AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act

Religions > Atheism > AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 3

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	""
Date:	20 Jul 2006 03:50:18 PM
Object:	AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act

AMERICANS UNITED BLASTS HOUSE PASSAGE OF 'PLEDTE PROTECTION ACT'
'Court-Stripping' Measure Jeopardizes The Constitutional Rights Of
Religious Minorities, Says Americans United's Lynn
The U.S. House of Representatives today passed a bill that would severely
limit the rights of religious minorities, charges Americans United for
Separation of Church and State.
By a vote of 260 to 167, the House approved the so-called "Pledge
Protection Act of 2005." H.R. 2389 would strip the Supreme Court and other
federal courts of the authority to hear legal challenges dealing with the
Pledge of Allegiance.
"This is a disgraceful measure that jeopardizes the rights of religious
minorities," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive
director. "This is election-year pandering at its worst.
FOR FULL STORY GO TO: http://www.au.org/site/R?i=rNTul_ftsoCjVdyhg30mDg..
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington,
D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the
importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
.

User: "Jeff Strickland"
Title: Re: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act	20 Jul 2006 07:23:44 PM

<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:64rvb2tpm4pe7e9j4cs1se4ll616hngcc9@4ax.com...

AMERICANS UNITED BLASTS HOUSE PASSAGE OF 'PLEDTE PROTECTION ACT'

Of course Americans United would blast preservation of the Pledge. Americans
United are not united Americans.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act	21 Jul 2006 12:03:26 PM

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:

:|
:|<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:64rvb2tpm4pe7e9j4cs1se4ll616hngcc9@4ax.com...
:|>
:|>
:|> AMERICANS UNITED BLASTS HOUSE PASSAGE OF 'PLEDTE PROTECTION ACT'
:|>
:|
:|Of course Americans United would blast preservation of the Pledge. Americans
:|United are not united Americans.
:|
:|

Here jeffy learn something
FOXNEWS.COM HOME > POLITICS > HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
House Protects God in Pledge of Allegiance
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,204395,00.html
[excerpt]
Newdow, an attorney and medical doctor, said in an interview that he hoped
the bill would pass to expose the aims of its supporters. "They're willing
to ruin this country so they can keep their God in our country. I love the
fact that they are having a vote." He said he expected a final ruling in
his case in about a year.
Supporters argued that the "under God" phrase, added to the pledge in 1954,
was intrinsic to the nation's heritage and traditions and must be shielded
from unelected judges. "This is an issue that clearly resonates to what we
are about as a country," said House Republican Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.
Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., who sponsored the measure, said that denying a child
the right to recite the pledge was a form of censorship. "We believe that
there is a God who gives basic rights to all people and it is the job of
the government to protect those rights."
Davison Douglas, a professor at the William and Mary School of Law, said
constitutional scholars are divided over whether such congressional
restrictions on judicial review would pass constitutional muster.
He noted that "past efforts to bar all federal court review of hot-button
social issues have consistently failed. Hence, if this bill is enacted, it
would be a highly significant landmark in terms of congressional efforts to
control the actions of federal courts."
There is a companion Senate bill, but it is unclear whether the Senate will
take it up in the current session.
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said that while he supported the
pledge and disagreed with the 9th Circuit Court's ruling, the bill would
"intrude on the principle of separation of powers, degrade our independent
federal judiciary and set a dangerous precedent."
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., said the effort to strip courts of
authority could come back to haunt his fellow conservatives if liberals
gain control of Congress in the future. As an example, he said Congress
could prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on a state's decision to ban
guns.
The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation
of Church and State, said that under the bill, "religious minorities will
no longer have the right to go to federal court to defend their deeply held
religious beliefs."
The pledge bill was part of the House GOP's "American values agenda" that
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said would "defend America's founding
principles." Another part of that agenda, a constitutional amendment to ban
gay marriage, was defeated in the House on Tuesday.
Also on Wednesday, the House was voting on legislation that would designate
a 29-foot-high cross as a federal war memorial to prevent it from being
removed from public land in San Diego.
***************************************************************
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 � Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
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
****************************************************************
.

User: ""
Title: Re: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act	21 Jul 2006 10:55:23 AM

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:

One more time jeffy sticks his foot in his mouth
He reads the headline and totally skips the meat of the story.
AMERICANS UNITED BLASTS HOUSE PASSAGE OF 'PLEDTE PROTECTION ACT'
'Court-Stripping' Measure Jeopardizes The Constitutional Rights Of
Religious Minorities, Says Americans United's Lynn
The U.S. House of Representatives today passed a bill that would severely
limit the rights of religious minorities, charges Americans United for
Separation of Church and State.
By a vote of 260 to 167, the House approved the so-called "Pledge
Protection Act of 2005." H.R. 2389 would strip the Supreme Court and other
federal courts of the authority to hear legal challenges dealing with the
Pledge of Allegiance.
"This is a disgraceful measure that jeopardizes the rights of religious
minorities," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive
director. "This is election-year pandering at its worst.
FOR FULL STORY GO TO: http://www.au.org/site/R?i=rNTul_ftsoCjVdyhg30mDg..
Jeffy doersn't realize that this particular measure has nothing to do with
the Pledge per se but rather is about trying to control the Federal
courts of this nation.
***************************************************************
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 � Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
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
****************************************************************
.

User: ""
Title: Re: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act	21 Jul 2006 04:55:05 PM

<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:64rvb2tpm4pe7e9j4cs1se4ll616hngcc9@4ax.com...

AMERICANS UNITED BLASTS HOUSE PASSAGE OF 'PLEDTE PROTECTION ACT'

Jeff Strickland wrote:

Of course Americans United would blast preservation of the Pledge. Americans
United are not united Americans.

Those who want "under god" in the pledge are the ones "blasting
preservation" of our inclusive, secular national loyalty oath the way
it was before it was adulterated for religious purposes.
A religious loyalty oath does not unite Americans. It divides them. If
it did not, we would not be having this discussion.
.

User: "Jeff Strickland"
Title: Re: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act	22 Jul 2006 12:56:14 PM

<lanruvi2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153518905.431738.205340@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:64rvb2tpm4pe7e9j4cs1se4ll616hngcc9@4ax.com...

AMERICANS UNITED BLASTS HOUSE PASSAGE OF 'PLEDTE PROTECTION ACT'

Jeff Strickland wrote:

Of course Americans United would blast preservation of the Pledge.
Americans
United are not united Americans.

Those who want "under god" in the pledge are the ones "blasting
preservation" of our inclusive, secular national loyalty oath the way
it was before it was adulterated for religious purposes.

A religious loyalty oath does not unite Americans. It divides them. If
it did not, we would not be having this discussion.

In my humble opinion, something that more than 80% of Americans AGREE WITH
is as about as inclusive as we can get as a System. I am not bothered one
bit by a few malcontents that "think" they are not being included. The fact
is they are included whether or not they "feel" like it.
.

User: "ZenIsWhen"
Title: Re: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act	22 Jul 2006 04:31:24 PM

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hdKdnYSfOOpf-1_ZnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@ez2.net...

<lanruvi2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153518905.431738.205340@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:64rvb2tpm4pe7e9j4cs1se4ll616hngcc9@4ax.com...

AMERICANS UNITED BLASTS HOUSE PASSAGE OF 'PLEDTE PROTECTION ACT'

Jeff Strickland wrote:

Of course Americans United would blast preservation of the Pledge.
Americans
United are not united Americans.

Those who want "under god" in the pledge are the ones "blasting
preservation" of our inclusive, secular national loyalty oath the way
it was before it was adulterated for religious purposes.

A religious loyalty oath does not unite Americans. It divides them. If
it did not, we would not be having this discussion.

In my humble opinion, something that more than 80% of Americans AGREE WITH
is as about as inclusive as we can get as a System. I am not bothered one
bit by a few malcontents that "think" they are not being included. The
fact is they are included whether or not they "feel" like it.

The FACT is, the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution PROTECT ALL ......
and, more importantly, they protect the rights of the minority from the
fanaticisms of the majority!
It DOESN'T MATTER how many agree.
Might (or popularity) does NOT make right ....... and the writers of the
Constitution understood that!
.

User: "Jeff Strickland"
Title: Re: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act	22 Jul 2006 04:57:05 PM

"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@MYOB.com> wrote in message
news:12c569bnim62vb0@corp.supernews.com...

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hdKdnYSfOOpf-1_ZnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@ez2.net...

<lanruvi2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153518905.431738.205340@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:64rvb2tpm4pe7e9j4cs1se4ll616hngcc9@4ax.com...

AMERICANS UNITED BLASTS HOUSE PASSAGE OF 'PLEDTE PROTECTION ACT'

Jeff Strickland wrote:

Of course Americans United would blast preservation of the Pledge.
Americans
United are not united Americans.

Those who want "under god" in the pledge are the ones "blasting
preservation" of our inclusive, secular national loyalty oath the way
it was before it was adulterated for religious purposes.

A religious loyalty oath does not unite Americans. It divides them. If
it did not, we would not be having this discussion.

In my humble opinion, something that more than 80% of Americans AGREE
WITH is as about as inclusive as we can get as a System. I am not
bothered one bit by a few malcontents that "think" they are not being
included. The fact is they are included whether or not they "feel" like
it.

The FACT is, the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution PROTECT ALL
...... and, more importantly, they protect the rights of the minority from
the fanaticisms of the majority!

It DOESN'T MATTER how many agree.
Might (or popularity) does NOT make right ....... and the writers of the
Constitution understood that!

But a false sense of exclusion is not a violation of anything. Being tossed
in jail because one possesses an "exclusionary" trait is a violation that
one rightfully should demand and receive protection against. But, simply
"feeling" excluded is not an action that deserves Constitutional protection.
Nobody cares what you feel. Give us a concrete problem, and then you have a
beef.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act	23 Jul 2006 01:47:59 PM

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:

You like that figure 80%
You used it with regards to gay marriage too only to have it shown to be
false
I bet it can be shown to be false in this matter too.
However, it is irrelevant.
Laws or the determination of constitutionality of laws is not SUPPOSE to be
subject to popular opinions, opinions polls, majority desires, shifting
political winds etc
If and when that takes place, this country is in serious shape dippy
Something else about so called opinions,
This was in answer to another stupid idiot like yourself
From: buckeye-...@nospam.net - view profile
Date: Thurs, Jun 29 2006 8:13 am
Groups: alt.politics.democrats.d,
alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.education, alt.atheism,
alt.religion.christian, alt.politics.liberalism,
alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:

:|buckeye-...@nospam.net wrote:
:|> June 28, 2006
:|>
:|> Americans United for Separation of Church and State
:|> Contact: Joe Conn, Rob Boston or Jeremy Leaming
:|> http://www.au.org/site/R?i=0doBJ9lXJ38lIX-VxMBlfg..
:|>
:|
:|
:|Ever notice how many things that "americans united" oppose are actually
:|the majority view in America?

The BORs is not subject to majority rule or is that over your head?

:|Almost none of them. Ironic that they
:|call themselves "americans united" about views in contrast to where
:|America really is united.

The vast majority of Americans are sheep, are history challeged and
are more concerned with keeping Drs appointments, making a living,
American Idol, being soccer moms and dads etc
I heard that more people voted for one or the other of the two
finalists on American Idol the other night than voted for Bush in the
past prez elections. I rest my case, my point on that matter is made.
Constitution law is not decided by majority polls or opinions.
If you have a fair and honest judicial system will to do the right
thing the BORs is not subbect to polls or political fads or changing
wind or opinions
Here digest this (Word of advice don't try and win a quoting or even
a history batle with me, you won't be successful.
#1
Removed From The Legislative Province
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/blanchrt.htm
#2
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.
#3
Religious Propaganda
by Buffman (Glen P Goffin)
Originallly posted on the Secular Web
Church State Separation Forum
March 14, 2005, 05:05 PM
Buffman
Veteran User
Join Date: October 2000
Location: central Florida
Posts: 3,781
Religious Propaganda
I am initiating this thread out of frustration and a sincere concern
for the future of C-SS...and the country I love. If the threads in
this forum were reaching out to those who need to read them the most
rather than only to those capable of creating them, I would be
encouraged. Unfortunately that is not the case. I consider that to be
one of the most important questions begging for accurate answers and
actions. ("Why is accurate knowledge being drowned in a sea of
religious propaganda?")
The article cited below was written-delivered in 1913 by the head of
the American History Association. Why do we, today, act as though we
are discovering this accurate knowledge for the first time? The claims
of the faith believers were propaganda then just as they are
propaganda today. Why is that propaganda succeeding more today than
ever before? What can the supporters of C-SS do to "effectively"
prevent the return of that Dark Ages mentality?
http://www.historians.org/info/AHA_H.../wadunning.htm
(Extract)
Of Jewish history as of Roman history it must be said: The deeds of
men have been affected more by the beliefs in what was false than by
the knowledge of what was true.
(End extract)
My question is, "How do those who are in possession of the accurate
knowledge concerning the evolution of C-SS help to free the manacled
minds of the propagandized?" (i.e.:"How do we educate our fellow
humans that the best moral/ethical imparative is to act based on
verified accurate knowledge rather than on propagandized falsehoods?")
This is not a left-right, liberal-conservative, Democrat-Republican,
Blue-Red thing. This is a right-wrong thing. A moral/ethical thing.
IMHO, that is where religious propaganda is vulnerable. It is
immoral/unethical...unAmerican, unpatriotic. and educationally
degenerate. Get the accurate historical facts and charge the
practioners of religious propaganda with being immoral and
unethical...rather than featuring them in national publications as
heroes of the religious right.
***************************************************************************
Now run away as you always do idiot.
***************************************************************
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 � Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
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
****************************************************************
.

User: "thomas p."
Title: Re: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act	28 Jul 2006 08:17:08 AM

Jeff Strickland wrote:

<lanruvi2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153518905.431738.205340@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:64rvb2tpm4pe7e9j4cs1se4ll616hngcc9@4ax.com...

AMERICANS UNITED BLASTS HOUSE PASSAGE OF 'PLEDTE PROTECTION ACT'

Jeff Strickland wrote:

Of course Americans United would blast preservation of the Pledge.
Americans
United are not united Americans.

Those who want "under god" in the pledge are the ones "blasting
preservation" of our inclusive, secular national loyalty oath the way
it was before it was adulterated for religious purposes.

A religious loyalty oath does not unite Americans. It divides them. If
it did not, we would not be having this discussion.

It is sad that you are against individual freedom and even think that
your position is patriotic.
.

User: "Jeff Strickland"
Title: Re: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act	29 Jul 2006 09:10:31 PM

"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1154092627.967149.13800@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Jeff Strickland wrote:

<lanruvi2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153518905.431738.205340@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:64rvb2tpm4pe7e9j4cs1se4ll616hngcc9@4ax.com...

AMERICANS UNITED BLASTS HOUSE PASSAGE OF 'PLEDTE PROTECTION ACT'

Jeff Strickland wrote:

Of course Americans United would blast preservation of the Pledge.
Americans
United are not united Americans.

Those who want "under god" in the pledge are the ones "blasting
preservation" of our inclusive, secular national loyalty oath the way
it was before it was adulterated for religious purposes.

A religious loyalty oath does not unite Americans. It divides them. If
it did not, we would not be having this discussion.

In my humble opinion, something that more than 80% of Americans AGREE
WITH
is as about as inclusive as we can get as a System. I am not bothered one
bit by a few malcontents that "think" they are not being included. The
fact
is they are included whether or not they "feel" like it.

It is sad that you are against individual freedom and even think that
your position is patriotic.

I'm not against individual freedom. I do not see that reciting the Pledge
violates one's right to free expression thereof, even if one has no religion
at all.
The phrase you object to describes everybody except you, and it is your
right to exclude yourself, but you have no right to exclude everybody in an
attempt to include you.
My religion is weak, but I have no problem recognizing that everyone else's
religion is strong. As long as they do not drag me from my bed to the local
house of worship, I have no problem sharing my world with them.
.

User: "Jeff Strickland"
Title: Re: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act	01 Aug 2006 07:21:14 PM

<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:gaqrc2pal2ot97c8emvofs0kael52ur0bu@4ax.com...

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:

Yes you are, you say it over and over again in many ways in your posts

You are too dumb to even see that you are against individual freedom.

Granting YOUR freedom ought not challenge mine. I belong to roughtly 80% of
Americans that like stuff just the way it is, if we have to do it your way,
then OUR rights are being violated.
It's a Numbers Game, we try to violate the sensibilities of as few Americans
as possible.
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act	01 Aug 2006 09:29:11 PM

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:

:|I'm not against individual freedom.

Yes you are, you say it over and over again in many ways in your posts

You are too dumb to even see that you are against individual freedom.

Granting YOUR freedom ought not challenge mine. I belong to roughtly 80% of
Americans that like stuff just the way it is, if we have to do it your way,
then OUR rights are being violated.

It's a Numbers Game, we try to violate the sensibilities of as few Americans
as possible.

And the way we do that is to try to take those things that offend
sensibilities outside of the public sector. That means that any
offending of sensibilities is an entirely individual (freedom) kind of
thing and not a tyranny of the majority.
lojbab
.

User: "Don Kresch"
Title: Re: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act	01 Aug 2006 11:48:00 PM

In alt.atheism On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 17:21:14 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> let us all know that:

<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:gaqrc2pal2ot97c8emvofs0kael52ur0bu@4ax.com...

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:

Yes you are, you say it over and over again in many ways in your posts

You are too dumb to even see that you are against individual freedom.

Granting YOUR freedom ought not challenge mine. I belong to roughtly 80% of
Americans that like stuff just the way it is, if we have to do it your way,
then OUR rights are being violated.

Wrong.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.

User: ""
Title: Re: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act	01 Aug 2006 10:17:29 PM

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 17:21:14 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:

Granting YOUR freedom ought not challenge mine. I belong to roughtly 80% of
Americans that like stuff just the way it is, if we have to do it your way,
then OUR rights are being violated.

Gee, isn't that what southerners used to say?
They STILL maintain that the federal government had no
business over-riding states "rights". Your illustrious
John Asscroft argued that point as AG of his state
That woud be YOUR political party, Jeffy
The majority liked things the way they were for as long
as we've been here
That's why we call them "conservative" and "reactionary
conservative"
That's why America had Jim Crow for so long.
People like you "liked things the way they are..."
.

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act	02 Aug 2006 01:02:15 AM

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:17:29 -0500,

wrote:

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 17:21:14 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:

Granting YOUR freedom ought not challenge mine. I belong to roughtly 80% of
Americans that like stuff just the way it is, if we have to do it your way,
then OUR rights are being violated.

Gee, isn't that what southerners used to say?

ROTFL!!!! You'll be able to figure out which message I sent a few minutes
ago.

They STILL maintain that the federal government had no
business over-riding states "rights".

Oh, really? The major of Vicksburg is a white Jew. The one before him was a
black Baptist. The one before him was a white Roman Catholic. (I've been
thinking of asking our local Imam if he or one of his folks is going to run
next (Greek Orthodox was my alderman a couple years ago).
Vicksburg is about 22,000 people, 60% black and we - a few days ago - had our
first murder of the year. An obvious testosterone insanity.

Your illustrious
John Asscroft argued that point as AG of his state

And got to be Attorney "Nekkid Broads with Titties" General of the United
States by losing an election to a dead guy.
I thought that was about as low as even the cokehead could go but that was,
obviously, before Torturer General became a part of the job.

That woud be YOUR political party, Jeffy

The majority liked things the way they were for as long
as we've been here

That's why we call them "conservative" and "reactionary
conservative"

That's why America had Jim Crow for so long.

People like you "liked things the way they are..."

There are absolute and total rednecks down chere talking about supporting
Hillary Clinton for President.
Do you understand how incredibly weird that is?
And that was before Katrina (Hm,m,m - "Katrina, huh? Sounds like a commie to
me.")
Gray Shockley
--------------------
Vicksburg, MS US
.

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act	02 Aug 2006 12:15:09 AM

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 19:21:14 -0500, Jeff Strickland wrote
(in article <StudnfMHL_5jclLZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@ez2.net>):

<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:gaqrc2pal2ot97c8emvofs0kael52ur0bu@4ax.com...

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:

"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1154092627.967149.13800@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Jeff Strickland wrote:

<lanruvi2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153518905.431738.205340@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:64rvb2tpm4pe7e9j4cs1se4ll616hngcc9@4ax.com...

AMERICANS UNITED BLASTS HOUSE PASSAGE OF 'PLEDTE PROTECTION ACT'

Jeff Strickland wrote:

Of course Americans United would blast preservation of the Pledge.
Americans
United are not united Americans.

Those who want "under god" in the pledge are the ones "blasting
preservation" of our inclusive, secular national loyalty oath the

way

it was before it was adulterated for religious purposes.

A religious loyalty oath does not unite Americans. It divides them.

it did not, we would not be having this discussion.

In my humble opinion, something that more than 80% of Americans AGREE
WITH
is as about as inclusive as we can get as a System. I am not bothered

one

bit by a few malcontents that "think" they are not being included.

The

fact
is they are included whether or not they "feel" like it.

It is sad that you are against individual freedom and even think that
your position is patriotic.

I'm not against individual freedom.

Yes you are, you say it over and over again in many ways in your posts

You are too dumb to even see that you are against individual freedom.

Granting YOUR freedom ought not challenge mine. I belong to roughtly 80% of
Americans that like stuff just the way it is, if we have to do it your way,
then OUR rights are being violated.

It's a Numbers Game, we try to violate the sensibilities of as few Americans
as possible.

So you believe in a /pure/ democracy rather than a "republic"?
And you are ashamed of the American fighters who smashed "popularly elected
governments" in the 1940s?
Or the government of the Emperor of God?
Are you sure you want to side with the mobs of pure democracy and/or the
national leaders of G(g)od(s)?
You're watering down a slippery slope.
I went to the funeral last year of the grandfather of one of my wife's
co-workers (who was raised by him).
The majority of the people in this state - in 1946 - called him "*****" and
"boy" and would just as soon he had died in his Marine's uniform on Iwo Jima.
Would you have "stood" with that /majority/? Probably over 80% of the people
who could vote in 1946 - he wasn't one of them, of course - believed he
should step off the sidewalk when a white walked by.
As I've said before, there were about five of us - out of about 80 students
in the high school cafeteria who weren't screaming for joy and yelling their
thanks that - "That *****-lover is dead" and "That communist is dead".
That ratio is about 20 to one, isn't it?
Would you have gone with "the majority"? Would that have been your screams of
joy that the President of the United States had been assassinated?
It might be worth thinking about.
Gray Shockley
---------------------
Vicksburg, MS US
[Yes, it was in Vicksburg.]
.

User: ""
Title: Re: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act	02 Aug 2006 06:44:52 AM

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:

:|I'm not against individual freedom.

Right here is a very good example of your being against individual freedoms
It helps to shows how ignorant, small minded small, mean, bigoted,
despicable, piece of crap you really are. What a poor excuse for a human
being you are.
It is people like you who would tie someone who is different to a fence,
beat them and leave them to die. If you personally wouldn't do something
like that, you do personally help create the atmosphere that encourages and
allows it to happen with you attitude and simple uninformed opinions you
spout off here all the time.

From: Jeff Strickland -
Date: Thurs, Jul 13 2006 3:10 pm
Groups: alt.politics.democrats.d, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.education, alt.atheism, >alt.religion.christian, alt.politics.bush, alt.society.liberalism, us.talk.constitution
"Jeff Strickland" <c...@yahoo.com> wrote:

:|
:|It does not occur throughout nature as a basis for life partners. It may
or
:|may not occur on occasion as the basis for random episodes of sexual
:|gratification, but it never exists as the basis for a life partner.

<buckeye-...@nospam.net> wrote in message

Humans would qualify as being part of nature.
There is a women I went to high school with. In fact we sat beside each
other in home rooms our Jr and Sr years.
Her name is Linda. Linda and Nora have been long term partners for over 30
years now. They will be long-term. lifetime partners until one or the
other dies.

Yes, and Linda and Nora are fine examples of defying the laws of nature by
becoming life partners. I am sure Linda and Nora are fine people, but their
character is not the question here. Well, their character might be in
question, but I wouldn't know that by what you've told us so far, and I
certainly do not question their character. What I question is their
preference to violate the law of nature. The fact they elect to not abserve
natural law does not invalidate natural law, it merely shows that the flesh
can overpower the mind, which is something that we are told to guard
against if we believe in God and His Word.
***************************************************************
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 � Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
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
****************************************************************
.

User: ""
Title: Re: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act--JeffyLoon Puzzled	01 Aug 2006 08:47:02 AM

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 19:10:31 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:

I'm not against individual freedom. I do not see that reciting the Pledge
violates one's right to free expression thereof, even if one has no religion
at all.

Jeffyloon, jeffyloon
"reciting the pledge" does NOT violate anything
That's not the issue
The issue is when GOVERNMENT requires it, or sanctions
it in an official adjunct to policy
.

User: ""
Title: Re: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act	21 Jul 2006 04:56:26 PM

<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:64rvb2tpm4pe7e9j4cs1se4ll616hngcc9@4ax.com...

AMERICANS UNITED BLASTS HOUSE PASSAGE OF 'PLEDTE PROTECTION ACT'

Jeff Strickland wrote:

Of course Americans United would blast preservation of the Pledge. Americans
United are not united Americans.

User: "snex"
Title: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act	20 Jul 2006 07:25:20 PM

Jeff Strickland wrote:

<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:64rvb2tpm4pe7e9j4cs1se4ll616hngcc9@4ax.com...

AMERICANS UNITED BLASTS HOUSE PASSAGE OF 'PLEDTE PROTECTION ACT'

Of course Americans United would blast preservation of the Pledge. Americans
United are not united Americans.

there is *nothing* american in forced patriotism, and these clowns not
only want that, but forced religious expression as well.
take that ***** back to england. this is america.
.

User: "Tim"
Title: Re: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act	22 Jul 2006 01:43:35 PM

snex wrote:

Jeff Strickland wrote:

<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:64rvb2tpm4pe7e9j4cs1se4ll616hngcc9@4ax.com...

AMERICANS UNITED BLASTS HOUSE PASSAGE OF 'PLEDTE PROTECTION ACT'

Of course Americans United would blast preservation of the Pledge. Americans
United are not united Americans.

there is *nothing* american in forced patriotism, and these clowns not
only want that, but forced religious expression as well.

take that ***** back to england. this is america.

Nobody is forcing you to say the pledge. Anyone can decline to do that.
It has nothing to do with excrement or England. America is a
Christian nation whether or not you clowns choose to accept it. If you
don't like that move to China or North Korea.
.

User: "ZenIsWhen"
Title: Re: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act	22 Jul 2006 04:34:46 PM

"Tim" <timccr48-news@spammyyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rluwg.11172$2v.2658@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

snex wrote:

Jeff Strickland wrote:

<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:64rvb2tpm4pe7e9j4cs1se4ll616hngcc9@4ax.com...

AMERICANS UNITED BLASTS HOUSE PASSAGE OF 'PLEDTE PROTECTION ACT'

Of course Americans United would blast preservation of the Pledge.
Americans
United are not united Americans.

there is *nothing* american in forced patriotism, and these clowns not
only want that, but forced religious expression as well.

take that ***** back to england. this is america.

Nobody is forcing you to say the pledge. Anyone can decline to do that.
It has nothing to do with excrement or England. America is a Christian
nation whether or not you clowns choose to accept it. If you don't like
that move to China or North Korea.

America is NOT a (Specific) religion based nation - and if YOU
Christi-Nazi's don't like that - you can move to Iran!
.

User: "Tim"
Title: Re: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act	22 Jul 2006 06:05:48 PM

ZenIsWhen wrote:

"Tim" <timccr48-news@spammyyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rluwg.11172$2v.2658@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

snex wrote:

Jeff Strickland wrote:

<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:64rvb2tpm4pe7e9j4cs1se4ll616hngcc9@4ax.com...

AMERICANS UNITED BLASTS HOUSE PASSAGE OF 'PLEDTE PROTECTION ACT'

Of course Americans United would blast preservation of the Pledge.
Americans
United are not united Americans.

there is *nothing* american in forced patriotism, and these clowns not
only want that, but forced religious expression as well.

take that ***** back to england. this is america.

Nobody is forcing you to say the pledge. Anyone can decline to do that.
It has nothing to do with excrement or England. America is a Christian
nation whether or not you clowns choose to accept it. If you don't like
that move to China or North Korea.

America is NOT a (Specific) religion based nation - and if YOU
Christi-Nazi's don't like that - you can move to Iran!

United States is a Christian nation. There is so much history that
speaks of it that only a fool or a liar could deny its existence.
Without a belief in God, one could not take an oath or serve as a
witness in a jury.
The following is from the 1856 Bouvier's Law Dictionary.
OATH. A declaration made according to law, before a competent
tribunal or officer, to tell the truth; or it is the act of one who,
when lawfully required to tell the truth, takes God to witness that what
he says is true. It is a religious act by which the party invokes God
not only to witness the truth and sincerity of his promise, but also to
avenge his imposture or violated faith, or in other words to punish his
perjury if he shall be guilty of it. l0 Toull. n. 343 a 348; Puff. book,
4, c. 2, s. 4; Grot. book 2, c. 13, s. 1; Ruth Inst. book 1, ch. 14, s.
1; 1 Stark. Ev. 80; Merl. Repert. Convention; Dalloz, Dict. Serment:
Dur. n. 592, 593; 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 3180.
2. It is proper to distinguish two things in oaths; 1. The invocation
by which the God of truth, who knows all things, is taken to witness. 2.
The imprecation by which he is asked as a just and all-powerful being,
to punish perjury.
3. The commencement of an oath is made by the party taking hold of
the book, after being required by the officer to do so, and ends
generally with the words,"so help you God," and kissing the book, when
the form used is that of swearing on the Evangelists. 9 Car. & P. 137.
4. Oaths are taken in various forms; the most usual is upon the
Gospel by taking the book in the hand; the words commonly used are, "You
do swear that, " &c. "so help you God," and then kissing the book. The
origin of this oath may be traced to the Roman law, Nov. 8, tit. 3; Nov.
74, cap. 5; Nov. 124, cap. 1; and the kissing the book is said to be an
imitation of the priest's kissing the ritual as a sign of reverence,
before he reads it to the people. Rees, Cycl. h. v.
5. Another form is by the witness or party promising holding up his
right hand while the officer repeats to him,"You do swear by Almighty
God, the searcher of hearts, that," &c., "And this as you shall answer
to God at the great day."
6. In another form of attestation commonly called an affirmation, (q.
v.) the officer repeats, "You do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare
and affirm, that," &c.
WITNESS. One who, being sworn or affirmed, according to law, deposes
as to his knowledge of facts in issue between the parties in a cause.
23. - _4. When the witness has no religious principles to bind his
conscience, the law rejects his testimony; but there is not such defect
of religious principles, when the witness believes in the existence of a
God, who will reward or punish in this world or that which is to come.
Willes' R. 550. Vide the article Infidel where the subject is more fully
examined and Atheist; Future state.
ATHEIST. One who denies the existence of God.
2. As atheists have not any religion that can bind their consciences
to speak the truth, they are excluded from being witnesses. Bull. N. P.
292; 1 Atk. 40; Gilb. Ev. 129; 1 Phil. Ev. 19. See also, Co. Litt. 6 b.;
2 Inst. 606; 3 Inst. 165; Willes, R. 451 Hawk. B. 2, c. 46, s. 148; 2
Hale's P. C. 279.
INFIDEL, persons, evidence. One who does not believe in the existence
of a God, who will reward or punish in this world or that which is to
come. Willes' R. 550. This term has been very indefinitely applied.
Under the name of infidel, Lord Coke comprises Jews and heathens; 2 Inst
506; 3 Inst. 165; and Hawkins includes among infidels, such as do not
believe either in the Old or New Testament. Hawk. P. C. b 2, c. 46, s. 148.
2. It is now settled that when the witness believes in a God who will
reward or punish him even in this world he is competent. See willes, R.
550. His belief may be proved from his previous declarations and avowed
opinions; and when he has avowed himself to be an infidel, he may show a
reform of his conduct, and change of his opinion since the declarations
proved when the declarations have been made for a very considerable
space of time, slight proof will suffice to show he has changed his
opinion. There is some conflict in the cases on this subject, some of
them are here referred to: 18 John. R. 98; 1 Harper, R. 62; 4 N. Hamp.
R. 444; 4 Day's Cas. 51; 2 Cowen, R. 431, 433 n., 572; 7 Conn. R. 66; 2
Tenn. R. 96; 4 Law Report, 268; Alis. Pr. Cr. Law, 438; 5 Mason, 16; 15
mass. 184; 1 Wright, 345; So. Car. Law Journ. 202. Vide Atheist; Future
state.
FUTURE STATE, evidence. A state of existence after this life.
2. A witness who does not believe in any future state of existence
was formerly inadmissible as a witness. The true test of a witnesses
competency, on the ground of his religious principles, is, whether he
believes in the existence of a God, who will punish him if he swears
falsely; and within this rule are comprehended those who believe future
punishments will not be eternal. 2 Watts' & Serg. 263. See the
authorities cited under the article Infidel. But it seems now to be
settled, that when the witness believes in a God who will reward or
punish him, even in this world, he is competent. Willes, 550. Vide Atheist.
.

User: "Tim"
Title: Re: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act	22 Jul 2006 06:20:00 PM

CHRISTIANITY. The religion established by Jesus Christ.
2. Christianity has been judicially declared to be a part of the
common law of Pennsylvania; 11 Serg. & Rawle, 394; 5 Binn. R.555; of New
York, 8 Johns. R. 291; of Connecticut, 2 Swift's System, 321; of
Massachusetts, Dane's Ab. vol. 7, c. 219, a. 2, 19. To write or speak
contemptuously and maliciously against it, is an indictable offence.
Vide Cooper on the Law of Libel, 59 and 114, et seq.; and generally, 1
Russ. on Cr. 217; 1 Hawk, c. 5; 1 Vent. 293; 3 Keb. 607; 1 Barn. &
Cress. 26. S. C. 8 Eng. Com. Law R. 14; Barnard. 162; Fitzgib. 66;
Roscoe, Cr. Ev. 524; 2 Str. 834; 3 Barn. & Ald. 161; S. C. 5 Eng. Com.
Law R. 249 Jeff. Rep. Appx. See 1 Cro. Jac. 421 Vent. 293; 3 Keb. 607;
Cooke on Def. 74; 2 How. S. C. 11-ep. 127, 197 to 201.
.

User: "Don Kresch"
Title: Re: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act	22 Jul 2006 08:15:42 PM

In alt.atheism On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 23:05:48 GMT, Tim
<timccr48-news@spammyyahoo.com> let us all know that:

ZenIsWhen wrote:

"Tim" <timccr48-news@spammyyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rluwg.11172$2v.2658@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

snex wrote:

Jeff Strickland wrote:

<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:64rvb2tpm4pe7e9j4cs1se4ll616hngcc9@4ax.com...

AMERICANS UNITED BLASTS HOUSE PASSAGE OF 'PLEDTE PROTECTION ACT'

Of course Americans United would blast preservation of the Pledge.
Americans
United are not united Americans.

there is *nothing* american in forced patriotism, and these clowns not
only want that, but forced religious expression as well.

take that ***** back to england. this is america.

Nobody is forcing you to say the pledge. Anyone can decline to do that.
It has nothing to do with excrement or England. America is a Christian
nation whether or not you clowns choose to accept it. If you don't like
that move to China or North Korea.

America is NOT a (Specific) religion based nation - and if YOU
Christi-Nazi's don't like that - you can move to Iran!

United States is a Christian nation.

No it isn't.

There is so much history that
speaks of it that only a fool or a liar could deny its existence.

You have violated Matt 5:22.

Without a belief in God, one could not take an oath or serve as a
witness in a jury.

FALSE! One can affirm, just as the Quakers (an xer sect) do.
In fact, affirmation is in the Oath of Office for the President!
You're a total fucking moron.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.

User: "Don Kresch"
Title: Re: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act	22 Jul 2006 06:22:46 PM

In alt.atheism On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 18:43:35 GMT, Tim
<timccr48-news@spammyyahoo.com> let us all know that:

snex wrote:

Jeff Strickland wrote:

<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:64rvb2tpm4pe7e9j4cs1se4ll616hngcc9@4ax.com...

AMERICANS UNITED BLASTS HOUSE PASSAGE OF 'PLEDTE PROTECTION ACT'

Of course Americans United would blast preservation of the Pledge. Americans
United are not united Americans.

there is *nothing* american in forced patriotism, and these clowns not
only want that, but forced religious expression as well.

take that ***** back to england. this is america.

Nobody is forcing you to say the pledge. Anyone can decline to do that.
It has nothing to do with excrement or England. America is a
Christian nation whether or not you clowns choose to accept it.

No it isn't, whether or not you choose to accept it. Any why
did the Baptist minister who wrote the pledge not see fit to include
the words "under god" in the pledge in the first place?
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.

User: "teresita"
Title: Re: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act	22 Jul 2006 02:59:36 PM

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 18:43:35 +0000, Tim wrote:

It has nothing to do with excrement or England. America is a
Christian nation whether or not you clowns choose to accept it. If you
don't like that move to China or North Korea.

I got a better idea. We stay here and vote against theocracy.
--
Teresita
http://encyclopediateresita.blogspot.com/
.

User: "ZenIsWhen"
Title: Re: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act	22 Jul 2006 04:36:21 PM

"teresita" <teresita@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.22.19.59.34.268220@localhost.localdomain...

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 18:43:35 +0000, Tim wrote:

It has nothing to do with excrement or England. America is a
Christian nation whether or not you clowns choose to accept it. If you
don't like that move to China or North Korea.

I got a better idea. We stay here and vote against theocracy.

AKA ......"This Is MY COUNTRY (too)" whether the fanatical Reich wing likes
it or not!!!!
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act	22 Jul 2006 02:26:58 PM

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 18:43:35 GMT, Tim <timccr48-news@spammyyahoo.com>
wrote:

snex wrote:

Jeff Strickland wrote:

<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:64rvb2tpm4pe7e9j4cs1se4ll616hngcc9@4ax.com...

AMERICANS UNITED BLASTS HOUSE PASSAGE OF 'PLEDTE PROTECTION ACT'

Of course Americans United would blast preservation of the Pledge. Americans
United are not united Americans.

there is *nothing* american in forced patriotism, and these clowns not
only want that, but forced religious expression as well.

take that ***** back to england. this is america.

Nobody is forcing you to say the pledge. Anyone can decline to do that.

It's not just saying the pledge, moron, it is listening to a
government agent telling everybody that this is a nation under a
figment of your deluded imagination.
Whatever happened to "by the people, of the people", and "the consent
of the governed"?

It has nothing to do with excrement or England. America is a
Christian nation whether or not you clowns choose to accept it. If you
don't like that move to China or North Korea.

Liar. It is a constitutionally secular nation, with Christians having
a Taleban mentality in power, wanting to impose it on everybody else.
If you want to live in a theocracy, Iran will welcome you with open
arms.

.

User: "Tim"
Title: Re: AU Blasts House passage of Pledge Protection Act	22 Jul 2006 05:09:30 PM

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 18:43:35 GMT, Tim <timccr48-news@spammyyahoo.com>
wrote:

snex wrote:

Jeff Strickland wrote:

<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:64rvb2tpm4pe7e9j4cs1se4ll616hngcc9@4ax.com...

AMERICANS UNITED BLASTS HOUSE PASSAGE OF 'PLEDTE PROTECTION ACT'

Of course Americans United would blast preservation of the Pledge. Americans
United are not united Americans.

there is *nothing* american in forced patriotism, and these clowns not
only want that, but forced religious expression as well.

take that ***** back to england. this is america.

Nobody is forcing you to say the pledge. Anyone can decline to do that.

It's not just saying the pledge, moron, it is listening to a
government agent telling everybody that this is a nation under a
figment of your deluded imagination.

I suppose that is your unbiased opinion. My unbiased opinion is that
there is a God and that this is a Christian nation. Deal with it.

Whatever happened to "by the people, of the people", and "the consent
of the governed"?

It is alive and well. The elected representatives of the people passed
a law that the MAJORITY of the citizens approve of. That is consent of
the governed. The minority has the right to disagree and not say the
pledge if that is their desire but they don't have the right to deny the
majority what words and ideas shall be in the pledge.

It has nothing to do with excrement or England. America is a
Christian nation whether or not you clowns choose to accept it. If you
don't like that move to China or North Korea.

Only in your own publicly educated, brainwashed mind. This is a
Christian nation. All you have to do is read some history that hasn't
been tampered with by the public education system or others who are
trying to demonize Christianity and secularize this nation. Old history
books concerning the founders and the founding of this nation are full
of references to God or a Supreme Being. There is nothing wrong with a
theocracy where Christ is King but Iran is not that place.
.