| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
19 Nov 2004 11:46:11 AM |
| Object: |
Congress, Pledge Act |
Jim,
I sent this to [DELETED], but never heard back from him. Perhaps
Dr. Newdow might find some of the information useful as he publicly
explains his position on this issue. It could be exceptionally helpful when
some Senator, or Congressperson, mouths off about any one of the items on
the document they endorsed. I sincerely doubt that any of them, or their
office staffs, examined the sources of the statements as closely as I have.
Just a passing thought for your consideration...and the fact that I hate to
see all my research end up in limbo...again. :-)
Cheers,
Glen
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 02:17:12 -0400
To: [DELETED]
From: "Glen [DELETED]
Subject: Only a dead draft!
Dear Mr. [DELETED]
At one point I thought it might be beneficial to notify the 99
Senators (their offices) with what it was that they had actually endorsed.
(Very likely a collection of David Barton historical propaganda.) After
doing the basic homework, I was able to enlist a graduate student (Richard
Morley) to supply his expertise in HTML language and personal knowledge to
the rough draft that I had forwarded to him at his thoughtful request.
This was the result...although this e-mail transmission may well mess up
the paragraph and URL spacings that existed in his original effort.
Unfortunately, this effort will have to remain a work in progress and
never be finished in the manner that I had hoped it might be...a clear
indication of just how little our politicians know about the accurate
history of our country and upon what its government was founded.
I realize that it is far too long to ever be read by one of our
politicians, but thought you might find some of the research helpful in
your efforts to educate the public about the accurate history of our
country. Additionally, I found rather convincing evidence in "Pilgram's
Progress" that the "Mayflower Compact" was more of a socio-economic pact
of peace between differing Christians, who had happened to arrive here
together seeking economic independence rather than escaping from religious
persecution, than a religious document contributing to the claim (false)
that this is a Christian Nation.
Should you attempt a hyperlink to the George Wasgington quote
found in Ferrand's Records Vol III, CCLXXXV, be sure to add to parenthesis
marks after the final number (fr003308)).
If you should have any questions/comments, please don't hesitate
to contact me at [DELETED]
Sincerely,
Glen [DELETED]
Lt. Col. USAF (Ret)
[This has been updated by me with some additional info since 2002]
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al. v. NEWDOW et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
No. 02-1624. Argued March 24, 2004-Decided June 14, 2004
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/elkgrove.html
Congress amended the Pledge to include the phrase "under God" in 1954. The
amendment's sponsor, Representative Rabaut, said its purpose was to
contrast this country's belief in God with the Soviet Union's embrace of
atheism. We do not know what other Members of Congress thought about the
purpose of the amendment. Following the decision of the Court of Appeals in
this case, Congress passed legislation that made extensive findings about
the historic role of religion in the political development of the Nation
and reaffirmed the text of the Pledge. Act of Nov. 13, 2002, Pub. L.
107-293, §§1-2, 116 Stat. 2057-2060. (Rehnquist concurring)
***********************************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:S.2690:
There are 6 versions of Bill Number S.2690 for the 107th Congress
1 . To reaffirm the reference to one Nation under God in the Pledge of
Allegiance. (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate)[S.2690.ES]
2 . To reaffirm the reference to one Nation under God in the Pledge of
Allegiance. (Referred to House Committee after being Received from
Senate)[S.2690.RFH]
3 . To reaffirm the reference to one Nation under God in the Pledge of
Allegiance. (Introduced in Senate)[S.2690.IS]
4 . [For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on June
27, 2002] (Reported in House)[S.2690.RH]
5 . Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 2690) entitled `An Act to
reaffirm the reference to one Nation under God in the Pledge of
Allegiance', do pass with the following (Engrossed Amendment as Agreed to
by House)[S.2690.EAH]
6 . To reaffirm the reference to one Nation under God in the Pledge of
Allegiance. (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and
Senate)[S.2690.ENR]
*********************************************************
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:6:./temp/~c107XIr2fr::
To reaffirm the reference to one Nation under God in the Pledge of
Allegiance. (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
--S.2690--
S.2690
One Hundred Seventh Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two
An Act
To reaffirm the reference to one Nation under God in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) On November 11, 1620, prior to embarking for the shores of
America, the Pilgrims signed the Mayflower Compact that declared: `Having
undertaken, for the Glory of God and the advancement of the Christian Faith
and honor of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in
the northern parts of Virginia,'.
Error 1: The Mayflower Compact was signed in the New World, at Cape Cod, on
11 Nov, 1620....NOT PRIOR TO EMBARKING FOR THE SHORES OF AMERICA.
Insight 1: Puritans wanted to purify the Church of England, while
Separatists took a more extreme approach--desiring to separate entirely
from it. Mayflower passengers (at least those passengers belonging to the
Pilgrim's church in Leyden) are properly classified as Separatists. In
general, Separatist views were not as extreme as Puritanical beliefs
regarding social customs, but were more extreme when it came to separating
ties with the established Church of England. There are also some
significant differences between the Pilgrim and Puritan views regarding the
relationship between Church and State. Both Puritanism and the Pilgrims'
separatist movement, as well as Presbyterianism, descend from John Calvin
and the Calvinists of the mid-1500s.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amerdoc/mayflower.htm
http://members.aol.com/calebj/passenger.html
http://members.aol.com/calebj/mayflower.html
(2) On July 4, 1776, America's Founding Fathers, after
appealing to the `Laws of Nature, and of Nature's God' to justify their
separation from Great Britain, then declared: `We hold these Truths to be
self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'.
Insight 2: There are 146 years between 1620 and 1776. Slowly the
superstitions and myths of the past were being minimized in, or eliminated
from, the minds of enlightened men in the "New World;" but it would still
be another 83 years before Darwin's "Origin of Species" would shake the
religious mountain to its foundations. So when those Founding Fathers
physically composed the Declaration of Independence, they did so as Deists
more than as Christians, though in debate, more than 50 of the 55 signers
may well have been enlightened Christians. They did so to trump the
British King's "Defender of the Faith" claim. However, in the King's role
as the Crown Head of the colonies, they cited 18 general, and 9 specific,
charges in the body of the declaration. Nowhere is Christianity, Jesus
Christ, Protestantism or the Judeo-Christian bible mentioned.
(3) In 1781, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of
Independence and later the Nation's third President, in his work titled
`Notes on the State of Virginia' wrote: `God who gave us life gave us
liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have
removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that
these liberties are of the Gift of God. That they are not to be violated
but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that
God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.'.
Error 2: Two sources selected, not just one. The passages have been joined
without telling the reader, in order to make the statement stronger than it
really is.
Source 1: "But let them [members of the parliament of Great Britain] not
think to exclude us from going to other markets to dispose of those
commodities which they cannot use, or to supply those wants which they
cannot supply. Still less let it be proposed that our properties within our
own territories shall be taxed or regulated by any power on earth but our
own. The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of
force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."
-- "A Summary View of the Rights of British America"
Source 2: "For in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can
make another labour for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of
slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labor. And can the
liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only
firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties
are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?
Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his
justice cannot sleep for ever . . . ."
-- Notes on the State of Virginia
http://www.monticello.org/resources/interests/memorial.html
(4) On May 14, 1787, George Washington, as President of the
Constitutional Convention, rose to admonish and exhort the delegates and
declared: `If to please the people we offer what we ourselves disapprove,
how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the
wise and the honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God!'.
Error 3: The actual date this was said is unknown.
Error 4: Washington not elected President of Convention until 25 May 1787.
Error 5: Washington did not rise in the Convention and say this, and it was
not an admonishment or exhortation to the delegates. The quote is only
remembered , after a 12 year hiatus, by Gouverneur Morris on December 31,
1799 during an Oration on the Death of George Washington.
Insight 4: I have not been able to find Washington's words alleged to have
been spoken on May 14, 1787. Why? Well, because:"Monday May 14th 1787 was
the day fixed for the meeting of the deputies in Convention for revising
the federal system of Government. On that day a small number only had
assembled. (The Virginia and Pennsylvania delegates.) Seven States were not
convened till, Friday 25 of May, when the following members appeared to
wit:...[The name of George Washington is included from the group from
Virginia. Robert Morris nominated George Washington to be President of the
Convention. John Rutledge seconded the motion. Washington was unanimously
elected by ballot]...and conducted to the Chair by Mr. R. Morris and Mr.
Rutledge; from which in a very emphatic manner he thanked the Convention
for the honor they had conferred on him, reminded them of the novelty of
the scene of business in which he was to act , lamented his want of better
qualifications, and claimed the indulgence of the House towards the
involuntary errors which his inexperience might occasion."
---Copied from "James Madison--Debates in the Federal Convention of
1787:Volume One", Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1987.Obviously, the
fact should be clear that the Senate statement is filled with historical
error. (In her book "Miracle at Philadelphia," historian Catherine Drinker
Bowen states, "Through four months, Washington was to sit silent in the
Convention...Yet only on the last day, September seventeenth, did
Washington rise to take part in the debates.")
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(fr003308))
(5) On July 21, 1789, on the same day that it approved the
Establishment Clause concerning religion, the First Congress of the United
States also passed the Northwest Ordinance, providing for a territorial
government for lands northwest of the Ohio River, which declared:
`Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and
the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever
be encouraged.'.
EGREGIOUS Error 7: Inaccurately reports history by twisting the facts to be
more favorable to and promote religion over a secular decision.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1a.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1b.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1c.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1e.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1785.htm
(6) On September 25, 1789, the First Congress unanimously
approved a resolution calling on President George Washington to proclaim a
National Day of Thanksgiving for the people of the United States by
declaring, `a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by
acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty
God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a
constitution of government for their safety and happiness.'.
Error 8: There is no historical of what the vote was, but there were those
that disagreed:
Thomas Tucker of South Carolina made a revealing statement about his
beliefs concerning church/state separation toward the end of the first
session of the first Congress to meet under the Constitution. Mr. Tucker's
comments were occasioned by a proposal from Representative Boudinot of New
Jersey to ask the President to proclaim a day of thanksgiving in honor of
Congress' completion of its first session. The following is taken from the
Annals of Congress, Vol I, 1789, pp. 914-15 (entry for Friday, September
25).
MR. BURKE, a Representative from South Carolina said he did not like this
mimicking of European customs, where they make a mere mockery of
thanksgivings. Two parties at war frequently sung TE DEUM for the same
event though for one it was a victory, and to the other a defeat.
MR. TUCKER, a Representative from the State of South Carolina, thought the
House had no business to interfere in a matter which did not concern them.
Why should the president direct the people to do what, perhaps, they have
no mind to do? They may not be inclined to return thanks for a constitution
until they have experienced that it promotes their safety and happiness. We
do not yet know but they may have reason to be dissatisfied with the
effects it has already produced; but whether this be so or not, it is a
business with which Congress have nothing to do, it is a religious matter,
and, as such is proscribed to us [emphasis ours]. If a day of thanksgiving
must take place, let it be done by the authority of the several states;
they know best what reason their constituents have to be with the
establishment of this Constitution.
---------------------------------
No mention was made of what the vote count was for and against the
proclamation; however, the vote on the very next issue discussed was
recorded and shows that at least 50 members were present. It is interesting
that no tally is shown for the Thanksgiving issue. Only a simple majority
was needed, so we have no idea how many voted, who voted or how.
SEE: Representative Thomas Tucker on Church and State
http://candst.tripod.com/basic2a.htm
(7) On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered
his Gettysburg Address on the site of the battle and declared: `It is
rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before
us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause
for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly
resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this Nation,
under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that Government of the
people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.'.
Insight 5: Abraham Lincoln was not a Founding or Framing Father. And even
though he said this, the personal beliefs of Lincoln, even though a portion
of the population may agree with him, do not legally matter.
Insight 6: There is also some controversy over the words "under God" in the
Gettysburg Address. The Library of Congress has the information:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/gadd/gadrft.html.
The two original copies are without the "under God" words. The three others
- that have the words "under God" - were written after 11/19/1863. However,
they probably reflect what he actually said but it cannot be 100%
established.
(8) On April 28, 1952, in the decision of the Supreme Court of
the United States in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), in which
school children were allowed to be excused from public schools for
religious observances and education, Justice William O. Douglas, in writing
for the Court stated:`The First Amendment, however, does not say that in
every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State.
Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there
shall be no concern or union or dependency one on the other. That is the
common sense of the matter. Otherwise the State and religion would be
aliens to each other--hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches
could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not
be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups.
Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would
violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to
the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations
making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; `so help me God' in our courtroom
oaths--these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our
laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First
Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the
supplication with which the Court opens each session: `God save the United
States and this Honorable Court.'.
[
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=343&invol=306
]
(9) On June 15, 1954, Congress passed and President Eisenhower
signed into law a statute that was clearly consistent with the text and
intent of the Constitution of the United States, that amended the Pledge of
Allegiance to read: `I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States
of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'.
[ http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=36&sec=172 ]
(10) On July 20, 1956, Congress proclaimed that the national
motto of the United States is `In God We Trust', and that motto is
inscribed above the main door of the Senate, behind the Chair of the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, and on the currency of the United
States.
Insight 7: We divided the nation into fractious groups when we dropped "E
Pluribus Unum" (From many, one) as our nation motto given to us by Thomas
Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams. (They were Founding Fathers.)
It served us perfectly well for 174 years...until Congress and the
administration thought that the Communists might win and panicked. The
Founding Father Congress of 1782 choose "E Pluribus Unum" as the National
Motto. The Congress of 1956 is much like the one we have in 2002. They
knew/know very little accurate American history and believed that they are
wiser than the Founders.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_mott.htm
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/36/chapters/10/sections/section_186.html
(11) On June 17, 1963, in the decision of the Supreme Court of
the United States in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203
(1963), in which compulsory school prayer was held unconstitutional,
Justices Goldberg and Harlan, concurring in the decision, stated: `But
untutored devotion to the concept of neutrality can lead to invocation or
approval of results which partake not simply of that noninterference and
noninvolvement with the religious which the Constitution commands, but of a
brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular and a passive, or even
active, hostility to the religious. Such results are not only not compelled
by the Constitution, but, it seems to me, are prohibited by it. Neither
government nor this Court can or should ignore the significance of the fact
that a vast portion of our people believe in and worship God and that many
of our legal, political, and personal values derive historically from
religious teachings. Government must inevitably take cognizance of the
existence of religion and, indeed, under certain circumstances the First
Amendment may require that it do so.'.
[
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=374&invol=203
]
(12) On March 5, 1984, in the decision of the Supreme Court of
the United States in Lynch v. Donelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), in which a city
government's display of a nativity scene was held to be constitutional,
Chief Justice Burger, writing for the Court, stated: `There is an unbroken
history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of
the role of religion in American life from at least 1789 . . . [E]xamples
of reference to our religious heritage are found in the statutorily
prescribed national motto `In God We Trust' (36 U.S.C. 186), which Congress
and the President mandated for our currency, see (31 U.S.C. 5112(d)(1)
(1982 ed.)), and in the language `One Nation under God', as part of the
Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. That pledge is recited by many
thousands of public school children--and adults--every year . . . Art
galleries supported by public revenues display religious paintings of the
15th and 16th centuries, predominantly inspired by one religious faith. The
National Gallery in Washington, maintained with Government support, for
example, has long exhibited masterpieces with religious messages, notably
the Last Supper, and paintings depicting the Birth of Christ, the
Crucifixion, and the Resurrection, among many others with explicit
Christian themes and messages. The very chamber in which oral arguments on
this case were heard is decorated with a notable and permanent--not
seasonal--symbol of religion: Moses with the Ten Commandments. Congress has
long provided chapels in the Capitol for religious worship and
meditation.'.
Error 9 : "Donelly" is actually spelled "Donnelly".
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=465&invol=668
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:lgaiE2BCHX4C:www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north%
26southwalls.pdf+Walls+of+Supreme+Court+Building&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Insight 8 :There is also a unbroken history of a knowledge of and a process
of moving along towards that church state separation that was embodied by
the framers in that unamended constitution framed in 1778.
http://candst.tripod.com/studygd0.htm
http://candst.tripod.com/simptest.htm
http://candst.tripod.com/estclause.htm
http://candst.tripod.com/rebuttal.htm
http://candst.tripod.com/franklin.htm
Error 10: The US Supreme Court does not present the Ten Commandments as a
symbol of religion.
http://candst.tripod.com/10commsg.htm
Insight 9 : The present tendency to denigrate the concept of America as a
secular state and to disparage any reference to the phrase "separation of
church and state" is a familiar theme in American history. Some have long
maintained that the guarantees of the First Amendment were consciously
formulated to limit the federal government's jurisdiction over religion
only to protect the right of state establishment of religion and state
sovereignty over the free exercise of religion. In this way, the federal
government gave tacit recognition to the pluralism of religion within the
states and the respective patterns of church-state relationships among the
states.
Unease over the concept of America as a secular state and the
denial of any form of religious establishment or identity were met with
strong utterances of denunciation. Soon after the ratification of the
religion clauses of the First Amendment, numerous voices of dissent
lamented that no acknowledgment had been made to God, let alone to Jesus
Christ, in the supreme legal document of the land. Rev. John M. Mason of
New York in 1793 bemoaned that the Constitution made no reference to God or
even claimed a religious foundation of the new nation. "Should the citizens
of America be as irreligious as her Constitution," he wrote, "we will have
reason to tremble, lest the Governor of the universe, who will not be
treated with indignity by a people any more than by individuals, overturn
from its foundations the fabric we have been rearing, and crush us to atoms
in the wreck."
America's theocrats were quick to recognize the secular character
accorded the new republic by its Constitution. Indeed, Rev. Samuet Austin
bemoaned in 1811, the Constitution "is entirely disconnected from
Christianity. It is not founded on the Christian religion." Some, as Rev.
Samuel Taggart, found the very absence of any reference to Christ in the
Constitution to be "a national evil of great magnitude." Another minister,
Chauncey Lee, lamented that "the Constitution has not the impress of
religion upon it, not the smallest recognition of the government being of
God." Rev. Jedidiah Morse found the omission of God from the Constitution
to mean that America, like Israel of old, was doomed. It is "a great sin to
have forgotten God in such an important national instrument," proclaimed
Rev. George Duffield, "and not to have acknowledged Him in that which forms
the very nerves and sinews of the political body." Some, as Rev. James
Wilson, castigated the founding fathers for reflecting "a degree of
ingratitude, perhaps without parallel," in drafting a constitution "in
which there is not the slightest hint of homage to the God of Heaven."
While most nineteenth-century theocrats, as in the twentieth
century, accepted the wisdom of the separation of a particular church from
the state, they repeatedly reaffirmed their view of America as a Christian
state, with a "manifest destiny; divinely ordered." The very notion of the
secular state or the separation of church and state was viewed as
antithetical to Christian faith. In a famous fourth of July sermon
delivered in Philadelphia in 1827, Ezra Stiles Ely expressed the hope of
many theocrats. "I propose fellow citizens," said Ely, "a new sort of
union, or, if you please a Christian party in politics." If
Christians-Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, and
Congregationalists-would unite at the polls, Ely declared, they "could
govern every public election in our country."
"We are a Christian nation: we have the right to demand that all
our rulers in their conduct shall conform to Christian morality; and if.
they do not, it is the duty of Christian freemen to make a new and a better
election." Horace Bushnell and others throughout the nineteenth century
expressed the hope that "at some fit time" an acknowledgment of God's
sovereignty would be added to the preamble of the Constitution.
In 1863, in an effort to channel the concerns of many over the
secular character of the Constitution and its omission of any reference to
deity or to Christ, the National Reform Association was organized with
representatives from eleven Protestant denominations. One of the
Association's stated purposes was "to secure such an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States as will declare the nation's allegiance
to Jesus Christ and its acceptance of the moral laws of the Christian
religion, and so indicate that this is a Christian nation, and place all
the Christian laws, institutions, and usages of our government on an
undeniably legal basis in the fundamental law of the land."
The Association petitioned the Congress to amend the preamble of
the Constitution to begin with these words, "We, the people of the United
States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority
and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the
nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to
constitute a Christian government. . . ." The House Judiciary Committee in
1874 voted on the proposed amendment and recommended its rejection. A
fundamental argument of the National Reform Association was based on the
proposition of the "impossibility of State neutrality in religion and
morals," an argument often used today in support of accommodation rather
than separation of church and state. The dissolution of the Association did
not come until 1945, only to be succeeded by a similar organization known
as the Christian Amendment Movement founded in 1946. The amendment,
supported by many of the more conservative Protestants, affirmed that "this
nation devoutly recognizes the authority and law of Jesus Christ, Saviour
and Ruler of nations, through whom are bestowed the blessings of Almighty
God."
While these views of America's theocrats of the nineteenth century
did not by any means represent the views of a majority of the citizenry,
the view of a Christian America was vigorously defended by a number of
America's religious leaders of the period. It should be said, however, that
these views were also vehemently denounced by many other religious, as well
as political, leaders as incompatible with America as a secular state and a
land of religious freedom.
SOURCE: Editorial, The Prophetic Role of Religion in Society, James E.
Wood, Jr. Journal of Church and State Volume 30, Spring 1988, Number 2. pp
221-223
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE BASIS OF FREEDOM
The American heritage of church-state relations, always complex, has
generally been that of separation of church and state. This relationship
was not due merely to compromise among diverse religious groups, but was
founded on the principle that religion flourishes the most where it is the
most free. The church does not need the state to sanction or support it.
Additionally, the state cannot be free without separation from the church.
The state does not rule its citizens in matters of religion; religion
relies on the voluntary response of men, not participation coerced by the
state.
SOURCE: JCS 3 (November 1961):123-29 Annotations of Journal of Church and
State, Editorials and Articles. The Separation of Church & State Defended.
Selected Writings of James E. Wood, Jr, Edited with an introduction by
Derel H. Davis, J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies. Baylor
University, Waco, Texas, (1995) p. 275
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE PROBLEM OF NATIONALISM IN CHURCH-STATE RELATIONSHIPS
Nationalism, largely responsible for two world wars, is again resurfacing
around the world. Nationalism is related both to nationality, where a group
of people see themselves as a united society, and to patriotism. Though
nationalism was submerged with the advance of empires and subdued in
Western Europe through the Middle Ages with the concept of Christendom, it
again emerged with the disintegration of the unity of Europe to which the
Reformation contributed. In the twentieth century nationalism has become
fully developed around the world. The totalitarian state, the most extreme
expression of nationalism, submerges all rights for the good of the state.
In demanding total submission nationalism reveals itself as a religion, a
competing faith among the many traditional religions of mankind.
Nationalism is a form of idolatry, demanding an allegiance which belongs
only to God. A secular nationalism wars against God and religion, but a
religious nationalism is willing to use religion in the service of the
state. Religious nationalism negates the role of religion in society, and
has no tolerance for religions that challenge state policies. Recognition
of faith as voluntary and religion as independent of the state is critical
to restrain nationalism.
SOURCE: JCS 10 (Spring 1968):249-64. Annotations of Journal of Church and
State, Editorials and Articles. The Separation of Church & State Defended.
Selected Writings of James E. Wood, Jr, Edited with an introduction by
Derel H. Davis, J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies. Baylor
University, Waco, Texas, (1995) p. 288
(13) On June 4, 1985, in the decision of the Supreme Court of
the United States in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), in which a
mandatory moment of silence to be used for meditation or voluntary prayer
was held unconstitutional, Justice O'Connor, concurring in the judgment and
addressing the contention that the Court's holding would render the Pledge
of Allegiance unconstitutional because Congress amended it in 1954 to add
the words `under God,' stated `In my view, the words `under God' in the
Pledge, as codified at (36 U.S.C. 172), serve as an acknowledgment of
religion with `the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing public
occasions, [and] expressing confidence in the future.'.
Insight 10: This may be her view, but it was not the view of the court. In
fact, O'Connor does not even attempt to show that the law had a secular
purpose when it was created. She merely states that this is 'her view'.
Though 'under God' in the could be construed, post facto, to have a secular
purpose, it is revealing to look at the history around the signing of the
pledge. Indeed, the act has a decidedly non-secular purpose according to
Eisenhower (who signed the the 1954 pledge act into law). This is dealt
with in the decision of the Ninth Circuit court. It appears that the
Senators did not bother to read the opinion before signing this act.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=472&invol=38&navby=case
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FE05EEE79C2A97B688256BE3007FEE32/$f
ile/0016423.pdf?openelement
Insight 11: Battle of the justices:
Adherence to Lee would require us to strike down the Pledge policy, which,
in most respects, poses more serious difficulties than the prayer at issue
in Lee. A prayer at graduation is a one-time event, the graduating students
are almost (if not already) adults, and their parents are usually present.
By contrast, very young students, removed from the protection of their
parents, are exposed to the Pledge each and every day.
Moreover, this case is more troubling than Lee with respect to both
kinds of "coercion." First, although students may feel "peer pressure" to
attend their graduations, the pressure here is far less subtle: Students
are actually compelled (that is, by law, and not merely "in a fair and real
sense") to attend school.
Analysis of the second form of "coercion" identified in Lee is
somewhat more complicated. It is true that since this Court decided West
Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, States cannot compel (in the traditional
sense) students to pledge their allegiance. Formally, then, dissenters can
refuse to pledge, and this refusal would be clear to onlookers. That is,
students have a theoretical means of opting out of the exercise. But as Lee
indicated: "Research in psychology supports the common assumption that
adolescents are often susceptible to pressure from their peers towards
conformity ... ." On Lee's reasoning, Barnette's protection is illusory,
for government officials can allow children to recite the Pledge and let
peer pressure take its natural and predictable course. Further, even if we
assume that sitting in respectful silence could be mistaken for assent to
or participation in a graduation prayer, dissenting students graduating
from high school are not "coerced" to pray. At most, they are "coerced"
into possibly appearing to assent to the prayer. The "coercion" here,
however, results in unwilling children actually pledging their
allegiance....
I conclude that, as a matter of our precedent, the Pledge policy is
unconstitutional.. .
ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al. v. NEWDOW et al.certiorari to the
united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 02-1624. (Thomas
concurring)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/elkgrove.html
http://candst.tripod.com/c-deism.htm
Insight 12 : The Congress has no business ruling on decisions of the
judiciary. Doing so is a violation of the concept of separation of powers
and threatens the independence of the judicial branch of the government of
the United States.
"The courts of justice exercise the sovereignty of this country in
judiciary matters, are supreme in these, and liable neither to control nor
opposition from any other branch of the government." --Thomas Jefferson to
Edmond C. Genet, 1793. ME 9:234 (Richard Morley)
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1070.htm
(14) On November 20, 1992, the United States Court of Appeals
for the 7th Circuit, in Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District
21, 980 F.2d 437 (7th Cir. 1992), held that a school district's policy for
voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance including the words `under
God' was constitutional.
(15) The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously held, in
Newdow v. U.S. Congress (9th Cir. June 26, 2002), that the Pledge of
Allegiance's use of the express religious reference `under God' violates
the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school
district's policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the
Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.
(16) The erroneous rationale of the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals in Newdow would lead to the absurd result that the Constitution's
use of the express religious reference `Year of our Lord' in Article VII
violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a
school district's policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations
of the Constitution itself would be unconstitutional.
SEC. 2. ONE NATION UNDER GOD.
(a) REAFFIRMATION- Section 4 of title 4, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
`Sec. 4. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery
`The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: `I pledge allegiance to the
Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it
stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all.', should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the
right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any
non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left
shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain
silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.'.
(b) CODIFICATION- In codifying this subsection, the Office of the Law
Revision Counsel shall show in the historical and statutory notes that the
107th Congress reaffirmed the exact language that has appeared in the
Pledge for decades.
SEC. 3. REAFFIRMING THAT GOD REMAINS IN OUR MOTTO.
(a) REAFFIRMATION- Section 302 of title 36, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
`Sec. 302. National motto
`In God we trust' is the national motto.'.
(b) CODIFICATION- In codifying this subsection, the Office of the Law
Revision Counsel shall make no change in section 302, title 36, United
States Code, but shall show in the historical and statutory notes that the
107th Congress reaffirmed the exact language that has appeared in the Motto
for decades.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
.
|
|
| User: "John P. Boatwright" |
|
| Title: Re: Congress, Pledge Act |
20 Nov 2004 04:13:31 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Jim,
I sent this to [DELETED], but never heard back from him. Perhaps
Dr. Newdow might find some of the information useful
Newdow, Newdow... wasn't that the guy that lost a few times?
Maybe [DELETED] decided it wasn't worth it to consider it and
pushed the [DELETE] key?
Probably.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Congress, Pledge Act |
20 Nov 2004 12:26:01 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 4:13:31 -0600, John P. Boatwright wrote
(in message <419F187C.2ACC@For-God.net>):
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
Jim,
I sent this to [DELETED], but never heard back from him. Perhaps
Dr. Newdow might find some of the information useful
Newdow, Newdow... wasn't that the guy that lost a few times?
But not as many times as did the colonists in rebellion
against King George #3.
Maybe [DELETED] decided it wasn't worth it to consider it and
pushed the [DELETE] key?
And maybe you're not talking out of your mouth.
Probably.
Ah! A living profit.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
If one was raised in a Windows XPian family, especially
in the European and American land masses.
if one were raised in other areas, the religious myths are quite different;
however, all have proved worthy as means to keep the population submissive to
the "ruling class" whatever that happens to be - this week.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
So you're saying that your god "predicted" rather than "created"?
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
I wish someone would do a "learned treatise" on The Big Guy's bar bet
with Satan where God screwed over Job to impress Satan (from the Windows XP
side, I mean; I've read Jung on it).
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------------
Pain is evitable but suffering is optional.
.
|
|
|
| User: "raff242" |
|
| Title: Re: Congress, Pledge Act |
20 Nov 2004 09:43:02 PM |
|
|
Gray Shockley wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 4:13:31 -0600, John P. Boatwright wrote
(in message <419F187C.2ACC@For-God.net>):
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
Jim,
I sent this to [DELETED], but never heard back from him. Perhaps
Dr. Newdow might find some of the information useful
Newdow, Newdow... wasn't that the guy that lost a few times?
But not as many times
You have no idea of what you are talking about.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raff242" |
|
| Title: Re: Congress, Pledge Act |
20 Nov 2004 09:39:45 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Jim,
I sent this to [DELETED], but never heard back from him.
Perhaps
Dr. Newdow might find some of the information useful as he publicly
explains his position on this issue.
He has no position. He tried to use the courts to legislate his belief
system onto everyone else.
Here are all the facts you need to know about newdow and his bogus
claim.
1) He is not the legal guardian of the child in question, hence he has
no
legal right to file on her behalf, especially when he never informed
either the
child or mother who is the legal guardian.
2) The child was suffering no harm as indicated by newdow, so in
essence newdow lied to the court, as his whole issue was based on a
lie.
Now all you atheist bigots can go pound sand some where, as we are
getting real tired
of your all crying.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: Congress, Pledge Act |
20 Nov 2004 10:30:46 PM |
|
|
"raff242" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1101008385.627638.323370@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
Jim,
I sent this to [DELETED], but never heard back from him.
Perhaps
Dr. Newdow might find some of the information useful as he publicly
explains his position on this issue.
He has no position. He tried to use the courts to legislate his belief
system onto everyone else.
Here are all the facts you need to know about newdow and his bogus
claim.
1) He is not the legal guardian of the child in question, hence he has
no
legal right to file on her behalf, especially when he never informed
either the
child or mother who is the legal guardian.
2) The child was suffering no harm as indicated by newdow, so in
essence newdow lied to the court, as his whole issue was based on a
lie.
Now all you atheist bigots can go pound sand some where, as we are
getting real tired
Who is "we", *****?
of your all crying.
.
|
|
|
| User: "raff242" |
|
| Title: Re: Congress, Pledge Act |
20 Nov 2004 10:55:32 PM |
|
|
Dave Thompson wrote:
"raff242" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1101008385.627638.323370@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
Jim,
I sent this to [DELETED], but never heard back from him.
Perhaps
Dr. Newdow might find some of the information useful as he
publicly
explains his position on this issue.
He has no position. He tried to use the courts to legislate his
belief
system onto everyone else.
Here are all the facts you need to know about newdow and his bogus
claim.
1) He is not the legal guardian of the child in question, hence he
has
no
legal right to file on her behalf, especially when he never
informed
either the
child or mother who is the legal guardian.
2) The child was suffering no harm as indicated by newdow, so in
essence newdow lied to the court, as his whole issue was based on a
lie.
Now all you atheist bigots can go pound sand some where, as we are
getting real tired
Who is "we", *****?
Well if it is not the biggest ***** atheist that posts to the
newsgroups.
of your all crying.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Congress, Pledge Act; Proctology Action |
21 Nov 2004 01:27:23 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 22:55, Junior Proctologist wrote:
Well if it is not the biggest ***** atheist that posts to the
newsgroups.
Why are you so interested in assholes?
That subject appears to be your obsession and permeates your entire being.
And that means you stink, Pookie Boy/Girl/Thingie. [whatever]
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------------
Pain is evitable but suffering is optional.
.
|
|
|
| User: "raff242" |
|
| Title: Re: Congress, Pledge Act; Proctology Action |
21 Nov 2004 04:58:22 AM |
|
|
Gray Shockley wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 22:55, Junior Proctologist wrote:
Well if it is not the biggest ***** atheist that posts to the
newsgroups.
Why are you so interested in assholes?
Our Mississippi idiot shows his homosexual desires once again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Congress, Dana Act; Proctology Action |
21 Nov 2004 11:53:25 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 22:55, Junior Proctologist wrote:
Well if it is not the biggest ***** atheist that posts to the
newsgroups.
Gray Shockley wrote:
Why are you so interested in assholes?
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Dana P. Raffaniello wrote:
Our Mississippi idiot shows his homosexual desires once again.
You shouldn't be flirting with me, Dana.
I'll just break your heart (or your jaw) again.
Anyone - male or female - who wants a
man won't want you, Raffles.
And - by the way - calling someone a homosexual just isn't the curse that
small, diseased minds - such as you have - would have it. Homosexuality is
just another sexual orientation.
It's kinda like calling me black. If I'm black, then you're stating the
obvious and if I'm white, you make yourself look even more a fool.
But let us remember that you do have a reputation reference assholes and, it
appears, you just have to keep bringing "it" up.
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------------
Pain is evitable but suffering is optional.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Congress, Pledge Act |
21 Nov 2004 05:29:09 AM |
|
|
"raff242" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
:| wrote:
:|> Jim,
:|> I sent this to [DELETED], but never heard back from him.
:|Perhaps
:|> Dr. Newdow might find some of the information useful as he publicly
:|> explains his position on this issue.
:|
:|He has no position. He tried to use the courts to legislate his belief
:|system onto everyone else.
:|Here are all the facts you need to know about newdow and his bogus
:|claim.
:|1) He is not the legal guardian of the child in question, hence he has
:|no
:|legal right to file on her behalf, especially when he never informed
:|either the
:|child or mother who is the legal guardian.
:|
:|2) The child was suffering no harm as indicated by newdow, so in
:|essence newdow lied to the court, as his whole issue was based on a
:|lie.
:|
Son, you are posting all the cop out *****.
If you want to concentrate on the standing crap, gee guy, you have threes
circuit court justices who claim he had standing and three US Supreme Court
Justices who said he had standing.
You even had one US Supreme Court Justices saying based on precedence and
current law "under God" was unconstitutional.
Last but not least, it isn't over with.
This particular post is part of a gathering of facts and information that
I am doing for him, where he is taking each of the points made by the three
justices who actually addressed the merits of the case and didn't elect to
cop out and rebutting them with historical evidence.
The following:
From:
Subject: Congress, Pledge Act
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution, misc.legal, law.court.federal,
alt.christnet.evangelical, alt.atheism, alt.religion.christian,
alt.education
Date: 2004-11-19 09:46:17 PST
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=dacsp0t57jtassvsmn6i6vp8sh8nb02sl7%404ax.com
which you didn't address at all is part of that. Although originally
written in 2002 it was updated recently. Rehnquist had make this comment in
his concurring opinion:
Congress amended the Pledge to include the phrase "under God" in 1954. The
amendment's sponsor, Representative Rabaut, said its purpose was to
contrast this country's belief in God with the Soviet Union's embrace of
atheism. We do not know what other Members of Congress thought about the
purpose of the amendment. Following the decision of the Court of Appeals in
this case, Congress passed legislation that made extensive findings about
the historic role of religion in the political development of the Nation
and reaffirmed the text of the Pledge. Act of Nov. 13, 2002, Pub. L.
107-293, §§1-2, 116 Stat. 2057-2060. (Rehnquist concurring)
Thus the information located at
From:
Subject: Congress, Pledge Act
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution, misc.legal, law.court.federal,
alt.christnet.evangelical, alt.atheism, alt.religion.christian,
alt.education
Date: 2004-11-19 09:46:17 PST
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=dacsp0t57jtassvsmn6i6vp8sh8nb02sl7%404ax.com
shows the errors in
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:6:./temp/~c107XIr2fr::
To reaffirm the reference to one Nation under God in the Pledge of
Allegiance. (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
--S.2690--
S.2690
One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the twenty-third day
of January, two thousand and two An Act To reaffirm the reference to one
Nation under God in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
That is step #1. Step #2 which we are also undertaking is to rebut each of
Rehnquist's historical points.
Why is this being done? That is simple, because when the words "under God"
are challenged again in court by Newdow, probably representing others, and
the opposing side cites the recent USSC ruling on the matter they will cite
Rehnquists, O'Connor and Thomas, will maybe not Thomas since he admitted
that the Pledge as it is currently worded and based on current law is
unconstitutional. But the others will be cited.
Newdow or whomever is representing those who are doing the challenging
will have a ready made rebuttal, fully documented. cited etc shooting
Rehnquist's and O'Connor's rationale down.
.
|
|
|
| User: "indago" |
|
| Title: Re: Congress, Pledge Act |
22 Nov 2004 09:47:46 PM |
|
|
041121 0629 - posted:
unconstitutional. But the others will be cited.
Newdow or whomever is representing those who are doing the challenging
will have a ready made rebuttal, fully documented. cited etc shooting
Rehnquist's and O'Connor's rationale down.
The pledge of allegiance to the flag should be abolished, and all who work
for governments should be required, every morning, to pledge their
allegiance to the people whom they serve; and to reaffirm their oath to
uphold the Constitution. This would be a daily reminder of their status,
and their servile position. It is predictable that their attitude would
change.
.
|
|
|
| User: "indago" |
|
| Title: Re: Congress, Pledge Act |
27 Nov 2004 09:37:34 PM |
|
|
041122 2247 - indago posted:
041121 0629 - posted:
unconstitutional. But the others will be cited.
Newdow or whomever is representing those who are doing the challenging
will have a ready made rebuttal, fully documented. cited etc shooting
Rehnquist's and O'Connor's rationale down.
The pledge of allegiance to the flag should be abolished, and all who work
for governments should be required, every morning, to pledge their
allegiance to the people whom they serve; and to reaffirm their oath to
uphold the Constitution. This would be a daily reminder of their status,
and their servile position. It is predictable that their attitude would
change.
Well, I don't see anyone disagreeing with this. Either all agree, or are in
shock...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Congress, Pledge Act |
21 Nov 2004 10:26:57 PM |
|
|
On 20 Nov 2004 19:39:45 -0800, "raff242" <raff242@yahoo.com> said in
alt.atheism:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
Jim,
I sent this to [DELETED], but never heard back from him.
Perhaps
Dr. Newdow might find some of the information useful as he publicly
explains his position on this issue.
He has no position. He tried to use the courts to legislate his belief
system onto everyone else.
Now all you atheist bigots can go pound sand some where, as we are
getting real tired
of your all crying.
Irony alert.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Congress, Pledge Act |
21 Nov 2004 06:30:07 AM |
|
|
On 20 Nov 2004 19:39:45 -0800, "raff242" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
Jim,
I sent this to [DELETED], but never heard back from him.
Perhaps
Dr. Newdow might find some of the information useful as he publicly
explains his position on this issue.
He has no position. He tried to use the courts to legislate his belief
system onto everyone else.
No, lying theist bigot. You know perfectly wel lthat atheism is
neither a belief nor a system - it is the simple absence of your
particular theistic belief that yopu want to force on everybody.
Here are all the facts you need to know about newdow and his bogus
claim.
1) He is not the legal guardian of the child in question, hence he has
no
legal right to file on her behalf, especially when he never informed
either the
child or mother who is the legal guardian.
2) The child was suffering no harm as indicated by newdow, so in
essence newdow lied to the court, as his whole issue was based on a
lie.
Now all you atheist bigots can go pound sand some where, as we are
getting real tired
of your all crying.
Lies the typically ignorant theist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "raff242" |
|
| Title: Re: Congress, Pledge Act |
21 Nov 2004 02:34:28 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 20 Nov 2004 19:39:45 -0800, "raff242" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
Jim,
I sent this to [DELETED], but never heard back from him.
Perhaps
Dr. Newdow might find some of the information useful as he
publicly
explains his position on this issue.
He has no position. He tried to use the courts to legislate his
belief
system onto everyone else.
No
Yes, and your denial is telling of your dishonest position.
Here are all the facts you need to know about newdow and his bogus
claim.
1) He is not the legal guardian of the child in question, hence he
has
no
legal right to file on her behalf, especially when he never informed
either the
child or mother who is the legal guardian.
2) The child was suffering no harm as indicated by newdow, so in
essence newdow lied to the court, as his whole issue was based on a
lie.
Now all you atheist bigots can go pound sand some where, as we are
getting real tired
of your all crying.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Congress, Pledge Act; Play Balls |
21 Nov 2004 01:23:39 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 21:39:, anonymous wacko wrote:
Now all you atheist bigots can go pound sand some where, as we
"we"???
Your flea collar stopped working?
You poor / oops! / that type of language shouldn't be used around your kind.
That governmental classification of you as an endangered feces really shields
you from your bounced reality checks.
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------------
Pain is evitable but suffering is optional.
.
|
|
|
| User: "raff242" |
|
| Title: Re: Congress, Pledge Act; Play Balls |
21 Nov 2004 04:56:57 AM |
|
|
Gray Shockley wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 21:39:, anonymous wacko wrote:
Now all you atheist bigots can go pound sand some where, as we
"we"???
Your flea collar stopped working?
The Mississippi idiot shows again why incest is frowned upon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Congress, Pledge Act; Play Balls |
21 Nov 2004 07:57:53 PM |
|
|
On 21 Nov 2004 02:56:57 -0800, "raff242" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
Gray Shockley wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 21:39:, anonymous wacko wrote:
Now all you atheist bigots can go pound sand some where, as we
"we"???
Your flea collar stopped working?
The Mississippi idiot shows again why incest is frowned upon.
By science, not by "God," oh mindless and lying Christian.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "raff242" |
|
| Title: Re: Congress, Pledge Act; Play Balls |
21 Nov 2004 08:28:01 PM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
On 21 Nov 2004 02:56:57 -0800, "raff242" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
Gray Shockley wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 21:39:, anonymous wacko wrote:
Now all you atheist bigots can go pound sand some where, as we
"we"???
Your flea collar stopped working?
The Mississippi idiot shows again why incest is frowned upon.
By science, not by "God," oh mindless and lying Christian.
Keep crying bigot.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Congress, Pledge Act; Play Balls |
21 Nov 2004 11:07:00 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 21:39:, anonymous wacko wrote:
Now all you atheist bigots can go pound sand some where, as we
Gray Shockley wrote:
"we"???
Your flea collar stopped working?
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 4:56, Intellectual ***** drooled:
The Mississippi idiot shows again why incest is frowned upon.
You mean you're using "we" because you're pregnant?
Is that it, "Bananas" Raffaniello?
You are a great example of a very poor example. You should
have listened to your mother/sister/wife.
If I had only had your example earlier, it might have been possible to save
an entire portion of California from turning out like you.
Heck, Po' Dana, you just can't seem to be able to avoid opening your Satanic
mouth & showing all the world your bile & vile. And that's on days when
you're partially conscious.
Ya know, Derrigable Dana - you have an almost infallible ability to pick the
most public way of illustrating how much of a wacko you really are.
It must be a true letdown for you to realize that the only valued job you'll
ever have is being a pop-up target on an Alaskan civilian range.
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------------
Pain is evitable but suffering is optional.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
