🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 01:33:27 GMT, Thomas A. Paine
<tommy_paine@NO!2SPAMaustin.rr.com> wrote:

>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
>
>>>
>>>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.
>
>Exactly. It's an implicit endorsement of one religious viewpoint (God
>exists) over another (God does not exist).
>
>
>>>
>>>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.
>
>But the entire nation doesn't believe that Mike. Some believe the
>Great Goddess guides us, others that it's Allah, others that it's
>Cthulu.
>
>
>>
>>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!!!!!!".
>
>A statement of what fact? That God exists? Sonds like a hairy
>christian forcing someone 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?
>
>No, he's trying to enforce his right freely exercise his LACK of
>religion.
>
>
>
>>
>>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.
>
>That you are utterly blind to the fact that implicitly endorsing the
>existence of a supreme being lays the groundwork for religion only
>points up your myopia.
>
>>
>>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.
>
>It enshrined your belief (and that of others) into the pledge of
>allegiance.
>
>>
>>>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?
>
>What fact? That God exists? That is not a fact, Mike. It is a belief.
>While I *believe* in the existence of God (surprise!), I cannot prove
>it by logic. Facts require proof. Belief requires faith.
>
>
>
>>
>>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".
>
>Would you be as equally sanguine if the phrase were changed to "under
>Allah"? I think not.
>
>>
>>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.
>
>And YOU are trying to impose YOUR beliefs on everyone else in our
>Nation for YOUR own personal satisfaction.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>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.............
>
>
>Liar.
>
>Where in the Constitution does the Supreme Being get mentioned?
>
>Perhaps you're referring to the Declaration of Independence? The
>Declaration of Independence came about well before the Constitution,
>which is the document that provides the framework for government.
>Indeed, the precursor to this document, the Articles of Confederation,
>came about some three and a half months after the Declaration.
>
>
>>
>>Mike Smith
>
>
>
>"Liberals are fearless, confident of humanity, outgoing and optimistic, 
>because they believe most people are pretty much like themselves. 
>
>Conservatives are fearful, mistrusting, angry, bitter and afraid 
>because they, too, believe most people are pretty much like themselves."




So, what's the deal Mike? Don't like being shown up for the liar that
you are? Still waiting for you to show me where in the Consitution our
government acknowledges a Supreme Being.