|
|
|
In our email:
From: FirstAmendmist@ [delete]
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 20:06:47 EST
Subject: Re: Jefferson quote: Is it real?
To: jalison@[delete]
[me]
The fella might like the following as well:
[Mike]
I'm sending your info on to him.
Thanks!
I hope your cold gets better soon.
PS - If I didn't tell you already, the new Pledge case gets filed this week
(I hope).
Mike
**************************************************************************************
From: FirstAmendmist@[delete]
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:00:02 EST
Subject: Re: Jefferson quote: Is it real?
To: jalison@[delete]
Do you have a copy of the brief?
All materials are now available online:
(a) Go to www.restorethepledge.com
(b) Click on "Current Litigation" (on the left)
(c) Click on "Click here for the briefs, orders, etc" for the case of
interest
Mike
******************************************************************************
http://www.restorethepledge.com/
New challenge to "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Click here to read the Complaint filed on January 3, 2005
http://www.restorethepledge.com/litigation/pledge/docs/2005-01-03%20complaint.pdf
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
Above is the version of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United
States of America first approved by the Congress in 1942. It evokes
feelings of patriotism and unity, and brings together the vastly different
cultures, ethnicities, languages and backgrounds that form the common
experience called America. It reaffirms our commitment to the freedoms
guaranteed in our Constitution, and reflects the foundation of that amazing
document: that diversity is a blessing which only strengthens our nation.
This is especially true concerning religion, which the Framers recognized
as uniquely divisive, causing them to set forth that "Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion."
We have done well since those first ten words of the Bill of Rights (i.e.,
the "Establishment Clause") were written in 1789, and generally held true
to that principle. Yet, in 1954 - fueled by the Cold War and blinded by
McCarthyism - Congress violated its oath. After sixty-two secular years,
the Pledge - first introduced by a private magazine in 1892 - was changed.
Our elected officials felt it necessary to inject religion into the Pledge,
and "under God" was interlarded into that promise which had previously
embraced all Americans.
Currently there is a legal drive to remove those words. "God" in the Pledge
has caused the divisiveness, discrimination and exclusion that the Framers
specifically sought to prevent. Yes, the majority of Americans believe in
God, and they nearly unanimously find no objection in the Pledge's current
rendition. But that is precisely why we have a Bill of Rights - to prevent
tyranny by the majority, and to protect the rights of minorities. Our
Constitution forbids government from endorsing religious views, and those
who choose not to believe in a deity should never be made to feel like
"outsiders," as is now the case.
The words are "liberty and justice for all." The Pledge should be a
unifying experience for every citizen. Placing a religious ideal into its
midst is not right, and serves no purpose except to alter a purely
patriotic tradition into one that satisfies the religious bent of the
majority. That is exactly what the First Amendment was written to preclude.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Newdow's Litigation Page
The Pledge of Allegiance Lawsuit
Current Status:
On January 3, 2005, a new lawsuit was filed challenging the words "under
God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Having had a practice run all the way to
the Supreme Court, and with the opinions of three justices already
released, this litigation should be even stronger than the last. This case
was filed in the Ninth Circuit. Additional cases are planned for each of
the other Circuits as well.
********************************************************************************
January 3, 2005
Michael Newdow, in pro per and as counsel
CA SBN: 220444
PO Box 233345
Sacramento, CA 95823
916-427-6669
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Civil Action No.
THE REV. DR. MICHAEL A. NEWDOW, IN PRO PER;
JAN DOE AND PAT DOE, PARENTS; DOECHILD, A MINOR CHILD;
JAN POE; PARENT; POECHILD, A MINOR CHILD;
JAN ROE; PARENT; ROECHILD-1 AND ROECHILD-2, MINOR CHILDREN;
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA;
THE ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (EGUSD);
DR. STEVEN LADD, SUPERINTENDENT, EGUSD;
THE LINCOLN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (LUSD);
JANET PETSCHE, ASSOCIATE SUPERINTENDENT, LUSD;
THE SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (SCUSD);
DR. M. MAGDALENA CARRILLO MEJIA, SUPERINTENDENT, SCUSD;
THE ELVERTA JOINT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT (EJESD);
DR. DIANNA MANGERICH, SUPERINTENDENT, EJESD;
THE RIO LINDA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT (RLUSD);
FRANK S. PORTER, SUPERINTENDENT, RLUSD;
Defendants.
http://www.restorethepledge.com/litigation/pledge/docs/2005-01-03%20complaint.pdf
|
| |
| |
Michael must have gotten coal in his stocking.
Perhaps he feels that a case with a different child - one that ACTUALLY
DOESN'T WANT TO SAY "UNDER GOD" - will have more weight with the court.
See http://michaelnewdow.com . Michael isn't quite right about this
nation's founders or their original intent.
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
In our email:
From: FirstAmendmist@ [delete]
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 20:06:47 EST
Subject: Re: Jefferson quote: Is it real?
To: jalison@[delete]
[me]
[Mike]
I'm sending your info on to him.
Thanks!
I hope your cold gets better soon.
PS - If I didn't tell you already, the new Pledge case gets filed
this week (I hope).
Mike
****************************************************************************
**********
From: FirstAmendmist@[delete]
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:00:02 EST
Subject: Re: Jefferson quote: Is it real?
To: jalison@[delete]
Do you have a copy of the brief?
All materials are now available online:
(a) Go to www.restorethepledge.com
(b) Click on "Current Litigation" (on the left)
(c) Click on "Click here for the briefs, orders, etc" for the case of
interest
Mike
****************************************************************************
**
http://www.restorethepledge.com/
New challenge to "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Click here to read the Complaint filed on January 3, 2005
http://www.restorethepledge.com/litigation/pledge/docs/2005-01-03%20complaint.pdf
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and
to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.
Above is the version of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the
United States of America first approved by the Congress in 1942. It
evokes feelings of patriotism and unity, and brings together the
vastly different cultures, ethnicities, languages and backgrounds
that form the common experience called America. It reaffirms our
commitment to the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution, and
reflects the foundation of that amazing document: that diversity is a
blessing which only strengthens our nation. This is especially true
concerning religion, which the Framers recognized as uniquely
divisive, causing them to set forth that "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion."
We have done well since those first ten words of the Bill of Rights
(i.e., the "Establishment Clause") were written in 1789, and
generally held true to that principle. Yet, in 1954 - fueled by the
Cold War and blinded by McCarthyism - Congress violated its oath.
After sixty-two secular years, the Pledge - first introduced by a
private magazine in 1892 - was changed. Our elected officials felt it
necessary to inject religion into the Pledge, and "under God" was
interlarded into that promise which had previously embraced all
Americans.
Currently there is a legal drive to remove those words. "God" in the
Pledge has caused the divisiveness, discrimination and exclusion that
the Framers specifically sought to prevent. Yes, the majority of
Americans believe in God, and they nearly unanimously find no
objection in the Pledge's current rendition. But that is precisely
why we have a Bill of Rights - to prevent tyranny by the majority,
and to protect the rights of minorities. Our Constitution forbids
government from endorsing religious views, and those who choose not
to believe in a deity should never be made to feel like "outsiders,"
as is now the case.
The words are "liberty and justice for all." The Pledge should be a
unifying experience for every citizen. Placing a religious ideal into
its midst is not right, and serves no purpose except to alter a purely
patriotic tradition into one that satisfies the religious bent of the
majority. That is exactly what the First Amendment was written to
preclude.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
Mike Newdow's Litigation Page
The Pledge of Allegiance Lawsuit
Current Status:
On January 3, 2005, a new lawsuit was filed challenging the words
"under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Having had a practice run
all the way to the Supreme Court, and with the opinions of three
justices already released, this litigation should be even stronger
than the last. This case was filed in the Ninth Circuit. Additional
cases are planned for each of the other Circuits as well.
****************************************************************************
****
January 3, 2005
Michael Newdow, in pro per and as counsel
CA SBN: 220444
PO Box 233345
Sacramento, CA 95823
916-427-6669
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Civil Action No.
THE REV. DR. MICHAEL A. NEWDOW, IN PRO PER;
JAN DOE AND PAT DOE, PARENTS; DOECHILD, A MINOR CHILD;
JAN POE; PARENT; POECHILD, A MINOR CHILD;
JAN ROE; PARENT; ROECHILD-1 AND ROECHILD-2, MINOR CHILDREN;
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA;
THE ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ("EGUSD");
DR. STEVEN LADD, SUPERINTENDENT, EGUSD;
THE LINCOLN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ("LUSD");
JANET PETSCHE, ASSOCIATE SUPERINTENDENT, LUSD;
THE SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ("SCUSD");
DR. M. MAGDALENA CARRILLO MEJIA, SUPERINTENDENT, SCUSD;
THE ELVERTA JOINT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT ("EJESD");
DR. DIANNA MANGERICH, SUPERINTENDENT, EJESD;
THE RIO LINDA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT ("RLUSD");
FRANK S. PORTER, SUPERINTENDENT, RLUSD;
Defendants.
http://www.restorethepledge.com/litigation/pledge/docs/2005-01-03%20complaint.pdf
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 60,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 18:53:39 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Michael must have gotten coal in his stocking.
Feeling especially unpatriotic today, eh?
You must hate this country.
|
| |
| |
Kate wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 18:53:39 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Feeling especially unpatriotic today, eh?
You must hate this country.
I can find no particular reason to feel 'patriotic' toward this Third
World #@($hole -- where your vote isn't counted, and the rule of law no
longer exists -- but it's the only country we've got, and it's our task
to make it right. And lest we turn it into a Taliban-style theocracy to
boot, we must vigorously contest our homegrown madcap mullahs' nefarious
schemes, thereby securing religious liberty for all.
For you rabid religious nutters who think that Christian -- and ONLY!
-- Christian religious indoctrination is an appropriate application of
the sledgehammer of "state action," let me ask you: Would you want done
unto you what you are doing to others? Would you like it if our public
schools coerced your children into participating in Islamic prayers or
Satanic rituals? And what does your precious Bible say about it (since
you rarely read it anyway, see Matt. 7:12)?
This is the principle being advanced: That the parents have the right
to determine what religious rituals and/or observances *their* children
are to participate in. Please explain why this is so problematic to you
and more to the point, why you think it is a good idea for your child to
say "under Al'lah" in our Pledge of Allegiance.
Rock on, Mike Newdow!!!
|
| |
| |
Kate wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 18:53:39 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Feeling especially unpatriotic today, eh?
You must hate this country.
So, repeat lawsuits over the same two words is patriotism?
JG
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 60,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Kate wrote:
I can find no particular reason to feel 'patriotic' toward this
Third World #@($hole -- where your vote isn't counted, and the rule
of law no longer exists -- but it's the only country we've got, and
it's our task to make it right. And lest we turn it into a
Taliban-style theocracy to boot, we must vigorously contest our
homegrown madcap mullahs' nefarious schemes, thereby securing
religious liberty for all.
For you rabid religious nutters who think that Christian -- and
ONLY! -- Christian religious indoctrination is an appropriate
application of the sledgehammer of "state action," let me ask you:
Would you want done unto you what you are doing to others? Would you
like it if our public schools coerced your children into
participating in Islamic prayers or Satanic rituals? And what does
your precious Bible say about it (since you rarely read it anyway,
see Matt. 7:12)?
Do you realize that public schools include a section in their junior high
curriculum where kids dress up as Muslims, recite verses from the Koran, and
practice their culture and religion?
This is the principle being advanced: That the parents have the
right to determine what religious rituals and/or observances *their*
children are to participate in. Please explain why this is so
problematic to you and more to the point, why you think it is a good
idea for your child to say "under Al'lah" in our Pledge of Allegiance.
Rock on, Mike Newdow!!!
Maybe he should consider taking on Islam that is forced on the kids. It is
far more intrusive than two words.
Regards,
Jason
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 60,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
|
| |
| |
"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:TCBCd.46059$nP1.21454@twister.socal.rr.com:
Michael must have gotten coal in his stocking.
Really annoys you when someone objects to using the government to promote
religion, doesn't it?
<snip>
See http://michaelnewdow.com .
Yes - what about your cybersquatting, Gastrich?
Why are you doing it?
|
| |
| |
on 04 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Jason Gastrich dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
Ken Smith wrote:
Do you realize that public schools include a section in their junior
high curriculum where kids dress up as Muslims, recite verses from the
Koran, and practice their culture and religion?
You miss the point. There is nothing wrong with learning about other
cultures, and religion is a part of that. My child went through it.
Knowledge is power, it's the same kind of learning we atheists do when we
study the bible or koran. My daughter was not asked to kneel and face
Mecca. She is, however, asked to recite an oath to an invisible sky pixie
with the rest of her class every morning. How does that constitute greater
learning?
Maybe he should consider taking on Islam that is forced on the kids.
Ah, you think it is being forced on them in american schools, do you? Why
do you think this is a threat? Hint: if you can answer that, you'll see
how we feel about the pledge.
It is far more intrusive than two words.
Why? Are you afraid of the big bad atheist?
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
|
| |
| |
on 04 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Jason Gastrich dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
Kate wrote:
So, repeat lawsuits over the same two words is patriotism?
A real verdict was never handed down on the issue. SCOTUS skirted the
issue on a technicality. Now *that's* justice, don't ya think?
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
|
| |
| |
"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote
Would you want done unto you what you are doing to others? Would you
like it if our public schools coerced your children into
participating in Islamic prayers or Satanic rituals?
Do you realize that public schools include a section in their junior high
curriculum where kids dress up as Muslims, recite verses from the Koran,
and
practice their culture and religion?
The question is not between the religions, it's between deists and atheists.
'Under God' doesn't even imply 'Christianity'. It's perfectly appropriate
for Muslims, same for Satanists, same for amerindians' Great Spirit. Nothing
about it implies more than the Creator/Divine Providence/Judge of the World
mentioned in the DoI.
It *does* impute a belief in the Divine, and we all say it at the risk of
hurting the little feelings of the six-year old atheists in the crowd, but
as it's held a self-evident truth in our Declaration, that's unfortunate.
Chas
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 15:06:13 -0700, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, "Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net>
pontificated:
"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote
Would you want done unto you what you are doing to others? Would you
like it if our public schools coerced your children into
participating in Islamic prayers or Satanic rituals?
The question is not between the religions, it's between deists and atheists.
'Under God' doesn't even imply 'Christianity'. It's perfectly appropriate
for Muslims, same for Satanists, same for amerindians' Great Spirit. Nothing
about it implies more than the Creator/Divine Providence/Judge of the World
mentioned in the DoI.
Actually, Muslims, Satanists, etc., would be offended.
It *does* impute a belief in the Divine, and we all say it at the risk of
hurting the little feelings of the six-year old atheists in the crowd, but
as it's held a self-evident truth in our Declaration, that's unfortunate.
I don't feel bad for them either. This is the country
they live in and so, if they wish to deny the DoI, they
deny the heritage of this country. But if they don't
want to say it, whatever. But don't tell me I can't.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 21:35:16 +0000, Jason Gastrich wrote:
Kate wrote:
So, repeat lawsuits over the same two words is patriotism?
JG
Uhhh....yes.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
|
| |
| |
In alt.atheism on Tue, 04 Jan 2005 18:53:39 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Michael must have gotten coal in his stocking.
Perhaps he feels that a case with a different child - one that ACTUALLY
DOESN'T WANT TO SAY "UNDER GOD" - will have more weight with the court.
Eh, maybe you're pissed that the BAPTIST MINISTER WHO WROTE THE
PLEDGE didn't include the words "under god".
Oh--michaelnewdow.com is in violation of ICANN rules.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
|
| |
| |
"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
For you rabid religious nutters who think that Christian -- and
ONLY! -- Christian religious indoctrination is an appropriate
application of the sledgehammer of "state action," let me ask you:
Would you want done unto you what you are doing to others? Would you
like it if our public schools coerced your children into
participating in Islamic prayers or Satanic rituals? And what does
your precious Bible say about it (since you rarely read it anyway,
see Matt. 7:12)?
Do you realize that public schools include a section in their junior high
curriculum where kids dress up as Muslims, recite verses from the Koran, and
practice their culture and religion?
Do you realize that you are clueless?
There was ONE report of ONE school that did this ONE year based on ONE
textbook that is no longer in print. Kids could be excused from
participating or choose alternate assignments if they or their parents
objected, and it was stopped after there were complaints.
It is not part of "*the* public schools junior high curriculum"
(there are of course many thousands of junior high curricula, since
schools are not obliged to follow the same curriculum in any state).
It was part of ONE teacher's implementation of that school's
curriculum.
lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
|
| |
| |
"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote
Would you want done unto you what you are doing to others? Would you
like it if our public schools coerced your children into
participating in Islamic prayers or Satanic rituals?
The question is not between the religions, it's between deists and
atheists.
'Under God' doesn't even imply 'Christianity'. It's perfectly appropriate
for Muslims, same for Satanists, same for amerindians' Great Spirit.
Nothing about it implies more than the Creator/Divine Providence/Judge of
the World mentioned in the DoI.
It *does* impute a belief in the Divine, and we all say it at the risk of
hurting the little feelings of the six-year old atheists in the crowd, but
as it's held a self-evident truth in our Declaration, that's unfortunate.
Bull#@($. The pledge should be for all americans, not just theists. The K of
C (a christian mens organization) was the group that lobbied to have "under
god" added to OUR pledge. That is wrong and it should be put back to it's
original wording.
If the words "under allah" were added, the christians would be flooding the
white house lawn in protest.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 15:06:13 -0700, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, "Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net>
pontificated:
Actually, Muslims, Satanists, etc., would be offended.
I don't feel bad for them either. This is the country
they live in and so, if they wish to deny the DoI, they
deny the heritage of this country. But if they don't
want to say it, whatever. But don't tell me I can't.
Your opinion is not fact. This country has freedom of religion and freedom
from religion. You want to live in a theocracy then move to Saudi Arabia or
Iran.
|
| |
| |
Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> writes:
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 15:06:13 -0700, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, "Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net>
pontificated:
"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote
Would you want done unto you what you are doing to others? Would you
like it if our public schools coerced your children into
participating in Islamic prayers or Satanic rituals?
Do you realize that public schools include a section in their junior high
curriculum where kids dress up as Muslims, recite verses from the Koran,
and
practice their culture and religion?
The question is not between the religions, it's between deists and atheists.
'Under God' doesn't even imply 'Christianity'. It's perfectly appropriate
for Muslims, same for Satanists, same for amerindians' Great Spirit. Nothing
about it implies more than the Creator/Divine Providence/Judge of the World
mentioned in the DoI.
Actually, Muslims, Satanists, etc., would be offended.
It *does* impute a belief in the Divine, and we all say it at the risk of
hurting the little feelings of the six-year old atheists in the crowd, but
as it's held a self-evident truth in our Declaration, that's unfortunate.
I don't feel bad for them either. This is the country
they live in and so, if they wish to deny the DoI, they
deny the heritage of this country. But if they don't
want to say it, whatever. But don't tell me I can't.
I will, however, tell you that you are ignorant of the issues,
as none of the pledge litigation would ever come close to
telling you that you can't say the pledge in whatever
bastardized form you like.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
|
| |
| |
In our last episode <E%DCd.46746$nP1.43458@twister.socal.rr.com>, Jason
Gastrich lept out of the bushes shouting:
Ken Smith wrote:
Do you realize that public schools include a section in their junior high
curriculum where kids dress up as Muslims, recite verses from the Koran,
and practice their culture and religion?
Maybe he should consider taking on Islam that is forced on the kids. It
is far more intrusive than two words.
Except once again, as usual, you're lying.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
|
| |
| |
In our last episode <8ddmt0l0udfiksdv6c7vlpp0q52hpd6p4t@4ax.com>, Bob
LeChevalier lept out of the bushes shouting:
There was ONE report of ONE school that did this ONE year based on ONE
textbook that is no longer in print. Kids could be excused from
participating or choose alternate assignments if they or their parents
objected, and it was stopped after there were complaints.
And, in fact, I lived out there when that case came up. I still have the
textbook. I had the state guidelines. I knew teachers who taught from that
textbook in the grade in which this is alleged to have happened. Another
regular in alt.atheism who is a teacher in CA *also went digging.
Know what we turned up? NOTHING.
One of the articles that started the shrieking was about the text. I read
the article with the text in my lap, comparing what they said to what
was in the actual text. They were being blatantly deceptive about the
text. Sometimes just outright lying.
I recall that at the time, the school commented that they had received a
total of *three complaints about the Arab unit in the entire time it had
been taught. The big flap started with ONE woman who #@&@
ed to a
Christian "news" organization. ONE complaint about the unit was
escalated *by fundamentalists into some alleged conspiracy to
"impose Islam."
I finally told one guy that if these alleged conspirators were capable of
"imposing" Islam in the school systems of the nation's most populous state
and only *three parents noticed, we better start kissing ass now because,
*boy* are they powerful...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
|
| |
| |
Family Man wrote:
Bull#@($.
This doesn't sound like words from a "family man." Maybe you are a family
man. I don't know. It's just odd that the very first words I ever read
from Family Man is profanity.
JG
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 60,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
|
| |
| |
In our last episode <TCBCd.46059$nP1.21454@twister.socal.rr.com>, Jason
Gastrich lept out of the bushes shouting:
Michael must have gotten coal in his stocking.
Perhaps he feels that a case with a different child - one that ACTUALLY
DOESN'T WANT TO SAY "UNDER GOD" - will have more weight with the court.
See http://michaelnewdow.com . Michael isn't quite right about this
nation's founders or their original intent.
By the way, Gasbag, the pledge was written by a socialist.
No, really.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
|
| |
| |
In our last episode <o_DCd.46741$nP1.11000@twister.socal.rr.com>, Jason
Gastrich lept out of the bushes shouting:
Kate wrote:
So, repeat lawsuits over the same two words is patriotism?
It's about a law that was passed in violation of the US Constitution.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
|
| |
| |
Family Man wrote:
This doesn't sound like words from a "family man." Maybe you are a family
man. I don't know. It's just odd that the very first words I ever read
from Family Man is profanity.
That's what it is. I could not find a better word to use.
|
| |
| |
Michael must have gotten coal in his stocking.
Perhaps he feels that a case with a different child - one that ACTUALLY
DOESN'T WANT TO SAY "UNDER GOD" - will have more weight with the court.
See http://michaelnewdow.com . Michael isn't quite right about this
nation's founders or their original intent.
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
****************************************************************************
**********
****************************************************************************
**
http://www.restorethepledge.com/litigation/pledge/docs/2005-01-03%20complaint.pdf
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and
to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.
That is the Pledge As I said it during most of my years in school, and
putting "Under God" into the pledge always felt weird in my mouth. Not only
because it interupts the rhythm of the pledge's meter, as I learned
originally but because I couldn't understand why "under God" had anything to
do with allegiance to the flag and the republic.
--
The argument that everything had a Creator because it's too complicated, is
about as reasonable as saying that it couldn't have been created since it's
too complicated.
It's about like saying that a super flea created a dog. Then
the good fleas go to a great dog in the sky, while the bad unbelieving fleas
are scratched off into a super rug to be forever hungry. If you think dogs
weren't created by a Great Flea then you are an atheist flea.
|
| |
| |
"Family Man" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
Bull#@($. The pledge should be for all americans, not just theists.
Feel free to leave out anything you don't feel you can live with.
On the other hand, this is a theist country, and no reason for them to
change their practices to suit you.
If the words "under allah" were added, the christians would be flooding
the white house lawn in protest.
The words are synonymous. As we don't come from an Arabic culture, we don't
use their language much. If someone translated the Pledge into Arabic, the
word would be entirely appropriate. Translated into Spanish, there's another
word yet.
Saying 'God' has no implication of the Christian faith at all, and
establishes no State church or religion to say it.
If you have a quarrel with the self-evident truth held in the DoI, feel free
to dispute it.
Chas
|
| |
| |
"Family Man" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
....This country has freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
Freedom from the compulsion by the State to worship in a particular way.
There is no mention of any wall of separation, restrictions on expressions
of worship in the public weal, no prohibition of expressions of faith or
invocations of Divine grace on the business of government.
You aren't guaranteed some freedom from being annoyed, by anyone.
Chas
|
| |
| |
Do you realize that public schools include a section in their junior high
curriculum where kids dress up as Muslims, recite verses from the Koran,
and
practice their culture and religion?
Ummm.. maybe there in bum@$#* where you're located!
|
| |
| |
Eh.. it really doesn't matter. As long as we get rid of all those dorky
sons-o-#@&@
es who still actually have stone-age beliefs in a "deity."
That's all I ask.
Michael must have gotten coal in his stocking.
Perhaps he feels that a case with a different child - one that ACTUALLY
DOESN'T WANT TO SAY "UNDER GOD" - will have more weight with the court.
See http://michaelnewdow.com . Michael isn't quite right about this
nation's founders or their original intent.
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
****************************************************************************
**********
****************************************************************************
**
http://www.restorethepledge.com/litigation/pledge/docs/2005-01-03%20complaint.pdf
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and
to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.
Above is the version of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the
United States of America first approved by the Congress in 1942. It
evokes feelings of patriotism and unity, and brings together the
vastly different cultures, ethnicities, languages and backgrounds
that form the common experience called America. It reaffirms our
commitment to the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution, and
reflects the foundation of that amazing document: that diversity is a
blessing which only strengthens our nation. This is especially true
concerning religion, which the Framers recognized as uniquely
divisive, causing them to set forth that "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion."
We have done well since those first ten words of the Bill of Rights
(i.e., the "Establishment Clause") were written in 1789, and
generally held true to that principle. Yet, in 1954 - fueled by the
Cold War and blinded by McCarthyism - Congress violated its oath.
After sixty-two secular years, the Pledge - first introduced by a
private magazine in 1892 - was changed. Our elected officials felt it
necessary to inject religion into the Pledge, and "under God" was
interlarded into that promise which had previously embraced all
Americans.
Currently there is a legal drive to remove those words. "God" in the
Pledge has caused the divisiveness, discrimination and exclusion that
the Framers specifically sought to prevent. Yes, the majority of
Americans believe in God, and they nearly unanimously find no
objection in the Pledge's current rendition. But that is precisely
why we have a Bill of Rights - to prevent tyranny by the majority,
and to protect the rights of minorities. Our Constitution forbids
government from endorsing religious views, and those who choose not
to believe in a deity should never be made to feel like "outsiders,"
as is now the case.
The words are "liberty and justice for all." The Pledge should be a
unifying experience for every citizen. Placing a religious ideal into
its midst is not right, and serves no purpose except to alter a purely
patriotic tradition into one that satisfies the religious bent of the
majority. That is exactly what the First Amendment was written to
preclude.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
****************************************************************************
****
http://www.restorethepledge.com/litigation/pledge/docs/2005-01-03%20complaint.pdf
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 60,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 21:35:16 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kate wrote:
So, repeat lawsuits over the same two words is patriotism?
Of course! That's the good fight - the one that keeps our country
safe.
It is when it restores a national pledge to one that follows the
constitution and stops repeated attempts at government supported
religous proselytization on our children..
It's the good fight Jason - the proper way to fight for our country
and clean up the bad laws.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 21:36:36 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Do you realize that public schools include a section in their junior high
curriculum where kids dress up as Muslims, recite verses from the Koran, and
practice their culture and religion?
Maybe he should consider taking on Islam that is forced on the kids. It is
far more intrusive than two words.
You don't know the difference between learning about a religion and
being pressured into swearing the opposite of what you believe?
You did actually go to school at one time, didn't you? Did learning
about the ancient egyptians turn you into one?
|
| |
| |
| |
