| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
22 Nov 2005 05:22:30 PM |
| Object: |
Parker: Sorry, but it is 'In God We Trust' |
http://www.wacotrib.com/opin/content/news/opinion/stories/2005/11/21/20051121wacparker21.html
Parker: Sorry, but it is 'In God We Trust'
Monday, November 21, 2005
Gina Parker Guest column
Once again, atheist Michael Newdow, who first became infamous for
challenging “Under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance, is attacking our
founding fathers in court.
As his new suit against our Pledge of Allegiance is pending, Newdow is
planning to file another lawsuit this time in an effort to remove “In God
We Trust” from our currency.
In an attempt to gain more attention and bury the blessings and visions of
our founding fathers, Newdow claims the rights of atheists who belong to
the “First Amendment Church of True Science” are being violated.
According to Newdow, the church's “three suggestions” are to “question, be
honest and do what's right.” Newdow contends that taking up a collection
(otherwise known as tithing) with “In God We Trust” on the money is a
violation of the separation of church and state.
What Newdow and others who are hostile to religion must understand is that
our Constitution does not provide freedom from religion, but freedom of
religion, and whether it is money, monuments, or public prayer, Americans
have the freedom to worship God.
Not only is the lawsuit frivolous, it is a clear attack on our nation's
history and founding principles.
Addressing the nomination of a congressional chaplain and the founding
fathers, the House of Representatives noted in an 1854 report: “It
[Religion] must be considered as the foundation on which the whole
structure [America] rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without
the sanction of religious sentiment, without a firm belief that there is a
Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices.”
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has already stated in several cases that “In
God We Trust” is not a violation of the fictitious separation of church and
state. Speaking on the government's display of a Christmas nativity scene
in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), Justice Sandra O'Connor ruled that government
declaration of Thanksgiving as a public holiday, printing of “In God We
Trust” on coins, and opening court sessions with “God save the United
States and this honorable court” are not only government acknowledgments of
religion, but also they should not be understood as conveying government
approval of particular religious beliefs.
Our nation is a religious nation, whether atheists want to believe it or
not, and we cannot erase our history. In Zorach v. Clauson (1952), Justice
William Douglas reasoned: “We are a religious people whose institutions
presuppose a Supreme Being?When the state encourages religious instruction
or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of
public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions.”
A resounding message must reverberate across the country that our founding
fathers looked to God when creating the greatest governing documents in
history, and our nation should continue to do so today.
Gina Parker, is a Waco attorney and business owner active in the Republican
party.
**************************************************************
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Parker: Sorry, but it is 'In God We Trust' |
22 Nov 2005 09:11:47 PM |
|
|
ha escrito:
http://www.wacotrib.com/opin/content/news/opinion/stories/2005/11/21/2005=
1121wacparker21.html
Parker: Sorry, but it is 'In God We Trust'
Monday, November 21, 2005
Gina Parker Guest column
Once again, atheist Michael Newdow, who first became infamous for
challenging "Under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance, is attacking our
founding fathers in court.
As his new suit against our Pledge of Allegiance is pending, Newdow is
planning to file another lawsuit this time in an effort to remove "In God
We Trust" from our currency.
In an attempt to gain more attention and bury the blessings and visions of
our founding fathers, Newdow claims the rights of atheists who belong to
the "First Amendment Church of True Science" are being violated.
According to Newdow, the church's "three suggestions" are to "question, be
honest and do what's right." Newdow contends that taking up a collection
(otherwise known as tithing) with "In God We Trust" on the money is a
violation of the separation of church and state.
What Newdow and others who are hostile to religion must understand is that
our Constitution does not provide freedom from religion, but freedom of
religion, and whether it is money, monuments, or public prayer, Americans
have the freedom to worship God.
Not only is the lawsuit frivolous, it is a clear attack on our nation's
history and founding principles.
Addressing the nomination of a congressional chaplain and the founding
fathers, the House of Representatives noted in an 1854 report: "It
[Religion] must be considered as the foundation on which the whole
structure [America] rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without
the sanction of religious sentiment, without a firm belief that there is a
Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices."
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has already stated in several cases that "=
In
God We Trust" is not a violation of the fictitious separation of church a=
nd
state. Speaking on the government's display of a Christmas nativity scene
in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), Justice Sandra O'Connor ruled that government
declaration of Thanksgiving as a public holiday, printing of "In God We
Trust" on coins, and opening court sessions with "God save the United
States and this honorable court" are not only government acknowledgments =
of
religion, but also they should not be understood as conveying government
approval of particular religious beliefs.
Our nation is a religious nation, whether atheists want to believe it or
not, and we cannot erase our history. In Zorach v. Clauson (1952), Justice
William Douglas reasoned: "We are a religious people whose institutions
presuppose a Supreme Being?When the state encourages religious instruction
or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of
public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions."
A resounding message must reverberate across the country that our founding
fathers looked to God when creating the greatest governing documents in
history, and our nation should continue to do so today.
Gina Parker, is a Waco attorney and business owner active in the Republic=
an
party.
**************************************************************
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 =B7 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. Eisne=
r,
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
****************************************************************
Who the is the nerd that is challenging
the intelligent motto IN GOLD WE TRUST?
Gimme's name that I will kill him.
Leopoldo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Parker: Sorry, but it is 'In God We Trust' |
23 Nov 2005 03:08:27 AM |
|
|
On 22 Nov 2005 13:11:47 -0800, wrote:
:
Who the is the nerd that is challenging
the intelligent motto IN GOLD WE TRUST?
Gimme's name that I will kill him.
Leopoldo
Ah, it warms the very cockles of my heart, to know that this is
Christian charity and understanding at it's best!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Parker: Sorry, but it is 'In God We Trust' |
23 Nov 2005 03:06:14 AM |
|
|
On 22 Nov 2005 13:11:47 -0800, wrote:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net ha escrito:
http://www.wacotrib.com/opin/content/news/opinion/stories/2005/11/21/20051121wacparker21.html
Parker: Sorry, but it is 'In God We Trust'
Monday, November 21, 2005
Gina Parker Guest column
Once again, atheist Michael Newdow, who first became infamous for
challenging "Under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance, is attacking our
founding fathers in court.
As his new suit against our Pledge of Allegiance is pending, Newdow is
planning to file another lawsuit this time in an effort to remove "In God
We Trust" from our currency.
In an attempt to gain more attention and bury the blessings and visions of
our founding fathers, Newdow claims the rights of atheists who belong to
the "First Amendment Church of True Science" are being violated.
According to Newdow, the church's "three suggestions" are to "question, be
honest and do what's right." Newdow contends that taking up a collection
(otherwise known as tithing) with "In God We Trust" on the money is a
violation of the separation of church and state.
What Newdow and others who are hostile to religion must understand is that
our Constitution does not provide freedom from religion, but freedom of
religion, and whether it is money, monuments, or public prayer, Americans
have the freedom to worship God.
Not only is the lawsuit frivolous, it is a clear attack on our nation's
history and founding principles.
Addressing the nomination of a congressional chaplain and the founding
fathers, the House of Representatives noted in an 1854 report: "It
[Religion] must be considered as the foundation on which the whole
structure [America] rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without
the sanction of religious sentiment, without a firm belief that there is a
Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices."
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has already stated in several cases that "In
God We Trust" is not a violation of the fictitious separation of church and
state. Speaking on the government's display of a Christmas nativity scene
in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), Justice Sandra O'Connor ruled that government
declaration of Thanksgiving as a public holiday, printing of "In God We
Trust" on coins, and opening court sessions with "God save the United
States and this honorable court" are not only government acknowledgments of
religion, but also they should not be understood as conveying government
approval of particular religious beliefs.
Our nation is a religious nation, whether atheists want to believe it or
not, and we cannot erase our history. In Zorach v. Clauson (1952), Justice
William Douglas reasoned: "We are a religious people whose institutions
presuppose a Supreme Being?When the state encourages religious instruction
or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of
public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions."
A resounding message must reverberate across the country that our founding
fathers looked to God when creating the greatest governing documents in
history, and our nation should continue to do so today.
Gina Parker, is a Waco attorney and business owner active in the Republican
party.
**************************************************************
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
****************************************************************
Who the is the nerd that is challenging
the intelligent motto IN GOLD WE TRUST?
Gimme's name that I will kill him.
Leopoldo
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Conspiracy of Doves" |
|
| Title: Re: Parker: Sorry, but it is 'In God We Trust' |
22 Nov 2005 06:38:29 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In an attempt to gain more attention and bury the blessings and visions of
our founding fathers
What makes you think that the phrase "In God We Trust" had ANYTHING to
do with the Founding Fathers?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Parker: Sorry, but it is 'In God We Trust' |
23 Nov 2005 04:33:15 PM |
|
|
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|> In an attempt to gain more attention and bury the blessings and visions of
:|> our founding fathers
:|
:|What makes you think that the phrase "In God We Trust" had ANYTHING to
:|do with the Founding Fathers?
Which part of this didn't you understand:
http://www.wacotrib.com/opin/content/news/opinion/stories/2005/11/21/20051121wacparker21.html
Parker: Sorry, but it is 'In God We Trust'
Monday, November 21, 2005
Gina Parker Guest column
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Parker was the author,
**************************************************************
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: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Parker: Sorry, but it is 'In God We Trust' |
22 Nov 2005 06:52:38 PM |
|
|
wrote:
http://www.wacotrib.com/opin/content/news/opinion/stories/2005/11/21/20051121wacparker21.html
Parker: Sorry, but it is 'In God We Trust'
Monday, November 21, 2005
Gina Parker Guest column
Once again, atheist Michael Newdow, who first became infamous for
challenging “Under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance, is attacking our
founding fathers in court.
Has "In God we trust" really been on the currency since the beginning?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Didi" |
|
| Title: Re: Parker: Sorry, but it is 'In God We Trust' |
22 Nov 2005 08:26:04 PM |
|
|
No it hasn't.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Parker: Sorry, but it is 'In God We Trust' |
22 Nov 2005 05:45:45 PM |
|
|
wrote:
http://www.wacotrib.com/opin/content/news/opinion/stories/2005/11/21/20051121wacparker21.html
[...]
Once again, atheist Michael Newdow, who first became infamous for
challenging "Under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance, is attacking our
founding fathers in court.
As his new suit against our Pledge of Allegiance is pending, Newdow is
planning to file another lawsuit this time in an effort to remove "In God
We Trust" from our currency.
Seems rather hopeless. When forced into a corner the religious morons
of America will simply amend the constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Parker: Sorry, but it is 'In God We Trust' |
22 Nov 2005 09:02:04 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 11:45:45 -0600, Dave wrote:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.wacotrib.com/opin/content/news/opinion/stories/2005/11/21/2005112
1wacparker21.html
[...]
Once again, atheist Michael Newdow, who first became infamous for
challenging "Under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance, is attacking our
founding fathers in court.
As his new suit against our Pledge of Allegiance is pending, Newdow is
planning to file another lawsuit this time in an effort to remove "In God
We Trust" from our currency.
Seems rather hopeless. When forced into a corner the religious morons
of America will simply amend the constitution.
Quite possibly.
But as we are executed by them,
the last phrase on my lips will be,
"I told you so".
I just hope that our children and grandchildren will be able to
successively hide against the "The Holy Inquisition, Part Two" as
"Inq2" goes about burning witches, i.e., people who disagree with
them, infidels, i.e., people who disagree with them, Jews, i.e.,
people who disagree with them, Ethical Culture members, i.e.,
people who disagree with them, Quakers, i.e., people who disagree
with them, Orthodox, i.e., people who disagree with them,
Democrats, i.e., people who disagree with them, Libertarians, i.e.,
people who disagree with them, AmerInds, i.e., people who disagree
with them, educators, i.e., people who disagree with them, people
who help others, i.e., people who disagree with them and those
trying to emulate Jesus' actions, i.e., people who disagree with
them.
Better to Live on Your Feet
than to
Die on Your Knees
Correction by Lazurus Long
as channeled through
Robert Anson Heilein
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Parker: Sorry, but it is 'In God We Trust' |
22 Nov 2005 05:37:35 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:22:30 -0500,
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
What Newdow and others who are hostile to religion must understand is that
our Constitution does not provide freedom from religion, but freedom of
religion, and whether it is money, monuments, or public prayer, Americans
have the freedom to worship God.
Sorry, but the issue is GOVERNMENT policy that
"suports" or legitimizes (establishes) religion.
Americans can do anything they want
Government cannot forbid them to do so (except in cases
of harm, or cross purposes to civil order)
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Sorry, but God exists
Sorry Andrew B. Chung, but thanks
"Troops, Ah'm Sorry, But Mah Tax Cuts Come B'fore Yer Safety" - Our "Elected" Chimp
The Times April 17, 2006: "I'm so sorry, you fellows, but I always religiously avoid your sort", Science Notebook by Anjana Ahuja
OT: Sorry George, but Iraq has given you the purple finger
bbbb - sorry Tom, but it wouldn't work again.
'Sorry, but we can't just pick and choose what to tolerate'
Sorry, BIBLE-Boobs, But The Word Of God Is Really The WORDS Of ... MANY!
| [off-topic] Sorry to offend anyone, but What do you think of these blogs here?
Holy War General says he's sorry for being exposed
Re: Jesus freak general's stupid remarks? He now sez he's sorry.
OT: I'm Sorry
GOD DOESN'T EXIST, SORRY
OT: Bush says sorry for jail torture
test -sorry
|
|
|
