| 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: "Jeffrey Scott Linder" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
27 Jan 2005 03:28:23 PM |
|
|
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
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,
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.
And neither does the law wrt to the Pledge.
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.
And what is the penalty for not recongizing this deity?
You keep evading that question.
JSL
You seem to dwell on this penalty non issue. The penalties are built in.
For example the penalty for being an atheist is the chance of never
being elected to public office based on that one issue.
How do you know this? People are free to choose their
representatives.
JSL
Any atheists in congress?
Then please state the religious persuasion of each member of Congress.
No. You name one atheist.
Yet you claim there aren't any...how do you know?
Why should I support your arguement because you can't?
You can't name one. I knew it.
I never said I could... You on the other hand said that there aren't.
Please back up your claim.
That's how I know it.
Are aethists banned from serving in public office?
JSL
No. Did somebody say they were?
You certainly implied it.
"For example the penalty for being an atheist is the chance of never
being elected to public office based on that one issue."
That doesn't imply they are banned. It specifically says they're not
going to get elected, regardless of what other ideas they have.
So say you.
JSL
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
27 Jan 2005 06:34:26 PM |
|
|
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
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,
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.
And neither does the law wrt to the Pledge.
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.
And what is the penalty for not recongizing this deity?
You keep evading that question.
JSL
You seem to dwell on this penalty non issue. The penalties are built in.
For example the penalty for being an atheist is the chance of never
being elected to public office based on that one issue.
How do you know this? People are free to choose their
representatives.
JSL
Any atheists in congress?
Then please state the religious persuasion of each member of Congress.
No. You name one atheist.
Yet you claim there aren't any...how do you know?
Why should I support your arguement because you can't?
You can't name one. I knew it.
I never said I could... You on the other hand said that there aren't.
Please back up your claim.
There aren't. If you need proof find it out yourself.
That's how I know it.
Are aethists banned from serving in public office?
JSL
No. Did somebody say they were?
You certainly implied it.
"For example the penalty for being an atheist is the chance of never
being elected to public office based on that one issue."
That doesn't imply they are banned. It specifically says they're not
going to get elected, regardless of what other ideas they have.
So say you.
JSL
Do you know of one serving right now? It would be easier for you to
provide that name than for me to provide 500+ names. You can end this
with just one name.
Jack
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
24 Jan 2005 06:20:42 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:22:55 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
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,
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.
And neither does the law wrt to the Pledge.
Except that, as you already know and are deliberately being dense, it
establishes generic monotheistic religion. It is a statement that the
country is under the aegis of 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.
And what is the penalty for not recongizing this deity?
You keep evading that question.
Nothing to do with any penalty, official or (very often) unofficial.
IT STATES UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT THE COUNTRY IS UNDER A DEITY THAT NOT ALL
OF THE PEOPLE BELIEVE.
JSL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Scott Linder" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
25 Jan 2005 10:07:26 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:22:55 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
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,
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.
And neither does the law wrt to the Pledge.
Except that, as you already know and are deliberately being dense, it
establishes generic monotheistic religion. It is a statement that the
country is under the aegis of the deity of somebody else's religion.
So be it. How is it established in practice? Where are the
government preachers passing the government hat? Where are the
religious tests for office in this theocracy?
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.
And what is the penalty for not recongizing this deity?
You keep evading that question.
Nothing to do with any penalty, official or (very often) unofficial.
IT STATES UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT THE COUNTRY IS UNDER A DEITY THAT NOT ALL
OF THE PEOPLE BELIEVE.
So you acknowledge that this law is toothless and you are free to
practice whatever religion you choose?
JSL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
24 Jan 2005 09:32:01 PM |
|
|
In article <io3bv01qs0tlpckp976t51dov0hervqosn@4ax.com>, Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:22:55 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
And neither does the law wrt to the Pledge.
Except that, as you already know and are deliberately being dense, it
establishes generic monotheistic religion.
It does no such thing. Merely mentioning a deity in no way qualifies as
establishing a state religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
26 Jan 2005 12:42:23 AM |
|
|
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <io3bv01qs0tlpckp976t51dov0hervqosn@4ax.com>, Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:22:55 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
And neither does the law wrt to the Pledge.
Except that, as you already know and are deliberately being dense, it
establishes generic monotheistic religion.
It does no such thing. Merely mentioning a deity in no way qualifies as
establishing a state religion.
Who said anything about a state religion? You need to learn the
difference between religion and state religion. State religion is not
mentioned in the 1st amendment.
Jack
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
24 Jan 2005 11:14:42 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:32:01 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <io3bv01qs0tlpckp976t51dov0hervqosn@4ax.com>, Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:22:55 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
And neither does the law wrt to the Pledge.
Except that, as you already know and are deliberately being dense, it
establishes generic monotheistic religion.
It does no such thing. Merely mentioning a deity in no way qualifies as
establishing a state religion.
It is not "merely mentioning a deity", but then you already know that
and are just being deliberately dishonest. IT ESTABLISHES GENERIC
MONOTHEISM AND SAYS THAT THIS COUNTRY IS UNDER THE AEGIS OF A DEITY.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
27 Jan 2005 05:56:39 PM |
|
|
In article <kalbv0pt6mb76m2i20t6m94hjmb9m5di4r@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:32:01 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <io3bv01qs0tlpckp976t51dov0hervqosn@4ax.com>, Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:22:55 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
And neither does the law wrt to the Pledge.
Except that, as you already know and are deliberately being dense, it
establishes generic monotheistic religion.
It does no such thing. Merely mentioning a deity in no way qualifies as
establishing a state religion.
It is not "merely mentioning a deity", but then you already know that
and are just being deliberately dishonest. IT ESTABLISHES GENERIC
MONOTHEISM AND SAYS THAT THIS COUNTRY IS UNDER THE AEGIS OF A DEITY.
So you keep saying. Other than your assertion, what other authority do
you have to back it up?
[And capital letters don't count.]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
25 Jan 2005 03:10:15 PM |
|
|
In article <kalbv0pt6mb76m2i20t6m94hjmb9m5di4r@4ax.com>, Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:32:01 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <io3bv01qs0tlpckp976t51dov0hervqosn@4ax.com>, Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:22:55 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
And neither does the law wrt to the Pledge.
Except that, as you already know and are deliberately being dense, it
establishes generic monotheistic religion.
It does no such thing. Merely mentioning a deity in no way qualifies as
establishing a state religion.
It is not "merely mentioning a deity", but then you already know that
and are just being deliberately dishonest.
Wow. Apparently you're psychic as well as being just a general *****.
Who would have thought?
IT ESTABLISHES GENERIC
MONOTHEISM AND SAYS THAT THIS COUNTRY IS UNDER THE AEGIS OF A DEITY.
No, it really doesn't do any such thing. The mere mention of a word
establishes nothing, no matter how many capital letters you use.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
26 Jan 2005 12:51:02 AM |
|
|
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <kalbv0pt6mb76m2i20t6m94hjmb9m5di4r@4ax.com>, Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:32:01 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <io3bv01qs0tlpckp976t51dov0hervqosn@4ax.com>, Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:22:55 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
And neither does the law wrt to the Pledge.
Except that, as you already know and are deliberately being dense, it
establishes generic monotheistic religion.
It does no such thing. Merely mentioning a deity in no way qualifies as
establishing a state religion.
It is not "merely mentioning a deity", but then you already know that
and are just being deliberately dishonest.
Wow. Apparently you're psychic as well as being just a general *****.
Who would have thought?
IT ESTABLISHES GENERIC
MONOTHEISM AND SAYS THAT THIS COUNTRY IS UNDER THE AEGIS OF A DEITY.
No, it really doesn't do any such thing. The mere mention of a word
establishes nothing, no matter how many capital letters you use.
Then why is it so important to mention that word?
Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
26 Jan 2005 07:21:48 AM |
|
|
In article <41F73DD6.3C965565@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <kalbv0pt6mb76m2i20t6m94hjmb9m5di4r@4ax.com>, Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:32:01 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <io3bv01qs0tlpckp976t51dov0hervqosn@4ax.com>, Christopher
A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:22:55 GMT, (Jeffrey
Scott Linder) wrote:
And neither does the law wrt to the Pledge.
Except that, as you already know and are deliberately being dense,
it establishes generic monotheistic religion.
It does no such thing. Merely mentioning a deity in no way qualifies
as establishing a state religion.
It is not "merely mentioning a deity", but then you already know
that and are just being deliberately dishonest.
Wow. Apparently you're psychic as well as being just a general *****.
Who would have thought?
IT ESTABLISHES GENERIC
MONOTHEISM AND SAYS THAT THIS COUNTRY IS UNDER THE AEGIS OF A DEITY.
No, it really doesn't do any such thing. The mere mention of a word
establishes nothing, no matter how many capital letters you use.
Then why is it so important to mention that word?
I never said it was. I merely took issue with the assertion that it
establishes a religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Clore" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
26 Jan 2005 06:33:09 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F73DD6.3C965565@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <kalbv0pt6mb76m2i20t6m94hjmb9m5di4r@4ax.com>, Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:32:01 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <io3bv01qs0tlpckp976t51dov0hervqosn@4ax.com>, Christopher
A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:22:55 GMT, (Jeffrey
Scott Linder) wrote:
I merely took issue with the assertion that it establishes a religion.
Forcing students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, with
the words "under God" added (they did not occur in the
original version), requires them to endorse a specific
religious belief. That obviously violates the first
amendment, just as it would if they had to make a similar
reference to another deity--Odin, Zeus, Krishna, Satan, Bob,
Cthulhu, whatever.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
26 Jan 2005 08:19:42 PM |
|
|
In article <35qr66F4qrpo5U1@individual.net>,
wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F73DD6.3C965565@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <kalbv0pt6mb76m2i20t6m94hjmb9m5di4r@4ax.com>, Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:32:01 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <io3bv01qs0tlpckp976t51dov0hervqosn@4ax.com>, Christopher
A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:22:55 GMT, (Jeffrey
Scott Linder) wrote:
I merely took issue with the assertion that it establishes a religion.
Forcing students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, with
the words "under God" added (they did not occur in the
original version), requires them to endorse a specific
religious belief.
To date, no one has shown that any kid is being forced to say those
words or even the pledge itself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
27 Jan 2005 12:12:05 AM |
|
|
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <35qr66F4qrpo5U1@individual.net>,
wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F73DD6.3C965565@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <kalbv0pt6mb76m2i20t6m94hjmb9m5di4r@4ax.com>, Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:32:01 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <io3bv01qs0tlpckp976t51dov0hervqosn@4ax.com>, Christopher
A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:22:55 GMT, (Jeffrey
Scott Linder) wrote:
I merely took issue with the assertion that it establishes a religion.
Forcing students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, with
the words "under God" added (they did not occur in the
original version), requires them to endorse a specific
religious belief.
To date, no one has shown that any kid is being forced to say those
words or even the pledge itself.
Damn, you're finally starting to make sense. They can abstain and deal
with the consequences. What consequences? Read the thread again.
Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
27 Jan 2005 05:45:40 PM |
|
|
In article <41F88635.53E767D9@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <35qr66F4qrpo5U1@individual.net>,
wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F73DD6.3C965565@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <kalbv0pt6mb76m2i20t6m94hjmb9m5di4r@4ax.com>, Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:32:01 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <io3bv01qs0tlpckp976t51dov0hervqosn@4ax.com>, Christopher
A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:22:55 GMT, (Jeffrey
Scott Linder) wrote:
I merely took issue with the assertion that it establishes a religion.
Forcing students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, with
the words "under God" added (they did not occur in the
original version), requires them to endorse a specific
religious belief.
To date, no one has shown that any kid is being forced to say those
words or even the pledge itself.
Damn, you're finally starting to make sense. They can abstain and deal
with the consequences. What consequences? Read the thread again.
And we're back to where we started.
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
27 Jan 2005 07:47:00 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 wrote:
And we're back to where we started.
Like deja vu all over again.
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.
A great lesson in high school. Maybe not so great in 2nd grade? I just
don't feel the majority has to be given the opportunity to teach that
lesson by inserting their religion into everyday public schooling. Those
same people will find many ways to assert their social *superiority*.
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.
I can buy that. There will be many of those lessons. Those of a
religious theme should be fought in the streets not in the public
classroom.
Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
27 Jan 2005 08:49:47 PM |
|
|
nJb wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
And we're back to where we started.
Like deja vu all over again.
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.
A great lesson in high school. Maybe not so great in 2nd grade? I just
don't feel the majority has to be given the opportunity to teach that
lesson by inserting their religion into everyday public schooling. Those
same people will find many ways to assert their social *superiority*.
Two clues for you.
1) Religion is not being inserted into public school.
2) Religious people do not want to assert their social superiority, as they
know that everyone is equal, and none are superior. Only leftist have
feelings of superiority over other people.
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
27 Jan 2005 11:43:59 PM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
nJb wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
And we're back to where we started.
Like deja vu all over again.
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.
A great lesson in high school. Maybe not so great in 2nd grade? I just
don't feel the majority has to be given the opportunity to teach that
lesson by inserting their religion into everyday public schooling. Those
same people will find many ways to assert their social *superiority*.
Two clues for you.
1) Religion is not being inserted into public school.
2) Religious people do not want to assert their social superiority, as they
know that everyone is equal, and none are superior. Only leftist have
feelings of superiority over other people.
Nice of you to drop in, but we've heard that moronic religious *****
before. It's old. Either you're lying or your stupid. Go to church.
Jack
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Clore" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
26 Jan 2005 09:39:46 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <35qr66F4qrpo5U1@individual.net>,
wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F73DD6.3C965565@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <kalbv0pt6mb76m2i20t6m94hjmb9m5di4r@4ax.com>, Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:32:01 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <io3bv01qs0tlpckp976t51dov0hervqosn@4ax.com>, Christopher
A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:22:55 GMT, (Jeffrey
Scott Linder) wrote:
I merely took issue with the assertion that it establishes a religion.
Forcing students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, with
the words "under God" added (they did not occur in the
original version), requires them to endorse a specific
religious belief.
To date, no one has shown that any kid is being forced to say those
words or even the pledge itself.
You may not realize this, but students in school are in fact
required to do what their teacher orders them too.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Scott Linder" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
27 Jan 2005 09:31:00 AM |
|
|
Dan Clore <> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <35qr66F4qrpo5U1@individual.net>,
wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F73DD6.3C965565@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <kalbv0pt6mb76m2i20t6m94hjmb9m5di4r@4ax.com>, Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:32:01 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <io3bv01qs0tlpckp976t51dov0hervqosn@4ax.com>, Christopher
A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:22:55 GMT, (Jeffrey
Scott Linder) wrote:
I merely took issue with the assertion that it establishes a religion.
Forcing students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, with
the words "under God" added (they did not occur in the
original version), requires them to endorse a specific
religious belief.
To date, no one has shown that any kid is being forced to say those
words or even the pledge itself.
You may not realize this, but students in school are in fact
required to do what their teacher orders them too.
No they aren't.
JSL
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
27 Jan 2005 11:25:42 AM |
|
|
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
Dan Clore < > wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <35qr66F4qrpo5U1@individual.net>,
wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F73DD6.3C965565@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <kalbv0pt6mb76m2i20t6m94hjmb9m5di4r@4ax.com>, Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:32:01 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <io3bv01qs0tlpckp976t51dov0hervqosn@4ax.com>, Christopher
A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:22:55 GMT, (Jeffrey
Scott Linder) wrote:
I merely took issue with the assertion that it establishes a religion.
Forcing students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, with
the words "under God" added (they did not occur in the
original version), requires them to endorse a specific
religious belief.
To date, no one has shown that any kid is being forced to say those
words or even the pledge itself.
You may not realize this, but students in school are in fact
required to do what their teacher orders them too.
No they aren't.
JSL
Yes they are.
Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Scott Linder" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
27 Jan 2005 03:23:43 PM |
|
|
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
Dan Clore < > wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <35qr66F4qrpo5U1@individual.net>,
wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F73DD6.3C965565@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <kalbv0pt6mb76m2i20t6m94hjmb9m5di4r@4ax.com>, Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:32:01 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <io3bv01qs0tlpckp976t51dov0hervqosn@4ax.com>, Christopher
A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:22:55 GMT, (Jeffrey
Scott Linder) wrote:
I merely took issue with the assertion that it establishes a religion.
Forcing students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, with
the words "under God" added (they did not occur in the
original version), requires them to endorse a specific
religious belief.
To date, no one has shown that any kid is being forced to say those
words or even the pledge itself.
You may not realize this, but students in school are in fact
required to do what their teacher orders them too.
No they aren't.
JSL
Yes they are.
Are students required to commit illegal acts if a teacher tells them
to?
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
27 Jan 2005 06:29:14 PM |
|
|
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
Dan Clore < > wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <35qr66F4qrpo5U1@individual.net>,
wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F73DD6.3C965565@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <kalbv0pt6mb76m2i20t6m94hjmb9m5di4r@4ax.com>, Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:32:01 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <io3bv01qs0tlpckp976t51dov0hervqosn@4ax.com>, Christopher
A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:22:55 GMT, (Jeffrey
Scott Linder) wrote:
I merely took issue with the assertion that it establishes a religion.
Forcing students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, with
the words "under God" added (they did not occur in the
original version), requires them to endorse a specific
religious belief.
To date, no one has shown that any kid is being forced to say those
words or even the pledge itself.
You may not realize this, but students in school are in fact
required to do what their teacher orders them too.
No they aren't.
JSL
Yes they are.
Are students required to commit illegal acts if a teacher tells them
to?
You're getting a bit ridiculous, Jeffrey. Nobody is required to commit
an illegal act. Nobody but you was referring to illegal acts.
Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Scott Linder" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
28 Jan 2005 10:09:34 AM |
|
|
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
Dan Clore < > wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <35qr66F4qrpo5U1@individual.net>,
wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F73DD6.3C965565@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <kalbv0pt6mb76m2i20t6m94hjmb9m5di4r@4ax.com>, Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:32:01 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <io3bv01qs0tlpckp976t51dov0hervqosn@4ax.com>, Christopher
A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:22:55 GMT, (Jeffrey
Scott Linder) wrote:
I merely took issue with the assertion that it establishes a religion.
Forcing students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, with
the words "under God" added (they did not occur in the
original version), requires them to endorse a specific
religious belief.
To date, no one has shown that any kid is being forced to say those
words or even the pledge itself.
You may not realize this, but students in school are in fact
required to do what their teacher orders them too.
No they aren't.
JSL
Yes they are.
Are students required to commit illegal acts if a teacher tells them
to?
You're getting a bit ridiculous, Jeffrey. Nobody is required to commit
an illegal act. Nobody but you was referring to illegal acts.
No. You made a universal statement that was incorrect. If you meant
to say something else than say it.
JSL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
27 Jan 2005 08:55:06 PM |
|
|
nJb wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
Dan Clore <clore@columbia-center.org> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <35qr66F4qrpo5U1@individual.net>,
clore@columbia-center.org wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F73DD6.3C965565@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <kalbv0pt6mb76m2i20t6m94hjmb9m5di4r@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:32:01 GMT, BTR1701
<BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <io3bv01qs0tlpckp976t51dov0hervqosn@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:22:55 GMT, (Jeffrey
Scott Linder) wrote:
I merely took issue with the assertion that it establishes a
religion.
Forcing students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, with
the words "under God" added (they did not occur in the
original version), requires them to endorse a specific
religious belief.
To date, no one has shown that any kid is being forced to say those
words or even the pledge itself.
You may not realize this, but students in school are in fact
required to do what their teacher orders them too.
No they aren't.
JSL
Yes they are.
Are students required to commit illegal acts if a teacher tells them
to?
You're getting a bit ridiculous,
No, he is following your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
27 Jan 2005 11:59:04 PM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
nJb wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
Dan Clore <clore@columbia-center.org> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <35qr66F4qrpo5U1@individual.net>,
clore@columbia-center.org wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F73DD6.3C965565@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <kalbv0pt6mb76m2i20t6m94hjmb9m5di4r@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:32:01 GMT, BTR1701
<BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <io3bv01qs0tlpckp976t51dov0hervqosn@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:22:55 GMT, (Jeffrey
Scott Linder) wrote:
I merely took issue with the assertion that it establishes a
religion.
Forcing students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, with
the words "under God" added (they did not occur in the
original version), requires them to endorse a specific
religious belief.
To date, no one has shown that any kid is being forced to say those
words or even the pledge itself.
You may not realize this, but students in school are in fact
required to do what their teacher orders them too.
No they aren't.
JSL
Yes they are.
Are students required to commit illegal acts if a teacher tells them
to?
You're getting a bit ridiculous,
No, he is following your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion.
What line of reasoning is that? You haven't a clue what you're talking
about much less what anybody else is talking. Go to church, you'll feel
better.
Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Scott Linder" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
28 Jan 2005 10:11:01 AM |
|
|
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Dana wrote:
nJb wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
Dan Clore <clore@columbia-center.org> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <35qr66F4qrpo5U1@individual.net>,
clore@columbia-center.org wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F73DD6.3C965565@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <kalbv0pt6mb76m2i20t6m94hjmb9m5di4r@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:32:01 GMT, BTR1701
<BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <io3bv01qs0tlpckp976t51dov0hervqosn@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:22:55 GMT, (Jeffrey
Scott Linder) wrote:
I merely took issue with the assertion that it establishes a
religion.
Forcing students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, with
the words "under God" added (they did not occur in the
original version), requires them to endorse a specific
religious belief.
To date, no one has shown that any kid is being forced to say those
words or even the pledge itself.
You may not realize this, but students in school are in fact
required to do what their teacher orders them too.
No they aren't.
JSL
Yes they are.
Are students required to commit illegal acts if a teacher tells them
to?
You're getting a bit ridiculous,
No, he is following your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion.
What line of reasoning is that?
"You may not realize this, but students in school are in fact required
to do what their teacher orders them too."
So now you admit that the aren't "in fact" required to do what their
teacher orders them to do?
You haven't a clue what you're talking
about much less what anybody else is talking. Go to church, you'll feel
better.
JSL
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
30 Jan 2005 01:17:42 AM |
|
|
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Dana wrote:
nJb wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
Dan Clore <clore@columbia-center.org> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <35qr66F4qrpo5U1@individual.net>,
clore@columbia-center.org wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F73DD6.3C965565@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <kalbv0pt6mb76m2i20t6m94hjmb9m5di4r@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:32:01 GMT, BTR1701
<BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <io3bv01qs0tlpckp976t51dov0hervqosn@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:22:55 GMT, (Jeffrey
Scott Linder) wrote:
I merely took issue with the assertion that it establishes a
religion.
Forcing students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, with
the words "under God" added (they did not occur in the
original version), requires them to endorse a specific
religious belief.
To date, no one has shown that any kid is being forced to say those
words or even the pledge itself.
You may not realize this, but students in school are in fact
required to do what their teacher orders them too.
No they aren't.
JSL
Yes they are.
Are students required to commit illegal acts if a teacher tells them
to?
You're getting a bit ridiculous,
No, he is following your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion.
What line of reasoning is that?
"You may not realize this, but students in school are in fact required
to do what their teacher orders them too."
So now you admit that the aren't "in fact" required to do what their
teacher orders them to do?
they are required to do what their teacher tells them to do. Nobody is
required to do something illegal. Can you see the difference. Try to
stay on topic or start another thread.
Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Scott Linder" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
31 Jan 2005 08:05:45 AM |
|
|
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Dana wrote:
nJb wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
Dan Clore <clore@columbia-center.org> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <35qr66F4qrpo5U1@individual.net>,
clore@columbia-center.org wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F73DD6.3C965565@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <kalbv0pt6mb76m2i20t6m94hjmb9m5di4r@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:32:01 GMT, BTR1701
<BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <io3bv01qs0tlpckp976t51dov0hervqosn@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:22:55 GMT, (Jeffrey
Scott Linder) wrote:
I merely took issue with the assertion that it establishes a
religion.
Forcing students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, with
the words "under God" added (they did not occur in the
original version), requires them to endorse a specific
religious belief.
To date, no one has shown that any kid is being forced to say those
words or even the pledge itself.
You may not realize this, but students in school are in fact
required to do what their teacher orders them too.
No they aren't.
JSL
Yes they are.
Are students required to commit illegal acts if a teacher tells them
to?
You're getting a bit ridiculous,
No, he is following your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion.
What line of reasoning is that?
"You may not realize this, but students in school are in fact required
to do what their teacher orders them too."
So now you admit that the aren't "in fact" required to do what their
teacher orders them to do?
they are required to do what their teacher tells them to do. Nobody is
required to do something illegal. Can you see the difference. Try to
stay on topic or start another thread.
Stop making universal statements as if they are fact.
JSL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
30 Jan 2005 01:16:36 AM |
|
|
nJb wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Dana wrote:
nJb wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
Dan Clore <clore@columbia-center.org> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <35qr66F4qrpo5U1@individual.net>,
clore@columbia-center.org wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <41F73DD6.3C965565@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <kalbv0pt6mb76m2i20t6m94hjmb9m5di4r@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:32:01 GMT, BTR1701
<BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <io3bv01qs0tlpckp976t51dov0hervqosn@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:22:55 GMT, (Jeffrey
Scott Linder) wrote:
I merely took issue with the assertion that it establishes a
religion.
Forcing students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, with
the words "under God" added (they did not occur in the
original version), requires them to endorse a specific
religious belief.
To date, no one has shown that any kid is being forced to say those
words or even the pledge itself.
You may not realize this, but students in school are in fact
required to do what their teacher orders them too.
No they aren't.
JSL
Yes they are.
Are students required to commit illegal acts if a teacher tells them
to?
You're getting a bit ridiculous,
No, he is following your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion.
What line of reasoning is that?
"You may not realize this, but students in school are in fact required
to do what their teacher orders them too."
So now you admit that the aren't "in fact" required to do what their
teacher orders them to do?
they are required to do what their teacher tells them to do. Nobody is
required to do something illegal. Can you see the difference. Try to
stay on topic or start another thread.
Jack
do children know the law? i certainly dont so how can we expect kids to
know better than an exceptional personage such as meself
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
