Off topic - where do we find these buttheads?
ad...@femuscle.org
anarchist from both the right and the left are ripping and tearing at the
very fabric of this great nation....It's now un constitutional to pledge
allegiance to the flag.....Next they'll be telling you that its
unconstitutional to posses that dollar bill you have in your pocket...
I'm confident this idiotic decision handed down by the courts will be
overturned!...There was at least one judge who had his head screwed on right
that morning....uhhh....I just thought of something....doesn't the
Constitution itself make references to God?...so now the Constitution is
unconstitutional?....
"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting
for that purpose, they shall be ON OATH affirmation. When the President of
the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person
shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members
present."
"Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following
oath or affirmation:--"I do SOLEMNLY SWEAR (or affirm) that I will
faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to
the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the
United States."
uhhh...ON OATH...SOLEMNLY SWEAR?....so now what?...you raise your right hand
and swear to Osama bin Ladin that you're gonna tell the truth?
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the
several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of
the United States and of the several states, SHALL BE BOUND BY OATH or
affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever
be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the
United States.
Religious test?...uhh you mean like......my God's better than your God?
Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR
PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances."
well folks there you have it...there's where it's going to get
overturned...the very thing they based their case on will in the end, be
what brings them down.....what idiots!
In case any of you forgot.....
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America...and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.
--
just a thought,
Medea
poem written in a boys magazine for the Columbus Day centenial. It didn't
even have the stupid "under God" in it in first place. I am always amazed
that people are so "patriotic" about things that don't matter (like the
pledge) an not about the constitution ( which IS important). By the way I
think the kid should have to cite the Bill of Rights in the morning, not the
plegde.
<ad...@femuscle.org> wrote in message
news:CRBS8.1427$So4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Poster
> anarchist from both the right and the left are ripping and tearing at the
> very fabric of this great nation....
Fabric of this great nation? WTF? The ACLU had nothing to do
with the lawsuit. If something as silly as this is going to
cause the downfall of this country, then we deserve it.
> It's now un constitutional to pledge
> allegiance to the flag.....
No, they said the phrase "under god" (which wasn't orginally
part of the pledge in the first place) was unconstitutional.
They didn't say the whole pledge was unconstitutional.
> Next they'll be telling you that its
> unconstitutional to posses that dollar bill you have in your pocket...
> I'm confident this idiotic decision handed down by the courts will be
> overturned!...There was at least one judge who had his head screwed on right
> that morning....uhhh....I just thought of something....doesn't the
> Constitution itself make references to God?...so now the Constitution is
> unconstitutional?....
>
People aren't forced to recite the Constitution.
> "The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting
> for that purpose, they shall be ON OATH affirmation. When the President of
> the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person
> shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members
> present."
>
> "Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following
> oath or affirmation:--"I do SOLEMNLY SWEAR (or affirm) that I will
> faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to
> the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the
> United States."
>
> uhhh...ON OATH...SOLEMNLY SWEAR?....so now what?...you raise your right hand
> and swear to Osama bin Ladin that you're gonna tell the truth?
>
Why should they have to swear to anyone but the American
public? That's who they serve.
> "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the
> several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of
> the United States and of the several states, SHALL BE BOUND BY OATH or
> affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever
> be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the
> United States.
>
> Religious test?...uhh you mean like......my God's better than your God?
>
What does any of this rambling have to do with "under god"
being in the Pledge of Allegiance? I see you've also missed
the "or affirmation" part that comes after "shall be bound
by oath". In case you didn't know, "or affirmation" allows
people to swear to something without having to invoke the
name of any diety. You really should have a better idea
of what you're talking about before you start ranting.
> Amendment I
>
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR
> PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech,
> or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
> petition the government for a redress of grievances."
>
> well folks there you have it...there's where it's going to get
> overturned...the very thing they based their case on will in the end, be
> what brings them down.....what idiots!
>
Taking "under god" out of the Pledge doesn't stop you or anyone
else from going to church or choosing to practice whatever religion
they want. If you're so gung-ho on this, then would you support
changing "under god" to "under god, under Buddah, under Allah,
under Yahweh, and under Vishnu and Shiva, and under no god" or
is it only your religion that you care about imposing on others?
If "prohibiting the free excercise thereof" was grounds for
overturning the ruling, then prayer would still be in schools.
It's amazing that we, as a nation, have become dumber in the
200+ years since its founding.
In case you haven't noticed, the court made the right decision
and I fully support what this guy did.
Dr Arm®
"under God" clause didn't exist, I remember when it was introduced, well
after the schoolyear had started, like some new, advanced version of the
pledge that we were learning that day.
I hate it when they change things. Maybe there was something restrictive
about the phrase "under God". I didn't understand why they added it to
begin with, after all, we never discussed God in school other than that.
It seemed like an attempt to be haughty, to flaunt it over the world
that the US came out so well after WWII. I don't think God had anything
to do with that either.
I suppose now they'll soon be removing the "In God we trust" motto from
the coins soon. Maybe that's appropiate since nobody trusts God anymore
anyway, but I for one will miss the slogan. After all, given the actual
metalic value of the coin itself these days, where else can you
reasonably put your trust? Certainly not in the US mint. There's also a
Constitutional article that deals with coinage, declaring that it be
based on gold. Of course it hasn't been based on gold since 1933 (then
it went to silver, then finally nothing).
What will they put in the slogan's place? Perhaps they will sell
advertising! Put advertising on the coins, like those one-liner Yahoo
ads.
Other than "In God We Trust" does the US even have a slogan? "E pluribus
Unum" is the motto and it's already on the coin. On the reverse side. A
far as slogan's go, "In God We Trust" seems like a pretty good one. It's
even more appropiate if you don't believe in God, since then you don't
have to trust anyone with your money.
I don't mind them removing the "under God" phrase from the pledge, but I
will miss the slogan when they choose to remove that from the coins. I
always liked that one. As far as I'm concerned, these people that want
to change things, they can all go to Hell.
da
John Larocque
> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America...and to
the
> republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with
> liberty and justice for all.
You can drop the reference to "under God", which was a McCarthy-era
insertion to the original oath. View below to a history of the oath.
http://www.thenation.com/docPrint.mhtml?i=20020603&s=dreier
REVIEW | June 3, 2002
Patriotism's Secret History
by Peter Dreier & Dick Flacks
Many Americans believe that the left is "antipatriotic" (and even
anti-American), while the political right truly expresses the American
spirit and reveres its symbols. Particularly since the late 1960s--when the
movement against US intervention in Vietnam gained momentum--the terms
"progressive" and "patriotism" have rarely been used in the same sentence,
at least in the mainstream media. It has become conventional wisdom that
conservatives wave the American flag while leftists burn it. Patriotic
Americans display the flag on their homes; progressives turn it upside down
to show contempt.
Recent months have seen a dramatic increase in the number of Americans
proudly displaying the Stars and Stripes on their cars, homes, businesses,
T-shirts, caps, lapel pins and even tattoos. This outpouring of flag-waving
signifies a variety of sentiments--from identification with the victims of
the September 11 attacks to support for the military's invasion of
Afghanistan. But in our popular culture, displays of the American flag
are--along with the very idea of "patriotism"--typically viewed as
expressions of "conservative" politics. The patriotic fervor since September
11 has revitalized that belief and, as in other times, has given
conservative politicos and pundits a handy means to undermine dissent and
progressive initiatives.
A case in point: In Santa Barbara, California, progressive County Supervisor
Gail Marshall is facing the possibility of a recall election fueled by
right-wing forces opposed to her support for environmental regulation,
affordable housing and labor unions. Because Marshall occupies the key swing
seat on the five-member county board, Santa Barbara's conservative
activists--funded by oil interests, agribusiness and land developers--have
been trying to unseat her for years. They launched a recall campaign after
Marshall refused to rubber-stamp a proposal to require the Pledge of
Allegiance at meetings of one of her community advisory boards. Marshall
said she wanted the board to discuss the idea, but her opponents--who made
sure that TV camera crews were present at the meeting where the issue first
surfaced--have turned her civil libertarian instincts into proof that she's
hostile to public expressions of patriotism.
In TV ads and newsletters, Marshall's opponents--who are gathering
signatures for a recall petition that, if successful, will go before the
voters this fall--claim that her alleged reluctance to have the pledge
recited was clear confirmation of their suspicion that she is a "socialist."
Ironically, the Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by a leading
Christian socialist, Francis Bellamy, who was fired from his Boston ministry
for his sermons depicting Jesus as a socialist. Bellamy penned the Pledge of
Allegiance for Youth's Companion, a magazine for young people published in
Boston with a circulation of about 500,000.
A few years earlier, the magazine had sponsored a largely successful
campaign to sell American flags to public schools. In 1891 the magazine
hired Bellamy--whose first cousin Edward Bellamy was the famous socialist
author of the utopian novel Looking Backward--to organize a public relations
campaign to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's
discovery of America by promoting use of the flag in public schools. Bellamy
gained the support of the National Education Association, along with
President Benjamin Harrison and Congress, for a national ritual observance
in the schools, and he wrote the Pledge of Allegiance as part of the
program's flag salute ceremony.
Bellamy thought such an event would be a powerful expression on behalf of
free public education. Moreover, he wanted all the schoolchildren of America
to recite the pledge at the same moment. He hoped the pledge would promote a
moral vision to counter the individualism embodied in capitalism and
expressed in the climate of the Gilded Age, with its robber barons and
exploitation of workers. Bellamy intended the line "One nation indivisible
with liberty and justice for all" to express a more collective and
egalitarian vision of America.
Bellamy's view that unbridled capitalism, materialism and individualism
betrayed America's promise was widely shared in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries. Many American radicals and progressive reformers proudly asserted
their patriotism. To them, America stood for basic democratic
values--economic and social equality, mass participation in politics, free
speech and civil liberties, elimination of the second-class citizenship of
women and racial minorities, a welcome mat for the world's oppressed people.
The reality of corporate power, right-wing xenophobia and social injustice
only fueled progressives' allegiance to these principles and the struggle to
achieve them.
Most Americans are unaware that much of our patriotic culture--including
many of the leading icons and symbols of American identity--was created by
artists and writers of decidedly left-wing and even socialist sympathies. A
look at the songs sung at post-9/11 patriotic tribute events and that appear
on the various patriotic compilation albums, or the clips incorporated into
film shorts celebrating the "American spirit," reveals that the
preponderance of these originated in the forgotten tradition of left-wing
patriotism.
Begin with the lines inscribed on the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your
tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Emma Lazarus
was a poet of considerable reputation in her day, a well-known figure in
literary circles. She was a strong supporter of Henry George and his
"socialistic" single-tax program, and a friend of William Morris, a leading
British socialist. Her welcome to the "wretched refuse" of the earth,
written in 1883, was an effort to project an inclusive and egalitarian
definition of the American dream.
The words to "America the Beautiful" were written in 1893 by Katharine Lee
Bates, a professor of English at Wellesley College. Bates was an
accomplished and published poet, whose book America the Beautiful and Other
Poems includes a sequence of poems expressing outrage at US imperialism in
the Philippines. Indeed, Bates identified with the anti-imperialist movement
of her day and was part of progressive reform circles in the Boston area
concerned about labor rights, urban slums and women's suffrage. She was also
an ardent feminist, and for decades lived with and loved her Wellesley
colleague Katharine Coman, an economist and social activist. "America the
Beautiful" not only speaks to the beauty of the American continent but also
reflects her view that US imperialism undermines the nation's core values of
freedom and liberty. The poem's final words--"and crown thy good with
brotherhood, from sea to shining sea"--are an appeal for social justice
rather than the pursuit of wealth.
Many Americans consider Woody Guthrie's song "This Land Is Your Land,"
penned in 1940, to be our unofficial national anthem. Guthrie was a radical
with strong ties to the Communist Party. He was inspired to write the song
as an answer to Irving Berlin's popular "God Bless America," which he
thought failed to recognize that it was the "people" to whom America
belonged. The words to "This Land Is Your Land" reflect Guthrie's fusion of
patriotism, support for the underdog and class struggle. In this song
Guthrie celebrates America's natural beauty and bounty but criticizes the
country for its failure to share its riches, reflected in the song's last
and least-known verse:
One bright sunny morning in the shadow of the steeple
By the relief office I saw my people.
As they stood hungry I stood there wondering
If this land was made for you and me.
Guthrie was not alone in combining patriotism and radicalism during the
Depression and World War II. In this period, many American composers,
novelists, artists and playwrights engaged in similar projects. In the early
1930s, for example, a group of young composers and musicians--including Marc
Blitzstein (author of the musical "The Cradle Will Rock"), Charles Seeger (a
well-known composer and musicologist, and father of folk singer Pete Seeger)
and Aaron Copland--formed the "composers' collective" to write music that
would serve the cause of the working class. They turned to American roots
and folk music for inspiration. Many of their compositions--including
Copland's "Fanfare for the Common Man" and "Lincoln Portrait"--are now
patriotic musical standards, regularly performed at major civic events.
Earl Robinson was a member of the composers' collective who pioneered the
effort to combine patriotism and progressivism. In 1939 he teamed with
lyricist John La Touche to write "Ballad for Americans," which was performed
on the CBS radio network by Paul Robeson, accompanied by chorus and
orchestra. This eleven-minute cantata provided a musical review of American
history, depicted as a struggle between the "nobodies who are everybody" and
an elite that fails to understand the real, democratic essence of America.
Robeson, at the time one of the best-known performers on the world stage,
became, through this work, a voice of America. Broadcasts and recordings of
"Ballad for Americans" (by Bing Crosby as well as Robeson) were immensely
popular. In the summer of 1940, it was performed at the national conventions
of both the Republican and Communist parties. The work soon became a staple
in school choral performances, but it was literally ripped out of many
public school songbooks after Robinson and Robeson were identified with the
radical left and blacklisted during the McCarthy period. Since then,
however, "Ballad for Americans" has been periodically revived, notably
during the bicentennial celebration in 1976, when a number of pop and
country singers performed it in concerts and on TV.
During World War II, with lyricist Lewis Allen, Robinson co-wrote another
patriotic hit, "The House I Live In." Its lyrics asked, and then answered,
the question posed in the first line of the song, "What is America to me?"
The song evokes America as a place where all races can live freely, where
one can speak one's mind, where the cities as well as the natural landscapes
are beautiful. The song was made a hit by Frank Sinatra in 1945. Sinatra
also starred in an Oscar-winning movie short--written by Albert Maltz, later
one of the Hollywood Ten--in which he sang "The House I Live In" to
challenge bigotry, represented in the movie by a gang of kids who rough up a
Jewish boy.
"The House I Live In," like "Ballad for Americans," was exceedingly popular
for several years but became controversial during the McCarthy period and
has largely disappeared from public consciousness. Its co-author, Lewis
Allen, was actually Abel Meeropol, a high school teacher who also penned
"Strange Fruit," the anti-lynching song made famous by Billie Holiday. In
the 1950s Meeropol and his wife adopted the sons of Julius and Ethel
Rosenberg after their parents were executed as atom spies. Despite this,
Sinatra kept the song in his repertoire. Perhaps the most astonishing
performance of "The House I Live In" was at the nationally televised
commemoration of the centenary of the Statue of Liberty in 1986, when
Sinatra sang it as the finale to the program, with President Ronald Reagan
and his wife, Nancy Reagan, sitting directly in front of him.
Only a handful of Americans could have grasped the political irony of that
moment: Sinatra performing a patriotic anthem written by blacklisted writers
to a President who, as head of the Screen Actors Guild in the 1950s, helped
create Hollywood's purge of radicals. Sinatra's own left-wing (and nearly
blacklisted) past, and the history of the song itself, have been obliterated
from public memory.
Even during the 1960s, American progressives continued to seek ways to fuse
their love of country with their opposition to the national government's
policies. The March on Washington in 1963 gathered at the Lincoln Memorial,
where Martin Luther King Jr. famously quoted the words to "My Country 'Tis
of Thee." Phil Ochs, then part of a new generation of politically conscious
singer-songwriters who emerged during the 1960s, wrote an anthem in the
Guthrie vein, "Power and Glory," which coupled love of country with a strong
plea for justice and equality. Interestingly, this song later became part of
the repertoire of the US Army band. And in 1968, in a famous antiwar speech
on the steps of the Capitol, Norman Thomas, the aging leader of the
Socialist Party, proclaimed, "I come to cleanse the American flag, not burn
it."
In recent decades, Bruce Springsteen has most closely followed in the
Guthrie tradition. From "Born in the USA," to his songs about Tom Joad (the
militant protagonist in John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath), to his recent
anthem for the victims of the September 11 tragedy ("My City of Ruins"),
whom he urges to "come on rise up!" Springsteen has championed the
downtrodden while challenging America to live up to its ideals. Indeed, by
performing both "Born in the USA" and "Land of Hope and Dreams" at benefits
for the families of World Trade Center casualties, Springsteen has coupled
his anger at injustice with his belief in the nation's promise.
In each major period of twentieth-century history--the Progressive era, the
Depression, World War II and the postwar era--American radicals and
progressives expressed a patriotism rooted in democratic values and
consciously aimed at challenging jingoism and "my country, right or wrong"
thinking. Every day, millions of Americans pledge allegiance to the flag,
sing "America the Beautiful" and "This Land Is Your Land," and memorize the
words on the Statue of Liberty without knowing the names of their authors,
their political inspiration or the historical context in which they were
written.
The progressive authors of much of America's patriotic iconography rejected
blind nationalism, militaristic drumbeating and sheeplike conformism. So it
would be a dire mistake to allow, by default, jingoism to become synonymous
with patriotism and the American spirit. Throughout our nation's history,
radicals and reformers have viewed their movements as profoundly patriotic.
They have believed that America's core claims--fairness, equality, freedom,
justice--were their own. In the midst of current patriotic exuberance both
authentic and manipulated, then, it is useful to recall the forgotten
cultural legacy of the left. We need to ask, once again, "What is America to
us?"
BILL DOBBINS
colonists came from countries in which the govt dictated what religion could
be practiced. The creators of the constitution didn't want this to ever
happen in the US. So the stipulated that the govt and all its institutions
and functions should be secular - not anti-religion, but non-religious.
This was done to
1. protect religions from govt interference
2. allow citizens to worship or not worship any way they chose
By the way, in a country with real liberty freedom OF religion also implies
freedom FROM religion.
The Bill of Rights was developed in large part to protect minorities from
the dictatorship of the majority. The majority of Americans are Christians
(although it is the vocal and extreme minority of fundamentalists we hear
from most). They WANT the US to be a religious country - and specifically a
Christian country. But this means imposing their views on everyone else - a
view they would object to if the majority happened to be, say, Muslims.
There are many people who would prefer not to say "under god" in a pledge of
allegiance, such as the following:
1. Deists, who don't believe in a god that messes with the world.
2. Agnostics who don't reject god but admit to having no information one way
or the other.
3. Buddhists
4. Hindus
5. Atheists
6. People who understand that church and state are supposed to remain
separate in the United States.
Why was "under god" put into the pledge? It was done by religious believers
who wanted to inject religion into government. The same people who want
prayer in schools. The same people who think "In God We Trust" is an
appropriate phrase to use on American money. The same people who support
the idea of "God Bless America" being displayed in schools and government
buildings. The very same ones who reject the idea that Christmas displays
on govt property is in any way offensive to non Christians.
In other words - by individuals who want to enforce their view of religion
on the rest of the US, whether other Americans agree or not.
That is what the court was thinking of when it declared the current pledge
unconstitutional. Simple as that. Nothing in this ruing prevents
individuals from praying on their own, teaching religion to their children,
sending them to Sunday school or to any other institution of religious
education, going to a church, temple or mosque or speaking up for their
religious values as individual citizens.
Simple as that.
BD
in article 3D1B66...@Yahoo.com, Dr Arm® at Genuin...@Yahoo.com wrote
on 6/27/02 12:22 PM:
RedFang
" Under god " was added in 1954, damn DrArm you are older than dirt.
Dr Arm®
you that communist guy that ran for president?
da
Dr Arm®
>
> Dr ArmŽ <Genuin...@Yahoo.com> wrote in news:3D1B66...@Yahoo.com:
You mean you weren't yet in school in 1954? You child!
da
Dr Arm®
out. I hope this doesn't mean that it's time to doff our aluminum
ray-protection helmets. And what makes you think Hindus don't trust God?
They trust lots of Gods.
Speaking as an atheist, I have no problem with this God nonsense: Since
God doesn't exist, there is no God "to be under" or to "trust", ipso
facto, no problem. But that's my personal view.
The constitution does not address religion: Religion is among what is
considered a "personal freedom" and as such is dealth with in the Bill
of Rights. Nowhere does the BoR say that religion is forbidden in
public, or that the government has to wipe every last vestage of it from
public institutions. And if you include atheism as one of the protected
religions, then the goverenment is forbidden to be atheist as well. Of
course athesim is a protected form of religion, and of course the
government is forbidden to be atheist. Or is athesim mearly the absence
of religion hense argueably the defination that the BoR intended? Who
then protects us from athesim? It is a real issue when, in these modern
days, the offical state religiion of some countries is, in fact,
athesim. As a living document, the BoR must be adjusted to accomodate
this new form of religion that the founding fathers did not forsee.
The manner in which the courts enforce the second amendment is ten times
more inconsistant than the application of the death penalty. Maybe it's
valid that the symbols of religion be prohibited from government and
public buildings, the star of David and the cross, for example, but the
ten commandments? These deal with law and, like it or not, are as much a
basis for our legal foundation as the Code of Hamurabi, which also had
religious foundings and religious references, but which is taught in
schools. Are only archaic religions to be tolerated by the state?
If it bothers some groups, even the groups you cited, that there are
artifacts of religion in our government, then it would bother other
groups a heck of a lot more if these aspects weren't there. The
government doesn't have any business selecting a national religion, but
does that mean the Senators are prohibited from their prayer breakfasts,
held in the Senate Buildings? The Supreme Court has already answered
that one.
While it's clear to me that this country is not "under God" (at least
not demonstraby), and that phrase probably shouldn't be used in the
pledge (mainly because it demands loyalty to two different institutions,
God and Country, and hence waters down the very intent of the pledge), I
don't like the exclusion of the ten commandments from law and education,
and I certainly would not like the removal of "In God We Trust" from our
coinage. That last I base on the aesthetic reason that I think it looks
good on the coins.
But to insist that the phrase "under God" is a right-wing Mccarthyism
overreaction misses the aspect that appeals to many that like the
phrase: That it's probably just as lopsided to be forced to pledge to
the flag or to country as to any god, or anything else for that matter.
Eliminate the pledge, or don't force people to pledge to a flag if their
religious convictions (including the convictions of us atheists) will
not tolerate a higher power to pledge to than themselves. It's not
enough just to tolerate silence: As the instigator of the recent court
action himself said, the government shouldn't put people inthe position
where they have to make a choice. Unfortunately once you introduce the
idea of a pledge to *anything* you insult somebody's minority rights and
backing up to purging the noncommital minor artifacts of the various
religions from governmental institutions is probably the bigger social
danger.
da
Dr Arm®
magazine, you think it is gospel truth. Here's a clue for you: Most
magazine articles are myoptically one-seded and limited in scope to the
prejudices of the authors, in this case the two left wing henchmen that
wrote the article. Articles in magazines are NOT written to clarify an
obscure point, but to EARN the authors a few dollars. One article
without the contratictions of fifty other articles is only one bad
article, no matter how good the grammer is. Your authors unwittingly
omitted the entire history of the Pledge, and the reason it came into
existance in the first place, instead focusing on the things they
apparently didn't understand about it's history. I'm glad to see they
included Arlo Guthrie's contribution to the Pledge, though.
Like most left-wing extremeists, you see only one slender reason for
including (in this case) a quasi-religious phrase in the Pledge: Anyone
that would tolerate such a phrase must be a right-wing extremeist, and
since all right wing extrememists look alike to you there must be a
strong religious motive to include it. Of course you (or your henchmen
authors) never considered that there may be other reasons to include a
phrase that puts the Pledge in the context that the governmentr is not
the end-all, be-all authority that liberals would like it to be, and
that, just maybe, there might be a higher power than that imposed by the
government.
I suspect if you leftwing kooks really ever got your way you would be
pledging directly to the IRS.
da
BILL DOBBINS
on 6/27/02 3:51 PM:
There is no "conspiracy" - just a lot of Americans who are Christians, much
more religious than most countries in Europe, and who want their own view of
religion to be recognized by the govt. This is a fairly normal state of
affairs, and exactly what the writers of the constitution had in mind to
prevent.
We have a right wing extremist religious nut as attorney general and a
president who answers to the Christian right as well. They have just okayed
"school vouchers," which is a way of channeling public school money to
religious schools.
So the court ruling against "under god" probably will be overturned. But
legally it shouldn't be. Politics will prevail over a strict interpretation
of the constitition - which is something the conservatives claim they are in
favor of.
So what else is new?
BD
Dr Arm®
>
> in article 3D1B97...@Yahoo.com, Dr ArmŽ at Genuin...@Yahoo.com wrote
We have one of the most centered Atorney Generals that's we've had in a
long time.
"School vouchers" allow money to go to the schools that actually educate
the kids, rather than feeding a union-driven baby sitting service that
makes no effort to educate anybody. Your resentment against them is
purly based on your political labelism.
> So the court ruling against "under god" probably will be overturned. But
> legally it shouldn't be. Politics will prevail over a strict interpretation
> of the constitition - which is something the conservatives claim they are in
> favor of.
Dachiel being one of these politicians. Decheil, the liberal Democrat,
that is. According to the Yahoo article, the 9th district court is the
most overturned court in the country.
>
> So what else is new?
Definately not the old Left.
da
Dr Arm®
wing version:
Dr Arm®
>
> There is no "conspiracy" - just a lot of Americans who are Christians, much
> more religious than most countries in Europe, and who want their own view of
> religion to be recognized by the govt. This is a fairly normal state of
Nonsense. Poland threw off Communism because of Catholic religious
uprisings. In Russia the church was an underground movement that the
Communists could not root out. Most European countries are strongly
religious. The few where religion takes little role are the obvious
ones: England and the Scandanavian countries. Italy, Spain, Ukraine,
Rumania, France, and most of the others are much more religious than
typicaly American. And the Jewish communitites are even more so
religious. You seem to be at war with the Christian God, but nowhere
does the Pledge mentionn that the God is the Christian god. Personally I
think they ment Baal.
> affairs, and exactly what the writers of the constitution had in mind to
> prevent.
Wrong. There is no mention of religion in the Constitution. The Bill of
Rights addresses the personal freedoms and was added as an afterthought
after the COnstitution was adopted by the 13 states. It is in the BoR
that religious independence is addressed and states thta the government
shall not create a state religion. That would certainly include athesim,
like the Communists countries have made their state religion.
>
> We have a right wing extremist religious nut as attorney general and a
Ashcraft a nut? Ashcraft is a damm good attornet general, unless you
disagree with holding Al Queada as prisoners of war. What did you call a
wacked out leftist old maid that prosecuted day care centers for no good
reason or burned out a religious commune?
> president who answers to the Christian right as well. They have just okayed
> "school vouchers," which is a way of channeling public school money to
> religious schools.
School vouchers go to all private schools, not just the christian
schools. Jewish and non-religious schools get them also.
You seem to have a problem with Christians. You really need to get over
that.
da
Anonymous
knocked this one out of the park. Tony Blair, et. al may tell us how
non-religious Europa is, but DA has got it right. Compared to Europe, we
look like the secular nation.
A.
"Dr ArmŽ" <Genuin...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3D1BD2...@Yahoo.com...
Dr Arm®
other than the Church of England from Britian's boarders. This includes
attempts to eradicate the catholics from Scotland and Ireland, where the
English's genocide against the Irish has only been curtailed in our
lifetimes, or at least minimized.
In any event, to claim that England is "without religion" or less
religious than the US is to say that religions other than the C of E
have been successfully quashed in England.
Of course the C of E is a state-run and state-sponcered religion, so any
claims of non-religion from the English is about as credible as a
similiar claim about Vatican City. It just ain't so.
The English may not make a big deal about their C of E state religion,
but the fact there there is an official religion in England is miles
beyound anything the US ever had. Of course there's very little
religious controversy in England, everybody belongs to the same church,
so there is no controvercy.
The Communists countries, Russia, and the others also had a
state-religion for a time. It was called "Athesim". It was the
state-mandated religious preference and the only one tolerated by law
in. The Soviets did the most they could to take the other religions out
of their country, including the Islamic religions, in favor of Athesism.
The Greeks still fight the Turks over religion. So which countrys in
Europe are less religious than the US? I don't know where Dobbins gets
his ideas from. Creeping leftism, I suspect.
Or maybe he was just referring to the Baptists? :)
da
Anonymous wrote:
>
> Yep. I was going to add a long rant to Dobbins' misinformation, but DA
> knocked this one out of the park. Tony Blair, et. al may tell us how
> non-religious Europa is, but DA has got it right. Compared to Europe, we
> look like the secular nation.
>
> A.
>
> "Dr Arm®" <Genuin...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
BILL DOBBINS
The Soviet Union attempted to suppress religion. The Taliban wanted to
dictate their own brand of religion. The early colonists were fleeing
countries that tried to force them to adopt religions other than the ones
they believed in. That's why the separation of church and state...to
guarantee religious freedom. Separation of church and state is one way of
making that guarantee work.
The court ruling merely said you can't include "under god" in a pledge said
in public schools. Schools are supposed to be religiously neutral, not anti
relgion. Obviously the phrase was added to the pledge in the 50s by right
wing Christian zealots. Their intention was religious...which is against
the constitution.
By the way, you can't deny it is Christians who are trying to insist on
keeping "under god" in the pledge and trying to get prayer in schools. You
don't hear Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, deists, agnostics or
atheists supporting these views.
Again, this is not anti religion - it is pro religious freedom and
tolerance. This is so obvious that I've had to stop watching the cable news
shows with all their fake outrage about how "ridiculous" the ruling was.
They know better...or should.
BD
in article 3D1BD2...@Yahoo.com, Dr Arm® at Genuin...@Yahoo.com wrote
on 6/27/02 8:05 PM:
BILL DOBBINS
should be maintained a left wing one? Isn't it the conservatives who insist
on strict construction of the constitution?
BD
in article 3D1BC6...@Yahoo.com, Dr Arm® at Genuin...@Yahoo.com wrote
on 6/27/02 7:14 PM:
BILL DOBBINS
positioned to the FAR right and is a religious zealot. Bush appointed him
in deference to his conservative supporters.
This really isn't a matter of debate - as would be the validity of his views
and rightness of his positions. He is, for example, way to the right of
conservative George Will - even more to the right than George W. Bush.
Again, you may feel his views are entirely correct - but there is no
question as to his conservatism.
BD
in article 3D1BC5...@Yahoo.com, Dr Arm® at Genuin...@Yahoo.com wrote
on 6/27/02 7:07 PM:
> BILL DOBBINS wrote:
>>
>> in article 3D1B97...@Yahoo.com, Dr Arm® at Genuin...@Yahoo.com wrote
>>>> in article 3D1B66...@Yahoo.com, Dr Arm® at Genuin...@Yahoo.com wrote
BILL DOBBINS
who studies these things knows that Western Europe is tremendously secular
by US standards. The proportion of Europeans who attend church regularly is
a fraction of Americans who do so. Europeans think we are a nation of
relgious nuts.
Religion in Easter Europe and the Soviet Union was suppressed under the
communists and there has been an increase in relgious observance since the
fall of the "evil empire." But not to the extent you see it in the US.
You can look his stuff up, you know.
BD
in article um67sRlHCHA.1992@cpimsnntpa03, Anonymous at no...@nothanks.com
wrote on 6/27/02 8:24 PM:
> Yep. I was going to add a long rant to Dobbins' misinformation, but DA
> knocked this one out of the park. Tony Blair, et. al may tell us how
> non-religious Europa is, but DA has got it right. Compared to Europe, we
> look like the secular nation.
>
> A.
>
>
> "Dr Arm®" <Genuin...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
BILL DOBBINS
social practice than tyranny of religion. Consider the extent religions
used to be forced on people in the not so distant past. Remember the
Inquisition. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for her religious views
(or that was the excuse). Blasphemy and/or sacrilege used to get you
executed. The Puritans were religious refugees.
Freedom of religion and the separation of church and stage were intended by
the founding fathers to PREVENT this kind of situation from developing in
the US. If it were up to Pat Robertson, right wing Christianity would
dictate the laws and accetable moral practices of the United States.
Because we have freedom of religion, Robertson can hold his views and others
with different beliefs can hold theirs. I don't understand why this is so
difficult to understand.
BD
in article 3D1BF0...@Yahoo.com, Dr Arm® at Genuin...@Yahoo.com wrote
on 6/27/02 10:14 PM:
Dr Arm®
>
> The Soviet Union attempted to suppress religion. The Taliban wanted to
> dictate their own brand of religion. The early colonists were fleeing
> countries that tried to force them to adopt religions other than the ones
> they believed in.
False. Most people believe that but it's not true. The colonists that
came to America, the Puritans and the Protestants, weren't looking for
religious freedom. They were looking to exclude the influences of other
sects on their congregations. They were religiously intolerant, and that
is why they came to the new world. Religious tolerance existed in
England at the time, these people weren't fleeing England they were
seeking a "Jim Jones" enviornment. What you believe about religious
tolerance is a common misconception, though the fact that these people
were so intolerant is a possible contributator to the establishment of a
no state religion amendment to the OCnstitution.
That's why the separation of church and state...to
> guarantee religious freedom. Separation of church and state is one way of
> making that guarantee work.
>
> The court ruling merely said you can't include "under god" in a pledge said
> in public schools. Schools are supposed to be religiously neutral, not anti
> relgion. Obviously the phrase was added to the pledge in the 50s by right
> wing Christian zealots.
That part is "obvious" only to a left wing fanatic. What proof, other
than your gratituitous use of the word "obvious" can you offer? It just
ain't so. It was a popular movement at the time.
Their intention was religious...which is against
> the constitution.
>
> By the way, you can't deny it is Christians who are trying to insist on
> keeping "under god" in the pledge and trying to get prayer in schools. You
> don't hear Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, deists, agnostics or
> atheists supporting these views.
Fact is, I don't hear Christians supporting it either. All I see in the
newspaper is left wing retoric and finger pointing by leftwing
extreamists and irrelevant rhetoric by politicians demanding that the
ruling be overturned. When I asked a Hindu Indian that I work with about
her feeling about the phrase she was very much in favor of the phrase,
though she hadn't known about it before.
Then again, how many Zoroastrian churches are there in your
neighborhood? I don't see any of these people rejoicing in the court
decision eihter. For you to claim that someohow the word "God" is
userped by the christians, you might as well deny the existance of all
these other religions altogether becasue it's not true, every religious
person seems to like the phrase, even the Chinese that I talk with. In
fact, the only people happy with this ruling appear to be a small
segment of the Atheists, myself (an Athiest) not included. I don't like
this recent trend by courts against insignificant religous vesteges in
American public life. I wsa very much against the recent Tennessee
decision to exclude the ten commandments from a public building, but not
on religious grounds.
>
> Again, this is not anti religion - it is pro religious freedom and
> tolerance. This is so obvious that I've had to stop watching the cable news
> shows with all their fake outrage about how "ridiculous" the ruling was.
> They know better...or should.
I agree with you to a point here. The media reactions have been
predictably off-track and missing the point.
I myself never liked the phrase and don't believe it should have ever
been included but I don't like the idea of removing it now either. The
pledge itself is the problem, not the phrase about God. You look at the
phrase as though it declares that the nation is a religious
establishment, I look at it as that the nation is subject to the review
of a higher power. I know that isn't the issue you addressed but I think
you let your preconceived notion of the phrase mold your opinion.
da
Dr Arm®
Dr Arm®
>
> Whether you agree with him or not, you can't claim that Ashcroft isn't
> positioned to the FAR right and is a religious zealot. Bush appointed him
> in deference to his conservative supporters.
I do disaggree, Ashcroft's actions have been conservative, but very
centered conservative. He did an excellent job in protecting civil
rights after the 9/11 horror, a terrific job of unwinding some of the
unconstitutional nonsense that goes as far back as the Roosevelt
administration, especially (but not limited to) as regards the second
amendment and he is handling this POW issue with wings. The guy is a
great AG, definately not a reactionary nut like the last one.
Maybe it's not a matter of debate for you, but that's more an indication
of your reactionary left wing exteremism politics. "Conservatism" is not
far right, it's middle of the road. You have the leftists habit of
calling everything you find morally outrageous "rightwing" or
"conservative". I don't think I've ever seen you use those words
complementarily, I suspect that would not fit the mold of your thinking.
da
>
> This really isn't a matter of debate - as would be the validity of his views
> and rightness of his positions. He is, for example, way to the right of
> conservative George Will - even more to the right than George W. Bush.
>
> Again, you may feel his views are entirely correct - but there is no
> question as to his conservatism.
>
> BD
>
> in article 3D1BC5...@Yahoo.com, Dr ArmŽ at Genuin...@Yahoo.com wrote
> on 6/27/02 7:07 PM:
>
> > BILL DOBBINS wrote:
> >>
> >> in article 3D1B97...@Yahoo.com, Dr ArmŽ at Genuin...@Yahoo.com wrote
> >>>> in article 3D1B66...@Yahoo.com, Dr ArmŽ at Genuin...@Yahoo.com wrote
Dr Arm®
"separation of church and state". The first amendment mearly states that
the government shall not establish a state religion. That isn't
necessarily the same thing as seperation.
Fact is, taxing the churches should be first thing we do, same as if
they were anybody else. Seperation is an interpretation that the courts
have developed over the years, but it's not constitutional.
My personal position is that there should be no pledge at all. The
aspect of adding "under God" to the pledge only waters down the intent
of the pledge as far a I see. My position is that everyone is focusing
on the wrong issue. Requiring children to recite a pledge, effectively
an oath, is what I find intrusive. Take that requirement out of the
picture and the lessor of the two evils is the "under God" phrase.
That's strict Constitutionalism.
The issue is wider than just this ruling yesterday. Just last month a
Tennessee court ruled that a display of the Ten Commandments at the city
hall building was Constitutionally illegal. While I would have had a
problem if they displayed an overt symbol of religion such as a cross or
Star of David, the commandments are a legitmate antecedent of our modern
day laws. To ban their display just because they also carry a religious
connotation is troublesome to me. I don't like this new mentality of
rooting out things. It reeks of "The Night of the Broken Glass" to me.
da
Dr Arm®
>
> The C of E may be the "official" religion of Britain, but this is more of a
> social practice than tyranny of religion. Consider the extent religions
> used to be forced on people in the not so distant past. Remember the
> Inquisition. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for her religious views
Wrong, She was burned by the English for leading a French army against
them. Joan led the French against the English. Eventually she was
captured by the English and burned at the stake, though the French did
prevail in ridding France of the English. Where did you get the idea she
was burned for her religious views? I think you have the wrong idea of
who Joan was. Maybe you're thinking of Joan Lunden.
> (or that was the excuse). Blasphemy and/or sacrilege used to get you
> executed. The Puritans were religious refugees.
You were doing fine up till the last line: The Puritans wanted to
restore the C of E to a very strict fundamentalism. They were the "Pat
Robertson's" (as you define Robertson, not a valid definition, BTW) of
their day. The Puritans were about as intollerant as any group of
chicken worshipers. Remember it was the Puritans that burned the witches
in Salem. The Puritans came to America so they could protect themselves,
and their children from the influences of the (degree of) religious
tolerance in England. They were not a tollerant lot! The C of E was very
happy to see them go. Or did you think King James gave out huge tracts
of land in the new world to people seeking religious freedom? Now that's
naieve.
>
> Freedom of religion and the separation of church and stage were intended by
> the founding fathers to PREVENT this kind of situation from developing in
> the US.
> If it were up to Pat Robertson, right wing Christianity would
> dictate the laws and accetable moral practices of the United States.
If it were up to Bob Guccione the irreverent pratices of Penthouse would
dictate the laws and acceptable morality of the United States, much to
Hugh Hefner's distaste.
Pat Robertson is not particularly extreme in his views. I understand
that he scares the intollerant leftwing liberal extremeists because he
is political-minded, but he is not a Jerry Fallwell. He is reasonably
intellegent and open-minded and of a "full disclosure" mentality. He is
Christian, and that shades his judgement, of course, but he is no Pol
Pot, or other leftwing intolerant extremist.
Once again, I see a lot of the influence of your personal "war" with
Christanity in your comments. Most men get over that by middle age. Why
not just come out and say "Christianity bad, all else good" and be done
with it? If it wasn't for Christanity we would still be living in the
Dark Ages and facing Mecca three times a day. Christanity (and all
religions) may have outlived it's usefulness today, but there are a lot
worse things out there. Get over it.
da
Anonymous
Re: Europe -- Poland, Slovenia, Croatia, Italy, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, my
fingers are getting tired. In these countries, and others, religion is a
primary cultural force. Not the "half do, half don't" quality of religion
as in the U.S. Greece is 98% Greek Orthodox. Spain, 99% Roman Catholic.
The European governmental ideal has been to aspire to secular governments,
but religion continues to be an awesome force in European life (ever heard
of the Christian Democrat parties?).
And as for Eastern Europe, yes the Communists attempted to limit the role of
religion, and had relative success in Romania, Moldova, Albania, etc.
Romania is now 70% Romanian Orthodox. Slovakia is 60% RC. Croatia 76% RC.
In the hardest hit countries, people have flocked to churches since 1989 (as
they have also flocked to department stores, bookstores, foreign travel,
etc.). The pervasiveness of religion in Communist Poland helped the trade
union SOLIDARITY kick the commies in the nuts. Heck, even in Romania the
mistreatment of Minister Laszlo Tokes led to the downfall of the
government--Tokes was ordered out of his church on December 10, 1989, and
two weeks later Ceaucescu was dead, after 25 years of despotic rule.
The point is that these are not atheistic societies--far from it. I've been
to Slovenia, Romania, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovakia. Let me tell
you, religion is pervasive. Euro politicians may do less grandstanding on
religion, yet precisely because religion is such a strong force in society
and thus beyond argument. Also, in my observations in Eastern Europe many
of the rituals in regards to religion are taken far more seriously than in
the US (how often have we all attended a church wedding where the couple
have never/rarely attended before?). We can agree that the Robert
Byrd's/Tom DeLay's of the world look pretty stupid when embroiled in a
religion-fueled rant about American life, but I disagree heartily with your
interpretation of religious life in Europe. It's simplistic and appears to
fit in with your larger political beliefs. Regardless, why should we care
if Europe thinks we are too religious/not religious enough? Seems that our
entire country was founded on the principle that we're going to do it our
own way.
A.
"BILL DOBBINS" <bill...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:B9414776.8395%bill...@gte.net...
ad...@femuscle.org
empirical data available to me now that would support the argument that the
majority of "American citizens" believe in "God". Notice I just said God.
Some God, any God. Not Christian, Buddhist, Muslim.....just God.
However, I would be willing to wager that if a pole were taken, I truly
believe that the believers would outnumber the non believers. I defy anyone
to successfully argue that this country, its laws, and government, are not
grounded in Judean Christian beliefs, or to find someone, anyone having been
in war, not as some time, got down on his knees, cried, and prayed to God
that the destruction all around them would stop, or thanked him for saving
his life....even as they saw their best friends blown to hell by "the
enemy".
To argue that this country is Secular is ludicrous. If it were, why do we
allow people of Muslim, Buddhist, and/or other religions into this country.
I don't think we really care what you believe. However, if you want to be
here and stay here, you must follow certain "rules" to gain citizenship. I
whole heartedly believe that there should be a limit on how long anyone
should be able to reside here without applying for citizenship. If you
weren't born here or a naturalized citizen, you aren't entitled to the
"rights" we stand for and protect. These rights are reserved for the
citizens of the U.S. and for "temporary" visitors.
You don't believe in God...hey that's your privilege. A privilege that THIS
GOVERNMENT PROTECTS....but the fact that you don't believe doesn't give you
the right to change or force change to support what is clearly a minority
point of view....
This separation of church and state thing I believe has been twisted into
something the "fathers" did not intend. I believe the intent was to have a
government that would admonish or force anyone to believe in the Catholic,
or Protestant, or Methodist, etc God. Simple as that...and not to keep God,
in general, out of government.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR
PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Nowhere does it say that we should remove all aspects of "God" from
government, or the peoples lives!
I too remember saying the pledge before the "under God" words were added. I
was too young to have an opinion on it at the time. My parents, one of whom
emigrated from another country didn't seem to mind...why would they....we
went to church every Sunday....if we were Muslim, we would have gone to
Mosque, if we were Jewish, we would have gone to Synagogue...maybe on a
different day...but we would have gone just the same...
Just my opinion.....if you are just "visiting" this country...you shouldn't
be forced to pledge allegiance to our flag or country....however, if you are
a citizen...and you don't want to say the pledge...fine...leave the
room....don't say it....hey that's our prerogative....but be prepared for
the glares, the disrespect, and perhaps downright cruel manner in which you
will be treated because of your actions....that's the key....there are
consequences to your actions...and/or inactions....its just a fact of life!
--
just a thought,
"BILL DOBBINS" <bill...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:B94104BE.8378%bill...@gte.net...
ad...@femuscle.org
religious. "
just a question....uhhh.....why do you think that is?
--
just a thought,
"Dr Arm®" <Genuin...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3D1BD2...@Yahoo.com...
ad...@femuscle.org
surprised....as I was during a conversation with a Jew shortly after the
ruling....it would appear Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus may not mind the
"under God" being kept, as it doesn't refer to any one God, but rather God
in general.
--
just a thought,
"BILL DOBBINS" <bill...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:B9414655.8393%bill...@gte.net...
ad...@femuscle.org
another:}
--
just a thought,
ad...@femuscle.org
"Dr Arm®" <Genuin...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3D1B8B...@Yahoo.com...
> RedFang wrote:
> >
> > Dr Arm® <Genuin...@Yahoo.com> wrote in news:3D1B66...@Yahoo.com:
ad...@femuscle.org
religion or God...I will explain one simple fact...my position is that the
use of the words "under God" is a general statement....one that takes
encompasses: under Buddha, under Allah,under Yahweh, and under Vishnu and
Shiva...but not atheism.....all I can do is pray for atheists:}... so don't
accuse me of not doing my homework....oh and by the way....its ok that you
support the court ruling....that's your prerogative....and I support your
right to have your own opinion....just as you should support my right to
have a dissenting opinion.
--
just a thought,
ad...@femuscle.org
"Poster" <the_p...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:25b7f327.02062...@posting.google.com...
> <ad...@femuscle.org> wrote in message
news:<CRBS8.1427$So4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > Well...some moronic buttheads finally went and did it....The ACLU and
> > anarchist from both the right and the left are ripping and tearing at
the
> > very fabric of this great nation....
>
> Fabric of this great nation? WTF? The ACLU had nothing to do
> with the lawsuit. If something as silly as this is going to
> cause the downfall of this country, then we deserve it.
>
>
> > It's now un constitutional to pledge
> > allegiance to the flag.....
>
> No, they said the phrase "under god" (which wasn't orginally
> part of the pledge in the first place) was unconstitutional.
> They didn't say the whole pledge was unconstitutional.
>
>
> > Next they'll be telling you that its
> > unconstitutional to posses that dollar bill you have in your pocket...
> > I'm confident this idiotic decision handed down by the courts will be
> > overturned!...There was at least one judge who had his head screwed on
right
> > that morning....uhhh....I just thought of something....doesn't the
> > Constitution itself make references to God?...so now the Constitution is
> > unconstitutional?....
> >
>
> People aren't forced to recite the Constitution.
>
>
> > "The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When
sitting
> > for that purpose, they shall be ON OATH affirmation. When the President
of
> > the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no
person
> > shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members
> > present."
> >
> > "Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the
following
> > oath or affirmation:--"I do SOLEMNLY SWEAR (or affirm) that I will
> > faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and
will to
> > the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of
the
> > United States."
> >
> > uhhh...ON OATH...SOLEMNLY SWEAR?....so now what?...you raise your right
hand
> > and swear to Osama bin Ladin that you're gonna tell the truth?
> >
>
> Why should they have to swear to anyone but the American
> public? That's who they serve.
>
>
> > "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of
the
> > several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers,
both of
> > the United States and of the several states, SHALL BE BOUND BY OATH or
> > affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall
ever
> > be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the
> > United States.
> >
> > Religious test?...uhh you mean like......my God's better than your God?
> >
>
> What does any of this rambling have to do with "under god"
> being in the Pledge of Allegiance? I see you've also missed
> the "or affirmation" part that comes after "shall be bound
> by oath". In case you didn't know, "or affirmation" allows
> people to swear to something without having to invoke the
> name of any diety. You really should have a better idea
> of what you're talking about before you start ranting.
>
>
>
> > Amendment I
> >
> > "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR
> > PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of
speech,
> > or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
to
> > petition the government for a redress of grievances."
> >
> > well folks there you have it...there's where it's going to get
> > overturned...the very thing they based their case on will in the end, be
> > what brings them down.....what idiots!
> >
>
> Taking "under god" out of the Pledge doesn't stop you or anyone
> else from going to church or choosing to practice whatever religion
> they want. If you're so gung-ho on this, then would you support
> changing "under god" to "under god, under Buddah, under Allah,
> under Yahweh, and under Vishnu and Shiva, and under no god" or
> is it only your religion that you care about imposing on others?
> If "prohibiting the free excercise thereof" was grounds for
> overturning the ruling, then prayer would still be in schools.
> It's amazing that we, as a nation, have become dumber in the
> 200+ years since its founding.
>
> In case you haven't noticed, the court made the right decision
> and I fully support what this guy did.
>
ad...@femuscle.org
decision.....God save the Queen!.....uhhh that was a joke coming from an
American....just in case you didn't get it!
--
just a thought,
ad...@femuscle.org
"John Larocque" <john_l...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:DGKS8.5198$ZM3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> > I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America...and to
> the
> > republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with
> > liberty and justice for all.
>
> You can drop the reference to "under God", which was a McCarthy-era
> insertion to the original oath. View below to a history of the oath.
>
> http://www.thenation.com/docPrint.mhtml?i=20020603&s=dreier
>
> REVIEW | June 3, 2002
>
> Patriotism's Secret History
> by Peter Dreier & Dick Flacks
>
>
> Many Americans believe that the left is "antipatriotic" (and even
> anti-American), while the political right truly expresses the American
> spirit and reveres its symbols. Particularly since the late 1960s--when
the
> movement against US intervention in Vietnam gained momentum--the terms
> "progressive" and "patriotism" have rarely been used in the same sentence,
> at least in the mainstream media. It has become conventional wisdom that
> conservatives wave the American flag while leftists burn it. Patriotic
> Americans display the flag on their homes; progressives turn it upside
down
> to show contempt.
>
> Recent months have seen a dramatic increase in the number of Americans
> proudly displaying the Stars and Stripes on their cars, homes, businesses,
> T-shirts, caps, lapel pins and even tattoos. This outpouring of
flag-waving
> signifies a variety of sentiments--from identification with the victims of
> the September 11 attacks to support for the military's invasion of
> Afghanistan. But in our popular culture, displays of the American flag
> are--along with the very idea of "patriotism"--typically viewed as
> expressions of "conservative" politics. The patriotic fervor since
September
> 11 has revitalized that belief and, as in other times, has given
> conservative politicos and pundits a handy means to undermine dissent and
> progressive initiatives.
>
> A case in point: In Santa Barbara, California, progressive County
Supervisor
> Gail Marshall is facing the possibility of a recall election fueled by
> right-wing forces opposed to her support for environmental regulation,
> affordable housing and labor unions. Because Marshall occupies the key
swing
> seat on the five-member county board, Santa Barbara's conservative
> activists--funded by oil interests, agribusiness and land developers--have
> been trying to unseat her for years. They launched a recall campaign after
> Marshall refused to rubber-stamp a proposal to require the Pledge of
> Allegiance at meetings of one of her community advisory boards. Marshall
> said she wanted the board to discuss the idea, but her opponents--who made
> sure that TV camera crews were present at the meeting where the issue
first
> surfaced--have turned her civil libertarian instincts into proof that
she's
> hostile to public expressions of patriotism.
>
> In TV ads and newsletters, Marshall's opponents--who are gathering
> signatures for a recall petition that, if successful, will go before the
> voters this fall--claim that her alleged reluctance to have the pledge
> recited was clear confirmation of their suspicion that she is a
"socialist."
>
> Ironically, the Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by a leading
> Christian socialist, Francis Bellamy, who was fired from his Boston
ministry
> for his sermons depicting Jesus as a socialist. Bellamy penned the Pledge
of
> Allegiance for Youth's Companion, a magazine for young people published in
> Boston with a circulation of about 500,000.
>
> A few years earlier, the magazine had sponsored a largely successful
> campaign to sell American flags to public schools. In 1891 the magazine
> hired Bellamy--whose first cousin Edward Bellamy was the famous socialist
> author of the utopian novel Looking Backward--to organize a public
relations
> campaign to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's
> discovery of America by promoting use of the flag in public schools.
Bellamy
> gained the support of the National Education Association, along with
> President Benjamin Harrison and Congress, for a national ritual observance
> in the schools, and he wrote the Pledge of Allegiance as part of the
> program's flag salute ceremony.
>
> Bellamy thought such an event would be a powerful expression on behalf of
> free public education. Moreover, he wanted all the schoolchildren of
America
> to recite the pledge at the same moment. He hoped the pledge would promote
a
> moral vision to counter the individualism embodied in capitalism and
> expressed in the climate of the Gilded Age, with its robber barons and
> exploitation of workers. Bellamy intended the line "One nation indivisible
> with liberty and justice for all" to express a more collective and
> egalitarian vision of America.
>
> Bellamy's view that unbridled capitalism, materialism and individualism
> betrayed America's promise was widely shared in the nineteenth and
twentieth
> centuries. Many American radicals and progressive reformers proudly
asserted
> their patriotism. To them, America stood for basic democratic
> values--economic and social equality, mass participation in politics, free
> speech and civil liberties, elimination of the second-class citizenship of
> women and racial minorities, a welcome mat for the world's oppressed
people.
> The reality of corporate power, right-wing xenophobia and social injustice
> only fueled progressives' allegiance to these principles and the struggle
to
> achieve them.
>
> Most Americans are unaware that much of our patriotic culture--including
> many of the leading icons and symbols of American identity--was created by
> artists and writers of decidedly left-wing and even socialist sympathies.
A
> look at the songs sung at post-9/11 patriotic tribute events and that
appear
> on the various patriotic compilation albums, or the clips incorporated
into
> film shorts celebrating the "American spirit," reveals that the
> preponderance of these originated in the forgotten tradition of left-wing
> patriotism.
>
> Begin with the lines inscribed on the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your
> tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Emma
Lazarus
> was a poet of considerable reputation in her day, a well-known figure in
> literary circles. She was a strong supporter of Henry George and his
> "socialistic" single-tax program, and a friend of William Morris, a
leading
> British socialist. Her welcome to the "wretched refuse" of the earth,
> written in 1883, was an effort to project an inclusive and egalitarian
> definition of the American dream.
>
> The words to "America the Beautiful" were written in 1893 by Katharine Lee
> Bates, a professor of English at Wellesley College. Bates was an
> accomplished and published poet, whose book America the Beautiful and
Other
> Poems includes a sequence of poems expressing outrage at US imperialism in
> the Philippines. Indeed, Bates identified with the anti-imperialist
movement
> of her day and was part of progressive reform circles in the Boston area
> concerned about labor rights, urban slums and women's suffrage. She was
also
> an ardent feminist, and for decades lived with and loved her Wellesley
> colleague Katharine Coman, an economist and social activist. "America the
> Beautiful" not only speaks to the beauty of the American continent but
also
> reflects her view that US imperialism undermines the nation's core values
of
> freedom and liberty. The poem's final words--"and crown thy good with
> brotherhood, from sea to shining sea"--are an appeal for social justice
> rather than the pursuit of wealth.
>
> Many Americans consider Woody Guthrie's song "This Land Is Your Land,"
> penned in 1940, to be our unofficial national anthem. Guthrie was a
radical
> with strong ties to the Communist Party. He was inspired to write the song
> as an answer to Irving Berlin's popular "God Bless America," which he
> thought failed to recognize that it was the "people" to whom America
> belonged. The words to "This Land Is Your Land" reflect Guthrie's fusion
of
> patriotism, support for the underdog and class struggle. In this song
> Guthrie celebrates America's natural beauty and bounty but criticizes the
> country for its failure to share its riches, reflected in the song's last
> and least-known verse:
>
>
> One bright sunny morning in the shadow of the steeple
> By the relief office I saw my people.
> As they stood hungry I stood there wondering
> If this land was made for you and me.
>
> Guthrie was not alone in combining patriotism and radicalism during the
> Depression and World War II. In this period, many American composers,
> novelists, artists and playwrights engaged in similar projects. In the
early
> 1930s, for example, a group of young composers and musicians--including
Marc
> Blitzstein (author of the musical "The Cradle Will Rock"), Charles Seeger
(a
> well-known composer and musicologist, and father of folk singer Pete
Seeger)
> and Aaron Copland--formed the "composers' collective" to write music that
> would serve the cause of the working class. They turned to American roots
> and folk music for inspiration. Many of their compositions--including
> Copland's "Fanfare for the Common Man" and "Lincoln Portrait"--are now
> patriotic musical standards, regularly performed at major civic events.
>
> Earl Robinson was a member of the composers' collective who pioneered the
> effort to combine patriotism and progressivism. In 1939 he teamed with
> lyricist John La Touche to write "Ballad for Americans," which was
performed
> on the CBS radio network by Paul Robeson, accompanied by chorus and
> orchestra. This eleven-minute cantata provided a musical review of
American
> history, depicted as a struggle between the "nobodies who are everybody"
and
> an elite that fails to understand the real, democratic essence of America.
>
> Robeson, at the time one of the best-known performers on the world stage,
> became, through this work, a voice of America. Broadcasts and recordings
of
> "Ballad for Americans" (by Bing Crosby as well as Robeson) were immensely
> popular. In the summer of 1940, it was performed at the national
conventions
> of both the Republican and Communist parties. The work soon became a
staple
> in school choral performances, but it was literally ripped out of many
> public school songbooks after Robinson and Robeson were identified with
the
> radical left and blacklisted during the McCarthy period. Since then,
> however, "Ballad for Americans" has been periodically revived, notably
> during the bicentennial celebration in 1976, when a number of pop and
> country singers performed it in concerts and on TV.
>
> During World War II, with lyricist Lewis Allen, Robinson co-wrote another
> patriotic hit, "The House I Live In." Its lyrics asked, and then answered,
> the question posed in the first line of the song, "What is America to me?"
> The song evokes America as a place where all races can live freely, where
> one can speak one's mind, where the cities as well as the natural
landscapes
> are beautiful. The song was made a hit by Frank Sinatra in 1945. Sinatra
> also starred in an Oscar-winning movie short--written by Albert Maltz,
later
> one of the Hollywood Ten--in which he sang "The House I Live In" to
> challenge bigotry, represented in the movie by a gang of kids who rough up
a
> Jewish boy.
>
> "The House I Live In," like "Ballad for Americans," was exceedingly
popular
> for several years but became controversial during the McCarthy period and
> has largely disappeared from public consciousness. Its co-author, Lewis
> Allen, was actually Abel Meeropol, a high school teacher who also penned
> "Strange Fruit," the anti-lynching song made famous by Billie Holiday. In
> the 1950s Meeropol and his wife adopted the sons of Julius and Ethel
> Rosenberg after their parents were executed as atom spies. Despite this,
> Sinatra kept the song in his repertoire. Perhaps the most astonishing
> performance of "The House I Live In" was at the nationally televised
> commemoration of the centenary of the Statue of Liberty in 1986, when
> Sinatra sang it as the finale to the program, with President Ronald Reagan
> and his wife, Nancy Reagan, sitting directly in front of him.
>
> Only a handful of Americans could have grasped the political irony of that
> moment: Sinatra performing a patriotic anthem written by blacklisted
writers
> to a President who, as head of the Screen Actors Guild in the 1950s,
helped
> create Hollywood's purge of radicals. Sinatra's own left-wing (and nearly
> blacklisted) past, and the history of the song itself, have been
obliterated
> from public memory.
>
> Even during the 1960s, American progressives continued to seek ways to
fuse
> their love of country with their opposition to the national government's
> policies. The March on Washington in 1963 gathered at the Lincoln
Memorial,
> where Martin Luther King Jr. famously quoted the words to "My Country 'Tis
> of Thee." Phil Ochs, then part of a new generation of politically
conscious
> singer-songwriters who emerged during the 1960s, wrote an anthem in the
> Guthrie vein, "Power and Glory," which coupled love of country with a
strong
> plea for justice and equality. Interestingly, this song later became part
of
> the repertoire of the US Army band. And in 1968, in a famous antiwar
speech
> on the steps of the Capitol, Norman Thomas, the aging leader of the
> Socialist Party, proclaimed, "I come to cleanse the American flag, not
burn
> it."
>
> In recent decades, Bruce Springsteen has most closely followed in the
> Guthrie tradition. From "Born in the USA," to his songs about Tom Joad
(the
> militant protagonist in John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath), to his recent
> anthem for the victims of the September 11 tragedy ("My City of Ruins"),
> whom he urges to "come on rise up!" Springsteen has championed the
> downtrodden while challenging America to live up to its ideals. Indeed, by
> performing both "Born in the USA" and "Land of Hope and Dreams" at
benefits
> for the families of World Trade Center casualties, Springsteen has coupled
> his anger at injustice with his belief in the nation's promise.
>
> In each major period of twentieth-century history--the Progressive era,
the
> Depression, World War II and the postwar era--American radicals and
> progressives expressed a patriotism rooted in democratic values and
> consciously aimed at challenging jingoism and "my country, right or wrong"
> thinking. Every day, millions of Americans pledge allegiance to the flag,
> sing "America the Beautiful" and "This Land Is Your Land," and memorize
the
> words on the Statue of Liberty without knowing the names of their authors,
> their political inspiration or the historical context in which they were
> written.
>
> The progressive authors of much of America's patriotic iconography
rejected
> blind nationalism, militaristic drumbeating and sheeplike conformism. So
it
> would be a dire mistake to allow, by default, jingoism to become
synonymous
> with patriotism and the American spirit. Throughout our nation's history,
> radicals and reformers have viewed their movements as profoundly
patriotic.
> They have believed that America's core claims--fairness, equality,
freedom,
> justice--were their own. In the midst of current patriotic exuberance both
> authentic and manipulated, then, it is useful to recall the forgotten
> cultural legacy of the left. We need to ask, once again, "What is America
to
> us?"
>
>
>
>
ad...@femuscle.org
--
just a thought,
ad...@femuscle.org
"Dr ArmŽ" <Genuin...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3D1B8A...@Yahoo.com...
> More left-wing apologies and excuses masquerading as "history". Aren't
> you that communist guy that ran for president?
>
> da
ad...@femuscle.org
something DA....for an atheist...you ain't such a bad guy:}
--
just a thought,
ad...@femuscle.org
"Dr Arm®" <Genuin...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3D1B9C...@Yahoo.com...
ad...@femuscle.org
I believe the intent was to have a government that would NOT admonish or
force anyone to believe in the Catholic, or Protestant, or Methodist, etc
God. Simple as that...and not to keep God, in general, out of government.
--
just a thought,
ad...@femuscle.org
<ad...@femuscle.org> wrote in message
news:ghXS8.257$g2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Dr Arm®
da
ad...@femuscle.org wrote:
>
> LaRush...DA...LaRush....or was it Limbaugh?....hehe
>
> --
> just a thought,
>
> ad...@femuscle.org
> "Dr Arm®" <Genuin...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
Dr Arm®
Poster
>
> as you obviously have NEVER read any of my posts in the past relative to
> religion or God...I will explain one simple fact...my position is that the
> use of the words "under God" is a general statement....one that takes
> encompasses: under Buddha, under Allah,under Yahweh, and under Vishnu and
> Shiva...
Ask a Buddhist, Muslim, or Hindu if they feel that way. Don't assume
to speak for them.
> but not atheism.....all I can do is pray for atheists:}...
Then you've just admitted that the phrase is unconstitutional. Thanks
for proving my point.
> so don't
> accuse me of not doing my homework....
You didn't know about the affirmation clause. That was pretty huge.
It completely destroyed your argument. You didn't do your homework.
> oh and by the way....its ok that you
> support the court ruling....that's your prerogative....and I support your
> right to have your own opinion....just as you should support my right to
> have a dissenting opinion.
>
I do support your right to have a dissenting opinion. It doesn't
mean that your opinion is right.
Poster
I see a lot of words, but I don't see any disputing what the article
said.
> John Larocque wrote:
> >
> > > I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America...and to
> > the
> > > republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with
> > > liberty and justice for all.
> >
Poster
>
> Obviously it's all a huge conspiracy. Congratulations, you found them
> out. I hope this doesn't mean that it's time to doff our aluminum
> ray-protection helmets. And what makes you think Hindus don't trust God?
> They trust lots of Gods.
>
> Speaking as an atheist, I have no problem with this God nonsense: Since
> God doesn't exist, there is no God "to be under" or to "trust", ipso
> facto, no problem. But that's my personal view.
>
Speaking as an atheist, you should want to have your child citing a
pledge to god every day. I refuse to say "under god" every time I say
the pledge. It was a law that put the phrase in there, which clearly
brings it into violation of the 1st Amendment. The fact that some
average Joe, without the help of any lawyers, could go to Federal
court and get it overturned should speak volumes about how blatant a
violation it is.
> The constitution does not address religion: Religion is among what is
> considered a "personal freedom" and as such is dealth with in the Bill
> of Rights. Nowhere does the BoR say that religion is forbidden in
> public, or that the government has to wipe every last vestage of it from
> public institutions.
The BoR says that Government shall make no law respecing an
establishment of religion. A law was enacted to put "under God"
in the Pledge, therefore it's unconstitutional. You can't get a
more cut-and-dried violation of the 1st Amendment.
> And if you include atheism as one of the protected
> religions, then the goverenment is forbidden to be atheist as well. Of
> course athesim is a protected form of religion, and of course the
> government is forbidden to be atheist. Or is athesim mearly the absence
> of religion hense argueably the defination that the BoR intended? Who
> then protects us from athesim?
The goverment isn't stopping anyone from going to church, synagogue,
the mosque, or whatever other religious house of worship.
> It is a real issue when, in these modern
> days, the offical state religiion of some countries is, in fact,
> athesim. As a living document, the BoR must be adjusted to accomodate
> this new form of religion that the founding fathers did not forsee.
>
The only countries that had atheism as a "state religion" were the
former communist countries, and they went out of their way to suppress
all religious worship. That's a hell of a lot different from just
taking "under god" out of a pledge recited by people of all different
religious views.
Poster
> We have one of the most centered Atorney Generals that's we've had in a
> long time.
> "School vouchers" allow money to go to the schools that actually educate
> the kids,
Yeah, educate kids on how to worship god and indoctrinating them in
religion. I went to private religious elementary schools, and there
is a lot of indoctrination going on at these schools. The very
argument that money isn't being diverted for religious education is
nuts.
> rather than feeding a union-driven baby sitting service that
> makes no effort to educate anybody. Your resentment against them is
> purly based on your political labelism.
>
That you would consider John Ashcroft a "centrist" speaks to how much
of an extreme right winger you are. Even my Republican friends don't
care for Ashcroft.
> > So the court ruling against "under god" probably will be overturned. But
> > legally it shouldn't be. Politics will prevail over a strict interpretation
> > of the constitition - which is something the conservatives claim they are in
> > favor of.
>
> Dachiel being one of these politicians. Decheil, the liberal Democrat,
> that is.
The fact that Daschel is attacking this ruling is sickening to me.
They are forcing me to vote for the Greens in the next election.
> According to the Yahoo article, the 9th district court is the
> most overturned court in the country.
Because the 9th district is the most liberal court in the country.
The court is stacked with a bunch of conservative Regan and Bush
appointees, so it's no wonder they get overturned.
Poster
>
> Strictly speaking, the constitution does not define anything like
> "separation of church and state". The first amendment mearly states that
> the government shall not establish a state religion. That isn't
> necessarily the same thing as seperation.
>
No, the constitution says the governement shall make "no law respecting
an establishment of religion". That's not the same thing as
establishing
a religion. Establishing a religion is a subset of all that ecompasses.
> Fact is, taxing the churches should be first thing we do, same as if
> they were anybody else. Seperation is an interpretation that the courts
> have developed over the years, but it's not constitutional.
>
It is constitutional.
> The issue is wider than just this ruling yesterday. Just last month a
> Tennessee court ruled that a display of the Ten Commandments at the city
> hall building was Constitutionally illegal. While I would have had a
> problem if they displayed an overt symbol of religion such as a cross or
> Star of David, the commandments are a legitmate antecedent of our modern
> day laws.
Um, not quite. The code of Hammurabi had more to do with it than
the 10 commandments.
Poster
>
> You seem to be at war with the Christian God, but nowhere
> does the Pledge mentionn that the God is the Christian god. Personally I
> think they ment Baal.
>
Even if you want to use that flimsy argument (which it's quite obvious
that it's the Christian god, because all other gods have different
names besides "god"), it still endorses monotheism over polytheism
and atheism. It's still discriminatory and a violation of the 1st
amendment.
> > affairs, and exactly what the writers of the constitution had in mind to
> > prevent.
>
> Wrong. There is no mention of religion in the Constitution. The Bill of
> Rights addresses the personal freedoms and was added as an afterthought
> after the COnstitution was adopted by the 13 states. It is in the BoR
> that religious independence is addressed and states thta the government
> shall not create a state religion.
Again, you're wrong.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Nowhere does is just restrict to establishing a state religion.
> > president who answers to the Christian right as well. They have just okayed
> > "school vouchers," which is a way of channeling public school money to
> > religious schools.
>
> School vouchers go to all private schools, not just the christian
> schools. Jewish and non-religious schools get them also.
>
I don't want a dime of my money funding any religious instruction.
Joe Zaccaro
While I agree that majority rules in most cases, people in the minority also
have rights. If those rights are being infringed upon, they have recourse.
In this case, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that the rights of the
minority were being infringed upon by the inclusion of 'under God' in the
Pledge of Allegiance. To fix this, all one needs to do it take the words
'under God' out of it. I remember when I was in grade school, we were
forced to pledge allegiance if not daily, close to it. While I have no
problem with it, there are some people who believe that their children
shouldn't be forced to pledge to anything under God. We need to be
respectful of the wishes of others, as this country was formed, in part, by
those fleeing religious persecution. To force a pledge stating the
existence of God onto a child whose parents may not believe it wrong, and
amounts to persecution.
Well, that was my two cents.
Joe
<ad...@femuscle.org> wrote in message
news:ghXS8.257$g2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
War_Monger
>I knew there was "something" I liked about you....from one old guy to
>another:}
Check out my website for a excellent definition of what the pledge of
alliegence means, i think you will find it enlightening
Warmongerr.com
warmo...@yahoo.com
Welcome to War_Monger's world
Understand the site is still in the construction phaze between
fighting to keep my gun rights and tryin to educate idiots who have no
concept what was shed for our rights
BILL DOBBINS
much of a political force in Western Europe compared to the United States -
which has a president whose election was brought about in large part to the
efforts of right wing Christian extremists.
Why do people keep making claims about political/religious realities that
are so clearly not based on actual research?
BD
in article #pMfAfoHCHA.1856@cpimsnntpa03, Anonymous at no...@nothanks.com
wrote on 6/28/02 2:31 AM:
BILL DOBBINS
Freedom of religion requires that the beliefs of the majority not be forced
on minorities. That is exactly why the constitution demands a separation of
church and state.
Remember, the discussion is not about religious belief but about making one
belief or another a MATTER OF LAW.
BD
in article ghXS8.257$g2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net,
ad...@femuscle.org at ad...@femuscle.org wrote on 6/28/02 3:56 AM:
BILL DOBBINS
Europeans are not as relgious as Americans and don't go to church as much or
expect govt to legislate relgion as law. They think we are puritanical
relgious nuts.
BD
in article lqXS8.268$g2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net,
ad...@femuscle.org at ad...@femuscle.org wrote on 6/28/02 4:05 AM:
BILL DOBBINS
and state. Anyway, Buddhists and Hindus do not believe in a "personal god"
as Christians, Muslims and Jews do.
Also, freedom of religion implies freedom FROM religion. Agnostics and
atheists should not be required, under law, to recite a pledge that has been
turned into a prayer by the inclusion of "under god" or to be subject to
social consequences for refusing to do so.
In a court of law, it is perfectly acceptable to "swear" or to "affirm" -
although I would suggest swearing an oath in court is also unconstitutional.
Where are the conservatives crying out for strict construction?
BD
in article 0zXS8.277$g2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net,
ad...@femuscle.org at ad...@femuscle.org wrote on 6/28/02 4:15 AM:
BILL DOBBINS
and to allow people the free exercise of religion in their personal lives.
As I've said, the early colonists were religious refugees who had to leave
Europe because various govts were legislating the practice of religion.
Read your history. And read the Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Congress putting "under god" in the pledge is just such a law.
BD
in article vVXS8.331$g2.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net,
ad...@femuscle.org at ad...@femuscle.org wrote on 6/28/02 4:39 AM:
BILL DOBBINS
of a particular kind of god: A theist god, a personal god, a god who
oversees the world and intervenes, who passes judgment on behavior and takes
sides for good against evil.
Deists don't believe in such a god. Neither do Buddhists or Hindus. Nor
agnostics and certainly not atheists.
This "controversy" is very simple: leave govt secular and practice religion
in your own life as you see fit.
BD
in article iMXS8.310$g2.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net,
ad...@femuscle.org at ad...@femuscle.org wrote on 6/28/02 4:29 AM:
BILL DOBBINS
speaking as Americans who value personal liberty and who don't want the govt
getting involved in any legislation about religion or including religion in
any official govt ceremony or practice.
How about everyone believing what they believe and worshiping or not as they
see fit with the govt having nothing to say about it. Politicians are a
bunch of sanctimonious hypocrites anyway - liberal, conservative or anywhere
in between.
BD
in article 3D1C5DEB...@post.com, Poster at pos...@post.com wrote on
6/28/02 5:52 AM:
Hollywood Muscle
the far edge of leftism. His views are obviously conservative, but he has
shown sensitivity and responsiveness to the left as was necessary. As for
being a zealot, you obviously haven't met any real zealots
"BILL DOBBINS" <bill...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:B94143E4.8390%bill...@gte.net...
> Whether you agree with him or not, you can't claim that Ashcroft isn't
> positioned to the FAR right and is a religious zealot. Bush appointed him
> in deference to his conservative supporters.
>
> This really isn't a matter of debate - as would be the validity of his
views
> and rightness of his positions. He is, for example, way to the right of
> conservative George Will - even more to the right than George W. Bush.
>
> Again, you may feel his views are entirely correct - but there is no
> question as to his conservatism.
>
> BD
>
> in article 3D1BC5...@Yahoo.com, Dr ArmŽ at Genuin...@Yahoo.com
wrote
> on 6/27/02 7:07 PM:
>
> > BILL DOBBINS wrote:
> >>
> >> in article 3D1B97...@Yahoo.com, Dr ArmŽ at Genuin...@Yahoo.com
wrote
> >> on 6/27/02 3:51 PM:
> >>
> >>> Obviously it's all a huge conspiracy. Congratulations, you found them
> >>> out. I hope this doesn't mean that it's time to doff our aluminum
> >>> ray-protection helmets. And what makes you think Hindus don't trust
God?
> >>> They trust lots of Gods.
> >>>
> >>> Speaking as an atheist, I have no problem with this God nonsense:
Since
> >>> God doesn't exist, there is no God "to be under" or to "trust", ipso
> >>> facto, no problem. But that's my personal view.
> >>>
> >>> The constitution does not address religion: Religion is among what is
> >>> considered a "personal freedom" and as such is dealth with in the Bill
> >>> of Rights. Nowhere does the BoR say that religion is forbidden in
> >>> public, or that the government has to wipe every last vestage of it
from
> >>> public institutions. And if you include atheism as one of the
protected
> >>> religions, then the goverenment is forbidden to be atheist as well. Of
> >>> course athesim is a protected form of religion, and of course the
> >>> government is forbidden to be atheist. Or is athesim mearly the
absence
> >>> of religion hense argueably the defination that the BoR intended? Who
> >>> then protects us from athesim? It is a real issue when, in these
modern
> >>> days, the offical state religiion of some countries is, in fact,
> >>> athesim. As a living document, the BoR must be adjusted to accomodate
> >>> this new form of religion that the founding fathers did not forsee.
> >>>
> >>>> in article 3D1B66...@Yahoo.com, Dr ArmŽ at Genuin...@Yahoo.com
> >>>>>> <ad...@femuscle.org> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:CRBS8.1427$So4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >>>>>>> Well...some moronic buttheads finally went and did it....The ACLU
and
> >>>>>>> anarchist from both the right and the left are ripping and tearing
at
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> very fabric of this great nation....It's now un constitutional to
pledge
> >>>>>>> allegiance to the flag.....Next they'll be telling you that its
> >>>>>>> unconstitutional to posses that dollar bill you have in your
pocket...
> >>>>>>> I'm confident this idiotic decision handed down by the courts will
be
> >>>>>>> overturned!...There was at least one judge who had his head
screwed on
> >>>>>> right
> >>>>>>> that morning....uhhh....I just thought of something....doesn't the
> >>>>>>> Constitution itself make references to God?...so now the
Constitution is
> >>>>>>> unconstitutional?....
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
members of
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial
officers,
> >>>>>>> both
> >>>>>> of
> >>>>>>> the United States and of the several states, SHALL BE BOUND BY
OATH or
> >>>>>>> affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test
shall
> >>>>>> ever
> >>>>>>> be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under
the
> >>
> >> There is no "conspiracy" - just a lot of Americans who are Christians,
much
> >> more religious than most countries in Europe, and who want their own
view of
> >> religion to be recognized by the govt. This is a fairly normal state
of
> >> affairs, and exactly what the writers of the constitution had in mind
to
> >> prevent.
> >>
> >> We have a right wing extremist religious nut as attorney general and a
> >> president who answers to the Christian right as well. They have just
okayed
> >> "school vouchers," which is a way of channeling public school money to
> >> religious schools.
> >
> > We have one of the most centered Atorney Generals that's we've had in a
> > long time.
> > "School vouchers" allow money to go to the schools that actually educate
> > the kids, rather than feeding a union-driven baby sitting service that
> > makes no effort to educate anybody. Your resentment against them is
> > purly based on your political labelism.
> >
> >> So the court ruling against "under god" probably will be overturned.
But
> >> legally it shouldn't be. Politics will prevail over a strict
interpretation
> >> of the constitition - which is something the conservatives claim they
are in
> >> favor of.
> >
> >
> > Dachiel being one of these politicians. Decheil, the liberal Democrat,
> > that is. According to the Yahoo article, the 9th district court is the
> > most overturned court in the country.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> So what else is new?
> >
> > Definately not the old Left.
> >
> > da
> >
> >
> >>
> >> BD
> >>
> >>>>>>> United States.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Religious test?...uhh you mean like......my God's better than your
God?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Amendment I
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, OR
> >>>>>>> PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of
> >>>>>>> speech,
> >>>>>>> or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> petition the government for a redress of grievances."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> well folks there you have it...there's where it's going to get
> >>>>>>> overturned...the very thing they based their case on will in the
end, be
> >>>>>>> what brings them down.....what idiots!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In case any of you forgot.....
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of
America...and to
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible,
with
> >>>>>>> liberty and justice for all.
> >>>>>>>
Hollywood Muscle
people. Our government comes from those people. It doesn't take alot of
effort to work out the results. The mention of God in the pledge, on the
money, in courts and congress doesn't represent our goverment's support of
any particular religion, it does, however indicate the feelings of the
people elected to run our government as well as the feelings of the majority
of constituents they support.
"Anonymous" <no...@nothanks.com> wrote in message
news:um67sRlHCHA.1992@cpimsnntpa03...
> Yep. I was going to add a long rant to Dobbins' misinformation, but DA
> knocked this one out of the park. Tony Blair, et. al may tell us how
> non-religious Europa is, but DA has got it right. Compared to Europe, we
> look like the secular nation.
>
> A.
>
>
> "Dr Arm®" <Genuin...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3D1BD2...@Yahoo.com...
> > BILL DOBBINS wrote:
> > >
> > > There is no "conspiracy" - just a lot of Americans who are Christians,
> much
> > > more religious than most countries in Europe, and who want their own
> view of
> > > religion to be recognized by the govt. This is a fairly normal state
of
> >
Ziv Zulander
wrote:
>
>Freedom of religion requires that the beliefs of the majority not be forced
>on minorities. That is exactly why the constitution demands a separation of
>church and state.
>
>Remember, the discussion is not about religious belief but about making one
>belief or another a MATTER OF LAW.
>
This is NOT part of the constitution. It is a belief that was held by
T. Jefferson as a CAUTION against allowing religious dictates to hold
sway over political discourse.
Ziv Zulander
wrote:
>
>Europeans are not as relgious as Americans and don't go to church as much or
>expect govt to legislate relgion as law. They think we are puritanical
>relgious nuts.
>
Yet, we are still the nation to run to if you want the Greatest
freedom in the world. Hmmm...
Hollywood Muscle
Supreme Court, or even the full district appeals court will uphold this
position. Personally, I think we should force California to secede from the
USA. Let them form their own policitically correct, leftist oasis, then
they can make up their own pledge.
<ad...@femuscle.org> wrote in message
news:1OXS8.312$g2.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Ziv Zulander
wrote:
>The intent of the First Admendment was SPECIFICALLY to keep god out of govt
>and to allow people the free exercise of religion in their personal lives.
That doesn't make sense given the language of the 1st Amendment.
You've jumped to a conclusion.
>As I've said, the early colonists were religious refugees who had to leave
>Europe because various govts were legislating the practice of religion.
>
Which is one of the reasons it exists.
Anonymous
know, I know, your bio says you were in Paris in the 70's. Guess that means
you know all things European. So yes, send all the data, if you will.
You've obviously missed my entire point (to repeat, Europe aspires to
maintain a secular political life, but the prevalence of specific religions
in specific countries makes the point moot; and furthermore, religion
maintains a powerful grip on life in most European countries). You
willingly ignore the case of Poland. Read about Croatia and the pope's
recent trip. Have you noticed how reluctant Russia is to have the pope
touring through Orthodox countries? Hmmm, interesting. I see you have no
response to my point about Minister Laszlo Tokes, who triggered the fall of
Romania. Continue on with your naive theories, if you must. But your
hypothesis about "all" of Europe thinking we are religious kooks only meets
your own fancy. If anything, Europe doesn't understand our religious
arguments because in almost every country on the continent, the discussion
is over, and religion has won.
A.
"BILL DOBBINS" <bill...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:B941E2E5.83FE%bill...@gte.net...
Hollywood Muscle
such regime...they are however, expected to respect other's right to do so.
They are free to recite the pledge without the reference to God, or not at
all.
"BILL DOBBINS" <bill...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:B941E48D.8402%bill...@gte.net...
Poster
>
> We are a secular nation. We are also comprised of a majority of non-secular
> people. Our government comes from those people. It doesn't take alot of
> effort to work out the results. The mention of God in the pledge, on the
> money, in courts and congress doesn't represent our goverment's support of
> any particular religion,
It represent's government's support of religion, which is illegal.
> it does, however indicate the feelings of the
> people elected to run our government as well as the feelings of the majority
> of constituents they support.
It doesn't make it right, though. A lot of people don't like seeing the
flag being burned, but every flag burning law has been overturned on the
grounds of it not being constitutional.
Poster
>
> This is the point, they are not rewuired to recite the pledge, or any other
> such regime...they are however, expected to respect other's right to do so.
I don't know what schools you went to, but I was required to recite
the Pledge in school daily. Apparently, this guys daughter was, too.
If she had opted-out of reciting the pledge, she would have to
intentionally alientate herself from the rest of the class; which can
be damaging for a child. She shouldn't have to make that choice.
This is no different than the reason why prayer is no longer allowed in
schoools.
> They are free to recite the pledge without the reference to God, or not at
> all.
>
Yes, they are, but writing a law requiring god to be a part of the
Pledge is unconstitutional.
Poster
>
> "Dr ArmŽ" wrote:
> >
> > Obviously it's all a huge conspiracy. Congratulations, you found them
> > out. I hope this doesn't mean that it's time to doff our aluminum
> > ray-protection helmets. And what makes you think Hindus don't trust God?
> > They trust lots of Gods.
> >
> > Speaking as an atheist, I have no problem with this God nonsense: Since
> > God doesn't exist, there is no God "to be under" or to "trust", ipso
> > facto, no problem. But that's my personal view.
> >
>
> Speaking as an atheist, you should want to have your child citing a
Poster
>
> Everybody knows where the final decision will land. There's no way the
> Supreme Court, or even the full district appeals court will uphold this
> position. Personally, I think we should force California to secede from the
> USA. Let them form their own policitically correct, leftist oasis, then
> they can make up their own pledge.
If it means not having to have a government that had to answer to the
knuckleheads in the bible belt, I'd gladly give up my U.S. citizenship
to become a citizen of California.
Poster
>
> Ashcroft can only be considered far right if you view it from your perch on
> the far edge of leftism. His views are obviously conservative, but he has
> shown sensitivity and responsiveness to the left as was necessary. As for
> being a zealot, you obviously haven't met any real zealots
Only a far right-winger like you would consider Ashcroft to be a
moderate conservative.
Dr Arm®
Only an extremeist left wing kook like you would consider ashcraft to be
anything other than moderately conservative. He isn't giving away free
drugs to kids or burning down communes. Then again, you make Henry the
Wacko look moderate.
Dr Arm®
>
> Hollywood Muscle wrote:
> >
> > We are a secular nation. We are also comprised of a majority of non-secular
> > people. Our government comes from those people. It doesn't take alot of
> > effort to work out the results. The mention of God in the pledge, on the
> > money, in courts and congress doesn't represent our goverment's support of
> > any particular religion,
>
> It represent's government's support of religion, which is illegal.
It REPRESENTS? So it isn't really support of religion, it just
represents it. In your mind. The mind of a drug abuser.
da
Anonymous
30 years ago), father contended that simply hearing the pledge was a
violation of her rights.
A.
"Poster" <pos...@post.com> wrote in message
news:3D1CBC62...@post.com...
Dr Arm®
Speaking as someone that knows how to think for himself, you shouldn't
be telling anyone what they should "want to have". What you should be
doing is learning how to think for youreself instead of reciting that
liberal poppycock that you are inculcated with from those massive doses
of television while high on cheap drugs.
I refuse to say "under god" every time I say
> the pledge.
I bet you wre the first in your neighborhood to wear narrow ties again.
It was a law that put the phrase in there, which clearly
> brings it into violation of the 1st Amendment. The fact that some
> average Joe, without the help of any lawyers, could go to Federal
> court and get it overturned should speak volumes about how blatant a
> violation it is.
Piling on ignorance with your misinformation doesn't make you look any
smarter. The guy that filed the suit is a doctor, an MD, who happens to
have a law degree. This was his only major law case, obviously someone
playing "law" for fun. Definately not your "average Joe". But then
again, neither are you: Joe's a lot smarter than you are, at least he
reads the newspaper once in a while.
>
> > The constitution does not address religion: Religion is among what is
> > considered a "personal freedom" and as such is dealth with in the Bill
> > of Rights. Nowhere does the BoR say that religion is forbidden in
> > public, or that the government has to wipe every last vestage of it from
> > public institutions.
>
> The BoR says that Government shall make no law respecing an
> establishment of religion. A law was enacted to put "under God"
> in the Pledge, therefore it's unconstitutional. You can't get a
> more cut-and-dried violation of the 1st Amendment.
Where's the violation? In your uninformed mind, perhaps. I doubt that
you could find it with a magnifying glass. Back to posting those
leftwing website standard lines again. Don't you ever say enything
without first checking with your political masters? Really, how could
you be more predictable???
da
>
>
> > And if you include atheism as one of the protected
> > religions, then the goverenment is forbidden to be atheist as well. Of
> > course athesim is a protected form of religion, and of course the
> > government is forbidden to be atheist. Or is athesim mearly the absence
> > of religion hense argueably the defination that the BoR intended? Who
> > then protects us from athesim?
>
> The goverment isn't stopping anyone from going to church, synagogue,
> the mosque, or whatever other religious house of worship.
>
> > It is a real issue when, in these modern
> > days, the offical state religiion of some countries is, in fact,
> > athesim. As a living document, the BoR must be adjusted to accomodate
> > this new form of religion that the founding fathers did not forsee.
> >
>
Dr Arm®
>
> "Dr ArmŽ" wrote:
> > long time.
> > "School vouchers" allow money to go to the schools that actually educate
> > the kids,
>
> religion. I went to private religious elementary schools, and there
> is a lot of indoctrination going on at these schools. The very
> argument that money isn't being diverted for religious education is
> nuts.
Once again the kook is on the wrong track. Just becaus your life turned
into the disaster you seee every morning in the mirror is not the reason
that kids should be forced into public schools or why private schools
that take in kids should be denied pubplic funding. I guess that
"freedom of choice" businees breaks down for you when it comes to
schools, eh?
I don't think you ever figured out the real issue here and it doesn't
appear as though it is going to dawn on you real soon.
da
BILL DOBBINS
Your position is absurd. Of course Ashcroft is far right. He would tell you
that himself. It is also ridiculous to consider the US political spectrum
to be "left leaning." Our so-called "liberals" aren't even left of center
by European parliamentary standards.
It is clear that the "center" in the US is to the right compared with almost
any other representative democracy. You can argue that this is because
these other counries are too far left - but not that we are way to the left
ourselves.
You talk about right wing zealots. Pat Buchanan, for example. He is
facist. Moderate conservatives are people like George Will or John McCain
(who I would have voted for over Al Gore). But try to find any governor or
congressman who is as far left as the right wing govt officials are to the
right. When was the last time a genuine socialist was elected to anything?
As soon as a politician moves as far left as 'center' he is branded a
liberal and treated as an extremist. Our political spectrum goes from
slightly left of center to extreme right. There is no real left.
This is why there is no organized left wing in the US, why congress is to
the right, why the media (owned by conservative corporations) is to the
right and why you have to listen to something like Pacific Radio to get ANY
real left wing point of view (and they are REALLY left wing).
We are a conservative country. Branding a bunch of moderates as flaming
liberals doesn't change that reality.
BD
in article Oc1T8.4333$uf3.8...@news2.news.adelphia.net, Hollywood Muscle
at HMSta...@hotmail.com wrote on 6/28/02 10:41 AM:
> Ashcroft can only be considered far right if you view it from your perch on
> the far edge of leftism. His views are obviously conservative, but he has
> shown sensitivity and responsiveness to the left as was necessary. As for
> being a zealot, you obviously haven't met any real zealots
>
> "BILL DOBBINS" <bill...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:B94143E4.8390%bill...@gte.net...
>> Whether you agree with him or not, you can't claim that Ashcroft isn't
>> positioned to the FAR right and is a religious zealot. Bush appointed him
>> in deference to his conservative supporters.
>>
>> This really isn't a matter of debate - as would be the validity of his
> views
>> and rightness of his positions. He is, for example, way to the right of
>> conservative George Will - even more to the right than George W. Bush.
>>
>> Again, you may feel his views are entirely correct - but there is no
>> question as to his conservatism.
>>
>> BD
>>
>> in article 3D1BC5...@Yahoo.com, Dr Arm® at Genuin...@Yahoo.com
> wrote
>> on 6/27/02 7:07 PM:
>>
>>> BILL DOBBINS wrote:
>>>>
>>>> in article 3D1B97...@Yahoo.com, Dr Arm® at Genuin...@Yahoo.com
>>>>>> in article 3D1B66...@Yahoo.com, Dr Arm® at Genuin...@Yahoo.com
BILL DOBBINS
others.
BD
in article 3D1CBB92...@post.com, Poster at pos...@post.com wrote on
6/28/02 12:32 PM:
BILL DOBBINS
only reason to keep it is for religious motives - exactly what the
constitution bans.
BD
in article VG1T8.5709$uf3.8...@news2.news.adelphia.net, Hollywood Muscle
at HMSta...@hotmail.com wrote on 6/28/02 11:13 AM:
ad...@femuscle.org
as Christians, Muslims and Jews do."
But the fact is Hindus and Buddhists do believe in "God"...Posters example
of Shiva....hey...ask any Hindu...Shiva is a God....wasn't he the one with
the elephant head?
--
just a thought,
ad...@femuscle.org
"BILL DOBBINS" <bill...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:B941E48D.8402%bill...@gte.net...
ad...@femuscle.org
hell....if they are...their citizenship should be rescinded and they should
be deported to a country of their choice....or maybe just one that will take
the ungrateful S O Bs!
--
just a thought,
"Anonymous" <no...@nothanks.com> wrote in message
news:#CJQqAuHCHA.1856@cpimsnntpa03...
ad...@femuscle.org
had a Pope at one time....they now have 50 churches...well they did when I
was there in 1980
--
just a thought,
"BILL DOBBINS" <bill...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:B941E3B9.8400%bill...@gte.net...
>
> Europeans are not as relgious as Americans and don't go to church as much
or
> expect govt to legislate relgion as law. They think we are puritanical
> relgious nuts.
>
> BD
>
> in article lqXS8.268$g2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net,
> ad...@femuscle.org at ad...@femuscle.org wrote on 6/28/02 4:05 AM:
>
> > "Most European countries are strongly
> > religious. "
> >
> > just a question....uhhh.....why do you think that is?
> >
> > --
> > just a thought,
> >
> > ad...@femuscle.org
> > "Dr Arm®" <Genuin...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3D1BD2...@Yahoo.com...
ad...@femuscle.org
--
just a thought,
ad...@femuscle.org
"Ziv Zulander" <zvzu...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:l98phuo77mcq7m6i5...@4ax.com...
ad...@femuscle.org
slammer for tax evasion
--
just a thought,
"Poster" <pos...@post.com> wrote in message
news:3D1C6210...@post.com...
> "Dr Arm®" wrote:
> >
> > You seem to be at war with the Christian God, but nowhere
> > does the Pledge mentionn that the God is the Christian god. Personally I
> > think they ment Baal.
> >
>
> Even if you want to use that flimsy argument (which it's quite obvious
> that it's the Christian god, because all other gods have different
> names besides "god"), it still endorses monotheism over polytheism
> and atheism. It's still discriminatory and a violation of the 1st
> amendment.
>
>
> > > affairs, and exactly what the writers of the constitution had in mind
to
> > > prevent.
> >
> > Wrong. There is no mention of religion in the Constitution. The Bill of
> > Rights addresses the personal freedoms and was added as an afterthought
> > after the COnstitution was adopted by the 13 states. It is in the BoR
> > that religious independence is addressed and states thta the government
> > shall not create a state religion.
>
> Again, you're wrong.
>
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
>
> Nowhere does is just restrict to establishing a state religion.
>
>
> > > president who answers to the Christian right as well. They have just
okayed
> > > "school vouchers," which is a way of channeling public school money to
> > > religious schools.
> >
> > School vouchers go to all private schools, not just the christian
> > schools. Jewish and non-religious schools get them also.
> >
>
> I don't want a dime of my money funding any religious instruction.
>
ad...@femuscle.org
thread...you will see that I posted that already....in a later post I also
stated that that part of would be the part to overturn this idiotic ruling
--
just a thought,
"BILL DOBBINS" <bill...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:B941E6A0.8406%bill...@gte.net...
> The intent of the First Admendment was SPECIFICALLY to keep god out of
govt
> and to allow people the free exercise of religion in their personal lives.
> As I've said, the early colonists were religious refugees who had to leave
> Europe because various govts were legislating the practice of religion.
>
> Read your history. And read the Constitution:
>
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
> or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
> petition the government for a redress of grievances."
>
> Congress putting "under god" in the pledge is just such a law.
>
> BD
>
>
>
>
> in article vVXS8.331$g2.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net,
> ad...@femuscle.org at ad...@femuscle.org wrote on 6/28/02 4:39 AM:
>
> > uhhhh....sorry...that should have read:
> > I believe the intent was to have a government that would NOT admonish or
> > force anyone to believe in the Catholic, or Protestant, or Methodist,
etc
> > God. Simple as that...and not to keep God, in general, out of
government.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > just a thought,
> >
> > ad...@femuscle.org
> > <ad...@femuscle.org> wrote in message
> >> something the "fathers" did not intend. I believe the intent was to
have a
> >> government that would admonish or force anyone to believe in the
Catholic,
> >> or Protestant, or Methodist, etc God. Simple as that...and not to keep
> > God,
> >> in general, out of government.
> >>
> >> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR
> >> PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of
speech,
> >> or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
to
> >> petition the government for a redress of grievances."
> >>
> >> --
> >> just a thought,
> >>
> >> ad...@femuscle.org
> >> "BILL DOBBINS" <bill...@gte.net> wrote in message
> >> news:B94104BE.8378%bill...@gte.net...
> >>> in article 3D1B97...@Yahoo.com, Dr Arm® at Genuin...@Yahoo.com
> >> wrote
> >>>>> There are many people who would prefer not to say "under god" in a
> >> pledge of
> >>>>> in article 3D1B66...@Yahoo.com, Dr Arm® at
Genuin...@Yahoo.com
> >> wrote
> >>> There is no "conspiracy" - just a lot of Americans who are Christians,
> >> much
> >>> more religious than most countries in Europe, and who want their own
> > view
> >> of
> >>> religion to be recognized by the govt. This is a fairly normal state
of
> >>> affairs, and exactly what the writers of the constitution had in mind
to
> >>> prevent.
> >>>
> >>> We have a right wing extremist religious nut as attorney general and a
> >>> president who answers to the Christian right as well. They have just
> >> okayed
> >>> "school vouchers," which is a way of channeling public school money to
> >>> religious schools.
> >>>
> >>> So the court ruling against "under god" probably will be overturned.
> > But
> >>> legally it shouldn't be. Politics will prevail over a strict
> >> interpretation
> >>> of the constitition - which is something the conservatives claim they
> > are
> >> in
> >>> favor of.
> >>>
> >>> So what else is new?
> >>>
> >>> BD
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> United States.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Religious test?...uhh you mean like......my God's better than
your
> >> God?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Amendment I
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> > religion,
> >> OR
> >>>>>>>> PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom
of
> >> speech,
> >>>>>>>> or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble,
> >> and to
> >>>>>>>> petition the government for a redress of grievances."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> well folks there you have it...there's where it's going to get
> >>>>>>>> overturned...the very thing they based their case on will in the
> >> end, be
> >>>>>>>> what brings them down.....what idiots!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In case any of you forgot.....
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of
> >> America...and to
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible,
> >> with
> >>>>>>>> liberty and justice for all.
> >>>>>>>>
ad...@femuscle.org
formed, in part, by those fleeing religious persecution. To force a pledge
stating the existence of God onto a child whose parents may not believe it
wrong, and amounts to persecution."
This just helps to strengthen my position. The only ones who may be offended
by the inclusion of under God would be atheists. Fleeing another country
because of religious persecution would imply believe in a God of somekind.
Under God doesn't necessarily mean a Christian God, or any other organized
religion...it to me means God in general.
--
just a thought,
ad...@femuscle.org
"Joe Zaccaro" <joez...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:m1_S8.43553$5M2.1...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> Admin,
>
> While I agree that majority rules in most cases, people in the minority
also
> have rights. If those rights are being infringed upon, they have
recourse.
> In this case, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that the rights of
the
> minority were being infringed upon by the inclusion of 'under God' in the
> Pledge of Allegiance. To fix this, all one needs to do it take the words
> 'under God' out of it. I remember when I was in grade school, we were
> forced to pledge allegiance if not daily, close to it. While I have no
> problem with it, there are some people who believe that their children
> shouldn't be forced to pledge to anything under God. We need to be
> respectful of the wishes of others, as this country was formed, in part,
by
> those fleeing religious persecution. To force a pledge stating the
> existence of God onto a child whose parents may not believe it wrong, and
> amounts to persecution.
>
> Well, that was my two cents.
>
> Joe
ad...@femuscle.org
was not the twisted intent it is today
--
just a thought,
"Ziv Zulander" <zvzu...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:578phu87n79qohipi...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 09:56:48 -0700, BILL DOBBINS <bill...@gte.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Freedom of religion requires that the beliefs of the majority not be
forced
> >on minorities. That is exactly why the constitution demands a separation
of
> >church and state.
> >
> >Remember, the discussion is not about religious belief but about making
one
> >belief or another a MATTER OF LAW.
> >
>
> This is NOT part of the constitution. It is a belief that was held by
> T. Jefferson as a CAUTION against allowing religious dictates to hold
> sway over political discourse.
>
>
> >BD
> >
> >
> >
> >in article ghXS8.257$g2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net,
> >ad...@femuscle.org at ad...@femuscle.org wrote on 6/28/02 3:56 AM:
ad...@femuscle.org
now...Jabber....the way you twist things....I was the FIRST to past that
part of the constitution here...don't tell me I missed the affirmation
clause...it didn't destroy anything....what's funny is....you seem to be
taking a side that suggests the word God to you means only a Christian
God....and...as I stated in another post....Shiva is a God...I got that from
a Hindu....and I asked a Jew....he didn't mind the under God part
either....so it seems you should be the one doing homework...or at least a
little research on you own
--
just a thought,
"Poster" <pos...@post.com> wrote in message
news:3D1C5A89...@post.com...
> ad...@femuscle.org wrote:
> >
> > as you obviously have NEVER read any of my posts in the past relative to
> > religion or God...I will explain one simple fact...my position is that
the
> > use of the words "under God" is a general statement....one that takes
> > encompasses: under Buddha, under Allah,under Yahweh, and under Vishnu
and
> > Shiva...
>
> Ask a Buddhist, Muslim, or Hindu if they feel that way. Don't assume
> to speak for them.
>
>
> > but not atheism.....all I can do is pray for atheists:}...
>
> Then you've just admitted that the phrase is unconstitutional. Thanks
> for proving my point.
>
>
> > so don't
> > accuse me of not doing my homework....
>
> You didn't know about the affirmation clause. That was pretty huge.
> It completely destroyed your argument. You didn't do your homework.
>
>
> > oh and by the way....its ok that you
> > support the court ruling....that's your prerogative....and I support
your
> > right to have your own opinion....just as you should support my right to
> > have a dissenting opinion.
> >
>
> I do support your right to have a dissenting opinion. It doesn't
> mean that your opinion is right.
>
ad...@femuscle.org
felt then as you do now...you were lying....so help me God!
--
just a thought,
ad...@femuscle.org
"Poster" <pos...@post.com> wrote in message
news:3D1CBD8B...@post.com...
Hollywood Muscle
anyone could refuse to recite the pledge if they chose. She also if free to
recite it without "under God" included. There are 26 states that require
public schools to begin the day with the pledge. The students, however, are
still free to remain quiet if they so choose.
Of all the things that kids can do to alienate themselves, this is truly
minor. Chances are no one would even notice, unless someone (like her dufus
of a father) makes a big deal of it.
"Poster" <pos...@post.com> wrote in message
news:3D1CBC62...@post.com...
Hollywood Muscle
burners, also!
<ad...@femuscle.org> wrote in message
news:HP3T8.250$FG5....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Hollywood Muscle
majority view of the nation's populace...
"Poster" <pos...@post.com> wrote in message
news:3D1CBB92...@post.com...
Hollywood Muscle
in 1954 there were. At the time most Americans thought we were fighting for
survival from the "Godless" communists. It was yet another weapon of Cold
War.
"BILL DOBBINS" <bill...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:B9420E32.8434%bill...@gte.net...
Hollywood Muscle
Foreigner's were engage in the act are making a valid statement in support
of whatever their beef is. American citizens who engage in it however, are
nothing more than hypocritical morons, attacking the country that allows
them to gather and voice any of their gripes in the first place.
Hollywood Muscle
his daughter, according to him) with the pledge.
"BILL DOBBINS" <bill...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:B9420DB6.8433%bill...@gte.net...
Hollywood Muscle
Many other countries are indeed far more left than we are. That's one of
the reason's we are the World Leader, that they are not. ITs one of the
reason's their economies follow ours and not vice versa.
"BILL DOBBINS" <bill...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:B9420D76.842B%bill...@gte.net...
Hollywood Muscle
right when they are about to die. This is a natural product of the self
preservation instinct. Its goes against the human brain to accept that
death is the total end of existence. Doing so would would be tatamount to
given up life without resistance, something which is totally unnatural.
This is not to say that everyone believes in a christian type God. Even
believing that life energy is returned to some cycle to be presented again
(i.e. reincarnation) is a form of religious belief.
<ad...@femuscle.org> wrote in message
news:h%3T8.276$FG5....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Dean
"RedFang" <redf...@nospam.hot.rr.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:Xns923AA6EE...@24.28.95.158...
> Dr Arm® <Genuin...@Yahoo.com> wrote in news:3D1B66...@Yahoo.com:
> >> >
> >> > Religious test?...uhh you mean like......my God's better than your
> >> > God?
> >> >
> >> > Amendment I
> >> >
> >> > "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> >> > religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging
> >> > the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
> >> > peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress
> >> > of grievances."
> >> >
> >> > well folks there you have it...there's where it's going to get
> >> > overturned...the very thing they based their case on will in the
> >> > end, be what brings them down.....what idiots!
> >> >
> >> > In case any of you forgot.....
> >> >
> >> > I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of
> >> > America...and to
> >> the
> >> > republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible,
> >> > with liberty and justice for all.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > just a thought,
> >> >
> >> > ad...@femuscle.org
> >> >
> >> >
> >
>
Dean
"BILL DOBBINS" <bill...@gte.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:B941E3B9.8400%bill...@gte.net...
>
> Europeans are not as relgious as Americans and don't go to church as much
or
> expect govt to legislate relgion as law. They think we are puritanical
> relgious nuts.
>
>
> in article lqXS8.268$g2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net,
> ad...@femuscle.org at ad...@femuscle.org wrote on 6/28/02 4:05 AM:
>
> > "Most European countries are strongly
> > religious. "
> >
> >
> > news:3D1BD2...@Yahoo.com...
> >> BILL DOBBINS wrote:
> >>>
> > much
> >>> more religious than most countries in Europe, and who want their own
> > view of
> >>> religion to be recognized by the govt. This is a fairly normal state
of
> >>
> >> uprisings. In Russia the church was an underground movement that the
> >> Communists could not root out. Most European countries are strongly
> >> religious. The few where religion takes little role are the obvious
> >> ones: England and the Scandanavian countries. Italy, Spain, Ukraine,
> >> Rumania, France, and most of the others are much more religious than
> >> typicaly American. And the Jewish communitites are even more so
> >> religious. You seem to be at war with the Christian God, but nowhere
> >> does the Pledge mentionn that the God is the Christian god. Personally
I
> >> think they ment Baal.
> >>
> >>
to
> >>> prevent.
> >>
> >> Rights addresses the personal freedoms and was added as an afterthought
> >> after the COnstitution was adopted by the 13 states. It is in the BoR
> >> that religious independence is addressed and states thta the government
> >> shall not create a state religion. That would certainly include
athesim,
> >> like the Communists countries have made their state religion.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >> disagree with holding Al Queada as prisoners of war. What did you call
a
> >> wacked out leftist old maid that prosecuted day care centers for no
good
> >> reason or burned out a religious commune?
> >>
> >>
> > okayed
> >>> "school vouchers," which is a way of channeling public school money to
> >>> religious schools.
> >>
> >>
> >> schools. Jewish and non-religious schools get them also.
> >>
> >> You seem to have a problem with Christians. You really need to get over
> >> that.
> >>
> >> da
> >>
> >>>
Joe Zaccaro
While the majority may have the right to offend this guy, the government, or
in this case a governmental institution does not. So while this man and his
family may be ridiculed by his neighbors, the school, which is an arm of the
government must respect his rights not to have the implication of religion
thrust upon his daughter while at school. It gets back to freedom from
religious persecution.
Joe
"Hollywood Muscle" <HMSta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hr4T8.5780$uf3.8...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
Joe Zaccaro
So as i see it, you're in favor of obstructing freedom of speech as well as
freedom from religious persecution. Anything else in the bill of rights you
want to take an axe to?
"Hollywood Muscle" <HMSta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2q4T8.5779$uf3.8...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
Poster
>
> Poster wrote:
> >
> > Hollywood Muscle wrote:
> > >
> > > Ashcroft can only be considered far right if you view it from your perch on
> > > the far edge of leftism. His views are obviously conservative, but he has
> > > shown sensitivity and responsiveness to the left as was necessary. As for
> > > being a zealot, you obviously haven't met any real zealots
> >
> > moderate conservative.
>
> Only an extremeist left wing kook like you would consider ashcraft to be
> anything other than moderately conservative. He isn't giving away free
> drugs to kids or burning down communes.
No, all he's doing is trying to roll personal freedoms in this country
back to the Stone Age, while shamelessly using 9/11 as an excuse.
Poster
>
> The media is never, and has never been rightist.
>
I see someone doesn't get Fox News and hasn't been watching CNN lately.
Poster
>
> Poster wrote:
> >
> > > We have one of the most centered Atorney Generals that's we've had in a
> > > long time.
> > > "School vouchers" allow money to go to the schools that actually educate
> > > the kids,
> >
> > religion. I went to private religious elementary schools, and there
> > is a lot of indoctrination going on at these schools. The very
> > argument that money isn't being diverted for religious education is
> > nuts.
>
> Once again the kook is on the wrong track. Just becaus your life turned
> into the disaster you seee every morning in the mirror is not the reason
> that kids should be forced into public schools or why private schools
> that take in kids should be denied pubplic funding. I guess that
> "freedom of choice" businees breaks down for you when it comes to
> schools, eh?
>
They have the freedom to choose what schools they want to go to. They
can just foot the bill themselves if they want to get a private
education
at a religious school. That freedom has always been there.
> I don't think you ever figured out the real issue here and it doesn't
> appear as though it is going to dawn on you real soon.
I know perfectly well what the real issue is. It's sad that you can't
see it.