🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 20:22:47 GMT, Hagbard Celine
<All_Powerful@Illuminati.org> wrote:

>On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 06:33:43 -0500, Mike Smith <mws@wt.net> wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>That's made clear in the next paragraph.  If the argument is valid,
>it's not moronic, and the point was that I believe the pro-God crowd
>should support this ruling, too.  I think you should acquiesce to the
>anti-God crowd on any and every topic if you consider their position
>and find that it's correct.

Yea.... That hasn't happened, in this instance.
>>>
>>>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?
>
>I'm being forced through taxation to pay for government officials to
>consider, debate, enact, publish, and defend a statement about God as
>part of a pledge to the flag and republic.

Right! That's why we need loser pays. We could collect our wasted tax
dollars from the moron and his lawyer that brought this ridiculous
suit.
>
>To allow the government to make a statement that "God exists and He is
>this way" endorses one religious point of view over others. 

No it doesn't. It just acknowledges God's existence and help for our
Nation.
>
>In addition, aren't conservatives supposed to be for less government?
>
>Creating a proclamation about God is not a necessary nor proper
>function of government.

Again, it's an acknowledgement of the belief of our Nation of his
help.
>
>>>
>>>Some might say I'm reading too much into the pledge, but I consider
>>>statements about God to be quite important.
>>
>>They are.
>
>I believe it was a conservative thinker who said "Words mean things." 
>
> If the statement about God isn't important, then why not remove it
>without debate?  

Huh? 

The statement about God is important. That's why I responded with
"They are". There is no reason to remove "under God" from our pledge.
>
>>>
>>>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)
>
>If "one nation under God" statement does mean as you say that our
>nation is guided by God, then it's certainly a statement of religious
>theology. You are saying that God has a certain property: the property
>of guiding our nation.  I believe our government shouldn't make such
>decisions but they should be left outside the realm of government.  It
>is not the business of government to tell me what to believe about
>God.

And exactly what is our Government telling you about God? It's just a
statement of fact, not a hairy chrishna telling you to
"BELIEVE!!!!!!".
>
>Even if this is not what it means, at very least  we have a difference
>of opinion about what the phrase "one nation under God" means. The
>fact that we do have a difference of opinion over this phrase goes to
>show why the government shoudn't be involved in making decisions about
>our respective faiths.

Respective faiths? What does that mean? Exactly what "religions" are
represented via the statement? What establishment of religion is being
respected by the phrase? Or, is the moron in CA attempting to restrict
our right of freely exercising our various religions?
>
>I believe the 1st amendment is supposed to prevent the government from
>having to decide on respecting one particular belief about religion
>and God over another.  The government remains neutral with respect to
>religion and thus preventing any one religion from suppressing others
>through government action.

Ummm... God is God........ And there is no requirement for our
government to remain "neutral" with respect to religion. It is
restricted by the first amendment against creating a LAW respecting an
ESTABLISHMENT of religion. There is a definite difference between the
two.
>
>You're lucky in that the government seems to have chosen to respect
>the religion you believe in today.  

Oh? It did? Tell us, how did the government respect my religion,
today? I'm betting you don't even know which religion I'm a member of.

>You and other religious people
>should consider the consequences if one day those in power don't agree
>with your religious belief any longer.  To protect your own religious
>liberty is why religious people should support this ruling.

Yes, of course, we should respect the atheist point of view and bow
down to his sensibilities, right? While ignoring the facts, right?
Just so we can appease the moron, right?

Not gonna happen..............

>>
>>This entire "under God" controversy has occurred due to the moron's
>>attempt to force his atheist religion on the rest of our Nation. 
>
>No, he's attempting to be left in peace without the government
>imposing their version of religion upon him.

Guess what.... The moron does not have to recite "under God"! In fact,
the moron doesn't even have to recite the pledge. The government does
not force ANYONE to recite the pledge or the phrase "under God".

The moron is trying to impose his beliefs on everyone else in our
Nation for his own personal satisfaction, or to promote his own point
of view.

>
>As I understand it, the courts position is that government shouldn't
>pay government employees to lead children in a pledge that makes a
>statment about a religious matter.  

So our government cannot acknowledge a Supreme Being? Sorry, too late.
It already did over two centuries ago.............

Mike Smith