🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 18:15:38 -0500, Mike Smith <mws@wt.net> wrote:

>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:
>>>>
SNIP
>>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.

He represented himself, I believe.  You might read some of the things
he says in his cnn interview.  I expect he's not liberal, but probably
libertarian.

I was considering the intial time and money to enact the original
legislation.  I would prefer the government to meet, enact the
absolute least laws they have to, then go away.

(I'm not sure about loser pays, though.  Large companies can out spend
you easily.  Check out some horror stories involving the Gallo Wine
company and also Taubmansucks.com)
>>
>>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.

I see that as a religious statement.  It's a statement that God does
something.
>>
>>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.

And, again, that is a religious matter and I believe the government
should stay out of religious matters.

I don't think a proclamation on this topic is really necessary for
government to function.  Again, I would prefer they do what they must,
then shut up and leave us be.

It's probably  the belief of a majority of the nation, but certainly
not the entire nation, and to protect the rights of individuals is why
we have this Bill of Rights.
>>
>>>>
>>>>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? 

I thought you were agreeing with the "some might say" part.

SNIP
>>
>>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!!!!!!".

We disagree.  What I believe is a religious matter of faith, that we
are "one nation under God," you believe to be fact.  That we disagree
about a statement about God is why the government shouldn't be making
statements about Him.

The government shouldn't decide religious questions like this, so the
government should stay silent on the topic.
>>
>>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?

By respective faiths, I meant differing faiths.

I hate to be circular, but the establishment of religion that is being
respected is any that shares that belief over any that does not.

>
>>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.

I would consider making a statement about God to be respecting an
establishment of one religion above another.  If you say something
about God, someone will have a faith that disagrees with you,
somewhere.  I think if the government doesn't stay neutral, it
expresses a preference, and that's respecting an establishment of
religion.
>>
>>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.

I did assume you were of a mainstream Christian faith.  If I was
incorrect or offended you, I apologize.

It seems to me that our government respects many basic Christian
values.  In Texas we still have some laws with respect to behavior on
Sunday that are clearly biased towards mainstream Christianity.  We
would also have different holidays if we were Muslim, for example.
>
>>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..............

I believe if the rights of a single man are violated, it makes it
easier for any or all of our rights to be violated.
>
>>>
>>>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.

Actually, I see it as he wishes that no belief is expressed leaving
all to express their belief in a manner not involving the government.
>
>>
>>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

I don't believe our constitution makes any statement about God at all.
That is a government document.  As I understand it, the Declaration of
Independence does make statements about God, but that's not law.  It's
more of a "Get Stuffed" letter to King George.

It is a brilliant essay on the nature of government and the rights of
man, though.