| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"human" |
| Date: |
19 Sep 2005 10:59:20 AM |
| Object: |
Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, propagating misinformation, Ken Pangborn, aka KRP
wrote:
Here we go again. Mikey Newdow insisting that the Pledge be banned. He
found a judge willing to go along with him.
That is misinformation.
It takes more than one judge, and when the circuit court ruled on the
merits last time around, they found in favor of the Constitutional
separation of Church and state.
<< There is more than a 100% certainty that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will uphold it as the
farthest left wing court in America.>>
The reason they ruled as they did was because they upheld constitutional
separation of religion from government.
Apparently you don't approve of neutrality in matters of religion and
think it is a good thing that little school children be put in a positin
of taking a religious oath.
<<It is also fairly certain that the Supreme Court will reject it again.
That may very well be, especially with W's new picks on board.
There is no reason for panic because this won't endure.
What won't endure?
Governmental NEUTRALITY in matters of religion?
That would be a pity.
<< But this situation brings, in my mind., two things forward for consideration. The
first is how out of control some Judges are. That's a different topic for
another day and place.
Brave justices who have the audacity (and good sense) to uphold neutrality
in matters of religion are to be applauded.
<<But the main issue I see is how a SMALL group of very angry people want
to control society. Because they are mean? Probably not. But because they
are ARROGANT! They are spoiled children who are badly in need of parental discipline. (They need to be spanked.)>>
The only ones wanting to control society are those who, in religious
zealotry and for religious reasons, inject religiosity into affairs of
government and force symbols and rhetoric of religion onto the populous.
There is NO logical way that the words "In God we trust" establishes a
religion. NONE!
"In God we trust" is no more neutral in matters of religion that would be:
In Zeus we trust
or
In No gods do we trust
or
In Yum Kaax, Baal & Athena we trust.
How would you like that in our pledge or on our money?
<< But some hard core folks never want to hear that word (God) in the
public square.>>
There is no way to keep "that word (God) our of the public square. You
can go into the public square and shout it to your heart's content. While
you are at it, you are invited to shout out a question: Why did God
punish New Orleans?
What is inappropriate is for governmental agents or entities to endorse
monotheism over non-religion or a-religion or polytheism.
<< They want a society divorced from this "God" thing... Not that "God" is the real issue. It is the whole "right and wrong" thing
that goes along with it. Judgementalism, [sic]>>
The only JUDGMENTALISM I see here is yours.
There is no way to divorce individual citizens from their religion or
their religious ideas, be they in support of many gods or one god.
<<saying that whatever it is THEY want to do is wrong.>>
In this particular case, what is being said is that there was nothing
wrong with the wording of a secular national oath (aside from the fact
that perhaps kids shouldn't be forced to recite anything of the kind).
<< It is a hidden desire for an "ANYTHING GOES" society. One free of
values.........>>
Henny Penny, the sky is falling. We will all go to hell in a hand basket
if all citizens don't have foisted upon them the religious rhetoric or the
religious symbols of the majority!!!!!
Without claiming to be a prophet>>
Well, that is one small blessing.
<< - let me say this . . . . I think that IF they succeed in divorcing America form God and values of right and wrong
. than this country is doomed.>>
Dear Henny Penny,
If we have a secular oath, as we had during two world wars, we will not
be doomed. If a religious oath is necessary, we wouldn't have been
victorious in those wars.
<<Only when we restrain ourselves and strive for the best - strive for the
beauty that can come with life - do we stand a chance of prospering in
life. When we abandon it . we are bankrupt.>>
Depending upon reliance on imaginary magical buddies in the sky or hiding
in cenotes is not necessary to achieve happiness, prosperity security or a
"beautiful life."
If you are worried about bankruptcy, you might consider the fact that
every single day we borrow money from other countries in order to fund an
unjust war and more tax cuts for the rich.
The best, in this case, is secular government, SECULAR as in the SECULAR
government we would like to see in Iraq and in other countries in the
Middle East and around the world.
We need to lead the way.
And, yes, Henny Penny Kenny, I did add groups to this message. If you
don't like it, lump it.
.
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 08:24:56 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 16:53:31 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j98jqpqrphp40@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:o149j15omqftvq2l4qaf04i31m72evahtv@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:41:04 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j90rfsuqa18d6@corp.supernews.com>:
....
The words "under God" makes no such presumption.
Heck the words do not even define what or who God is.
God in this context is religious neutral.
Fine, God is meaningless gibbering.
For some, that is true
That is the circumstance under which 'god' can be allowed, without
question, to be invoked by government officials in an official capacity.
That excludes those who do not presume
that exactly one god exists.
So you agree that atheism is a belief than.
It's a lack of such belief.
If they have a lack of such belief, than they would not spend so much time
debating the subject, or making claims that God does not exist.
It depends. I try to persuade adults that Santa Claus and the Tooth
Fairy do not exist.
Are you familiar with polytheism?
Sure, mans first religions were based on that, as well as many other
cultures having such a belief.
They also don't believe in 'god'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 09:48:42 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:fja9j1ho95u1g67gtvd7j1qerped22isnf@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 16:53:31 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j98jqpqrphp40@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:o149j15omqftvq2l4qaf04i31m72evahtv@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:41:04 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j90rfsuqa18d6@corp.supernews.com>:
...
The words "under God" makes no such presumption.
Heck the words do not even define what or who God is.
God in this context is religious neutral.
Fine, God is meaningless gibbering.
For some, that is true
That is the circumstance under which 'god' can be allowed,
Hogwash. You need to learn some tolerance.
without
question, to be invoked by government officials in an official capacity.
Since the government officials are not forcing a religion on anyone, you
have no complaint.
That excludes those who do not presume
that exactly one god exists.
So you agree that atheism is a belief than.
It's a lack of such belief.
If they have a lack of such belief, than they would not spend so much
time
debating the subject, or making claims that God does not exist.
It depends. I try to persuade adults that Santa Claus and the Tooth
Fairy do not exist.
I have no belief in either of those, so I never talk about them as I do not
care.
Are you familiar with polytheism?
Sure, mans first religions were based on that, as well as many other
cultures having such a belief.
They also don't believe in 'god'.
So, they are allowed to.
Religion as far as I am concerned is between the person and his God/s
I am not going to say anything about anothers religion as my attitude on
that is to each his own.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 11:21:56 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:48:42 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j9fbpi441kt8d@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:fja9j1ho95u1g67gtvd7j1qerped22isnf@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 16:53:31 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j98jqpqrphp40@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:o149j15omqftvq2l4qaf04i31m72evahtv@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:41:04 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j90rfsuqa18d6@corp.supernews.com>:
...
The words "under God" makes no such presumption.
Heck the words do not even define what or who God is.
God in this context is religious neutral.
Fine, God is meaningless gibbering.
For some, that is true
That is the circumstance under which 'god' can be allowed,
Hogwash. You need to learn some tolerance.
For what? Politicians who add words like 'under God' to a Pledge to get
more votes?
without
question, to be invoked by government officials in an official capacity.
Since the government officials are not forcing a religion on anyone, you
have no complaint.
They don't have to force a religion upon you to violate the First
Amendment.
That excludes those who do not presume
that exactly one god exists.
So you agree that atheism is a belief than.
It's a lack of such belief.
If they have a lack of such belief, than they would not spend so much time
debating the subject, or making claims that God does not exist.
It depends. I try to persuade adults that Santa Claus and the Tooth
Fairy do not exist.
I have no belief in either of those, so I never talk about them as I do not
care.
Well, that is how some people think about various gods.
Are you familiar with polytheism?
Sure, mans first religions were based on that, as well as many other
cultures having such a belief.
They also don't believe in 'god'.
So, they are allowed to.
Religion as far as I am concerned is between the person and his God/s
I am not going to say anything about anothers religion as my attitude on
that is to each his own.
Then why would anyone who believes that want politicians to be adding
'under God' to a pledge of allegiance?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
24 Sep 2005 01:55:28 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:mtk9j1t20ho6jm7t6s25gs886d7f2vakm7@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:48:42 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j9fbpi441kt8d@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:fja9j1ho95u1g67gtvd7j1qerped22isnf@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 16:53:31 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j98jqpqrphp40@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:o149j15omqftvq2l4qaf04i31m72evahtv@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:41:04 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in
<11j90rfsuqa18d6@corp.supernews.com>:
...
The words "under God" makes no such presumption.
Heck the words do not even define what or who God is.
God in this context is religious neutral.
Fine, God is meaningless gibbering.
For some, that is true
That is the circumstance under which 'god' can be allowed,
Hogwash. You need to learn some tolerance.
For what? Politicians who add words like 'under God' to a Pledge to get
more votes?
That is your opinion of why those words were put in. It is not a factual
opinion, but you are free to believe what you want.
But you really need to work on your tolerance.
without
question, to be invoked by government officials in an official
capacity.
Since the government officials are not forcing a religion on anyone, you
have no complaint.
They don't have to force a religion upon you to violate the First
Amendment.
Yes they do. All the first does in regards to religion, is to prevent
congress from making a national religion.
On the other hand, states are quite free to establish a state religion,
though I really doubt you would see that today.
That excludes those who do not presume
that exactly one god exists.
So you agree that atheism is a belief than.
It's a lack of such belief.
If they have a lack of such belief, than they would not spend so much
time
debating the subject, or making claims that God does not exist.
It depends. I try to persuade adults that Santa Claus and the Tooth
Fairy do not exist.
I have no belief in either of those, so I never talk about them as I do
not
care.
Well, that is how some people think about various gods.
And those are not the ones who are crying about the pledge.
They just shrug their shoulders and go on with what they were doing.
It is the ones who have an active belief about God not existing that has a
problem with the pledge, and they are very intolerant of those that have the
opposite belief.
Are you familiar with polytheism?
Sure, mans first religions were based on that, as well as many other
cultures having such a belief.
They also don't believe in 'god'.
So, they are allowed to.
Religion as far as I am concerned is between the person and his God/s
I am not going to say anything about anothers religion as my attitude on
that is to each his own.
Then why would anyone who believes that want politicians to be adding
'under God' to a pledge of allegiance?
This is a religious country, hence the overwhelming majority has some kind
of religious belief, so if the pledge recognizes that basic fact, it does
not bother me one bit, as I am not being forced to be a believer in any
paticular religion.
This is what is known as being tolerant to those who have different beliefs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
24 Sep 2005 09:10:36 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:55:28 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j9tqfkmviqb6b@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:mtk9j1t20ho6jm7t6s25gs886d7f2vakm7@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:48:42 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j9fbpi441kt8d@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:fja9j1ho95u1g67gtvd7j1qerped22isnf@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 16:53:31 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j98jqpqrphp40@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:o149j15omqftvq2l4qaf04i31m72evahtv@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:41:04 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in
<11j90rfsuqa18d6@corp.supernews.com>:
...
The words "under God" makes no such presumption.
Heck the words do not even define what or who God is.
God in this context is religious neutral.
Fine, God is meaningless gibbering.
For some, that is true
That is the circumstance under which 'god' can be allowed,
Hogwash. You need to learn some tolerance.
For what? Politicians who add words like 'under God' to a Pledge to get
more votes?
That is your opinion of why those words were put in. It is not a factual
opinion, but you are free to believe what you want.
So if I am mistaken you can show me why this was added.
But you really need to work on your tolerance.
This isn't about tolerance. This is about protecting our civil
liberties. I am completely tolerant of religious beliefs, I am not
tolerant of those who want to use the government to inflict their
beliefs on others.
without
question, to be invoked by government officials in an official
capacity.
Since the government officials are not forcing a religion on anyone, you
have no complaint.
They don't have to force a religion upon you to violate the First
Amendment.
Yes they do. All the first does in regards to religion, is to prevent
congress from making a national religion.
False. It prevents Congress from doing anything to further specific
religions.
On the other hand, states are quite free to establish a state religion,
though I really doubt you would see that today.
As you should know, states are no longer allowed to do that. That is
what the school prayer and creationism cases have told us. Your refusal
to acknowledge the rule of law is disturbing.
....
Well, that is how some people think about various gods.
And those are not the ones who are crying about the pledge.
They just shrug their shoulders and go on with what they were doing.
It is the ones who have an active belief about God not existing that has a
problem with the pledge, and they are very intolerant of those that have the
opposite belief.
Some may, so what? Atheists also have the right not to have the
government impose religion on them. The government does not have the
right to impose any religion on anyone.
....
Then why would anyone who believes that want politicians to be adding
'under God' to a pledge of allegiance?
This is a religious country, hence the overwhelming majority has some kind
of religious belief, so if the pledge recognizes that basic fact, it does
not bother me one bit, as I am not being forced to be a believer in any
paticular religion.
What about the folks who are strongly religious like Vrooom who don't
want to have to talk about God or acknowledge some generic god that is
offensive to them. Why do you want to inflict your religiosity on them?
This is what is known as being tolerant to those who have different beliefs.
No, this isn't about tolerance. It's about public religiosity that has
no place in government functions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
24 Sep 2005 02:26:52 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:h1naj1lb48e2srlf7igojblthbt9hf1tri@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:55:28 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j9tqfkmviqb6b@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:mtk9j1t20ho6jm7t6s25gs886d7f2vakm7@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:48:42 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j9fbpi441kt8d@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:fja9j1ho95u1g67gtvd7j1qerped22isnf@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 16:53:31 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in
<11j98jqpqrphp40@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:o149j15omqftvq2l4qaf04i31m72evahtv@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:41:04 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in
<11j90rfsuqa18d6@corp.supernews.com>:
...
The words "under God" makes no such presumption.
Heck the words do not even define what or who God is.
God in this context is religious neutral.
Fine, God is meaningless gibbering.
For some, that is true
That is the circumstance under which 'god' can be allowed,
Hogwash. You need to learn some tolerance.
For what? Politicians who add words like 'under God' to a Pledge to get
more votes?
That is your opinion of why those words were put in. It is not a factual
opinion, but you are free to believe what you want.
So if I am mistaken you can show me why this was added.
To distinguish our pledge from similiar pledges made in communist countries.
It was not about getting any votes.
But you really need to work on your tolerance.
This isn't about tolerance.
Yes it is. You guys on the left want to restrict the religious only because
you are intolerant towards their belief.
This is about protecting our civil
liberties.
Yeah the religious liberties we have, that you guys are trying to restrict.
without
question, to be invoked by government officials in an official
capacity.
Since the government officials are not forcing a religion on anyone,
you
have no complaint.
They don't have to force a religion upon you to violate the First
Amendment.
Yes they do. All the first does in regards to religion, is to prevent
congress from making a national religion.
False.
No, not at all.
On the other hand, states are quite free to establish a state religion,
though I really doubt you would see that today.
As you should know, states are no longer allowed to do that.
Sure they are, see the 9th and 10th Amendments.
...
Well, that is how some people think about various gods.
And those are not the ones who are crying about the pledge.
They just shrug their shoulders and go on with what they were doing.
It is the ones who have an active belief about God not existing that has
a
problem with the pledge, and they are very intolerant of those that have
the
opposite belief.
Some may, so what? Atheists also have the right not to have the
government impose religion on them.
The government is not imposing any religion on them.
...
Then why would anyone who believes that want politicians to be adding
'under God' to a pledge of allegiance?
This is a religious country, hence the overwhelming majority has some
kind
of religious belief, so if the pledge recognizes that basic fact, it does
not bother me one bit, as I am not being forced to be a believer in any
paticular religion.
What about the folks who are strongly religious like Vrooom who don't
want to have to talk about God or acknowledge some generic god that is
offensive to them.
Key word is tolerance for other beliefs.
This is what is known as being tolerant to those who have different
beliefs.
No, this isn't about tolerance.
Yes it is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
24 Sep 2005 04:02:33 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 11:26:52 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11jb9regut84o20@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:h1naj1lb48e2srlf7igojblthbt9hf1tri@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:55:28 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j9tqfkmviqb6b@corp.supernews.com>:
....
That is your opinion of why those words were put in. It is not a factual
opinion, but you are free to believe what you want.
So if I am mistaken you can show me why this was added.
To distinguish our pledge from similiar pledges made in communist countries.
It was not about getting any votes.
Reference please.
But you really need to work on your tolerance.
This isn't about tolerance.
Yes it is. You guys on the left want to restrict the religious only because
you are intolerant towards their belief.
As you seem to ignore, I am not opposed to beliefs, but I refuse to
allow you to impose your beliefs on others.
This is about protecting our civil
liberties.
Yeah the religious liberties we have, that you guys are trying to restrict.
How? The only thing I am trying to do is stop people from forcing
religious beliefs on others.
....
Yes they do. All the first does in regards to religion, is to prevent
congress from making a national religion.
False.
No, not at all.
What do you mean?
On the other hand, states are quite free to establish a state religion,
though I really doubt you would see that today.
As you should know, states are no longer allowed to do that.
Sure they are, see the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Didn't the 14th Amendment get passed in your universe?
....
Some may, so what? Atheists also have the right not to have the
government impose religion on them.
The government is not imposing any religion on them.
You say that, but that doesn't make your claim true.
....
What about the folks who are strongly religious like Vrooom who don't
want to have to talk about God or acknowledge some generic god that is
offensive to them.
Key word is tolerance for other beliefs.
I do tolerate other beliefs. I do not tolerate government action that
supports or encourages specific beliefs.
This is what is known as being tolerant to those who have different beliefs.
No, this isn't about tolerance.
Yes it is.
State action in the sphere of religion is not about tolerance.
Please, learn something about religion in America.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
24 Sep 2005 05:39:32 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:abebj1t36kooumfka755b3s0dpdcl0mtms@4ax.com...
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 11:26:52 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11jb9regut84o20@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:h1naj1lb48e2srlf7igojblthbt9hf1tri@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:55:28 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j9tqfkmviqb6b@corp.supernews.com>:
...
That is your opinion of why those words were put in. It is not a
factual
opinion, but you are free to believe what you want.
So if I am mistaken you can show me why this was added.
To distinguish our pledge from similiar pledges made in communist
countries.
It was not about getting any votes.
Reference please.
Public record.
And taught in every civics class.
But you really need to work on your tolerance.
This isn't about tolerance.
Yes it is. You guys on the left want to restrict the religious only
because
you are intolerant towards their belief.
This is about protecting our civil
liberties.
Yeah the religious liberties we have, that you guys are trying to
restrict.
...
Yes they do. All the first does in regards to religion, is to prevent
congress from making a national religion.
False.
No, not at all.
On the other hand, states are quite free to establish a state
religion,
though I really doubt you would see that today.
As you should know, states are no longer allowed to do that.
Sure they are, see the 9th and 10th Amendments.
...
Some may, so what? Atheists also have the right not to have the
government impose religion on them.
The government is not imposing any religion on them.
...
What about the folks who are strongly religious like Vrooom who don't
want to have to talk about God or acknowledge some generic god that is
offensive to them.
Key word is tolerance for other beliefs.
This is what is known as being tolerant to those who have different
beliefs.
No, this isn't about tolerance.
Yes it is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
24 Sep 2005 06:20:57 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 14:39:32 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11jbl4553lrdj70@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:abebj1t36kooumfka755b3s0dpdcl0mtms@4ax.com...
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 11:26:52 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11jb9regut84o20@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:h1naj1lb48e2srlf7igojblthbt9hf1tri@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:55:28 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j9tqfkmviqb6b@corp.supernews.com>:
...
That is your opinion of why those words were put in. It is not a
factual
opinion, but you are free to believe what you want.
So if I am mistaken you can show me why this was added.
To distinguish our pledge from similiar pledges made in communist countries.
It was not about getting any votes.
Reference please.
Public record.
And taught in every civics class.
You have no idea, do you.
When you make a claim and someone asks you to back it up with a
reference, you need to provide a reference, not repeat your claim
without any support.
The evidence, based on your track record, is that you made it up and
have no idea if it is true or not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: " krp -" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 12:43:22 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:3u88j1hscf38dq7gmje300a82nbufluaft@4ax.com...
Name the OFFICIAL RELIGION that has been ESTABLISHED UNDER IT! FIFTY
YEARS.. NAME IT!!
Okay: Anti-Communist Christianity. Just ask the folks who dropped that
phrase in there; they'll tell you. Or read the record.
So "UNDER GOD" has "ESTABLISHED" the Church of Anti-Communist
Christianity? Can I find that listed in my phone book?
The First Amendment does not prohibit "an establishment of any Church."
The key word in the Establishment Clause is "respecting." Not only does
the Amendment prohibit outright establishments; it goes much further to
prohibit any law "respecting an establishment of religion." Also
important
are the last two words. They could have been phrased "establishment of
*a*
religion," but instead, "a" was left out, leaving us with a clause that
prohibits laws "respecting" establishments of religion generally. No
specific religion must be cited.
How does the word "UNDER GOD" establish religion?
It presumes that a god exists. That excludes those who do not presume
that exactly one god exists.
GOD to many people can be a plural.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 01:18:31 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:43:22 GMT, in wi.general
" krp -" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in
<_8XYe.136$211.106@trnddc08>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:3u88j1hscf38dq7gmje300a82nbufluaft@4ax.com...
Name the OFFICIAL RELIGION that has been ESTABLISHED UNDER IT! FIFTY
YEARS.. NAME IT!!
Okay: Anti-Communist Christianity. Just ask the folks who dropped that
phrase in there; they'll tell you. Or read the record.
So "UNDER GOD" has "ESTABLISHED" the Church of Anti-Communist
Christianity? Can I find that listed in my phone book?
The First Amendment does not prohibit "an establishment of any Church."
The key word in the Establishment Clause is "respecting." Not only does
the Amendment prohibit outright establishments; it goes much further to
prohibit any law "respecting an establishment of religion." Also
important
are the last two words. They could have been phrased "establishment of
*a*
religion," but instead, "a" was left out, leaving us with a clause that
prohibits laws "respecting" establishments of religion generally. No
specific religion must be cited.
How does the word "UNDER GOD" establish religion?
It presumes that a god exists. That excludes those who do not presume
that exactly one god exists.
GOD to many people can be a plural.
Please provide a reference to support that claim.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 05:42:37 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:v4g8j1hhc0sqel3nl167sl7r6ud9ms8qvd@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:43:22 GMT, in wi.general
" krp -" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in
<_8XYe.136$211.106@trnddc08>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:3u88j1hscf38dq7gmje300a82nbufluaft@4ax.com...
Name the OFFICIAL RELIGION that has been ESTABLISHED UNDER IT!
FIFTY
YEARS.. NAME IT!!
Okay: Anti-Communist Christianity. Just ask the folks who dropped
that
phrase in there; they'll tell you. Or read the record.
So "UNDER GOD" has "ESTABLISHED" the Church of Anti-Communist
Christianity? Can I find that listed in my phone book?
The First Amendment does not prohibit "an establishment of any
Church."
The key word in the Establishment Clause is "respecting." Not only
does
the Amendment prohibit outright establishments; it goes much further
to
prohibit any law "respecting an establishment of religion." Also
important
are the last two words. They could have been phrased "establishment
of
*a*
religion," but instead, "a" was left out, leaving us with a clause
that
prohibits laws "respecting" establishments of religion generally. No
specific religion must be cited.
How does the word "UNDER GOD" establish religion?
It presumes that a god exists. That excludes those who do not presume
that exactly one god exists.
GOD to many people can be a plural.
Please provide a reference to support that claim.
The Word God, can mean Allah to some, the Christian God to others, Buddah to
some, or even just plain creator. It would depend on the person.
.
|
|
|
| User: " krp -" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
24 Sep 2005 08:39:24 AM |
|
|
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11j90ucg0o4am04@corp.supernews.com...
GOD to many people can be a plural.
Please provide a reference to support that claim.
The Word God, can mean Allah to some, the Christian God to others, Buddah
to
some, or even just plain creator. It would depend on the person.
OH OH.. Watch out Dana you are going to incur their WRATH! And next to our
atheist God is a WIMP!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: " krp -" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
24 Sep 2005 08:38:20 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:v4g8j1hhc0sqel3nl167sl7r6ud9ms8qvd@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:43:22 GMT, in wi.general
" krp -" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in
<_8XYe.136$211.106@trnddc08>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:3u88j1hscf38dq7gmje300a82nbufluaft@4ax.com...
Name the OFFICIAL RELIGION that has been ESTABLISHED UNDER IT!
FIFTY
YEARS.. NAME IT!!
Okay: Anti-Communist Christianity. Just ask the folks who dropped
that
phrase in there; they'll tell you. Or read the record.
So "UNDER GOD" has "ESTABLISHED" the Church of Anti-Communist
Christianity? Can I find that listed in my phone book?
The First Amendment does not prohibit "an establishment of any
Church."
The key word in the Establishment Clause is "respecting." Not only
does
the Amendment prohibit outright establishments; it goes much further
to
prohibit any law "respecting an establishment of religion." Also
important
are the last two words. They could have been phrased "establishment of
*a*
religion," but instead, "a" was left out, leaving us with a clause
that
prohibits laws "respecting" establishments of religion generally. No
specific religion must be cited.
How does the word "UNDER GOD" establish religion?
It presumes that a god exists. That excludes those who do not presume
that exactly one god exists.
GOD to many people can be a plural.
Please provide a reference to support that claim.
Read up on Hinduism. David you have WAY too much free time on your hands.
This is the old AA trick. If anyone DARES to disagree OVERWHELM them with a
minimum of 50 responses ALL making demands of multiple issue for DETAILED
and EXHAUSTING proof.
Here is a clue - *I* have NOWHERE near the free time on my hand that you
people do! I sort of noticed David, that no matter what time of the day I
respond to your posts, you have replies on in very short order. Do you EVER
sleep?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
24 Sep 2005 09:01:10 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:38:20 GMT, in wi.general
" krp -" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in
<gFcZe.5231$y64.1179@trnddc06>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:v4g8j1hhc0sqel3nl167sl7r6ud9ms8qvd@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:43:22 GMT, in wi.general
" krp -" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in
<_8XYe.136$211.106@trnddc08>:
....
GOD to many people can be a plural.
Please provide a reference to support that claim.
Read up on Hinduism. David you have WAY too much free time on your hands.
This is the old AA trick. If anyone DARES to disagree OVERWHELM them with a
minimum of 50 responses ALL making demands of multiple issue for DETAILED
and EXHAUSTING proof.
You have offered no evidence at all. The claims you have made are
careless and often wrong.
Here is a clue - *I* have NOWHERE near the free time on my hand that you
people do! I sort of noticed David, that no matter what time of the day I
respond to your posts, you have replies on in very short order. Do you EVER
sleep?
I take it that you don't have an answer to support your claim.
.
|
|
|
| User: " krp -" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW THE TEST |
24 Sep 2005 09:15:16 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:aumaj1tioikjtufuuk286uomschagg85na@4ax.com...
I take it that you don't have an answer to support your claim.
I am not answering you till your answer the questions I propounded to you
BULLY BOY!
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW THE TEST |
24 Sep 2005 09:43:27 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 14:15:16 GMT, in wi.general
" krp -" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in
<UbdZe.5376$y64.4563@trnddc06>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:aumaj1tioikjtufuuk286uomschagg85na@4ax.com...
I take it that you don't have an answer to support your claim.
I am not answering you till your answer the questions I propounded to you
BULLY BOY!
Which questions do you think I did not answer?
.
|
|
|
| User: " krp -" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW THE TEST |
24 Sep 2005 03:45:09 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:4gpaj1tgrhsgec8f2ntq8f7muknivd6flf@4ax.com...
I take it that you don't have an answer to support your claim.
I am not answering you till your answer the questions I propounded to you
BULLY BOY!
Which questions do you think I did not answer?
I posed 7 questions to you you said you would answer if the question didn't
presuppose within it the answer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Borzoi" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW THE TEST |
24 Sep 2005 03:49:54 PM |
|
|
" krp -" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in
news:pViZe.4136$kH3.630@trnddc01:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:4gpaj1tgrhsgec8f2ntq8f7muknivd6flf@4ax.com...
I take it that you don't have an answer to support your claim.
I am not answering you till your answer the questions I propounded to
you BULLY BOY!
Which questions do you think I did not answer?
I posed 7 questions to you you said you would answer if the question
didn't presuppose within it the answer.
My oh my..... we now have a pissing contest?
Is it any wonder?
Borzoi
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW THE TEST |
24 Sep 2005 04:22:37 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 20:45:09 GMT, in wi.general
" krp -" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in
<pViZe.4136$kH3.630@trnddc01>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:4gpaj1tgrhsgec8f2ntq8f7muknivd6flf@4ax.com...
I take it that you don't have an answer to support your claim.
I am not answering you till your answer the questions I propounded to you
BULLY BOY!
Which questions do you think I did not answer?
I posed 7 questions to you you said you would answer if the question didn't
presuppose within it the answer.
I answered them, and I have reposted it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 12:51:04 PM |
|
|
On 2005-09-23 04:11:21 -0700, " krp -"
<web2457k@verizon.net> said:
"655321" < > wrote in message
news:2005092219021643658%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom...
Name the OFFICIAL RELIGION that has been ESTABLISHED UNDER IT! FIFTY
YEARS.. NAME IT!!
Okay: Anti-Communist Christianity. Just ask the folks who dropped that
phrase in there; they'll tell you. Or read the record.
So "UNDER GOD" has "ESTABLISHED" the Church of Anti-Communist Christianity?
The church already existed, but inserting the phrase estalished it as
the only church priveleged by the federal government to be the church
that defines the country's status in the universe. This church sees
the country as "UNDER" a single god named "God." Those who don't share
this vision are not members of said church, and are left out by the
reconfigured pledge.
Can I find that listed in my phone book?
Sure. The country is lousy with 'em.
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
"Genocide is used sparingly by God in only extreme circumstances." -Jim Spaza
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 05:44:12 PM |
|
|
"655321" <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in message
news:2005092310505616807%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom...
On 2005-09-23 04:11:21 -0700, " krp -"
<web2457k@verizon.net> said:
"655321" <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in message
news:2005092219021643658%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom...
Name the OFFICIAL RELIGION that has been ESTABLISHED UNDER IT! FIFTY
YEARS.. NAME IT!!
Okay: Anti-Communist Christianity. Just ask the folks who dropped that
phrase in there; they'll tell you. Or read the record.
So "UNDER GOD" has "ESTABLISHED" the Church of Anti-Communist
Christianity?
The church already existed
I really doubt if there is a church of the anti-communist christianity.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: " krp -" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 01:09:56 PM |
|
|
"655321" <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in message
news:2005092310505616807%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom...
Name the OFFICIAL RELIGION that has been ESTABLISHED UNDER IT! FIFTY
YEARS.. NAME IT!!
Okay: Anti-Communist Christianity. Just ask the folks who dropped that
phrase in there; they'll tell you. Or read the record.
So "UNDER GOD" has "ESTABLISHED" the Church of Anti-Communist
Christianity?
The church already existed, but inserting the phrase estalished it as the
only church priveleged by the federal government to be the church
So where is that listed in the phone book? I can't find one near me, do that
have MANY churches in your neighborhood?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 07:20:30 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:11:21 GMT, in wi.general
" krp -" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in
<tpRYe.20470$nV1.11210@trnddc06>:
"655321" <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in message
news:2005092219021643658%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom...
Name the OFFICIAL RELIGION that has been ESTABLISHED UNDER IT! FIFTY
YEARS.. NAME IT!!
Okay: Anti-Communist Christianity. Just ask the folks who dropped that
phrase in there; they'll tell you. Or read the record.
So "UNDER GOD" has "ESTABLISHED" the Church of Anti-Communist
Christianity? Can I find that listed in my phone book?
The founding fathers would be embarrassed that people in their country
could be so literal-minded as an excuse to try to limit the rights given
by the first amendment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 05:33:41 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:6ls7j1laeimci0scdkplrkbgotm260seq9@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:11:21 GMT, in wi.general
" krp -" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in
<tpRYe.20470$nV1.11210@trnddc06>:
"655321" <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in message
news:2005092219021643658%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom...
Name the OFFICIAL RELIGION that has been ESTABLISHED UNDER IT! FIFTY
YEARS.. NAME IT!!
Okay: Anti-Communist Christianity. Just ask the folks who dropped that
phrase in there; they'll tell you. Or read the record.
So "UNDER GOD" has "ESTABLISHED" the Church of Anti-Communist
Christianity? Can I find that listed in my phone book?
The founding fathers would be embarrassed that people in their country
could be so literal-minded as an excuse to try to limit the rights given
by the first amendment.
Actually they would be embarrassed at what you think the establishment cause
means.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 06:30:49 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:33:41 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j90dl4jh4vj02@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:6ls7j1laeimci0scdkplrkbgotm260seq9@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:11:21 GMT, in wi.general
" krp -" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in
<tpRYe.20470$nV1.11210@trnddc06>:
"655321" <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in message
news:2005092219021643658%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom...
Name the OFFICIAL RELIGION that has been ESTABLISHED UNDER IT! FIFTY
YEARS.. NAME IT!!
Okay: Anti-Communist Christianity. Just ask the folks who dropped that
phrase in there; they'll tell you. Or read the record.
So "UNDER GOD" has "ESTABLISHED" the Church of Anti-Communist
Christianity? Can I find that listed in my phone book?
The founding fathers would be embarrassed that people in their country
could be so literal-minded as an excuse to try to limit the rights given
by the first amendment.
Actually they would be embarrassed at what you think the establishment cause
means.
How many do you suppose were Christians?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 07:47:02 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:d049j1h0bsbn9f2salh5ud3due15a3q6qg@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:33:41 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j90dl4jh4vj02@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:6ls7j1laeimci0scdkplrkbgotm260seq9@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:11:21 GMT, in wi.general
" krp -" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in
<tpRYe.20470$nV1.11210@trnddc06>:
"655321" <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in message
news:2005092219021643658%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom...
Name the OFFICIAL RELIGION that has been ESTABLISHED UNDER IT!
FIFTY
YEARS.. NAME IT!!
Okay: Anti-Communist Christianity. Just ask the folks who dropped
that
phrase in there; they'll tell you. Or read the record.
So "UNDER GOD" has "ESTABLISHED" the Church of Anti-Communist
Christianity? Can I find that listed in my phone book?
The founding fathers would be embarrassed that people in their country
could be so literal-minded as an excuse to try to limit the rights
given
by the first amendment.
Actually they would be embarrassed at what you think the establishment
cause
means.
How many do you suppose were Christians?
Most of them had some kind of Christian belief, or a belief in a creator.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: " krp -" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 10:13:11 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:6ls7j1laeimci0scdkplrkbgotm260seq9@4ax.com...
Name the OFFICIAL RELIGION that has been ESTABLISHED UNDER IT! FIFTY
YEARS.. NAME IT!!
Okay: Anti-Communist Christianity. Just ask the folks who dropped that
phrase in there; they'll tell you. Or read the record.
So "UNDER GOD" has "ESTABLISHED" the Church of Anti-Communist
Christianity? Can I find that listed in my phone book?
The founding fathers would be embarrassed that people in their country
could be so literal-minded as an excuse to try to limit the rights given
by the first amendment.
I don't see ANY "RIGHT" being infringed by the Pledge. Especially David
in that it is "VOLUNTARY!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 10:42:05 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:13:11 GMT, in wi.general
" krp -" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in
<bYUYe.37$y64.2@trnddc06>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:6ls7j1laeimci0scdkplrkbgotm260seq9@4ax.com...
Name the OFFICIAL RELIGION that has been ESTABLISHED UNDER IT! FIFTY
YEARS.. NAME IT!!
Okay: Anti-Communist Christianity. Just ask the folks who dropped that
phrase in there; they'll tell you. Or read the record.
So "UNDER GOD" has "ESTABLISHED" the Church of Anti-Communist
Christianity? Can I find that listed in my phone book?
The founding fathers would be embarrassed that people in their country
could be so literal-minded as an excuse to try to limit the rights given
by the first amendment.
I don't see ANY "RIGHT" being infringed by the Pledge. Especially David
in that it is "VOLUNTARY!"
How do I stop listening to the name of God being invoked in a
state-sponsored setting? How is that voluntary for students?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 05:37:17 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:9h88j117l8vrf9j00ejgk0qj88m2sf73gv@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:13:11 GMT, in wi.general
" krp -" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in
<bYUYe.37$y64.2@trnddc06>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:6ls7j1laeimci0scdkplrkbgotm260seq9@4ax.com...
Name the OFFICIAL RELIGION that has been ESTABLISHED UNDER IT!
FIFTY
YEARS.. NAME IT!!
Okay: Anti-Communist Christianity. Just ask the folks who dropped
that
phrase in there; they'll tell you. Or read the record.
So "UNDER GOD" has "ESTABLISHED" the Church of Anti-Communist
Christianity? Can I find that listed in my phone book?
The founding fathers would be embarrassed that people in their country
could be so literal-minded as an excuse to try to limit the rights
given
by the first amendment.
I don't see ANY "RIGHT" being infringed by the Pledge. Especially
David
in that it is "VOLUNTARY!"
How do I stop listening to the name of God being invoked in a
state-sponsored setting? How is that voluntary for students?
For starters as a private citizen, the Constitution does not give you any
protections from the actions of another private Citizen.
That you have just admitted that your whole point is that you are a
intolerant bigot, who does not even want to hear the word God being said
aloud, you have some very serious issues you need to address.
The pledge is not being forced on anyone, nor is any student required to
recite the pledge. If you are so intolerant that you cannot maintain a civil
manner while other people recite the pledge, you have issues you need to
deal with.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
