Religions > Atheism > Another missive from our friend, Brother Falwell . . . fyi . . .
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
17 Oct 2003 03:30:36 AM |
| Object: |
Another missive from our friend, Brother Falwell . . . fyi . . . |
Falwell Confidential
Date: October 16, 2003
From: Jerry Falwell
WILL GOD BE BANNED?
One nation, under God.
That's the diminutive phrase that got a California atheist so nervous
he
filed a suit so that his daughter would not be compelled to repeat the
phrase at her California school.
Incredibly, the case got so far as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals
where a panel of judges actually agreed that "under God" is a violation
of
the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
It still astonishes me that we have arrived at a point in our nation's
history that the mere mention of God's name - something our Founders
recurrently did as they established this religiously influenced nation
- is
now seen as inappropriate and downright wrong.
Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has accepted a Justice Department appeal,
agreeing to take on the case, giving hope to the majority of Americans
that
this simple, yet powerful, phrase will remain in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
As I reported last year, the entire argument made by Michael Newdow -
the
atheist who brought suit against the Pledge - was bogus from the onset.
Mr.
Newdow claimed that his nine-year-old daughter (at the time) was
offended
because she was required to make reference to God at school.
This was patently false.
When one of my staff members spoke with the girl's mother in
California, she
explained that her daughter actually loved to recite the Pledge of
Allegiance in her Elk Grove school. She also said that the little girl
was
an active member of her church and a professing Christian - hardly the
rigid
atheist her father portrayed her to be.
But the truth rarely matters to those who want to purge the public
square of
time-honored religious phrases that have been embraced by our nation's
leaders throughout history.
Nevertheless, the 9th Circuit, in a shameful decision yielding to
secular
social trends and political correctness, found that God has no place in
the
Pledge of Allegiance. School children, the court deemed, should
function in
a Godless classroom devoid of any spiritual influence.
Those who respect the role of the Almighty in our nation's founding are
praying that the Supreme Court will determine that this small phrase -
under
God - is not found to be an establishment of religion, but rather a
simple
and respectful acknowledgment that God does indeed rule in the affairs
of
men.
"We are committed to stand up to the outrageous decision by the Ninth
Circuit," said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute,
a
Citrus Heights, Calif.-based religious freedom organization, one of
many
groups that will petition the Court in defense of the Pledge. "We are
already in the process of preparing to file a brief that will make it
very
clear to the majority of the Supreme Court that the mention of the word
'God' in the Pledge of Allegiance is not a violation of the
Constitution."
Jay Sekulow at the Virginia Beach-based American Center for Law and
Justice
will also file a brief favoring the Pledge, representing 33 members of
Congress in so doing.
Mr. Sekulow said the phrase "one nation, under God" is a
"constitutionally-protected patriotic expression - not a blatant
affirmation
of a particular faith."
He added, "The Pledge is part of an American tapestry of time-honored
and
historically significant traditions that has come under attack. This
case
represents an important opportunity to put a halt to a national effort
aimed
at removing any religious phrase or reference from our culture. ...
We're
hopeful the court will bring some clarity to this murky legal issue and
protect the freedom of our nation's students who wish to voluntarily
recite
the complete and uncensored Pledge of Allegiance in school."
Many others will join the fight, including the 2.8 million member
American
Legion and a host of other civic-minded groups.
Sadly, Justice Antonin Scalia - whom I believe to be the Court's most
discerning justice - will not participate in the appeal because he
earlier
issued a blistering denouncement of the 9th Circuit's ruling.
Even without his wise influence, I believe the Court will understand
the
significance of briefly recognizing God in a public forum such as a
public
school classroom. Please join me in praying that the Court will uphold
the
right of the people to publicly identify God as a significant part of
our
history and our present society.
.
|
|
| User: "Nikolaos D. Bougalis" |
|
| Title: Re: Another missive from our friend, Brother Falwell . . . fyi . . . |
18 Oct 2003 05:31:27 AM |
|
|
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MMNjb.997$P35.865@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
Jay Sekulow at the Virginia Beach-based American Center for Law and
Justice will also file a brief favoring the Pledge, representing 33
Am I the only one who finds his name tremendously ironic? It kind of
rhymes with "secular."
-n
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill, The Avender" |
|
| Title: Re: Another missive from our friend, Brother Falwell . . . fyi . . . |
17 Oct 2003 06:50:54 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Fri, 17 Oct 2003 08:30:36 GMT, <tock@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
Falwell Confidential
<snip>
It still astonishes me that we have arrived at a point in our nation's
history that the mere mention of God's name - something our Founders
recurrently did as they established this religiously influenced nation
- is
now seen as inappropriate and downright wrong.
Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has accepted a Justice Department appeal,
agreeing to take on the case, giving hope to the majority of Americans
that
this simple, yet powerful, phrase will remain in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
It's simple enough that we shouldn't make a big deal about it, yet
powerful enough that you should? Does not compute. Either it's a
trivial, simple thing, or it's not. If it really is, they have no
justification for all their bitching. If it isn't just a "simple,
meaningless thing", then they have even _LESS_ justification for their
bitching. But then that's no surprise, coming from a fundie.
<snip>
--
L8r,
Avender
- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - --
Common is the man who can be fashioned into a
reflection of the era in which he lives.
Rare is the man who can take the era in which
he lives, and fashion it into a reflection
of himself.
- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Another missive from our friend, Brother Falwell . . . fyi . . . |
17 Oct 2003 07:22:04 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:50:54 GMT, (Bill, The
Avender) wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 17 Oct 2003 08:30:36 GMT, <tock@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
Falwell Confidential
<snip>
It still astonishes me that we have arrived at a point in our nation's
history that the mere mention of God's name - something our Founders
recurrently did as they established this religiously influenced nation
- is
now seen as inappropriate and downright wrong.
Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has accepted a Justice Department appeal,
agreeing to take on the case, giving hope to the majority of Americans
that
this simple, yet powerful, phrase will remain in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
It's simple enough that we shouldn't make a big deal about it, yet
powerful enough that you should? Does not compute. Either it's a
trivial, simple thing, or it's not. If it really is, they have no
justification for all their bitching. If it isn't just a "simple,
meaningless thing", then they have even _LESS_ justification for their
bitching. But then that's no surprise, coming from a fundie.
<snip>
Apart from the ignorant lies that Falwell, much of the media, and the
majority of US Christians have spewed about _why_ atheists and other
religious minorities including non-mainstream Christians actually
object, the 9th circuit's reasoning was impeccable.
You only have to look at Eisenhower's words as he signed the "under
God" into law - he did it illegally and unconstitutionally in order to
make everybody (his kind of) religious.
It was an "a law respecting an establishment of religion".
Period.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Another missive from our friend, Brother Falwell . . . fyi . . . |
17 Oct 2003 09:58:11 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 08:30:36 GMT, <tock@sbcglobal.net> posted in
alt.atheism:
Those who respect the role of the Almighty in our nation's founding are
praying that the Supreme Court will determine that this small phrase - under
God - is not found to be an establishment of religion, but rather a simple
and respectful acknowledgment that God does indeed rule in the affairs
of men.
Am I the only one who sees no difference between the two?
--
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the
spinal cord would fully suffice."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Another missive from our friend, Brother Falwell . . . fyi . . . |
18 Oct 2003 02:40:06 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 02:58:11 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 08:30:36 GMT, <tock@sbcglobal.net> posted in
alt.atheism:
Those who respect the role of the Almighty in our nation's founding are
praying that the Supreme Court will determine that this small phrase - under
God - is not found to be an establishment of religion, but rather a simple
and respectful acknowledgment that God does indeed rule in the affairs
of men.
Am I the only one who sees no difference between the two?
No.
The fundies imagine it's different because in their minds its
existence is self-evident, obvious etc and outside religion.
It's like acknowledging that the sun is in the sky. Some religions
worship the sun and others don't.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Another missive from our friend, Jerry Falwell
Our good friend, Jerry Falwell, has important words . . . June 17, 2004
What's our friend, Jerry Falwell, got to say today? Wed June 16, 2004
7/14/04 What has our good friend, Jerry Falwell, have to say to us today?
Our friend Jerry Falwell on marriage . . .
July 16, 2004 Our friend Jerry Falwell has something to say . . .
Re Our friend Jerry Falwell on marriage . . .
What's our good friend, Jerry Falwell, got to say today? June 25, 2004
| July 1 2004 What's our good friend Jerry Falwell got to say to us today?
21 July 2004 Message from our good friend, Jerry Falwell
Question about "Got made it all, Jesus died for our sins."
OT: Buffett's value approach to investing fits well in our new low-inflation world
Bush is our gift from god
poking some fun at our jewish friends
Not just a figure of our imagination hahaha!
|
|
|
