| 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: "J.C." |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
19 Sep 2005 11:12:43 AM |
|
|
"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1050919103628.14816C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
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.
Are you trying to make people belive that a letter written to a bunch of
Baptists carries the weight of the consitution of the United States of
America?
--
Some people call this Northeast Hell
We just call it South Texas
J.C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "! krp" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
20 Sep 2005 05:59:55 AM |
|
|
"J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_rBXe.131587$e95.36973@fe08.news.easynews.com...
"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1050919103628.14816C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
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.
Are you trying to make people belive that a letter written to a bunch of
Baptists carries the weight of the consitution of the United States of
America?
He wants us to believe it carried FAR FAR FAR FAR more weight I think.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
20 Sep 2005 04:45:01 AM |
|
|
"J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|
:|"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
:|news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1050919103628.14816C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
:|> 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.
:|
:|
:|Are you trying to make people belive that a letter written to a bunch of
:|Baptists carries the weight of the consitution of the United States of
:|America?
Your question makes no sense to what is directly above it, unless, of
course, you believe that church state separation is a myth.
If that is the case you are really very misinformed
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "human" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
19 Sep 2005 02:41:46 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, propagating misinformation, Ken Pangborn, aka
Henny Penny, 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.
Do note that is from an editorial, the source from which the subject line
was lifted, which can be read here:
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=48406
Tribune Editorials
Flapdoodle over Pledge obscures need to really learn about liberty Tribune
Editorial September 18, 2005
-----excerpt-----
Well, here we go again. Americas most famous atheist, Michael Newdow,
renewing his fight to get the Pledge of Allegiance banished from our
public schools, has found a federal judge who agrees the "under God" part
abridges the First Amendment.
---end of excerpt---
"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1050919103628.14816C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
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.
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:12:43 GMT, "J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote:
Are you trying to make people belive that a letter written to a bunch
of Baptists carries the weight of the consitution of the United States
of America?
From: "Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net>
<<Please point out where he said that.>>
He can't, because I didn't.
<<And please show how Congress passing a law that established this nation
under the deity of one of the thousands of religions, was
Constitutional.>>
He can't, because it isn't.
<<Especially in the light of Eisenhower's remarks as he signed it into
law: "From this day forward the millions of our schoolchildren will daily
proclaim . . . the dedication of our Nation and our people to the
Almighty." 100 Cong. Rec. 8617 (1954).>>
Yes. The real purpose was religious. SCOTUS must take notice of that
next time around.
<<It was a deliberate establishment of monotheistic religion. >>
Absotively.
<<In contravention of the First Amendment. >>
Positootelly.
<<In spite of what Eisenhower said, and in spite of what the
fundamentalists pretend, this nation and its people cannot officially be
"dedicated to the Almighty".>>
Right again.
<< What "Almighty"?>>
Great question!!!
http://www.cafepress.com/pansy12
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
19 Sep 2005 03:26:13 PM |
|
|
In <_rBXe.131587$e95.36973@fe08.news.easynews.com>, "J.C."
<jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote:
"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1050919103628.14816C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
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.
Are you trying to make people belive that a letter written to a bunch of
Baptists carries the weight of the consitution of the United States of
America?
How about the writings of Madison who, you know, wrote the 1st Amendment?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"We're angry, Mr. President, and we'll be angry long
after our beloved city and surrounding parishes have
been pumped dry. Our people deserved rescuing.
Many who could have been were not. That's to the
government's shame."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2D511CBB
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.C." |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
19 Sep 2005 03:41:12 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:BPqdnU10Md9_g7LeRVn-uQ@megapath.net...
In <_rBXe.131587$e95.36973@fe08.news.easynews.com>, "J.C."
<jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote:
"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1050919103628.14816C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, propagating misinformation, Ken Pangborn, aka KRP
wrote:
Here we go again. Mikey Newdow insisting that the Pledge be banned.
He
found a judge willing to go along with him.
That is misinformation.
It takes more than one judge, and when the circuit court ruled on the
merits last time around, they found in favor of the Constitutional
separation of Church and state.
Are you trying to make people belive that a letter written to a bunch of
Baptists carries the weight of the consitution of the United States of
America?
How about the writings of Madison who, you know, wrote the 1st Amendment?
That has nothing to do with the questiuon I asked.
--
Some people call this Northeast Hell
We just call it South Texas
J.C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
20 Sep 2005 04:45:08 AM |
|
|
"J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|
:|"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
:|news:BPqdnU10Md9_g7LeRVn-uQ@megapath.net...
:|> In <_rBXe.131587$e95.36973@fe08.news.easynews.com>, "J.C."
:|> <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|>
:|> >
:|> > "human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
:|> > news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1050919103628.14816C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
:|> >> 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.
:|> >
:|> >
:|> > Are you trying to make people belive that a letter written to a bunch of
:|> > Baptists carries the weight of the consitution of the United States of
:|> > America?
:|>
:|> How about the writings of Madison who, you know, wrote the 1st Amendment?
:|
:|
:|That has nothing to do with the questiuon I asked.
The question you asked is irrelevant.
it has no bearing in reality.
BTW neither Jefferson nor his letter to the Danbury Baptist created church
state separation
The man most responsible for that was, in fact, James Madison
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
19 Sep 2005 04:50:54 PM |
|
|
In <InFXe.116035$s35.20810@fe09.news.easynews.com>, "J.C."
<jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:BPqdnU10Md9_g7LeRVn-uQ@megapath.net...
In <_rBXe.131587$e95.36973@fe08.news.easynews.com>, "J.C."
<jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote:
"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1050919103628.14816C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
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.
Are you trying to make people belive that a letter written to a bunch
of Baptists carries the weight of the consitution of the United States
of America?
How about the writings of Madison who, you know, wrote the 1st
Amendment?
That has nothing to do with the questiuon I asked.
Madison spoke of separation before Jefferson wrote that letter. And
Madison wrote the first draft of the 1st Amendment and saw the amendment
to its current form. Madison believed in "perfect separation." *He
believed it was in the Constitution. And I'm betting he'd know since he
helped write it...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"We're angry, Mr. President, and we'll be angry long
after our beloved city and surrounding parishes have
been pumped dry. Our people deserved rescuing.
Many who could have been were not. That's to the
government's shame."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2D511CBB
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.C." |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
19 Sep 2005 05:24:36 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:cN2dnUKWTbQhr7LeRVn-rQ@megapath.net...
In <InFXe.116035$s35.20810@fe09.news.easynews.com>, "J.C."
<jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:BPqdnU10Md9_g7LeRVn-uQ@megapath.net...
In <_rBXe.131587$e95.36973@fe08.news.easynews.com>, "J.C."
<jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote:
"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1050919103628.14816C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
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.
Are you trying to make people belive that a letter written to a bunch
of Baptists carries the weight of the consitution of the United
States
of America?
How about the writings of Madison who, you know, wrote the 1st
Amendment?
That has nothing to do with the questiuon I asked.
Madison spoke of separation before Jefferson wrote that letter. And
Madison wrote the first draft of the 1st Amendment and saw the amendment
to its current form. Madison believed in "perfect separation." *He
believed it was in the Constitution. And I'm betting he'd know since he
helped write it...
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?
--
Some people call this Northeast Hell
We just call it South Texas
J.C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "! krp" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
20 Sep 2005 06:10:47 AM |
|
|
"J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EUGXe.116846$s35.59896@fe09.news.easynews.com...
But for some reason it just ain't in there, is it? And, don't you think
that
if it was all that important, it would have been put in there in such a
manner as to make it abundantly clear? Surely these gentlemen were smart
enough to have done that, don't you think?
I hate to take the other side, but it was clear that the framers wanted to
make sure that "just because we didn't put a right in here doesn't mean that
people don't have those rights." I would submit that the framers had an
extremely expansive concept of the "rights" of the people. I am also certain
of what they intended with the whole "establishment" reference. You have to
examine it IN historical perspective which out later day experts do NOT do.
That is you have to begin with an understanding how ESTABLISHED STATE
religions operated in the 17th and 18th centuries. Meaning very tyrannical.
What they had in mind was the creation of ONE OFFICIAL STATE RELIGION...
The average atheist can only handle (intellectually) one sentence (concept)
at a time. Because in the 1st Amendment it has a second clause. FREE
EXERCISE OF RELIGION. Not NON Religion. RELIGION.
Here is the part that ***** and the others simply CANNOT understand. That
ALL religions believe in one or more Gods. So the mere mention of GOD in the
pledge does not rise anywhere neat the ESTABLISHMENT of a OFFICIAL STATE
RELIGION. History mitigates against the argument. It has existed for 50+
years. WHAT is the official state religion?
Try as they will they just CAN'T wish away the Declaration of
Independence that established the purpose and philosophy for this nation.
They are between a rock and a hard place when they confront that ALL these
rights are derived form and based on the CREATOR.............
GOD.....................
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
21 Sep 2005 11:16:35 AM |
|
|
! krp wrote:
"J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EUGXe.116846$s35.59896@fe09.news.easynews.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 hate to take the other side, but it was clear that the framers wanted to
make sure that "just because we didn't put a right in here doesn't mean that
people don't have those rights." I would submit that the framers had an
extremely expansive concept of the "rights" of the people. I am also certain
of what they intended with the whole "establishment" reference. You have to
examine it IN historical perspective which out later day experts do NOT do.
That is you have to begin with an understanding how ESTABLISHED STATE
religions operated in the 17th and 18th centuries. Meaning very tyrannical.
What they had in mind was the creation of ONE OFFICIAL STATE RELIGION...
The average atheist can only handle (intellectually) one sentence (concept)
at a time. Because in the 1st Amendment it has a second clause. FREE
EXERCISE OF RELIGION. Not NON Religion. RELIGION.
Here is the part that ***** and the others simply CANNOT understand. That
ALL religions believe in one or more Gods.
Not true. Some religions are atheistic or agnostic. Buddhism for
instance.
So the mere mention of GOD in the
pledge does not rise anywhere neat the ESTABLISHMENT of a OFFICIAL STATE
RELIGION.
The mere mention is not the issue. The issue is:
1. Congress made a law saying that the pledge should
read "one nation under God", whereas the Constitution
says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment
of religion"
2. State require that govenment employees, as part of
there official duties, lead recitations of the phrase
"one nation under God".
History mitigates against the argument. It has existed for 50+
years. WHAT is the official state religion?
The official State religion of the USA has as it's creed:
"one nation under God". To promote the creed, government
employees are required as part of their official duties to
lead school children in recitations of "one nation under God".
Govenment employees have led more than an esitmated 100 billion
such recitations and counting in government funded classrooms.
We taxpayers are forced to pay for this under penalty of fines
and/or imprisonment. In addition, the USA has as its motto
"In God We Trust" and stamps/engraves this on its money,
funding this with the taxes of unwilling citizens.
Try as they will they just CAN'T wish away the Declaration of
Independence that established the purpose and philosophy for this nation.
They are between a rock and a hard place when they confront that ALL these
rights are derived form and based on the CREATOR.............
GOD.....................
True, but the issue is about the laws that Congress and the
States make.
.
|
|
|
| User: " krp -" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
22 Sep 2005 05:17:23 AM |
|
|
<tadamsmar@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127319395.814864.261870@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I hate to take the other side, but it was clear that the framers wanted
to
make sure that "just because we didn't put a right in here doesn't mean
that
people don't have those rights." I would submit that the framers had an
extremely expansive concept of the "rights" of the people. I am also
certain
of what they intended with the whole "establishment" reference. You have
to
examine it IN historical perspective which out later day experts do NOT
do.
That is you have to begin with an understanding how ESTABLISHED STATE
religions operated in the 17th and 18th centuries. Meaning very
tyrannical.
What they had in mind was the creation of ONE OFFICIAL STATE RELIGION...
The average atheist can only handle (intellectually) one sentence
(concept)
at a time. Because in the 1st Amendment it has a second clause. FREE
EXERCISE OF RELIGION. Not NON Religion. RELIGION.
Here is the part that ***** and the others simply CANNOT understand. That
ALL religions believe in one or more Gods.
Not true. Some religions are atheistic or agnostic. Buddhism for
instance.
You don't know much about Buddhism do ya? But DO go on and name those
ATHEIST religions. This is gonna be GOOD! (Fun)
So the mere mention of GOD in the pledge does not rise anywhere neat the
ESTABLISHMENT of a OFFICIAL STATE
RELIGION.
The mere mention is not the issue. The issue is:
What is the STATE RELIGION now as a result? What's its name?
1. Congress made a law saying that the pledge should
read "one nation under God", whereas the Constitution
says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment
of religion"
That wasn't the only change... SO?
2. State require that govenment employees, as part of
there official duties, lead recitations of the phrase
"one nation under God".
Ever hear the OATH for testimony in courts?
History mitigates against the argument. It has existed for 50+
years. WHAT is the official state religion?
The official State religion of the USA has as it's creed:
"one nation under God". To promote the creed, government
employees are required as part of their official duties to
lead school children in recitations of "one nation under God".
Govenment employees have led more than an esitmated 100 billion
such recitations and counting in government funded classrooms.
We taxpayers are forced to pay for this under penalty of fines
and/or imprisonment. In addition, the USA has as its motto
"In God We Trust" and stamps/engraves this on its money,
funding this with the taxes of unwilling citizens.
WHAT is the name of this "OFFICIAL STATE RELIGION?" Where does it meet?
Try as they will they just CAN'T wish away the Declaration of
Independence that established the purpose and philosophy for this nation.
They are between a rock and a hard place when they confront that ALL
these
rights are derived form and based on the CREATOR.............
GOD.....................
True, but the issue is about the laws that Congress and the States make.
The words UNDER GOD and the references to God on the currency etc do NOT
establish a state religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
22 Sep 2005 07:01:41 AM |
|
|
krp - wrote:
<tadamsmar@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127319395.814864.261870@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I hate to take the other side, but it was clear that the framers wanted
to
make sure that "just because we didn't put a right in here doesn't mean
that
people don't have those rights." I would submit that the framers had an
extremely expansive concept of the "rights" of the people. I am also
certain
of what they intended with the whole "establishment" reference. You have
to
examine it IN historical perspective which out later day experts do NOT
do.
That is you have to begin with an understanding how ESTABLISHED STATE
religions operated in the 17th and 18th centuries. Meaning very
tyrannical.
What they had in mind was the creation of ONE OFFICIAL STATE RELIGION...
The average atheist can only handle (intellectually) one sentence
(concept)
at a time. Because in the 1st Amendment it has a second clause. FREE
EXERCISE OF RELIGION. Not NON Religion. RELIGION.
Here is the part that ***** and the others simply CANNOT understand. That
ALL religions believe in one or more Gods.
Not true. Some religions are atheistic or agnostic. Buddhism for
instance.
You don't know much about Buddhism do ya? But DO go on and name those
ATHEIST religions. This is gonna be GOOD! (Fun)
Buddha refused to speculate about the existence of God. All Buddhist
are (at least) agnostics. A religion can have a rich system of
supernatural beliefs with no belief in God. Taoism is another example.
So the mere mention of GOD in the pledge does not rise anywhere neat the
ESTABLISHMENT of a OFFICIAL STATE
RELIGION.
The mere mention is not the issue. The issue is:
What is the STATE RELIGION now as a result? What's its name?
1. Congress made a law saying that the pledge should
read "one nation under God", whereas the Constitution
says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment
of religion"
That wasn't the only change... SO?
2. State require that govenment employees, as part of
there official duties, lead recitations of the phrase
"one nation under God".
Ever hear the OATH for testimony in courts?
History mitigates against the argument. It has existed for 50+
years. WHAT is the official state religion?
The official State religion of the USA has as it's creed:
"one nation under God". To promote the creed, government
employees are required as part of their official duties to
lead school children in recitations of "one nation under God".
Govenment employees have led more than an esitmated 100 billion
such recitations and counting in government funded classrooms.
We taxpayers are forced to pay for this under penalty of fines
and/or imprisonment. In addition, the USA has as its motto
"In God We Trust" and stamps/engraves this on its money,
funding this with the taxes of unwilling citizens.
WHAT is the name of this "OFFICIAL STATE RELIGION?" Where does it meet?
Obviously meets for recitation of the creed in the classrooms at
public schools built with our tax money.
It's got a creed, a practice for spreading the creed, and it is
all funded with our tax money against the will of millions of
taxpayers. Some call it Deism.
Try as they will they just CAN'T wish away the Declaration of
Independence that established the purpose and philosophy for this nation.
They are between a rock and a hard place when they confront that ALL
these
rights are derived form and based on the CREATOR.............
GOD.....................
True, but the issue is about the laws that Congress and the States make.
The words UNDER GOD and the references to God on the currency etc do NOT
establish a state religion.
What about the practice of government-led chanting of "one nation under
God" over 100 billion times and counting?
.
|
|
|
| User: " krp -" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
22 Sep 2005 04:02:22 PM |
|
|
<tadamsmar@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127390500.987968.291080@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You don't know much about Buddhism do ya? But DO go on and name those
ATHEIST religions. This is gonna be GOOD! (Fun)
Buddha refused to speculate about the existence of God. All Buddhist
are (at least) agnostics. A religion can have a rich system of
supernatural beliefs with no belief in God. Taoism is another example.
That's you others believe in a supreme being. As do Hindus. The name he
is called makes no substantive difference.
So the mere mention of GOD in the pledge does not rise anywhere neat
the
ESTABLISHMENT of a OFFICIAL STATE
RELIGION.
The mere mention is not the issue. The issue is:
What is the STATE RELIGION now as a result? What's its name?
1. Congress made a law saying that the pledge should
read "one nation under God", whereas the Constitution
says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment
of religion"
That wasn't the only change... SO?
2. State require that govenment employees, as part of
there official duties, lead recitations of the phrase
"one nation under God".
Ever hear the OATH for testimony in courts?
History mitigates against the argument. It has existed for 50+
years. WHAT is the official state religion?
The official State religion of the USA has as it's creed:
"one nation under God". To promote the creed, government
employees are required as part of their official duties to
lead school children in recitations of "one nation under God".
Govenment employees have led more than an esitmated 100 billion
such recitations and counting in government funded classrooms.
We taxpayers are forced to pay for this under penalty of fines
and/or imprisonment. In addition, the USA has as its motto
"In God We Trust" and stamps/engraves this on its money,
funding this with the taxes of unwilling citizens.
WHAT is the name of this "OFFICIAL STATE RELIGION?" Where does it
meet?
Obviously meets for recitation of the creed in the classrooms at public
schools built with our tax money.
So that's its entire theology "under God?"
It's got a creed, a practice for spreading the creed, and it is
all funded with our tax money against the will of millions of
taxpayers. Some call it Deism.
No I am sorry NOT "millions" of Americans or even "Hundreds of
thousands." Probably nmot even tens of thousands.
Try as they will they just CAN'T wish away the Declaration of
Independence that established the purpose and philosophy for this
nation.
They are between a rock and a hard place when they confront that ALL
these
rights are derived form and based on the CREATOR.............
GOD.....................
True, but the issue is about the laws that Congress and the States
make.
The words UNDER GOD and the references to God on the currency etc do
NOT
establish a state religion.
What about the practice of government-led chanting of "one nation under
God" over 100 billion times and counting?
What is the name of the church?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 07:49:35 AM |
|
|
krp - wrote:
<tadamsmar@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127390500.987968.291080@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You don't know much about Buddhism do ya? But DO go on and name those
ATHEIST religions. This is gonna be GOOD! (Fun)
Buddha refused to speculate about the existence of God. All Buddhist
are (at least) agnostics. A religion can have a rich system of
supernatural beliefs with no belief in God. Taoism is another example.
That's you others believe in a supreme being. As do Hindus. The name he
is called makes no substantive difference.
I am not sure what you are saying. There are religions that have
no belief in God. Also, almost all religions don't worship a
generic God. Adherents to monotheistic religions have no business
acknowledging some God that is not the one recognized by their
religion.
So the mere mention of GOD in the pledge does not rise anywhere neat
the
ESTABLISHMENT of a OFFICIAL STATE
RELIGION.
The mere mention is not the issue. The issue is:
What is the STATE RELIGION now as a result? What's its name?
1. Congress made a law saying that the pledge should
read "one nation under God", whereas the Constitution
says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment
of religion"
That wasn't the only change... SO?
2. State require that govenment employees, as part of
there official duties, lead recitations of the phrase
"one nation under God".
Ever hear the OATH for testimony in courts?
History mitigates against the argument. It has existed for 50+
years. WHAT is the official state religion?
The official State religion of the USA has as it's creed:
"one nation under God". To promote the creed, government
employees are required as part of their official duties to
lead school children in recitations of "one nation under God".
Govenment employees have led more than an esitmated 100 billion
such recitations and counting in government funded classrooms.
We taxpayers are forced to pay for this under penalty of fines
and/or imprisonment. In addition, the USA has as its motto
"In God We Trust" and stamps/engraves this on its money,
funding this with the taxes of unwilling citizens.
WHAT is the name of this "OFFICIAL STATE RELIGION?" Where does it
meet?
Obviously meets for recitation of the creed in the classrooms at public
schools built with our tax money.
So that's its entire theology "under God?"
No. There is a whole record of theology surrounding the making of
the 1953 law. And there are plenty of volunteers putting forward
theological arguments, like YOU for instance. Earlier you tied
the God in the pledge to Jefferson's creator. At least the
volunteers (or some of them) are not being paid with my tax
dollars. But George HW Bush was getting paid with my tax dollars
when he took the theological position that atheists should not
be considered citizens of the USA since the USA is one nation under
God.
The implications of this theology is that the USA, our rights, our
laws, citizenship all are supernatural entities, props in a
religious pagent. I don't know about you, but I would like
to have a better foundation for my rights.
If the Supreme Court uphold "under God", we will see a lot
more theology, i predict. The would-be theologist are a bit
cowed, if they get too vocal they could hurt their case. They
will be emboldened by a Supreme Court precident.
One interesting thing about precidents is that they can
build on themselves, justifying the next step toward
more theocracy in this case.
It's got a creed, a practice for spreading the creed, and it is
all funded with our tax money against the will of millions of
taxpayers. Some call it Deism.
No I am sorry NOT "millions" of Americans or even "Hundreds of
thousands." Probably nmot even tens of thousands.
Since the 1953 law, about 200 million Americans have entered the
public school system. If they recited the pledge every day at
school, 180 days per year for 12 years, tha would be 2160
recitations per student. 12*180*200 million = 432 billion
govenment-led chants of "one nation under God".
I was using "over 100 billion", assuming less than 25%
compliance in school systems
But I think Congress intent to establishment religion should be
measured against the full potential of the law: almost one half
trillion government-led chants of "one nation under God" so far.
This is a truely massive large-scale establishment of religion.
If the Supreme Court upholds the pledge, I would expect to
see a successful campaign to get more schools to require daily
recitation of the pledge.
Try as they will they just CAN'T wish away the Declaration of
Independence that established the purpose and philosophy for this
nation.
They are between a rock and a hard place when they confront that ALL
these
rights are derived form and based on the CREATOR.............
GOD.....................
True, but the issue is about the laws that Congress and the States
make.
The words UNDER GOD and the references to God on the currency etc do
NOT
establish a state religion.
What about the practice of government-led chanting of "one nation under
God" over 100 billion times and counting?
What is the name of the church?
In my case, the church of USA's established religion that I was first
required to attend was called Ebenezer Public School. That's where
the creed recitation services were held.
.
|
|
|
| User: " krp -" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 10:27:51 AM |
|
|
<tadamsmar@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127479775.431484.235030@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I am not sure what you are saying. There are religions that have
no belief in God.
Which are those?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 10:56:36 AM |
|
|
krp - wrote:
<tadamsmar@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127479775.431484.235030@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I am not sure what you are saying. There are religions that have
no belief in God.
Which are those?
Buddhism, Taoism. I am pretty sure that every native religion
that arose in China had no God, China was traditionally into
a kind of nature worship.
.
|
|
|
| User: " krp -" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 12:46:02 PM |
|
|
<tadamsmar@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127490996.671802.69360@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
krp - wrote:
<tadamsmar@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127479775.431484.235030@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I am not sure what you are saying. There are religions that have
no belief in God.
Which are those?
Buddhism, Taoism. I am pretty sure that every native religion
that arose in China had no God, China was traditionally into
a kind of nature worship.
I am no expert on either, but I believe Buddhism does suggest the existence
of a god of sorts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 02:25:27 PM |
|
|
krp - wrote:
<tadamsmar@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127490996.671802.69360@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
krp - wrote:
<tadamsmar@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127479775.431484.235030@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I am not sure what you are saying. There are religions that have
no belief in God.
Which are those?
Buddhism, Taoism. I am pretty sure that every native religion
that arose in China had no God, China was traditionally into
a kind of nature worship.
I am no expert on either, but I believe Buddhism does suggest the existence
of a god of sorts.
I don't think this is a real issue for the Pledge. In all the cases
that
I know of, the opponents to "God" in government (on the money, etc.)
argue that there are religions that have no god and religions that have
multiple gods and, to my knowledge, the other side has always accepted
the fact that such religions exists. And, of course, there are
religions that objected to reciting even the old pre-1953 Pledge.
The usual arguments for retaining "under God" in the pledge are:
1. The harm to parental rights and free exercise of
religion, if any, is minimal. There is minimal or
no coercion.
2. It is historical not religious, or its rote cermonial Deism,
or it is a limited promotion of religion that is consistent with
the Constitution.
Justice Thomas (I think) and Roberts (in his Reagan era pleadings
anyway) take the position that the federal government can promote
religion (and has an interest in promoting religion) without
establishing an official state religion. Obviously, they are
taking the position that the pledge practice is not sufficient
to constitute the establishment of an official state religion.
The Thomas/Roberts position is probably the most coherent and
honest, since many supporters of the Pledge hate the idea that
the Supreme Court would declare the word "God" to be rote giberish.
And, the idea that it is merely historical is obviously false,
since it is a Pledge of Allegiance, not a history lesson.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
22 Sep 2005 09:56:20 AM |
|
|
wrote:
krp - wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1127319395.814864.261870@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I hate to take the other side, but it was clear that the framers wanted
to
make sure that "just because we didn't put a right in here doesn't mean
that
people don't have those rights." I would submit that the framers had an
extremely expansive concept of the "rights" of the people. I am also
certain
of what they intended with the whole "establishment" reference. You have
to
examine it IN historical perspective which out later day experts do NOT
do.
That is you have to begin with an understanding how ESTABLISHED STATE
religions operated in the 17th and 18th centuries. Meaning very
tyrannical.
What they had in mind was the creation of ONE OFFICIAL STATE RELIGION...
The average atheist can only handle (intellectually) one sentence
(concept)
at a time. Because in the 1st Amendment it has a second clause. FREE
EXERCISE OF RELIGION. Not NON Religion. RELIGION.
Here is the part that ***** and the others simply CANNOT understand. That
ALL religions believe in one or more Gods.
Not true. Some religions are atheistic or agnostic. Buddhism for
instance.
You don't know much about Buddhism do ya? But DO go on and name those
ATHEIST religions. This is gonna be GOOD! (Fun)
Buddha refused to speculate about the existence of God. All Buddhist
are (at least) agnostics. A religion can have a rich system of
supernatural beliefs with no belief in God. Taoism is another example.
So the mere mention of GOD in the pledge does not rise anywhere neat the
ESTABLISHMENT of a OFFICIAL STATE
RELIGION.
The mere mention is not the issue. The issue is:
What is the STATE RELIGION now as a result? What's its name?
1. Congress made a law saying that the pledge should
read "one nation under God", whereas the Constitution
says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment
of religion"
That wasn't the only change... SO?
2. State require that govenment employees, as part of
there official duties, lead recitations of the phrase
"one nation under God".
Ever hear the OATH for testimony in courts?
History mitigates against the argument. It has existed for 50+
years. WHAT is the official state religion?
The official State religion of the USA has as it's creed:
"one nation under God". To promote the creed, government
employees are required as part of their official duties to
lead school children in recitations of "one nation under God".
Govenment employees have led more than an esitmated 100 billion
such recitations and counting in government funded classrooms.
We taxpayers are forced to pay for this under penalty of fines
and/or imprisonment. In addition, the USA has as its motto
"In God We Trust" and stamps/engraves this on its money,
funding this with the taxes of unwilling citizens.
WHAT is the name of this "OFFICIAL STATE RELIGION?" Where does it meet?
Obviously meets for recitation of the creed in the classrooms at
public schools built with our tax money.
It's got a creed, a practice for spreading the creed, and it is
all funded with our tax money against the will of millions of
taxpayers. Some call it Deism.
Try as they will they just CAN'T wish away the Declaration of
Independence that established the purpose and philosophy for this nation.
They are between a rock and a hard place when they confront that ALL
these
rights are derived form and based on the CREATOR.............
GOD.....................
True, but the issue is about the laws that Congress and the States make.
The words UNDER GOD and the references to God on the currency etc do NOT
establish a state religion.
What about the practice of government-led chanting of "one nation under
God" over 100 billion times and counting
This is establishment of religion. But it it worse than that because
it is propaganda against the 1st amendment. The phrase "one nation
under God" states that we have an established religion. In effect,
Congress has arranged for school children to endlessly chant
"one nation with an established religion".
George HW Bush is on record asserting that atheist should not be
considered citizens because this is "one nation under God":
http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/aa011.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: " krp -" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
22 Sep 2005 04:13:46 PM |
|
|
<tadamsmar@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127400980.751333.281680@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
What about the practice of government-led chanting of "one nation under
God" over 100 billion times and counting
This is establishment of religion. But it it worse than that because
it is propaganda against the 1st amendment. The phrase "one nation
under God" states that we have an established religion. In effect,
Congress has arranged for school children to endlessly chant
"one nation with an established religion".
That is SCREWBALL.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 06:40:23 AM |
|
|
krp - wrote:
<tadamsmar@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127400980.751333.281680@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
What about the practice of government-led chanting of "one nation under
God" over 100 billion times and counting
This is establishment of religion. But it it worse than that because
it is propaganda against the 1st amendment. The phrase "one nation
under God" states that we have an established religion. In effect,
Congress has arranged for school children to endlessly chant
"one nation with an established religion".
That is SCREWBALL.
If you notice, I don't engage in name calling. I just respond to
the content of your arguments.
I can now declare victory, since you are no longer able to defend
your position.
.
|
|
|
| User: " krp -" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 09:53:49 AM |
|
|
<tadamsmar@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127475623.826785.245990@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
practice of government-led chanting of "one nation under
God" over 100 billion times and counting
This is establishment of religion. But it it worse than that because
it is propaganda against the 1st amendment. The phrase "one nation
under God" states that we have an established religion. In effect,
Congress has arranged for school children to endlessly chant
"one nation with an established religion".
That is SCREWBALL.
If you notice, I don't engage in name calling. I just respond to
the content of your arguments.
Well I said that your statement was SCREWBALL. BUT - if you really want
to apply it to yourself be my guest.
I can now declare victory, since you are no longer able to defend
your position.
Whatever floats your boat.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
22 Sep 2005 10:58:56 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:13:46 GMT, in wi.general
" krp -" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in
<e8FYe.4277$yN1.3321@trnddc03>:
<tadamsmar@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127400980.751333.281680@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
What about the practice of government-led chanting of "one nation under
God" over 100 billion times and counting
This is establishment of religion. But it it worse than that because
it is propaganda against the 1st amendment. The phrase "one nation
under God" states that we have an established religion. In effect,
Congress has arranged for school children to endlessly chant
"one nation with an established religion".
That is SCREWBALL.
Your analyses are stunning. Have you ever actually thought about any of
these problems or do you just take talking points from folks who don't
want you to have civil liberties?
.
|
|
|
| User: " krp -" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 06:30:35 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:t9v6j1phgf4tnec3ojqtlnlfu85q5fq1jk@4ax.com...
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:13:46 GMT, in wi.general
" krp -" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in
<e8FYe.4277$yN1.3321@trnddc03>:
<tadamsmar@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127400980.751333.281680@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
What about the practice of government-led chanting of "one nation under
God" over 100 billion times and counting
This is establishment of religion. But it it worse than that because
it is propaganda against the 1st amendment. The phrase "one nation
under God" states that we have an established religion. In effect,
Congress has arranged for school children to endlessly chant
"one nation with an established religion".
That is SCREWBALL.
Your analyses are stunning. Have you ever actually thought about any of
these problems or do you just take talking points from folks who don't
want you to have civil liberties?
There is NO "Civil Right" to never HEAR the word "GOD!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 06:48:40 AM |
|
|
krp - wrote:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:t9v6j1phgf4tnec3ojqtlnlfu85q5fq1jk@4ax.com...
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:13:46 GMT, in wi.general
" krp -" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in
<e8FYe.4277$yN1.3321@trnddc03>:
<tadamsmar@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127400980.751333.281680@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
What about the practice of government-led chanting of "one nation under
God" over 100 billion times and counting
This is establishment of religion. But it it worse than that because
it is propaganda against the 1st amendment. The phrase "one nation
under God" states that we have an established religion. In effect,
Congress has arranged for school children to endlessly chant
"one nation with an established religion".
That is SCREWBALL.
Your analyses are stunning. Have you ever actually thought about any of
these problems or do you just take talking points from folks who don't
want you to have civil liberties?
There is NO "Civil Right" to never HEAR the word "GOD!"
That is a fact. But that is not the point at issue.
Please try to keep the point as issue in mind.
The point at issue is: By a law made in Congress in concert with
State and local laws and regulations, government employees have
been required, as part of their official duties, to lead over
100 billion chants of "one nation under God" and counting, whereas
the Constitution says "Congress shall pass no law respecting the
establishment of religion"
.
|
|
|
| User: " krp -" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 10:03:28 AM |
|
|
<tadamsmar@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127476120.108454.105970@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
What about the practice of government-led chanting of "one nation
under
God" over 100 billion times and counting
This is establishment of religion. But it it worse than that because
it is propaganda against the 1st amendment. The phrase "one nation
under God" states that we have an established religion. In effect,
Congress has arranged for school children to endlessly chant
"one nation with an established religion".
That is SCREWBALL.
Your analyses are stunning. Have you ever actually thought about any of
these problems or do you just take talking points from folks who don't
want you to have civil liberties?
There is NO "Civil Right" to never HEAR the word "GOD!"
That is a fact. But that is not the point at issue. Please try to keep the
point as issue in mind.
I have the issue well in mind. I do not see ANY infringements on
anyone's "civil rights" since reciting the pledge is VOLUNTARY as it has
been since 1943!
The point at issue is: By a law made in Congress in concert with
State and local laws and regulations, government employees have
been required, as part of their official duties, to lead over
100 billion chants of "one nation under God" and counting, whereas
the Constitution says "Congress shall pass no law respecting the
establishment of religion"
Those SAME government employees must swear an OATH when taking office.
Any of us must swear an OATH when giving testimony in a court that our
testimony shall be the truth "so help me God!" I would presume you oppose
those OATHS with at least as much venom as you do the pledge.....
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 10:48:50 AM |
|
|
krp - wrote:
<tadamsmar@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127476120.108454.105970@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
What about the practice of government-led chanting of "one nation
under
God" over 100 billion times and counting
This is establishment of religion. But it it worse than that because
it is propaganda against the 1st amendment. The phrase "one nation
under God" states that we have an established religion. In effect,
Congress has arranged for school children to endlessly chant
"one nation with an established religion".
That is SCREWBALL.
Your analyses are stunning. Have you ever actually thought about any of
these problems or do you just take talking points from folks who don't
want you to have civil liberties?
There is NO "Civil Right" to never HEAR the word "GOD!"
That is a fact. But that is not the point at issue. Please try to keep the
point as issue in mind.
I have the issue well in mind. I do not see ANY infringements on
anyone's "civil rights" since reciting the pledge is VOLUNTARY as it has
been since 1943!
It is possible for Congress to violate the Constitution without
infringing on anyone's civil right.
But given that President George HW Bush maintains that atheists
should not be considered citizens, I would think an atheist would be
inviting attacks from bigots if they identified themselves by opting
out of the pledge. So there is coercion to recite the Pledge.
The point at issue is: By a law made in Congress in concert with
State and local laws and regulations, government employees have
been required, as part of their official duties, to lead over
100 billion chants of "one nation under God" and counting, whereas
the Constitution says "Congress shall pass no law respecting the
establishment of religion"
Those SAME government employees must swear an OATH when taking office.
Any of us must swear an OATH when giving testimony in a court that our
testimony shall be the truth "so help me God!" I would presume you oppose
those OATHS with at least as much venom as you do the pledge.....
You are making my point, the USA has an established official religion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 10:47:27 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:03:28 GMT, in wi.general
" krp -" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in
<4PUYe.34$y64.1@trnddc06>:
<tadamsmar@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127476120.108454.105970@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
What about the practice of government-led chanting of "one nation
under
God" over 100 billion times and counting
This is establishment of religion. But it it worse than that because
it is propaganda against the 1st amendment. The phrase "one nation
under God" states that we have an established religion. In effect,
Congress has arranged for school children to endlessly chant
"one nation with an established religion".
That is SCREWBALL.
Your analyses are stunning. Have you ever actually thought about any of
these problems or do you just take talking points from folks who don't
want you to have civil liberties?
There is NO "Civil Right" to never HEAR the word "GOD!"
That is a fact. But that is not the point at issue. Please try to keep the
point as issue in mind.
I have the issue well in mind. I do not see ANY infringements on
anyone's "civil rights" since reciting the pledge is VOLUNTARY as it has
been since 1943!
'43?
Let us say that I am a very devout, conservative Christian child who has
been taught not to pray with others because Jesus told us not to pray
ostentatiously in public. Let us say that I have been taught that
invocations of the Lord are such ostentatious displays. If I am in
second grade, do you seriously think that I will have the confidence to
ask the teacher to be excused because I think that this is an affront to
my Christian beliefs?
The point at issue is: By a law made in Congress in concert with
State and local laws and regulations, government employees have
been required, as part of their official duties, to lead over
100 billion chants of "one nation under God" and counting, whereas
the Constitution says "Congress shall pass no law respecting the
establishment of religion"
Those SAME government employees must swear an OATH when taking office.
You know that is not required. You always have the choice of invoking a
god, swearing without a god, or merely affirming that you will follow
the duties of your office.
Any of us must swear an OATH when giving testimony in a court that our
testimony shall be the truth "so help me God!" I would presume you oppose
those OATHS with at least as much venom as you do the pledge.....
As you know, no one is required to say "so help me God."
.
|
|
|
| User: " krp -" |
|
| Title: Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
23 Sep 2005 12:42:41 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:ri88j11djjotai1r86irtl2nqim84jsl44@4ax.com...
There is NO "Civil Right" to never HEAR the word "GOD!"
That is a fact. But that is not the point at issue. Please try to keep
the
point as issue in mind.
I have the issue well in mind. I do not see ANY infringements on
anyone's "civil rights" since reciting the pledge is VOLUNTARY as it has
been since 1943!
'43?
Yes a suit by the Jehovah's WItnesses in Ohio.
Let us say that I am a very devout, conservative Christian child who has
been taught not to pray with others because Jesus told us not to pray
ostentatiously in public. Let us say that I have been taught that
invocations of the Lord are such ostentatious displays. If I am in
second grade, do you seriously think that I will have the confidence to
ask the teacher to be excused because I think that this is an affront to
my Christian beliefs?
Whose problem is that? If you told your parents then it is up to them to
obtain an exemption for you. BUT most kids .... CAN communicate with their
teachers and ask to be excused.
The point at issue is: By a law made in Congress in concert with
State and local laws and regulations, government employees have
been required, as part of their official duties, to lead over
100 billion chants of "one nation under God" and counting, whereas
the Constitution says "Congress shall pass no law respecting the
establishment of religion"
Those SAME government employees must swear an OATH when taking office.
You know that is not required. You always have the choice of invoking a
god, swearing without a god, or merely affirming that you will follow
the duties of your office.
Uh - YES it is! And you take that OATH when entering the military
ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED!
Any of us must swear an OATH when giving testimony in a court that our
testimony shall be the truth "so help me God!" I would presume you oppose
those OATHS with at least as much venom as you do the pledge.....
As you know, no one is required to say "so help me God."
Well actually SAY it? It is said FOR you by the person administering the
oath? "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?" At that point you say YES or NO................
You AFFIRM or DECLINE............
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
