craig pennington

Because, strictly speaking, it's unconstitutional for government to
promote a religious opinion.

I have no objections either, if they have no objections to not using
government to encourage my children to say it, either. They can rent out
the largest, most visible private plot of land to say "Under God" all
they want. They can spend there own, non-government money to buy up a
private cable channel to televise it 24/7. They can do whatever they
want, provided that they don't use government authority to do it.


I'm perfectly tolerent of private behavior. Government promoted recitation
of religious opinions is not private behavior.

Couldn't agree more. This, of course, applies to the pledge with or
without religious opinions included.

Cheers,
Craig

--
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law:
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently
advanced.

gray shockley

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:32:24 -0500, rightwing@idiot.com wrote:

There's an interesting essay by C.G. Jung, entitled "Answer to Job".


Dr. Jung's major contention in that work was that Job was much, much more
moral than God.


It's fairly easy to overlook that the whole "book" of Job is, essentially, a
bar-bet between that god and his old assistant.

towelie

And in the 80's.


Mine too.

--

aa #2133
apatriot #19

idontreply

Thank you for replying.

I commend myself for being able to _accept_ the plain english meaning of
the Constitution. Indeed, it's obvious that the only entity that the
First Amendment places any restrictions on with respect to religious
expression is Congress. And Congress can discuss religion 24/7 if it
wanted to; the First Amendment doesn't say that Congress cannot discuss
religion. The only thing that Congress ********ly cannot do is make
laws addressing religious matters.


You're evidently letting your emotions and biases cloud the plain
english meaning of the First Amendment. Indeed, consider that Thomas
Jefferson, the person often credited with first writing the words
"separation of church and state," was known to attend worship service in
the Nation's Capitol building. Indeed, people who hate Jesus would
condemn Jefferson's expression of faith today because it "obviously"
violates the First Amendment separation of church and state myth. But
don't take my word that this and other government buildings were used
for religious purposes by people who knew the Constitution better than
we do. Try this URL:

http://www.becketfund.org/other/Breyer-Jefferson.html

Regarding the "under God" version of the Pledge of Allegiance, note that
the First Amendment's freedom of speech essentially gives everybody the
right to recite these words should they so choose; there is no ********
First Amendment restrictions as to when or where they should or
shouldn't be when they recite these or any other words.


Just because we don't have the means to prove it doesn't mean its not true.

Indeed, this is my opinion as much as your insinuation that the Bible is
not true is your opinion. And thank you for volunteering your opinion. M. Clark

larry smith

It is a shorthand statement of the Establishment Clause, just as Jefferson's
"wall of separation" elucidates and clarifies the First Amendment's
prohibition against state action to promote religion. You may take a
civics class on the subject for details. Obviously you are illiterate on
the subject.

If you were capable of reading scholarly treatises, briefs in which there
are copious quotes from the Founders like Madison and Jefferson are helpful
too, particularly when the quotes happen to be legislative history of the
drafting of the First Amendment.

Fine, then. Let's call the god "Lucifer." Would that suit you?


Uh, yeah, and the sky ain't blue either.


Have you been smoking pot? You trailed off on a tangent there,
Raffaniello.
Besides, you will have to supply proof that schools teach or endorse homo***uality or homo***ual acts.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the supreme law of the land.
The Declaration of Independence does not possess the force of law. The
Constitution does, however.

bob lechevalier

The 14th amendment guarantees all of the rights and privileges of the
constitution will not be abridged by the states. This added all state
and local governments to "Congress" in the first amendment.

Then note that anything done by the government except perhaps acts of
the President and the Supreme Court authorized directly by the
Constitution, is a result of some act of Congress. Independent
agencies, for example, have no power except that granted by Congress.
Therefore, if Congress cannot pass laws respecting an establishment of
religion, no agency can act so as to respect an establishment.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org

carol lee smith

cs: > > And who would that be? Who claims to hate Jesus?


Once again, evidence challenged Dana makes an allegation he cannot support with proof.


And do you have a right to a fair trial? Is that in the Constitution?

Is religious liberty constitutional principle? Is it in the Constitution?

Then your opinion is in direct opposition to the president who put it in the pledge.

This nation has a religious founding? Which religion would that be? Can
you provide proof that this nation has a religious founding? I think you
have not been paying to attention to information which has been posted here.
<<>It does not recgognize any paticular [sic] religion, nor is it a state
establishment of religion.>>

That is a strange comment. You apparently think it is fine if it is up to
me to decide which god this phrase refers to, but you don't think it is
fine if I decide that the pledge as it was pre-54 was an inclusive oath,
and that putting in a religious reference--and "God (especially with a big
<G>) is a religious reference--turns it into an exclusive oath.


Yes, there is. God is a religious reference, even though you claim it is not.


Forcing the belief? Have any evidence of this?

I think it is just another of your strawman arguments.

President Eisenhower said: "In this way we are reaffirming the
transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this
way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever
will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

President Eisenhower further alluded to the religious aspects of the
pledge on June 14, 1954, when he signed the insertion of the phrase "under
God" into law.

"Millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and
town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation
and our people to the Almighty," Eisenhower said.

But Dana claims it is not religious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dream on, Dana.

dana

And the big point you keep on ignoring is you think it is ok to establish
secular humanism in the schools.

carol lee smith

If you know of some school which has established secular humanism as
school policy, provide it.

If you can.

dana

No Carol, all we have to do is see your posts.

Nope, not at all.


Depends on the colony in question.


Nope not at all. The use of God in the pledge is Generic.

No there is not Carol. You can whine and bitch about this all you want, it
will not change the fact that the pledge is not an religious endor*****t from the government.

Yup, the modern day Public School.

Yep he was recognizing that we are indeed a religious nation, and have a
history of being a religious nation. We have many religions in this country
Carol, that is why we are considered a religious nation.

Yep just like our DOI

It is not religious it only recognizes that we are a religious nation, with
a religious history.