"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago

A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in
public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same
atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected
by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton


A liberal California judge. I really wish that the state of California
would either secede from the union...or crumble into the sea during the
next earthquake. They are completely out of touch with the rest of
America.



But not out of touch with the constitution which is quite clear on this
matter. It beyond me why religious folks - some of them anyway - are so
insecure in their beliefs that they have to have help from the government.
The gov't should be completely neutral when it comes to religion. Of
course some nitwits thnk that "freedon of religion" mean you can choose
Baptist, Methodist, or Presbeterian.

We're a nation founded in Judeo-Christian values, and most of our laws are
derived from such. There is no portion of the Constitution that uses the
phrase "Freedom of religion". The amendment says "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion".

So how does one jump to the conclusion that the Pledge of Allegiance is a
case of Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion?

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago

A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in
public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same
atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was
rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton


A liberal California judge. I really wish that the state of California
would either secede from the union...or crumble into the sea during the
next earthquake. They are completely out of touch with the rest of
America.



But not out of touch with the constitution which is quite clear on this
matter. It beyond me why religious folks - some of them anyway - are so
insecure in their beliefs that they have to have help from the
government. The gov't should be completely neutral when it comes to
religion. Of course some nitwits thnk that "freedon of religion" mean you
can choose Baptist, Methodist, or Presbeterian.

We're a nation founded in Judeo-Christian values, and most of our laws are
derived from such. There is no portion of the Constitution that uses the
phrase "Freedom of religion". The amendment says "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion".

So how does one jump to the conclusion that the Pledge of Allegiance is a
case of Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion?


It's quite simple. Governments put young children in a position where they
are strongly coerced to pledge, on a daily basis, that a god exists. This is
one religious opinion but it is not held by billions of people who believe
that there is more than one god, that there is no god, or that the notion of
a god is meaningless. By doing so the gov't is promoting one set of
religious beliefs over others. This is what the constitution meant to
prohibit. In this case the gov't, thru the pledge, is encouraging the
religion of monotheism.

I will ask you to answer this question: why are so many people, mostly
Xtians, so anxious to push their beliefs down other people's throats? Why
can't they go about their religion in whatever way they choose without
requiring the gov't to get involved?

Peter Aitken

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago

A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in
public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the
same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was
rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton


A liberal California judge. I really wish that the state of California
would either secede from the union...or crumble into the sea during the
next earthquake. They are completely out of touch with the rest of
America.



But not out of touch with the constitution which is quite clear on this
matter. It beyond me why religious folks - some of them anyway - are so
insecure in their beliefs that they have to have help from the
government. The gov't should be completely neutral when it comes to
religion. Of course some nitwits thnk that "freedon of religion" mean
you can choose Baptist, Methodist, or Presbeterian.

We're a nation founded in Judeo-Christian values, and most of our laws
are derived from such. There is no portion of the Constitution that uses
the phrase "Freedom of religion". The amendment says "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

So how does one jump to the conclusion that the Pledge of Allegiance is a
case of Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion?


It's quite simple. Governments put young children in a position where they
are strongly coerced to pledge, on a daily basis, that a god exists. This
is one religious opinion but it is not held by billions of people who
believe that there is more than one god, that there is no god, or that the
notion of a god is meaningless. By doing so the gov't is promoting one set
of religious beliefs over others. This is what the constitution meant to
prohibit. In this case the gov't, thru the pledge, is encouraging the
religion of monotheism.

I will ask you to answer this question: why are so many people, mostly
Xtians, so anxious to push their beliefs down other people's throats? Why
can't they go about their religion in whatever way they choose without
requiring the gov't to get involved?

Peter Aitken


Those billions who believe in a god, or numerous gods can salute their god.
the phase, does not say Jesus, or Budda, or Shiva, or any one god. Get over
it. The framers of the constitution believed in a God, actually I think
several different versions. They put the statement about Congress not
making a law respecting an establishment of religion to prevent a Church of
England scenario. No where in the the constitution does is say "separation
of Church and State". God is even referenced in the Declaration of
Independence.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
link.net...

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago

A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in
public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the
same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was
rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton


A liberal California judge. I really wish that the state of
California
would either secede from the union...or crumble into the sea during
the
next earthquake. They are completely out of touch with the rest of
America.



But not out of touch with the constitution which is quite clear on
this
matter. It beyond me why religious folks - some of them anyway - are
so
insecure in their beliefs that they have to have help from the
government. The gov't should be completely neutral when it comes to
religion. Of course some nitwits thnk that "freedon of religion" mean
you can choose Baptist, Methodist, or Presbeterian.

We're a nation founded in Judeo-Christian values, and most of our laws
are derived from such. There is no portion of the Constitution that
uses
the phrase "Freedom of religion". The amendment says "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

So how does one jump to the conclusion that the Pledge of Allegiance is
a
case of Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion?


It's quite simple. Governments put young children in a position where
they
are strongly coerced to pledge, on a daily basis, that a god exists.
This
is one religious opinion but it is not held by billions of people who
believe that there is more than one god, that there is no god, or that
the
notion of a god is meaningless. By doing so the gov't is promoting one
set
of religious beliefs over others. This is what the constitution meant to
prohibit. In this case the gov't, thru the pledge, is encouraging the
religion of monotheism.

I will ask you to answer this question: why are so many people, mostly
Xtians, so anxious to push their beliefs down other people's throats?
Why
can't they go about their religion in whatever way they choose without
requiring the gov't to get involved?

Peter Aitken


Those billions who believe in a god, or numerous gods can salute their
god.
the phase, does not say Jesus, or Budda, or Shiva, or any one god. Get
over
it. The framers of the constitution believed in a God, actually I think
several different versions. They put the statement about Congress not
making a law respecting an establishment of religion to prevent a Church
of
England scenario. No where in the the constitution does is say
"separation
of Church and State". God is even referenced in the Declaration of
Independence.

There were also offical STATE religions until the middle 1800's

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message

I will ask you to answer this question: why are so many people, mostly
Xtians, so anxious to push their beliefs down other people's throats? Why
can't they go about their religion in whatever way they choose without
requiring the gov't to get involved?

What are "Xtians", Peter? I've never heard of that group. Is it anything
like Xlims, or Xists? I've never heard of them, either. If, on the other
hand, you're merely attempting to make some oh-so-clever commentary through
contrived word usage, please clarify. It has been many, many years since
I've left junior high school, and I don't interpret juvenile innuendo very
well anymore. If you have something to say, then say it.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message

I will ask you to answer this question: why are so many people, mostly
Xtians, so anxious to push their beliefs down other people's throats? Why
can't they go about their religion in whatever way they choose without
requiring the gov't to get involved?

What are "Xtians", Peter? I've never heard of that group. Is it anything
like Xlims, or Xists? I've never heard of them, either. If, on the
other hand, you're merely attempting to make some oh-so-clever commentary
through contrived word usage, please clarify. It has been many, many
years since I've left junior high school, and I don't interpret juvenile
innuendo very well anymore. If you have something to say, then say it.


Nice try, but no one could possibly be so dumb as to not be aware the Xtians
is shorthand for Christians. Well, maybe you are the exception. Do you know
what Xmas means?


--
Peter Aitken

NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago

A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in
public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same
atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected
by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton


A liberal California judge. I really wish that the state of California
would either secede from the union...or crumble into the sea during the next
earthquake. They are completely out of touch with the rest of America.

I take exception to that - since I live here. And you cannot criticize
those that hope terrorist hit red states, if you are going to trun
around and wish biblical level disaster on a blue one.

California is not, overall, as liberal as most people think. The two
major population centers of L.A. and San Francisco are very liberal -
S.F. is off the chart on the left. But the rest of the state is pretty
mainstream. Most of the liberal in the state legislature have to admit
that they are more liberal than the population.

California's problem is a poorly run republican party. It takes Arnold
Schwartzenegger to get the republican vote out. There are initiatives
that never would have passed if the state was deeply left. Prop 22 -
the ban on gay marriage - is an example. Passed with over 60% of the
vote five years ago.

Prop 13 is still the still a holy grail for a majority in this state...
Many will talk up how terrible it was... But you put them behind the
curtain in the voting booth and they vote to keep it.

Californians, like people just about anywhere else, will vote to spend
a whole lot of other people's money. Tax the rich initiatives are easy
because "the rich" don't get more votes - so voters can easily pass
something if they think they aren't paying for it.

This will now go to the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals...where they'll
hurry it along to the Supreme Court in the hopes that it will be heard
before the court's vacancies are filled.

Fat chance. This will take months to get past the 9th circus, then
months to be heard by the SCOTUS. Bush could put three people on the
supreme bench by the time they hear this case. The only thing that may
be hurried are temporary orders as to whether Elk Grove and other
district have to stop the pledge during the process.

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
ups.com...


California is not, overall, as liberal as most people think.

Curtis, you're wrong. Rush Limbaugh says CA is overwhelmingly liberal, and
that's that. NOYB says so, too. Reality is irrelevant.

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:34:44 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
oups.com...


California is not, overall, as liberal as most people think.

Curtis, you're wrong. Rush Limbaugh says CA is overwhelmingly liberal, and
that's that. NOYB says so, too. Reality is irrelevant.


Here's the map:

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/

Curtis is correct. Who listens to Limbaugh anymore?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

NOYB wrote:

A liberal California judge. I really wish that the state of California
would either secede from the union...or crumble into the sea during the next
earthquake.

There's those nice, narrow minded Christian values for you. Kind of
reminds one of Eric Rudolph, huh?
You and your ilk are just the reason why some of us don't want your
religion crammed down our kids throats.

On the other hand, it's quite stupid for someone to lump every single
person in a state into a pile like that. Let's see, how about the
couple in Florida that was so cruel to their adopted children. Is every
one in Florida just exactly like that?