"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"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.


--
Peter Aitken


The nitwits are the people that seem to believe the constitution somehow
reads "freedom from religion"

Freedom certainly means that you can do without something. In any case there
are religions for whom "under god" is a meaningless and silly phrase -
Hinduism and Buddhism to name just two major ones.


--
Peter Aitken

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."

On 14 Sep 2005 13:58:45 -0700, wrote:


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?

Christian values would hold that one not lie about the motorcycle one owned. I
suppose, since you seem anti-Christian, that those values have no meaning to
you.

Is that a correct supposition?

How's that bike running?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"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

Doug Kanter wrote in message news:CO%Ve.1155


How would you like it if the pledge read "under Buddha", instead of "under
god"?



I don't know. I've often felt underbuddha, but it usually passes in a day
or two.

Eisboch

How would you like it if the pledge read "under Buddha", instead of "under
god"?


Uh, last time I knew, Buddha IS a "god"

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


The phrase "under God" violates the establishment clause and forces
religion down the throats of those who are in no position to not
participate.

That's absurd. I can think back 25 years to when I was in grade school, and
even back then, the Jehovah Witnesses in my class did not have to salute the
flag or recite the pledge.

Why do they have to take the Pledge of Allegiance out of the classroom
rather than simply make it optional for students to participate in? It
worked 25 years ago in my school, so why not now?

"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.

PocoLoco wrote:
On 14 Sep 2005 13:58:45 -0700, wrote:


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?

Christian values would hold that one not lie about the motorcycle one owned. I
suppose, since you seem anti-Christian, that those values have no meaning to
you.

You are wrong again. I'm not anti-christian. I have several friends who
are Christians. I just choose not to believe such things. I don't
believe in Voodoo either.

Is that a correct supposition?

Now, seeing how you were wrong above, and seeing how you've told me
that if I was wrong I should apologize, how about you live up to your
own values, and apologize for your mistakes?

How's that bike running?

My current "bike" is running fine, why do you ask?

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

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


The phrase "under God" violates the establishment clause and forces
religion down the throats of those who are in no position to not
participate.

That's absurd. I can think back 25 years to when I was in grade school,
and
even back then, the Jehovah Witnesses in my class did not have to salute
the
flag or recite the pledge.

Why do they have to take the Pledge of Allegiance out of the classroom
rather than simply make it optional for students to participate in? It
worked 25 years ago in my school, so why not now?

Besides the fact that it has nothing to do with the "establishment
clause".....except in the minds of the braindead liebrals