🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:28:48 GMT, Hagbard Celine
<All_Powerful@Illuminati.org> wrote:
>
>I think religious people should actually support the 9th courts
>opinion.

Why support moronic opinions? Why acquiesce to the anti-God crowd?
>
>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.

How so? How in the world would the phrase "under God" in our Pledge
affect any of your religious freedoms?
>
>Some might say I'm reading too much into the pledge, but I consider
>statements about God to be quite important.

They are.
>
>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.  

You are reading way more into the "one nation under God" statement. It
is merely an acknowledgement that we believe our Nation is guided by
God. (Supreme Being)
>>
>>I will say that 2000 years of history and belief is both hard and foolish to
>>deny.  

Exactly.

There is one Supreme Being. 2000 years ago, a son of God was preaching
on this planet, thus christianity was born. However, all religions
believe in a Supreme Being. Logic and common sense demands that there
be a Supreme Being. The extreme complexities of life and the Universe
demand it.

This entire "under God" controversy has occurred due to the moron's
attempt to force his atheist religion on the rest of our Nation. It is
absurd that we should relinquish our beliefs for the moron and the 2
liberal bozos on the 9th court, just because he doesn't want his
moronic daughter to be "exposed" to God. No one is forcing any atheist
to say the Pledge, but this moron is trying to force us to alter the
Pledge to suit his own fricking view on religion.

Mike Smith