| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
10 May 2006 12:15:37 PM |
| Object: |
Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
If Mr. Newdow has a problem with "God", he should move to some heathen
country like Israel.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50128
Michael Newdow in court to argue elimination of national motto
The California atheist known for his legal challenge against the Pledge of
Allegiance is in court arguing the national motto "In God We Trust" is
unconstitutional.
Michael Newdow, who filed a 162-page complaint against the president and
Congress, will argue his case in federal district court in Sacramento May
19.
The national public-interest Thomas More Law Center has filed a brief
supporting the United States government's motion to dismiss the suit.
The Law Center argues, "This nation and its form of government were founded
upon an essential idea: Individuals have God-given rights that the
government may neither bestow nor deny."
Richard Thompson, the center's chief counsel, says Newdow's "attempt to
eliminate the mere acknowledgement of our religious heritage by our National
Motto has no basis in constitutional law."
"Even the Supreme Court, in past decisions, has understood there is an
unbroken history of official invocations of Divine guidance beginning with
our founding fathers and continuing to our present day leaders," Thompson
said.
--
----------
J Young
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
10 May 2006 01:28:19 PM |
|
|
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:kaKdnZZtpbEzgv_ZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@giganews.com...
If Mr. Newdow has a problem with "God", he should move to some heathen
country like Israel.
Yeah! And he can take his silly "U.S. Constitution" with him!
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boy Toy" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
10 May 2006 03:08:05 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 May 2006 13:28:19 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote in message <ovSdnag1D4xnsv_ZRVn-pQ@io.com>
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:kaKdnZZtpbEzgv_ZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@giganews.com...
If Mr. Newdow has a problem with "God", he should move to some heathen
country like Israel.
Yeah! And he can take his silly "U.S. Constitution" with him!
Funnily enough "In God We Trust" was never part of the constitution,
but replaced "E Pluribus Unum" around the Civil War.
In other words it has no historic significance other than as a sop to
religion, and has absolutely ZERO constitutional basis.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton -- Get us the hell OUT of Iraq -- NOW!!!" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
11 May 2006 04:58:23 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 May 2006 14:08:05 -0600,
"Boy Toy" <BoyToy@Toyz4Boyz.com> wrote:
Denis Loubet <dloubet@io.com> wrote
"Jon Young"/"IBen Getiner" moronically PARROTED:
[ ... ]
If Mr. Newdow has a problem with "God", he should
move to some heathen country like Israel.
Where have I heard THAT sort of sentiment before...???
Oh. Yeah. From the EQUALLY-mindless folks who, prior to
1964, used to say, "If those ni**ers don't like their 'place' here,
let 'em go back to Africa!"
Jesus said that the poor would always be with us.
He might have said, "and so will also be the case with a
perpetual collection of control-freakish morons." It would have
been every bit as true.
Yeah! And he can take his silly "U.S. Constitution" with him!
Funnily enough "In God We Trust" was never part of the
Constitution, but replaced "E Pluribus Unum" around the
Civil War.
More like, was ADDED to it. "E Pluribus Unum" is STILL our
slogan, and is still in use.
In other words it has no historic significance other than as
a sop to religion, and has absolutely ZERO constitutional basis.
Precisely! AND... since I was 13 in 1954, I can remember very
*well* the day that we school kids were told that we had to add
those two AWKWARD words, "under God," to that which HAD been
a very smoothly-flowing Pledge of Allegiance... and thinking, "How
STUPID!"
Well -- it's over half a century later... that unnecessary hesitation
and awkwardness are still there... and the country is in WORSE
shape now than it was then.
Back then, it had been less than a decade since we had spectac-
ularly won the last LEGITIMATE war that America had engaged in,
and -- gee whiz!! -- we did it, quite likely with some help from God,
while the Pledge of Allegiance had its ORIGINAL wording.
How did we EVER get by with that?!?
Newdow is right.
-- He has every right in the world to be an atheist, just as
do all other Americans who choose to be, or who choose
any other faith. (And 17% of Americans -- close to 1/5
of us -- are NOT Christians.)
-- He sees the HYPOCRISY of imposing ANY specific religion
upon the nation as a whole, with sloganeering.
What if the Pledge had been re-worded to indicate that
America were a WHITE nation? After all, MOST Americans are
white. But we don't DO that, because that would be both untrue
and stupid.
If our money were to have THESE words on it -- "In God most
of us trust," at least that would be *truthful*. Albeit JUST as
idiotic in its own way as the current slogan is BOTH idiotic AND
dishonest.
The current slogans are just a manifestation of some of the
EARLIER manifestations of illogical and dishonest forms of political
correctness.
And -- **of course** -- nearly all of the WHINING about
retaining those two unnecessary alterations that were imposed
on our money and our Pledge of Allegiance, emanated from the
single greatest collection of control-freaks and social retards that
infest our nation... the (PSEUDO-) Religious Radical Right; the
RRR Cult. The noisy (and noiSOME) faction of 5% worthless
and bigoted malcontents who INSIST on imposing their warped
and repressive so-called "values" upon the other 95%... and
cry like scalded babies when they don't get their way.
(E.g. -- just look at all the mindless WHINING they're doing
over that work of FICTION, "The Da Vinci Code." But at least,
as long as they're off on THAT tangent, it's seriously DILUTING
their hateful, loathsome, and bigoted efforts to oppose our
personal liberties. And *that* is a very GOOD side effect to
their anti-"Code" idiocy!)
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
---
RRR Cult lemmings.
Dumber than dirt. America's own version of the Taliban.
Selfishly, hatefully, and mindlessly supporting sociopathic
agendas that seek to destroy vital personal liberties of
millions of people. (That's as dumb as it GETS!!!)
And constantly proving that to everyone.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
14 May 2006 10:14:12 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 May 2006 14:08:05 -0600, Boy Toy <BoyToy@Toyz4Boyz.com> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Wed, 10 May 2006 13:28:19 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote in message <ovSdnag1D4xnsv_ZRVn-pQ@io.com>
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:kaKdnZZtpbEzgv_ZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@giganews.com...
If Mr. Newdow has a problem with "God", he should move to some heathen
country like Israel.
Yeah! And he can take his silly "U.S. Constitution" with him!
Funnily enough "In God We Trust" was never part of the constitution,
but replaced "E Pluribus Unum" around the Civil War.
In other words it has no historic significance other than as a sop to
religion, and has absolutely ZERO constitutional basis.
Honesty is not Christian policy.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bitchin Bonney" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
15 May 2006 02:03:58 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 May 2006 20:14:12 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
You, of course, will be seeking another homosexual's ***** to be shoved
up your ***** and thrust vigorously. I'm hopeful that you will be
blessed with a full blown case of AIDS.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
10 May 2006 02:48:53 PM |
|
|
*If Mr. Newdow has a problem with "God", he should move to some heathen
*country like Israel.
J fucking Young's conception of democracy: "if you disagree with me,
leave the country"...
He would have been happy in Germany during the 1930s...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jcon" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
10 May 2006 02:17:54 PM |
|
|
wrote:
If Mr. Newdow has a problem with "God", he should move to some heathen
country like Israel.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50128
Michael Newdow in court to argue elimination of national motto
The California atheist known for his legal challenge against the Pledge of
Allegiance is in court arguing the national motto "In God We Trust" is
unconstitutional.
Michael Newdow, who filed a 162-page complaint against the president and
Congress, will argue his case in federal district court in Sacramento May
19.
The national public-interest Thomas More Law Center has filed a brief
supporting the United States government's motion to dismiss the suit.
The Law Center argues, "This nation and its form of government were founded
upon an essential idea: Individuals have God-given rights that the
government may neither bestow nor deny."
Richard Thompson, the center's chief counsel, says Newdow's "attempt to
eliminate the mere acknowledgement of our religious heritage by our National
Motto has no basis in constitutional law."
"Even the Supreme Court, in past decisions, has understood there is an
unbroken history of official invocations of Divine guidance beginning with
our founding fathers and continuing to our present day leaders," Thompson
said.
Except it was far from "unbroken" in the case at hand. The
national motto was "E Pluribus Unum"
from the writing of the Constitution until 1956. That's a
brilliant motto that is uniquely well suited to the US. As far
as I'm concerned, it will always be the "real" national motto.
"In God We Trust" is very generic and could be claimed by
countless countries. For example, it's particularly well
suited to Iran.
Just like with the Pledge, these types have changed something
and now are crying foul when someone wants to change it back.
Note, even though I'm an atheist, I'm not against religious
mottos in general. As a far as I'm concerned, they're
primarily aesthetic and should be given the
sort of latitute a work of art might be given. It's just that I think
that "In God We Trust" is a silly motto that has nothing at
all to do with the US. When's the last time the US trusted
God for *anything*? Tibet trusted God (or close enough) and
look where it got them. The US takes matters into its
own hands - and I mean that mostly in a good way,
although not always. If the national motto were "God
helps them that help themselves", I wouldn't have a
problem with it.
-jc
--
----------
J Young
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eden" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
10 May 2006 03:15:44 PM |
|
|
wrote:
If Mr. Newdow has a problem with "God", he should move to some heathen
country like Israel.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50128
Michael Newdow in court to argue elimination of national motto
The California atheist known for his legal challenge against the Pledge of
Allegiance is in court arguing the national motto "In God We Trust" is
unconstitutional.
Newdow should prevail. The replacement of "E pluribus
unum" with "In God We Trust" is a national travesty and
tragedy. It was done as a fear-driven reaction in a
time of national near-hysteria.
The U.S. is *NOT* a "Christian nation". It is a
secular nation, and the founding fathers expressly
intended it to be one. In particular, prior to the
adoption of the Constitution, several states did have
established religions, and "religious tests" *were*
required for holding public office. The concluding
clause of Article VI, Section III of the Constitution
expressly forbids this: "but no religious Test shall
ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or
public Trust under the United States."
The "founding fathers" mainly were not Christian
believers; *none* of the major ones were.
Get the religious mottos out, now: "In God We Trust"
OFF the money, and "under God" OUT of the pledge.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
10 May 2006 03:20:10 PM |
|
|
Eden wrote:
youngopinions@aol.com wrote:
If Mr. Newdow has a problem with "God", he should move to some heathen
country like Israel.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50128
Michael Newdow in court to argue elimination of national motto
The California atheist known for his legal challenge against the Pledge of
Allegiance is in court arguing the national motto "In God We Trust" is
unconstitutional.
Newdow should prevail. The replacement of "E pluribus
unum" with "In God We Trust" is a national travesty and
tragedy.
I love hysterical hyperbole. Try to control yourself.
It was done as a fear-driven reaction in a
time of national near-hysteria.
The U.S. is *NOT* a "Christian nation".
"In God We Trust" isn't a Christian notion. Try not to cry.
It is a
secular nation, and the founding fathers expressly
intended it to be one. In particular, prior to the
adoption of the Constitution, several states did have
established religions, and "religious tests" *were*
required for holding public office. The concluding
clause of Article VI, Section III of the Constitution
expressly forbids this: "but no religious Test shall
ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or
public Trust under the United States."
The "founding fathers" mainly were not Christian
believers; *none* of the major ones were.
Get the religious mottos out, now: "In God We Trust"
OFF the money, and "under God" OUT of the pledge.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eden" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
10 May 2006 03:29:25 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Eden wrote:
youngopinions@aol.com wrote:
If Mr. Newdow has a problem with "God", he should move to some heathen
country like Israel.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50128
Michael Newdow in court to argue elimination of national motto
The California atheist known for his legal challenge against the Pledge of
Allegiance is in court arguing the national motto "In God We Trust" is
unconstitutional.
Newdow should prevail. The replacement of "E pluribus
unum" with "In God We Trust" is a national travesty and
tragedy.
I love hysterical hyperbole.
You do it often enough, so I suppose you do love it.
It was done as a fear-driven reaction in a
time of national near-hysteria.
The U.S. is *NOT* a "Christian nation".
"In God We Trust" isn't a Christian notion.
The motto was pushed by Christian fundamentalists, and
the "God" in it is intended to be the Christian God, as
they think they understand it. It most certainly is a
"Christian" notion, and is intended somehow to support
the false claim by the believers that we are a
"Christian" nation.
It is a
secular nation, and the founding fathers expressly
intended it to be one. In particular, prior to the
adoption of the Constitution, several states did have
established religions, and "religious tests" *were*
required for holding public office. The concluding
clause of Article VI, Section III of the Constitution
expressly forbids this: "but no religious Test shall
ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or
public Trust under the United States."
The "founding fathers" mainly were not Christian
believers; *none* of the major ones were.
Get the religious mottos out, now: "In God We Trust"
OFF the money, and "under God" OUT of the pledge.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
11 May 2006 07:28:28 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Eden wrote:
youngopinions@aol.com wrote:
If Mr. Newdow has a problem with "God", he should move to some heathen
country like Israel.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50128
Michael Newdow in court to argue elimination of national motto
The California atheist known for his legal challenge against the Pledge of
Allegiance is in court arguing the national motto "In God We Trust" is
unconstitutional.
Newdow should prevail. The replacement of "E pluribus
unum" with "In God We Trust" is a national travesty and
tragedy.
I love hysterical hyperbole. Try to control yourself.
It was done as a fear-driven reaction in a>
time of national near-hysteria.
The U.S. is *NOT* a "Christian nation".
"In God We Trust" isn't a Christian notion.
It most certainly is! The use of the word God with an upper-case G
indicates the Christian deity.... other religions know the deity by
different names such as Allah, g_d, etc.. Now if the money also had "IN
Allah we trust" or "In Tefnut we trust" printed on it.... you might have
a leg to stand on.
<snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lookout" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
11 May 2006 09:22:35 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 May 2006 08:28:28 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
omarenoryt@aol.com wrote:
Eden wrote:
youngopinions@aol.com wrote:
If Mr. Newdow has a problem with "God", he should move to some heathen
country like Israel.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50128
Michael Newdow in court to argue elimination of national motto
The California atheist known for his legal challenge against the Pledge of
Allegiance is in court arguing the national motto "In God We Trust" is
unconstitutional.
Newdow should prevail. The replacement of "E pluribus
unum" with "In God We Trust" is a national travesty and
tragedy.
I love hysterical hyperbole. Try to control yourself.
It was done as a fear-driven reaction in a>
time of national near-hysteria.
The U.S. is *NOT* a "Christian nation".
"In God We Trust" isn't a Christian notion.
It most certainly is! The use of the word God with an upper-case G
indicates the Christian deity.... other religions know the deity by
different names such as Allah, g_d, etc.. Now if the money also had "IN
Allah we trust" or "In Tefnut we trust" printed on it.... you might have
a leg to stand on.
<snip>
Wasn't when we started:
http://candst.tripod.com/tripoli1.htm
ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense
founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of
enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as
the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility
against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no
pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an
interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
And that passed the Senate with a unanimous vote. Who died and left
christ in charge?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "pluther" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
10 May 2006 08:17:29 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Eden wrote:
The U.S. is *NOT* a "Christian nation".
"In God We Trust" isn't a Christian notion. Try not to cry.
It is a statement proposed by Christians, and supported by Christians,
in order to push Christian dogma.
True, it could be used by any patriarchal monotheistic religion, the
fact of the matter is that it isn't.
To claim otherwise is a lie, and lies make baby jesus cry.
-Pat
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
14 May 2006 10:41:39 PM |
|
|
On 10 May 2006 18:17:29 -0700, "pluther" <pluther@usa.net> wrote in
alt.atheism
omarenoryt@aol.com wrote:
Eden wrote:
The U.S. is *NOT* a "Christian nation".
"In God We Trust" isn't a Christian notion. Try not to cry.
It is a statement proposed by Christians, and supported by Christians,
in order to push Christian dogma.
True, it could be used by any patriarchal monotheistic religion, the
fact of the matter is that it isn't.
To claim otherwise is a lie, and lies make baby jesus cry.
Last time baby jesus had a royal snit he generated a tsunami which
killed over a quarter of a million people.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
14 May 2006 10:40:26 PM |
|
|
On 10 May 2006 13:20:10 -0700, wrote in alt.atheism
Eden wrote:
youngopinions@aol.com wrote:
If Mr. Newdow has a problem with "God", he should move to some heathen
country like Israel.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50128
Michael Newdow in court to argue elimination of national motto
The California atheist known for his legal challenge against the Pledge of
Allegiance is in court arguing the national motto "In God We Trust" is
unconstitutional.
Newdow should prevail. The replacement of "E pluribus
unum" with "In God We Trust" is a national travesty and
tragedy.
I love hysterical hyperbole. Try to control yourself.
He is, while you're going ballistic.
It was done as a fear-driven reaction in a
time of national near-hysteria.
The U.S. is *NOT* a "Christian nation".
"In God We Trust" isn't a Christian notion. Try not to cry.
Lying sack of Christian dogshit. It is *entirely* a Christian notion
from start to finish, *****.
[]
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bitchin Bonney" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
15 May 2006 02:05:32 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 May 2006 20:40:26 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
You, of course, will be seeking another homosexual's ***** to be shoved
up your ***** and thrust vigorously. I'm hopeful that you will be
blessed with a full blown case of AIDS.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
11 May 2006 10:02:32 AM |
|
|
On 10 May 2006 13:20:10 -0700, wrote:
Newdow should prevail. The replacement of "E pluribus
unum" with "In God We Trust" is a national travesty and
tragedy.
I love hysterical hyperbole.
Obviously
Try to control yourself.
It was done as a fear-driven reaction in a
time of national near-hysteria.
The U.S. is *NOT* a "Christian nation".
"In God We Trust" isn't a Christian notion. Try not to cry.
So, then it's superfluous, inaccurate and unnecessary and no one will
mind if it's removed.
Excellent. What are we waiting for?
It is a
secular nation, and the founding fathers expressly
intended it to be one. In particular, prior to the
adoption of the Constitution, several states did have
established religions, and "religious tests" *were*
required for holding public office. The concluding
clause of Article VI, Section III of the Constitution
expressly forbids this: "but no religious Test shall
ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or
public Trust under the United States."
The "founding fathers" mainly were not Christian
believers; *none* of the major ones were.
Get the religious mottos out, now: "In God We Trust"
OFF the money, and "under God" OUT of the pledge.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
11 May 2006 03:44:03 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 10 May 2006 13:20:10 -0700, wrote:
Newdow should prevail. The replacement of "E pluribus
unum" with "In God We Trust" is a national travesty and
tragedy.
I love hysterical hyperbole.
Obviously
Try to control yourself.
It was done as a fear-driven reaction in a
time of national near-hysteria.
The U.S. is *NOT* a "Christian nation".
"In God We Trust" isn't a Christian notion. Try not to cry.
So, then it's superfluous, inaccurate and unnecessary and no one will
mind if it's removed.
Excellent. What are we waiting for?
yes, it is indeed a trivial, meaningless phrase that must stay in the
pledge and cannot possibly be removed
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
14 May 2006 10:42:51 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 May 2006 10:02:32 -0500,
wrote in alt.atheism
On 10 May 2006 13:20:10 -0700, wrote:
Newdow should prevail. The replacement of "E pluribus
unum" with "In God We Trust" is a national travesty and
tragedy.
I love hysterical hyperbole.
Obviously
Try to control yourself.
It was done as a fear-driven reaction in a
time of national near-hysteria.
The U.S. is *NOT* a "Christian nation".
"In God We Trust" isn't a Christian notion. Try not to cry.
So, then it's superfluous, inaccurate and unnecessary and no one will
mind if it's removed.
Excellent. What are we waiting for?
So much for 'de mimus.' :)
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton -- Get us the hell OUT of Iraq -- NOW!!!" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
11 May 2006 05:15:11 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 May 2006 20:15:44 GMT,
Eden <s.e.maizlisch@hertzburg.eduu> wrote:
"Jon Young"/"IBen Getiner" PARROTED:
[ ... ]
If Mr. Newdow has a problem with "God", he should
move to some heathen country like Israel.
Just for the record, Israel is (very sensibly!) 80% secular.
Which has nothing to do with being "heathens."
When I was in Israel in 2000, I found myself in a nation
of very kind, sensible, and normal people. Just as is the case
with the vast majority of Americans. Their religious beliefs, or
lack thereof, was as relevant to the way they treated their
neighbors as their handedness and eye color are.
Meanwhile, here in the USA, we are beset by a mindless
collection of loony and control-freakish bigots who comprise only
a mere 5% of the population, but have been disruptive to the
other 95%, and their personal liberties:
RRR : Society :: 5% arsenic solution : Glass of drinking water
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50128
"WorldNUT!" one of "Jon/IBen's" favorite nutcase outfits to cite.
ROTFL!!!!! So much for credibility!
Michael Newdow in court to argue
elimination of national motto
The California atheist known for his legal challenge
against the Pledge of Allegiance is in court arguing the
national motto "In God We Trust" is unconstitutional.
Newdow should prevail. The replacement of "E
pluribus unum" with "In God We Trust" is a national
travesty and tragedy. It was done as a fear-driven
reaction in a time of national near-hysteria.
The U.S. is *NOT* a "Christian nation". It is a
secular nation, and the founding fathers expressly
intended it to be one. In particular, prior to the
adoption of the Constitution, several states did have
established religions, and "religious tests" *were*
required for holding public office. The concluding
clause of Article VI, Section III of the Constitution
expressly forbids this: "but no religious Test shall
ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or
public Trust under the United States."
The "founding fathers" mainly were not Christian
believers; *none* of the major ones were.
Correction: There's a lot of evidence that many of
them WERE... at least as far as believing in God was
concerned. But they were FAIR enough... SENSIBLE
enough... and INTELLIGENT enough... **not** to
impose ANY form of religion upon the new nation they
were starting.
Get the religious mottos out, now: "In God We Trust"
OFF the money, and "under God" OUT of the pledge.
Very well (and factually & honestly) said!
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
---
RRR Cult lemmings.
Dumber than dirt. America's own version of the Taliban.
Selfishly, hatefully, and mindlessly supporting sociopathic
agendas that seek to destroy vital personal liberties of
millions of people. (That's as dumb as it GETS!!!)
And constantly proving that to everyone.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
14 May 2006 10:37:47 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 May 2006 20:15:44 GMT, Eden <s.e.maizlisch@hertzburg.eduu>
wrote in alt.atheism
youngopinions@aol.com wrote:
If Mr. Newdow has a problem with "God", he should move to some heathen
country like Israel.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50128
Michael Newdow in court to argue elimination of national motto
The California atheist known for his legal challenge against the Pledge of
Allegiance is in court arguing the national motto "In God We Trust" is
unconstitutional.
Newdow should prevail. The replacement of "E pluribus
unum" with "In God We Trust" is a national travesty and
tragedy. It was done as a fear-driven reaction in a
time of national near-hysteria.
The U.S. is *NOT* a "Christian nation". It is a
secular nation, and the founding fathers expressly
intended it to be one. In particular, prior to the
adoption of the Constitution, several states did have
established religions, and "religious tests" *were*
required for holding public office. The concluding
clause of Article VI, Section III of the Constitution
expressly forbids this: "but no religious Test shall
ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or
public Trust under the United States."
The "founding fathers" mainly were not Christian
believers; *none* of the major ones were.
Get the religious mottos out, now: "In God We Trust"
OFF the money, and "under God" OUT of the pledge.
A lady is reported to have asked Mr. Franklin what type of country he
gave us. His reply is reported to have been; "A Republic, Madam, if you
can keep it."
It's long gone.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Graham Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
11 May 2006 02:29:57 PM |
|
|
wrote:
If Mr. Newdow has a problem with "God", he should move to some heathen
country like Israel.
And if you have a problem with keeping religion out of
government you should move to a theocracy. Iran, perhaps.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
11 May 2006 05:07:19 PM |
|
|
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote
youngopinions@aol.com wrote:
If Mr. Newdow has a problem with "God", he should move to some heathen
country like Israel.
And if you have a problem with keeping religion out of
government you should move to a theocracy. Iran, perhaps.
When you push the constitution, it falls over.
Most parents can't afford to gave their children educated privately. However
a public school cannot teach children in a moral vacuum. Either it teaches
what is watered down and secularised, but recognisably Christian morality,
or it teaches moral values drawn from some different ethical system, which
is necessarily anti-Christian - maybe not obviously so at first, but
obviously so now.
Schools don't allow children to say that being racist is fine, so why should
they allow them to say that not attending church is fine? We are only
tolerant about beliefs we don't really hold.
--
Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $7.20 paper, available www.lulu.com/bgy1mm
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
15 May 2006 04:24:55 AM |
|
|
Malcolm skrev:
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote
youngopinions@aol.com wrote:
If Mr. Newdow has a problem with "God", he should move to some heathen
country like Israel.
And if you have a problem with keeping religion out of
government you should move to a theocracy. Iran, perhaps.
When you push the constitution, it falls over.
Odd that it has lasted so long then.
Most parents can't afford to gave their children educated privately. However
a public school cannot teach children in a moral vacuum. Either it teaches
what is watered down and secularised, but recognisably Christian morality,
or it teaches moral values drawn from some different ethical system, which
is necessarily anti-Christian - maybe not obviously so at first, but
obviously so now.
Not at all obvious but merely your rather silly assertion.
Schools don't allow children to say that being racist is fine,
They don't? How do they stop it?
so why should
they allow them to say that not attending church is fine? We are only
tolerant about beliefs we don't really hold.
What are you talking about?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
12 Jul 2006 11:50:00 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 May 2006 23:07:19 +0100, "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote
youngopinions@aol.com wrote:
If Mr. Newdow has a problem with "God", he should move to some heathen
country like Israel.
And if you have a problem with keeping religion out of
government you should move to a theocracy. Iran, perhaps.
When you push the constitution, it falls over.
Most parents can't afford to gave their children educated privately. However
a public school cannot teach children in a moral vacuum. Either it teaches
what is watered down and secularised, but recognisably Christian morality,
or it teaches moral values drawn from some different ethical system, which
is necessarily anti-Christian - maybe not obviously so at first, but
obviously so now.
I don't agree that "secular morality" is watered down Christian
morality, or that keeping "Christian morality" out of schools results
in a "moral vacuum". Nice try at framing the teaching of any ethical
system that is not "Christian" as being anti-christian, but I think
that must be a symptom of your persecution complex. Social animals
require a formalized pattern of behaviors in order to interact within
their societies in ways that are mutually beneficial, and such
behavior does not require the belief in fairy tales.
Schools don't allow children to say that being racist is fine, so why should
they allow them to say that not attending church is fine? We are only
tolerant about beliefs we don't really hold.
--
Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $7.20 paper, available www.lulu.com/bgy1mm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
14 May 2006 10:45:00 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 May 2006 23:07:19 +0100, "Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote
youngopinions@aol.com wrote:
If Mr. Newdow has a problem with "God", he should move to some heathen
country like Israel.
And if you have a problem with keeping religion out of
government you should move to a theocracy. Iran, perhaps.
When you push the constitution, it falls over.
Most parents can't afford to gave their children educated privately. However
a public school cannot teach children in a moral vacuum. Either it teaches
what is watered down and secularised, but recognisably Christian morality,
Christian morality is an oxymoron as Christians like yourself
continually demonstrate.
[]
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bitchin Bonney" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
15 May 2006 02:06:27 AM |
|
|
<stoney@the.net> wrote:
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
You, of course, will be seeking another homosexual's ***** to be shoved
up your ***** and thrust vigorously. I'm hopeful that you will be
blessed with a full blown case of AIDS.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
15 May 2006 08:40:11 AM |
|
|
Bitchin' Bonney <bibon@râlant.org> writes:
<stoney@the.net> wrote:
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
You, of course, will be seeking another homosexual's ***** to be shoved
up your ***** and thrust vigorously. I'm hopeful that you will be
blessed with a full blown case of AIDS.
....and since you didn't mind posting the same dreck three times in a row,
Billy, it's reasonable to assume that that's what *you* really want. Enjoy
your frustration at not getting your way.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: October 2006, opponent/venue/time TBA
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Boy Toy" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
14 May 2006 11:20:18 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 May 2006 20:45:00 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in
message <c8uf62p2nmuvun6ajsucku3j2p4ju6vo2j@4ax.com>
On Thu, 11 May 2006 23:07:19 +0100, "Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote
youngopinions@aol.com wrote:
If Mr. Newdow has a problem with "God", he should move to some heathen
country like Israel.
And if you have a problem with keeping religion out of
government you should move to a theocracy. Iran, perhaps.
When you push the constitution, it falls over.
Most parents can't afford to gave their children educated privately. However
a public school cannot teach children in a moral vacuum. Either it teaches
what is watered down and secularised, but recognisably Christian morality,
Christian morality is an oxymoron as Christians like yourself
continually demonstrate.
LOL! Not only is he "morally" vacuous, he is also intellectually
vacuous.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge atheist' set to challenge 'In God We Trust' |
15 May 2006 07:14:44 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 May 2006 22:20:18 -0600, Boy Toy <BoyToy@Toyz4Boyz.com> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Sun, 14 May 2006 20:45:00 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in
message <c8uf62p2nmuvun6ajsucku3j2p4ju6vo2j@4ax.com>
On Thu, 11 May 2006 23:07:19 +0100, "Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote
youngopinions@aol.com wrote:
If Mr. Newdow has a problem with "God", he should move to some heathen
country like Israel.
And if you have a problem with keeping religion out of
government you should move to a theocracy. Iran, perhaps.
When you push the constitution, it falls over.
Most parents can't afford to gave their children educated privately. However
a public school cannot teach children in a moral vacuum. Either it teaches
what is watered down and secularised, but recognisably Christian morality,
Christian morality is an oxymoron as Christians like yourself
continually demonstrate.
LOL! Not only is he "morally" vacuous, he is also intellectually
vacuous.
That has a tendency to 'come with the territory.'
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
