| 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 06:30:11 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:37:17 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j90kd479tti67@corp.supernews.com>:
"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.
You ignored _state-sponsored_ in the question. I am protected from state
action.
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.
No, you have falsely recast my question so you could engage on some
mendacious nonsense. If you were a Christian you would feel shame for
doing that.
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.
I have issues with dishonest folks who claim to stand up for "God".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 07:51:00 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:ks39j1d8kt0tl571odma72n0k281r9mds0@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:37:17 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j90kd479tti67@corp.supernews.com>:
"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.
You ignored _state-sponsored_ in the question. I am protected from state
action.
Being that no one is forced to recite the pledge, there is no state
sponsoring of anything of the sort.
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.
No, you have falsely recast my question
No, you have made it clear that you do not want to hear the word God said
aloud, and more than likely you are more than likely wishing that it would
be possible if you can have any religious speech spoken aloud and in public
restricted, just so you would not have to hear any of it.
Well heck I wish I can do that for rap and grunge rock.
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.
I have issues with dishonest folks who claim to stand up for "God".
I have not seen anyone standing up for God in this thread.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 08:22:29 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 16:51:00 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j98f4gaj2evef@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:ks39j1d8kt0tl571odma72n0k281r9mds0@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:37:17 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j90kd479tti67@corp.supernews.com>:
....
For starters as a private citizen, the Constitution does not give you any
protections from the actions of another private Citizen.
You ignored _state-sponsored_ in the question. I am protected from state
action.
Being that no one is forced to recite the pledge, there is no state
sponsoring of anything of the sort.
Sorry, but the Court disagrees with your opinion here. The fact that
people are allowed to opt out does not excuse state-sponsored religious
activities.
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.
No, you have falsely recast my question
No, you have made it clear that you do not want to hear the word God said
aloud, and more than likely you are more than likely wishing that it would
be possible if you can have any religious speech spoken aloud and in public
restricted, just so you would not have to hear any of it.
No, I have not. I have made it clear that I don't want government
employees and officials, in their role as government employees and
officials, to engage in religious activities.
Well heck I wish I can do that for rap and grunge rock.
You may.
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.
I have issues with dishonest folks who claim to stand up for "God".
I have not seen anyone standing up for God in this thread.
Then there's no reason to have Him in the pledge to a flag.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 09:43:48 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:43a9j1du9nv1bagr99nc96b26pveisau9o@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 16:51:00 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j98f4gaj2evef@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:ks39j1d8kt0tl571odma72n0k281r9mds0@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:37:17 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j90kd479tti67@corp.supernews.com>:
...
For starters as a private citizen, the Constitution does not give you
any
protections from the actions of another private Citizen.
You ignored _state-sponsored_ in the question. I am protected from
state
action.
Being that no one is forced to recite the pledge, there is no state
sponsoring of anything of the sort.
Sorry, but the Court disagrees with your opinion here.
Actually no, no court has ruled on this, since the religious group took the
pledge to court some 50 years ago. The court at that time agreed with the
religious group, that students could not be forced to recite the pledge. So
since then schools have not forced people to recite the pledge.
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.
No, you have falsely recast my question
No, you have made it clear that you do not want to hear the word God said
aloud, and more than likely you are more than likely wishing that it
would
be possible if you can have any religious speech spoken aloud and in
public
restricted, just so you would not have to hear any of it.
No, I have not. I have made it clear that I don't want government
employees and officials, in their role as government employees and
officials, to engage in religious activities.
For starters what you want is of no matter, especially that you want to
restrict the religious freedoms of the people.
Secondly, you have not shown where the government is forcing a religion on
you.
Well heck I wish I can do that for rap and grunge rock.
You may.
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.
I have issues with dishonest folks who claim to stand up for "God".
I have not seen anyone standing up for God in this thread.
Then there's no reason to have Him in the pledge to a flag.
There is no pledge to God in the pledge, so again you are wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 11:18:50 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:43:48 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j9f2jp7cqn40c@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:43a9j1du9nv1bagr99nc96b26pveisau9o@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 16:51:00 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j98f4gaj2evef@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:ks39j1d8kt0tl571odma72n0k281r9mds0@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:37:17 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j90kd479tti67@corp.supernews.com>:
...
For starters as a private citizen, the Constitution does not give you
any
protections from the actions of another private Citizen.
You ignored _state-sponsored_ in the question. I am protected from
state
action.
Being that no one is forced to recite the pledge, there is no state
sponsoring of anything of the sort.
Sorry, but the Court disagrees with your opinion here.
Actually no, no court has ruled on this, since the religious group took the
pledge to court some 50 years ago. The court at that time agreed with the
religious group, that students could not be forced to recite the pledge. So
since then schools have not forced people to recite the pledge.
It depends on whether the more recent prayer cases are applied or not.
If so, the state action will be a problem.
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.
No, you have falsely recast my question
No, you have made it clear that you do not want to hear the word God said
aloud, and more than likely you are more than likely wishing that it would
be possible if you can have any religious speech spoken aloud and in public
restricted, just so you would not have to hear any of it.
No, I have not. I have made it clear that I don't want government
employees and officials, in their role as government employees and
officials, to engage in religious activities.
For starters what you want is of no matter, especially that you want to
restrict the religious freedoms of the people.
Secondly, you have not shown where the government is forcing a religion on
you.
Not a religion, an activity that is religious in nature.
Well heck I wish I can do that for rap and grunge rock.
You may.
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.
I have issues with dishonest folks who claim to stand up for "God".
I have not seen anyone standing up for God in this thread.
Then there's no reason to have Him in the pledge to a flag.
There is no pledge to God in the pledge, so again you are wrong.
So why is God mentioned?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
24 Sep 2005 01:47:55 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:9qk9j19256565es4ekbqc50nju003qb8mj@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:43:48 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j9f2jp7cqn40c@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:43a9j1du9nv1bagr99nc96b26pveisau9o@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 16:51:00 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j98f4gaj2evef@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:ks39j1d8kt0tl571odma72n0k281r9mds0@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:37:17 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in
<11j90kd479tti67@corp.supernews.com>:
...
For starters as a private citizen, the Constitution does not give
you
any
protections from the actions of another private Citizen.
You ignored _state-sponsored_ in the question. I am protected from
state
action.
Being that no one is forced to recite the pledge, there is no state
sponsoring of anything of the sort.
Sorry, but the Court disagrees with your opinion here.
Actually no, no court has ruled on this, since the religious group took
the
pledge to court some 50 years ago. The court at that time agreed with the
religious group, that students could not be forced to recite the pledge.
So
since then schools have not forced people to recite the pledge.
It depends on whether the more recent prayer cases are applied or not.
If so, the state action will be a problem.
The state action in regards to the pledge is not a problem, as the state is
not forcing anyone to recite the pledge.
And do not worry, those prayer cases you mention will be overturned once we
pack the court with right leaning Justices who follow original intent
interpretation.
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.
No, you have falsely recast my question
No, you have made it clear that you do not want to hear the word God
said
aloud, and more than likely you are more than likely wishing that it
would
be possible if you can have any religious speech spoken aloud and in
public
restricted, just so you would not have to hear any of it.
No, I have not. I have made it clear that I don't want government
employees and officials, in their role as government employees and
officials, to engage in religious activities.
For starters what you want is of no matter, especially that you want to
restrict the religious freedoms of the people.
Secondly, you have not shown where the government is forcing a religion
on
you.
Not a religion, an activity that is religious in nature.
And there is nothing unconstitutional about that, as they are not
establishing a national religion.
Well heck I wish I can do that for rap and grunge rock.
You may.
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.
I have issues with dishonest folks who claim to stand up for "God".
I have not seen anyone standing up for God in this thread.
Then there's no reason to have Him in the pledge to a flag.
There is no pledge to God in the pledge, so again you are wrong.
So why is God mentioned?
Same reason that creator is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
24 Sep 2005 08:59:20 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:47:55 -0800, in wi.general
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in <11j9tcbnudh1gbc@corp.supernews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:9qk9j19256565es4ekbqc50nju003qb8mj@4ax.com...
....
It depends on whether the more recent prayer cases are applied or not.
If so, the state action will be a problem.
The state action in regards to the pledge is not a problem, as the state is
not forcing anyone to recite the pledge.
The Court didn't accept the argument that no one was forced to pray at
the football games and graduation events. Why would they accept this
one?
And do not worry, those prayer cases you mention will be overturned once we
pack the court with right leaning Justices who follow original intent
interpretation.
The theocratic state you seem to want will not occur. Republicans take
care of those who take care of them. Right-wing religious folks are just
there to be taken advantage of, nothing will be done for them, certainly
they will not undermine our Constitution just so your theocratic
impulses can be fulfilled.
....
Not a religion, an activity that is religious in nature.
And there is nothing unconstitutional about that, as they are not
establishing a national religion.
For the last time. The First Amendment does not merely forbid the
establishing of a national religion. Stop repeating your false claims
about our civil liberties. You do not have the right to get the
government to do anything to further your religious impulses. You just
have the right not to have the government interfere in them.
....
So why is God mentioned?
Same reason that creator is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.
Ah, a rhetorical device.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: " krp -" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 12:37:57 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:9h88j117l8vrf9j00ejgk0qj88m2sf73gv@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?
Like I said you really want to BAN the word GOD form being spoken in public!
GOT IT!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
21 Sep 2005 08:27:22 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:03:04 GMT, in wi.general
" krp -" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in
<cScYe.19339$Yu2.15937@trnddc02>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:fln1j19dcnfksjhnfl4senfgptb10npudh@4ax.com...
Here is a newsflash for you. It also goes to Mikey Newdow and the
whacko
judges in California. YOU do NOT get to determine what laws are
"unconstitutional" at least YOU don't have the LAST WORD........ THANK
GOD!
If Congress had not added the 'under God' during the Red Scare, Newdow
wouldn't have to fight against it. The problem is half a century old,
and a result of political pandering by politicians who know they can buy
votes from citizens more interested in silly symbolism than real reform
and honest government.
Her is a HINT for you.......... HELLO!! That was FIFTY YEARS AGO!! HALF A
FUKKIN CENTURY AGO! HELLO!
EARTH TO DINGBAT! FIFTY YEARS AGO!! HELLO!!! HELLO!!!!! HELLO ANYBODY
HOME!!! HELLO!!!
Name the OFFICIAL RELIGION that has been ESTABLISHED UNDER IT! FIFTY
YEARS.. NAME IT!!
There is more than the establishment clause that relates to religion in
the US Constitution. Of course your willingness to argue from capital
letters shows that it is hopeless for me to engage with you in this
discussion, but I am one of those who think that Congress shouldn't be
making vacuous religious statements, like this one, in order to get
votes from the easily misled. The fact that they were wrong to do it 50
years ago does not make it right today.
.
|
|
|
| User: " krp -" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
22 Sep 2005 05:10:13 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:snn2j1lm334klntv3qp52s1qel5oornjvh@4ax.com...
Name the OFFICIAL RELIGION that has been ESTABLISHED UNDER IT! FIFTY
YEARS.. NAME IT!!
There is more than the establishment clause that relates to religion in
the US Constitution.
Oh? NAME IT!
Of course your willingness to argue from capital letters shows that it is
hopeless for me to engage with you in this
discussion, but I am one of those who think that Congress shouldn't be
making vacuous religious statements, like this one, in order to get
votes from the easily misled. The fact that they were wrong to do it 50
years ago does not make it right today.
The 1st Amendment is the basis for Newdow's arguments. Now *you* claim
there are other parts of the Constitution that cover "separation of church
and state." Show us what they are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
22 Sep 2005 08:41:27 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 10:10:13 GMT, in wi.general
" krp -" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in
<9qvYe.4123$yN1.998@trnddc03>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:snn2j1lm334klntv3qp52s1qel5oornjvh@4ax.com...
Name the OFFICIAL RELIGION that has been ESTABLISHED UNDER IT! FIFTY
YEARS.. NAME IT!!
There is more than the establishment clause that relates to religion in
the US Constitution.
Oh? NAME IT!
Article VI.3 ...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Of course your willingness to argue from capital letters shows that it is
hopeless for me to engage with you in this
discussion, but I am one of those who think that Congress shouldn't be
making vacuous religious statements, like this one, in order to get
votes from the easily misled. The fact that they were wrong to do it 50
years ago does not make it right today.
The 1st Amendment is the basis for Newdow's arguments. Now *you* claim
there are other parts of the Constitution that cover "separation of church
and state." Show us what they are.
I have
.
|
|
|
| User: " krp -" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
22 Sep 2005 04:06:55 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:qtc5j1lktka4bfgvcksfj5rbc4lscp06et@4ax.com...
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 10:10:13 GMT, in wi.general
" krp -" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in
<9qvYe.4123$yN1.998@trnddc03>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:snn2j1lm334klntv3qp52s1qel5oornjvh@4ax.com...
Name the OFFICIAL RELIGION that has been ESTABLISHED UNDER IT! FIFTY
YEARS.. NAME IT!!
There is more than the establishment clause that relates to religion in
the US Constitution.
Oh? NAME IT!
Article VI.3 ...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Of course your willingness to argue from capital letters shows that it
is
hopeless for me to engage with you in this
discussion, but I am one of those who think that Congress shouldn't be
making vacuous religious statements, like this one, in order to get
votes from the easily misled. The fact that they were wrong to do it 50
years ago does not make it right today.
The 1st Amendment is the basis for Newdow's arguments. Now *you* claim
there are other parts of the Constitution that cover "separation of church
and state." Show us what they are.
I have
NOPE you have NOT!
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
22 Sep 2005 10:37:24 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:06:55 GMT, in wi.general
" krp -" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in
<P1FYe.4267$yN1.2114@trnddc03>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:qtc5j1lktka4bfgvcksfj5rbc4lscp06et@4ax.com...
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 10:10:13 GMT, in wi.general
" krp -" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in
<9qvYe.4123$yN1.998@trnddc03>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:snn2j1lm334klntv3qp52s1qel5oornjvh@4ax.com...
Name the OFFICIAL RELIGION that has been ESTABLISHED UNDER IT! FIFTY
YEARS.. NAME IT!!
There is more than the establishment clause that relates to religion in
the US Constitution.
Oh? NAME IT!
Article VI.3 ...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Of course your willingness to argue from capital letters shows that it
is
hopeless for me to engage with you in this
discussion, but I am one of those who think that Congress shouldn't be
making vacuous religious statements, like this one, in order to get
votes from the easily misled. The fact that they were wrong to do it 50
years ago does not make it right today.
The 1st Amendment is the basis for Newdow's arguments. Now *you* claim
there are other parts of the Constitution that cover "separation of church
and state." Show us what they are.
I have
NOPE you have NOT!
I realize that you cannot read or understand, but, for the others in the
audience:
Article VI.3 ...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
.
|
|
|
| User: " krp -" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 06:25:53 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:g2u6j1hc1qb14oeorcpj1k9iv2da5ggurt@4ax.com...
The 1st Amendment is the basis for Newdow's arguments. Now *you*
claim
there are other parts of the Constitution that cover "separation of
church
and state." Show us what they are.
I have
NOPE you have NOT!
I realize that you cannot read or understand, but, for the others in the
audience:
Article VI.3 ...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
And this, in YOUR MIND means NO PUBLIC REFERENCES TO GOD? It BANS public
prayer etc? Which "office" are the children reciting the pledge seeking?
The office of "STUDENT?" What of the OATHS of OFFICE? The OATH you swear
when you join the military?
Are you willing to answer a series of questions on where you are coming from
on this issue?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 07:18:33 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:25:53 GMT, in wi.general
" krp -" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in
<5DRYe.20473$nV1.7234@trnddc06>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:g2u6j1hc1qb14oeorcpj1k9iv2da5ggurt@4ax.com...
The 1st Amendment is the basis for Newdow's arguments. Now *you* claim
there are other parts of the Constitution that cover "separation of church
and state." Show us what they are.
I have
NOPE you have NOT!
I realize that you cannot read or understand, but, for the others in the
audience:
Article VI.3 ...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
And this, in YOUR MIND means NO PUBLIC REFERENCES TO GOD? It BANS public
prayer etc? Which "office" are the children reciting the pledge seeking?
The office of "STUDENT?" What of the OATHS of OFFICE? The OATH you swear
when you join the military?
You asked if there were other parts of the Constitution that covered the
separation of church and state. I pointed one out. It would be nice if
you paid attention to your own questions.
Of course, you falsely conflate a restriction on state-sponsored
religious expression with public religious expression. No one is being
stopped from engaging in public religious expression if Newdow's view
wins. They are merely being freed from being forced to make a reference
to a god that they may or may not believe in or understand within
something that seems very much like a quasi-secular incantation.
Are you willing to answer a series of questions on where you are coming from
on this issue?
Sure. Are you willing to ask questions that don't erroneously assume a
right answer?
.
|
|
|
| User: " krp -" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW THE TEST |
23 Sep 2005 10:12:06 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:1bs7j1pgjchbt5tkj0hivmbjt3hrjeadru@4ax.com...
NOPE you have NOT!
I realize that you cannot read or understand, but, for the others in the
audience:
Article VI.3 ...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
And this, in YOUR MIND means NO PUBLIC REFERENCES TO GOD? It BANS public
prayer etc? Which "office" are the children reciting the pledge seeking?
The office of "STUDENT?" What of the OATHS of OFFICE? The OATH you
swear
when you join the military?
You asked if there were other parts of the Constitution that covered the
separation of church and state. I pointed one out. It would be nice if
you paid attention to your own questions.
(AS IT WOULD APPLY TO THE PLEDGE) That is a TEST using a SPECIFIC religious
faith in order to obtain a JOB........... JESUS man!
Of course, you falsely conflate a restriction on state-sponsored
religious expression with public religious expression. No one is being
stopped from engaging in public religious expression if Newdow's view
wins. They are merely being freed from being forced to make a reference
to a god that they may or may not believe in or understand within
something that seems very much like a quasi-secular incantation.
First Newdow's view will NOT win. And Newdow KNOWS that it will NEVER
WIN.. THAT is not his point. It is ***ALL*** about Making Mikey Newdow a
household word. To make MIKEY the next Madlyn Murray O'Hare! NOTHING ELSE!
Are you willing to answer a series of questions on where you are coming
from
on this issue?
Sure. Are you willing to ask questions that don't erroneously assume a
right answer?
Sure.
Let's start:
1. Do you wish for ALL "oaths" or affirmations making a reference to God to
be likewise banned? (Court testimony, oath of office etc)?
2. Do you wish references to God removed from currency?
3. Do you wish ALL religious references removed from ALL public buildings
including courts such as the Supreme Court?
4. Would you BAN the use of the phrase "God save this honorable court" from
the start of court days?
5. Would you BAN the use of ALL Chaplains by ALL government agencies?
6. Would you BAN religious services from being held on ANY public property?
7. Would you ban ALL religious symbols from being displayed on ANY public
property.
Let's just start with those and see if we get honest answers. I don't
*****/U/ME any answers. IF you feel you must explain your answers be my guest,
but please be brief.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW THE TEST |
23 Sep 2005 10:41:21 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:12:06 GMT, in wi.general
" krp -" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in
<aXUYe.36$y64.8@trnddc06>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:1bs7j1pgjchbt5tkj0hivmbjt3hrjeadru@4ax.com...
NOPE you have NOT!
I realize that you cannot read or understand, but, for the others in the
audience:
Article VI.3 ...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
And this, in YOUR MIND means NO PUBLIC REFERENCES TO GOD? It BANS public
prayer etc? Which "office" are the children reciting the pledge seeking?
The office of "STUDENT?" What of the OATHS of OFFICE? The OATH you
swear
when you join the military?
You asked if there were other parts of the Constitution that covered the
separation of church and state. I pointed one out. It would be nice if
you paid attention to your own questions.
(AS IT WOULD APPLY TO THE PLEDGE) That is a TEST using a SPECIFIC religious
faith in order to obtain a JOB........... JESUS man!
I didn't say it applied to the Pledge. I said it applied to the
separation of church and state. Please pay attention.
Of course, you falsely conflate a restriction on state-sponsored
religious expression with public religious expression. No one is being
stopped from engaging in public religious expression if Newdow's view
wins. They are merely being freed from being forced to make a reference
to a god that they may or may not believe in or understand within
something that seems very much like a quasi-secular incantation.
First Newdow's view will NOT win.
How do you know this?
And Newdow KNOWS that it will NEVER WIN..
How do you know this?
THAT is not his point. It is ***ALL*** about Making Mikey Newdow a
household word. To make MIKEY the next Madlyn Murray O'Hare! NOTHING ELSE!
Really. When did he tell you this?
Are you willing to answer a series of questions on where you are coming
from on this issue?
Sure. Are you willing to ask questions that don't erroneously assume a
right answer?
Sure.
Let's start:
1. Do you wish for ALL "oaths" or affirmations making a reference to God to
be likewise banned? (Court testimony, oath of office etc)?
My wishes do not make a difference here. The question is what the law
says. The whole point is that we are at the trivial edge of the
interaction between state and religion. Getting all excited about it is
silly. Our country will not fall apart if we continue to allow people to
swear by their god or if we don't ask them to.
2. Do you wish references to God removed from currency?
The reference to God on the currency is gratuitous pandering from
Congress, so there is no reason for it being there, but I kind of like
the idea that the god being referred to here is the US Dollar itself,
not a supreme being of any sort. This seems like a good way to
acknowledge America's worship of wealth.
3. Do you wish ALL religious references removed from ALL public buildings
including courts such as the Supreme Court?
If they are purely religious, there is no reason for them to be there.
Historical references may include religious references.
4. Would you BAN the use of the phrase "God save this honorable court" from
the start of court days?
It is unnecessary, but trivial.
5. Would you BAN the use of ALL Chaplains by ALL government agencies?
I don't see any value in our government hiring chaplains. If religions
want to provide chaplains, say for the armed forces, it is important for
the government to accommodate them. But it must be limited to
accommodation, we cannot allow government organizations like the Air
Force Academy to violate both the law and the constitution again.
6. Would you BAN religious services from being held on ANY public property?
No. I would require all government agencies to treat all organizations
equally. If any organization is allowed to rent public space, all
organizations must be allowed to rent that public space.
7. Would you ban ALL religious symbols from being displayed on ANY public
property.
I like the decisions that were made last term. Sure, they seem to be
picky, but we are right at the edge of importance. Former Alabama
Supreme Court Justice Moore is absolutely wrong, both in his decision to
violate the First Amendment by bringing his rock into the courthouse and
in his false analysis of the history of law in America. References to
religious icons in context don't bother me at all.
Let's just start with those and see if we get honest answers. I don't
*****/U/ME any answers. IF you feel you must explain your answers be my guest,
but please be brief.
.
|
|
|
| User: " krp -" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW THE TEST |
23 Sep 2005 01:07:59 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:3i78j1pmfkotd93tt7k0nvikoav2gb2g9a@4ax.com...
incantation.
First Newdow's view will NOT win.
How do you know this?
The court was NOT supportive of him last time and the court will be even
MORE conservative by the time Newdow's suit hits there. Remember Bush
probably will have AT LEAST 2 more justices to name before that hits the
Supreme Court. Here is a HINT.............. Teddy Kennedy will NOT be one
of them!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "human" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
26 Sep 2005 10:16:47 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Ken Pangborn aka: krp - wrote:
The OATH you swear when you join the military?
It is not required to recite "so help me god" upon induction into the
military.
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/055924.htm
http://www.maaf.info/
"History tells us that how much we want to believe a proposition is
not a reliable guide as to whether it is true." -- Steven Pinker
.
|
|
|
| User: " krp &" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
27 Sep 2005 05:47:31 AM |
|
|
"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1050926220954.28607B-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Ken Pangborn aka: krp - wrote:
The OATH you swear when you join the military?
It is not required to recite "so help me god" upon induction into the
military.
Did when I enlisted.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
25 Sep 2005 08:52:10 AM |
|
|
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in alt.atheism
in wi.general krp wrote in
There is more than the establishment clause that relates to religion in
the US Constitution.
Oh? NAME IT!
Article VI.3 ...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
How well do you think an atheist would fare if they ran for president
and made it known they weren't religious up front?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: " krp +" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
26 Sep 2005 05:28:38 AM |
|
|
"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:knadj11q8iqm8om6pi3ie0voennqtb0olt@4ax.com...
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in alt.atheism
in wi.general krp wrote in
There is more than the establishment clause that relates to religion in
the US Constitution.
Oh? NAME IT!
Article VI.3 ...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
How well do you think an atheist would fare if they ran for president
and made it known they weren't religious up front?
I doubt it would make much difference unless the person announced an Atheist
agenda. Such as "I WILL REMOVE IN GOD WE TRUST FROM THE DOLLAR!"
Then I'd suggest they'd be toast. I also would like to think we could elect
a Jew or a woman.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
25 Sep 2005 09:01:29 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 13:52:10 GMT, in wi.general
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
<knadj11q8iqm8om6pi3ie0voennqtb0olt@4ax.com>:
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in alt.atheism
in wi.general krp wrote in
There is more than the establishment clause that relates to religion in
the US Constitution.
Oh? NAME IT!
Article VI.3 ...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
How well do you think an atheist would fare if they ran for president
and made it known they weren't religious up front?
In the current environment, I don't think a non-theist would be elected,
but the people who wouldn't vote for a non-theist aren't likely to vote
for a Moslem, a Buddhist, a Hindu, or even a Jew. The law may not allow
a religious test, and we may have elected non-theists in the past, but
today religious tolerance is on the defensive.
.
|
|
|
| User: " krp +" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
26 Sep 2005 05:30:32 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:e8bdj1pljdajlq5tauektdp94mat7rcc30@4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 13:52:10 GMT, in wi.general
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
<knadj11q8iqm8om6pi3ie0voennqtb0olt@4ax.com>:
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in alt.atheism
in wi.general krp wrote in
There is more than the establishment clause that relates to religion
in
the US Constitution.
Oh? NAME IT!
Article VI.3 ...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
How well do you think an atheist would fare if they ran for president
and made it known they weren't religious up front?
In the current environment, I don't think a non-theist would be elected,
but the people who wouldn't vote for a non-theist aren't likely to vote
for a Moslem, a Buddhist, a Hindu, or even a Jew. The law may not allow
a religious test, and we may have elected non-theists in the past, but
today religious tolerance is on the defensive.
I seriously doubt a Muslim could be elected president at this moment in
history. Lots of people voted for a Jew as Vice President. I suggest to you
more people wound up liking Joe Lieberman than liked Gore at the end of the
2000 election.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
25 Sep 2005 09:42:41 AM |
|
|
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in alt.atheism
in wi.general Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in alt.atheism
in wi.general krp wrote in
There is more than the establishment clause that relates to religion
in the US Constitution.
Oh? NAME IT!
Article VI.3 ...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
How well do you think an atheist would fare if they ran for president
and made it known they weren't religious up front?
In the current environment, I don't think a non-theist would be elected,
but the people who wouldn't vote for a non-theist aren't likely to vote
for a Moslem, a Buddhist, a Hindu, or even a Jew.
Except perhaps for the people of those faiths that you listed. There
are many of them here in our country.
What you're saying is that most people, meaning Christians, wouldn't
vote for an atheist any more than they would vote for someone of one
of those other faiths that you listed.
The law may not allow a religious test, and we may have elected non-theists
in the past, but today religious tolerance is on the defensive.
They'd have to hide their non-belief to get elected these days, or
worse, pretend to be theist during elections and campaigning, which
doesn't appeal to most atheists I know. Honesty is more important
than getting some popular vote for most atheists I know...
I had a story idea about a president who almost all the theists voted
for, thinking he was a great guy, religious as they are. He did a
great job during his first term, and was re-elected for a second term.
Then, right at the end of his second terms, he goes on national TV and
tells the whole nation that he's actually an atheist... What would
the reaction be? :)
Shock? Disbelief?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "human" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
20 Sep 2005 10:23:52 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, krp - wrote:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:fq30j1hncjo82ggkipg54mvve2040f8unm@4ax.com...
The problem never gets to the Supreme Court if the Congress and
President didn't try to violate the Constitution. It is the duty of the
entire Federal government (and all state governments) to stay within the
limits of the Constitution, we shouldn't have to watch politicians write
unconstitutional laws and hope that the Court stops them.
Here is a newsflash for you.
Drumroll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It also goes to Mikey Newdow and the whacko judges in California.
Whacko judges in California? Gee. Perhaps you might want to point out
the flaw in their argument. Or do you also prefer to attack the messenger
and not the message.
<< YOU do NOT get to determine what laws are "unconstitutional"
No, we leave that to the judges.
Right?
<< at least YOU don't have the LAST WORD........ THANK GOD!>>
You can have the last word, if you would include in your pronouncements
the flaw in the reasoning of the judges of the Ninth Circuit Court who
found in favor of Mike Newdow, and as a bonus throw in the names of those
whacko judges who are atheists.
http://www.cafepress.com/pansy12
.
|
|
|
| User: " krp -" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
21 Sep 2005 08:01:01 AM |
|
|
"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1050920221928.31483C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
The problem never gets to the Supreme Court if the Congress and
President didn't try to violate the Constitution. It is the duty of the
entire Federal government (and all state governments) to stay within
the
limits of the Constitution, we shouldn't have to watch politicians
write
unconstitutional laws and hope that the Court stops them.
Here is a newsflash for you.
Drumroll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It also goes to Mikey Newdow and the whacko judges in California.
Whacko judges in California? Gee. Perhaps you might want to point out
the flaw in their argument. Or do you also prefer to attack the messenger
and not the message.
Shall we START with some FACTS instead of your ***** rhetoric? Or
will this little "debate" be confined to *****? FACTS such as IF the 9th
Circuit HAD done its JOB , you know the THING we the people HIRED them to
do... They would have thrown out Newdow's suit for the same reason the
Supreme Court did. That his suit was legally INSUFFICIENT as he LACKED and I
do mean TOTALLY LACKED legal standing to bring it. The lower courts are
FIRST GATEKEEPERS to make sure that ALL lawsuits are legally sufficient.
GOT THAT MR. IDEOLOGY UBER ALLES? SIEG HELIL) and Pay NO attention to that
man behind the curtain. I won't even go into their OBLIGATION to not allow
precious judicial time to be wasted on frivilous lawsuits. One examining
this lawsuit would examine it as to the great needs of society.
Tell me soemthing name *THE* religion here that is being "ESTABLISHED!"
Does the Pledge say "one nation under Jerry Falwell's PERSONAL God?" One
nation under the CATHOLIC God? One nation under the "CHRISTIAN GOD?" NAME
THE DAMN RELIGION that is beiong ESTABLISHED in the pledge. Now I can CONT
on 2,000 words that talk all around that but do NOT name the RELIGION that
is being "ESTABLISHED."
<< YOU do NOT get to determine what laws are "unconstitutional"
No, we leave that to the judges.
And buster brown so far your side has LOST!
Right?
Yeah, ain't it a ***** that the political HACKS in the lower courts have
been trumped by the big boys?
<< at least YOU don't have the LAST WORD........ THANK GOD!>>
You can have the last word, if you would include in your pronouncements
the flaw in the reasoning of the judges of the Ninth Circuit Court who
found in favor of Mike Newdow, and as a bonus throw in the names of those
whacko judges who are atheists.
The FLAW is simple. They overlooked MANY MANY MANY MANY legal defects in
his suit. The Supremes bounced it on ONE of the more than dozens they could
have. Again deal with the FACTS that the 9th Circuit Court of WHACK Appeals
is the MOST reversed court in history accounting for over HALF the circuit
court cases reversed for the past decade. Not just more than ANY other
appeals court, but MORE than ALL of them combined! They are the LEAST upheld
of the circuit courts. Now you can interpret those FACTS one of two ways.
That singularly these are the MOST incompetent Judges on the bench
OR....................... That they are simply far left wing HACKS who put
their politics and personal beliefs into their decisions instead of the LAW!
.
|
|
|
| User: "human" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
22 Sep 2005 09:12:23 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Ken Pangborn krp - wrote:
"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1050920221928.31483C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
The problem never gets to the Supreme Court if the Congress and President didn't try to violate the Constitution. It is the duty of the entire Federal government (and all state governments) to stay within the limits of the Constitution, we shouldn't have to watch politicians write unconstitutional laws and hope that the Court stops them.< << <
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Ken Pangborn krp - wrote:
Here is a newsflash for you.
Drumroll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Ken Pangborn krp - wrote:
It also goes to Mikey Newdow and the whacko judges in California.
Whacko judges in California? Gee. Perhaps you might want to point out
the flaw in their argument. Or do you also prefer to attack the messenger
and not the message.
Shall we START with some FACTS instead of your ***** rhetoric?
Are you able to present the flaw in their argument with some FACTS?
Or will this little "debate" be confined to *****?
If you can't present FACTS to point out the flaw in their argument, then I
guess your rhetoric is indeed *****.
<< FACTS such as IF the 9th Circuit HAD done its JOB , you know the THING we the people HIRED them to
do... They would have thrown out Newdow's suit for the same reason the
Supreme Court did.
They disagreed on whether he had standing to sue, but on the merits of the
case, they ruled correctly. Or do you have FACTS to point out that how
they ruled on the merits of the case was wrong?
<< That his suit was legally INSUFFICIENT as he LACKED and I do mean
TOTALLY LACKED legal standing to bring it.>>
A very similar case has been brought again. Aside from the question of
"standing," please comment on the merits of the case.
<snip obfuscation>
Tell me soemthing name *THE* religion here that is being "ESTABLISHED!"
It is not the business of government to prop up monotheism. Endorsing
monotheism is not neutrality.
Does the Pledge say "one nation under Jerry Falwell's PERSONAL God?" One
nation under the CATHOLIC God? One nation under the "CHRISTIAN GOD?" NAME
THE DAMN RELIGION that is beiong ESTABLISHED in the pledge. Now I can CONT
on 2,000 words that talk all around that but do NOT name the RELIGION that
is being "ESTABLISHED."
It is not the business of the government to prop up monotheism. It should
be able to prop itself up.
<< YOU do NOT get to determine what laws are "unconstitutional"
No, we leave that to the judges.
And buster brown so far your side has LOST!
If the government does not remain neutral in matters of religion, what
kinds of governmental endorsement would be possible if/when the majority
of citizens are Muslim?
Why does our governmental officials and agencies desire and lobby for
separation of religion from government in Iraq?
Right?
Yeah, ain't it a ***** that the political HACKS in the lower courts have
been trumped by the big boys?
I think the "big boys" have proven that they are very much political HACKS
already. In your state.
<< at least YOU don't have the LAST WORD........ THANK GOD!>>
You can have the last word, if you would include in your pronouncements
the flaw in the reasoning of the judges of the Ninth Circuit Court who
found in favor of Mike Newdow, and as a bonus throw in the names of those
whacko judges who are atheists.
The FLAW is simple. They overlooked MANY MANY MANY MANY legal defects in
his suit.
Please list 8 or 9 or 10, if there were MANY MANY MANY MANY of them.
<< The Supremes bounced it on ONE of the more than dozens they could have.
If there were dozens of other flaws, then listing only one dozen of them
is good to prove there is any substance to your rhetoric.
<< Again deal with the FACTS that the 9th Circuit Court of WHACK Appeals
is the MOST reversed court in history accounting for over HALF the circuit
court cases reversed for the past decade. Not just more than ANY other
appeals court, but MORE than ALL of them combined! They are the LEAST upheld
of the circuit courts. >>
What percentage of the decisions of the 9th Circuit court get appealed?
Of those appealed, what percentage get overturned?
<< Now you can interpret those FACTS one of two ways. >>
You have given no facts.
If you answer my questions above, please do give FACTS.
<< That singularly these are the MOST incompetent Judges on the bench
OR....................... That they are simply far left wing HACKS who put
their politics and personal beliefs into their decisions instead of the
LAW!>>
Just what judges are incompetent, and why?
When the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it was
discrimination against religion for Washington to offer scholarships for
secular education but deny assistance to Joshua Davey to study pastoral
ministries at an Assemblies of God college, you probably thought they were
just the cats pajamas.
http://www.cafepress.com/pansy12
.
|
|
|
| User: " krp -" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 06:15:19 AM |
|
|
"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1050922204021.13194B-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
<< FACTS such as IF the 9th Circuit HAD done its JOB , you know the THING
we the people HIRED them to
do... They would have thrown out Newdow's suit for the same reason the
Supreme Court did.
They disagreed on whether he had standing to sue, but on the merits of the
case, they ruled correctly. Or do you have FACTS to point out that how
they ruled on the merits of the case was wrong?
So you REALLY believe that the U.S. Supremew Court "RULED" that Newdow's
case was correct and the Pledge is a violation of the Constiutution:
That his suit was legally INSUFFICIENT as he LACKED and I do mean
TOTALLY LACKED legal standing to bring it.>>
A very similar case has been brought again. Aside from the question of
"standing," please comment on the merits of the case.
The phrase is more mistoric and does NOT ......... "ESTABLISH" an
official state religion. That's enough of a flaw.
<snip obfuscation>
Tell me soemthing name *THE* religion here that is being "ESTABLISHED!"
It is not the business of government to prop up monotheism. Endorsing
monotheism is not neutrality.
The word "GOD" can be considered plural as well as singular.
Does the Pledge say "one nation under Jerry Falwell's PERSONAL God?" One
nation under the CATHOLIC God? One nation under the "CHRISTIAN GOD?" NAME
THE DAMN RELIGION that is beiong ESTABLISHED in the pledge. Now I can
CONT
on 2,000 words that talk all around that but do NOT name the RELIGION
that
is being "ESTABLISHED."
It is not the business of the government to prop up monotheism. It should
be able to prop itself up.
YOU interpret it as MONOTHEISM ..... Some polytheists do not agree with
you.
<< YOU do NOT get to determine what laws are "unconstitutional"
No, we leave that to the judges.
And buster brown so far your side has LOST!
If the government does not remain neutral in matters of religion, what
kinds of governmental endorsement would be possible if/when the majority
of citizens are Muslim?
It IS neutral or it could say JESUS OR ALLAH! OR VISHNU!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "! krp" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
20 Sep 2005 06:11:37 AM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:43ac3e16.1038142000@news-west.newscene.com...
But for some reason it just ain't in there, is it? And, don't you think
that
if it was all that important, it would have been put in there in such a
manner as to make it abundantly clear? Surely these gentlemen were smart
enough to have done that, don't you think?
I see - and you know better than the supreme court and have more
authority?
I don't think he said that, but have you noticed that they haven't found
that in there?
.
|
|
|
|
