| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
25 Jan 2005 10:02:52 AM |
| Object: |
Re: THE PLEDGE Round #2 |
"krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:
:| Newdow's agenda is quite simple.
Another idiot who doesn't have a clue what he is talking about
:|Mike Newdow went through an extremely
:|acrimonious divorce,
Mike Newdow wasn't married idiot.
:|his ex wife is a "CHRISTIAN"
LOL. She isn't an ex wife at least not his ex wife since they were never
married. They lived together unmarried.
:|and Newdow is putting the
:|entire nation into the melodrama of the fight with his ex wife.
You haven't been right about anything yet.
Mike Newdow's goals are several some of which are outlined in the following
email he sent me in 2002
From: FirstAmendmist@ [delete]
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 14:06:09 EDT
Subject: Re: Marsh v. Chambers
To: jalison@ [delete]
However, there is this little oddity, and that is that there is no
reputable scholar that I am aware of that states that N. J. ever had an
established religion. James Madison list N.J. as being one of the four
colonies/states that never had an established religion.
Would it be fair, then, to say (especially in light of the other
information you sent) that either the colonists or the scholars or both
only considered endorsements as "establishments" only when it involved one
particular sect within Protestantism; and that Protestantism, itself, is
not an establishment (precisely as those today are saying that theism is
not an establishment)?
I can direct you to a URL that will give you a list of that material. if
you would like to see it. There is also a great deal of material here that
I have not had time yet to enter on the computer.
If its not an abuse of your generous offer of assistance ("I would be more
than happy to provide whatever you may want or need."), I'd prefer to let
you be the master of all that information. I'm having enough trouble
keeping my head above water just writing briefs.
Which leads me to what I really could use. I don't know if you know, but I
actually have three cases now before the courts:
(1) Getting "under God" out of the Pledge (the "Pledge case");
(2) Getting an injunction to prevent future presidents from having
chaplains at their inaugurations (the "Bush case"); and
(3) Getting rid of legislative chaplains (the "Marsh case").
I need specific historical information for each, although there will
obviously be a bunch of overlap. For instance, in the Pledge case, one of
the favorite arguments of the Defendants is that "their Creator" in the
Declaration of Independence reveals that our government is allowed to show
a preference for monotheism. I want to show:
(a) That the reference to "their Creator" was opposed by Jefferson (which I
have heard, but I haven't any references to document); and
(b) That there were a number of religious ideas in 1776 that were
specifically contradicted by the Constitution. For instance (quoting your
information), "eleven of thirteen states restricted officeholding to
Christians or Protestants" would be useful. Similarly, I would like to show
the numbers of colonies that financially support churches, and any other
practices that all agree are specifically precluded by the Constitution.
Again, I need references for such statements and the dates for which they
are correct. Would I be burdening you too much to ask you to assemble that
information in a concise form?
If the answer is yes, please feel free to tell me so. You've already been a
tremendous help.
- Mike
*******************************************************************************
:| It's his way
:|to "get back at the *****!"
Now idiot, how many of the above really involves his ex girlfriend?
His other passion and rightfully so is family law. A area of law that has
many flaws in it
:|All the rest of this is window dressing on his
:|personal animus at her and Christianity
So you, the idiot says. However, I have seen your crap on here for a number
of years and I can only say your unsubstantiated opinions are irrelevant.
In this instance alone you demolish your own credibility by showing you
know none of the facts here.
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
