| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
23 Jan 2005 03:38:28 PM |
| Object: |
Re: THE OATH FOR PRESIDENT |
"krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:
:| What is the "SECULAR" purpose Kenny? Your favorite question? I am merely
:|using YOUR logic, and how YOU claim the Lemon precedent works.
:|What is the 100% SECULAR purpose not only of government PAID Chaplains in
:|the military BUT of building and operating CHURCHES on federal reservations?
:|SECULAR Kenny SECULAR! Apply your OWN standards here. IF we accept YOUR
:|arguments (and that of Newdow) as how YOU believe the Constitution works,
:|then are those Chaplains NOT a violation of the Constitution? Remember they
:|are PAID for by Taxpayers. As are the buildings and the 100% religious
:|events held in those building PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS! Trying to DUCK the
:|issue Kenny? The national cemeteries? What is the "SECULAR" purpose for
:|having RELIGIOUS ceremonies performed on government property and PAID FOR by
:|TAXPAYER dollars??? The "SECULAR" reasons Kenny! Remember only the "SECULAR"
:|reasons apply! They MUST be 100% SECULAR using YOUR arguments! Also the
:|religious symbols.
:|
:| Using your (and Mikey Newdow's) anal logic .. . It would seem that the
:|law would PRECLUDE that any military member have ANY religious event in a
:|funeral paid for by the Government. A president, for example, such as the
:|recent funeral of Ronald Reagan it seems would REQUIRE that NO religious
:|prayer be offered or ANY mention of God whatsoever! Think about what you are
:|asking for Kenny!
To: me
Subject: Unbelievable!!!
From: Mike Newdow
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:25:05 EST
You're going to love this.
I just heard back from the First Federal Congress Project (do you know
them)
regarding oaths. It turns out that the claims that Washington added "... so
help me God" to his first oath are uncorroborated, and probably incorrect!
Were you aware of this?
I asked for some more documentation.
- Mike
***************************************************************************
To: Me
Subject: Re: Unbelievable!!!
From: Mike Newdow
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:12:10 EST
I do believe I have some primary source data here that says otherwise
According to them, the only contemporary source is some Frenchman, who said
nothing about "so help me God." They say the first thing stating otherwise
is a secondhand report from someone who was eight years old in 1789. (I
asked for the material.) What do you have that says otherwise?
As I wrote to her:
I've always wondered about that. Here's this fellow who - by all accounts
I've read - was very deliberate and rarely (if ever) spontaneous, who had
just presided over the Constitutional Convention. He was the guy in charge
of the whole thing, who watched as they debated each and every clause. He
knows that 55 men agreed on the only oath in the document - the oath he
was taking - and must have been aware of the fact that it didn't include
"... so help me God." Now he's going to alter that? It doesn't make sense
at all.
I think I am up to date with what you have requested this time and even
sent fill cites in my last email. Is there I missed?
It's looking good ... thanks!
Waiting on the next request (grin)
The only thing right now is the computer file of McAllister's tract. That
would be greatly appreciated ... especially since I seem to have misplaced
half of the pages I have.
Thanks, as always.
- M
**********************************************************************************
Revisiting Marsh v. Chambers
Marsh v.Chambers is oft referenced. Here is a look at some aspects of the
case.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/marshchm.htm
Thoughts on Power, Ceremonial Deism &Amp: Public Religion From a Variety of
Sources
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/c-deism.htm
ABOUT CHAPLAINS
Excerpts from James Madison's Detached Memoranda (written after 1817)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/detach.htm
o James Madison And National Religion
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madnational.htm
.
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: THE OATH FOR PRESIDENT |
23 Jan 2005 09:04:33 PM |
|
|
Ken Smith (no relation) said:
The fact that you have no basis in law for saying what you are saying,
while even Clarence Thomas admits that Newdow is 100% correct, is of no
consequence?
That is precisely what I very recently posted.
Kenneth R. Pangborn said:
<<He is that's news?>>
It wouldn't have been news if you were paying attention, Kenny Kakes.
<< I guess I have another reason to dislike Thomas.
Why don't you consider issues on the issues, not on personalities. It's
the message, not the messenger which is we are talking about here.
<<But this thread is exhausted as far as I am concerned. We can just agree
to disagree.>>
Translation: Pangborn hasn't a leg to stand on.
<< It's like arguing abortion. >>
But you keep doin' it.
http://www.bushflash.com/faith.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: THE OATH FOR PRESIDENT |
23 Jan 2005 09:00:38 PM |
|
|
Ken Smith (no relation) said:
I know these people. Some are my personal friends. You are simply
full of ***** here, Panger.
KRP:> Know Annie Laurie Gaylor do ya? Know her better than me?
How well does Kenneth R. Pangborn know Annie Laurie Gaylor?
Inquiring minds want to know.
<< I know folks from the local chapter of FFRF, and have had discussions
with them. They're nowhere near as radical (or as rabid) in defense of
their views as you are. >>
I know many FFRF supporters, and I must admit radical/rabid folks are few
and far between--very few, and VERY far between.
http://www.bushflash.com/faith.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: THE OATH FOR PRESIDENT |
23 Jan 2005 09:48:14 PM |
|
|
That is most interesting news. If it proves to be true, I wonder if in
future claims will continue to be made.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Buckeye posted this:
To: me
Subject: Unbelievable!!!
From: Mike Newdow
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:25:05 EST
You're going to love this.
I just heard back from the First Federal Congress Project (do you know
them)
regarding oaths. It turns out that the claims that Washington added "...
so help me God" to his first oath are uncorroborated, and probably
incorrect!
Were you aware of this?
I asked for some more documentation.
- Mike
***************************************************************************
To: Me
Subject: Re: Unbelievable!!!
From: Mike Newdow
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:12:10 EST
I do believe I have some primary source data here that says otherwise
According to them, the only contemporary source is some Frenchman, who
said nothing about "so help me God." They say the first thing stating
otherwise is a secondhand report from someone who was eight years old in
1789. (I asked for the material.) What do you have that says otherwise?
As I wrote to her:
I've always wondered about that. Here's this fellow who - by all accounts
I've read - was very deliberate and rarely (if ever) spontaneous, who had
just presided over the Constitutional Convention. He was the guy in
charge of the whole thing, who watched as they debated each and every
clause. He knows that 55 men agreed on the only oath in the document -
the oath he was taking - and must have been aware of the fact that it
didn't include "... so help me God." Now he's going to alter that? It
doesn't make sense at all.
I think I am up to date with what you have requested this time and
even sent fill cites in my last email. Is there I missed?
It's looking good ... thanks!
Waiting on the next request (grin)
The only thing right now is the computer file of McAllister's tract. That
would be greatly appreciated ... especially since I seem to have misplaced
half of the pages I have.
Thanks, as always.
- M
**********************************************************************************
Revisiting Marsh v. Chambers
Marsh v.Chambers is oft referenced. Here is a look at some aspects of the
case.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/marshchm.htm
Thoughts on Power, Ceremonial Deism &Amp: Public Religion From a Variety
of Sources http://members.tripod.com/~candst/c-deism.htm
ABOUT CHAPLAINS
Excerpts from James Madison's Detached Memoranda (written after 1817)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/detach.htm
o James Madison And National Religion
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madnational.htm
http://www.bushflash.com/faith.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: THE OATH FOR PRESIDENT |
24 Jan 2005 12:10:05 PM |
|
|
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
:|That is most interesting news. If it proves to be true, I wonder if in
:|future claims will continue to be made.
:|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have to ask him if he has received any more information from them on
this.
:|
:|Buckeye posted this:
:|
:|To: me
:|Subject: Unbelievable!!!
:|From: Mike Newdow
:|Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:25:05 EST
:|
:|You're going to love this.
:|
:|I just heard back from the First Federal Congress Project (do you know
:|them)
:|regarding oaths. It turns out that the claims that Washington added "...
:|so help me God" to his first oath are uncorroborated, and probably
:|incorrect!
:|
:|Were you aware of this?
:|
:|I asked for some more documentation.
:|
:|- Mike
:|***************************************************************************
:|To: Me
:|Subject: Re: Unbelievable!!!
:|From: Mike Newdow
:|Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:12:10 EST
:|
:|I do believe I have some primary source data here that says otherwise
:|
:|According to them, the only contemporary source is some Frenchman, who
:|said nothing about "so help me God." They say the first thing stating
:|otherwise is a secondhand report from someone who was eight years old in
:|1789. (I asked for the material.) What do you have that says otherwise?
:|
:|As I wrote to her:
:|
:|I've always wondered about that. Here's this fellow who - by all accounts
:|I've read - was very deliberate and rarely (if ever) spontaneous, who had
:|just presided over the Constitutional Convention. He was the guy in
:|charge of the whole thing, who watched as they debated each and every
:|clause. He knows that 55 men agreed on the only oath in the document -
:|the oath he was taking - and must have been aware of the fact that it
:|didn't include "... so help me God." Now he's going to alter that? It
:|doesn't make sense at all.
:|
:|> I think I am up to date with what you have requested this time and
:|> even sent fill cites in my last email. Is there I missed?
:|>
:|It's looking good ... thanks!
:|
:|> Waiting on the next request (grin)
:|
:|The only thing right now is the computer file of McAllister's tract. That
:|would be greatly appreciated ... especially since I seem to have misplaced
:|half of the pages I have.
:|
:|Thanks, as always.
:|
:|- M
:|**********************************************************************************
:|Revisiting Marsh v. Chambers
:|Marsh v.Chambers is oft referenced. Here is a look at some aspects of the
:|case.
:|http://members.tripod.com/~candst/marshchm.htm
:|
:|Thoughts on Power, Ceremonial Deism &Amp: Public Religion From a Variety
:|of Sources http://members.tripod.com/~candst/c-deism.htm
:|
:|ABOUT CHAPLAINS
:|Excerpts from James Madison's Detached Memoranda (written after 1817)
:|http://members.tripod.com/~candst/detach.htm
:|
:| o James Madison And National Religion
:|http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madnational.htm
:|
:|
:|http://www.bushflash.com/faith.html
:|
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
