most developed and powerful nation in the
world? Did you also know that, according to Eddie Tabash (lawyer, atheist,
and honorary chair of the Center for Inquiry West), there are ZERO atheists
in public, elected offices?
<sound of atheists chirping>
Sincerely,
Jason
Richard S. Crawford
> Alan Jeffery wrote:
>
>>"Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
>>news:4YT5c.7493$h85....@twister.socal.rr.com...
>>
>>>PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
>>>
>>
>><snip of self-righteous inaccuracies>
>>
>>Jason
>>
>>Are you aware that NZ has a regular church-going population that does
>>not exceed 16% of the population? That the groups that have the
>>strongest religious (Xian) beliefs (Maori and Pacific Islanders) also
>>have the highest criminal offending rate, as well as non-marital
>>pregnancies?
>>
>>Despite that we have a (relatively) low violent offending rate, and
>>no one has to recite a pledge of allegience of any sort at school.
>>
>>Have you any explanation for that?
>>
>><sound of crickets chirping>
>>
>>Alan Jeffery
>
>
> Did you know that America is the most developed and powerful nation in the
> world? Did you also know that, according to Eddie Tabash (lawyer, atheist,
> and honorary chair of the Center for Inquiry West), there are ZERO atheists
> in public, elected offices?
Hmmm? How is this relevant?
> <sound of atheists chirping>
<snip .sig>
David Wise
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 08:17:57 +0000 (UTC),
> Jason Gastrich <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote:
> > PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
>
> <snip>
>
> Read the 1st Amendment, Jason. 'nuff said.
And in order to understand the ORIGINAL INTENT [caps for emphasis, not
shouting] of the draftor of the First Amendment, James Madison, also
read his "Memorial and Remonstrance" (Google for it or go to
http://members.aol.com/dwise1/rel_lib/memorial.html ) where, a few
years before, he explicitly described "the great Barrier which defends
the rights of the people":
[quote]
2. Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at
large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body.
The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their
jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard
to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with
regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government
requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each
department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that
neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which
defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an
encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their
authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed
by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from
them, and are slaves.
[/quote]
In the previous paragraph, he also established his view of the rights
of conscience which guided his opinion in these matters, that "The
Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and
conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise
it as these may dictate".
Mark VandeWettering
> Alan Jeffery wrote:
>> "Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
>> news:4YT5c.7493$h85....@twister.socal.rr.com...
>>> PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
>>>
>> <snip of self-righteous inaccuracies>
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> Are you aware that NZ has a regular church-going population that does
>> not exceed 16% of the population? That the groups that have the
>> strongest religious (Xian) beliefs (Maori and Pacific Islanders) also
>> have the highest criminal offending rate, as well as non-marital
>> pregnancies?
>>
>> Despite that we have a (relatively) low violent offending rate, and
>> no one has to recite a pledge of allegience of any sort at school.
>>
>> Have you any explanation for that?
>>
>> <sound of crickets chirping>
>>
>> Alan Jeffery
>
> Did you know that America is the most developed and powerful nation in the
> world? Did you also know that, according to Eddie Tabash (lawyer, atheist,
> and honorary chair of the Center for Inquiry West), there are ZERO atheists
> in public, elected offices?
>
><sound of atheists chirping>
Even if what you claim is true, it is not a refutation of the argument put
before you.
There are atheists who have been elected to public office, just as there are
gays who serve in the military.
Mark
Tom McDonald
Tom,
How much hard medical or other evidence he'd require if a
Christian made a similar claim?
Yup, you nailed it.
Tom McDonald
Chris Krolczyk
> PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
That's nice, Jason.
Please explain the relevancy - if any - to talk.origins,
if you would.
-Chris Krolczyk
Ken Shaw
Jason Gastrich wrote:
> Alan Jeffery wrote:
>
>>"Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
>>news:4YT5c.7493$h85....@twister.socal.rr.com...
>>
>>>PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
>>>
>>
>><snip of self-righteous inaccuracies>
>>
>>Jason
>>
>>Are you aware that NZ has a regular church-going population that does
>>not exceed 16% of the population? That the groups that have the
>>strongest religious (Xian) beliefs (Maori and Pacific Islanders) also
>>have the highest criminal offending rate, as well as non-marital
>>pregnancies?
>>
>>Despite that we have a (relatively) low violent offending rate, and
>>no one has to recite a pledge of allegience of any sort at school.
>>
>>Have you any explanation for that?
>>
>><sound of crickets chirping>
>>
>>Alan Jeffery
>
>
> Did you know that America is the most developed and powerful nation in the
> world? Did you also know that, according to Eddie Tabash (lawyer, atheist,
> and honorary chair of the Center for Inquiry West), there are ZERO atheists
> in public, elected offices?
>
Actually it is evidence of the hypocritical behavior of the religious
who would not vote for an otherwise qualified candidate solely because
that candidate was an admitted atheist. Imagine the howls of outrage if
christian faith was considered a disqualification for political office.
Ken
Richard Uhrich
......
>
> Did you know that America is the most developed and powerful nation in the
> world? Did you also know that, according to Eddie Tabash (lawyer, atheist,
> and honorary chair of the Center for Inquiry West), there are ZERO atheists
> in public, elected offices?
>
> <sound of atheists chirping>
>
> Sincerely,
> Jason
I recently asked a local retired U.S. Representtive (an avowed Christian
himself) whether he thought there were "stealth" atheists in Congress,
but were afraid to admmit it. He answeered,, "Of course! These are
intelligent people."
--
Richard Uhrich
--
"There's Adam Clymer--major league asshole from the New York Times." --
Bush to Cheney before open microphone, 2000.
Chris Thompson
Man, you are one sick, sick person.
> Sincerely,
> Jason
I doubt you have ever been sincere in your life.
Alan Jeffery
> Alan Jeffery wrote:
> > "Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
> > news:4YT5c.7493$h85....@twister.socal.rr.com...
> >> PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
> >>
> > <snip of self-righteous inaccuracies>
> >
> > Jason
> >
> > Are you aware that NZ has a regular church-going population that does
> > not exceed 16% of the population? That the groups that have the
> > strongest religious (Xian) beliefs (Maori and Pacific Islanders) also
> > have the highest criminal offending rate, as well as non-marital
> > pregnancies?
> >
> > Despite that we have a (relatively) low violent offending rate, and
> > no one has to recite a pledge of allegience of any sort at school.
> >
> > Have you any explanation for that?
> >
> > <sound of crickets chirping>
> >
> > Alan Jeffery
>
> Did you know that America is the most developed and powerful nation in the
> world? Did you also know that, according to Eddie Tabash (lawyer,
atheist,
> and honorary chair of the Center for Inquiry West), there are ZERO
atheists
> in public, elected offices?
>
> <sound of atheists chirping>
As usual, a pithy "answer". In NZ, our prime minister is an atheist, as are
a lot of our public office holders. But we are certainly not the most
powerful nation in the world.
But do you have any explanation for the higher offending rate among "true
believers"? Any at all. And the fact that society here has not fallen apart
despite the lack of any pledge of allegience?
Alan Jeffery
>
> Sincerely,
> Jason
>
> --------
>
> Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
> http://www.jcsm.org
> Over 60,000 web pages!
>
> John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
> free indeed."
>
> Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
> Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
> bondage."
>
> ICQ#: 20731140
> AIM: MrJasonGastrich
> YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
>
Bible Bob
Broomhead) wrote:
>"Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message news:<4YT5c.7493$h85....@twister.socal.rr.com>...
>> PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
>>
>>
>> "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD..." Psalm 33:12
>>
>> On March 24, 2004, The United States Supreme Court will hear testimony in
>> the "Pledge of Allegiance Case" - to determine whether the words "under God"
>> will be allowed to remain in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.
>>
>> There will be a great many political and legal arguments presented in this
>> case, but the bottom line question is, will America be a nation that has
>> places itself ultimately under God's authority, or ...
><snip>
>
>I was in first grade when that phrase was added to the Pledge, and it
>gave me a lot of trouble. Earlier, I had had to deal with "with
>liberty and justice for all" (because I knew that a lot of things
>weren't fair in my country). I decided that I was pledging myself to
>do my part to achieve that ideal nation.
>
>But how could I put God over my nation? How could I persuade a deity
>to favor my country? I was just one little kid! This was impossible.
>
>I finally decided that it was going to have to be the sum of the faith
>of all believers that did that.
>
>So, yes, take it out of the Pledge. It is just too distressing to the
>small children who are the ones taking the Pledge *every day*.
>
>Pfusand
>
>That which does not destroy us
>has made its last mistake.
> -- Unspoken motto of the pantope crew
Wow! You sure must have been a smart first grader. I would guess
that 99.99999999% of all thye other first graders were thinking about
playing, doing their schoolwork, and the things that most first
graders do. I bet you grew up to be a democrat and an atheist; or
were you born a liberal atheist and therefore not responsible for what
you are. You poor victim. Did you sue someone foir being so mean to
you?
I caught a fifty pound shark on 3 lb test fishing line in the Ohio
River. I am faster than a speeding bullet. I can jump over tall
buldings in a single bound.
In other words. You are lieing.
BB
Bible Bob
Tom,
That poster was lying through it's teeth. I suspect that Jason picked
up his/her lies and wrote what he wrote. Whether or not he/she
believes in God is not relevant. What is relevant is that he/she was
trying to play us for fools.
BB
Tom McDonald
Bob,
Perhaps; but you may have given Jason too much credit here.
While he's clearly AWESOME! (just ask him), he's not always that
clever. But he _is_ always judgmental about those who differ
with him.
I could be wrong about Jason; and I freely admit that Ann's
(NB: _not_ Amy--Jason wasn't taking much care with his reading)
post seemed a little wonky. However, Jason has shown a tendency
to make negative assumptions that amount to accusations (e.g.:
the recent contratempts about 'censorship' on T.O.), and a
tendency not to apologize when he's wronged someone. He is far
more concerned with his own due and dignity than he is with
others'. Can you imagine his response were the situation
reversed? Yes, you can.
Tom McDonald
AC
Jason Gastrich <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote:
> Alan Jeffery wrote:
>> "Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
>> news:4YT5c.7493$h85....@twister.socal.rr.com...
>>> PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
>>>
>> <snip of self-righteous inaccuracies>
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> Are you aware that NZ has a regular church-going population that does
>> not exceed 16% of the population? That the groups that have the
>> strongest religious (Xian) beliefs (Maori and Pacific Islanders) also
>> have the highest criminal offending rate, as well as non-marital
>> pregnancies?
>>
>> Despite that we have a (relatively) low violent offending rate, and
>> no one has to recite a pledge of allegience of any sort at school.
>>
>> Have you any explanation for that?
>>
>> <sound of crickets chirping>
>>
>> Alan Jeffery
>
> Did you know that America is the most developed and powerful nation in the
> world? Did you also know that, according to Eddie Tabash (lawyer, atheist,
> and honorary chair of the Center for Inquiry West), there are ZERO atheists
> in public, elected offices?
>
><sound of atheists chirping>
Did you know that the United States is beginning to suffer a severe shortage
of scientists. How long do you suppose the United States will remain
powerful if it's run by religious bigots like yourself?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
David Wise
whether he has any idea whatsoever about what he was babbling about.
As has been suggested, I doubt that he has any idea.
Concerning the Motto, it should also be noted that "E Pluribus Unum"
had been the National Motto from 1776 to 1955 -- for about 179 years,
over 78% of the history of the United States of America (to
distinguish it from the other four United States in the Americas).
The greater part of US history, not only quantitatively but also, many
would say, qualitatively.
Both the original Motto and the original wording of the Pledge ("one
nation indivisible") emphasized and celebrated national unity. And in
that spirit of national unity we had accomplished much. Then the team
of a Republican Congress and a Republican Presidency (the last time
that had happened -- if not for that one Republican congressman who
had left the GOP, it would have happened again under Bush II; since
this administration does have a Religious Right agenda, imagine how
much more damage they could have done this time) scrapped that Motto
that had served our country so well and replaced it with a blatantly
religious statement and split our "one nation indivisible" with that
greatest cause of political divisiveness, sectarian religion.
Now in the spirit of creationist false causality:
[mimicking wild creationist claims]
And ever since that introduction of sectarian divisiveness into the
Motto, the Pledge, and US currency, our society has been careening
straight down the tubes. Obviously, those acts of religious
sectarianism directly caused all our social problems.
[/mimicking wild creationist claims]
But seriously, I am a traditionalist and I do not believe that the
Pledge nor the Motto should be changed willy-nilly for political or
ideological reasons. Therefore, I call for and will fully support the
restoration of the Pledge and the National Motto to their
pre-Eisenhower forms.
forl...@aol.complicated (Lord Calvert) wrote in message news:<20040317151254...@mb-m23.aol.com>...
> >Jason, since when had we been "one nation under God"?
> >
> >I'm serious, EXACTLY when did that happen? You don't have to provide
> >the complete precise date; just the year would suffice.
>
> >While you're at it, just when did the National Motto become "In God We
> >Trust"? And what was it before then and since when?
>
> The National Motto was changed in 1955, shortly after Congress altered the
> Pledge of Allegiance against the will of the author's family in 1954. Before
> 1955 the National Motto was "E Pluribus Unum" meaning "Out of many, one." It
> was a motto which celebrated plurality instead of dictatorial theocracy. It was
> a side effect of Joe McCarthy's drug-induced police-state mentality.
>
> "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no
> official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics,
> nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess
> by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit
> an exception, they do not now occur to us." - US Supreme Court, West Virginia
> v. Barnette (1943), the case which upheld that compulsory recitation of the
> Pledge was both unconstitutional and un-American.
Ernest Major
<bibl...@saintly.com> writes
>
>That poster was lying through it's teeth. I suspect that Jason picked
>up his/her lies and wrote what he wrote. Whether or not he/she
>believes in God is not relevant. What is relevant is that he/she was
>trying to play us for fools.
>
don't live in a country with such fascistic practices, as I'm suspect
that I would have had problems with the pledge. The person you so
readily accuse (BTW, reckless defamation is a breach of the 9th
commandment), has a positive posting record, which is more than can be
said for Mr. Gastrich or yourself.
How is your job in the motion picture industry?
--
alias Ernest Major
One fool can ask more questions than a thousand wise men can answer,
One liar can spread more falsehoods than a thousand honest men can correct,
One kook can create more nonsense than a thousand sane men can debunk
Ernest Major
>
>Did you know that America is the most developed and powerful nation in the
>world? Did you also know that, according to Eddie Tabash (lawyer, atheist,
>and honorary chair of the Center for Inquiry West), there are ZERO atheists
>in public, elected offices?
>
Do you really wish to boast about American bigotry?
Also he said *known* atheists; there may well be closeted atheists who
have been elected. And is seems as if there has been some scope creep in
your paraphrase.
--
alias Ernest Major
Jason Gastrich
I've seen these statistics and they refer to Catholics and a variety of
cults. Therefore, they are hardly reliable and hardly good evidence for
your "case" against Protestant Christians like myself.
> And the fact that society here has not
> fallen apart despite the lack of any pledge of allegience?
The pledge isn't a magic spell.
Jason Gastrich
I wasn't boasting. Frankly, I was blown away at his statement. I wasn't
sure if he was right or wrong, but I figured that if I posted it in the form
of a question, and repeated his statement, that it would be either confirmed
or denied; or at least addressed and discussed.
Therion Ware
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 08:44:34 +0000 (UTC) in free.christians, Jason
Gastrich ("Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org>) said, directing the
reply to free.christians
>Ernest Major wrote:
>> In article <eh66c.2453$Lq4....@twister.socal.rr.com>, Jason Gastrich
>> <newsg...@jcsm.org> writes
>>>
>>> Did you know that America is the most developed and powerful nation
>>> in the world? Did you also know that, according to Eddie Tabash
>>> (lawyer, atheist, and honorary chair of the Center for Inquiry
>>> West), there are ZERO atheists in public, elected offices?
>>>
>>
>> Do you really wish to boast about American bigotry?
>>
>> Also he said *known* atheists; there may well be closeted atheists who
>> have been elected. And is seems as if there has been some scope creep
>> in your paraphrase.
>
>I wasn't boasting. Frankly, I was blown away at his statement. I wasn't
>sure if he was right or wrong, but I figured that if I posted it in the form
>of a question, and repeated his statement, that it would be either confirmed
>or denied; or at least addressed and discussed.
Similarly, you're probably not going to find too many declared
believers in the governments of North Korea or China, either. As for
the UK:
"In a recent interview for Vanity Fair magazine, reporter David
Margolick asked Prime Minister Tony Blair about his Christian faith.
In a remarkable demonstration of the power of unelected media
manipulators, chief spin-doctor Alistair Campbell interrupted the
Prime Minister's reply to say 'I'm sorry, we don't do God."
"in 1996 when Blair, then opposition leader, appeared to suggest
ruling Conservative party members could not be Christian because of
their policies." Campbell had his hands full with that one for a
while.
Tony is generally thought to be some variety of Christian and
certainly seems well motivated by some aspects of Christianity - and
he's a *socialist*!
In the UK, any politician who seems "too religious" (i.e. pays more
than lip service to any particular religion) is generally regarded
with "some suspicion," no matter what party they belong to. Here "too
much" religion is thought to be, erm, unsound. Like homosexuality,
it's no problem if you're discrete and pragmatic but bring it out into
the open in an "in your face" kind of a way and it's the kiss of
death.
More generally, given the way things are in the US, I think it
unlikely that an avowed atheist would ever be elected to public office
if s/he made an issue of their atheism, and of course, whoever was
opposing them would doubtless make an issue of it if for no other
reasons than the electoral advantage such an approach would bring.
If anyone had the time, it'd be interesting to look at US elections,
both local, statewide and national, where religion - or the lack of it
- played a significant role in the campaigning.
Indeed, there's probably an accredited Ph.D. in that, for someone.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
Richard Forrest
<snipped stuff about NZ>
> Did you know that America is the most developed and powerful nation in the
> world?
Since when did power and wealth equate to moral virtue?
The USA is also the only developed western nation to use the death
penalty.
It is also shares with Iran the distinction of being the only nations
in the world which impose the death penalty on minors.
It is also the only country in the world in which the use of the death
penalty in increasing, especially under the leadership of 'born again
Christian' GWB.
It seems that the commandment now goes "Though shalt not kill, unless
in doing so you increase your chances of election by gaining votes
from ignorant bigots."
I could add:
The destruction that all that wealth and power is doing to the
environment, and the lack of will on the part of the US government to
engage in environmental issues;
The usurpation of the democratic process in the US by commercial
interests; the majority of voters are so alienated by the system that
they don't bother to vote, and the only way of being elected into a
higher office is by the use of massive amounts of money, and the
corruption of political office which accompanies this.
I like the US. I've lived in the US, and enjoyed my time there. But to
claim that the nation is in some way superior to other nations because
it is rich and powerful is utter nonsense. My view is that the best
way to judge the morality of a nation (if such a notion is possible)
is to see how the system treats the poor, the powerless, the sick, the
old and the weak. Against such a standard the US scores very badly.
I've also lived in Germany, Belgium and France as well as England. I'd
rather be sick in France, old in Germany, and poor in Belgium. And
England ain't so bad for that matter. The health system may be a
basket case at the moment, but at least it caters for everyone, and in
an emergency can be absolutely brilliant.
> Did you also know that, according to Eddie Tabash (lawyer, atheist,
> and honorary chair of the Center for Inquiry West), there are ZERO atheists
> in public, elected offices?
I find it hard to believe this. My impression is that many elected
officials claim to be believers because it gets them votes.
>
> <sound of atheists chirping>
>
> Sincerely,
> Jason
>
<advertising snipped>
Richard Forrest
http://www.plesiosaur.com
Learn far more than you ever wanted to know about a group of animals
which is far more interesting than those over-rated big dead chickens
(aka dinosaurs) and, which is more, I promise not to try to sell you
anything!
Christopher A. Lee
(Richard Forrest) wrote:
>> Did you also know that, according to Eddie Tabash (lawyer, atheist,
>> and honorary chair of the Center for Inquiry West), there are ZERO atheists
>> in public, elected offices?
>
>I find it hard to believe this. My impression is that many elected
>officials claim to be believers because it gets them votes.
They have to pretend. But the higher the office the greater the
scrutiny of their beliefs.
There's a well-known TV interviewer who asks Presidential candidates
whom their favourite philosopher is. Bush said "Jesus", told his "I
was saved from a life of drink, drugs and debauchery", the fundies
love the testimony of a reformed sinner and voted for him. Howard Dean
said "David Hume" - I doubt if Matthews of his listeners had ever
heard of him, but somebody must have looked him up and his campaign
went on a downward spiral after that.
Jason Gastrich
Lying, manipulative atheists, eh? Ok. I'm a believer.
Liz
<bibl...@saintly.com> in news message
<gi8i50pmlrq2ub5pm...@4ax.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 15:59:48 +0000 (UTC), broo...@world.std.com (Ann
>Broomhead) wrote:
>
>>"Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message news:<4YT5c.7493$h85....@twister.socal.rr.com>...
>>> PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
>>>
>>>
>>> "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD..." Psalm 33:12
>>>
>>> On March 24, 2004, The United States Supreme Court will hear testimony in
>>> the "Pledge of Allegiance Case" - to determine whether the words "under God"
>>> will be allowed to remain in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.
>>>
>>> There will be a great many political and legal arguments presented in this
>>> case, but the bottom line question is, will America be a nation that has
>>> places itself ultimately under God's authority, or ...
>><snip>
>>
>>I was in first grade when that phrase was added to the Pledge, and it
>>gave me a lot of trouble. Earlier, I had had to deal with "with
>>liberty and justice for all" (because I knew that a lot of things
>>weren't fair in my country). I decided that I was pledging myself to
>>do my part to achieve that ideal nation.
>>
>>But how could I put God over my nation? How could I persuade a deity
>>to favor my country? I was just one little kid! This was impossible.
>>
>>I finally decided that it was going to have to be the sum of the faith
>>of all believers that did that.
>>
>>So, yes, take it out of the Pledge. It is just too distressing to the
>>small children who are the ones taking the Pledge *every day*.
>>
[------]
>
>Wow! You sure must have been a smart first grader. I would guess
>that 99.99999999% of all thye other first graders were thinking about
>playing, doing their schoolwork, and the things that most first
>graders do.
If, as you contend, schoolchildren pay no attention to the words they
have been taught to mouth in ritualistic fashion, then you must
believe that the words themselves can not possibly make any
difference. This contention belies the ferocity with which the
defenders of the phrase "under GodŽ" attack Mr. Newdow and those who
support separation of government and religion.
> I bet you grew up to be a democrat and an atheist; or
>were you born a liberal atheist and therefore not responsible for what
>you are. You poor victim. Did you sue someone foir being so mean to
>you?
Attacking the person is not an argument against her ideas. To most
thinking people, ideas matter, words matter, and government sponsored
recitation of loyalty pledges to a deity matter despite your
suggestion that such are said unthinkingly and without meaning by our
children, and therefore, should be ignored.
>I caught a fifty pound shark on 3 lb test fishing line in the Ohio
>River. I am faster than a speeding bullet. I can jump over tall
>buldings in a single bound.
>
>In other words. You are lieing.
Interesting phenomenon. You write several statements that are without
evidence and subsequently project that another person is lying. Do
you often ascribe your own actions to others?
Liz #658 BAAWA
They all agree on what their god wants. Each theist will tell you
that what the only true god wants, and what he, himself, wants, are
exactly the same. -- Al Klein
Frank Pericope
> Alan Jeffery wrote:
> > "Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
> > news:4YT5c.7493$h85....@twister.socal.rr.com...
> >> PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
> >>
> > <snip of self-righteous inaccuracies>
> >
> > Jason
> >
> > Are you aware that NZ has a regular church-going population that does
> > not exceed 16% of the population? That the groups that have the
> > strongest religious (Xian) beliefs (Maori and Pacific Islanders) also
> > have the highest criminal offending rate, as well as non-marital
> > pregnancies?
> >
> > Despite that we have a (relatively) low violent offending rate, and
> > no one has to recite a pledge of allegience of any sort at school.
> >
> > Have you any explanation for that?
> >
> > <sound of crickets chirping>
> >
> > Alan Jeffery
>
> Did you know that America is the most developed and powerful nation in the
> world?
Pride, vanity, and arrogance. Again. Proverbs 26:11 says "As a dog
returns to his own vomit, So a fool repeats his folly."
>Did you also know that, according to Eddie Tabash (lawyer, atheist,
> and honorary chair of the Center for Inquiry West), there are ZERO atheists
> in public, elected offices?
If that's true, why might one suppose all those believers are
appointing all those godless judges? Hmmm. Kinda makes a Christian
want to think...
>
> <sound of atheists chirping>
>
> Sincerely,
> Jason
>
> --------
>
> Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
> http://www.jcsm.org
> Over 60,000 web pages!
<sound of dog vomiting>
>
> John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
> free indeed."
>
> Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
> Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
> bondage."
>
> ICQ#: 20731140
> AIM: MrJasonGastrich
> YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
BTW: Jason_Serves_Jason
- F.
Frank Pericope
I am a 43 year-old Christian man. I am motivated
to minister to Christians in jeopardy. Some of themn
more than others.
Psalm 36:3--
"The words of his mouth are wickedness and deceit;
He has ceased to be wise and to do good."
Frank Pericope
> Alan Jeffery wrote:
> > "Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
> > news:eh66c.2453$Lq4....@twister.socal.rr.com...
> >> Alan Jeffery wrote:
> >>> "Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
> >>> news:4YT5c.7493$h85....@twister.socal.rr.com...
> >>>> PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
> >>>>
> >>> <snip of self-righteous inaccuracies>
> >>>
> > And the fact that society here has not
> > fallen apart despite the lack of any pledge of allegience?
>
> The pledge isn't a magic spell.
>
> Sincerely,
> Jason
>
<snip for brevity>
And yet he supports its state-sponsored incantation.
- F.
Frank Pericope
> Ernest Major wrote:
> > In article <eh66c.2453$Lq4....@twister.socal.rr.com>, Jason Gastrich
> > <newsg...@jcsm.org> writes
> >>
> >> Did you know that America is the most developed and powerful nation
> >> in the world? Did you also know that, according to Eddie Tabash
> >> (lawyer, atheist, and honorary chair of the Center for Inquiry
> >> West), there are ZERO atheists in public, elected offices?
> >>
> >
> > Do you really wish to boast about American bigotry?
> >
> > Also he said *known* atheists; there may well be closeted atheists who
> > have been elected. And is seems as if there has been some scope creep
> > in your paraphrase.
>
> I wasn't boasting. Frankly, I was blown away at his statement. I wasn't
> sure if he was right or wrong, but I figured that if I posted it in the form
> of a question, and repeated his statement, that it would be either confirmed
> or denied; or at least addressed and discussed.
>
> Sincerely,
> Jason
>
<snip>
>
> ICQ#: 20731140
> AIM: MrJasonGastrich
> YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
BTW: Jason_Serves_Jason
If t'were true that the US is firmly *out* of the hands of the
unbelievers he is so afraid of, then Jason need not worry, need he?
Yet he frets.
Though he'd still be left with the question of why all those godfull
officials are appointing all those godless judges.
If only those officials would read Jason's 60,000 web pages, order his
products, read his sermonettes, and acknowledge that he is their
Teacher, then by God and by Jason they'd see the light and cease all
this Constitutional consideration and impose the law of Jason--er,
sorry, God.
Anyone think this sheds any light on Jason's vanity run for Govenor of
California?
<sound of dog vomiting>
- F.
Stanley Friesen
>
>
>Stanley Friesen wrote:
>
>> "Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
>>>
>>>
>>>"Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD..." Psalm 33:12
>>>
>>>On March 24, 2004, The United States Supreme Court will hear testimony in
>>>the "Pledge of Allegiance Case" - to determine whether the words "under God"
>>>will be allowed to remain in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.
>>>
>>>There will be a great many political and legal arguments presented in this
>>>case, but the bottom line question is, will America be a nation that has
>>>places itself ultimately under God's authority,
>>
>>
>> As that would be a violation of its very Constitution, I would hope not.
>> It is the responsibility of *each* *citizen* to choose in what manner
>> they will or will not place themselves under God's authority. It is not
>> the place of the US government to try to influence of control that
>> choice.
>>
>>
>>>or will America deteriorate into a nation that claims to be its own god?
>>
>>
>> This is not the only alternative. It can also *continue* to do what it
>> has done for many years now, and simply stay out of the issue of who God
>> is and is not.
>>
>>
>>> Will America remain under the Law of God,
>>
>>
>> It has *never* been under the Law of God. The Constitution forbids it
>> to be so, and has for lo these many years (>220). So it cannot "remain"
>> where it has never been.
>>
><pedantic>
>actually lo these 214 years.
></pedantic>
>
Oops, forgot to factor in the delay before Constitution was passed. I
was dating it from 1776.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Lord Calvert
>believers in the governments of North Korea
Acutally you will. Since totalitarian governments know well the way that
religion can be used to control and compel adherence, the leaders of North
Korea formed their own religious faith called Juche...once again supporting the
argument that religion=communism.
Lord Calvert
>
>And yet he supports its state-sponsored incantation.
Of course. Dictators need compulsory loyalty oaths in order to compel
adherence. You'll find this in virtually every totalitarian state.
"Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought
essential to their time and country have been waged by many good as well as by
evil men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon but at other times and
places the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty
or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods
to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an
ever-increasing severity. As governmental pressure toward unity becomes
greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably
no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from
finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public
educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate
futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such
effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its
pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the
Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts
of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of
dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification
of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard." - US Supreme Court,
West Virginia v. Barnette (1943)
Ann Broomhead
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 15:59:48 +0000 (UTC), broo...@world.std.com (Ann
> Broomhead) wrote:
> >"Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message news:<4YT5c.7493$h85....@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> >> PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
> >>
> >> "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD..." Psalm 33:12
> >>
> >> On March 24, 2004, The United States Supreme Court will hear testimony in
> >> the "Pledge of Allegiance Case" - to determine whether the words "under God"
> >> will be allowed to remain in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.
> >>
> >> There will be a great many political and legal arguments presented in this
> >> case, but the bottom line question is, will America be a nation that has
> >> places itself ultimately under God's authority, or ...
> ><snip>
> >
> >I was in first grade when that phrase was added to the Pledge, and it
> >gave me a lot of trouble. Earlier, I had had to deal with "with
> >liberty and justice for all" (because I knew that a lot of things
> >weren't fair in my country). I decided that I was pledging myself to
> >do my part to achieve that ideal nation.
> >
> >But how could I put God over my nation? How could I persuade a deity
> >to favor my country? I was just one little kid! This was impossible.
> >
> >I finally decided that it was going to have to be the sum of the faith
> >of all believers that did that.
> >
> >So, yes, take it out of the Pledge. It is just too distressing to the
> >small children who are the ones taking the Pledge *every day*.
> >
> >Pfusand
>
> that 99.99999999% of all thye other first graders
More like 99.44% of them. I tested at 99.45%.
> were thinking about
> playing, doing their schoolwork, and the things that most first
> graders do. I bet you grew up to be a democrat
Look again. "Broomhead" is my last name. Fred C. Broomhead: Rhode
Island State Senator. William T. Broomhead: Lt. Governor of Rhode
Island. Republicans.
However, look still again. "Rhode Island" A state founded on *real*
religious freedom. A state where the people refused to join the
United States until every "Jew and Turk" and "those professing no[
religion] at all" were protected by the Constitutuion.
> and an atheist; or
> were you born a liberal atheist and therefore not responsible for what
> you are.
I am exactly responsible for you I am. You, I suppose, have excuses.
> You poor victim.
Still taking things too personally?
> Did you sue someone foir being so mean to
> you?
Never. Never have, never will.
> I caught a fifty pound shark on 3 lb test fishing line in the Ohio
> River. I am faster than a speeding bullet. I can jump over tall
> buldings in a single bound.
>
> In other words. You are lieing.
>
> BB
In other words, you absolutely *hate* the idea that a child can think
at all.
C'mon! Look at my conclusion! Does that, in adult terms, make sense?
No. It was the naive thinking of an ignorant child, even if of one
who went to Sunday School every week.
Tell me this: Are *you* happy promising something that you know you
can't do?
Richard Clayton
Cite?
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
"Pranksters like you will endure the penalty game... LIVING OCTOPUS IN
YOUR PANTS!" -- Angelic Layer fansub
Ann Broomhead
> >> PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
> >>
> >>
> >> On March 24, 2004, The United States Supreme Court will hear
> >> testimony in the "Pledge of Allegiance Case" - to determine whether
> >> the words "under God" will be allowed to remain in the U.S. Pledge
> >> of Allegiance.
> >>
> >> There will be a great many political and legal arguments presented
> >> in this case, but the bottom line question is, will America be a
> >> nation that has places itself ultimately under God's authority, or
> >> ...
> > <snip>
>
>
> Nice to meet you.
Who is this "Amy" person? Are you being malicious or clueless?
> > I was in first grade when that phrase was added to the Pledge, and it
> > gave me a lot of trouble. Earlier, I had had to deal with "with
> > liberty and justice for all" (because I knew that a lot of things
> > weren't fair in my country). I decided that I was pledging myself to
> > do my part to achieve that ideal nation.
> >
> > But how could I put God over my nation? How could I persuade a deity
> > to favor my country? I was just one little kid! This was impossible.
> >
> > I finally decided that it was going to have to be the sum of the faith
> > of all believers that did that.
> >
> > So, yes, take it out of the Pledge. It is just too distressing to the
> > small children who are the ones taking the Pledge *every day*.
>
> Did you seek medical attention for your suffering? Did you seek damages?
> Do you suffer, today from saying the pledge as a child?
Of course not. As I described, I dealt with it.
> Can you prove that
> it was "too distressing to (OTHER) small children"?
You think small children *like* to be urged to make promises they
can't keep?
Do *you* like to make promises you can't keep?
I was smart enough to deal with it. A lot of kids weren't
introspective enough to see a problem. Fine for them. That still
leaves a few million in the middle, especially over fifty years.
> Sincerely,
> Jason
Oh, so you *don't* have any trouble with making impossible claims.
Richard Clayton
> Jason Gastrich wrote:
>
>>PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
>>
>>"Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD..." Psalm 33:12
>>
>>On March 24, 2004, The United States Supreme Court will hear testimony in
>>the "Pledge of Allegiance Case" - to determine whether the words "under God"
>>will be allowed to remain in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.
>>
>>There will be a great many political and legal arguments presented in this
>>case, but the bottom line question is, will America be a nation that has
>>places itself ultimately under God's authority, or will America deteriorate
>>into a nation that claims to be its own god? Will America remain under the
>>Law of God, or will America say, "I can determine my own truth." (?)
>>
>>The issue is not one of individual liberty. Michael Newdow, the atheist who
>>is fighting to have the Pledge changed, is free to reject God and go about
>>his daily business regardless of whether the words "under God" remain in the
>>Pledge. Any child who chooses - right now - may abstain from reciting the
>>Pledge in school. Freedom of religion is the blessing offered to those
>>living in a nation that believes that rights are given by God and not by
>>government.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> No, Jason, your source is mistaken and so are you. The issue is whether
> the United States government has the right to include an explicit
> endorsement of religion in our national pledge.
>
> Look at it from a more pragmatic angle: Islam is currently a
> fast-growing religion in the United States, and some estimates I have
> seen suggest Muslims may outnumber Christians in this country within a
> generation or two. How would you feel about your grandchildren pledging
> allegiance to "one Nation, under Allah and His prophet Muhammad"?
>
> I do not find that any worse than "one Nation, under God" but I bet
> *you* do.
I am surprised you have not answered this post, Mr. Gastrich. I would
be quite interested to know your response.
Ann Broomhead
No. I was telling the truth. A truth too uncomfortable for you or
Jason. Deal with it.
> I suspect that Jason picked
> up his/her lies and wrote what he wrote.
If I were a cheap poster, I'd pick up on your use of the term
"suspect" and deliberately misinterpret when you meant by it.
Instead, I'll just mention that Jason was trying to pick up something
like a cobweb hallucination. His own cobweb hallucination.
> Whether or not he/she
> believes in God is not relevant. What is relevant is that he/she was
> trying to play us for fools.
I don't have to play for that to happen, it would seem.
David Wise
What a callous, mean-spirited, sarcastic jerk you are! Yours is truly
a fine Christian witness of the fruit produced by Christianity and
which thankfully will turn many away from that corrupt tree that needs
to be hewn down and cast into the fire (as per Jesus' teaching in Matt
7:15-20; you should also consider Matt 12:36-37).
I wouldn't say that I had suffered distress from that blatantly
sectarian wording, but it did convey the clear message that only those
adhering to certain sectarian religious beliefs were welcome and all
others were to be excluded. Besides officially alienating me for
purely sectarian religious reasons in this land founded on the
principle of religious liberty, it also revealed to me the
santimonious hypocrisy of those in authority who preached religious
liberty out of one side of their mouth and spewed sectarian
intolerance out of the other.
You have not yet answered my questions:
EXACTLY how long have we been "one nation under God"? As opposed (in
more than one sense) to "one nation indivisible"? IOW, in what year
did that happen?
And in what year did "In God We Trust" become the National Motto?
What was it before then and when had that previous Motto been
established?
I ask those questions to see whether you have any idea what you are
talking about. Do you even have any clue?
>
> Sincerely,
> Jason
>
> --------
>
> Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
> http://www.jcsm.org
> Over 60,000 web pages!
>
> John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
> free indeed."
>
> Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
> Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
> bondage."
>
Richard Uhrich
I see you totally ignored all Richard's points to throw a cheap shot.
Let ms rephrase the "votes" point: no atheist or agnostic can be
ellected unless he hides his opinion. On the other hand, hypocrits like
you can enhance their chances of getting elected by calling in the news
cameras before they pray (or prey) in public and attack separation of
church and state. Tom Jefferson couldn't get elected dog catcher today.
You're proud of that.
> Jason
--
Richard Uhrich
--
"There's Adam Clymer--major league asshole from the New York Times." --
Bush to Cheney before open microphone, 2000.
Lord Calvert
>you can enhance their chances of getting elected by calling in the news
>cameras before they pray (or prey) in public and attack separation of
>church and state. Tom Jefferson couldn't get elected dog catcher today.
>You're proud of that.
There was a lot of opposition to Jefferson in his own time and for much of the
same reasons as the fundies use today to attack the proponents of freedom.
"Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will all be openly taught and
practiced, the air will rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be
soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes." - Connecticut (Hartford)
Courant editorial, 15 September 1800, predicting the results of a victory by
Thomas Jefferson in the presidential election (borrowed from Jim Allison's
Separation of Church and State website)
Hank
> Jason Gastrich wrote:
>
> > PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
> >
<snip>
> I still think that the ultimate purpose of many of these fanatic
> right-wing Christian fundamentalists is the "Talibanization" of the
> United States. By misrepresenting both Christianity and the history of
> the United States (by suggesting that the Founders had in mind a nation
> led by "Judeo-Christian values" and not by human values, when, in fact,
> the Founders wanted nothing of the sort), they believe that they can
> usher in a theocratic regime (that is to say -- because there has
> apparently been some confusion elsewhere on what "theocratic" means -- a
> regime in which the political leaders are the religious leaders and base
> national governance on religious ideals). If the dribblings of most of
> these right-wing fundamentalists are any indication, I would guess that
> the "Christian theocracy" that they have in mind would be just as
> repressive and militaristic and backwards as the Taliban was in
> Afghanistan prior to the American invasion.
>
> Of course, it will be okay, because the Christian theocracy would be
> based on "Our God" and not "Their heathen god."
Like we used to say - Kill a commie for Christ!
--
Assimilate a pitiful little species like you? I think not! - Q of Borg
Richard Forrest
They're in good company with the lying, manipulative 'saved
believers', Jason.
So why haven't you stopped using the talkorigin domain name?
And how do I know that you're not just someone claiming to be a
Christian to further his personal agenda?
>
> Jason
>
<advertisment snipped>
RF
Richard S. Crawford
Or, like my buddies and I used to say in high school, "Nuke a communist
Ethiopian whale for Jesus!"
Hank
> "Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message news:<4YT5c.7493$h85....@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> > PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
> >
> >
> > "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD..." Psalm 33:12
>
<snip>
> How did America fare under the 'founding fathers', who recited no such
> pledge? How did it fare up until "under God" was inserted during the
> cold war?
Well, having our people pledge "under God" gave us the Overpowering Righteousness we needed to give battle and
utterly destroy the minions of the Godless Communist Menace that threatened our very existence. Like those
evil North Vietnamese and Viet Cong lackeys.
Wait -- oh yeah, we lost that one, didn't we?
Um, er ... nevermind.
Hank
By all that's ... Jason, fine fellow, is there any particular reason you
lump Catholics with cults??? You really ARE a religious bigot, aren't you?
I'm surprised you didn't include the Jews along with them. Or at very least
the Maori - of course, that would presuppose you know something, *anything*
about the world outside your trailer park.
May our esteemed Kiwi co-heathen correct me if I'm wrong but, in that NZ
is/was a Commonwealth country, aren't the majority of Christians more likely
Church of England / Episcopal? (Or are they on Jason's list of "cults" as
well?)
> > And the fact that society here has not
> > fallen apart despite the lack of any pledge of allegience?
Oh, just guessing but, maybe because of the lack of religious strife in the
country? Just an educated guess of course...
Jason Gastrich
The foundation of my country has already been laid by its founders. Another
foundation cannot be laid without the entire edifice crumbling.
Jason Gastrich
> "Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
> news:<Gs36c.7781$h85....@twister.socal.rr.com>...
>> Ann Broomhead wrote:
>>> "Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
>>> news:<4YT5c.7493$h85....@twister.socal.rr.com>...
>>>> PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
>>>>
>>>> "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD..." Psalm 33:12
>>>>
>>>> On March 24, 2004, The United States Supreme Court will hear
>>>> testimony in the "Pledge of Allegiance Case" - to determine whether
>>>> the words "under God" will be allowed to remain in the U.S. Pledge
>>>> of Allegiance.
>>>>
>>>> There will be a great many political and legal arguments presented
>>>> in this case, but the bottom line question is, will America be a
>>>> nation that has places itself ultimately under God's authority, or
>>>> ...
>>> <snip>
>>
>> Hi Amy,
>>
>> Nice to meet you.
>
> Who is this "Amy" person? Are you being malicious or clueless?
I'm sorry, Ann. I accidentally called you Amy.
>>> I was in first grade when that phrase was added to the Pledge, and
>>> it gave me a lot of trouble. Earlier, I had had to deal with "with
>>> liberty and justice for all" (because I knew that a lot of things
>>> weren't fair in my country). I decided that I was pledging myself
>>> to do my part to achieve that ideal nation.
>>>
>>> But how could I put God over my nation? How could I persuade a
>>> deity to favor my country? I was just one little kid! This was
>>> impossible.
>>>
>>> I finally decided that it was going to have to be the sum of the
>>> faith of all believers that did that.
>>>
>>> So, yes, take it out of the Pledge. It is just too distressing to
>>> the small children who are the ones taking the Pledge *every day*.
>>
>> Did you seek medical attention for your suffering? Did you seek
>> damages? Do you suffer, today from saying the pledge as a child?
>
> Of course not. As I described, I dealt with it.
Of course not? Well, it sounds like you suffered extreme pain. Now, you
want to influence legislation because of it. If you really want to
influence the legislation that will effect millions of people, then you're
going to need some evidence of your pain and suffering. Note: I'm not
saying you didn't suffer. I'm saying you need proof if people are to take
you seriously.
>> Can you prove that
>> it was "too distressing to (OTHER) small children"?
>
> You think small children *like* to be urged to make promises they
> can't keep?
If you are trying to prove your case, answering my question with this
question isn't helping.
Sincerely,
Jason
Jason Gastrich
I'm not sure what the percentage of error is from this study. It is 7 years
old, too. Nonetheless, it says that Protestants made up 35% of the prison
population in 1997. It's being hosted on an atheist site. If anyone has
newer information and if anyone knows about the compilation methods involved
(e.g. were they encouraged to pick a religion no matter what?), let me know.
Link: http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
Jason Gastrich
> And how do I know that you're not just someone claiming to be a
> Christian to further his personal agenda?
>
> RF
This sounds like a personal question, Richard. It sounds like a question
that only you can answer.
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich
>> I've seen these statistics and they refer to Catholics and a variety
>> of cults. Therefore, they are hardly reliable and hardly good
>> evidence for your "case" against Protestant Christians like myself.
>
> By all that's ... Jason, fine fellow, is there any particular reason
> you lump Catholics with cults??? You really ARE a religious bigot,
> aren't you? I'm surprised you didn't include the Jews along with
> them. Or at very least the Maori - of course, that would presuppose
> you know something, *anything* about the world outside your trailer
> park.
Hank,
I clearly referred to Catholics AND a variety of cults. Therefore, I didn't
say Catholicism was a cult.
Catholics pay money to have sins forgiven, they worship Mary, exalt
tradition higher than scripture, trust the Pope for their salvation, pray to
people besides God, and worship idols. If you care to discuss Catholic
theology, I'm happy to do so. However, you'll have to avoid name calling
and acting childish and treat me with respect or I'll PLONK you.
Richard Uhrich
Jason, the pledge of allegiance was not around when our country was
founded, aad the phrase "under God" was stuck in in the late '50s. You
are ignorant of the intentions of the founders of our country.
Michael Bragg
news:ad30b67a.04031...@posting.google.com:
<Jason's Warlord-class .sig snipped>
(Setting follow-ups to T.O)
David,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the original motto that appeared on
U.S. currency before "In God We Trust" simply "Mind Your Business?"
Admittedly, I haven't Googled for it, so I'm probably wrong, but I
remember hearing something to that effect a while back.
--
Michael Bragg
Remove the physicist to e-mail me.
Hank
<snip>
>
> The foundation of my country has already been laid by its founders.
Disneyland?
Alan Jeffery
"Richard Clayton" <reZIGcl...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:c3cg02$25l3se$2...@ID-224727.news.uni-berlin.de...
Inslander offender's religion, the majority of Maori are protestants (and a
lot are Mormon - which is not protestant, of course. But has fundie
attributes.). The Pacific Islanders are mostly members of either
fundamentalist sects, or fundamentalist "wings" of mainstream (Protestant)
churches. Such information is available from the Statistics NZ website.
So Jason has either not seen the stats (most likely) or he has not
understood it.
Alan Jeffery
> --
> [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
>
> "Pranksters like you will endure the penalty game... LIVING OCTOPUS IN
> YOUR PANTS!" -- Angelic Layer fansub
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.605 / Virus Database: 385 - Release Date: 1/03/2004
Alan Jeffery
That's not New Zealand. You know NEW ZEALAND - a little country in the
South Pacific. Have you attended reading for comprehension courses?
Alan Jeffery
>
> Jason
>
> --------
>
> Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
> http://www.jcsm.org
> Over 60,000 web pages!
>
> John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
> free indeed."
>
> Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
> Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
> bondage."
>
> ICQ#: 20731140
> AIM: MrJasonGastrich
> YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
>
Roy Sinnamond
Since this is cross-posted to alt.atheism, I feel it is appropriate to
ask a few questions of Jason...
1. Is this merely a history lesson, or is Jason proposing that all
Americans must return to the laws of our past? Are all of the
ethics of our founders applicable? If not, who decides what we
live by today? For example:
* Should blacks be re-classified as three-fifths of a person?
* Should southern states re-institute slavery?
* Should women's right to vote be rescinded?
2. Should all nations live by their past traditions? If not, who
decides and how? For example:
* Should Italy return to Roman rule?
* Should Saudi Arabia be an Islamic state forever?
* Should America revert to the rule of a few dozen Native
American cultures?
3. What should be done with people who do not want to live in a
Christian state in America?
In hope of the courtesy of a direct reply t!
o each of these questions...
--
Roy Sinnamond
aa #1798 EAC Minister of Cognitive Dissonance
roysinnamond at mac dot com
"One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured
against reality, is primitive and childlike - and yet it is the most
precious thing we have."
-- Albert Einstein
Tom McDonald
> Hank wrote:
>
>
>>>I've seen these statistics and they refer to Catholics and a variety
>>>of cults. Therefore, they are hardly reliable and hardly good
>>>evidence for your "case" against Protestant Christians like myself.
>>
>>By all that's ... Jason, fine fellow, is there any particular reason
>>you lump Catholics with cults??? You really ARE a religious bigot,
>>aren't you? I'm surprised you didn't include the Jews along with
>>them. Or at very least the Maori - of course, that would presuppose
>>you know something, *anything* about the world outside your trailer
>>park.
>
>
> Hank,
>
> I clearly referred to Catholics AND a variety of cults. Therefore, I didn't
> say Catholicism was a cult.
>
> Catholics pay money to have sins forgiven, they worship Mary, exalt
> tradition higher than scripture, trust the Pope for their salvation, pray to
> people besides God, and worship idols. If you care to discuss Catholic
> theology, I'm happy to do so. However, you'll have to avoid name calling
> and acting childish and treat me with respect or I'll PLONK you.
>
> Sincerely,
> Jason
Hank,
The original issue was _Christians_ in prison in New Zealand.
Jason has re-defined it in such a way as to imply that only
Protestant Christianity (which is an elastic term for him,
depending on the point he's trying to make) is True Christianity
(tm).
One can also wonder at the gall of Jason to require others to
treat him with respect (which comes down to, as often as not,
not challenging his pronouncements or behavior), while Jason
feels free to act childishly (e.g.: his 'apology' to DIG on the
censorship issue) and to call names (e.g.: calling people
'atheists' who merely support evolution, even when those folks
have stated they are Christian, or of other religious traditions).
Wouldn't it be nice if Jason acted like Jesus, and spent his
time amongst us publicans, tax collectors and whores as though
he were one of us, and loved us, and shared our humanity, seeing
the image of God in each of us instead of looking for the mark
of the Devil as an excuse to separate from us.
I love Jesus. I love those who truly come in the Name of the
Lord. Perhaps Jason will become a true disciple before he dies.
Tom McDonald
Alan Jeffery
"Hank" <Ha...@application.com> wrote in message
news:4059F9A1...@Company.com...
Correct, as far as the majority of the population go. But Maori have two
"sects" that are unique to themselves - Ratana (affiliated with the Anglican
Church/Episcopalian), and Ringatu - a messianic sect founded by a guerilla
fighter during the Land Wars about 1870, called Te Kooti. The Ringatu
Church has very small numbers.
>
>
> > > And the fact that society here has not
> > > fallen apart despite the lack of any pledge of allegience?
>
> Oh, just guessing but, maybe because of the lack of religious strife in
the
> country? Just an educated guess of course...
I'm not aware of any religious strife. And I live in an area where
conservative religious groups are a significant proportion of the
population.
Alan Jeffery
>
>
> --
> Assimilate a pitiful little species like you? I think not! - Q of Borg
>
>
Jason Gastrich
>> The foundation of my country has already been laid by its founders.
>> Another foundation cannot be laid without the entire edifice
>> crumbling.
>
> Since this is cross-posted to alt.atheism, I feel it is appropriate
> toask a few questions of Jason...
> 1. Is this merely a history
> lesson, or is Jason proposing that all Americans must return to
> the laws of our past?
No, I didn't intend to give a history lesson and I haven't given one.
> Are all of the ethics of our founders
> applicable? If not, who decides what we live by today? For
> example: * Should blacks be re-classified as three-fifths of
> a person? * Should southern states re-institute slavery?
> * Should women's right to vote be rescinded?
We should consider the ideals of the founders and embrace the ones that are
clearly good and best.
> 2. Should all nations
> live by their past traditions? If not, who decides and how? For
> example: * Should Italy return to Roman rule? *
> Should Saudi Arabia be an Islamic state forever? * Should
> America revert to the rule of a few dozen Native American
> cultures?
I'm referring to America - the strongest and most influencial nation in the
world - and not to other cultures right now.
> 3. What should be done with people who do not want to
> live in a Christian state in America?In hope of the courtesy of
> a direct reply t! o each of these questions...
I don't mind replying directly. If you could break up your
statements/questions into paragraphs, that would be helpful.
I'm not implying that America should adopt a state religion. I'm saying
that we should choose the God of our founders.
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich
The big question is atheism vs. theism and the percentage of each in prison.
The little question is NZ vs. USA and the US theists vs. the NZ atheists in
prison. At any rate, all you have given is your opinion. I provided stats
for MY COUNTRY. Provide stats for YOUR OWN country. You know NEW ZEALAND -
a little country in the South Pacific. <rude statement withheld>
Sincerely,
Roy Sinnamond
Since this is cross-posted to alt.atheism, I feel it is appropriate to ask a few questions of Jason... 1. Is this merely a history lesson, or is Jason proposing that all Americans must return to the laws of our past? Are all of the ethics of our founders applicable? If not, who decides what we live by today? For example: * Should blacks be re-classified as three-fifths of a person? * Should southern states re-institute slavery? * Should women's right to vote be rescinded? 2. Should all nations live by their past traditions? If not, who decides and how? For example: * Should Italy return to Roman rule? * Should Saudi Arabia be an Islamic state forever? * Should America revert to the rule of a few dozen Native American cultures? 3. What should be done with people who do not want to live in a Christian state in America? In hope of the courtesy of a direct reply t!
o each of these questions...
Lord Calvert
>> based on "Our God" and not "Their heathen god."
>
>Like we used to say - Kill a commie for Christ!
Of course, now it is the Christians who are acting like commies.
AC
Jason Gastrich <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote:
> Hank wrote:
>
>>> I've seen these statistics and they refer to Catholics and a variety
>>> of cults. Therefore, they are hardly reliable and hardly good
>>> evidence for your "case" against Protestant Christians like myself.
>>
>> By all that's ... Jason, fine fellow, is there any particular reason
>> you lump Catholics with cults??? You really ARE a religious bigot,
>> aren't you? I'm surprised you didn't include the Jews along with
>> them. Or at very least the Maori - of course, that would presuppose
>> you know something, *anything* about the world outside your trailer
>> park.
>
> Hank,
>
> I clearly referred to Catholics AND a variety of cults. Therefore, I didn't
> say Catholicism was a cult.
>
> Catholics pay money to have sins forgiven,
A lie.
>they worship Mary,
A lie.
> exalt
> tradition higher than scripture,
A lie.
>trust the Pope for their salvation,
A lie.
> pray to
> people besides God,
A really idiotic lie.
> and worship idols.
A lie, unless you wish to claim that the cross is an idol, in which case
you've just accused the majority of Christians of idolatry.
> If you care to discuss Catholic
> theology, I'm happy to do so.
Why would anyone want to discuss Catholic theology with a liar like you?
> However, you'll have to avoid name calling
> and acting childish and treat me with respect or I'll PLONK you.
Go plonk yourself, liar. You aren't interested in debate, you miserable
little bigot. You are the hateful scum of Christianity.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
AC
The foundation is secular government, put there to protect citizens from
wannabe-theocrats like yourself.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Richard S. Crawford
Why?
First of all, Jason, the Founders practiced a form of Christianity which
wouldn't be very helpful to you. The ones that weren't "deists" were
very likely Anglicans. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it
seems likely to me.
Second, we've already rejected many ideas that the founders had which we
have outgrown. That whole thing about African-Americans being 3/5ths of
a person for census purposes, for one thing, or the notion that only
propertied white gentlemen should have the right to vote. Should we
retain these ideals too?
The Founders were brilliant men, no doubt about that (I particularly
admire Franklin, Jefferson, and Adams), but as our nation has grown and
become more conscious of the ideals that our nation was meant to embody
-- freedom and justice for all, regardless of race, ethnicity,
background, religion, and so on -- we've had to drop some ideas that
they had which were inconsistent with our ideals, and we continue to do
so to this day.
And my last question is, how is "choosing the God of our founders"
different from adopting a state religion? You DO know that the Pledge
of Allegiance post-dated the drafting of the Constitution by at least
100 years, don't you? And that the phrase "under God" was added a good
fifty years or more after that?
Roy Sinnamond
> Roy Sinnamond wrote:
>
>>> The foundation of my country has already been laid by its founders.
>>> Another foundation cannot be laid without the entire edifice
>>> crumbling.
>>
>> Since this is cross-posted to alt.atheism, I feel it is appropriate
>> toask a few questions of Jason...
>
>> 1. Is this merely a history
>> lesson, or is Jason proposing that all Americans must return to
>> the laws of our past?
>
> No, I didn't intend to give a history lesson and I haven't given one.
Forgive the messed-up text formatting, my newsreader must have hacked up
a hairball.
See below for my reply...
>> Are all of the ethics of our founders
>> applicable? If not, who decides what we live by today? For
>> example: * Should blacks be re-classified as three-fifths of
>> a person? * Should southern states re-institute slavery?
>> * Should women's right to vote be rescinded?
>
> We should consider the ideals of the founders and embrace the ones that are
> clearly good and best.
The point of my question is *who* chooses what is "clearly good and best"?
>> 2. Should all nations
>> live by their past traditions? If not, who decides and how? For
>> example: * Should Italy return to Roman rule? *
>> Should Saudi Arabia be an Islamic state forever? * Should
>> America revert to the rule of a few dozen Native American
>> cultures?
>
> I'm referring to America - the strongest and most influencial nation in the
> world - and not to other cultures right now.
Does your proposition not apply anywhere else? As long as we're choosing
"the God of our founders", why would we stop at an arbitrary point of
*your* choosing and not, say, the "god" of the first people in the Americas?
>> 3. What should be done with people who do not want to
>> live in a Christian state in America?In hope of the courtesy of
>> a direct reply t! o each of these questions...
>
> I don't mind replying directly.
[snip]
Here's the one I really wish you would answer as bluntly and honestly
as possible:
If you were absolute ruler of the U.S. what would you do with people
like me?
It's a sincere question. And so you have some idea what I mean by
"like me"; I am an atheist who is not in any way interested in converting
to your beliefs. I believe in freedom of conscience - I believe that you
have every right to your beliefs and should be allowed to voice your views.
I only ask the same courtesy in return. I have seen you use the phrase
"my country" on more than one occasion. Well, it's *my* country, too Jason.
It's a lot of peoples country. My idea of a free country is one where people
interfere with each other as little as possible.
The whole point of my line of questioning is that whatever you or I think
the founders believed is not the end of the story. That's why I asked
about slavery and women's suffrage. There are people in America who would
like to change those things, and they could use the same logic you are
using to argue for it, invoking phrases like "my country" and "our founders"
all the while.
> I'm not implying that America should adopt a state religion. I'm saying
> that we should choose the God of our founders.
Who's "we"?
Dana Tweedy
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>
> > And how do I know that you're not just someone claiming to be a
> > Christian to further his personal agenda?
> >
> > RF
>
> This sounds like a personal question, Richard. It sounds like a question
> that only you can answer.
Are you going by sounds now too Jason? Are you a whale?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> Hank wrote:
>
> >> I've seen these statistics and they refer to Catholics and a variety
> >> of cults. Therefore, they are hardly reliable and hardly good
> >> evidence for your "case" against Protestant Christians like myself.
> >
> > By all that's ... Jason, fine fellow, is there any particular reason
> > you lump Catholics with cults??? You really ARE a religious bigot,
> > aren't you? I'm surprised you didn't include the Jews along with
> > them. Or at very least the Maori - of course, that would presuppose
> > you know something, *anything* about the world outside your trailer
> > park.
>
> Hank,
>
> I clearly referred to Catholics AND a variety of cults. Therefore, I
didn't
> say Catholicism was a cult.
>
> Catholics pay money to have sins forgiven,
Money they could be paying to Jason! (through PayPal)
> they worship Mary,
Instead of Answers in Genesis.
> exalt
> tradition higher than scripture,
A tradition like "young earth creationism", that isn't in the scripture
either?
> trust the Pope for their salvation,
Instead of trusting Phillip Johnson.
> pray to
> people besides God,
And people who aren't Kent Hovind.
> and worship idols.
When they could be worshiping the Bible, like Jason does.
> If you care to discuss Catholic
> theology, I'm happy to do so. However, you'll have to avoid name calling
> and acting childish and treat me with respect or I'll PLONK you.
I'm sure being "plonked" by Jason is a tragedy that no one can survive.
DJT
Jason Gastrich
>> We should consider the ideals of the founders and embrace the ones
>> that are clearly good and best.
>
> The point of my question is *who* chooses what is "clearly good and
> best"?
The people and the law makers. I believe our founders didn't want to force
the biblical God on people, but they did hope and expect people to choose
Him on their own.
>>> 2. Should all nations
>>> live by their past traditions? If not, who decides and how?
>>> For example: * Should Italy return to Roman rule? *
>>> Should Saudi Arabia be an Islamic state forever? * Should
>>> America revert to the rule of a few dozen Native American
>>> cultures?
>>
>> I'm referring to America - the strongest and most influencial nation
>> in the world - and not to other cultures right now.
>
> Does your proposition not apply anywhere else? As long as we're
> choosing "the God of our founders", why would we stop at an arbitrary
> point of *your* choosing and not, say, the "god" of the first people
> in the Americas?
A strong case can be made for America's success being directly related to
its Christians and biblical influence. American spends more money sending
missionaries around the world than all other countries combined. What if
this alone were God's reasons for blessing us so much?
There are two, direct answers to your question. First, other countries
aren't as advanced and successful and "just happen" to have Islamic roots,
for instance. Could that say something about Islam?
Next, I am a Bible-believing Christian. I see how faith has helped me and
many others. Furthermore, I have a relationship with God. As this kind of
person, I hope that others receive the same earthly and eternal blessings
from a similar relationship and live to glorify their Creator.
>>> 3. What should be done with people who do not want to
>>> live in a Christian state in America?In hope of the courtesy
>>> of a direct reply t! o each of these questions...
>>
>> I don't mind replying directly.
> [snip]
>
> Here's the one I really wish you would answer as bluntly and honestly
> as possible:
>
> If you were absolute ruler of the U.S. what would you do with
> people like me?
I wouldn't do anything with people like you. You would have the same
freedoms as everyone else. I don't want anything bad to happen to anyone.
I simply want what our founders wanted; for people to recognize the biblical
God, give Him preference and reverance, and trust Christ for salvation.
> It's a sincere question. And so you have some idea what I mean by
> "like me"; I am an atheist who is not in any way interested in
> converting to your beliefs. I believe in freedom of conscience - I
> believe that you have every right to your beliefs and should be
> allowed to voice your views. I only ask the same courtesy in return.
> I have seen you use the phrase "my country" on more than one
> occasion. Well, it's *my* country, too Jason. It's a lot of peoples
> country. My idea of a free country is one where people interfere with
> each other as little as possible.
I understand and I agree. It's your country, too. I use the word "my"
because it is my country (and yours), because many people on usenet are from
other countries, some may not know where I'm living or why I care, etc.
> The whole point of my line of questioning is that whatever you or I
> think the founders believed is not the end of the story. That's why I
> asked
> about slavery and women's suffrage. There are people in America who
> would like to change those things, and they could use the same logic
> you are using to argue for it, invoking phrases like "my country" and
> "our founders" all the while.
>
>> I'm not implying that America should adopt a state religion. I'm
>> saying that we should choose the God of our founders.
>
> Who's "we"?
Everyone.
God bless,
Robin Levett
Jason Gastrich wrote:
> Hank wrote:
>
>>> I've seen these statistics and they refer to Catholics and a variety
>>> of cults. Therefore, they are hardly reliable and hardly good
>>> evidence for your "case" against Protestant Christians like myself.
>>
>> By all that's ... Jason, fine fellow, is there any particular reason
>> you lump Catholics with cults??? You really ARE a religious bigot,
>> aren't you? I'm surprised you didn't include the Jews along with
>> them. Or at very least the Maori - of course, that would presuppose
>> you know something, anything about the world outside your trailer
>> park.
>
> Hank,
>
> I clearly referred to Catholics AND a variety of cults. Therefore, I
> didn't say Catholicism was a cult.
>
> Catholics pay money to have sins forgiven, they worship Mary, exalt
> tradition higher than scripture, trust the Pope for their salvation, pray
> to
> people besides God, and worship idols. If you care to discuss Catholic
> theology, I'm happy to do so. However, you'll have to avoid name calling
> and acting childish and treat me with respect or I'll PLONK you.
>
OK, how's about a bit of analysis of what you said. You said first:-
"I've seen these statistics and they refer to Catholics and a variety of
cults."
True, you didn't say "other" cults - so to that extent you've not referred
to Catholicism as a cult. Would you please, however, cite the statistics
to which you refer? The ones of which I am aware show that Anglicans
outnumber Catholics, and Presbyterians aren't far behind Catholics.
"Therefore they are hardly reliable..."
...that remains to be seen...
"and hardly good evidence for your "case" against Protestant Christians like
myself."
Are you a Protestant Christian? What denomination exactly are you.
The fact remains that you contrast "Catholic and a variety of cults" with
"Protestant Christian". Alan had referred to true believers - you appear
to be sayign that Catholics, in common with a variety of cults, are not
"true believers" - was that your intended meaning?
Robin Levett
rle...@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
Honest, knowledgeable, YEC - pick 2.
John Wilkins
> "Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote:
> > Alan Jeffery wrote:
> > > "Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
> > > news:eh66c.2453$Lq4....@twister.socal.rr.com...
> > >> Alan Jeffery wrote:
> > >>> "Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
> > >>> news:4YT5c.7493$h85....@twister.socal.rr.com...
> > >>>> PLEDGE CASE GOES BEFORE SUPREME COURT MARCH 24
> > >>>>
> > >>> <snip of self-righteous inaccuracies>
> > >>>
> <snip for brevity>
>
> > > And the fact that society here has not
> > > fallen apart despite the lack of any pledge of allegience?
> >
> > The pledge isn't a magic spell.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Jason
> >
>
> <snip for brevity>
>
> And yet he supports its state-sponsored incantation.
>
> - F.
Far away, across the fields
The tolling of the iron bell
Calls the faithful to their knees
To hear the softly spoken magic spell
There is an aspect of things like the pledge that you are overlooking.
Such coordinated activities en masse act to bind the social group. By
including in it exclusory tribal markers, Jason and his likeminded
coreligionists are ensuring that their tribe has pre-eminence, and thus
control over others and all the social resources of the nation. It
matters for the oldest reason in the book (sorry, Book): economic power.
--
John Wilkins
john...@wilkins.id.au http://www.wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
Callipygian Nullifidian
: However, you'll have to avoid name calling
: and acting childish and treat me with respect or I'll PLONK you.
Son, didn't anyone ever teach your ANYthing? Respect must be EARNED.
You're just begging for it, carrying on like that...I mean, come on,
nobody gives a shit whether YOU read their posts.
David
> Roy Sinnamond wrote:
> > Jason Gastrich
> >> that are clearly good and best.
> >
> > The point of my question is *who* chooses what is "clearly good and
> > best"?
>
> The people and the law makers. I believe our founders didn't want to force
> the biblical God on people, but they did hope and expect people to choose
> Him on their own.
So why do YOU want to force YOUR version of the biblical God on people?
<snip>
>
> A strong case can be made for America's success being directly related to
> its Christians and biblical influence. American spends more money sending
> missionaries around the world than all other countries combined. What if
> this alone were God's reasons for blessing us so much?
America is not strong because it sends missionaries around the world.
America is strong because it has resources and weapons. What is your
argument for faith being the cause of America's success? All you have
so far is a meaningless correlation.
Do the Irish have great pubs because they are all Catholics?
<snip islamic countries discussion>
> > Here's the one I really wish you would answer as bluntly and honestly
> > as possible:
> >
> > If you were absolute ruler of the U.S. what would you do with
> > people like me?
>
> I wouldn't do anything with people like you. You would have the same
> freedoms as everyone else.
I feel sick. Why then would my children have to acknowledge YOUR God?
> I don't want anything bad to happen to anyone. I simply want what our
> founders wanted; for people to recognize the biblical God, give Him
> preference and reverance, and trust Christ for salvation.
No, the founders wanted freedom from religion. They knew all about
religious persecution, after all, that's why they were here. And don't
tell me its different now, it's exactly the same now. In the 21st
century, every month, maybe every week, Protestants and Catholics, both
very similar Christian sects, are killing each other in the name of God.
If you were allowed to change the constitution to YOUR version you'd
probably start the USA down the road to religious intolerance and
possibly hate crimes. Give it a rest and see the obvious. The founders
were right you are wrong, and clearly clueless about what the founders
had in mind.
David
Mike Dunford
> Hank wrote:
>
>>> I've seen these statistics and they refer to Catholics and a variety
>>> of cults. Therefore, they are hardly reliable and hardly good
>>> evidence for your "case" against Protestant Christians like myself.
>>
>> By all that's ... Jason, fine fellow, is there any particular reason
>> you lump Catholics with cults??? You really ARE a religious bigot,
>> aren't you? I'm surprised you didn't include the Jews along with
>> them. Or at very least the Maori - of course, that would presuppose
>> you know something, *anything* about the world outside your trailer
>> park.
>
> Hank,
>
> I clearly referred to Catholics AND a variety of cults. Therefore, I
> didn't say Catholicism was a cult.
>
> Catholics pay money to have sins forgiven,
Incorrect.
> they worship Mary,
Also incorrect. Mary is viewed with respect and reverence, but she is
not worshiped.
> exalt tradition higher than scripture,
No. Tradition and scripture are both considered to be important in
Catholicism, as opposed to the scripture alone protestant theology, but
as far as I know neither is considered to be more important.
> trust the Pope for their salvation,
Entirely incorrect.
> pray to people besides God,
I can't say that this is entirely incorrect, but it is at best a gross
oversimplification. Catholics do pray to Mary and the saints, but not in
the same way that they pray to God. In general, prayers that are
directed to Mary or a saint are requests for intervention with God -- in
effect, the message is that the person praying does not feel worthy to
directly address his or her request to God, so they are asking someone
that they feel is more worthy to do so on their behalf.
> and worship idols.
This is incorrect.
> If you care to discuss
> Catholic theology, I'm happy to do so. However, you'll have to avoid
> name calling and acting childish and treat me with respect or I'll
> PLONK you.
With all due respect, I have to wonder what qualifications you have to
discuss Catholic theology. In particular, I wonder what sources you used
to gain your understanding.
--Mike Dunford