Frank Dwyer wrote:

moorehead wrote:
So you stereotype people based on their appearance.
Ever heard of Hinduism?

Yes. Depending on what the person looks like and how dressed, I might
think Hindu. Let me ask, when you see a white person in a suit with a
brief case walking into an office building, do you think "employed"?
BIGOT!

The inclusion of the words "under god" is a govermental affirmation and
endorsement of a monotheistic belief system.

No, it is a benign and traditional acknowledgement of the
judeo-christian traditions shared by the founders of this country who
were responsible for framing the Constitution that you clearly do not
understand.

The Constitution forbids the establishment of a state
religion. A grade-school pledge with the words "under God" in it does
NOT establish a state religion, particularly when recitation of it is
completely voluntary.

Congress changed the Pledge (at the behest of Roman Catholics) in order
to distinguish America from the officially atheist Soviet Union.
It's not only a proclamation of faith, it's a proclamation of a specific
faith. Reciting it in public schools is unconstitutional.

Do you think simply saying something enough times makes it true?
Proclamation of a specific faith is not unConstitutional -
establishment of a state religion is.

Yeah, liberals really have a problem with that "rights come from God"
part.

Rights come from government, like it or not. No rights are granted by
any gods.

Then why did our government say, and continues to say, that rights come
from God?

The inclusion of the words "under god" is a govermental affirmation and
endorsement of a monotheistic belief system.

The government is restricted from endorsing a particlar religion, yes -
the words "under God" do NOT constitute endorsement of any religion in
particular....it is simply acknowledgment of the historical fact that
the framers of the Consitution not only believed in God, but they
fervently believed that all man's rights came from God.

It's an affirmation and endorsement of a monotheistic belief system.

No. It's an acknowledgement of the historical fact that the framers of
the Constitution not only believed in God, but they fervently believed
that all man's rights came from God.

Frank Dwyer wrote:

[...]
The inclusion of the words "under god" is a govermental affirmation and
endorsement of a monotheistic belief system.

No, it is a benign and traditional acknowledgement of the
judeo-christian traditions shared by the founders of this country who
were responsible for framing the Constitution that you clearly do not
understand.

The Constitution forbids the establishment of a state
religion. A grade-school pledge with the words "under God" in it does
NOT establish a state religion, particularly when recitation of it is
completely voluntary.

[...]
Congress changed the Pledge (at the behest of Roman Catholics) in order
to distinguish America from the officially atheist Soviet Union. It's
not only a proclamation of faith, it's a proclamation of a specific
faith. Reciting it in public schools is unconstitutional.

Do you think simply saying something enough times makes it true?
Proclamation of a specific faith is not unConstitutional - establishment
of a state religion is. Google up "Church of England" to understand the
difference.

[...]
The founders didn't believe that all rights come from a god, only
certain ones. The rest of the rights had to be included in the
Constitution. As I said, they believed many foolish things.

Lots of people believe lots of foolish things - some even believe that
two words in a middle school pledge constitute the establishment of a
state religion, for example.

mj

Frank Dwyer wrote:

moorehead wrote:

Frank Dwyer wrote:

moorehead_johnson@hotmail.com wrote:

Frank Dwyer wrote:

Jeff wrote:

"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kgeWe.2204$3V6.706@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...

"Jeff" <augier@mts.ca> wrote in message
news:K0eWe.3851$qP3.40641@news1.mts.net...

Ah!
Another left wing bigot shows his tolerance to all. The left in the

world

have all the tolerance in the world towards those who agree with their
position and none for those who take an opposing view.
There are many religions where the people believe in a God but numb-nuts
here chooses to try and defend his argument by comparing it to, Muslims"
who
force women to cover their faces. The fact is not all Muslims force

women

to
cover their faces. Fucked up here chooses to lump all Muslims into one
category and all Christians into one category. Why is that you ask? Well
the
answer is simple. He is a left winger and that makes him a racist and a
bigot just as his remarks have shown.

Those opposed to having "under God" in the pledge are of the minority

and

those who believe in God are of the majority and now I will explain the

So WHAT?

RIGHTS are not a popularity contest. The Bill of Rights does not exist to
protect the rights of the MAJORITY, as they have the power to change the

law

under any circumstance.

The CONSTITUTION does NOT MENTION GOD. Not once. The only mention of
religion is to PREVENT RELIGIOUS TESTS for public office and to guarantee
the government doesn't get involve in religion.

Liberals are not opposed to the phrase "under God" in the pledge. They have
another agenda and suppressing the rights of the religious (Christians and
Jews) has been going on for decades in order for democrats to push that
agenda. It's not about popularity. It is about a system that persecutes two
religious groups while defending the religious rights of other religious
groups in the same place. Rights are "Equal" under the law and equal is
something liberals have a lot to learn about.
Liberals want to have the phrase removed.........fine. Remove all head
coverings and turbans from the schools and other public buildings just like
the religious symbols of Christians and Jews have been removed.

You apparently have much to learn. The head coverings and turbans are no
religious symbols, they are expressions of one's faith and they are in
not way imposed upon others.

Um, huh? How can something that expresses one's faith in a particular
religion NOT be a religious symbol?? That's like saying the cross
isn't a religious symbol - it's just an expression of faith.

Prayer is an expression that is not a symbol.

Are talking about prayer or the pledge?

You asked "How can something that expresses one's faith in a particular
religion NOT be a religious symbol??"

Yes, I did....did you plan to answer the question at some point?

Liberals succeeded in getting
prayer banned from school decades ago, sparky. This about the pledge,
and the pledge ain't a prayer - it's a pledge.

When you see a head covering, such as a turban, do you think "muslim".

Yes.

So you stereotype people based on their appearance.
Ever heard of Hinduism?

Yes. Depending on what the person looks like and how dressed, I might
think Hindu.

Let me ask, when you see a white person in a suit with a
brief case walking into an office building, do you think "employed"?

BIGOT!

There is (and can be) no school requiring
all students to wear turbans, just as there can be no school requiring
all students to proclaim themselves as living under deity they do not
believe in.

That's part and parcel of the point. The pledge of allegiance is a
tradition, not a requirement. No one has to say anthing, or even stand
if they don't want to participate in the recital. I remember as a kid
there were times I didn't feel like reciting anything, and didn't. No
one cared. There were other times I led the class in the pledge.
Again, no one cared.

The point is that it shouldn't be a part of a publicly funded school.

Why not?

The inclusion of the words "under god" is a govermental affirmation and
endorsement of a monotheistic belief system.

No, it is a benign and traditional acknowledgement of the
judeo-christian traditions shared by the founders of this country who
were responsible for framing the Constitution that you clearly do not
understand.

The Constitution forbids the establishment of a state
religion. A grade-school pledge with the words "under God" in it does
NOT establish a state religion, particularly when recitation of it is
completely voluntary.

This is another example of an activist judge trying to fix something
that wasn't broke.

The fixing something that wasn't broke happened when they changed it,
not in trying to change it back.

Who changed what?

Congress changed the Pledge (at the behest of Roman Catholics) in order
to distinguish America from the officially atheist Soviet Union.
It's not only a proclamation of faith, it's a proclamation of a specific
faith. Reciting it in public schools is unconstitutional.

Do you think simply saying something enough times makes it true?

Proclamation of a specific faith is not unConstitutional -

establishment of a state religion is. Google up "Church of England" to
understand the difference.

How about "one nation, under Quetzalcoatl..." or "one nation, under Sun
Myung Moon"?
Are those versions acceptable to you?
Would you like your children to be forced to proclaim such a thing?

Until you
liberals do, don't ***** me about rights. You use the term rights to
defend religious bigotry and the staple the term tolerance to your behavior
in order to justify it. Until Democrats agree to practice that which they
preach no religious person should allow their perceived rights to be
violated. The agenda of the left in North America is to stamp out the
religious practices of Christians and Jews while avoiding the religious
practices of other religious groups.

*****. They don't want "under Quetzalcoatl" in the pledge either.

Turning the other cheek does not mean allowing democrats to ***** all over
the rights of the religious two. Freedom was won and will be won with a
bible in one hand and a gun in the other.

That's how freedom is suppressed.

Except knowing is suppressing anyone's freedom to do anything. The
pledge is just another strawmen liberals are using to try to revise the
historical fact that all of our founding fathers were quite religious
and believed fervently that rights came God, not man.

They believed a lot of things that are considered ridiculous or
reprehensible today.

Yeah, liberals really have a problem with that "rights come from God"
part.

Rights come from government, like it or not. No rights are granted by
any gods.

Then why did our government say, and continues to say, that rights come
from God?

Do you think it might have to do with the fact that
governments come and go? Do you think the oppressed Cubans under Fidel
or the oppressed Vietnamese under the thumb of communist rule are
better off knowing they can never change their lot in life because
rights "come from government"?

The inclusion of the words "under god" is a govermental affirmation and
endorsement of a monotheistic belief system.

The government is restricted from endorsing a particlar religion, yes -
the words "under God" do NOT constitute endorsement of any religion in
particular....it is simply acknowledgment of the historical fact that
the framers of the Consitution not only believed in God, but they
fervently believed that all man's rights came from God.

It's an affirmation and endorsement of a monotheistic belief system.

No. It's an acknowledgement of the historical fact that the framers of
the Constitution not only believed in God, but they fervently believed
that all man's rights came from God.

The
wording specifically excludes any polytheistic belief.

What wording?

The founders didn't believe that all rights come from a god, only
certain ones. The rest of the rights had to be included in the Constitution.
As I said, they believed many foolish things.

Lots of people believe lots of foolish things - some even believe that
two words in a middle school pledge constitute the establishment of a
state religion, for example.

RainLover wrote:

On 15 Sep 2005 08:35:06 -0700, "moorehead_johnson@hotmail.com"
<moorehead_johnson@hotmail.com> wrote:

Frank Dwyer wrote:

Jeff wrote:

You apparently have much to learn. The head coverings and turbans are no
religious symbols, they are expressions of one's faith and they are in
not way imposed upon others.

Um, huh? How can something that expresses one's faith in a particular
religion NOT be a religious symbol?? That's like saying the cross
isn't a religious symbol - it's just an expression of faith.

There is (and can be) no school requiring
all students to wear turbans, just as there can be no school requiring
all students to proclaim themselves as living under deity they do not
believe in.

That's part and parcel of the point. The pledge of allegiance is a
tradition, not a requirement. No one has to say anthing, or even stand
if they don't want to participate in the recital. I remember as a kid
there were times I didn't feel like reciting anything, and didn't. No
one cared. There were other times I led the class in the pledge.
Again, no one cared.

If the pledge is a pledge to the USA, why would you have your shorts
all bunched up about taking out the part about the USA being under the
Christian God? It does say "God" not "a god"; the capital 'g' makes
all the difference you know.

Nope, never knew that...got a cite?

Do you know the history about when and why "God" was put into a pledge
to the USA and on our money? It was ALL about McCarthyism, the red
scare, and those 'godless commies'. Remember the witch hunt looking
for Commies? Remember all the people whose lives and careers were
destroyed because some anonomous person accused them of being
communist? Are those the Good Ol' Days for you?????

Boy, do I ever remember those witch hunts, particularly since we're
seeing them NOW. when the democrats began a witch hunt to try to blame
Republicans for 9/11 and again when they engaged in a witch hunt to
blame Republicans for hurricane Katrina.

This is another example of an activist judge trying to fix something
that wasn't broke.

Why when a judge looks at the establishment clause and "under GOD" and
says it's unconstitutional is it 'activism'? That's THEIR JOB... to
rule on the constitionality of things!!! Would you simply have the
judges go along with any law congress makes? What would the purpose
of the court be then?

The purpose of the court is to interpret the Constitution AS WRITTEN,
not as they would like it to have been written, sorry.

The first ammendment and the establishment clause say
NOTHING...absolutely NOTHING about a middle school or a high school
somewhere in America that decides collectively to say a prayer at a
school ceremony, or before a sporting event, or whatever.

Activist
judges have decided, ALL ON THEIR OWN, without any help from anything
actually WRITTEN in the Constitution, that anything that mentions God
or religion in a publically-funded setting is unConstitutional.

Yet
they can't explain to anyone who asks (because we're not allowed to
ask) WHY the early American statesmen began every session of Congress
with prayer, or why the president is sworn into office with his hand on
the bible, to this day....."So help me God" is a legal tradition, in
fact, used to swear in witnesses in courts all across the nation. One
has to wonder what the ACLU lawyers swore *to* when they were in court

fighting for the rights of people like Michael Newdow to systematically
dismantle the fabric and culture of the United States for personal,
political gain.

(And why wouldn't judges be "activist" if they overturned Rowe V.
Wade??)

Activist judges MAKE law and MAKE rights were rights didn't exist
before. There is NO constitutional right to vacuum out the skull of a
developing human fetus inside a womb, SORRY. A reversal of Roe V. Wade
would be a reversal of laws and rights created by judges, NOT the
Constitution.

Boy, do I ever remember those witch hunts,

particularly since we're
seeing them NOW. when the democrats began a witch hunt to try to blame
Republicans for 9/11 and again when they engaged in a witch hunt to
blame Republicans for hurricane Katrina.

RainLover wrote:

On 15 Sep 2005 08:35:06 -0700, "moorehead_johnson@hotmail.com"
<moorehead_johnson@hotmail.com> wrote:

Frank Dwyer wrote:

Jeff wrote:

You apparently have much to learn. The head coverings and turbans are no
religious symbols, they are expressions of one's faith and they are in
not way imposed upon others.

Um, huh? How can something that expresses one's faith in a particular
religion NOT be a religious symbol?? That's like saying the cross
isn't a religious symbol - it's just an expression of faith.

There is (and can be) no school requiring
all students to wear turbans, just as there can be no school requiring
all students to proclaim themselves as living under deity they do not
believe in.

That's part and parcel of the point. The pledge of allegiance is a
tradition, not a requirement. No one has to say anthing, or even stand
if they don't want to participate in the recital. I remember as a kid
there were times I didn't feel like reciting anything, and didn't. No
one cared. There were other times I led the class in the pledge.
Again, no one cared.

If the pledge is a pledge to the USA, why would you have your shorts
all bunched up about taking out the part about the USA being under the
Christian God? It does say "God" not "a god"; the capital 'g' makes
all the difference you know.

Nope, never knew that...got a cite?

Do you know the history about when and why "God" was put into a pledge
to the USA and on our money? It was ALL about McCarthyism, the red
scare, and those 'godless commies'. Remember the witch hunt looking
for Commies? Remember all the people whose lives and careers were
destroyed because some anonomous person accused them of being
communist? Are those the Good Ol' Days for you?????

Boy, do I ever remember those witch hunts, particularly since we're
seeing them NOW. when the democrats began a witch hunt to try to blame
Republicans for 9/11 and again when they engaged in a witch hunt to
blame Republicans for hurricane Katrina.

Smokin' Ted Kennedyism is out to hang any Republicans who haven't
killed a passenger in their cars while driving off a bridge,
drunk.......

This is another example of an activist judge trying to fix something
that wasn't broke.

Why when a judge looks at the establishment clause and "under GOD" and
says it's unconstitutional is it 'activism'? That's THEIR JOB... to
rule on the constitionality of things!!! Would you simply have the
judges go along with any law congress makes? What would the purpose
of the court be then?

The purpose of the court is to interpret the Constitution AS WRITTEN,
not as they would like it to have been written, sorry.

The first ammendment and the establishment clause say
NOTHING...absolutely NOTHING about a middle school or a high school
somewhere in America that decides collectively to say a prayer at a
school ceremony, or before a sporting event, or whatever. Activist
judges have decided, ALL ON THEIR OWN, without any help from anything
actually WRITTEN in the Constitution, that anything that mentions God
or religion in a publically-funded setting is unConstitutional. Yet
they can't explain to anyone who asks (because we're not allowed to
ask) WHY the early American statesmen began every session of Congress
with prayer, or why the president is sworn into office with his hand on
the bible, to this day....."So help me God" is a legal tradition, in
fact, used to swear in witnesses in courts all across the nation.

One
has to wonder what the ACLU lawyers swore *to* when they were in court
fighting for the rights of people like Michael Newdow to systematically
dismantle the fabric and culture of the United States for personal,
political gain.

(And why wouldn't judges be "activist" if they overturned Rowe V.
Wade??)

Activist judges MAKE law and MAKE rights were rights didn't exist
before. There is NO constitutional right to vacuum out the skull of a
developing human fetus inside a womb, SORRY. A reversal of Roe V. Wade
would be a reversal of laws and rights created by judges, NOT the
Constitution.