| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
19 Nov 2005 10:09:27 AM |
| Object: |
Newdow should actually read the Constitution |
Newdow should actually read the Constitution
http://www.thereporter.com/letters/ci_3230645
TheReporter.com - Vacaville,CA,USA
Newdow should actually read the Constitution
Reporter Editor:
TheReporter.Com
It appears as if Michael Newdow is at it again. Recently I was listening to
KCBS on my way in to work and I heard the unbelievable story about the
lawsuit filed by atheist Michael Newdow. This time, he is attacking the "in
God we trust' wording on our money. His lawsuit against "under God' in the
Pledge of Allegiance is still in process as well.
His claim is that wording on our coins violate the separation of church and
state that is covered in our Constitution. Doesn't he understand the
meaning of separation of church and state? Doesn't he understand the
fundamentals of the United States? I understand that everyone has a right
to their opinion, but this has gone far enough.
The separation of church and state simply means that the U.S. government
will not select a religion for its citizens. And the U.S. government will
not punish a citizen for practicing their own religion and praying to their
own god or idol, should a person choose that path. As long as they do not
violate the law, a person is free to practice the religion they select of
their own free will.
Another thing that Mr. Newdow either doesn't realize or doesn't care to
admit is that this country's value system is based on a god-based faith.
Maybe Mr. Newdow should read the Constitution again and again, and see what
I mean by that. Where does he think we get our laws from? How about "thou
shall not kill?' That not only is a law, but one of the Ten Commandments?
People like him don't want the Ten Commandments shown in our courtrooms.
But since some laws were written from them, should we no longer follow
those laws? What message are we looking to send?
If U.S. currency truly offends Mr. Newdow, then he should stop using it. He
can use checks and credit cards so that he does not have to see such
harmful words. If that isn't enough, perhaps he could donate it to a church
or needy children or to anyone who needs it. Trust me, they wouldn't have a
challenge with "in God we trust'. But then again, by the sheer fact that he
would donate money, others might think God does exist, so maybe he
shouldn't.
Let's say we do take out all religious writings and sayings from any
official government documents, currency, proceedings or gatherings, what
would Mr. Newdow put in place of it? What would our money say on it? How
about "in our Constitution we trust'? I don't think so.
I am calling out Mr. Newdow for a debate on our Constitution. I would love
sit down with him in an open forum and exchange thoughts on how we both see
this great nation and our Constitution. Clearly, we see it differently. So,
anytime, any place, I will be there.
Robert Strong, Dixon
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Newdow should actually read the Constitution |
20 Nov 2005 12:00:33 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Newdow should actually read the Constitution
Yes, there is a first time for everything.
http://www.thereporter.com/letters/ci_3230645
TheReporter.com - Vacaville,CA,USA
<snipped for brevity>
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Newdow should actually read the Constitution |
20 Nov 2005 04:22:34 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|
:|buckeye-ELo@nospam.net wrote:
:|> Newdow should actually read the Constitution
:|
:|Yes, there is a first time for everything.
You forgot to provide any evidence he has never read it, therefore your
comment is worthless
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Newdow should actually read the Constitution |
20 Nov 2005 01:55:30 AM |
|
|
On 19 Nov 2005 16:00:33 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132444833.015036.245890@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
buckeye-ELo@nospam.net wrote:
Newdow should actually read the Constitution
Yes, there is a first time for everything.
http://www.thereporter.com/letters/ci_3230645
TheReporter.com - Vacaville,CA,USA
<snipped for brevity>
The guy who called him out shouldn't. Newdow will have his lunch.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Newdow should actually read the Constitution |
20 Nov 2005 02:28:30 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:ahhvn19v9mefjos455hn5c18b8rrktu6f8@4ax.com...
On 19 Nov 2005 16:00:33 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132444833.015036.245890@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
buckeye-ELo@nospam.net wrote:
Newdow should actually read the Constitution
Yes, there is a first time for everything.
http://www.thereporter.com/letters/ci_3230645
TheReporter.com - Vacaville,CA,USA
<snipped for brevity>
The guy who called him out shouldn't. Newdow will have his lunch.
Not likely. Newdow has proven himself to be a greedy, ignorant bigot.
But quite a few atheists and leftists are like that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Newdow should actually read the Constitution |
20 Nov 2005 02:33:12 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:28:30 -0900, in alt.atheism
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11nvner88c8p713@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:ahhvn19v9mefjos455hn5c18b8rrktu6f8@4ax.com...
On 19 Nov 2005 16:00:33 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132444833.015036.245890@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
buckeye-ELo@nospam.net wrote:
Newdow should actually read the Constitution
Yes, there is a first time for everything.
http://www.thereporter.com/letters/ci_3230645
TheReporter.com - Vacaville,CA,USA
<snipped for brevity>
The guy who called him out shouldn't. Newdow will have his lunch.
Not likely. Newdow has proven himself to be a greedy, ignorant bigot.
How? It's his time and money that he is spending fighting religious
encroachment on the First Amendment. He won in the 9th Circuit and Court
watchers gave him high marks for his presentation at the Supreme Court,
though the Court decided that the question was moot.
But quite a few atheists and leftists are like that.
You may have your political orientations mixed. The folks with the
longest and most deadly history of bigotry in the US are neither atheist
nor leftist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Newdow should actually read the Constitution |
20 Nov 2005 02:45:50 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:0tnvn1lscpqs66gh5pqjo9dt0to8q28it9@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:28:30 -0900, in alt.atheism
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11nvner88c8p713@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:ahhvn19v9mefjos455hn5c18b8rrktu6f8@4ax.com...
On 19 Nov 2005 16:00:33 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132444833.015036.245890@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
buckeye-ELo@nospam.net wrote:
Newdow should actually read the Constitution
Yes, there is a first time for everything.
http://www.thereporter.com/letters/ci_3230645
TheReporter.com - Vacaville,CA,USA
<snipped for brevity>
The guy who called him out shouldn't. Newdow will have his lunch.
Not likely. Newdow has proven himself to be a greedy, ignorant bigot.
How?
His choice of using his daughter against her wishes as a political tool.
His attacks against the religious.
His complete lack of knowledge of our countries founding, and our form of
government based on the Constitution, and the importance of the DOI to the
Constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Newdow should actually read the Constitution |
20 Nov 2005 04:15:47 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:45:50 -0900, in alt.atheism
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11nvofbd6nar0b3@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:0tnvn1lscpqs66gh5pqjo9dt0to8q28it9@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:28:30 -0900, in alt.atheism
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11nvner88c8p713@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:ahhvn19v9mefjos455hn5c18b8rrktu6f8@4ax.com...
On 19 Nov 2005 16:00:33 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132444833.015036.245890@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
buckeye-ELo@nospam.net wrote:
Newdow should actually read the Constitution
Yes, there is a first time for everything.
http://www.thereporter.com/letters/ci_3230645
TheReporter.com - Vacaville,CA,USA
<snipped for brevity>
The guy who called him out shouldn't. Newdow will have his lunch.
Not likely. Newdow has proven himself to be a greedy, ignorant bigot.
How?
His choice of using his daughter against her wishes as a political tool.
I have no idea if it was against her wishes, though it was clearly
against her mom's wishes, but I can see why she would not want to be the
face of this or be used again in an ongoing battle after a divorce. It
isn't fair to her.
His attacks against the religious.
Religious folks in this country aren't exactly without sin in this one,
they're just so used to not having people complain about their behavior
that they feel attacked on small provocation.
His complete lack of knowledge of our countries founding, and our form of
government based on the Constitution, and the importance of the DOI to the
Constitution.
I'm not convinced you can make a case of any sort on this part.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Newdow should actually read the Constitution |
20 Nov 2005 05:40:29 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:srtvn1lbuncl8jni23it1e6h3ae1fogepm@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:45:50 -0900, in alt.atheism
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11nvofbd6nar0b3@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:0tnvn1lscpqs66gh5pqjo9dt0to8q28it9@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:28:30 -0900, in alt.atheism
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11nvner88c8p713@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:ahhvn19v9mefjos455hn5c18b8rrktu6f8@4ax.com...
On 19 Nov 2005 16:00:33 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132444833.015036.245890@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
buckeye-ELo@nospam.net wrote:
Newdow should actually read the Constitution
Yes, there is a first time for everything.
http://www.thereporter.com/letters/ci_3230645
TheReporter.com - Vacaville,CA,USA
<snipped for brevity>
The guy who called him out shouldn't. Newdow will have his lunch.
Not likely. Newdow has proven himself to be a greedy, ignorant bigot.
How?
His choice of using his daughter against her wishes as a political tool.
I have no idea if it was against her wishes, though it was clearly
against her mom's wishes,
And against the wishes of his daughter. It was in the news, but of course
you ignore that.
His attacks against the religious.
His complete lack of knowledge of our countries founding, and our form of
government based on the Constitution, and the importance of the DOI to
the
Constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Newdow should actually read the Constitution |
20 Nov 2005 03:49:36 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:40:29 -0900, in alt.atheism
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11o05d546ba5r8f@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:srtvn1lbuncl8jni23it1e6h3ae1fogepm@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:45:50 -0900, in alt.atheism
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11nvofbd6nar0b3@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:0tnvn1lscpqs66gh5pqjo9dt0to8q28it9@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:28:30 -0900, in alt.atheism
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11nvner88c8p713@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:ahhvn19v9mefjos455hn5c18b8rrktu6f8@4ax.com...
On 19 Nov 2005 16:00:33 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132444833.015036.245890@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
buckeye-ELo@nospam.net wrote:
Newdow should actually read the Constitution
Yes, there is a first time for everything.
http://www.thereporter.com/letters/ci_3230645
TheReporter.com - Vacaville,CA,USA
<snipped for brevity>
The guy who called him out shouldn't. Newdow will have his lunch.
Not likely. Newdow has proven himself to be a greedy, ignorant bigot.
How?
His choice of using his daughter against her wishes as a political tool.
I have no idea if it was against her wishes, though it was clearly
against her mom's wishes,
And against the wishes of his daughter. It was in the news, but of course
you ignore that.
The daughter was living with her mother. It would take a very
strong-willed child to go against the will of the parent she lives with.
You clipped some of the rest of my comments about this.
His attacks against the religious.
His complete lack of knowledge of our countries founding, and our form of
government based on the Constitution, and the importance of the DOI to
the
Constitution.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Contraband" |
|
| Title: Re: Newdow should actually read the Constitution |
20 Nov 2005 05:28:04 AM |
|
|
The crux of this article, that is, where the controversy lies, is that one
side see the presence of "In God We Trust" on money as the government
selecting a religion for its populace. The other side does not. Clear
enough?
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:ahhvn19v9mefjos455hn5c18b8rrktu6f8@4ax.com...
On 19 Nov 2005 16:00:33 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132444833.015036.245890@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
buckeye-ELo@nospam.net wrote:
Newdow should actually read the Constitution
Yes, there is a first time for everything.
http://www.thereporter.com/letters/ci_3230645
TheReporter.com - Vacaville,CA,USA
<snipped for brevity>
The guy who called him out shouldn't. Newdow will have his lunch.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Newdow should actually read the Constitution |
20 Nov 2005 11:47:30 AM |
|
|
Contraband wrote:
The crux of this article, that is, where the controversy lies, is that one
side see the presence of "In God We Trust" on money as the government
selecting a religion for its populace. The other side does not. Clear
enough?
The crux is that the other side sees nothing wrong with selectin a
religion for the populace
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:ahhvn19v9mefjos455hn5c18b8rrktu6f8@4ax.com...
On 19 Nov 2005 16:00:33 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132444833.015036.245890@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
buckeye-ELo@nospam.net wrote:
Newdow should actually read the Constitution
Yes, there is a first time for everything.
http://www.thereporter.com/letters/ci_3230645
TheReporter.com - Vacaville,CA,USA
<snipped for brevity>
The guy who called him out shouldn't. Newdow will have his lunch.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Newdow should actually read the Constitution |
20 Nov 2005 05:14:15 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 04:09, buckeye-ELo quoted a
"Letter to the Editor" of _The Reporter_ of Vacaville, CA:
Newdow should actually read the Constitution
http://www.thereporter.com/letters/ci_3230645
TheReporter.com - Vacaville,CA,USA
Newdow should actually read the Constitution
Reporter Editor:
TheReporter.Com
It appears as if Michael Newdow is at it again. Recently I was listening to
KCBS on my way in to work and I heard the unbelievable story about the
lawsuit filed by atheist Michael Newdow. This time, he is attacking the "in
God we trust' wording on our money. His lawsuit against "under God' in the
Pledge of Allegiance is still in process as well.
His claim is that wording on our coins violate the separation of church and
state that is covered in our Constitution. Doesn't he understand the
meaning of separation of church and state?
/He/ seems to understand it.
Doesn't he understand the
fundamentals of the United States?
/He/ seems to understand.
I understand that everyone has a right
to their opinion, but this has gone far enough.
Hm,m,m - This letter from "Robert Strong" has now, apparently, gone
from the "Bill of Rights" to no-rights for those with whom Mr
Strong disagrees.
It appears that "protected speech" is over the top when a person
disagrees with Robert Strong's "My Weakly Reader".
Perhaps this Trojan of the Imperium believes that "Free Speech"
extends all the way to rooting for a sports team or the color of
the ice cream at the evening servicing.
The separation of church and state simply means that the U.S. government
will not select a religion for its citizens.
Ah; so that's what it means. Let's check the Constitution (in its
legal form) and see what in the Constitution refers to "a religion"
as does Strong in "My Weakly Reader".
Hm,m,m - goodness, gracious me! The phrase "a religion" isn't in
the legal Constitution.
But our "Weakly Reader" states that: "The separation of church and
state simply means that the U.S. government will not select a
religion for its citizens".
Could Mr Strong be wrong? Could this beastie be "Wrong Strong" and
counting?
And the U.S. government will
not punish a citizen for practicing their own religion and praying to their
own god or idol, should a person choose that path. As long as they do not
violate the law, a person is free to practice the religion they select of
their own free will.
"the religion"? Goodness, Mr Strong again appears to be wrong.
There's no mention of "the religion" in the legal Constitution
either. Perhaps "My Weakly Reader" will use another phrase in "his"
quest for knowledge, a/the religion and "his" stalwart stand
against people who know about what they are talking "going too
far".
Another thing that Mr. Newdow either doesn't realize or doesn't care to
admit is that this country's value system is based on a god-based faith.
Oh? Would that be the "god-based faith" of Richard Milhous Bush?
Maybe Mr. Newdow should read the Constitution again and again, and see what
I mean by that.
Hm, m, m - Perhaps I had better join Dr Newdow in reading the
"Constitution again and again" because Our Mr Strong has lost me
here. What the devil is the boy spouting? Is "he" talking out his
***** or is he just fooling around?
So far, Master Strong is consistently batting zero as "he" hasn't
shown where "a religion" is in the Constitution and he is an equal
failure in his spoofing of the Holy Writ - the Constitution - when
it comes to "the religion".
In fact, in contrast to young Master Strong's attempts at turning
an American phrase, it appears that the Constitution - in the First
Amendment - reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof;".
Gracious! It doesn't say anything about the state and "a religion",
it - by gosh and by golly - just says "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion . . ."
Could that mean that adding "under God" to the oath that is the
Pledge of Allegiance was illegal because Congress passed a law
establishing religion?
Could it mean that inserting IN GOD WE TRUST on money was equally
illegal? [Not to mention the humor at putting "GOD" on that the
love of which is - rumored to be - the "root of evil" and
sacrilegious to those who believe in whatever god or gods or
goddettes are represented by that snappy little phrase.]
Where does he think we get our laws from?
About ten thousand years of human society's experiences would be a
good place to start. Fer instance, like the killings at Salem
Village might have been a motivation for prohibiting the state from
establishing religion.
How about "thou shall not kill?'
Ok, how about it?
That not only is a law, but one of the Ten Commandments?
Well, it's not a law because the law distinguishes when killing
people is all right and when killing people is a big, flatout
no-no.
I've had my share of killing people and I've not been arrested yet,
Poopsie.
People like him don't want the Ten Commandments shown in our courtrooms.
I wonder what "people like him" means? Could it simply mean people
who are as dull and dumb as Mr Strong or does it mean - mebbe -
that people who disagree with "My Weakly Reader" are inferior,
stupid and have bad breath?
But since some laws were written from them, should we no longer follow
those laws?
Is Strong the Wack questioning whether we should no longer follow
the "Ten Commandments"? As if we were doing so now?
Let's check these babies out!
1. You shall not worship any other god but YHWH.
Ok, if that were a law it would run counter to everything we, as
Americans, hold about religions. That's minus one for Master
Strong.
2. You shall not make a graven image.
Right off I can think of money with "IN GOD WE TRUST" being a
pretty big idol and sex and cars and just all sorts of things that
take the place of god/gods (as is the case may be). That's minus
two for Master Strong.
3. You shall not take the name of YHWH in vain. Personally, I think
using language such as using god/s as profanity to be tacky but
it's not against the law.
4. You shall not break the Sabbath.
Hm, m, m - Are we using Sunday as the "Sabbath"? Meet y'all at
Wal*Mart, okay?
5. You shall not dishonor your parents.
Ever listen to 19-year-olds talk about their parents? Not against
the law whatever.
6. You shall not murder.
A law in every society that has ever been founded and pre-dating
Judaism & Christianity by quite a while. (Sumer, see)
7. You shall not commit adultery
Well, it's not a very nice thing to do (unless you feel very good
about it) but, around here, it's not against the law.
8. You shall not steal.
There are laws written in all sorts of places but one just needs to
say, Napster" and we'll all know how many religious folks did their
downloading. Another law that reaches all the way back, btw.
9. You shall not commit perjury.
"False witness". The ref (below) states "Gossip and slander must
fall under this heading."
10. You shall not covet. "greed and envy"
What message are we looking to send?
That you, young Master Strong, have not the vaguest idea about
anything you're spouting off about and that your brain is broken
and the warranty has run out and that your money (with "IN GOD WE
TRUST" on it) will not be cheerfully refunded.
If U.S. currency truly offends Mr. Newdow, then he should stop using it.
Ah, the 2005 "Love it or leave it". Perhaps, "My Weakly Reader"
would prefer Kansas to the United States?
He
can use checks and credit cards so that he does not have to see such
harmful words. If that isn't enough, perhaps he could donate it to a church
or needy children or to anyone who needs it. Trust me, they wouldn't have a
challenge with "in God we trust'. But then again, by the sheer fact that he
would donate money, others might think God does exist, so maybe he
shouldn't.
Well, I'm /certainly/ not going to comment on /that/ statement!
[Because it is gibberish and shows either a confused mind or the
lack of one.]
Let's say we do take out all religious writings and sayings from any
official government documents, currency, proceedings or gatherings, what
would Mr. Newdow put in place of it?
"signed and sealed this 29th day of September, CE.
"Twenty Dollars"
"Court is in session."
"Hey y'all; come over here and take a look at this!"
What would our money say on it?
"This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private."
How
about "in our Constitution we trust'? I don't think so.
You appear to not "think" at all, Young Master Strong.
I am calling out Mr. Newdow for a debate on our Constitution.
Mr Strong's "My Weakly Reader" would be an amusement for Dr Newdow,
I would think. "My Weakly Reader" seems to be deficient in the
matters of mind and education.
I would love
sit down with him in an open forum and exchange thoughts on how we both see
this great nation and our Constitution.
Would you read the Constitution first? In English?
Clearly, we see it differently.
You appear to have a beam in your eye, by the way.
So, anytime, any place, I will be there.
Will you try to redeem your brain first? You don't do well without
it but, of course, it might not make any difference.
Robert Strong, Dixon
Gray Shockley, Vicksburg
Source for list of Ten Commandments:
<http://tn.essortment.com/commandmentlist_rrbp.htm>
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS á Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
