🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:30:06 GMT, "TCCRA Racer Guy"
<TCCRARacerGuy@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Your point is well taken and no, I have never hit the wall in turn four.  I
>have hit several tree's and rocks at high speeds (www.tccra.org) and I
>assume the effect is generally the same as hitting the wall in turn four,
>but I fail to see what that has to do with anything we are discussing here.
>:- )
>
>As far as the "religious zealots" are concerned, I guess you could consider
>me as such, but then that makes it easy to dismiss me without serious
>debate, which in turn, makes you a poossy...  More smiles :- )

I think religious people should actually support the 9th courts
opinion.

If we allow the government to make statements not only about the
existence of God, but also about the nature of our relationship with
Him, we're giving up part of our religious freedom.

Some might say I'm reading too much into the pledge, but I consider
statements about God to be quite important.

The statement that we are a "nation under God" seems to imply that our
nation enjoys a special relationship with the creator not shared by
other nations.  I would hope that most Christians would find that
quite offensive.  As I understand Christianity, God does not make
distinctions among us based on political boundaries.  
>
>I will say that 2000 years of history and belief is both hard and foolish to
>deny.  

There are beliefs older than 2000 years that are quite foolish that we
both deny.  


>Further more, America, was founded on the Christian faith so "Under
>God" seems not only important to me, but to several other generations before
>me.  I think what they (Eisenhower alone?) added to the pledge in 1954 was
>just correcting a long over due oversight, since the founding fathers of
>this great nation did make reference to a supreme (God) being in both the
>Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

I know that mention of a Creator is mentioned in the D of I, but I
can't seem to find that mention in the US Constitution.

I do note that the Founding Fathers didn't consider any sort of flag
pledge to be important in any fashion, and it wasn't until the 1890's
that it was written by a socialist baptist minister apparantly as part
of a commercial promotion to sell flags to schools.

It seems more likely that the court is correcting the long due
oversight our government made in 1954, not one made by by the Founding
Fathers.

>
>Am I not now forced to accept some poor unfortunate ignorant fools belief in
>no God at all since he convinced a court to declared it unconstitutional?

No, you obviously can continue to believe as you will.  However, the
government will just stop having an endorsed position about God.

>
>But does all this really matter?  Most definitely not.  What will matter is
>what you believe and where your faith is at the moment of your death.  If
>I'm wrong and they are right, no loss.  If I'm right and your wrong, your
>screwed..............

That's a logical fallacy called Pascal's choice.

You assume that either there is a Christian God, or no God at all, and
that's not a valid premise.  There could be Allah, or even some other
God with rules some tribe of American Indians knew but never told us
before they were wiped out, and we're all screwed.