[Vision2020] Satanism Was: Of, By

Mon Mar 17 20:48:06 PDT 2008

Sue,

  1) The Knights of Columbus did persuade the President and Congress to change the pledge to include a deity. The words, "Under God" were taken from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. 

  2) The Pledge was not incorporated into the daily school pledge until 1945. So the numbers were not the same pre-1945 as they are now.

  3) The pledge in its current form is as long as it has been. It has been changed several times since 1892, once in 1923, and again in 1954. The period of time between 1892 and 1923 (31 years), and the period of time between 1923 and 1954 (31 years), is not as long as the period of time between 1954 and 2008 (54 Years). 

  Best Regards,

  Donovan
Sue Hovey <suehovey at moscow.com> wrote:
      Hummmm.  Well in response to your first question, the Pledge was said for all those years without much controversy that it was incomplete.  The push to insert the words, "under God,' appears to have originated with a group of Knights of Columbus groups in the late 1940s.  

  Second:  I think the general population in 1910 probably said the pledge in the same representative numbers that they do now.  I don't know how to calculate that, but if you do, tell me how it is so obvious.

  Third:  Your comment, "the words 'under God' have been in the Pledge a lot longer than they have not been in the Pledge," is simply untrue.  Do the math. 

  Sue 
    ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Donovan Arnold 
  To: Sue Hovey ; Paul Rumelhart 
  Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com ; donaledwards at hotmail.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 7:56 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Satanism Was: Of, By

  Sue,

  Obviously, the elected representatives of this country did not believe as you state. Nor did President Eisenhower. 

  The general population was not saying the pledge before 1910. 

  Few people can claim that they remember saying the pledge without Under God. 54 years ago, is not a recent change.

  Best Regards,

  Donovan 

Sue Hovey <suehovey at moscow.com> wrote:
          Donovan, 

  The Pledge of Allegiance was formalized in 1892 and for the next 62 years it was spoken by Americans everywhere with feeling and patriotic accord even though it did not contain the words, "under God."  That didn't happen until 1954 when President Eisenhower signed the proclamation into law.  Many of us grew up reciting the original words in Sunday School, elementary classrooms, and Girl Scout meetings and we felt no less patriotic, nor did we feel the Pledge was in some way incomplete.  

  I do not believe the addition of the words, "under God," made it more appropriate or more expansive.  We need to be very careful when giving God credit for the direction this nation has chosen throughout it's oftentimes turbulent history.  Personally, I know of no historical evidence that God ever sent anyone a message indicating a revision of the Pledge was necessary.

  Sue H. 
    ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Donovan Arnold 
  To: Paul Rumelhart 
  Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com ; donaledwards at hotmail.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 6:03 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Satanism Was: Of, By

  Paul,

  You write,

  "I can sympathize with the people who wish to take "Under God" out of the 
Pledge. If it was simply the original wording from way back when, it 
wouldn't really be a problem. However, it was placed there relatively 
recently (1940's?). I think that was a mistake and should probably be 
rectified."

  The words, "Under God" have been in the pledge much longer than they have not been in the pledge. Further, why is something invalid because it was done after 1940? Are the men that fought in World War II not just as worthy of adding to the pledge and American tradition as the original author of the Pledge? They were put there for a reason, to reflect the wishes and beliefs of the American people. Might I also add, that most the vocals against the word "God" in the pledge won't say the pledge anyway. So let the 95%+ of the population say it the way they want, not have to say it the way the other 5% want us to say it. 

  "I also don't think the idea is to weed God out of our daily lives. Just 
let the government stay neutral. Protecting the rights of citizens to 
worship as they wish was one of the major driving forces of the founding 
of this country. Keeping the government neutral was meant to help that, 
not hinder it."

  I think it is the idea of Atheists to weed out theism, of any kind, that is why they are called "a" theists, not pro-theists. They want to rid us of tax supported churches, tax supported cemeteries, tax supported chaplains in the military, and tax supported prayer of any kind.  I don't see where you get the idea that the government should be agnostic, or neutral instead of pro-God. This is suppose to be a representative government. The vast majority, 90% +, believe in God, and want Him in their daily lives.  Weeding Him out, as many Atheists are trying to do, is an infringement on the rights of 90% of the people that want an opportunity to be reminded and to pray.

  I do agree that the government should be neutral on which religion people follow, not push one over the other. But we have to have God in this country, because otherwise we are restricting religion. Restricting God from government is not freedom of religion, it is an annihilation of it. Freedom of Religion, not Freedom from Religion. 

Best Regards,

  Donovan

Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
  I would like to split what you are saying into two separate subjects, 
because I have a different response for each. The two subjects are 
Church and State, and Overly Aggressive Political Correctness.

I can sympathize with the people who wish to take "Under God" out of the 
Pledge. If it was simply the original wording from way back when, it 
wouldn't really be a problem. However, it was placed there relatively 
recently (1940's?). I think that was a mistake and should probably be 
rectified. Like Chas, though, I don't consider it worth the effort. I 
also don't care much about the "In God We Trust" on the currency. It 
would spend the same way if it said "In Allah We Trust" or "In Big Juju 
We Trust". The thing that kills me about this topic is that if 
Christianity was a minority religion and some other religion was being 
favored in our classrooms and on our currency, they would all be up in 
arms. That's the reason Church and State need to be separated.

On the topic of political correctness, I can agree. Although I 
celebrate the Winter Solstice with probably the same amount of fervor as 
your average Christian celebrates Christmas, I don't care much if 
someone say "Merry Christmas" to me. I take it in the spirit it was 
given. If someone wishes me a happy Kwanzaa, I'll take it the same way.

I also don't think the idea is to weed God out of our daily lives. Just 
let the government stay neutral. Protecting the rights of citizens to 
worship as they wish was one of the major driving forces of the founding 
of this country. Keeping the government neutral was meant to help that, 
not hinder it. 

Paul

Donovan Arnold wrote:
> Satan's greatest trick was to convince people that he doesn't exist. I 
> think Satanism, is, for the most part, the same as Atheism.
> 
> What Satan wants is to remove God, all things related to him, and in 
> our daily thoughts completely. To make us about ourselves, and the 
> world we live in.
> 
> Atheists are best at doing this. They have made God very unpopular in 
> this country. You cannot even say, "Merry Christmas" without 
> subjecting yourself to a potential lawsuit.
> 
> Separation of Church from State was designed to protect our religion 
> from being indoctrinated and controlled by the government, not to weed 
> God out of our daily lives and thinking, which is what is happening, 
> sadly, all over this country, and you can see the negative impact it 
> is having.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Donovan
>
> */Chasuk /* wrote:
>
> > Also, you may want to read up on modern-day Satanists. I know a
> couple
> > of them. There is a big difference between LaVey Satanism and the
> > mostly-non-existent Luciferian Satanism portrayed in bad B
> movies. It's
> > not my cup of tea, but it has some aspects to it that I can respect.
>
> I've known several Satanists, and most of them were just atheists with
> a peculiar sense of humor, combined with a desire to shock. None of
> them were the B movies types.
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try 
> it now. 
> 

---------------------------------
  Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.     
---------------------------------

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

---------------------------------
  Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

---------------------------------
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080317/9d813d9d/attachment.html 