"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

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"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

In 1977, David Berkowitz went around shooting people in Queens.

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:36:18 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

In 1977, David Berkowitz went around shooting people in Queens.

Then why was he called "Son of Sam"?

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial/son/sonmain.htm

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:28:11 -0400, P Fritz wrote:


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

Yeah but, in the continuing dichotomy of state and federal powers, that
was trumped by the Fourteenth Amendment. Besides, no one hear is talking
about a state religion, they are talking about a federal religion, and
that has always been proscribed.

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:00:25 -0400, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:28:11 -0400, P Fritz wrote:


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

Yeah but, in the continuing dichotomy of state and federal powers, that
was trumped by the Fourteenth Amendment. Besides, no one hear is talking
about a state religion, they are talking about a federal religion, and
that has always been proscribed.

I want a state sponsored religion - let's call it the Church of
Lightning and Thunder.

The mythology will be "don't pay your taxes, zap/kaboom!!!

Yeah, that works. :)


I wonder if the liebrals hear the whooshing sound passing over their heads.

When did school systems established by state guvmint become federalized?

The fact that official state religions existed for decades after the
founding of the federal guvmint, without objections from the writers of the
constitution, is proof enough that there was no intent of a "wall of
separation" that the liebrals constanting demand.

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:05:43 -0400, "Jim Carter"
wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
.....................snip............
Newdow's argument makes perfect sense. People in this country should be
"free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." Take out those two
words and the Pledge is fine.

What is particularly amusing, to me, is the promotion of a socialist's
writings by people most assuredly against same

A "socialist" from the late 19th century was further to the right on social
issues than most of today's "conservative" Democrats and "moderate"
Republicans.

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:00:25 -0400, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:28:11 -0400, P Fritz wrote:


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

Yeah but, in the continuing dichotomy of state and federal powers, that
was trumped by the Fourteenth Amendment. Besides, no one hear is
talking
about a state religion, they are talking about a federal religion, and
that has always been proscribed.

I want a state sponsored religion - let's call it the Church of
Lightning and Thunder.

The mythology will be "don't pay your taxes, zap/kaboom!!!

Yeah, that works. :)


I wonder if the liebrals hear the whooshing sound passing over their
heads.

When did school systems established by state guvmint become federalized?

The fact that official state religions existed for decades after the
founding of the federal guvmint, without objections from the writers of
the
constitution, is proof enough that there was no intent of a "wall of
separation" that the liebrals constanting demand.


I and most people are against state religions. The US constitution also
governs what states can do. But no where in the constitution is the phase
"separation of church and state". The founders did not want a government
sanctioned religion, ala Church Of England. But they also recognized most
people believed in a "God(s)". Different flavors of that "God(s)", so you
could believe in any version you desired. Even the "God of Atheism"

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

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:00:25 -0400, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:28:11 -0400, P Fritz wrote:


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

Yeah but, in the continuing dichotomy of state and federal powers,
that
was trumped by the Fourteenth Amendment. Besides, no one hear is
talking
about a state religion, they are talking about a federal religion, and
that has always been proscribed.

I want a state sponsored religion - let's call it the Church of
Lightning and Thunder.

The mythology will be "don't pay your taxes, zap/kaboom!!!

Yeah, that works. :)


I wonder if the liebrals hear the whooshing sound passing over their
heads.

When did school systems established by state guvmint become federalized?

The fact that official state religions existed for decades after the
founding of the federal guvmint, without objections from the writers of
the
constitution, is proof enough that there was no intent of a "wall of
separation" that the liebrals constanting demand.


I and most people are against state religions.

I do not believe that states should have an official religion, but the U.S.
Constitution does not prohibit it.

The US constitution also
governs what states can do.

Yes, it bars states from limiting rights granted in the US Constitution.

But no where in the constitution is the phase
"separation of church and state".

Correct.

The founders did not want a government
sanctioned religion, ala Church Of England.

They did not want a Federal Government religion.........the states were
allowed to do as they choose.

But they also recognized most
people believed in a "God(s)". Different flavors of that "God(s)", so you
could believe in any version you desired. Even the "God of Atheism"

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

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

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:00:25 -0400, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:28:11 -0400, P Fritz wrote:


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

Yeah but, in the continuing dichotomy of state and federal powers,
that
was trumped by the Fourteenth Amendment. Besides, no one hear is
talking
about a state religion, they are talking about a federal religion,
and
that has always been proscribed.

I want a state sponsored religion - let's call it the Church of
Lightning and Thunder.

The mythology will be "don't pay your taxes, zap/kaboom!!!

Yeah, that works. :)


I wonder if the liebrals hear the whooshing sound passing over their
heads.

When did school systems established by state guvmint become
federalized?

The fact that official state religions existed for decades after the
founding of the federal guvmint, without objections from the writers of
the
constitution, is proof enough that there was no intent of a "wall of
separation" that the liebrals constanting demand.


I and most people are against state religions.

I do not believe that states should have an official religion, but the
U.S.
Constitution does not prohibit it.

The US constitution also
governs what states can do.

Yes, it bars states from limiting rights granted in the US Constitution.

But no where in the constitution is the phase
"separation of church and state".

Correct.

The founders did not want a government
sanctioned religion, ala Church Of England.

They did not want a Federal Government religion.........the states were
allowed to do as they choose.


No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also bound by
the US constitution. And it is a good thing.

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

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

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

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:00:25 -0400, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:28:11 -0400, P Fritz wrote:


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

Yeah but, in the continuing dichotomy of state and federal powers,
that
was trumped by the Fourteenth Amendment. Besides, no one hear is
talking
about a state religion, they are talking about a federal religion,
and
that has always been proscribed.

I want a state sponsored religion - let's call it the Church of
Lightning and Thunder.

The mythology will be "don't pay your taxes, zap/kaboom!!!

Yeah, that works. :)


I wonder if the liebrals hear the whooshing sound passing over their
heads.

When did school systems established by state guvmint become
federalized?

The fact that official state religions existed for decades after the
founding of the federal guvmint, without objections from the writers
of
the
constitution, is proof enough that there was no intent of a "wall of
separation" that the liebrals constanting demand.


I and most people are against state religions.

I do not believe that states should have an official religion, but the
U.S.
Constitution does not prohibit it.

The US constitution also
governs what states can do.

Yes, it bars states from limiting rights granted in the US Constitution.

But no where in the constitution is the phase
"separation of church and state".

Correct.

The founders did not want a government
sanctioned religion, ala Church Of England.

They did not want a Federal Government religion.........the states were
allowed to do as they choose.


No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also bound by
the US constitution. And it is a good thing.

Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit federal
powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a few
certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it has
only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become
federalized and thus corrupted.

The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of that.
The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was written......thus
no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation of
church and state" that exists today