How important are Newdow's lawsuits

Religions > Atheism > How important are Newdow's lawsuits

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 2 of 3

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	""
Date:	23 Jan 2005 01:11:25 PM
Object:	How important are Newdow's lawsuits

PART 4
Generic God?
A more accurate description of the concept might be "ceremonial god
assertion." In other words, references to a generic god are
constitutionally valid so long as they are so trivial as to be meaningless
in a religious sense. The Pledge of Allegiance, however, does not refer to
a generic god. Rather, it refers to a very specific God, a god with a
capital "G." Thus, whatever ceremonial god assertion might be, it certainly
is not represented by the inclusion of the phrase "under God" in a daily
teacher led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by public school
elementary students. Including the phrase "under God" in such a daily
recitation does not qualify as mere ceremonial deism because it contains
significant religious content, it is unquestionably controversial, and it
does not have an established history.
Source of Information: Brief of Amici Curiae, Seattle Atheists, (and
others) in support of respondent, Elk Grove Unified School District v.
Newdow, p. 11.
**************************************************************************************
Ceremonial Deism and Public Religion
A body of scholarship exists that is so closely connected to ceremonial
deism that I would be remiss if I did not at least briefly address it in
this Article. That scholarship relates to what has been described as the
American "civil religion" or "Public Religion" Indeed, some courts have
used this concept to justify the constitutionality of practices I have
included under the rubric of ceremonial deism. . .
Much more has been written about civil religion than ceremonial deism.
The most widely cited work in the area is Robert Bellah's Beyond Belief.
Bellah wrote of "certain common elements of religious orientation that the
great majority of Americans share" which have played a "crucial role" in
the development of our political institutions and continue to "provide a
religious dimension for the whole fabric of American life, including the
political sphere," and which are "expressed in a set of beliefs, symbols,
and rituals" Bellah labeled "the American civil religion." The tenets of
this civil religion include "the existence of God, the life to come, the
reward of virtue and the punishment of vice, and the exclusion of religious
intolerance." To Bellah, the national motto "In God We Trust," the
inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, the oath of office,
and references to the deity in inaugural addresses signify that the
ultimate political sovereignty is attributed not to the people or its
leaders, but to God
A more recent book by Sanford Levinson, entitled Constitutional Faith,
contemplates a radically different civil religion. Levinson's civil
religion consists of the "web of understandings, myths, symbols, and
documents" that justified the new American nation following the Revolution.
To Levinson, civil religion is secular, but consists of items of worship
analogous to traditional religion: the flag, the Declaration of
Independence, and the Constitution. Much as parents teach their children to
revere the Bible, they teach them to revere the Constitution. The worship
of the Constitution replaced the need for a national church, an institution
the Framers had rejected.
Neither Bellah's nor Levinson's definition of civil religion closely
resembles the definition of ceremonial deism articulated above. Levinson's
civil religion involves religion metaphorically, not actually. . .
In sharp contrast, Bellah's version of civil religion does involve core
elements of true sacral religion, though in a watered-down sense. . .
Source of Information: Rethinking the Constitutionality of Ceremonial
Deism, Steven B. Epstein, 96 Colum L. Rev. 2096-97 (1996).
*************************************************************************
Public Religion
Motives
Power, Its about Power
[Emphasis Added]
. . . Wherever one stands with respect to belief in God, it can hardly
give comfort or satisfaction to have the Deity subjected to empty,
nonreligious uses "of a patriotic or ceremonial character." The bland
amalgamation of God and the state, while it may meet the test of the
Establishment Clause, leads at best to a kind of cant that all of us may
find embarrassing.
In the same class, though perhaps more debatably, I'd put the
improvement on the Pledge of Allegiance fashioned by Congress in 1954. That
was a year, it will be recalled, when Senator Joseph McCarthy was still
exploring how low we might be sunk in his ersatz but grimly destructive
crusade against "subversives." It was also a year McCarthy's colleagues
found it meet to insert the words "under God" after the reference to this
"one nation" in the pledge. The House Report on the bill that became this
law said that "it would serve to deny the atheistic and materialistic
concepts of communism with its attendant subservience of the individual.
"17 Some very brief remarks on the floor reaffirmed that inserting the
words "under God" would "strengthen the national resistance to
communism."18 The only cerebration manifested on the subject of the bill
had to do with the number and placement of commas in the revised pledge
-i.e., whether it should be simply "one nation under God" or "one Nation,
under God," as the legislative judgment finally determined. The short
debate on this subject was suitably placid. There was no debate at all on
the merits of the revision and no vote against it. Who, after all, would be
caught in the open excluding God?
The uses of God as a "ceremonial and patriotic" implement go forward
steadily in more obtrusive and questionable forms. The insistent demand to
have creches and menorahs in public sites continues to present tough
questions leading to the varieties of intricate and disputed answers
mentioned in Chapter i. The legal issues are tricky enough to promise a
continued supply of test cases. To oversimplify a lot, the hardest cases
-where private groups want to put their creches or menorahs in the public
park or on City Hall plaza-pit the First Amendment free-speech rights of
those groups against the claim of the objectors that this placement of the
symbols indicates government endorsement of the religion symbolized.
Without questioning the difficulty of these cases, it is fair to conjure
with the question why they keep happening. The answer lies, I think, in the
very nature of hostile and competitive patriotism out of which one might
wish that God could have been kept. The creche on the public square--to
"put Christ back into Christmas," as its sponsors say--plants the religious
flag of the angry nativists winning theirs back from the alien, infidel
intruders. (Who do they think they are?) The menorah sponsors are a kindred
but more pathetic story. (If the goyim can do it, so can we.) Both are
joined together as enemies of the mutual forbearance that is at the heart
of religious freedom in a pluralist society.
[PP 58-60]
The gist of the demand is that THE MUSCLE OF YOUR RELIGION be displayed
in the public space. THE SUBJECT as is usual with facile shows of
patriotism, IS POWER. It is put, to be sure, as a matter of free expression
by the creche and menorah advocates, but that is largely fraud or
self-delusion.. There are ample private spaces in every community, amply
visible, for displaying religious icons. The insistence on the public
space, the space that belongs to all of us, is to show those others, the
nonadherents. The distinction is readily, if not always malevolently,
blurred. . .
[P 60]
Whatever misunderstandings may beset a recent refugee from Soviet
atheism, there is no ground for similar confusion, and probably no similar
confusion, among most people who want their religious symbols standing on
public property. The symbols make a statement-not of religious faith. They
are not needed for that. They assert simply and starkly, as I've said,
POWER OVER the nonbelievers. This was underscored for me in a fleeting
moment of a case that ended 4-4 in the Supreme Court, the equal division
(Justice Powell was ill and absent) resulting in a defeat for the village
of Scarsdale (with me as unsuccessful counsel) when it sought to deny a
place for a creche in a public circle.20 In the course of that proceeding,
one of the sponsors of the creche was asked about his interest in viewing
it while it stood on Scarsdale's Boniface Circle during the Christmas
season. To my surprise as the questioner, it turned out that he never
bothered to go look at the creche at all, let alone to admire or draw
inspiration from it. But on reflection that should not have been so
surprising. The creche was not there for him to see or appreciate for its
intrinsic spiritual value in his religious universe. It was there for
others, who professed other religions or none, so that the clout of his
religious group should be made manifest-above all to any in the sharply
divided village who would have preferred that it not be there: This is the
low road., followed by at least a good number of those who seek for. their
religion and its symbols the imprimatur of government. If it is religious
at all, this stance betokens a weak and self-doubting species of faith.
[P. 61]
Source of Information: Faith and Freedom, Religiosity in America, Marvin E.
Frankel (retired U S Federal District Court judge) Hill and Wang, N Y
(1994) pp. 55-64.
*********************************************************************************************
Why the Court Should Reject This Pledge, and Why the Department of Justice
Is Wrong To Support It
One would have thought that conservatives would have sided with the
parent's right to raise one's child according to one's own religious
beliefs, but as the Framers understood only too well, one should never
underestimate the powerful temptation to extend one's power when one can.
If anyone thinks that this case is not about the power of the
entrenched religious versus the powerlessness of nonbelievers in this
society, today's oral argument proves them wrong. Chief Justice Rehnquist
floated several proposals to defend "under God." First, he stated that the
two words were not really a "prayer," a distinction without a difference.
. . . The result is a tyranny of principles (including the emotivist's
principle of deference to "objective expertise"), as well as a concomitant
response in favor of a tyranny of individuals (anarchy). These twin aspects
of emotivism are evident, for example, in the rise of efforts, under the
rubrics of free speech and free exercise, to place formal Christian prayers
sanctioned by school authority back into the public schools. The free
exercise right is asserted here in terms of anarchical, radical individual
rights: "my" individual rights, "my" absolute right to free exercise,
without regard to the disestablishment principle or to competing interests
of the community. Interestingly, where they are able, religious adherents
(also or instead) argue the authoritarian side of emotivism: They reject
any court's interpretations of the first amendment which recognize civil
liberties contrary to their beliefs because these interpretations are based
upon nothing more than the justices' personal opinions and subjective
feelings.13 Their majority status and legislative influence are the hard
facts which objectively, and thus conclusively, should decide the issue.
Source of Information: Regulating Religion, The Courts and the Free
Exercise Clause. Catharine Cookson, Oxford University Press, (2001) p
(Preface) IX.
****************************************************************************************
If Alabama's Chief Justice Moore weren't a judicial demagogue and if he
really wanted to "do it right," he wouldn't have done it the way he did.
He'd have talked it over with his colleagues, he'd have done some research,
and he'd have solicited input from legal scholars and historians -- and
there wouldn't be any "Ten Commandments controversy" whatever. Moore would
have had his Moses, and more.... But, in my opinion, politicians like Moore
aren't as much about Moses and the great Judeo-Christian tradition as they
are about using Moses and the great Judeo-Christian tradition to create
controversy and get votes.(11.04.2001)
Source of Information: BurtLaw's Court Gazing II; BurtLaw.Com --
LawAndEverythingElse.Com; Copyright (c) 2001 Burton Randall Hanson
***********************************************************************************************
[Scroll down to: The "Ten Commandments movement" revisited.
The entire argument rests on wanting the government to acknowledge God in
various forms and fashions. To create at the very least perceived unions
between church (religion) and state (government) It's about power, in some
instances money, politics, and in your face to all non-believers and/or
"incorrect" believers.
Let's look at that word:
Acknowledge: (ak not/ij), vt., -edged -edg-ing.
1. to admit to be real or true; recognize the existence, truth, or fact
of; confess to: to acknowledge belief in God.
2. to show or express recognition or realization of: to an acknowledge
an acquaintance by bowing.
3. to recognize the authority, validity, or claims of: The member
nations acknowledged the powers of the President.
4. to show or express appreciation or gratitude for: to acknowledge a
favor
5. to indicate or make known the receipt of: to acknowledge a letter
6. to take notice of or reply to: to acknowledge a greeting
7. Law. to confirm as binding or of legal force: to acknowledge a deed.
[late :NlE acknow- leche, equiv. to acknow (OE acndwan to recognize; see
A-3, Ib acid!- -ac-
-Syn. 1. concede, grant. acknowledge, admit, confess agree in the idea
of declaring something to be true. Acknowledge implies making a statement
reluctantly, often about something previously denied: to acknowledge a
fault. Admit especially implies acknowledging something under pressure: to
admit a charge. Confess usually means stating somewhat formally an
admission of wrongdoing, crime, or shortcoming: to confess guilt; to
confess an inability to understand. -Ant. 1. deny.
Acknowledgment (ak no1Hj mant), n.
1. act of and an acknowledging or admitting.
2. recognition of the existence or truth of anything: the
acknowledgment of a sovereign power.
3. an expression of appreciation.
4. a . a thing done or given in appreciation or gratitude.
5.Law:
a. declaration by a person before an official that be executed a legal
document.
b. an official certificate of a formal acknowledging.
c. public recognition by a man of an illegitimate child as his own.
Also. esp. Brit. wteria) ac�knowliedge�ment. [acknowledge + -ment]
Source of Information:
Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, Barnes &amp: Noble Books,
(1994) p. 12.
It has always been about power. Going back to the First Century A D it was
about power.
Church and state unions have always been about power. "Maintain the status
quo" has always been about power--mainlining the existing power balance and
structure. "Recognize minorities and give them the equality they are
entitled to" is about power, The disenfranchised have little power, they
want some, those that have it don't want to give it up. Same sex marriages,
again power. Gays are demanding equality and those who have the power
currently feel threatened and don't want them to be equal in power.
Commentary about "Ceremonial Deism" from a variety of sources
********************************************************************************
Christians Against "Ceremonial Deism."
Another description of the "American Civil Religion" is "Ceremonial
Deism." Although many Christians used to claim victory when Christian
symbols were approved by a court, many are now recognizing these victories
as pyrrhic.
[Pyrrhic victory--a victory gained at too great a cost.]
***********************************************************************************
Ceremonial Deism in Classical times
If "Ceremonial Deism" is suppose to mean something that is so instilled in
our culture that it has basically lost any real religion meaning,
importance or significance, then kindly explain the reaction of the
Congress, the President, the justice Department, many religious leaders and
large segments of the public to the June 26, 2002 "Under God" ruling.
Those reactions alone establish the falsity of the Ceremonial Deism claims.
**************************************************************************************
Balkinization
Jack M. Balkin
Note that the doctrine of ceremonial Deism is a double edged sword. It
allows state officials to acknowledge God's existence, but only by
requiring them to affirm that the meaning of the acknowledgment is purely
ceremonial and doesn't reflect fervent adherence to a particular religious
belief. However, one suspects that many people want to invoke God's name
precisely because they do have such fervent beliefs and they want other
people to share in those beliefs, or, at the very least, publicly say the
words that reflect such beliefs. But *that* purpose for legislation really
is impermissible-- Our Constitution doesn't allow us to force our religion
on other people.
If the Supreme Court takes the Ninth Circuit case, they may very well
reverse the decision on the grounds I've just outlined-- that the pledge is
just ceremonial Deism, and therefore doesn't mean what religious Americans
want it to mean. That would be a predictable result, and an ironic one.
But the irony works in both directions. For a court to strike down the
words "under God," particularly when they have been said formulaicly for
decades, may have exactly the opposite social meaning-- suggesting that the
court is attempting to remove God from the public square. Ceremonial Deism
by its nature tries to have it both ways. It treats certain religious
expressions as being both religious and not "really" religious. It
justifies this on the grounds that the practice is one of long standing and
its religious content has long since faded into the background. The
problem, however, is then that deviating from the status quo in any
direction-- making the government's claims more overtly religious or
removing the religious language altogether-- seems to create a social
meaning of non-neutrality with respect to religion. So in most cases the
best thing to do with examples of ceremonial Deism is just to leave them
alone.
SEE
Thoughts on Power, Ceremonial Deism & Public Religion
From a Variety of Sources
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/c-deism.htm
.

User: "Don Kresch"
Title: Re: How important are Newdow's lawsuits	12 Feb 2005 10:52:54 PM

In alt.atheism on 13 Feb 2005 02:39:49 -0000, Eagle Eye
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> let us all know that:

In article <uobp01lh0rnhtip68mipdd7iv92s1236dk@4ax.com> Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

In alt.atheism on 11 Feb 2005 06:19:51 -0000, Eagle Eye
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> let us all know that:

[etc.]

[starting with Kresch]:

Nice how you're changing names, too.

I'm not Soja.

Riiiiiiiight. (winkwink)

Instead of making false accusations with no justification,
you could have actually looked into the matter first.

*yawn*

I value your whining as much as I value your opinion, which
is to say that numerically speaking, it's a number of less
than 1 digit.

In other words: facts don't matter to you.

They do.

Except you can't be bothered to check them out.

Except that I have.

You've looked at the record on Google?

Yes.

You just happen to have none to offer.

I pointed you to a source you could check for facts.

Did you?

You just claimed to have checked into the matter.

Yes.

In summary: you admit you looked at the facts to which I referred
you, but then you claim that I offered you none.

You didn't offer anything to support you.

Start discussing things in good faith

I have been

You falsely accused me of being someone else

I did no such thing

Look right up there!

Right up where?

[flush]

And the answer is?
Oh...you were just trolling. I see.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.

User: "MikeSoja"
Title: Re: How important are Newdow's lawsuits	02 Feb 2005 09:24:24 PM

On 3 Feb 2005 02:58:23 -0000, Eagle Eye
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> posted:

In article <t56qv0tflv1t44kljlpkp5pj8nlnfgpln9@4ax.com> Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

Nice how you're changing names, too.

I'm not Soja.

Riiiiiiiight. (winkwink)

Instead of making false accusations with no justification, you
could have actually looked into the matter first. For example, you
could look up our posting histories on Google Groups. I was
posting for years before Mike showed up. There are thousands of
posts from each of us from which you could draw an informed
conclusion, if you actually cared about the facts.
If you don't care and can't be bothered to investigate, then
your opinion is less than useless.

He is the troll. He doesn't care.
And when did you show up? I've been here off and on since '96. I
found Usenet and started posting from a very cheesy dialup account
somewhere in rural England. They charged for every minute online,
and I racked up some very respectable phone bills.
I don't remember the following being my first post, but it's what
Google shows...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater/msg/93afb2e5e3acd71b?dmode=source
From:

(M. Soja)
Subject: News: The Daily Telegraph
Date: 1996/05/22
Message-ID: <31a2a87a.91395@news.globalnet.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 156080438
newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
May 21, 1996
Bill Clinton censors his own Web page
PRESIDENT Bill Clinton has censored parts of his own White House Web
site - not because they are obscene or unsuitable for public
consumption, but because they could prove too valuable to his
opponents.
The deleted items include digital sound clips of presidential
addresses, and an index of his speeches.
Clinton advisors are thought to have expressed concern that such
material might help the President's Republican opponents find
embarrassing contradictions or changes of policy.
--
a politician is an arse upon
which everyone has sat except a man
-eec
"I am quite sure no commercial jet hit the Pentagon."
--Commie conspiracy nutjob Brian Zepp Jamieson, May 11, 2004
"That actually makes more sense than the claim that
a large commercial aircraft, moving at cruising
speed at an altitude of ten feet, struck that
building. And the hole's about the right size."
--Commie FatBoy Brian Zepp Jamieson, May 12, 2004
"Barbara Olsen is still dead? Oh, good!"
--subhuman commie scumbag Brian Zepp Jamieson, July 22, 2004
"I don't have a theory as to what happened to Flight 77. But I'm
convinced it did not strike the Pentagon."
--Mental midget and loyal commie Brian Zepp Jamieson, July 26, 2004
.

User: "Eagle Eye"
Title: Re: How important are Newdow's lawsuits	04 Feb 2005 03:57:46 PM

In article <mc5301pc0hid2t5v2ssdl2l3gloukochdl@4ax.com>
MikeSoja <msoja9@newsguy.com> wrote:

On 3 Feb 2005 02:58:23 -0000, Eagle Eye
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> posted:

In article <t56qv0tflv1t44kljlpkp5pj8nlnfgpln9@4ax.com> Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

Nice how you're changing names, too.

I'm not Soja.

Riiiiiiiight. (winkwink)

If you don't care and can't be bothered to investigate, then
your opinion is less than useless.

He is the troll. He doesn't care.

And when did you show up?

1998.

I've been here off and on since '96.

I stand corrected. I guess you used a different address for a
few years.

I found Usenet and started posting from a very cheesy dialup
account somewhere in rural England. They charged for every minute
online, and I racked up some very respectable phone bills.

I don't remember the following being my first post, but it's what
Google shows...

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater/msg/93afb2e5e3acd71b?dmode=source

From:

(M. Soja)
Subject: News: The Daily Telegraph
Date: 1996/05/22
Message-ID: <31a2a87a.91395@news.globalnet.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 156080438
newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater

May 21, 1996

Bill Clinton censors his own Web page

PRESIDENT Bill Clinton has censored parts of his own White House Web
site - not because they are obscene or unsuitable for public
consumption, but because they could prove too valuable to his
opponents.
The deleted items include digital sound clips of presidential
addresses, and an index of his speeches.
Clinton advisors are thought to have expressed concern that such
material might help the President's Republican opponents find
embarrassing contradictions or changes of policy.
--
a politician is an arse upon
which everyone has sat except a man
-eec

"I am quite sure no commercial jet hit the Pentagon."

--Commie conspiracy nutjob Brian Zepp Jamieson, May 11, 2004

"That actually makes more sense than the claim that
a large commercial aircraft, moving at cruising
speed at an altitude of ten feet, struck that
building. And the hole's about the right size."

--Commie FatBoy Brian Zepp Jamieson, May 12, 2004

"Barbara Olsen is still dead? Oh, good!"

--subhuman commie scumbag Brian Zepp Jamieson, July 22, 2004

"I don't have a theory as to what happened to Flight 77. But I'm
convinced it did not strike the Pentagon."

--Mental midget and loyal commie Brian Zepp Jamieson, July 26, 2004

=====
EE
.

User: "MikeSoja"
Title: Re: How important are Newdow's lawsuits	27 Jan 2005 09:07:51 PM

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 01:52:21 GMT, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> posted:

In alt.atheism on 27 Jan 2005 13:21:34 -0000, Eagle Eye
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> let us all know that:

Do you have a problem being jealous of technically competent people?

Given that I'm technically competent---no.
Nice how you're changing names, too. Shows that you're a troll.

Among your other ignorances, you're confused.
Mike Soja
"I am quite sure no commercial jet hit the Pentagon."
--Commie conspiracy nutjob Brian Zepp Jamieson, May 11, 2004
"That actually makes more sense than the claim that
a large commercial aircraft, moving at cruising
speed at an altitude of ten feet, struck that
building. And the hole's about the right size."
--Commie FatBoy Brian Zepp Jamieson, May 12, 2004
"Barbara Olsen is still dead? Oh, good!"
--subhuman commie scumbag Brian Zepp Jamieson, July 22, 2004
"I don't have a theory as to what happened to Flight 77. But I'm
convinced it did not strike the Pentagon."
--Mental midget and loyal commie Brian Zepp Jamieson, July 26, 2004
.

User: "Don Kresch"
Title: Re: How important are Newdow's lawsuits	28 Jan 2005 07:17:31 AM

In alt.atheism on Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:07:51 -0500, MikeSoja
<msoja9@newsguy.com> let us all know that:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 01:52:21 GMT, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> posted:

In alt.atheism on 27 Jan 2005 13:21:34 -0000, Eagle Eye
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> let us all know that:

Do you have a problem being jealous of technically competent people?

Given that I'm technically competent---no.

Nice how you're changing names, too. Shows that you're a troll.

Among your other ignorances, you're confused.

I see. So you just wanted to troll and lie about it. S'ok.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.

User: "Egbert Sous�"
Title: Re: How important are Newdow's lawsuits	25 Jan 2005 02:21:49 PM

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:44:46 -0600, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

In alt.atheism on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 08:00:44 -0500, MikeSoja
<msoja9@newsguy.com> let us all know that:

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 04:13:45 GMT, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> posted:

In alt.atheism on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 03:23:53 GMT, Egbert Sous�
<egbertsouse@WCF.com> let us all know that:

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:59:54 -0600, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

In alt.atheism on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:54:25 GMT, Egbert Sous�
<egbertsouse@WCF.com> let us all know that:

Seventy years of extremly oppressive Communism with it's gulags could
not abolish God so don't expect ACLU hacks and their ***** ant allies
in black robes to do it here.

Communism is quite theistic. Why must you lie and say that it is
not?

Communism is atheistic.

No, it's theistic. I'm surprised that you didn't know that.

Take a look at fat., stupid, commie slob Brian Jamieson.

Why? Did you want to red herring?

Have you any clue as to what communism is?

Don

Communism is atheistic.
"It is the part of a wise man to keep himself today for tomorrow and not to venture all his eggs in one basket." -Sancho Panza
.

User: "Don Kresch"
Title: Re: How important are Newdow's lawsuits	25 Jan 2005 05:36:32 PM

In alt.atheism on Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:21:49 GMT, Egbert Sous�
<egbertsouse@WCF.com> let us all know that: