"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

"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.

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.

"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

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message news:vjIWe.52862.


Nice try, but no one could possibly be so dumb as to not be aware the
Xtians is shorthand for Christians.


And likewise I thought no one could so easily miss the point. You make me
laugh. What baseline insecurity prompts the need for shorthand of this
type? Are you fearful of writing the full word "Christmas"? Have you been
brainwashed into thinking that merely by writing the letters "C-h-r-i-s-t"
as part of a routinely accepted word you are allowing yourself to be made a
complicite lackey of the great universal right-wing Christian conspiracy?
I have never seen Muslims refer to Xdan, nor have any of my Jewish friends
spoken or written of Xkah during the winter months, so the need for
shorthand appears to be not universal. I conclude, therefore, that you
likely have some particular aversion to the word. Or do you simply not have
the time to type the full word, busy man? If that be the case, I'd suggest
you can't spare any further seconds bloviating upon newsgroups.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message news:vjIWe.52862.


Nice try, but no one could possibly be so dumb as to not be aware the
Xtians is shorthand for Christians.


And likewise I thought no one could so easily miss the point. You make me
laugh. What baseline insecurity prompts the need for shorthand of this
type? Are you fearful of writing the full word "Christmas"? Have you
been brainwashed into thinking that merely by writing the letters
"C-h-r-i-s-t" as part of a routinely accepted word you are allowing
yourself to be made a complicite lackey of the great universal right-wing
Christian conspiracy? I have never seen Muslims refer to Xdan, nor have
any of my Jewish friends spoken or written of Xkah during the winter
months, so the need for shorthand appears to be not universal. I
conclude, therefore, that you likely have some particular aversion to the
word. Or do you simply not have the time to type the full word, busy man?
If that be the case, I'd suggest you can't spare any further seconds
bloviating upon newsgroups.


Fer chrissake you blithering nitwit, I am just saving some typing. And since
X is a cross, symbol of christianity, that's why it is used in Xtian and
Xmas but not in abbreviations for other religions. Please save your 5th
grade psychologizing for people who are down at your intelligence and
educational level.


--
Peter Aitken