‘Under God’ phrase should remain

Religions > Atheism > ‘Under God’ phrase should remain

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	""
Date:	23 Nov 2005 02:45:52 PM
Object:	‘Under God’ phrase should remain

http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/09/20/under_god_phrase_s.php
OPINION & EDITORIAL
‘Under God’ phrase should remain
by Darryn Beckstrom
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
If at first you don’t succeed, try and try again — until you find a judge
who agrees with you.
Such has been the steadfast mantra of Michael Newdow, an unrelenting
atheist who continues to challenge the constitutionality of the words
“under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. No more than a year after the
Supreme Court dismissed his case on the premise he lacked legal standing to
sue, Newdow was back in familiar territory. Last week, he was able to find
a federal judge in San Francisco to hold the recitation of the Pledge in
public schools unconstitutional.
Here we go again.
I decided to discuss the case with my students during a lesson on religion
and politics. I first asked them how they would define “imposing one’s
religious views on others.” The usual responses were given, such as “a
legislator who votes pro-life for religious reasons.” This same response
was provided for gay marriage. Then I asked whether their logic regarding
religion could apply to a “secular humanist.” The discord among students
continued.
After a while, I decided to ask them whether a legislator who voted to
reaffirm “under God” in the Pledge was “imposing his views” on the people
of this nation.
The discussion became less contentious.
Don’t get me wrong. A number of students indeed had some objections with
the two notorious words. But, most had viewed the phrase as being intrinsic
to our society’s most basic principles and not an endorsement of religion.
A majority of these undergraduates do not hold their views in solitude. The
late Chief Justice Rehnquist, during oral arguments, asked Newdow to remind
him what the vote was in Congress in 1954 to include “under God” in the
Pledge. He said it was unanimous. In 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled the recitation of the Pledge in public schools
unconstitutional. Shortly after, Congress reaffirmed the phrase with a
House vote of 416-3 and a Senate vote of 99-0. Two of the nay voters were
from California — the bastion of this litigation.
Maybe I’ve gone astray, but these votes seem to be anything but divisive.
And public opinion appears to support this assertion. An ABC
News/Washington Post poll conducted a few years ago revealed 89 percent of
those surveyed believed the phrase “under God” should remain in the Pledge
while only 10 percent said it should be removed.
Before some of the readers of this column take it upon themselves to remind
me of what they’ve learned in an undergraduate political theory class
regarding the evils of tyranny of the minority by the majority and the
dangers of public opinion, I would like to preempt these remarks by saying
I too have read these influential works in political theory.
I have also read The Federalist Papers.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in depth about the role of Congress and the
judiciary in government. He argued Congress has the power to sustain the
judiciary as the “least dangerous” branch in government. But, where is
Congress to reign in our nation’s activist courts — specifically those
located in the Ninth Circuit?
Jurists have increasingly substituted social and cultural norms for reason
— as advocated by Hamilton — to decide legal questions afflicting our
nation today. Legal decision-making now rests on balancing competing
interests — these interests being constitutional principles and political
correctness. Regrettably, political correctness often prevails.
An importunate citizen has commenced the debate over the constitutionality
of the phrase “under God” in the Pledge, a handful of appointed judges on
the West Coast have continued this litigation, and it will take nine
justices at the helm of our nation’s court system to resolve the conflict
of laws.
Whether “under God” remains in or is removed from the Pledge, there will
undoubtedly be some despondent people in this nation. Nonetheless, life is
often a zero-sum game — someone must gain something at another’s expense.
The question to be asked, though, is at what expense are we willing to
renounce our nation’s history, constitutional principles and commitment to
the rule of law to appease a small sect of our society?
Darryn Beckstrom is a doctoral student in the department of political
science and a second-year MPA candidate in the La Follette School of Public
Affairs.
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
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: ""
Title: Re: 'Under God' phrase should remain	24 Nov 2005 06:43:05 PM

wrote:

http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/09/20/under_god_phrase_s.php

OPINION & EDITORIAL
'Under God' phrase should remain

by Darryn Beckstrom
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
[...]
After a while, I decided to ask them whether a legislator who voted to
reaffirm "under God" in the Pledge was "imposing his views" on the people
of this nation.

The discussion became less contentious.

Don't get me wrong. A number of students indeed had some objections with
the two notorious words. But, most had viewed the phrase as being intrinsic
to our society's most basic principles and not an endorsement of religion.
[...]

Then what is the purpose of the phrase, if not to endorse religion?
Maybe you ought to spell out what these "most basic principles" are if
they are not the Constitution.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: 'Under God' phrase should remain	23 Nov 2005 11:43:22 PM

wrote:

http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/09/20/under_god_phrase_s.php

OPINION & EDITORIAL
'Under God' phrase should remain

Well, given that the whole pledge is a litany of robotic nationalistic
*****, I cant say I'd be highly comforted with references to god
removed from the neo-fascist hallmark that is supposedly a symbol for
liberty.
.

User: "Dale"
Title: Re: 'Under God' phrase should remain	24 Nov 2005 03:07:19 AM

<dezakin@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1132789402.930908.315160@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:

http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/09/20/under_god_phrase_s.php

OPINION & EDITORIAL
'Under God' phrase should remain

Agreed. Having "under God" in there is beside the point. Just do away with
the whole thing, it's creepy. And here in Texas, there's an additional one
for kids to recite: "Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee,
Texas, one and indivisible."
.

User: "Dave"
Title: Re: 'Under God' phrase should remain	24 Nov 2005 02:11:25 PM

Dale wrote:

<dezakin@usa.net> wrote:

buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:

http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/09/20/under_god_phrase_s.php

OPINION & EDITORIAL
'Under God' phrase should remain

Well, given that the whole pledge is a litany of robotic nationalistic
*****, I can't say I'd be highly comforted with references to god
removed from the neo-fascist hallmark that is supposedly a symbol for
liberty.

Yeah, creepy. If you are going to pledge allegiance to something it
ought to be to a set of principles and not to a certain geographic area.
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: 'Under God' phrase should remain	23 Nov 2005 11:58:30 PM

On 23 Nov 2005 15:43:22 -0800,

wrote:

buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:

http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/09/20/under_god_phrase_s.php

OPINION & EDITORIAL
'Under God' phrase should remain

There were two lawsuits that went all the way to the Supreme Court at
the start of WW2. The first confirmed that it was mandatory for all
school kids, but the second ruled that it wasn't because it was too
much like what were fighting.
.

User: "Jim Hutton"
Title: Re: =?windows-1252?Q?=91Under_God=92_phrase_should_remai?==?windows-1252?Q?n?=	23 Nov 2005 04:58:30 PM

wrote:

Aren't you being disingenuous here? The judges that said "no" to Newdow
were not disagreeing with him on the point he was putting forth. They
simply said that he did not, in that specific case, have the legal
grounds to put forth that point. They did not want to address his point
for fear of political backlash. So, you think Mr Newdow should not
reprise the issue?

Such has been the steadfast mantra of Michael Newdow, an unrelenting
atheist who continues to challenge the constitutionality of the words

Do you see how you spin opinion when you append the adjective
"unrelenting" in front of "atheist"? Will your arguments not stand on
their own without such spin?
J #1696
.

User: ""
Title: Re: ‘Under God’ phrase should remain	23 Nov 2005 06:55:41 PM

Jim Hutton <nogods@lestrade.c-o-m> wrote:

I hope you do understand you are replying to Darryn Beckstrom though it is
unlikely she will see your comments here.
You can goto the URL given, there actually is a comment section where you
can comment and she might even see your comments
Or, you can write her in care of the University paper
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
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: ""
Title: Re: 'Under God' phrase should remain	23 Nov 2005 08:29:15 PM

"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

:|Of course the author is not here, because you illegally post
:|copyrighted material without permission. The only reason that you get
:|away with it is that the copyright holders have yet to protest. That
:|doesn't make it any less illegal.

You forgot to answer this
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

:|Madison was in the meeting and in agreement with Jefferson, or didn't
:|you read that in my post? Also, if Jefferson had nothing to do with
:|the first amendment, why do we care that he spoke of a wall of
:|separation of church and state, then?

Which meeting was Madison in with Jefferson and what was Madison in
agreements with Jefferson on?
If you are saying that Madison was in any meeting with Jefferson that had
anything to do with the 3rd Article (it was the 3rd at the time it was
presented to and going through Congress, it didn't become the 1st Amendment
until December 15, 1791) you are full of it.
I would definitely like to see valid historical documentation presented by
you that shows this to be the case.
Madison presented the proposed (Articles))(amendments) to Congress June 8,
1789
Check the following out
Thomas Jefferson
http://sc94.ameslab.gov/TOUR/tjefferson.html
Minister to France
From 1784 to 1789, Jefferson lived outside the United States. He was sent
to Paris initially as a commissioner to help negotiate commercial treaties;
then in 1785 he succeeded Benjamin Franklin as minister to France. Most
European countries, however, were indifferent to American economic
overtures. "They seemed, in fact," Jefferson wrote, "to know little about
us. . . . They were ignorant of our commerce, and of the exchange of
articles it might offer advantageously to both parties." Only one country,
Prussia, signed a pact based on a model treaty drafted by Jefferson.
During these years Jefferson followed events in the United States with
understandable interest. He advised against any harsh punishment of those
responsible for Shay's Rebellion (1786-87) in Massachusetts. He worried
particularly that the new Constitution of the United States lacked a bill
of rights and failed to limit the number of terms for the presidency. In
France he witnessed the beginning of the French Revolution, but he doubted
whether the French people could duplicate the American example of
republican government. His advice, more conservative than might be
anticipated, was that France emulate the British system of constitutional
monarchy.
Secretary of State
When Jefferson left Paris on Sept. 26, 1789, he expected to return to his
post. On that date and unknown to him, however, Congress confirmed his
appointment as secretary of state in the first administration of George
Washington. Jefferson accepted the position with some reluctance and
largely because of Washington's insistence. He immediately expressed his
alarm at the regal forms and ceremonies that marked the executive office,
but his fears were tempered somewhat by his confidence in the character of
Washington.
************************************************************
"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

:|And Adams said in letters comments to the reverse?

That sentence doesn't make sense. you want to try it again?

:| What makes
:|Jefferson's words in letters of any more value, since he had nothing to
:|do, by your own words, with the 1st Amendment. In fact, with Sam
:|Adams, John Adams, and John Quincy Adams' impact on the country's
:|beginning years, you could make the case that Adams' words are of
:|higher value.

What words did Samuel Adams write between 1776 and 1791 that had greater
value?
What words did JQ Adams, July 11, 1767 – February 23, 1848) write that had
greater value between 1783 - 1791? (ages 16 - 24)
What role did John Adams play in framing the Constitution and framing the
BORs?
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
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: ""
Title: Re: 'Under God' phrase should remain	24 Nov 2005 02:13:10 PM

"The Fool" <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:

:|If you aren't going to read the articles that you quote from (where I
:|told what the meeting was), I'm not going to tell you again. Go back
:|and read it for yourself.

What are your afraid of?
Simple task to provide the information, instead you prefer to refuse and
then try to make your refusal look good.
If this meeting you are claiming took place concerned the 3rd Amendment,
you are full of it. No such meeting took place since Jefferson was in
France or in transit back to the US until after the Articles (Amendments)
were passed as I provided information documenting.
So I can understand why you are reluctant to repeat your original claims.
Next, Jefferson and Madison were not always in agreement. In many ways
Jefferson was more radical than Madison and as such Madison frequently had
to tone him down
The difference between you and myself in this are of posting, etc is like
the difference between night and day
I spend and spent vast amounts of time, often times money as well,
researching & verifying data before I ever post it on our web site or use
it on line anywhere.
We, Susan Batte and myself, have frequently traveled to places, the
National Archives, the USSC library , LOC, or personally contacting such
places requesting information, as well as other universities and or
scholars.
In doing historical research for Mike Newdow, it has to be accurate and
minutely detailed with regards to cites, since it is going into legal
briefs to courts, etc
In the ten plus years I have been in UseNet I have established a very good
reputation among most reasonable people (minus those who I have routinely
spanked over and over again over the years) as being accurate and a
provider of information one can trust and use.
Providing accurate information is very important to me.
if I ever posted information that I found out later was incorrect I would
be mortified. I would want to know how and why I did that. Where had I made
my mistake and why. I would find whatever time and money was required to
find out how that happened and to make sure it didn't happen again.
I will usually take time and energy to engage people in valid discussions,
replying to their posts, conferencing the inaccuracies in their posts, not
with my opinion, which is usually better then the average poster on here by
virtue of the ten plus years I have spent studying this material, but with
valid historical and/or legal documentation.
Not only that but I provide information that supports my position properly
cited, information that may oppose my portion, properly cited and
information that is indifferent to my position.
Reason being, that is how real life really is. There is a great deal of
information out there that supports strict separation of church and state,
but there is information out there supports the opposite as well. Less
information but it is there. I have no problems providing both
I don't go around trying to censor or get anyone kicked off UseNet or the
internet. I don't feel a need to complain to a person's ISP, etc.
You are the exact opposite to all of the above. You post information that
isn't accurate routinely. Even after you have been shown it is incorrect,
you will more than likely turn around and post it again at some point in
time.
You have admired contacting my ISP showing just how small and petty a
person you really are. That also shows how much my being here bugs you.
Truth and accuracy seems to have no importance to you in any shape or form.
What a piece of work you are.
I don't care what you do, you don't bother me in anyway shape or form. Most
of the timer I don't even bother to read what you post.
The only posts of yours that I do usually reply to are ones where you
decide to play lawyer or historian. Those I do enjoy spanking you over,
especially since you make it so easy to do.
I don't care what your religion is nor your religious, political or any
other beliefs you have. By and large you are totally unimportant to me.
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
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: "David Jensen"
Title: Re: ‘Under God’ phrase should remain	23 Nov 2005 10:39:24 PM

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:55:41 -0500, in alt.atheism
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote in
<doe9o1huc377ql5g1he6vje3h1m2073nm0@4ax.com>:

Jim Hutton <nogods@lestrade.c-o-m> wrote:

Do you support the claims that you are posting, are you just reporting,
or are you trying to stir the pot.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: ‘Under God’ phrase should remain	24 Nov 2005 12:58:19 PM

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

:|On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:55:41 -0500, in alt.atheism
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote in
:|<doe9o1huc377ql5g1he6vje3h1m2073nm0@4ax.com>:
:|>Jim Hutton <nogods@lestrade.c-o-m> wrote:
:|>
:|>>:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|>>:|> http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/09/20/under_god_phrase_s.php
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|> OPINION & EDITORIAL
:|>>:|> ‘Under God’ phrase should remain
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|> by Darryn Beckstrom
:|>>:|> Tuesday, September 20, 2005
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|> If at first you don’t succeed, try and try again — until you find a judge
:|>>:|> who agrees with you.
:|>>:|
:|>>:|Aren't you being disingenuous here? The judges that said "no" to Newdow
:|>>:|were not disagreeing with him on the point he was putting forth. They
:|>>:|simply said that he did not, in that specific case, have the legal
:|>>:|grounds to put forth that point. They did not want to address his point
:|>>:|for fear of political backlash. So, you think Mr Newdow should not
:|>>:|reprise the issue?
:|>>:|
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|> Such has been the steadfast mantra of Michael Newdow, an unrelenting
:|>>:|> atheist who continues to challenge the constitutionality of the words
:|>>:|
:|>>:|Do you see how you spin opinion when you append the adjective
:|>>:|"unrelenting" in front of "atheist"? Will your arguments not stand on
:|>>:|their own without such spin?
:|>>:|
:|>>:|J #1696
:|>
:|>I hope you do understand you are replying to Darryn Beckstrom though it is
:|>unlikely she will see your comments here.
:|>
:|>You can goto the URL given, there actually is a comment section where you
:|>can comment and she might even see your comments
:|>
:|>Or, you can write her in care of the University paper
:|
:|Do you support the claims that you are posting, are you just reporting,
:|or are you trying to stir the pot.

Why think you for asking that. It gives me a chance to explain.
I have been here on UseNet since Feb. 1995.
Just about anyone who has been on here, in any of these particular
newsgroups, any length of time knows my position on the matter of church
state separation.
If they don't there is the matter of my signature which is usually included
at the end of most things I post. It sure is simple enough to find my
position on the matter.by clicking on any of the URls provided ion that
signature.
I post as I post for several reasons.
I would far more engage in actual discussions but that seems to be a thing
of the past.. When I first came on here and the first few years I was on
here people actually engaged in discussion. Not only that but people, more
than not, provided data backing up their positons. Frequently incorrect
data, but data nonetheless. I recall fondly many times when someone would
post something that was new to me and I had to make a mad dash to the
libraries to find information to counter them or discover they were
correct.
Those days are long past. In recent years there has been a flood of trolls
of the worse type. Trolls that make pronoucements, making thigs up as they
go or not even botherign to back anything up. They get taken to the
woodshed by others who do provide data showing beyond doubt the troll is
incorrect. Actual legal or historical data, primary or secondary source
data by respected scholars in the case of secondary source data.
Such is totally ignored and the troll keep repeating his or her false
mantras over and over again Fred, The Fool, Dana, and a hundred others who
have come stayed awhile and left over the past few years.
Since I soon lose interest in such people and ignore them, I find the days
of valid discussion, fun discussion, being sent to the library to find more
data, etc to be long gone.
That leaves me with two options.
Discontinue participation here or do it in another way.
I have decided to do it in another way.
I realized long ago that the trolls, the theocrats, etc learned how to use
the internet to their advantage.
That they can spread their propaganda easy and fast.
For every pro separation web site there are 3, 4 or more anti separation
web sites. For every pro separation posted on line in chat rooms, blogs,
chat forums, message forums, etc there are 5 or 6 or more anti separation
types
Over the last couple of years what was once pretty much posted in UseNet
basically stayed in UseNet and archives such as Google. However, now it
doesn't just stay in UseNet and or archives like Google, but gets picked
and circulated all over the web, all over the internet.
I am constantly finding posts that I posted, actual discussions or
rebuttals of others that I have posted on UseNet, in some of the most
unlikely places on the internet, in places I never heard of before, didn't
know existed..
Just recently I found where our Con Principle web site was cited and
quoted from in of all places a super ultra conservative web site.
hehehehehe
So I realized that posting a post here can reach a lot of people, people
that might not even know what UseNet is.
Thus I post, and I post my signature with each post, that is done on
purpose, and I post Church state related information.
Doing so gives people something to make comments on if they want, informs
people that might not have the time to find these various articles on their
own and gives the trolls and theocrats repeated chances to make total fools
of themselves again and again.
I post it as it comes, you will find pro separation articles, anti
separation articles and indifferent to separation but still on church state
topics articles,.
I seldom make comment on the articles. Sometimes I will post "Theocracy in
Action." at the head of a article that is very obvious in its portion.
I notice from reactions of some trolls that it my new style of posting is
bugging them a great deal.
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
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: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: ‘Under God’ phrase should remain	24 Nov 2005 06:55:30 AM

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:39:24 -0600, David Jensen wrote:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:55:41 -0500, in alt.atheism
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote in
<doe9o1huc377ql5g1he6vje3h1m2073nm0@4ax.com>:

Jim Hutton <nogods@lestrade.c-o-m> wrote:

buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:

Such has been the steadfast mantra of Michael Newdow, an unrelenting
atheist who continues to challenge the constitutionality of the words

Do you see how you spin opinion when you append the adjective
"unrelenting" in front of "atheist"? Will your arguments not stand on
their own without such spin?

J #1696

Do you support the claims that you are posting, are you just reporting,
or are you trying to stir the pot.

"Fair and Balanced"
.

User: "David Jensen"
Title: Re: ‘Under God’ phrase should remain	24 Nov 2005 03:18:17 PM

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 00:55:30 -0600, in alt.atheism
Gray Shockley <grayshockley@gmail.com> wrote in
<0001HW.BFAAC00200359BDFF0284550@news.giganews.com>:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:39:24 -0600, David Jensen wrote:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:55:41 -0500, in alt.atheism
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote in
<doe9o1huc377ql5g1he6vje3h1m2073nm0@4ax.com>:

Jim Hutton <nogods@lestrade.c-o-m> wrote:

buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:

Such has been the steadfast mantra of Michael Newdow, an unrelenting
atheist who continues to challenge the constitutionality of the words

Do you see how you spin opinion when you append the adjective
"unrelenting" in front of "atheist"? Will your arguments not stand on
their own without such spin?

J #1696

Do you support the claims that you are posting, are you just reporting,
or are you trying to stir the pot.

"Fair and Balanced"

Ah.
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: 'Under God' phrase should remain; discussion fails 10th Amendment test	23 Nov 2005 08:33:28 PM

alt.education removed.
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:

http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/09/20/under_god_phrase_s.php

OPINION & EDITORIAL
'Under God' phrase should remain

by Darryn Beckstrom
Tuesday, September 20, 2005

If at first you don't succeed, try and try again - until you find a judge
who agrees with you.

"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
Regardless that Americans have been misled by anti-religious expression
activist judges to think that the establishment clause means absolute
church-state separation, the 10th actually reserved for the States the
power to legislate religion since the 1st prohibited this power
explicitly only to Congress (federal government).
As I mentioned in an earlier thread, although "under God" respects
Christianity only by implication, the State governments, with their
10th A. protected sovereign power to legislate religion, should have
individually officially adopted "under God" in state versions of the
Pledge as opposed to any official action of Congress.
<snipped for brevity>
.

User: ""
Title: Re: 'Under God' phrase should remain; discussion fails 10th Amendment test	24 Nov 2005 10:13:27 AM

On 23 Nov 2005 12:33:28 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

OPINION & EDITORIAL
'Under God' phrase should remain

Why are we UNDER God?
We might be OVER God or next to God, or around the corner from God.
Who decided this?
My upstairs neighbor is a drunk so he sure is not God.
.

User: "David Jensen"
Title: Re: 'Under God' phrase should remain; discussion fails 10th Amendment test	23 Nov 2005 09:01:15 PM

On 23 Nov 2005 12:33:28 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132778008.097438.9590@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

alt.education removed.

buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:

"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."

Very good. You can quote a small bit of the Constitution.

Regardless that Americans have been misled by anti-religious expression
activist judges to think that the establishment clause means absolute
church-state separation, the 10th actually reserved for the States the
power to legislate religion since the 1st prohibited this power
explicitly only to Congress (federal government).

Feel free to show us any place where your claims are supported by anyone
whose opinion matters, say the Supreme Court of the United States.
Assertions are easy to make, harder to substantiate.

As I mentioned in an earlier thread, although "under God" respects
Christianity only by implication, the State governments, with their
10th A. protected sovereign power to legislate religion, should have
individually officially adopted "under God" in state versions of the
Pledge as opposed to any official action of Congress.

Please tell me which states have ever used this argument and won with
it.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: 'Under God' phrase should remain; discussion fails 10th Amendment test	23 Nov 2005 10:41:38 PM

David Jensen wrote:

On 23 Nov 2005 12:33:28 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132778008.097438.9590@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

alt.education removed.

buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:

"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."

Very good. You can quote a small bit of the Constitution.

Consider that the 10th Amendment is the amendment that anti-religious
expression activist Justices don't want to talk about.

Feel free to show us any place where your claims are supported by anyone
whose opinion matters, say the Supreme Court of the United States.
Assertions are easy to make, harder to substantiate.

Justices are not kings who are wiser than the rest of us as you must be
presuming. Here's Jefferson's "secret formula" for interpreting the
Constitution:
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore,
be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is
not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything
mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William
Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450
"Common sense [is] the foundation of all authorities, of the laws
themselves, and of their construction." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at
New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:92
And if you really believe that Justices are more virtuous and less
corrupt than everybody else, consider that both Lincoln and Jefferson
warned us about corrupt Justices:
"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts
- not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who
pervert the Constitution." -- Abraham Lincoln; Political Debates
Between Lincoln and Douglas. 1897
"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of society:
that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." --Thomas
Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113
Jefferson also reflected that the Founding Fathers gave the care of our
religious freedoms to the States:
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to
others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation
belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the
care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious
freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262

Please tell me which states have ever used this argument and won with
it.

None that I know of. But haven't I repeatedly been mentioning that the
American people are largely ignorant of what the Constitution says
anyway, particularly with respect to the "invisible" 10th Amendment.

User: ""
Title: Re: 'Under God' phrase should remain; discussion fails 10th Amendment test	24 Nov 2005 12:32:10 PM

On 23 Nov 2005 14:41:38 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

Please tell me which states have ever used this argument and won with
it.

So when everyone (except a few quirky idiots) say
you're wrong--you concluded that you're right?
.

User: "David Jensen"
Title: Re: 'Under God' phrase should remain; discussion fails 10th Amendment test	23 Nov 2005 10:50:58 PM

On 23 Nov 2005 14:41:38 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132785698.304053.174110@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

David Jensen wrote:

On 23 Nov 2005 12:33:28 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132778008.097438.9590@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

alt.education removed.

buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:

"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."

Very good. You can quote a small bit of the Constitution.

Consider that the 10th Amendment is the amendment that anti-religious
expression activist Justices don't want to talk about.

Why should I? The courts don't.

Feel free to show us any place where your claims are supported by anyone
whose opinion matters, say the Supreme Court of the United States.
Assertions are easy to make, harder to substantiate.

Justices are not kings who are wiser than the rest of us as you must be
presuming. Here's Jefferson's "secret formula" for interpreting the
Constitution:

[snip oft repeated but utterly meaningless comments, primarily from
Jefferson]

Please tell me which states have ever used this argument and won with
it.

How is it that you are incapable of understanding that the ignorance is
yours?
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: 'Under God' phrase should remain; discussion fails 10th Amendment test	24 Nov 2005 12:16:59 AM

David Jensen wrote:

On 23 Nov 2005 14:41:38 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132785698.304053.174110@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

David Jensen wrote:

On 23 Nov 2005 12:33:28 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132778008.097438.9590@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

alt.education removed.

buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:

"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."

Very good. You can quote a small bit of the Constitution.

Consider that the 10th Amendment is the amendment that anti-religious
expression activist Justices don't want to talk about.

Why should I? The courts don't.

What did I just get finished saying? Constitution-ignoring activist
Justices just want the 10th to go away.

Feel free to show us any place where your claims are supported by anyone
whose opinion matters, say the Supreme Court of the United States.
Assertions are easy to make, harder to substantiate.

Justices are not kings who are wiser than the rest of us as you must be
presuming. Here's Jefferson's "secret formula" for interpreting the
Constitution:

[snip oft repeated but utterly meaningless comments, primarily from
Jefferson]

<ROTFL>
But without Jefferson it would have been harder for the Court to
justify their anti-religious expression interpretation of the
establishment clause:
"In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of
religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between
Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page
164." -- Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947.

Please tell me which states have ever used this argument and won with
it.

How is it that you are incapable of understanding that the ignorance is
yours?

Yeah right, incapable. You're so "sure" of your own understanding of
this issue that you are already resorting to ad hominem remarks.
You don't hear activist Justices or the liberal media making any
attempt to enlighten the constitutionally ignorant American public
about the 10th Amendment with respect to their religious freedoms
either.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: 'Under God' phrase should remain; discussion fails 10th Amendment test	24 Nov 2005 12:44:40 PM

On 23 Nov 2005 16:16:59 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

David Jensen wrote:

Consider that the 10th Amendment is the amendment that anti-religious
expression activist Justices don't want to talk about.

Why should I? The courts don't.

What did I just get finished saying? Constitution-ignoring activist
Justices just want the 10th to go away.

What did HE just get done saying?
There isn't a court that agrees with you.
MOF, the ONLY ones who agree with you have been fired,
slapped silly, or outright made fun of.

[snip oft repeated but utterly meaningless comments, primarily from
Jefferson]

<ROTFL>

But without Jefferson it would have been harder for the Court to
justify their anti-religious expression interpretation of the
establishment clause:

Why?
Are you now saying that courts would never have found
that "separate but equal...in inherently unequal"
without Brown v Board?
The Civil war established the supremacy of federal over
states by force of arms, and dozen or so court cases
and has been accepted doctrine for about ever.
The "foundings" underpinnings are predicated on those
who set up the constitution deliberately NOT including
religious ***** in the constitution.
For those of you kooky idiots who keep insisting the
"founders" established a "christian nation"---the very
fact that NO mention of it is glaring
The 1st amendment makes sure that INDIVIDUALS are the
focus of the proscription against GOVERNMENT
"promoting" some kind of official religion by fobidding
congress from passing any such laws.
Since the federal law also applies to ALL
government--state and local---that means that NO
GOVERNMENT can
You cannot advance any "theory" that states "may"
promote religion (of any kind) because states are NOT
"Supreme" or "sovereign". The term "sovereign" is an
antiquated term. States are accorded certain areas of
power that courts recognize as being "their domain"
based on the contitution
The ***** notion you're advancing isn't one of them

"In the words of Jefferson,

Jeffersons "words" have no legal validity, moron

How is it that you are incapable of understanding that the ignorance is
yours?

Yeah right, incapable. You're so "sure" of your own understanding of
this issue that you are already resorting to ad hominem remarks.

Mostly because NONE of the arguments and/or claims
you're trolling here have any merit
THe only thing left is to point out what a miserable
little retard you are.
.

User: "David Jensen"
Title: Re: 'Under God' phrase should remain; discussion fails 10th Amendment test	24 Nov 2005 12:23:30 AM

On 23 Nov 2005 16:16:59 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132791419.288809.147430@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

David Jensen wrote:

On 23 Nov 2005 14:41:38 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132785698.304053.174110@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

David Jensen wrote:

On 23 Nov 2005 12:33:28 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132778008.097438.9590@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

alt.education removed.

buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:

"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."

Very good. You can quote a small bit of the Constitution.

Consider that the 10th Amendment is the amendment that anti-religious
expression activist Justices don't want to talk about.

Why should I? The courts don't.

What did I just get finished saying? Constitution-ignoring activist
Justices just want the 10th to go away.

No they don't, they just don't accept your interpretation of the Tenth
Amendment. The problem with routinely libelling folks is that it
persuades everyone that you are a loon.

Feel free to show us any place where your claims are supported by anyone
whose opinion matters, say the Supreme Court of the United States.
Assertions are easy to make, harder to substantiate.

Justices are not kings who are wiser than the rest of us as you must be
presuming. Here's Jefferson's "secret formula" for interpreting the
Constitution:

[snip oft repeated but utterly meaningless comments, primarily from
Jefferson]

<ROTFL>

But without Jefferson it would have been harder for the Court to
justify their anti-religious expression interpretation of the
establishment clause:

"In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of
religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between
Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page
164." -- Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947.

Whatever. The Court did not rely on Jefferson, they just used his
felicitous phrase.

Please tell me which states have ever used this argument and won with
it.

How is it that you are incapable of understanding that the ignorance is
yours?

Yeah right, incapable. You're so "sure" of your own understanding of
this issue that you are already resorting to ad hominem remarks.

No, I'm paying attention to what the courts have said, and find that
your repeated refusal to look at the decisions is dishonest.

You don't hear activist Justices or the liberal media making any
attempt to enlighten the constitutionally ignorant American public
about the 10th Amendment with respect to their religious freedoms
either.

Because it isn't there. The First protects us from your loony theories.
.

Page 1 of 1

Post reply

Many Christian's who of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as proof of a Christian America. The reason appears obvious: the Declaration mentions God. Constitution does not include the phrase "Separat
That "meaningless" under god phrase...
"Pledge fight to return to S.F. courtroom; Atheists object to 'under God' phrase"
as forth as Otto develops, you can acknowledge the phrase much more frantically
The Cool New Phrase To Use
The Most Important Phrase You'll Never Hear
OT: A "mobius" quiz: "Who first coined the phrase..."
I finally learned the origin of the phrase "on a silver platter"

OT: Need a French Ideomatic word - or phrase.
Liberals have run off with this phrase, prostituting it per usual.
I finally learned the origin of the phrase "on a silver platter"
Whoever Termed The Phrase...
jason's phrase directs apart from our carrot after we belong underneath it
Re: 90% Say 'Under God' Should Remain in the Pledge of Allegiance;LAST CALL for Atheists to Leave America Willingly!
Re: 90% Say 'Under God' Should Remain in the Pledge of Allegiance;LAST CALL for Atheists to Leave America Willingly!

NEWER

pg.3585 pg.2749 pg.2106 pg.1612 pg.1232 pg.940 pg.716 pg.544 pg.412 pg.311 pg.234 pg.175 pg.130 pg.96 pg.70 pg.50 pg.35 pg.24 pg.16 pg.10 pg.6 pg.3 pg.1

OLDER