| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bob Shrum" |
| Date: |
15 Jan 2005 08:31:44 PM |
| Object: |
!Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer
Saturday, January 15, 2005
WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Friday rejected a challenge brought
by atheist Michael Newdow (search) to stop the invocation prayer at
President Bush's second inauguration.
On Thursday, Newdow told U.S. District Judge John Bates that having a
minister invoke God in the Jan. 20 ceremony would violate the
Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted religious beliefs.
But one day later, Bates ruled that Newdow wouldn't get far in his
legal challenge and noted the absence of a "clearly established
violation of the Establishment Clause."
"Moreover," the judge said in the ruling, "the balance of harms here,
and particularly the public interest, does not weigh strongly in favor
of the injunctive relief Newdow requests, which would require the
unprecedented step of an injunction against the president."
The government had asked the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia (search) to dismiss the current lawsuit, saying the invocation
had been widely accepted for more than 200 years old.
The court on Friday said it doesn't have the power to order the
president not to speak at his own inauguration and the act of ordering
the president not to permit an invocation and benediction - which
Newdow sought - would be one and the same.
Newdow argued he would be harmed as someone attending the inauguration
by being forced to listen to sectarian and specifically, Christian,
prayer. The court said that harm is simply too small to warrant its
involvement in the matter. Also, the court said Newdow really doesn't
have the legal standing to make this request since he sued over
inauguration prayers in 2001 and lost that case in two federal courts.
Appearing on FOX News' "Hannity & Colmes" late Friday, Newdow continued
to trumpet his cause. He said that reciting prayers at the inauguration
violates the rights of atheists because it undermines equality.
"How can you say it's equal to say to some people that they have to
listen to other people espouse religious dogma in the name of the
government?" he said.
After his first inaugural legal attempt, Newdow became famous in 2002
for his unsuccessful attempt to remove the phrase "under God" from the
Pledge of Allegiance.
Two ministers delivered Christian invocations at Bush's inaugural
ceremony in 2001, and plans call for a minister to do the same before
Bush takes the oath of office again next week.
In court this week, Newdow argued that the prayers violate the
constitutional ban on the establishment of religion.
"I am going to be standing there having this imposed on me," Newdow
told the court by phone on Thursday. "They will be telling me I'm an
outsider at that particular moment."
Newdow also argued that taxpayer-financed inaugural ceremonies cannot
be a platform for "the coercive imposition of religious dogma," adding
that the president intended to "use the machinery of the state to
advocate his religious beliefs."
Bates questioned both sides vigorously at Thursday's two-hour hearing,
but said he doubted a court could order the president not to include a
prayer when he takes the oath of office.
"Is it really in the public interest for the federal courts to step in
and enjoin prayer at the president's inauguration?" Bates asked.
Bates also questioned whether the lawsuit should be thrown out because
the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (search)
ruled last year that Newdow did not suffer "a sufficiently concrete and
specific injury" when he opposed prayers from being recited at Bush's
first inauguration.
Newdow said his case is different this time because he actually has a
ticket to attend the inauguration. He said being there live is
different than four years ago, when he planned to watch the ceremony on
television.
Justice Department lawyer Edward White scoffed at that claim, saying
the issues in the two cases are the same and that Newdow still has not
shown how he would be injured by hearing the prayer.
In an interview published in Wednesday's Washington Times, Bush, who
converted from Episcopalianism to Methodism and prays daily, tried to
dispel perceptions that he is advocating his beliefs or imposing them
on anyone.
"I think people attack me because they are fearful that I will then say
that you're not equally as patriotic if you're not a religious person.
I've never said that. I've never acted like that," he said.
Inaugural references to God date back to George Washington's
inauguration in 1789. Christian prayers within the ceremony began with
Franklin Delano Roosevelt's second inauguration in 1937.
Government attorneys defending the continued use of prayer said in
court papers that "there is no reason to reverse course and abandon a
widely accepted, noncontroversial aspect of the inaugural ceremony."
In court Thursday, they added that Supreme Court precedent allows state
legislatures and Congress to open each workday with prayer.
Newdow countered that legislative sessions are quite different from
taxpayer-financed public ceremonies.
A large part of next week's inaugural ceremonies is being paid for with
private donations, though the federal government is picking up the tab
for construction of the viewing stands and security.
In 2002, the 9th Circuit ruled in Newdow's favor concerning the "under
God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance. It agreed that the phrase,
added to the Pledge in 1954, was an unconstitutional blending of church
and state.
In June 2004, however, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the decision
on a technicality, essentially sidestepping the core issue.
It said Newdow could not lawfully sue on behalf of his elementary
school-aged daughter because he did not have custody of the girl and
because the girl's mother objected to the suit.
Newdow re-filed the Pledge suit in Sacramento federal court earlier
this month, naming eight other plaintiffs who are custodial parents or
the children themselves.
.
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
28 Jan 2005 06:33:38 AM |
|
|
In article <41F9D3A2.AF17D989@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F98EAD.EE35E733@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F884F4.1635CC84@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F83B10.B9C9F746@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
Her. Attention to detail is a good thing. Look into it.
Well, bring her to school in Utah. She'll build character, it
will be
worth it.
I doubt you've ever seen religious discrimination.
I lived as a Christian kid in Saudi Arabia for 5 years. Grades two
through seven.
Think again, sparky.
And you lived on an American compound right sparky? Try again.
No, I lived in a multi-national compound. Of course, where one lives in
Saudi doesn't really enter into it. Just entering the country, they
confiscate anything that might offend "Allah". Books, tapes, CDs,
anything. And that's just one example.
I think that was my point.
No, your point was quite clearly that you believed I had never
experienced religious discrimination.
I don't know where this new point suddenly came from.
I still don't know that you experienced religious discrimination.
No, you don't. Which makes it rather odd that you would state it so
categorically.
What nationalities were in that compound?
European, some African, some Lebanese, some Asian.
How were you discriminated against.
Well, we had to go to Catholic mass in secret in a movie theater and
pretend it was a late showing of "Jaws". The bishop that celebrated the
mass for us had to enter the country "undercover" since no clergy were
allowed. That's another example. Now you have two to go on since I
already provided you one up above.
You had to live by their customs. Do we want anything like that here?
Certainly not. And I see no indication that's it's anywhere close to
happening. Just because the president closes his speeches with "And may
god bless America" doesn't mean we're teetering on the cusp of a
theocracy.
You wouldn't see it, you're a conservative. It'll have to hit you right
between the eyes before you admit it. You haven't heard Bush claiming
to be doing god's work? You're in denial. He's a religious zealot.
I don't care what Bush's motivation is. It's what he actually does
that's at issue. If he does the right thing out of a sense of
patriotism, morality or religious belief-- I don't care so long as it's
the right thing.
My personal life hasn't changed one bit under the Bush administration in
terms of religion. I'm no more harassed or intimidated now than I was
under Clinton. There's nothing I can't do now that I could do under
Clinton. And it's not like Clinton didn't say "god bless America in his
speeches also.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
30 Jan 2005 01:00:03 AM |
|
|
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F9D3A2.AF17D989@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F98EAD.EE35E733@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F884F4.1635CC84@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F83B10.B9C9F746@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
Her. Attention to detail is a good thing. Look into it.
Well, bring her to school in Utah. She'll build character, it
will be
worth it.
I doubt you've ever seen religious discrimination.
I lived as a Christian kid in Saudi Arabia for 5 years. Grades two
through seven.
Think again, sparky.
And you lived on an American compound right sparky? Try again.
No, I lived in a multi-national compound. Of course, where one lives in
Saudi doesn't really enter into it. Just entering the country, they
confiscate anything that might offend "Allah". Books, tapes, CDs,
anything. And that's just one example.
I think that was my point.
No, your point was quite clearly that you believed I had never
experienced religious discrimination.
I don't know where this new point suddenly came from.
I still don't know that you experienced religious discrimination.
No, you don't. Which makes it rather odd that you would state it so
categorically.
What nationalities were in that compound?
European, some African, some Lebanese, some Asian.
How were you discriminated against.
Well, we had to go to Catholic mass in secret in a movie theater and
pretend it was a late showing of "Jaws". The bishop that celebrated the
mass for us had to enter the country "undercover" since no clergy were
allowed. That's another example. Now you have two to go on since I
already provided you one up above.
Confiscating things that offend allah is discrimination? I don't think
so. It's the law of the land. Would confiscating cocaine at Heathrow be
discrimination?
You had to live by their customs. Do we want anything like that here?
Certainly not. And I see no indication that's it's anywhere close to
happening. Just because the president closes his speeches with "And may
god bless America" doesn't mean we're teetering on the cusp of a
theocracy.
You wouldn't see it, you're a conservative. It'll have to hit you right
between the eyes before you admit it. You haven't heard Bush claiming
to be doing god's work? You're in denial. He's a religious zealot.
I don't care what Bush's motivation is. It's what he actually does
that's at issue. If he does the right thing out of a sense of
patriotism, morality or religious belief-- I don't care so long as it's
the right thing.
I wouldn't argue there, but to deem his actions "right" because gawd
told him to do it is asinine.
My personal life hasn't changed one bit under the Bush administration in
terms of religion. I'm no more harassed or intimidated now than I was
under Clinton. There's nothing I can't do now that I could do under
Clinton. And it's not like Clinton didn't say "god bless America in his
speeches also.
Clinton didn't say he was called by gawd. that's the difference. I'm no
more harassed either but I see a red flag.
Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
30 Jan 2005 07:03:57 AM |
|
|
In article <41FC85F3.1C3A12A6@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F9D3A2.AF17D989@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F98EAD.EE35E733@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F884F4.1635CC84@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F83B10.B9C9F746@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com>
wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
Her. Attention to detail is a good thing. Look into it.
Well, bring her to school in Utah. She'll build character, it
will be
worth it.
I doubt you've ever seen religious discrimination.
I lived as a Christian kid in Saudi Arabia for 5 years. Grades
two
through seven.
Think again, sparky.
And you lived on an American compound right sparky? Try again.
No, I lived in a multi-national compound. Of course, where one
lives in
Saudi doesn't really enter into it. Just entering the country, they
confiscate anything that might offend "Allah". Books, tapes, CDs,
anything. And that's just one example.
I think that was my point.
No, your point was quite clearly that you believed I had never
experienced religious discrimination.
I don't know where this new point suddenly came from.
I still don't know that you experienced religious discrimination.
No, you don't. Which makes it rather odd that you would state it so
categorically.
What nationalities were in that compound?
European, some African, some Lebanese, some Asian.
How were you discriminated against.
Well, we had to go to Catholic mass in secret in a movie theater and
pretend it was a late showing of "Jaws". The bishop that celebrated the
mass for us had to enter the country "undercover" since no clergy were
allowed. That's another example. Now you have two to go on since I
already provided you one up above.
Confiscating things that offend allah is discrimination?
Uhhh... yeah. When people have their personal property confiscated by
the state on the basis of religion, that's pretty much the definition of
religious discrimination.
If the Bush administration issued an executive order that all Muslims in
America had to to turn in their copy of the Quran or face prosecution, I
bet you'd call *that* religious discrimination.
I don't think so. It's the law of the land.
Oh, so as long as the discrimination is codified, it's okay?
Well, then you shouldn't have any problem with the pledge, since that's
codified also.
Hell, it was the law of our land once upon a time that blacks had to sit
at the back of the bus and use separate lunch counters. I guess that
wasn't discrimination, either, since it was the law of the land.
Would confiscating cocaine at Heathrow be
discrimination?
They don't confiscate cocaine based on religious beliefs.
You had to live by their customs. Do we want anything like that
here?
Certainly not. And I see no indication that's it's anywhere close to
happening. Just because the president closes his speeches with "And may
god bless America" doesn't mean we're teetering on the cusp of a
theocracy.
You wouldn't see it, you're a conservative. It'll have to hit you right
between the eyes before you admit it. You haven't heard Bush claiming
to be doing god's work? You're in denial. He's a religious zealot.
I don't care what Bush's motivation is. It's what he actually does
that's at issue. If he does the right thing out of a sense of
patriotism, morality or religious belief-- I don't care so long as it's
the right thing.
I wouldn't argue there, but to deem his actions "right" because gawd
told him to do it is asinine.
Perhaps but I really don't care. To me it's like a kid believing in
Santa Claus. I know Santa Claus isn't real but I'm not gonna complain if
the belief in him makes the kid behave. It's the behaving that's the
goal.
My personal life hasn't changed one bit under the Bush administration in
terms of religion. I'm no more harassed or intimidated now than I was
under Clinton. There's nothing I can't do now that I could do under
Clinton. And it's not like Clinton didn't say "god bless America in his
speeches also.
Clinton didn't say he was called by gawd. that's the difference.
To a lot of the atheists in this group there is no difference. They have
a fit every time Bush so much as says "may god bless America", as if
other presidents, including liberal Democrats, haven't done the exact
same thing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Scott Linder" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
31 Jan 2005 08:07:57 AM |
|
|
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F9D3A2.AF17D989@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F98EAD.EE35E733@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F884F4.1635CC84@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F83B10.B9C9F746@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
Her. Attention to detail is a good thing. Look into it.
Well, bring her to school in Utah. She'll build character, it
will be
worth it.
I doubt you've ever seen religious discrimination.
I lived as a Christian kid in Saudi Arabia for 5 years. Grades two
through seven.
Think again, sparky.
And you lived on an American compound right sparky? Try again.
No, I lived in a multi-national compound. Of course, where one lives in
Saudi doesn't really enter into it. Just entering the country, they
confiscate anything that might offend "Allah". Books, tapes, CDs,
anything. And that's just one example.
I think that was my point.
No, your point was quite clearly that you believed I had never
experienced religious discrimination.
I don't know where this new point suddenly came from.
I still don't know that you experienced religious discrimination.
No, you don't. Which makes it rather odd that you would state it so
categorically.
What nationalities were in that compound?
European, some African, some Lebanese, some Asian.
How were you discriminated against.
Well, we had to go to Catholic mass in secret in a movie theater and
pretend it was a late showing of "Jaws". The bishop that celebrated the
mass for us had to enter the country "undercover" since no clergy were
allowed. That's another example. Now you have two to go on since I
already provided you one up above.
Confiscating things that offend allah is discrimination? I don't think
so. It's the law of the land. Would confiscating cocaine at Heathrow be
discrimination?
You had to live by their customs. Do we want anything like that here?
Certainly not. And I see no indication that's it's anywhere close to
happening. Just because the president closes his speeches with "And may
god bless America" doesn't mean we're teetering on the cusp of a
theocracy.
You wouldn't see it, you're a conservative. It'll have to hit you right
between the eyes before you admit it. You haven't heard Bush claiming
to be doing god's work? You're in denial. He's a religious zealot.
I don't care what Bush's motivation is. It's what he actually does
that's at issue. If he does the right thing out of a sense of
patriotism, morality or religious belief-- I don't care so long as it's
the right thing.
I wouldn't argue there, but to deem his actions "right" because gawd
told him to do it is asinine.
My personal life hasn't changed one bit under the Bush administration in
terms of religion. I'm no more harassed or intimidated now than I was
under Clinton. There's nothing I can't do now that I could do under
Clinton. And it's not like Clinton didn't say "god bless America in his
speeches also.
Clinton didn't say he was called by gawd. that's the difference. I'm no
more harassed either but I see a red flag.
Maybe you can tell us who said this then:
Christians are also supposed to be good citizens. And I ask you this
whole week to pray for me and pray for the members of Congress; ask
us not to turn away from our ministry.
"Our ministry is to do the work of God here on Earth.
And that starts with giving our children and our families a place in
which at least they can be safe and secure. It starts with standing
up against this mindless violence which has torn the hearts out of
people who are this church and nearly every church in the United
States. It starts with trying to put families back together. And it
is not the province of any one race. It is increasingly not the
province of any region or any economic group. But it savages the
poor the worst because that is where the families are most broken.
"And I ask you to pray, and to speak to your friends and
neighbors and to hope somehow we will all find the wisdom and the
judgment to come back and do the will of God in our ministries, which
is to make you as safe as we possibly can.
"Thank you so much for giving us this wonderful day with
you. God bless you all. "
JSL
Jack
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
26 Jan 2005 09:20:05 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:30:46 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <42332b45.462835281@news-west.newscene.com>,
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:28:24 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <41F5B650.647A308F@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
It is a theocracy? What religious test does it use? What is the
penalty for not citing the pledge or omitting the offending
phrase?
Being ostracized by your classmates. Pretty serious for a grade
schooler.
Oh dear.
Just as I thought your answer would be It's OK as long as it's not
your kid, eh?. Try living in a theocratic society such as Utah. Children
are cruel, that's nothing new. Suppose your 4th grader was the only one in
class to say "under god" what would your feelings be then?
Life is full of trade offs. I personally would think it would be a good
life lesson for my kid to decide what she thinks is more important:
social acceptance or her core beliefs.
This idea that we can all glide through life without ever experiencing a
negative situation or having to make a hard/unpleasant choice is not
only ridiculous but ultimately more harmful to kids than the perceived
"wrongs" the libs are trying to correct could ever be.
OK, then you will have no problem with giving the other side it's turn
and changing the pledge to say 'One nation that accepts no god' and
have the teacher have the whole class say that every day.
Since I'm an atheist, I'd have no problem with that, either.
Should be good for your kid to know that he and his family are no
longer recognised as a real citizens of this country any more.
Explain why that phrase would mean that my daughter and her family are
not recognized as citizens?
Well, the one now does and I don't particularly like my daughter being
told everyday she and her family are not recognized as part of this
country.
If the pledge said that this was one country under white supremecy,
there would be a war. We atheists are pretty laid back, but it
doesn't take being a liberal to not be happy about that.
Citizenship is defined by law and the regulations of the Immigration &
Customs Enforcement Bureau. My daughter is a citizen because she was
born here, according to both statute and the Constitution. Adding "one
nation that accepts no god" to a school pledge has absolutely zero
bearing on her citizenship status.
Give him a chance to build some character.
Her. Attention to detail is a good thing. Look into it.
Him is a generic pronoun. Are you trying to make a politically
correct correction?
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
26 Jan 2005 06:03:29 PM |
|
|
In article <423cb3b4.497762046@news-west.newscene.com>,
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:30:46 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <42332b45.462835281@news-west.newscene.com>,
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:28:24 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <41F5B650.647A308F@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
It is a theocracy? What religious test does it use? What is
the
penalty for not citing the pledge or omitting the offending
phrase?
Being ostracized by your classmates. Pretty serious for a grade
schooler.
Oh dear.
Just as I thought your answer would be It's OK as long as it's not
your kid, eh?. Try living in a theocratic society such as Utah.
Children
are cruel, that's nothing new. Suppose your 4th grader was the only
one in
class to say "under god" what would your feelings be then?
Life is full of trade offs. I personally would think it would be a
good
life lesson for my kid to decide what she thinks is more important:
social acceptance or her core beliefs.
This idea that we can all glide through life without ever
experiencing a
negative situation or having to make a hard/unpleasant choice is not
only ridiculous but ultimately more harmful to kids than the
perceived
"wrongs" the libs are trying to correct could ever be.
OK, then you will have no problem with giving the other side it's turn
and changing the pledge to say 'One nation that accepts no god' and
have the teacher have the whole class say that every day.
Since I'm an atheist, I'd have no problem with that, either.
Should be good for your kid to know that he and his family are no
longer recognised as a real citizens of this country any more.
Explain why that phrase would mean that my daughter and her family are
not recognized as citizens?
Well, the one now does and I don't particularly like my daughter being
told everyday she and her family are not recognized as part of this
country.
How is that anything more than your wild interpretation of the text?
Citizenship is defined by law and the regulations of the Immigration &
Customs Enforcement Bureau. My daughter is a citizen because she was
born here, according to both statute and the Constitution. Adding "one
nation that accepts no god" to a school pledge has absolutely zero
bearing on her citizenship status.
Give him a chance to build some character.
Her. Attention to detail is a good thing. Look into it.
Him is a generic pronoun. Are you trying to make a politically
correct correction?
No. Just that it was quite clear earlier that I referred to my child as
"she" and since you were directly addressing me and talking about my
child in particular, using a generic reference is inappropriate.
Just as if I were to start using "he" and "him" in referring to you
while talking directly to you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
26 Jan 2005 11:58:00 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <423cb3b4.497762046@news-west.newscene.com>,
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:30:46 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <42332b45.462835281@news-west.newscene.com>,
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:28:24 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <41F5B650.647A308F@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
It is a theocracy? What religious test does it use? What is
the
penalty for not citing the pledge or omitting the offending
phrase?
Being ostracized by your classmates. Pretty serious for a grade
schooler.
Oh dear.
Just as I thought your answer would be It's OK as long as it's not
your kid, eh?. Try living in a theocratic society such as Utah.
Children
are cruel, that's nothing new. Suppose your 4th grader was the only
one in
class to say "under god" what would your feelings be then?
Life is full of trade offs. I personally would think it would be a
good
life lesson for my kid to decide what she thinks is more important:
social acceptance or her core beliefs.
This idea that we can all glide through life without ever
experiencing a
negative situation or having to make a hard/unpleasant choice is not
only ridiculous but ultimately more harmful to kids than the
perceived
"wrongs" the libs are trying to correct could ever be.
OK, then you will have no problem with giving the other side it's turn
and changing the pledge to say 'One nation that accepts no god' and
have the teacher have the whole class say that every day.
Since I'm an atheist, I'd have no problem with that, either.
Should be good for your kid to know that he and his family are no
longer recognised as a real citizens of this country any more.
Explain why that phrase would mean that my daughter and her family are
not recognized as citizens?
Well, the one now does and I don't particularly like my daughter being
told everyday she and her family are not recognized as part of this
country.
How is that anything more than your wild interpretation of the text?
Citizenship is defined by law and the regulations of the Immigration &
Customs Enforcement Bureau. My daughter is a citizen because she was
born here, according to both statute and the Constitution. Adding "one
nation that accepts no god" to a school pledge has absolutely zero
bearing on her citizenship status.
Give him a chance to build some character.
Her. Attention to detail is a good thing. Look into it.
Him is a generic pronoun. Are you trying to make a politically
correct correction?
No. Just that it was quite clear earlier that I referred to my child as
"she" and since you were directly addressing me and talking about my
child in particular, using a generic reference is inappropriate.
Just as if I were to start using "he" and "him" in referring to you
while talking directly to you.
If you were talking to her, then "he", "him" or "her" would be
inappropriate. Keep painting, we'll cut a door.
Jack
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
26 Jan 2005 08:40:03 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:03:29 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <423cb3b4.497762046@news-west.newscene.com>,
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:30:46 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <42332b45.462835281@news-west.newscene.com>,
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:28:24 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <41F5B650.647A308F@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
It is a theocracy? What religious test does it use? What is
the
penalty for not citing the pledge or omitting the offending
phrase?
Being ostracized by your classmates. Pretty serious for a grade
schooler.
Oh dear.
Just as I thought your answer would be It's OK as long as it's not
your kid, eh?. Try living in a theocratic society such as Utah.
Children
are cruel, that's nothing new. Suppose your 4th grader was the only
one in
class to say "under god" what would your feelings be then?
Life is full of trade offs. I personally would think it would be a
good
life lesson for my kid to decide what she thinks is more important:
social acceptance or her core beliefs.
This idea that we can all glide through life without ever
experiencing a
negative situation or having to make a hard/unpleasant choice is not
only ridiculous but ultimately more harmful to kids than the
perceived
"wrongs" the libs are trying to correct could ever be.
OK, then you will have no problem with giving the other side it's turn
and changing the pledge to say 'One nation that accepts no god' and
have the teacher have the whole class say that every day.
Since I'm an atheist, I'd have no problem with that, either.
Should be good for your kid to know that he and his family are no
longer recognised as a real citizens of this country any more.
Explain why that phrase would mean that my daughter and her family are
not recognized as citizens?
Well, the one now does and I don't particularly like my daughter being
told everyday she and her family are not recognized as part of this
country.
How is that anything more than your wild interpretation of the text?
It says that this is One nation under god. If atheists are not under
god, then apparently they are not part of the nation. How wild do you
have to be to not get that?
And that was exactly the interpretation that George Bush Senior used
when he expressed his opinion that 'Atheists are not really citizens -
one nation under god you know and all that....'.
How many times have you seen Xtians use the pledge as proof this is a
Christian country? It may not offend me but it does give
misinformation and support to those who would discriminate against me
and you and our children and that does offend me.
Citizenship is defined by law and the regulations of the Immigration &
Customs Enforcement Bureau. My daughter is a citizen because she was
born here, according to both statute and the Constitution. Adding "one
nation that accepts no god" to a school pledge has absolutely zero
bearing on her citizenship status.
Give him a chance to build some character.
Her. Attention to detail is a good thing. Look into it.
Him is a generic pronoun. Are you trying to make a politically
correct correction?
No. Just that it was quite clear earlier that I referred to my child as
"she" and since you were directly addressing me and talking about my
child in particular, using a generic reference is inappropriate.
Just as if I were to start using "he" and "him" in referring to you
while talking directly to you.
Uh, that happens all the time on usenet. At any rate, it wasn't
intentional.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
26 Jan 2005 09:56:30 PM |
|
|
On 26 Jan 2005 20:40:03 -0600, (Kate ) wrote:
OK, then you will have no problem with giving the other side it's turn
and changing the pledge to say 'One nation that accepts no god' and
have the teacher have the whole class say that every day.
Since I'm an atheist, I'd have no problem with that, either.
Should be good for your kid to know that he and his family are no
longer recognised as a real citizens of this country any more.
Explain why that phrase would mean that my daughter and her family are
not recognized as citizens?
Well, the one now does and I don't particularly like my daughter being
told everyday she and her family are not recognized as part of this
country.
How is that anything more than your wild interpretation of the text?
It says that this is One nation under god. If atheists are not under
god, then apparently they are not part of the nation. How wild do you
have to be to not get that?
Which makes him a strange sort of atheist.
And that was exactly the interpretation that George Bush Senior used
when he expressed his opinion that 'Atheists are not really citizens -
one nation under god you know and all that....'.
How many times have you seen Xtians use the pledge as proof this is a
Christian country? It may not offend me but it does give
misinformation and support to those who would discriminate against me
and you and our children and that does offend me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Scott Linder" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
25 Jan 2005 10:12:49 AM |
|
|
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
It is a theocracy? What religious test does it use? What is the
penalty for not citing the pledge or omitting the offending phrase?
Being ostracized by your classmates. Pretty serious for a grade
schooler.
Oh dear.
Jack
Just as I thought your answer would be It's OK as long as it's not your
kid, eh?.
No but then that's hardly the government handing out punishment.
Try living in a theocratic society such as Utah. Children are
cruel, that's nothing new. Suppose your 4th grader was the only one in
class to say "under god" what would your feelings be then?
Wouldn't bother me at all...there's a good life lesson there.
Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
26 Jan 2005 12:50:08 AM |
|
|
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
It is a theocracy? What religious test does it use? What is the
penalty for not citing the pledge or omitting the offending phrase?
Being ostracized by your classmates. Pretty serious for a grade
schooler.
Oh dear.
Jack
Just as I thought your answer would be It's OK as long as it's not your
kid, eh?.
No but then that's hardly the government handing out punishment.
Try living in a theocratic society such as Utah. Children are
cruel, that's nothing new. Suppose your 4th grader was the only one in
class to say "under god" what would your feelings be then?
Wouldn't bother me at all...there's a good life lesson there.
Jack
Sure there is. Your child will never get that lesson unless you move to
a theocracy.
Jack
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
21 Jan 2005 08:51:41 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:30:33 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:04:22 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Once again I ask...what religion does it establish and what is the
penalty for not accepting this establishment?
Duh. It establishes GENERIC MONOETHEISTIC religion.
How does it establish this generic mon[e]theistic religion?
What in the nature of the "establishment" does it harm the free
exercise of religion by anyone?
How is the establishment of this generic religion give it superiority
over another non-established religion?
Are you really this stupid or just pretending?
IT ESTABLISHES GENERIC MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION. Not "a" religion. It
gives it government preference over both non-monotheistic religion and
non-religion.
How if this preference expressed in law?
What the ***** do you imagine a law changing the pledge to include "one
nation under God", is?
And if you want it any clearer, here are Eisenhower's own words as he
signed it into law:
“From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily
proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse,
the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty”.
It also tells people from non-monotheistic religions and no religion
at all, that whetever they may or may not believe, the country is
"under the monotheist's deity". In other words a theocracy even if in
practice it hasn't been until recently.
It is a theocracy? What religious test does it use? What is the
penalty for not citing the pledge or omitting the offending phrase?
What part of "it tells people who aren't Christian/Jewish/Muslim
monotheists that the government has ruled that the deity of somebody
else's religion is rules the nation", are you pretending you don't
understand?
Stop pretending.
You're doing a very good job on not answering direct questions.
What do you expect to achieve by lying about me, to me?
JSL
When you have learned to read, read the First Amendment, tell me
exactly what the establishment clause says, and that you understand
the difference between "religion" and "a religion".
And which one the First Amendment uses?
JSL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
22 Jan 2005 02:23:39 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4n42v0p65crptjr07cqml41p3e09v2cnr2@4ax.com...
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:30:33 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:04:22 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Once again I ask...what religion does it establish and what is the
penalty for not accepting this establishment?
Duh. It establishes GENERIC MONOETHEISTIC religion.
How does it establish this generic mon[e]theistic religion?
What in the nature of the "establishment" does it harm the free
exercise of religion by anyone?
How is the establishment of this generic religion give it superiority
over another non-established religion?
Are you really this stupid or just pretending?
IT ESTABLISHES GENERIC MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION. Not "a" religion. It
gives it government preference over both non-monotheistic religion and
non-religion.
How if this preference expressed in law?
What the ***** do you imagine a law changing the pledge to include "one
nation under God", is?
And if you want it any clearer, here are Eisenhower's own words as he
signed it into law:
"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily
proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse,
the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty".
So, you would argue the following violates the First Amendment?
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of
Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly
to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress
have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of
the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by
acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty
God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a
form of government for their safety and happiness:"
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November
next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that
great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that
was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto
Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the
people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal
and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in
the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of
tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the
peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish
constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly
the national one now lately instituted' for the civil and religious liberty
with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing
useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors
which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and
supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to
pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in
public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties
properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all
the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and
constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to
protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have show
kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and
concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue,
and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto
all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be
best.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
22 Jan 2005 06:49:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:23:39 -0700, "Unpleasant Truth"
<no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
So, you would argue the following violates the First Amendment?
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of
Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly
to implore His protection and favor;
Where does the concept of 'duty' apply? If you're a god-soaked
imbecilic sheep that believes anything, then boot stepping to
religious patriotism is your zombie duty. Never mind critical thinking
or bothering to use a single brain cell.
Going on.
Exactly what god do you think we should be 'grateful for His
benefits'? What are they? Be specific and have some empirical evidence
to support it. (Look the word up) Seems to me if your Magic Daddy
wanted the US to be a Kristian Nation, then why do we have separation
of church and state? Surely the Founding Fathers received their divine
nation making like the Apostles, the inspiration from Gwaaaad.
As to the 'obey His will' crap..... 'Cuse me. That is decidedly
psychotic since no Magic Daddy exists. It's just some idiot having a
retard moment to justify killing people. It's not just creepy, it's
completely insane.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
22 Jan 2005 07:09:24 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:49:26 GMT, Steve Knight <wooly@sonic.net>
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:23:39 -0700, "Unpleasant Truth"
<no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
So, you would argue the following violates the First Amendment?
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of
Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly
to implore His protection and favor;
Where does the concept of 'duty' apply? If you're a god-soaked
imbecilic sheep that believes anything, then boot stepping to
religious patriotism is your zombie duty. Never mind critical thinking
or bothering to use a single brain cell.
Going on.
Exactly what god do you think we should be 'grateful for His
benefits'? What are they? Be specific and have some empirical evidence
to support it. (Look the word up) Seems to me if your Magic Daddy
wanted the US to be a Kristian Nation, then why do we have separation
of church and state? Surely the Founding Fathers received their divine
nation making like the Apostles, the inspiration from Gwaaaad.
Exactly. You would think they would have mentioned it in the
Constitution. And the government would not derive its power from "we
the people" bu "the consent of the governed".
As to the 'obey His will' crap..... 'Cuse me. That is decidedly
psychotic since no Magic Daddy exists. It's just some idiot having a
retard moment to justify killing people. It's not just creepy, it's
completely insane.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
23 Jan 2005 12:33:52 AM |
|
|
Unpleasant Truth wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4n42v0p65crptjr07cqml41p3e09v2cnr2@4ax.com...
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:30:33 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:04:22 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Once again I ask...what religion does it establish and what is the
penalty for not accepting this establishment?
Duh. It establishes GENERIC MONOETHEISTIC religion.
How does it establish this generic mon[e]theistic religion?
What in the nature of the "establishment" does it harm the free
exercise of religion by anyone?
How is the establishment of this generic religion give it superiority
over another non-established religion?
Are you really this stupid or just pretending?
IT ESTABLISHES GENERIC MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION. Not "a" religion. It
gives it government preference over both non-monotheistic religion and
non-religion.
How if this preference expressed in law?
What the ***** do you imagine a law changing the pledge to include "one
nation under God", is?
And if you want it any clearer, here are Eisenhower's own words as he
signed it into law:
"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily
proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse,
the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty".
So, you would argue the following violates the First Amendment?
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of
Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly
to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress
have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of
the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by
acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty
God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a
form of government for their safety and happiness:"
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November
next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that
great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that
was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto
Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the
people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal
and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in
the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of
tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the
peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish
constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly
the national one now lately instituted' for the civil and religious liberty
with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing
useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors
which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and
supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to
pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in
public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties
properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all
the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and
constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to
protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have show
kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and
concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue,
and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto
all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be
best.
I would call it superstition. You have no credibility. ACLU= American
Taliban? You have no concept of reality.
Jack
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
22 Jan 2005 02:40:53 PM |
|
|
Unpleasant Truth wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4n42v0p65crptjr07cqml41p3e09v2cnr2@4ax.com...
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:30:33 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:04:22 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Once again I ask...what religion does it establish and what is the
penalty for not accepting this establishment?
Duh. It establishes GENERIC MONOETHEISTIC religion.
How does it establish this generic mon[e]theistic religion?
What in the nature of the "establishment" does it harm the free
exercise of religion by anyone?
How is the establishment of this generic religion give it superiority
over another non-established religion?
Are you really this stupid or just pretending?
IT ESTABLISHES GENERIC MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION. Not "a" religion. It
gives it government preference over both non-monotheistic religion and
non-religion.
How if this preference expressed in law?
What the ***** do you imagine a law changing the pledge to include "one
nation under God", is?
And if you want it any clearer, here are Eisenhower's own words as he
signed it into law:
"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily
proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse,
the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty".
So, you would argue the following violates the First Amendment?
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of
Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly
to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress
have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of
the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by
acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty
God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a
form of government for their safety and happiness:"
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November
next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that
great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that
was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto
Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the
people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal
and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in
the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of
tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the
peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish
constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly
the national one now lately instituted' for the civil and religious liberty
with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing
useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors
which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and
supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to
pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in
public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties
properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all
the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and
constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to
protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have show
kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and
concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue,
and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto
all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be
best.
i would argue that it does, since it establishes a theological basis for
the nation, but since we know W dont like non-christians and does not
feel atheists should be citizens we cant expect any thought
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Scott Linder" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
24 Jan 2005 08:01:47 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:30:33 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:04:22 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Once again I ask...what religion does it establish and what is the
penalty for not accepting this establishment?
Duh. It establishes GENERIC MONOETHEISTIC religion.
How does it establish this generic mon[e]theistic religion?
What in the nature of the "establishment" does it harm the free
exercise of religion by anyone?
How is the establishment of this generic religion give it superiority
over another non-established religion?
Are you really this stupid or just pretending?
IT ESTABLISHES GENERIC MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION. Not "a" religion. It
gives it government preference over both non-monotheistic religion and
non-religion.
How if this preference expressed in law?
What the ***** do you imagine a law changing the pledge to include "one
nation under God", is?
OK...we are getting somewhere.
And if you want it any clearer, here are Eisenhower's own words as he
signed it into law:
“From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily
proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse,
the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty”.
What is the penalty for not citing "under god?"
It also tells people from non-monotheistic religions and no religion
at all, that whetever they may or may not believe, the country is
"under the monotheist's deity". In other words a theocracy even if in
practice it hasn't been until recently.
It is a theocracy? What religious test does it use? What is the
penalty for not citing the pledge or omitting the offending phrase?
What part of "it tells people who aren't Christian/Jewish/Muslim
monotheists that the government has ruled that the deity of somebody
else's religion is rules the nation", are you pretending you don't
understand?
Stop pretending.
Are we living in a theocracy? Why can't you answer simple questions>
What religious test are we using for office holders? What is the
penalty, under law, for incorrectly citing the POA?
You're doing a very good job on not answering direct questions.
What do you expect to achieve by lying about me, to me?
OK
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
24 Jan 2005 08:29:21 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:01:47 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:30:33 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:04:22 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Once again I ask...what religion does it establish and what is the
penalty for not accepting this establishment?
Duh. It establishes GENERIC MONOETHEISTIC religion.
How does it establish this generic mon[e]theistic religion?
What in the nature of the "establishment" does it harm the free
exercise of religion by anyone?
How is the establishment of this generic religion give it superiority
over another non-established religion?
Are you really this stupid or just pretending?
IT ESTABLISHES GENERIC MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION. Not "a" religion. It
gives it government preference over both non-monotheistic religion and
non-religion.
How if this preference expressed in law?
What the ***** do you imagine a law changing the pledge to include "one
nation under God", is?
OK...we are getting somewhere.
And if you want it any clearer, here are Eisenhower's own words as he
signed it into law:
“From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily
proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse,
the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty”.
What is the penalty for not citing "under god?"
I take it you now admit the religious purpose of the law and the fact
that it was unconstitutional?
What has that got to do with "under god" being illegal and
unconstitutional?
Have you ever been singled out by the teacher and the rest of the
class, with the teacher ignoring what the class does to the child?
All of which is illegal.
But it's a smokescreen on your part. Whether or not one can be
"officially" punished (and it has happened eg when a graduating
student left the ceremony because of prayer and pledge, and was
arrested when he tried to get back in), it is still illegal and
unconstitutional.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Scott Linder" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
24 Jan 2005 11:40:26 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:01:47 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:30:33 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:04:22 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Once again I ask...what religion does it establish and what is the
penalty for not accepting this establishment?
Duh. It establishes GENERIC MONOETHEISTIC religion.
How does it establish this generic mon[e]theistic religion?
What in the nature of the "establishment" does it harm the free
exercise of religion by anyone?
How is the establishment of this generic religion give it superiority
over another non-established religion?
Are you really this stupid or just pretending?
IT ESTABLISHES GENERIC MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION. Not "a" religion. It
gives it government preference over both non-monotheistic religion and
non-religion.
How if this preference expressed in law?
What the ***** do you imagine a law changing the pledge to include "one
nation under God", is?
OK...we are getting somewhere.
And if you want it any clearer, here are Eisenhower's own words as he
signed it into law:
“From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily
proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse,
the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty”.
What is the penalty for not citing "under god?"
I take it you now admit the religious purpose of the law and the fact
that it was unconstitutional?
No. Its no different than giving Christmas day off to millions of
federal state and municpal employees.
What has that got to do with "under god" being illegal and
unconstitutional?
Because the pledge does not establish religion or a religion.
Have you ever been singled out by the teacher and the rest of the
class, with the teacher ignoring what the class does to the child?
huh?
All of which is illegal.
Now we are straying far afield.
But it's a smokescreen on your part. Whether or not one can be
"officially" punished (and it has happened eg when a graduating
student left the ceremony because of prayer and pledge, and was
arrested when he tried to get back in),
Sure.
it is still illegal and
unconstitutional.
In your opinion.
JSL
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
24 Jan 2005 09:05:46 PM |
|
|
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:01:47 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:30:33 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:04:22 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Once again I ask...what religion does it establish and what is the
penalty for not accepting this establishment?
Duh. It establishes GENERIC MONOETHEISTIC religion.
How does it establish this generic mon[e]theistic religion?
What in the nature of the "establishment" does it harm the free
exercise of religion by anyone?
How is the establishment of this generic religion give it superiority
over another non-established religion?
Are you really this stupid or just pretending?
IT ESTABLISHES GENERIC MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION. Not "a" religion. It
gives it government preference over both non-monotheistic religion and
non-religion.
How if this preference expressed in law?
What the ***** do you imagine a law changing the pledge to include "one
nation under God", is?
OK...we are getting somewhere.
And if you want it any clearer, here are Eisenhower's own words as he
signed it into law:
“From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily
proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse,
the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty”.
What is the penalty for not citing "under god?"
I take it you now admit the religious purpose of the law and the fact
that it was unconstitutional?
No. Its no different than giving Christmas day off to millions of
federal state and municpal employees.
What has that got to do with "under god" being illegal and
unconstitutional?
Because the pledge does not establish religion or a religion.
It insinuates a belief in god and that is religion.
Jack
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
24 Jan 2005 12:18:18 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:40:26 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:01:47 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:30:33 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:04:22 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Once again I ask...what religion does it establish and what is the
penalty for not accepting this establishment?
Duh. It establishes GENERIC MONOETHEISTIC religion.
How does it establish this generic mon[e]theistic religion?
What in the nature of the "establishment" does it harm the free
exercise of religion by anyone?
How is the establishment of this generic religion give it superiority
over another non-established religion?
Are you really this stupid or just pretending?
IT ESTABLISHES GENERIC MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION. Not "a" religion. It
gives it government preference over both non-monotheistic religion and
non-religion.
How if this preference expressed in law?
What the ***** do you imagine a law changing the pledge to include "one
nation under God", is?
OK...we are getting somewhere.
And if you want it any clearer, here are Eisenhower's own words as he
signed it into law:
“From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily
proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse,
the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty”.
What is the penalty for not citing "under god?"
I take it you now admit the religious purpose of the law and the fact
that it was unconstitutional?
No. Its no different than giving Christmas day off to millions of
federal state and municpal employees.
Of course it is. Christmas is a holiday that non-Christians (and many
Christians) treat as secular. Nobody tells me I have to acknowledge
the deity of somebody else's religion.
What has that got to do with "under god" being illegal and
unconstitutional?
Because the pledge does not establish religion or a religion.
Of course it does - it established monotheism and tells
non-monotheists that this country is under the deity of somebody
else's religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Scott Linder" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
24 Jan 2005 03:22:55 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:40:26 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:01:47 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:30:33 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:04:22 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Once again I ask...what religion does it establish and what is the
penalty for not accepting this establishment?
Duh. It establishes GENERIC MONOETHEISTIC religion.
How does it establish this generic mon[e]theistic religion?
What in the nature of the "establishment" does it harm the free
exercise of religion by anyone?
How is the establishment of this generic religion give it superiority
over another non-established religion?
Are you really this stupid or just pretending?
IT ESTABLISHES GENERIC MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION. Not "a" religion. It
gives it government preference over both non-monotheistic religion and
non-religion.
How if this preference expressed in law?
What the ***** do you imagine a law changing the pledge to include "one
nation under God", is?
OK...we are getting somewhere.
And if you want it any clearer, here are Eisenhower's own words as he
signed it into law:
“From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily
proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse,
| | | | | | |
