Oaths of office (So Help me God)
buckeye
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States
"So help me God"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For further info see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_help_me_God#United_States
United States
In the United States, the no religious test clause requires that "no
religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or
public trust under the United States."
However there are federal oaths which do include the phrase "So help me
God," such as for justices and judges in 28 U.S.C. � 453.[1]
The phrase "So help me God" is explicitly prescribed in oaths as early as
the Judiciary Act of 1789, for U.S. officers other than the President.
Although the phrase is mandatory in oaths, the said Act also allows for the
option that the phrase to be omitted by the officer, in which case it would
be called an affirmation instead of an oath: "Which words, so help me God,
shall be omitted in all cases where an affirmation is admitted instead of
an oath."[2]
Presidential oath
Main article: Oath of office of the President of the United States
There is no law that requires Presidents to use a Bible or added the words
"So help me God" at the end of the oath. There is currently debate as to
whether or not George Washington, the first president, added this phrase to
his oath. However, all Presidents since Franklin D. Roosevelt have used
this phrase, according to Marvin Pinkert, executive director of the
National Archives Experience.[3]
References
1. ^
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00000453----000-.html"
2. ^ Judiciary Act of 1789, Sec. 7. Accessed 2009-01-24.
3. ^ Interview with NPR's Morning Edition, see "Where Does The Oath Of
Office Come From?". Morning Edition. 2009-01-14.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99323353.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is uncertain how many Presidents used a Bible or added the words "So
help me God" at the end of the oath, or in their acceptance of the oath, as
neither is required by law; unlike many other federal oaths which do
include the phrase "So help me God."[29] There is currently debate as to
whether or not George Washington, the first president, added the phrase to
his acceptance of the oath. All contemporary sources fail to mention
Washington as adding a religious codicil to his acceptance.
The historical debate over who first used "So help me God," is marred by
ignoring the two forms of giving the oath. The first, now in disuse, is
when the administrator articulates the constitutional oath in the form of a
question, as in, "Do you George Washington solemnly swear ...", requesting
an affirmation. At that point a response of "I do" or "I swear" completes
the oath. Without verbatim transcripts, the scant existing evidence shows
this was the common procedure at least until the early 20th century. In
1881, the New York Times article covering the swearing in of Chester A.
Arthur, reported that he responded to the question of accepting the oath
with the words, "I will, so help me God."[30] In 1929, Time magazine
reported that the Chief Justice began the oath uttering, "You, Herbert
Hoover, do you solemnly swear . . ."[9] Hoover replied with a simple "I
do".
It is the second, and current form of administration, where both the Chief
Justice and the President articulate the oath, that appending "So Help Me
God" has been argued by some to be a breach of the constitutional
instructions. This is the contention of a Federal law suit filed in the
District of Columbia by Michael Newdow on December 30, 2008. In this suit a
distinction is made between the words spoken by the administrator, which
must conform to the exact 35 words of the constitution, and the President,
who has a right to add a personal prayer, such as "So Help Me God."[31]
Chief Justice Roberts reply was that his "prompting" for these four
extra-constitutional words were to be recited "after" the oath of office,
and not as a part of the oath as claimed in the suit.[32]
The phrase "So help me God" is explicitly prescribed in oaths as early as
the Judiciary Act of 1789 for U.S. officers other than the President.
Although the phrase is mandatory in these oaths, the said Act also allows
for the option that the phrase be omitted by the officer, in which case it
would be called an affirmation instead of an oath: "Which words, so help me
God, shall be omitted in all cases where an affirmation is admitted instead
of an oath."[33] In contrast, the oath of the President is the only oath
specified in the Constitution. It does not include the closing phrase "So
help me God", and it also allows for the optional form of an affirmation
which is not considered an oath. In practice, however, most Presidents, at
least during the last century, have opted to take the oath (rather than an
affirmation), to use a Bible to do so, and also to close the oath with the
customary phrase.
The earliest known source indicating Washington added "So help me God" to
his acceptance, not to the oath, is attributed to Washington Irving, aged
six at the time of the inauguration, and first appears 65 years after the
event.[34]
The only contemporary account that repeats the oath in full, a report from
the French consul, Comte de Moustier, states only the constitutional
oath,[35] without reference to Washington's adding "So Help Me God" to his
acceptance.
Evidence is lacking to support the claim that Presidents between Washington
and Abraham Lincoln used the phrase "So help me God." A contemporaneous
newspaper account of Lincoln's 1865 inauguration states that Lincoln
appended the phrase "So help me God" to the oath.[36] This newspaper report
is followed by another account, provided later in the same year after
Lincoln's death (April 15, 1865), that Lincoln said "So help me God" during
his oath.[37] The evidence pertaining to the 1865 inauguration is much
stronger than that pertaining to Lincoln's 1861 use of the phrase. Several
sources claim that Lincoln said "So help me God" at his 1861 inauguration,
yet these sources were not contemporaneous to the event.[38][39] Shortly
after giving the speech, Lincoln stated that his oath was "registered in
Heaven",[40] something some have taken as indicating he likely uttered the
phrase "So help me God." Conversely, there was a claim made by A.M.
Milligan (a radical Presbyterian minister who wanted the U.S. government to
be officially Christian) that letters were sent to Abraham Lincoln asking
him to swear to God during his inaugurations, and Lincoln allegedly wrote
back saying that "God's name was not in the Constitution, and he could not
depart from the letter of that instrument."[41][42]
Other than the president of the U.S., many politicians (including Jefferson
Davis, sworn in as president of the Confederate States of America in 1861)
used the phrase "So help me God" when taking their oaths.[43] Likewise, all
federal judges and executive officers were required as early as 1789 by
statute to include the phrase unless they affirmed, in which case the
phrase must be omitted.[44]
Given that nearly every President-elect since President Franklin Roosevelt
has recited the codicil, it is likely that the majority of presidents-elect
have uttered the phrase[45] (as well as some vice presidents, while taking
their oaths). However, as President Theodore Roosevelt chose to conclude
his oath with the phrase "And thus I swear," it seems that this current of
tradition was not overwhelmingly strong even as recently as the turn of the
twentieth century. Only Franklin Pierce has chosen to affirm rather than
swear.[46] It is often asserted that Herbert Hoover also affirmed, because
he was a Quaker, but newspaper reports before his inauguration state his
intention to swear rather than affirm.[47]
29 ^ http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00000453----000-.html
30 ^
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=980DE1D9103CEE3ABC4B51DFBF66838A699FDE
31^ "Case 1:08-cv-02248-RBW Document 1" (PDF). www.restorethepledge.com.
2008-12-30. 25.
http://www.restorethepledge.com/live/litigation/inaugural/docs/2008-12-30%20Original%20Complaint.pdf.
Retrieved on 2009-02-04. "If President-elect Obama (as a black man fully
aware of the vile effects that stem from a majority�s disregard of a
minority�s rights, and as a Democrat fully aware of the efficacy his
Republican predecessor�s �so help me God� oath additions) feels that the
verbiage formulated by the Founders is so inadequate that he needs to
interlard his oath with a purely religious phrase deemed unnecessary by the
first twenty presidents, Plaintiffs have no objection at this time. The
President, like all other individuals, has Free Exercise rights, which
might permit such an alteration."
32 ^ "Case 1:08-cv-02248-RBW Document 13-9" (PDF).
www.restorethepledge.com. 2009-01-08. 25.
http://www.restorethepledge.com/live/litigation/inaugural/docs/2009-01-08%20CJ's%20Counselor's%20Declaration.pdf.
Retrieved on 2009-02-04. "Before the commencement of this lawsuit, the
Chief Justice instructed me to ascertain from President-Elect Obama's
representatives the President-Elect's wishes concerning the administration
of the oath of office at the inauguration~including his wishes concerning
the inclusion of the phrase "So help me God" after the conclusion of the
constitutional oath"
33 ^ Judiciary Act of 1789, Sec. 7. Accessed 2009-01-24.
34 ^ Griswold, Rufus W. The Republican court, or, American society in the
days of Washington. New York: D. Appleton and Company. pp. 141�142.
http://books.google.com/books?id=xhsLT1NgTbwC.
35 ^ Documentary History of the First Federal Congress, Vol. 15, pages
404-405
36 ^ Sacramento Daily Union, April 10, 1865.
37^
http://books.google.com/books?id=ArRmzsMraH8C&printsec=titlepage#PPA6,M1
38 ^
http://books.google.com/books?id=d6QfOnbV1zUC&printsec=titlepage#PPA91,M1
39^
http://books.google.com/books?id=xidCAAAAIAAJ&printsec=titlepage#PPA136,M1
40 ^ The Avalon Project : First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln
41 ^ Foster, James Mitchell. Christ the King. Boston: James H. Earle. pp.
277. http://books.google.com/books?id=7gc3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA277&lpg=PA277.
42 ^ Foster, James Mitchell. Reformation Principles Stated and Applied.
Chicago and New York: F.H Revell. pp. 234�5.
http://www.openlibrary.org/details/reformationprinc00fostrich.
43 ^ Official State Bible of Alabama
44^ A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents
and Debates, 1774 - 1875
45 ^ "Inauguration of the President: Facts & Firsts". U.S. Senate.
http://inaugural.senate.gov/history/factsandfirsts/. Retrieved on December
13, 2008.
46 ^ "President Franklin Pierce, 1853". Joint Congressional Committee on
Inaugural Ceremonies.
http://inaugural.senate.gov/history/chronology/fpierce1853.htm. Retrieved
on 2008-02-15. [dead link]
47 ^ "Hoover Plans to Swear on Bible, Taking Oath". Washington Post: p. 5.
February 27, 1929.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
So Help Me God�: A George Washington Myth that Should Be Discarded
By Peter R. Henriques
Mr. Henriques is Professor of History, Emeritus, at George Mason University
and author of Realistic Visionary: A Portrait of George Washington.
http://hnn.us/articles/59548.html
ORIGINAL INTENT
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/meetup/Congremv.pdf
So help me God in presidential oaths
http://www.nonbeliever.org/commentary/inaugural_shmG.html
Christ the king
By James Mitchell Foster (1894 ) pp 274-279
http://books.google.com/books?id=7gc3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA277&lpg=PA277&output=text
[excerpt]
In setting up our government the fathers made two mistakes: They tolerated
slavery and secularism. Charles Summer contended that the Constitution of
United States was not pro-slavery. But all must admit that it was not
anti-slavery until amended. And the amendment was not made until God had
chastised us severely for our national sin.
The great majority of Christians in our land contend that the Constitution
is not anti-Christian. But it certainly is not avowedly for Christ. It
contains no hint of the nation's allegiance to the King of kings. And so
our Presidents uniformly refuse to recognize Christ in their Thanksgiving
proclamations.
When a Secretary of the National Reform Association attended the Republican
National Convention at Minneapolis and urged the Committee on Resolutions
to recognize Christ in the party platform, they peremptorily refused. When
he attended the Democratic National Convention at Chicago, and made the
same request, they positively refused. And when he attended the Prohibition
National Convention in Cincinnati, and asked the same thing, they also
refused.
The truth is the people have been educated away from Christ as King by our
secular Constitution. And there is no hope that this evil will be corrected
except by the judgments of God.
In the hour of the nation's trial, in 1863, the Senate of the United States
honored the King of kings. That body asked President Lincoln to appoint a
day for national confession of sin against God, " encouraged," as they
expressed it, " in this day of trouble by the assurances of His word to
seek Him for succor according to His appointed way through Christ Jesus.
When God lays His hand more heavily upon us for dishonoring His Christ,
then the nation will make a constitutional recognition of His crown rights
and royal prerogatives. " When the judgments of God are abroad in the land,
the inhabitants thereof will learn righteousness."
3. The Bible is not recognized as the fountain of all law. Man cannot make
law. He can only discover, interpret and apply God's law. " There is one
Lawgiver." The Bible contains God's law to individuals, families, the
Church and nations. So Blackstone said: " Any law that contravenes the law
of God is no law at all." The nation is under as much obligation to
acknowledge the Bible as its law in its constitution, as the Church is in
her creed. The Bible has made our nation what it is. The Queen of England
was asked the secret of England's greatness. "That Book," she replied,
holding up the Bible. Three hundred years with the Bible has converted the
rocky isle of Scotland into a garden of the-Lord, while Spain, with far
greater natural resources, without the Bible, is a barren wilderness and an
effete kingdom. The Bible is the sheet anchor of our civil and religious
liberties. But the Constitution does not name the Bible.
An instrument so fatally defective we cannot accept.
II. Because it unrighteously invades and tramples upon Christ's authority
and laiv.
The very first clause we meet with is : " We, the people, do," etc. They
are the highest authority, the ultimate appeal. There is a very special
sense in which civil government is an " ordinance of man." In so far as it
is the people's right to frame and alter their Constitution, elect their
own rulers, and direct the course of legislation, it is a human
institution. We believe in a government of the people nationally, by the
people politically, and for the people individually and socially. But it is
not a human institution in any sense that is not consistent with its being
likewise a Divine institution. It is an ordinance of God. Its being and
authority and law are from Him. It has been put in subjection to Christ as
part of His universal dominion. He is the governor among the nations. Our
Constitution reflects the human side of the State, but not the Divine side.
It is silent as the grave respecting Christ's dominion over us. Instead of
acknowledging Him, it recognizes no authority higher than " we, the
people." Is not that dishonoring Christ?
Again the Constitution says, that when the President is inaugurated " he
shall swear or affirm." Every President, after George Washington and before
R. B. Hayes, took the presidential oath without an appeal to God, omitting
the very essence of the oath. Rev. A. M. Milligan, D. D., wrote Abraham
Lincoln before his inaugural in 1861, and also before his second inaugural
in 1865, asking him, in deference to the consciences of the Christian
people of this land, to take the presidential oath in the name of God. He
replied both times that God's name was not in the Constitution, and he
could not depart from the letter of that instrument. The Bible formula is
distinct, " Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and shall sivear by His
name." We know that since R. B. Hayes, our Presidents have added to the
oath " So help me God." But that is extra-constitutional. The framers of
our Constitution took the Bible oath, cut off the name of God and inserted
the mutilated oath into our fundamental law. Is not that wrong? Again, the
Constitution says : " No religious test shall ever be required as a
qualification to any office or public trust under these United States." If
by " religious test " they had meant " denominational test," we would say,
Amen. But it is not so. The intention of this provision cannot be
misunderstood. " It was intended to so frame the compact of government that
no irreligious man would be ineligible to office�that even an avowed and
practical infidel or atheist might have no obstacle in the way of reaching
the highest position in the land." They intended to relegate the question
of moral and religious qualifications to the voters. As Winthrop said: "
The presumption is that the eyes of the people will be upon the faithful of
the land."
But this presumption has not been realized. The electors do not rise above
their Constitution, and its meaning is plain. Justice Story, in his
commentaries upon the Constitution, describes that instrument as " a
compact according to which the Christian, Jew, Mohammedan, infidel, all sit
down in common at the tables of our national councils." The Bible rule is,
" choose out from among you able men, such as fear God, men of truth,
hating covctousness, and place such to be rulers over you." " He that
ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God." " Rulers are
God's ministers to thee for good." Here a distinct class of men is
designated as eligible to office. They must have a talent for representing
the Divine ordinance of civil government; they must be loyal to God ; they
must be good, upright and true. But this provision in the Constitution sets
aside the Divine standard, and adopts another which admits the enemies of
God. Is that not dishonoring our King ? But still further : " Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibit the
free exercise thereof." We do not believe in establishing the Church over
the State, as the Papacy ; nor the State over the Church, as in prelatic
establishments. But this provision, instead of giving us liberty from
these, gives license to everything that carries the name of religion. In
1858 the Supreme Court of California decided that their Sabbath laws were
unconstitutional, because they discriminated in favor of Christianity and
against all other religions, while our Constitution puts all religions on a
par. In 1870 the Supreme Court of Ohio decided against the Bible in the
public schools of Cincinnati, because neither the word "Bible" nor
"Christianity" were found in the United States Constitution, arid so the
word religion there must mean, not the Christian religion, but man's
religion, including all kinds. In 1808 the New England ministers petitioned
President Jefferson to proclaim a fast. He replied: " I consider the
Government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from
intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline or
exercise." This provision protects the Chinaman in erecting his joss-house
and worshipping his idols here. It protects the Papal Church, with its
100,000 confessionals, the executioner's block for our liberties, and its
Jesuitical society and its unlawful and treasonable oaths. Furthermore: "
This Constitution and all the laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the
supreme law of the land." The treaty made with Tripoli eight years after
the Constitution was adopted, and never called in question as to its
constitutionality, declares : " The Government of the United States is not
in any sense founded on the Christian religion ; it has in itself no
character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity of the
Mussulman." This treaty, according to the Constitution, is common law, and
paramount to that instrument itself. In 1810 Congress passed a law that the
United States mail should be carried on the Sabbath day. The fourth
commandment is regularly broken by the law of our National Government. The
laws regulating the collecting of $95,000,000 annual revenue on whisky, are
made in pursuance of the Constitution. Ex-President Woolsey said, in the
Evangelical Alliance, in New York, in 1873 : " The Constitution of the
United States would require no change to be adopted by a Mohammedan
nation." How shall we designate such an instrument! The Constitution of the
United States framed by a convention so much under the influence of French
infidelity that, as Franklin says, with three or four exceptions they
thought prayers unnecessary, is a compact of political atheism. It is
saturated with that doctrine. It is the pernicious source of the secularism
that is to-day cursing our nation and threatening her life. It makes us a
people obnoxious to the judgments of the reigning Mediator. Christ's
friends should repudiate it and demand that the nation honor our King.
[end excerpt]
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS � Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
James Veverka wrote:
One of the ways to counter the attack on American Constitutional principles
by the religious right is to address their revisionism, misinformation and
distortions.
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
Jeff Strickland
"buckeye" <bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:1shu45992ifr8qjrh...@4ax.com...
IF there is no law that requires it, then why does it bother you that a
President Elect may or may not choose to say it at his own discretion?
Uncle Vic
> IF there is no law that requires it, then why does it bother you that a
> President Elect may or may not choose to say it at his own discretion?
Good question. The atheist sees religion as a crutch. When a President is
sworn in using the words, "so help me god", we have to assume he is
incapable of performing the job without help from his invisible friends,
which makes him certifiably insane at the very least.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Separator of Church and Reason.
Convicted by Earthquack.
Looking forward to May 21, 2012 or is it 2011? Or is it sometime in
December? These idiots can't even agree...
Bill M
"Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C3E812D...@216.196.97.131...
> One fine day in alt.atheism, "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> IF there is no law that requires it, then why does it bother you that a
>> President Elect may or may not choose to say it at his own discretion?
>
> Good question. The atheist sees religion as a crutch. When a President
> is
> sworn in using the words, "so help me god", we have to assume he is
> incapable of performing the job without help from his invisible friends,
> which makes him certifiably insane at the very least.
Amen!
Jeff Strickland
> wrote:
>
>> IF there is no law that requires it, then why does it bother you that a
>> President Elect may or may not choose to say it at his own discretion?
>
> Good question. The atheist sees religion as a crutch. When a President
> is
> sworn in using the words, "so help me god", we have to assume he is
> incapable of performing the job without help from his invisible friends,
> which makes him certifiably insane at the very least.
>
But so what? If you did not know by the time the election rolled around, you
probably don't care, and if you did know and were bothered by it, you did
not vote for him or her anyhow.
I have to wonder if the real agenda is religion in government, or simply
religion.
When religion is in government, you are hard pressed to ignore it -- I don't
happen to believe that, but accept it as one of the arguments atheists
make -- but when religion simply exists in the hearts and minds of others,
you can ignore it all you want, and therefore have no argument to make.
You protection is ONLY to choose the religion you like to observe, or no
religion at all if that is your choice. Your protection does not run to
protections against the mere exposure to religion in the public sphere.
Jeff Strickland
"Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:9AO3m.63203$b9.2...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C3E812D...@216.196.97.131...
>> One fine day in alt.atheism, "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> IF there is no law that requires it, then why does it bother you that a
>>> President Elect may or may not choose to say it at his own discretion?
>>
>> Good question. The atheist sees religion as a crutch. When a President
>> is
>> sworn in using the words, "so help me god", we have to assume he is
>> incapable of performing the job without help from his invisible friends,
>> which makes him certifiably insane at the very least.
>
> Amen!
>
But when he adds the words himself, that's HIS right to the Free Expression
Thereof. Why would you deny a person his right to free expression thereof?
Or care that somebody is exercising that right?
Enkidu
Sure, he can exercise his right to look like a fool . . . you do it all
the time.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do.
--[from Usenet]
Enkidu
> "Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C3E812D...@216.196.97.131...
>> One fine day in alt.atheism, "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> IF there is no law that requires it, then why does it bother you that
>>> a President Elect may or may not choose to say it at his own
>>> discretion?
>>
>> Good question. The atheist sees religion as a crutch. When a
>> President is
>> sworn in using the words, "so help me god", we have to assume he is
>> incapable of performing the job without help from his invisible
>> friends, which makes him certifiably insane at the very least.
>>
>>
>
> But so what? If you did not know by the time the election rolled around,
> you probably don't care, and if you did know and were bothered by it,
> you did not vote for him or her anyhow.
>
> I have to wonder if the real agenda is religion in government, or simply
> religion.
>
> When religion is in government, you are hard pressed to ignore it -- I
> don't happen to believe that, but accept it as one of the arguments
> atheists make -- but when religion simply exists in the hearts and minds
> of others, you can ignore it all you want, and therefore have no
> argument to make.
If religion only existed in the hearts and minds of believers, that would
be fine. But believers won't let it rest there. They take their religion
out and fly it into buildings or use it to shot doctors or as a club to
beat Matthew Sheppard to death.
Look at you, Jeff. Is your religion in your "heart and mind" or are you
pushing it into alt.atheism as well?
buckeye
>:|
>:|"buckeye" <bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>:|
>:|
Once more jeffy jumps into a thread and quickly indicates his usual
ignorance of the facts, the issues etc.
A guy taking the oath of office for Prez of the US and deciding on his own
to add SHMG to the end of the actual words, the oath as given word for word
(the only oath so given ) in the US Constitution is not the issue, never
has been the issue.
Had you read everything that was given there you might have understood
that. Though you would have had a headache since you have stated much
serious reading does that to you.
THE ISSUE
There are several issues actually.
(1) One has to wonder if anyone would say SHMG if the myth that George
Washington had said that and thus that every Prez since then had said it
wasn't passed off as a fact, as a truth.
It isn't true. Washington was Prez of the Constitutional Convention,
probably was present when the actual oath for President of the US was
decided on, at any rate would have known that wording.
He also was very much aware, when he did take the oath of office, that
everything he did that day and all future days as long as he was President
would be setting precedence.
He would not have altered or added to the wording of the US Constitution.
Correcting myths with actual historical facts, evidence and actual
knowledge is important even though you have never understood that.
(2) the second issue deals with the Chief Justice of the US or whomever is
administering the oath of office, without authority, amending (altering or
adding to) the US Constitution, i.e. actual wording as given in the US
Constitution.
There are not a whole lot of highly detailed, highly specific items in the
US Constitution. The words for the oath of Office for Prez of the US is one
of those rare items.
It was meant to be said in the manner it is written, no less, no more.
buckeye
>:|
>:|"Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>:|
SMOKESCRTEEN ALERT
Not the issue dude.
Only a few men taking the oath of office for Prez of US ever said SHMG. Not
all ans the phony myth makers have proclaimed for decades.
In some instances the person administering the oath illegally and
unconstitutionally added the words as if they were part of the official
oath and the one taking the oath said I do.
Those are the issues dude.
Destroying a phony myth and stoppoing the illegal and unconstitutional
"amendeing" of the Constitution.
A closing question, how many men do you think would have said SHMG on their
own had that phony myth not existed?
buckeye
>:|
>:|"Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
>:|news:Xns9C3E812D...@216.196.97.131...
>:|> One fine day in alt.atheism, "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com>
>:|> wrote:
>:|>
>:|>> IF there is no law that requires it, then why does it bother you that a
>:|>> President Elect may or may not choose to say it at his own discretion?
>:|>
>:|> Good question. The atheist sees religion as a crutch. When a President
>:|> is
>:|> sworn in using the words, "so help me god", we have to assume he is
>:|> incapable of performing the job without help from his invisible friends,
>:|> which makes him certifiably insane at the very least.
>:|>
>:|
>:|
>:|But so what?
Accuracy, truth, law, Constitution, etc.
>"|if you did not know by the time the election rolled around, you
>:|probably don't care, and if you did know and were bothered by it, you did
>:|not vote for him or her anyhow.
>:|I have to wonder if the real agenda is religion in government, or simply
>:|religion.
You have had the "real agenda" identified and explained to you by hundreds
upon hundreds of people over the years.
Thus one has to conclude that you really do not have the ability to
mentally retain things or you have extremely poor reading comprehension
abilities or are too stubborn and dumb to grasp and understand what has
been said over the years.
The "agenda" is law, is the Constitution, is the Constitutional Principle
of Church state separation, religious freedom for all, religious and non
religious alike. To have real freedom of religion as well as freedom from
religion as guaranteed in the US Constitution.
Religion does not need the protection of the government. It will exist or
fail on its own merits, or as one famous founder said:
OCTOBER 9, 1780
I am fully of your opinion respecting religious tests; but, though
the people of
Massachusetts have not in their new constitution kept quite clear of them,
yet, if we consider what that people were one hundred years ago, we must
allow they have gone great lengths in liberality of sentiment on religious
subjects; and we may hope for greater degrees of perfection, when their
constitution, some years hence, shall be revised. If Christian preachers
had continued to teach as Christ and his Apostles did, without salaries,
and as the Quakers now do, I imagine tests would never have existed; for I
think they were invented, not so much to secure religion itself, as the
emoluments of it. When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support
itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to
support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the
civil power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one. . . .
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of letter written by Benjamin Franklin to
Dr. Richard Price, October 9, 1780. Works of Benjamin Franklin (Sparks
ed.), VIII 505-506, in Bigelow ed, VII, 139, 140. Church and State in the
United States, Volume I, Anson Phelps Stokes, D.D., LL.D., Harper &
Brothers (1950) pp 298)
>:|
>:|When religion is in government, you are hard pressed to ignore it -- I don't
>:|happen to believe that, but accept it as one of the arguments atheists
>:|make -- but when religion simply exists in the hearts and minds of others,
>:|you can ignore it all you want, and therefore have no argument to make.
LOL.
Intelligence challenged jeffy stuns us one again with his pearls of
"wisdom".
It is too complicated for him to comprehend that fact that the vast
majority of those who support church state separation aren't atheists but
are people of faith, usually in this country some form of the Christian
faith.
>:|You protection is ONLY to choose the religion you like to observe, or no
>:|religion at all if that is your choice. Your protection does not run to
>:|protections against the mere exposure to religion in the public sphere.
The above makes zilch sense but much of what you say makes no sense. That
is why you have the reputation you have.
Jeff Strickland
>
> A closing question, how many men do you think would have said SHMG on
> their
> own had that phony myth not existed?
>
There is no way to know that. Maybe all of them, maybe none. But they say
it, and I assume they say it willingly. When YOU are elected President, be
sure to speak out that you do not want to say, so help me God. Or, say it,
then sue the shit out of everybody in sight. When they elect me, I'm gonna
say it because I believe it, and because it pisses you off.
Jeff Strickland
"Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
news:7b9vg3F...@mid.individual.net...
I am not pushing into atheism at all. The only reason you see this is
because somebody cross posted to atheism and a group that I visit, and I
replied to the post, thereby cross posting to a group that I do not visit.
I don't care that atheists practice their religion of choice or practice no
religion at all, I only care that there is a move to not allow others to
practice their religion of choice -- without regard to what that religion
is. Granted, as a practical matter, I'm not interested in Satanism speech in
the public sphere, but as long as I can ignore it and not become a part, I
can express my indignation all I want. I suppose you can express your
indignation too, even at mainstream religion, but I perceive an effort to
trample on the rights of those expressing it, and that is offensive to me.
In the context of this discussion, the issue is the President Elect saying,
"so help me God." at the close of his oath of office. I see absolutely no
problem with the practice.
We open each and every session of Congress and the Court with a prayer that
God grant the wisdom to act in a steady and thoughtful manner, and I see
this as a generally good thing. Or, at least not a generally bad thing. The
practice is historical and is not codified into law, and has been
obliterated from lower levels of government -- city and county levels, most
notably -- and I can't help but wonder why the USSC would do something that
it says the rest of us are not allowed to do.
Jeff Strickland
Well, assuming that were true, then you want one thing but pursue another.
It is the pursuit of the other in the name of the first that bothers me.
You -- that's YOU -- point out that there is no law that commands the oath
of office to conclude with, "so help me God." But clearly you are offended
by the phrase repeated by individuals that are not compelled to repeat it.
Therefore the only viable conclusion must be that it is not the law that you
want to change, but the phrase itself.
You say one thing, but pursue another.
Please stop adding groups to the discussion. This has been explained to you
on numerous occasions, appparently you are too dense to understand such a
simple thing.
Jeff Strickland
It does not matter that Geeorge Washington crossed the Deleware standing or
sitting or that he got out and walked, that he chopped down the cherry tree,
tied a key to a kite string in a thunder storm, or surfed the Internet on a
Blackberry.
There is no way to assess what others might have said or not said as a
result of what Washington might have done or not done. We can be sure that
if Roosevelt had not created the interstat highway system, there would not
have been any freeway pile ups, but we can't say with any certainty that
there would not have been any other pile ups. We can say that people would
still drive 80 if they could find a place to support the practice.
We know that Abe Lincoln gave the Gettysberg, and we have copies of the
various rough drafts as well as copies of media (newspaper) reports of his
speech. We know without a doubt that what he said in the speech and what he
wrote in the drafts is different. Apparently he went off the teleprompter a
few times and spoke from his heart.
Do you suppose Washington might have tossed in, so help me God? It's not in
the oath of office, but maybe he went off the teleprompter too. I'm sure it
was recorded by the media, such as it was in those days.
Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian
news:h2qe2a$v47$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE run in 2012. With Bailin' Palin running away, the
Goposaurs need a new idiot to follow their last 5 offerings.
How are your criminal scumbag credentials?
Got any buddies in right-wing religious countries you can sell guns to?
Pals in Central America to get drug money from?
Got any plans to invade a nickel-shit country and knock over its piss-pot
dictator that one of your GOP predecessors propped up for such a purpose?
Just remember: The GOPpers are now being busted having affairs with
WOMEN, not boys or farm animals. We'll keep it don't-ask, don't-tell and
assume you're hetero.
PLEASE run. Obama won't re-elect himself. He needs your help.
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication
aa # 1939
Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/
Diploma Mill: a religious facility where minds are ground into powder.
Jeff Strickland
There are several accounts that suggest that Washington would have been
asked the oath, "do you so solemly swear ... " and his reply would have
been, "I do, so help me God." Today, we administer the oath as a statement,
the Chief Justice states a few wrods, the President then repeats them, the
Justice says more, and so on until the entirety has been recited, at which
point the President may or may not add, so help me God as he sees fit or
feels compelled, or whatever the reason is that he (or she) might so append
the oath.
If you were familiar with Washington's inauguration speech, it is very easy
to see that he would have been inclined to append, so help me God, to the
end of his oath, ESPECIALLY if it was administered (as was customary in the
day) as a question. "Do you swear?" "Yes, so help me God."
Washington makes several references to almighty power in his inauguration
speech.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/american_originals/inaugtxt.html
You provide a passage that asserts that Washington was probably present when
the Oath of Office was drafted. It appears that this is a false assertion.
He waited in his suite while the House and Senate worked out the details.
These details could have been the pomp and circumstance, and not the Oath
itself. But even if only the pomp and circumstance, the debate among the
Congress would have included, should the President repeat the oath as
administered, or simply acknowledge in the affirmative when asked.
<quote>
Washington remained at his New York residence for a week while the House and
the Senate ironed out their differences over how the formal inauguration
should be conducted. Finally, on April 30, Washington was escorted to
Federal Hall on Wall Street and into the Senate Chamber. Washington, Vice
President John Adams, the Senators and Representatives stepped out of the
chamber onto a balcony overlooking the street filled with a cheering crowd.
As there were as yet no Supreme Court Justices, the Oath of Office was
administered by Chancellor Robert R. Livingstone - New York's highest
ranking judge. After taking the oath, Washington and the others returned to
the Senate Chamber where the new president gave a short speech
</quote>
There is no reason to believe that he even needed to "alter" the oath since
it was probably administered in the form of a question. His only response he
could possibly give would have been in the affirmative, that he would have
punctuated with, "so help me God!"
Peter Franks
> "Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C3E812D...@216.196.97.131...
>> One fine day in alt.atheism, "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> IF there is no law that requires it, then why does it bother you that a
>>> President Elect may or may not choose to say it at his own discretion?
>> Good question. The atheist sees religion as a crutch. When a President
>> is
>> sworn in using the words, "so help me god", we have to assume he is
>> incapable of performing the job without help from his invisible friends,
>> which makes him certifiably insane at the very least.
>
>
> But so what? If you did not know by the time the election rolled around, you
> probably don't care, and if you did know and were bothered by it, you did
> not vote for him or her anyhow.
>
> I have to wonder if the real agenda is religion in government, or simply
> religion.
Oh, that is QUITE clear. It is religion. The 'religion in government'
is merely a crutch of their deceit.
How can you tell? Read their words. Do they denigrate religion and the
religious? Clearly, yes.
Anti-religious have no respect for other's beliefs, they have no respect
for themselves, and they deserve no respect from others. Theirs is a
world of intolerance and compulsion without freedoms.
Peter Franks
> Please stop adding groups to the discussion. This has been explained to you
> on numerous occasions, appparently you are too dense to understand such a
> simple thing.
Go easy on him. He has an agenda based on ignorance and intolerance.
Peter Franks
Doesn't matter who said what and when. If it isn't codified in law*,
then what the person adds as punctuation is their free will and choice
of expression, religious or otherwise.
*Assuming that acknowledgment of God is a "religions" -- something that
is hardly fact nor established by those with sound minds and rational
reasoning.
Jeff Strickland
<G...@Whipped.com> wrote in message
news:rk7555pr7dn5fg5po...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:01:02 -0700, Peter Franks
> <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Anti-religious have no respect for other's beliefs
>
> not want religious dogma enacted into law
>
But there is no dogma enacted into law in this discussion.
We have an instance of a President Appointee -- not even elected -- adding,
"so help me God," to an affirmative response to the question, "do you swear
to protect the Constitution of the United States?"
Then, we have recent President elects adding the same admendment to their
Oath of Office. It is not presented as a question these days, it's a
recital -- "I swear to protect the Constitution, so help me God." It is a
personal expression of faith. The real problem is, they are expressing faith
while you have the TV on, and you are now complaining about the expression.
The line is not drawn where you say it is because when we walk up to the
line placed thusly, objections fly.
> YOU have every right to practice whatever insensible,
> indefensible, cockamanie brand of religion you choose
>
> The line is drawn at the point where it is recognized
> by government.
That is not a fair line to draw. Government is not obligated to be blind to
religion, only not to promote one above the others.
If you really believe that government is obligated to be blind to religion,
then object to the Muslim foot bath that the government is building at a
public university.
ZerkonXXXX
> One fine day in alt.atheism, "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> IF there is no law that requires it, then why does it bother you that a
>> President Elect may or may not choose to say it at his own discretion?
>
> Good question. The atheist sees religion as a crutch. When a President
> is sworn in using the words, "so help me god", we have to assume he is
> incapable of performing the job without help from his invisible friends,
> which makes him certifiably insane at the very least.
The issue does not seem to be about religion but the actions or attitudes
that may result because of religion. Is this correct? Let's remove
religion for the moment and consider the actions and attitudes alone.
The phrase 'we have to assume' certainly contains the 'invisible friends'
of 'we'. 'Assumption' being a conclusion based on just taking facts so
much for granted they do not need to be proved, this very special power
of assumption stands in the place vacated by reason.
If this is what the atheist 'sees' I suggest these assumptions are every
bit a crutch as the god or gods they claim to disdain.
Jeff Strickland
<G...@Whipped.com> wrote in message
news:jai655529o0pfs1oa...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 18:17:01 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
> <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><G...@Whipped.com> wrote in message
>>news:rk7555pr7dn5fg5po...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:01:02 -0700, Peter Franks
>>> <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Anti-religious have no respect for other's beliefs
>>>
>>> The "anti-religious" is your definition of those who do
>>> not want religious dogma enacted into law
>>>
>>
>>But there is no dogma enacted into law in this discussion.
>
> by definition, a "promotion"
>
What is the GOVERNMENT promotion when a person expresses his or her faith?
THAT is the topic here. Very narrow. Very well defined. No ambiguity, no
chance of expanding bounds.
By YOUR definition, as soon as a person becomes a government official, he
must abandon his religion. That's patently absurd.
buckeye
>:|
>:|"buckeye" <bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
Oh it is very true. You can check the Google archives.
>:| then you want one thing but pursue another.
The above is mombo jumbo making no sense.
I'll put back that which as per usual you have deleted:
You did leave the first part
>:|> You have had the "real agenda" identified and explained to you by hundreds
>:|> upon hundreds of people over the years.
but deleted all the following:
>:|Please stop adding groups to the discussion. This has been explained to you
>:|on numerous occasions, appparently you are too dense to understand such a
>:|simple thing.
Nothing to do with dense dude. I do not pay any attention to your comments,
requests, suggestions, etc about how I should or shouldn't post. I have
posted the same way since Feb 1995 and am not going to change for you or
anyone else. My ISP allows 7 groups, thus I post to 7 groups. You don't
like it, too bad. Get over it.
Besides it is always fun letting as many people as possible see how dumb
you are.
buckeye
>:|
>:|"buckeye" <bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>:|news:tc9155ph796l39rsf...@4ax.com...
>:|>
>:|> A closing question, how many men do you think would have said SHMG on
>:|> their
>:|> own had that phony myth not existed?
>:|>
>:|
>:|There is no way to know that. Maybe all of them,
We already know that isn't true since no one is fully documented as saying
it until the latter half of the 1800s AFTER the myth appeared in print. It
didn't become regular till the 20th century
>:\ maybe none. But they say
>:|it, and I assume they say it willingly.
Some actually say SHMG, some agree to those words when another offers
them as part of the oath of office.
Even when the info is spoon fed you, you still can't get it. You have not
addressed the real issues yet
But then you never do.
Jeff Strickland
<G...@Whipped.com> wrote in message
news:7op755522gob3cvq2...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 11:15:20 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
> <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><G...@Whipped.com> wrote in message
>>news:jai655529o0pfs1oa...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 18:17:01 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
>>> <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><G...@Whipped.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:rk7555pr7dn5fg5po...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:01:02 -0700, Peter Franks
>>>>> <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Anti-religious have no respect for other's beliefs
>>>>>
>>>>> The "anti-religious" is your definition of those who do
>>>>> not want religious dogma enacted into law
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>But there is no dogma enacted into law in this discussion.
>>>
>>> The association of government and religious dogma IS,
>>> by definition, a "promotion"
>>>
>>
>>What is the GOVERNMENT promotion when a person expresses his or her faith?
>
> any venue not associated with government
>
It's patently absurd that private speech is suddenly government promotion of
religion just because of the venue. Private expression of faith is not
government promotion of religion simply because of the venue. If venue
entangles government in religion, then there is a de facto religious test
because by your reasoning there can be no private religion in a government
employee, therefore any employee that has religion must never freely express
or practice his religion -- he must only express or practice in private.
That's crazy talk!
>>By YOUR definition, as soon as a person becomes a government official, he
>>must abandon his religion. That's patently absurd.
>
> By LAW, any person acting in an offical capacity of
> government MUST not promote religious stupidity.
>
By RIGHT, a government employee must not be required to check his religion
at the door. Youi just imposed a religious test, only the non-religious
shall pass.
buckeye
>:|>>:| "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|IF there is no law that requires it, then why does it bother you that a
>:|>>:|President Elect may or may not choose to say it at his own discretion?
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|
>:|"buckeye" <bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
Cite them, quote them.
You are talking to one of the three original researches on this matter
(Mike Newdow, The late USAF (retired) Lt Col. Glen Goffin, myself) We have
the documentation, the copies of letters, diplomatic reports, newspaper
articles, diary entries, etc. We know what took place, you don't.
G. Washington did not say SHMG nor did anyone say those words to him.
One more jeffy is in his make it up as he goes along mode.
>:|Today, we administer the oath as a statement,
Hasn't always been that way stupid. I already stated all of that in my
previous replies to you.
>:|the Chief Justice states a few wrods, the President then repeats them, the
>:|Justice says more, and so on until the entirety has been recited, at which
>:|point the President may or may not add, so help me God as he sees fit or
>:|feels compelled, or whatever the reason is that he (or she) might so append
>:|the oath.
>:|
>:|If you were familiar with Washington's inauguration speech, it is very easy
>:|to see that he would have been inclined to append, so help me God, to the
>:|end of his oath, ESPECIALLY if it was administered (as was customary in the
>:|day) as a question. "Do you swear?" "Yes, so help me God."
You are talking to one of the three original researches on this matter
(Mike Newdow, The late USAF (retired) Lt Col. Glen Goffin, myself) We have
the documentation, the copies of letters, diplomatic reports, newspaper
articles, diary entries, etc. We know what took place, you don't.
G. Washington did not say SHMG nor did anyone say those words to him.
One more jeffy is in his make it up as he goes along mode.
There is no CONTEMPORARY (I know that is a big word but I am sure you can
find the meaning if you look it up) evidence, documentation, reports, that
Washington ever said SHMG or that any president did prior to a suspect
report that Lincoln did, and no others till later in the late 1800s.
The actual words spoken were reported word for word in newspaper accounts
and in a couple diplomatic reports sent back to their respective foreign
countries.
>:|
>:|Washington makes several references to almighty power in his inauguration
>:|speech.
>:|
>:|http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/american_originals/inaugtxt.html
>:|
Irrelevant since we are talking about his oath taking.
>:|You provide a passage that asserts that Washington was probably present when
>:|the Oath of Office was drafted. It appears that this is a false assertion.
Have you ever in your life been in an American History class? If you have
were you actually awake and sober?
STUPID, STUPID, STUPID
The oath of office for President of the US was DRAFTED AT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION in Phil in the summer of 1787. G Washington was
President of that Convention. He was present at that convention, perhaps
not each and every day but he was aware of all that was agreed to at that
convention.
The oath of office for President of the US was NOT DRAFTED AT THE
INAUGURATION in NY in April 1789.
Thank you for once more demonstrating your total ignorance and stupidity.
>:|He waited in his suite while the House and Senate worked out the details.
>:|These details could have been the pomp and circumstance, and not the Oath
>:|itself. But even if only the pomp and circumstance, the debate among the
>:|Congress would have included, should the President repeat the oath as
>:|administered, or simply acknowledge in the affirmative when asked.
>:|
>:|<quote>
>:|Washington remained at his New York residence for a week while the House and
>:|the Senate ironed out their differences over how the formal inauguration
>:|should be conducted. Finally, on April 30, Washington was escorted to
>:|Federal Hall on Wall Street and into the Senate Chamber. Washington, Vice
>:|President John Adams, the Senators and Representatives stepped out of the
>:|chamber onto a balcony overlooking the street filled with a cheering crowd.
>:|As there were as yet no Supreme Court Justices, the Oath of Office was
>:|administered by Chancellor Robert R. Livingstone - New York's highest
>:|ranking judge. After taking the oath, Washington and the others returned to
>:|the Senate Chamber where the new president gave a short speech
>:|
>:|</quote>
>:|
>:|
>:|There is no reason to believe that he even needed to "alter" the oath since
>:|it was probably administered in the form of a question. His only response he
>:|could possibly give would have been in the affirmative, that he would have
>:|punctuated with, "so help me God!"
>:|
Probably huh?
You are talking to one of the three original researches on this matter
(Mike Newdow, The late USAF (retired) Lt Col. Glen Goffin, myself) We have
the documentation, the copies of letters, diplomatic reports, newspaper
articles, diary entries, etc. We know what took place, you don't.
G. Washington did not say SHMG nor did anyone say those words to him.
One more jeffy is in his make it up as he goes along mode.
There is no CONTEMPORARY (I know that is a big word but I am sure you can
find the meaning if you look it up) evidence, documentation, reports, that
Washington ever said SHMG or that any president did prior to a suspect
report that Lincoln did, and no others till later in the late 1800s.
The actual words spoken were reported word for word in newspaper accounts
and in a couple diplomatic reports sent back to their respective foreign
countries.
buckeye
>:|
>:|"buckeye" <bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
What a silly lame argument but par for the course for jeffy
It is a documented fact that you feel facts, details, evidence, truth is
unimportant. You're the guy who has actually admitted to making things up
as you go. if it sounds good to you it must be true. If you think it is
or should be true it must be to you offer it as truth.
>:|There is no way to assess what others might have said or not said as a
>:|result of what Washington might have done or not done.
Oh but there is dippy.. It is called primary source historical
documentation and it is found using the HISTORICAL METHOD of research and
study. Things you know nothing at all about.
>:| We can be sure that
>:|if Roosevelt had not created the interstat highway system,
You're really on a stupid role aren't you. Roosevelt didn't create the
interstate system Eisenhower was the one who was the force behind that
based on the German autobauns he saw in Germany
[ Only so many examples of your detachment with reality is required in any
given post of yours so SNIP ]
>:|Do you suppose Washington might have tossed in, so help me God? It's not in
>:|the oath of office, but maybe he went off the teleprompter too. I'm sure it
>:|was recorded by the media, such as it was in those days.
It was recorded that he did not say SHMG. Stuck your foot in your mouth on
that one didn't you? LOL
buckeye
Frankie baby must be looking in the mirror projecting himself on himself .
buckeye
>:|Jeff Strickland wrote:
>:|> "Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
>:|> news:Xns9C3E812D...@216.196.97.131...
>:|>> One fine day in alt.atheism, "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com>
>:|>> wrote:
>:|>>
>:|>>> IF there is no law that requires it, then why does it bother you that a
>:|>>> President Elect may or may not choose to say it at his own discretion?
>:|>> Good question. The atheist sees religion as a crutch. When a President
>:|>> is
>:|>> sworn in using the words, "so help me god", we have to assume he is
>:|>> incapable of performing the job without help from his invisible friends,
>:|>> which makes him certifiably insane at the very least.
>:|>
>:|>
>:|> But so what? If you did not know by the time the election rolled around, you
>:|> probably don't care, and if you did know and were bothered by it, you did
>:|> not vote for him or her anyhow.
>:|>
>:|> I have to wonder if the real agenda is religion in government, or simply
>:|> religion.
>:|
>:|Oh, that is QUITE clear. It is religion. The 'religion in government'
>:|is merely a crutch of their deceit.
Sounds like frankie baby is getting a bit frazzled. He is sounding very
radical here very much like a Radical Relkigious Right type
>:|
>:|How can you tell? Read their words. Do they denigrate religion and the
>:|religious? Clearly, yes.
YES!!!!!!!
By all means read the words:
************************************************************
James Madison on Separation of Church and State
Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
Madison
----------------------------------------
OCTOBER 1, 1803
Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and additions, etc [1]
(3) after "assure"-are proposed "in due season, and under prudent
arrangements, important aids to our Treasury, as well as," an ample etc.
Quere: if the two or three succeeding paragraphs be not more
adapted to the separate and subsequent communication, if adopted as above
suggested.
(4) For the first sentence, may be substituted "In the territory between
the Mississippi and the Ohio another valuable acquisition has been made by
a treaty etc."[3.] As it stands, it does not sufficiently distinguish the
nature of the one acquisition from that of the other, and seems to imply
that the acquisition from France was wholly on the other side of the
Mississippi
May it not be as well to omit the detail of the stipulated
considerations, and particularly that of the Roman Catholic Pastor. The
jealousy of some may see in it a principle, not according with the
exemption of Religion from Civil power. In the Indian Treaty it will be
less noticed than in a President's speech.[4.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1.] For TJ's third annual message to Congress, Oct. 17, 1803, see Ford,
VIII, pp. 266-7)
[3.] TI's message announced the acquisition of territory by treaty from the
Kaskaskia Indians; see
Ford, VIII, pp. 269-70.
[4.] TJ accepted JM's suggestion to omit any discussion of Indian treaty
requirements to maintain a Roman Catholic priest, leaving the stipulations
in the treaty to "the competence of both
houses.... as soon as the senate shall have advised its ratification"; see
ibid.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, Washington, Oct.
1, 1803, Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and
additions, etc.[1.],
The Republic of Letters, the Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and
James Madison, 1776-1826, Edited by James Morton Smith, Vol. II, 1790
-1804, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, London, (1995) pp 1297-98)
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARCH 2, 1819
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions
with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of
the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly
increased by the total separation of the church from the State."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excert of a letter to Robert Walsh from James
Madison. MARCH 2, 1819 Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 121-126. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
----------------------------------------------------------
1817-1833
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the
Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already furnished
in their short history"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt from Madison's Detached Memoranda. This
document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell Rives, a
biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in Madison's hand
sometime between 1817 and 1832. The entire document was published by
Elizabeth Fleet in the William and Mary Quarterly of October 1946.
----------------------------------------------------------
JULY 10, 1822
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have
no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done,
in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity
the less they are mixed together"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of letter to Edward Livingston from James
Madison, July 10, 1822. Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 273-276. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
---------------------------------------------------------------
SEPTEMBER 1833
"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to
trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil
authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on
unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other
or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded
against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way
whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting
each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others".
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter written by James Madison to Rev. Jasper
Adams, September, 1833.Writings of James Madison, edited by Gaillard Hunt,
[not sure what the volume number is but have enough information presented
here to locate the letter] microform Z1236.L53, pp 484-488. )
------------------------------------------------------------------
DECEMBER 3, 1816
And may I not be allowed to add to this gratifying spectacle that I
shall read in the character of the American people, in their devotion to
true liberty and to the Constitution which is its palladium, sure presages
that the destined career of my country will exhibit a Government pursuing
the public good as its sole object, and regulating its means by the great
principles consecrated in its charter and by those moral principles to
which they are so well allied; a Government which watches over the purity
of elections, the freedom of speech and of the press, the trial by jury,
and the equal interdict against encroachments and compacts between religion
and the state; . . .
JAMES MADISON.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt from James Madison's 8th Annual Message to
Congress pp. A compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents,
1789-1897, James D Richardson ed. Volume I, Bureau of National Literature,
NY (1897) 564-565
*************************************************************
"The remaining part of the clause declares, that 'no religious test shall
ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under
the United States.' This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose
of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an
invincible repugnance to any test or affirmation. It had a higher object;
to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and
state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were
fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in history of
other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own. They knew,
that bigotry was unceasingly vigilant in its own stratagems, to secure to
itself an exclusive ascendancy over the human mind; and that intolerance
was ever ready to arm itself with all the terrors of civil power to
exterminate those, who doubted its dogmas, or resisted its infallibility."
(COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, by Supreme Court
Justice Joseph Story, Vol III, (1833) pg 705)
------------------------------------------------------
Then, indirectly the entire document (unamended constitution) as a whole.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Thomas Tucker on Church and State, September 1789
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/basic2a.htm
Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madvetos.htm
o James Madison And National Religion
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madnational.htm
A Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion
(1784)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/assessb.htm
James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance (June,1785)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/memorial.htm
Jefferson's Bill for Religious Freedom (Passed December, 1785)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/statute.htm
Excerpts from James Madison's Detached Memoranda (written after 1817)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/detach.htm
>:|Anti-religious have no respect for other's beliefs, they have no respect
>:|for themselves, and they deserve no respect from others. Theirs is a
>:|world of intolerance and compulsion without freedoms.
Problem with the above is the vast majority of people who support church
state separation (religious freedom) are religious people. In this country
ususally Christians of some denomination.
So, frankie's rant doesn't really apply.
Nothing new in that
buckeye
>:|What is the GOVERNMENT promotion when a person expresses his or her faith?
>:|
>:|THAT is the topic here. Very narrow. Very well defined. No ambiguity, no
>:|chance of expanding bounds.
You are so comical. There are no hard fast rules to discussions in any
thread. You comment above is a joke
The topic is Oaths of office and SHMG.
That can be as narrow or wide as anyone participating in this description
wants to make it.
The topic that I began pertained to the myth of Washington adding to the
oath of office as given in the Constitution or whoever is administering
that oath adding to it illegally
That was/is the topic.
You are working very hard trying to make it some sort of free speech thing
Jeff Strickland
>
>
> It was recorded that he did not say SHMG. Stuck your foot in your mouth on
> that one didn't you? LOL
>
Precisely, he did say, so help me God, but you're posting shit that says he
did not and that's it's a myth.
The myth is supported, and is a moot point. So what if he said, so help me
God?
There is no law to demand the practice, and therefore no entanglement when a
president elect elects on his own to say it.
The pursuit (notably by Michale Newdow) of a ruling to make it illegal for a
president elect to invoke his freedom of religion and the free expression
thereof is not a case of the separation of church and state, it is a full
frontal attack on the freedom of religion in this country.
Michael is laying the groundwork (I'd say he was expanding on groundwork
already laid, but I'll save that discussion for another day) that says HIS
freedom of religion is attacked through the mere exposure to the faith of
others in a public venue. FOR THE RECORD, you also seem to take the same
position, although you take it through posting the work of others instead of
posting your own opinion on pretty much anything -- one must arrive at your
opinion by reading the kinds of things you post. You know my opinion because
I articulate in my own words, and I do it unwaveringly.
Newdow's case boils down to one simple concept, his freedom FROM (not OF)
religion is violated when he has to listen to somebody else express faith.
buckeye
>:|
>:|"buckeye" <bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>:|news:v1v855tm8gksa1laa...@4ax.com...
>:|>
>:|>
>:|> It was recorded that he did not say SHMG. Stuck your foot in your mouth on
>:|> that one didn't you? LOL
>:|>
>:|
>:|Precisely, he did say, so help me God, but you're posting shit that says he
>:|did not and that's it's a myth.
What a fucking clown
Let me repeat what I said
It was documented that he DID NOT say SHMG.
I understand you are dense but you are establishing new records in jeffy.
>:|The myth is supported, and is a moot point. So what if he said, so help me
>:|God?
I also understand you have no respect for law, unless it supports what you
believe or want, documentation, evidence, facts, truth. So you can't or
won't ever understand the answer to so what. It has been given to you
enough times and it has never registtered. No one home in your attic with
regards to that.
>:|There is no law to demand the practice,
There is pressure to agree.
That is one of the issues, as has been pointed out to you by me dippy.
But that too appears to be over your head.
>:|and therefore no entanglement when a
>:|president elect elects on his own to say it.
Not the issue dude and he isn't saying it on his own if the Chief Justice
amends the Constitution unlawfully by including So help you God in the
oath as a question.
I know why you get so upset when I add my usual newsgroups adter you have
deleted some. Alt.eduction is one of thise I add and you hate
alt.education. There are people in there that tear you a new asshole on a
regular basis when your posts appear in there.
buckeye
>:|The pursuit (notably by Michale Newdow) of a ruling to make it illegal for a
>:|president elect to invoke his freedom of religion and the free expression
>:|thereof is not a case of the separation of church and state, it is a full
>:|frontal attack on the freedom of religion in this country.
Liar !
This is what I know for a fact.
(1) you have never exchanged emails with Michael Newdow (you can't even
spell his name correctly)
(2) You have never done anything for Mike Newdow
(3) You have never done anything jointly with Mike Newdow
(4) You have met Mike Newdow face to face
(5) You have never talked to Mike Newdow on the phone or face to face.
(6) You don't have a clue what he is about what his cases are about, what
he is trying to do and why.
You are playing your usual
Jeff - I don't have a clue what I am talking about, but I am good at
pretending and making it up as I go along so don't confuse me with the
facts, my mind is made up. I stereotype and prejudge. It has always worked
well in the past, why change now - Strickland
You have a habit of lettign youtr fingers run away with your mind, what
little you have, passing of your beliefs and opinsion as fact and true.
They are neither.
>:|
>:|Michael is laying the groundwork (I'd say he was expanding on groundwork
>:|already laid, but I'll save that discussion for another day) that says HIS
>:|freedom of religion is attacked through the mere exposure to the faith of
>:|others in a public venue. FOR THE RECORD, you also seem to take the same
>:|position, although you take it through posting the work of others instead of
>:|posting your own opinion on pretty much anything -- one must arrive at your
>:|opinion by reading the kinds of things you post. You know my opinion because
>:|I articulate in my own words, and I do it unwaveringly.
>:|
>:|Newdow's case boils down to one simple concept, his freedom FROM (not OF)
>:|religion is violated when he has to listen to somebody else express faith.
Liar !
Jeff Strickland
> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>:|The pursuit (notably by Michale Newdow) of a ruling to make it illegal
>>for a
>>:|president elect to invoke his freedom of religion and the free
>>expression
>>:|thereof is not a case of the separation of church and state, it is a
>>full
>>:|frontal attack on the freedom of religion in this country.
>
> Liar !
>
> This is what I know for a fact.
>
> (1) you have never exchanged emails with Michael Newdow (you can't even
> spell his name correctly)
>
Keystroke error.
> (2) You have never done anything for Mike Newdow
>
> (3) You have never done anything jointly with Mike Newdow
>
> (4) You have met Mike Newdow face to face
>
> (5) You have never talked to Mike Newdow on the phone or face to face.
>
> (6) You don't have a clue what he is about what his cases are about, what
> he is trying to do and why.
>
I don't have to do anything with Newdow. He is more transparent than a
window. Everybody can see exactly what his agenda is.
He is building a case to silence all public display of religion, even when
the public display is privately owned or expressed.
He wants freedom FROM religion. His right, our right, is freedom OF
religion.
I can read his cases and see what they are about.
I said, years ago, that he had no standing in the Pledge case. I was right.
He's refiled with a couple that has standing, but I've lost track of where
the suit is. Oh well. I was right in that he lacked standing in the first
case.
I believe that the Pledge will stand as not infringing on the Establlishment
Clause.
Michael Newdow does not care about the Establishment Clause, although he
hides behind it. He wants all public expression of religion done away with.
He's working in a methodical manner to go step by step. He'll go after the
guy on the street corner soon with a Jesus sign and a guitar because the
religious speech is on the public sidewalk and therefore a breach of the
Establishment Clause. When he gets through that, he'll demand that private
religious schools not be allowed to participate in intramural sports -- the
Christian school footbal team won't be allowed to play against the public
school team because the Christian team might try to pray on the line of
scrimmage or some such crap.
Peter Franks
I don't understand how the Establishment Clause has been incorporated.
Uncle Vic
wrote:
> We open each and every session of Congress and the Court with a prayer
> that God grant the wisdom to act in a steady and thoughtful manner
1. This implies that Congress or the Court don't have the wisdom to do so
themselves. And they are at the reigns.
2. Which god?
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Separator of Church and Reason.
Convicted by Earthquack.
Looking forward to May 21, 2012 or is it 2011? Or is it sometime in
December? These idiots can't even agree...
buckeye
>:|
>:|"buckeye" <bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>:|news:vmac559equi8o51ta...@4ax.com...
>:|> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>:|>
>:|>
>:|>>:|The pursuit (notably by Michale Newdow) of a ruling to make it illegal
>:|>>for a
>:|>>:|president elect to invoke his freedom of religion and the free
>:|>>expression
>:|>>:|thereof is not a case of the separation of church and state, it is a
>:|>>full
>:|>>:|frontal attack on the freedom of religion in this country.
>:|>
>:|> Liar !
>:|>
>:|> This is what I know for a fact.
>:|>
>:|> (1) you have never exchanged emails with Michael Newdow (you can't even
>:|> spell his name correctly)
>:|>
>:|
>:|Keystroke error.
>:|
>:|
>:|
>:|> (2) You have never done anything for Mike Newdow
>:|>
>:|> (3) You have never done anything jointly with Mike Newdow
>:|>
>:|> (4) You have met Mike Newdow face to face
>:|>
>:|> (5) You have never talked to Mike Newdow on the phone or face to face.
>:|>
>:|> (6) You don't have a clue what he is about what his cases are about, what
>:|> he is trying to do and why.
>:|>
>:|
>:|I don't have to do anything with Newdow. He is more transparent than a
>:|window. Everybody can see exactly what his agenda is.
Everybody? You know that the entire population, every man, woman and child
can see exactly what his agenda is?
Everybody sees the exact same thing, understands the exact same thing.
How stupid and foolish you are.
It is no wonder certain things have been said about you over and over
again by a number of people.
>:|He is building a case to silence all public display of religion, even when
>:|the public display is privately owned or expressed.
>:|
The above shows how full of shit you are.
>:|He wants freedom FROM religion. His right, our right, is freedom OF
>:|religion.
Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion, something you are
refuse to understand
>:|
>:|I can read his cases and see what they are about.
You have demonstrated time and time again that (1) you don't read cases,
(2) doing so gives you headaches, (3) and you do not understand court cases
the few times you have tried to read any.
>:|I said, years ago, that he had no standing in the Pledge case. I was right.
>:|He's refiled with a couple that has standing, but I've lost track of where
>:|the suit is. Oh well. I was right in that he lacked standing in the first
>:|case.
Based on California law and the California court rules that he did have
standing. The SCOTUS turned federalism on its ear in desperation to find
something to deny his case since they were caught between a rock and a hard
place.
Politically it would be suicide to rule in favor of him on the merits,
yes even the SCOTUS pays attention to political winds, yet they couldn't
rule against him since his case was valid.
They took the easy way out.
He is back with a new case where standing will not be a issue, however the
courts are still showing how afraid they are. The 9th Circuit panel of 3
judges which heard the oral arguments well over a year ago has still not
issued it's ruling.
>:|I believe
Who cars what you believe.
>:| that the Pledge will stand as not infringing on the Establlishment
>:|Clause.
A conservative SCOTUS probably will rule that way. No surprise there. They
can't doge it two times in a row. However, if they do you can rest assured
it will be a political ruling and not one based on the actual merits of the
case.
You can also bank on the fact that if it turns out being a 5-4 ruling
similar cases will be brought to court as soon as the makeup of the court
begins changing
The RRR does such things all the time, well the other side can begin
playing that game too.
>:|Michael Newdow does not care about the Establishment Clause, although he
>:|hides behind it.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted but since is your opinion and backed up
with nothing it is meaningless.
>:|He wants all public expression of religion done away with.
That which is unconstitutional, yep he does.
Any American who supports true religious freedom, supports the Constitution
should desire the same and fight to achieve that.
That doesn't bode well for you and your types.
>:|He's working in a methodical manner to go step by step.
What a piece of work you are. Totally blind to waht your own side does.
Your side has been going about trying to achieve a number of their goals in
a very methodical method but you purposely look away or are plain too
stupid to notice it.
>:|He'll go after the
>:|guy on the street corner soon with a Jesus sign and a guitar because the
>:|religious speech is on the public sidewalk and therefore a breach of the
>:|Establishment Clause. When he gets through that, he'll demand that private
>:|religious schools not be allowed to participate in intramural sports -- the
>:|Christian school footbal team won't be allowed to play against the public
>:|school team because the Christian team might try to pray on the line of
>:|scrimmage or some such crap.
LOL, it is no wonder people have posted the following over the years about
you:
Just a small portion of Jeffy's track record:
Jeff Strickland displays his "intelligence and knowledge"
"Jeff Strickland" wrote:
>:|But the Adams son was a child, or relative child, when the Adams father was
>:|Prez.
ACTUAL FACTS:
John Adams 1735-1826.
President 1797-1801
John Q. Adams 1767-1848
President 1825-1829
J.Q. Adams was approx 30 years old when his father was elected president.
That hardly makes him a child or relative child
One more time jeffy dazzles us with his ignorance
********************************************************************
NOTE THE CONFUSION IN HIS OWN THINKING:
Not mandatory, but federal law permits, indeed it compels--or nearly
compels�
Jeffy strickland wrote
>:|But reciting the Pledge is not a mandatory activity, the clients can opt out
>:|of the daily exercise if they want to. Even Newdow's own daughter could opt
>:|out, but he was not satisfied with that because she was still exposed to the
>:|word, God coming from the other children.
>:|
>:|And Federal Law permits the recital of the Pledge, indeed it compels -- or
>:|nearly compels -- the recital. State Education Code is attempting to follow
>:|Federal Law in this regard.
ACTUAL FACTS:
Jeffy - I don't know sh*t about law - strickland messes up AGAIN
Ever hear of this before
http://66.34.103.193/ufc/Other/Gov-Religion/Pledge.htm
1943: The Supreme Court rules that students can not be forced to recite
the pledge. (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette)
The USSC has also stated that "opting out, such as leaving the room, etc is
not acceptable.
************************************
Jeffy - I am "against" vouchers but I have offered every pro voucher
argument ever offered on the internet in voucher discussions for at least a
year to two years now - strickland
******************************************
[Jeffy had asked another]
>Why do you feel the constant need to be nasty?
To you? Because you are an ignoramus who not only does not check his
facts, but posts endlessly repeating stuff that has been disproven
several times. You also seem to think that your unsupported opinion
is of interest to other people.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier,
**********************************
[To that I add]
Jeff - I don't have a clue what I am talking about, but I am good at
pretending and making it up as I go along so don't confuse me with the
facts, my mind is made up. I stereotype and prejudge. It has always worked
well in the past, why change now - Strickland
**********
Jeffy -- maybe, I heard, but didn't bother to do any independent research,
[ He says it gives him a headache] I like to believe things I want to hear.
I don't like knowing the facts if they aren't going to agree with what I
want to believe and I especially love passing along on the internet, as
facts, things I haven't a clue about their accuracy -- Strickland )
*******************************
[To Jeff Strickland]
I find it "interesting" that you are so incredibly stupid that you totally
missed the citation to the _New York Times_.
You seem to have remembered to take your one-a-day stupid pills.
Gray Shockley
**********
"Jeff Strickland" <beer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think I see more intolerance.
"Gray Shockley" <gray-...@cybercoffee.org> wrote in message
Oh, no, no, no.
You neither "think" nor "see".
Is that better?
*******************************
Jeff Strickland wrote:
> I find it interesting that when Carol is unable to find the link, you ignore
> the request for assistance. But, when I am unable to find the link (and
> volunteer twice that I have looked), you jump in with a snide remark that
> "the search was not too difficult," as though I am the idiot.
[Joni said]
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply you are an idiot. I meant to just
come right out and say you are an idiot.
**************************************
[another time Joni asked Jeffy]
Were you born this stupid or did you take a class?
**************************************
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:12:45 -0500, Jeff Strickland wrote
> The ACLU is not mentioned in this story, but I believe they have been
> mentioned in other stories on the same topic with the same county. Perhaps I
> am being a bit reactionary to point my boney fingers at the ACLU,
You don't mind that some of us consider you a pschopathetic liar, do you?
After all, you seem to create "facts" just like your spiritual
great-great-great-great-great grandfather, Richard "I'll Dick You" Cheney.
Are you so [drunk, stoned, Bushed, freaked out] that you even realize how
much - and how many - of your posts are lies?
Are you truly stupid or totally insane?
Gray Shockley
**************************************
[jeffy was asked]
Can you back this up with truthful citations or is this just more of your
"lies manufactured especially for any and all occasions by Jeffie
Strickland"?
Gray Shockley
Vicksburg, MS
**************************************
As you, Jeffie the Wack Strickland, are quite obviously the product of no
education whatsoever.
Gray Shockley
**************************************
[jeffy had said]
>It is the mother that has custodial and full guardianship
>rights of the child. Newdow has no rights relative to this child and her
>rearing.
YOU STUPID FUCKING ILLITERATE MORON, READ WHAT YOU AGREED
WITH EARLIER! THE COURTS HAVE RULED THAT NONCUSTODIAL
PARENTS **DO** HAVE RIGHTS TO THE RELIGIOUS UPBRINGING
OF THEIR CHILDREN, YOU BRAIN-DAMAGED TURD!
Merlyn LeRoy
*********************************************************
Said to Jeff Strickland
Because you are clueless, seeing an objection when there is none, and
failing to understand the objection that I do have.
Aren't you again showing your cluelessness? Yes.
lojbab
********************************************************
[Larry Hewitt said to Jeff Strickland]
> > Seeing that you deleted my links to the US census and a current news
> > report
> > that both proved you to be factually incorrect, I conclude that you
> > acknowledge your failure and chose to try to lie your way out of your
> > defeat.
> > larry
[jeff replied ]
> Those links show NOTHING relative to this discussion.
[Larry naidled jeff with]
So you deleted them because you were afraid I was making a fool of myself
in public, and you wanted to shield me from that humiliation??
Nah, you're just a rightard liar.
Larry
*********************************************************
Jeff Strickland said
>Attack the messenger, never the message. How many times have I seen this
>before?
Lots. Because you're a stupid fuck.
I'm not even saying this to be insulting. You really are genuinely stupid.
You enter legal discussions without having the slightest idea of the legal
issues involved, and you show no signs of being educable.
Merlyn LeRoy
**************************************************************
Strickland said
>Your language demonstrates a certain level of education in itself.
No, it demonstrates that I don't suffer fools gladly.
You demonstrate that you can't reason well, because
using phrases like "stupid fuck" indicates nothing about
the speaker's education level.
Merlyn LeRoy
----------------------------------------------------
strickland
>Because I take a position opposite of yours? That's rich.
No, because you're obviously stupid, and ignorant of how the courts
work, yet that doesn't stop you from shooting your mouth off.
You really are an ignorant fuck.
Merlyn LeRoy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
strickland
>Yeah, "ignorant fuck" is precise. Idiot.
Yes, for you, it is. You shoot your mouth off in complete ignorance.
Repeatedly. You're an "ignorant fuck".
Merlyn LeRoy
**************************************************************************
J.Q. Adams was approx 30 years old when his father was elected president.
That hardly makes him a child or relative child
One more time jeffy dazzles us with his ignorance
********************************************************************
Jeffy - I am "against" vouchers but I have offered every pro voucher
argument ever offered on the internet in voucher discussions for at least a
year to two years now - strickland
******************************************
[Jeffy had asked another]
>Why do you feel the constant need to be nasty?
To you? Because you are an ignoramus who not only does not check his
facts, but posts endlessly repeating stuff that has been disproven
several times. You also seem to think that your unsupported opinion
is of interest to other people.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier,
**********************************
[To that I add]
Jeff - I don't have a clue what I am talking about, but I am good at
pretending and making it up as I go along so don't confuse me with the
facts, my mind is made up. I stereotype and prejudge. It has always worked
well in the past, why change now - Strickland
**********
Jeffy -- maybe, I heard, but didn't bother to do any independent research,
[ He says it gives him a headache] I like to believe things I want to hear.
I don't like knowing the facts if they aren't going to agree with what I
want to believe and I especially love passing along on the internet, as
facts, things I haven't a clue about their accuracy -- Strickland )
*******************************
[To Jeff Strickland]
I find it "interesting" that you are so incredibly stupid that you totally
missed the citation to the _New York Times_.
You seem to have remembered to take your one-a-day stupid pills.
Gray Shockley
**********
"Jeff Strickland" <beer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think I see more intolerance.
"Gray Shockley" <gray-...@cybercoffee.org> wrote in message
Oh, no, no, no.
You neither "think" nor "see".
Is that better?
*******************************
Jeff Strickland wrote:
> I find it interesting that when Carol is unable to find the link, you ignore
> the request for assistance. But, when I am unable to find the link (and
> volunteer twice that I have looked), you jump in with a snide remark that
> "the search was not too difficult," as though I am the idiot.
[Joni said]
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply you are an idiot. I meant to just
come right out and say you are an idiot.
**************************************
[another time Joni asked Jeffy]
Were you born this stupid or did you take a class?
**************************************
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:12:45 -0500, Jeff Strickland wrote
> The ACLU is not mentioned in this story, but I believe they have been
> mentioned in other stories on the same topic with the same county. Perhaps I
> am being a bit reactionary to point my boney fingers at the ACLU,
You don't mind that some of us consider you a pschopathetic liar, do you?
After all, you seem to create "facts" just like your spiritual
great-great-great-great-great grandfather, Richard "I'll Dick You" Cheney.
Are you so [drunk, stoned, Bushed, freaked out] that you even realize how
much - and how many - of your posts are lies?
Are you truly stupid or totally insane?
Gray Shockley
**************************************
[jeffy was asked]
Can you back this up with truthful citations or is this just more of your
"lies manufactured especially for any and all occasions by Jeffie
Strickland"?
Gray Shockley
Vicksburg, MS
**************************************
As you, Jeffie the Wack Strickland, are quite obviously the product of no
education whatsoever.
Gray Shockley
**************************************
[jeffy had said]
>It is the mother that has custodial and full guardianship
>rights of the child. Newdow has no rights relative to this child and her
>rearing.
YOU STUPID FUCKING ILLITERATE MORON, READ WHAT YOU AGREED
WITH EARLIER! THE COURTS HAVE RULED THAT NONCUSTODIAL
PARENTS **DO** HAVE RIGHTS TO THE RELIGIOUS UPBRINGING
OF THEIR CHILDREN, YOU BRAIN-DAMAGED TURD!
Merlyn LeRoy
*********************************************************
Said to Jeff Strickland
Because you are clueless, seeing an objection when there is none, and
failing to understand the objection that I do have.
Aren't you again showing your cluelessness? Yes.
lojbab
********************************************************
[Larry Hewitt said to Jeff Strickland]
> > Seeing that you deleted my links to the US census and a current news
> > report
> > that both proved you to be factually incorrect, I conclude that you
> > acknowledge your failure and chose to try to lie your way out of your
> > defeat.
> > larry
[jeff replied ]
> Those links show NOTHING relative to this discussion.
[Larry naidled jeff with]
So you deleted them because you were afraid I was making a fool of myself
in
public, and you wanted to shield me from that humiliation??
Nah, you're just a rightard liar.
Larry
*********************************************************