And nobody is 'forcing' US to put up with the stupidest president ever
planted in the oval orifice either.

"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:oJgBc.17926415$Of.2972072@news.easynews.com...

<drift@lost.net> wrote in message
news:v9b9d0h2do9lb00k1prgebdgstlii5kt8p@4ax.com...

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 14:30:45 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
<brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote:

"Mike Russell" <REgeigyMOVE@pacbellTHIS.net> wrote in message
news:KAKAc.74667$fY7.44013@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...

Brooks Gregory wrote:

"Mike Russell" <REgeigyMOVE@pacbellTHIS.net> wrote in message
news:72KAc.74660$NH7.36965@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...

Brooks Gregory wrote:
...

Please point out where the Constitution says there is to be a
separation of Church & State. Hint, it doesn't.

1st ammendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government
for
a redress of grievances. --

Mike Russell

I didn't see the word church, nor the word separation, did you?
Remember, I answered a point previously made that implied that if

doesn't specifically say something, it just doesn't allow an

meaning.

You can't have your way, if I can't have mine.

Oh come on you're mincing words. Suppose you win a bet, and a

takes

you out for steak dinner. You sit down at the table, and it says

"London

Broil" on the menu, would you complain to your friend that there's

steak?

Congress can make no laws regarding religion.

Agreed. Now, suppose the law that inserted the words "Under God" was

never

placed on the books. What if all the students decided to add them and
recited the Pledge of Allegience using those words. See how that

"Congress shall make NO law". It does not stop there. It defines a
couple

of

parameters, respecting an establishment or prohibiting the free

expression

of. Therefore, anyone may express his religion, anywhere, anytime and
anyplace and any attempt by the Federal Government to prohibit that is

violation of the Constitution. Whether or not adding the words "Under

God"

at the behest of the Federal Government is construed as "respecting

establishment of" is yet to be determined and until the Supreme Court
has
the guts to stand up and be counted on that matter, Constitutionally
speaking, saying the words "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is
perfectly within the parameters of the Constitution so long as anyone

that

wishes is allowed to opt out of saying them.

Close except that if citizens want to say the original pledge and
insert the words "under God" that is free speech and IMHO doesn't
violate the First Amendment. The ACLU has even won a case allowing a
*student* to include a Biblical passage in the yearbook.

The crux is when the *government* injects religion into anything
because it implies an official religion, as opposed to the "free
practice thereof".

Not if it does NOT require obedience!!! Nobody is REQUIRED to say the
words
"Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Stop building straw men!

Eisenhower was wrong when he signed it into law, and everyone else
that was a part of getting "under God" into the pledge went astray of
the First amendment in doing so.

Just what problem is there with keeping the government out of the
peoples freedom of choice as to what they believe in or not?

Show me the law that makes it a requirement to say the words "Under

drift

Brooks Gregory wrote:

<drift@lost.net> wrote in message
news:v9b9d0h2do9lb00k1prgebdgstlii5kt8p@4ax.com...

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 14:30:45 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
<brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote:

"Mike Russell" <REgeigyMOVE@pacbellTHIS.net> wrote in message
news:KAKAc.74667$fY7.44013@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...

Brooks Gregory wrote:

"Mike Russell" <REgeigyMOVE@pacbellTHIS.net> wrote in message
news:72KAc.74660$NH7.36965@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...

Brooks Gregory wrote:
...

Please point out where the Constitution says there is to be a
separation of Church & State. Hint, it doesn't.

1st ammendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances. --

Mike Russell

I didn't see the word church, nor the word separation, did you?
Remember, I answered a point previously made that implied that if
it doesn't specifically say something, it just doesn't allow an
implied meaning.

You can't have your way, if I can't have mine.

Oh come on you're mincing words. Suppose you win a bet, and a
friend takes you out for steak dinner. You sit down at the table,
and it says "London Broil" on the menu, would you complain to your
friend that there's no steak?

Congress can make no laws regarding religion.

Agreed. Now, suppose the law that inserted the words "Under God"
was never placed on the books. What if all the students decided to
add them and recited the Pledge of Allegience using those words.
See how that works? "Congress shall make NO law". It does not stop
there. It defines a couple of parameters, respecting an
establishment or prohibiting the free expression of. Therefore,
anyone may express his religion, anywhere, anytime and anyplace and
any attempt by the Federal Government to prohibit that is a
violation of the Constitution. Whether or not adding the words
"Under God" at the behest of the Federal Government is construed as
"respecting the establishment of" is yet to be determined and until
the Supreme Court has the guts to stand up and be counted on that
matter, Constitutionally speaking, saying the words "Under God" in
the Pledge of Allegiance is perfectly within the parameters of the
Constitution so long as anyone that wishes is allowed to opt out of
saying them.

Close except that if citizens want to say the original pledge and
insert the words "under God" that is free speech and IMHO doesn't
violate the First Amendment. The ACLU has even won a case allowing a
*student* to include a Biblical passage in the yearbook.

The crux is when the *government* injects religion into anything
because it implies an official religion, as opposed to the "free
practice thereof".

Not if it does NOT require obedience!!! Nobody is REQUIRED to say the
words "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Stop building straw
men!

Caps and exclamation marks notwithstanding, this is simply not true. Kids
are taught the pledge from age 5 on up. Kids want to do what their

tell them at that age. Therefore there is a reasonable argument that the
government is injecting religion into our lives at an early age.

Eisenhower was wrong when he signed it into law, and everyone else
that was a part of getting "under God" into the pledge went astray of
the First amendment in doing so.

Just what problem is there with keeping the government out of the
peoples freedom of choice as to what they believe in or not?

Show me the law that makes it a requirement to say the words "Under
God".

I can not show you that which you refuse to see, but I will say this.

The pledge is a very emotionally charged issue, and I personally know

who were invited to go to Russia, by teachers, for refusing to say it.

To say that the pledge, and the words "under God" are not a "requirement"
ignores the fact that the government can, and has mandated an embedded
tradition, and that that tradition is compulsory to a young child at

--

Mike Russell
www.geigy.2y.net

Brooks Gregory wrote:

<drift@lost.net> wrote in message
news:v9b9d0h2do9lb00k1prgebdgstlii5kt8p@4ax.com...

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 14:30:45 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
<brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote:

"Mike Russell" <REgeigyMOVE@pacbellTHIS.net> wrote in message
news:KAKAc.74667$fY7.44013@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...

Brooks Gregory wrote:

"Mike Russell" <REgeigyMOVE@pacbellTHIS.net> wrote in message
news:72KAc.74660$NH7.36965@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...

Brooks Gregory wrote:
...

Please point out where the Constitution says there is to be a
separation of Church & State. Hint, it doesn't.

1st ammendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances. --

Mike Russell

I didn't see the word church, nor the word separation, did you?
Remember, I answered a point previously made that implied that if
it doesn't specifically say something, it just doesn't allow an
implied meaning.

You can't have your way, if I can't have mine.

Oh come on you're mincing words. Suppose you win a bet, and a
friend takes you out for steak dinner. You sit down at the table,
and it says "London Broil" on the menu, would you complain to your
friend that there's no steak?

Congress can make no laws regarding religion.

Agreed. Now, suppose the law that inserted the words "Under God"
was never placed on the books. What if all the students decided to
add them and recited the Pledge of Allegience using those words.
See how that works? "Congress shall make NO law". It does not stop
there. It defines a couple of parameters, respecting an
establishment or prohibiting the free expression of. Therefore,
anyone may express his religion, anywhere, anytime and anyplace and
any attempt by the Federal Government to prohibit that is a
violation of the Constitution. Whether or not adding the words
"Under God" at the behest of the Federal Government is construed as
"respecting the establishment of" is yet to be determined and until
the Supreme Court has the guts to stand up and be counted on that
matter, Constitutionally speaking, saying the words "Under God" in
the Pledge of Allegiance is perfectly within the parameters of the
Constitution so long as anyone that wishes is allowed to opt out of
saying them.

Close except that if citizens want to say the original pledge and
insert the words "under God" that is free speech and IMHO doesn't
violate the First Amendment. The ACLU has even won a case allowing a
*student* to include a Biblical passage in the yearbook.

The crux is when the *government* injects religion into anything
because it implies an official religion, as opposed to the "free
practice thereof".

Not if it does NOT require obedience!!! Nobody is REQUIRED to say the
words "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Stop building straw
men!

Caps and exclamation marks notwithstanding, this is simply not true. Kids
are taught the pledge from age 5 on up. Kids want to do what their teachers
tell them at that age. Therefore there is a reasonable argument that the
government is injecting religion into our lives at an early age.

Eisenhower was wrong when he signed it into law, and everyone else
that was a part of getting "under God" into the pledge went astray of
the First amendment in doing so.

Just what problem is there with keeping the government out of the
peoples freedom of choice as to what they believe in or not?

Show me the law that makes it a requirement to say the words "Under
God".

I can not show you that which you refuse to see, but I will say this.

The pledge is a very emotionally charged issue, and I personally know people
who were invited to go to Russia, by teachers, for refusing to say it.

To say that the pledge, and the words "under God" are not a "requirement"
ignores the fact that the government can, and has mandated an embedded
tradition, and that that tradition is compulsory to a young child at school.

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 13:57:40 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
<brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote:

<drift@lost.net> wrote in message
news:v9b9d0h2do9lb00k1prgebdgstlii5kt8p@4ax.com...

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 14:30:45 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
<brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote:

"Mike Russell" <REgeigyMOVE@pacbellTHIS.net> wrote in message
news:KAKAc.74667$fY7.44013@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...

Brooks Gregory wrote:

"Mike Russell" <REgeigyMOVE@pacbellTHIS.net> wrote in message
news:72KAc.74660$NH7.36965@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...

Brooks Gregory wrote:
...

Please point out where the Constitution says there is to be a
separation of Church & State. Hint, it doesn't.

1st ammendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise

or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right

the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government

a redress of grievances. --

Mike Russell

I didn't see the word church, nor the word separation, did you?
Remember, I answered a point previously made that implied that if

doesn't specifically say something, it just doesn't allow an

meaning.

You can't have your way, if I can't have mine.

Oh come on you're mincing words. Suppose you win a bet, and a

takes

you out for steak dinner. You sit down at the table, and it says

"London

Broil" on the menu, would you complain to your friend that there's

steak?

Congress can make no laws regarding religion.

Agreed. Now, suppose the law that inserted the words "Under God" was

never

placed on the books. What if all the students decided to add them and
recited the Pledge of Allegience using those words. See how that

"Congress shall make NO law". It does not stop there. It defines a

of

parameters, respecting an establishment or prohibiting the free

expression

of. Therefore, anyone may express his religion, anywhere, anytime and
anyplace and any attempt by the Federal Government to prohibit that is

violation of the Constitution. Whether or not adding the words "Under

God"

at the behest of the Federal Government is construed as "respecting

establishment of" is yet to be determined and until the Supreme Court

the guts to stand up and be counted on that matter, Constitutionally
speaking, saying the words "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is
perfectly within the parameters of the Constitution so long as anyone

that

wishes is allowed to opt out of saying them.

Close except that if citizens want to say the original pledge and
insert the words "under God" that is free speech and IMHO doesn't
violate the First Amendment. The ACLU has even won a case allowing a
*student* to include a Biblical passage in the yearbook.

The crux is when the *government* injects religion into anything
because it implies an official religion, as opposed to the "free
practice thereof".

Not if it does NOT require obedience!!! Nobody is REQUIRED to say the

"Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Stop building straw men!

Eisenhower was wrong when he signed it into law, and everyone else
that was a part of getting "under God" into the pledge went astray of
the First amendment in doing so.

Just what problem is there with keeping the government out of the
peoples freedom of choice as to what they believe in or not?

Show me the law that makes it a requirement to say the words "Under God".

drift

Oh, I see, you are one of them.

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:31:29 -0400,

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 14:30:45 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
<brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote:

"Mike Russell" <REgeigyMOVE@pacbellTHIS.net> wrote in message
news:KAKAc.74667$fY7.44013@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...

Brooks Gregory wrote:

"Mike Russell" <REgeigyMOVE@pacbellTHIS.net> wrote in message
news:72KAc.74660$NH7.36965@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...

Brooks Gregory wrote:
...

Please point out where the Constitution says there is to be a
separation of Church & State. Hint, it doesn't.

1st ammendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for
a redress of grievances. --

Mike Russell

I didn't see the word church, nor the word separation, did you?
Remember, I answered a point previously made that implied that if it
doesn't specifically say something, it just doesn't allow an implied
meaning.

You can't have your way, if I can't have mine.

Oh come on you're mincing words. Suppose you win a bet, and a friend

takes

you out for steak dinner. You sit down at the table, and it says "London
Broil" on the menu, would you complain to your friend that there's no

steak?

Congress can make no laws regarding religion.

Agreed. Now, suppose the law that inserted the words "Under God" was never
placed on the books. What if all the students decided to add them and
recited the Pledge of Allegience using those words. See how that works?
"Congress shall make NO law". It does not stop there. It defines a couple of
parameters, respecting an establishment or prohibiting the free expression
of. Therefore, anyone may express his religion, anywhere, anytime and
anyplace and any attempt by the Federal Government to prohibit that is a
violation of the Constitution. Whether or not adding the words "Under God"
at the behest of the Federal Government is construed as "respecting the
establishment of" is yet to be determined and until the Supreme Court has
the guts to stand up and be counted on that matter, Constitutionally
speaking, saying the words "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is
perfectly within the parameters of the Constitution so long as anyone that
wishes is allowed to opt out of saying them.

Close except that if citizens want to say the original pledge and
insert the words "under God" that is free speech and IMHO doesn't
violate the First Amendment. The ACLU has even won a case allowing a
*student* to include a Biblical passage in the yearbook.

The crux is when the *government* injects religion into anything
because it implies an official religion, as opposed to the "free
practice thereof".

Eisenhower was wrong when he signed it into law, and everyone else
that was a part of getting "under God" into the pledge went astray of
the First amendment in doing so.

Just what problem is there with keeping the government out of the
peoples freedom of choice as to what they believe in or not?

Some people can't hear themselves saying that "The United States believes
in gawd, and so do good citizens thereof." I see no way to avoid that
construction on the 'underdog' version of the Pledge.

drift

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:23:57 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
<brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote:

"Eric Pepke" <epepke@acm.org> wrote in message
news:ef37f531.0406181242.1e237aa8@posting.google.com...

"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message

news:<q9iAc.17650108$Id.2914410@news.easynews.com>...

Please point out where the Constitution says these things. Hint: it
doesn't.

Another hint. I didn't say it said those things. I said it

"presupposes".

Works the same way as your contention.

Quit back-pedalling. You fucked up and confused the Declaration
of Independence with the Constitution. Attempt to be a Mensch, admit
it, and move on.

I didn't confuse nothing. If a group of states would not have come

to CREATE this union, there would be no Constitution and as those that

together to CREATE this union did so based on certain unalienable rights
granted by THE CREATOR the Constitution was CREATED based on the

there is a CREATOR.

Which is a blatant falsehood.

Nothing it it presumes it or requires that presumption.

You guys keep trying, but you are never going to sell the concept that,
instead of a group of states coming together to create a more perfect

a perfect union came together to create a group of states.

Meaningless gobbledygook.

The next thing you guys will be trying to sell is that the Pilgrams had
Thanksgiving to thank the Indians for bringing Columbus so he could come
steal their land.

And while we're at it, let's clear this one up as well:

Please point out where the Constitution says these things. Hint: it
doesn't.

Please point out where the Constitution says there is to be a separation

Church & State. Hint, it doesn't.

Not in those exact words. It does however dissociate itself from
religion.

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:46:46 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
<brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote:

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:v6b3d0h5h6gdokmturpbb56ut2n4hcptnq@4ax.com...

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:33:04 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
<brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote:

"Lawrence Seib" <lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:75ab6396.0406170625.63681b1e@posting.google.com...

"Mike Russell" <REgeigyMOVE@pacbellTHIS.net> wrote in message

news:<tY4Ac.72871$9k.4542@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>...

drift@lost.net wrote:

Isn't it plainly, painfully obvious that the "under God" part

renders

the "liberty and justice for all" part totally illogical?

So, not only is it unconstitutional, it's illogical.

Not at all, it would be completely logical, for example, to

that

liberty is meaningless without God,

WRONG. You presuppose the existance of God.

So does the Constitution. "Created equal" "The Creator", we just

to

call our "Creator" "God".

Please point out where the Constitution says these things. Hint: it
doesn't.

Another hint. I didn't say it said those things.

"So does the Constitution. "Created equal" "The Creator", we just
happen to call our "Creator" "God"."

You were confusing the DOE with the Constitution - and it was poetic
language in a letter to a king who thought he ruled by divine right.

You also said WE and OUR. Speak for yourself. It's not MY creator.

Works the same way as your contention.

Doesn't do that either.

It explicitly gives people freedom of and from religion, in the First
Amendment.

Your WE and OUR don't apply outside your religion.

The constitution is meant to be for everybody, not just believers.

YOU happen to call YOUR alleged creator "God" without any
justification other than your pre-existing religious belief.

I did the same thing the Constitution did. Pre-supposed.

Except that it didn't.

Your only reason for doing that is pre-existing religious belief. The
constitution is a secular document

A large number of people in the US are outside your religion. Any
presupposition of your deity however you dress it up to pretend it
isn't, simply does not apply to them.

I was ceated by my parents. As a human being I have certain innate
rights which neither you nor your religion can usurp.

Like not being restricted as to which public bathroom you can use, right?

Idiot.

I sense an angry child looking for a demon to fight.

I sense a deliberately nasty, lying troll who (a) can't tell the
difference between the DOE and the Constitution, and (b) belittles
people's very real objections.