[Vision2020] Satanism Was: Of, By

Tue Mar 18 22:52:57 PDT 2008

"How the frickin' heck is saying "under god" not an establishment of 
religion?"--Dave asks

  Which religion is it establishing?

  Best Regards,

  Donovan

Dave <tiedye at turbonet.com> wrote:
  It makes a big difference to me. A legacy of the continued Macartyism 
in our nation.

It marks the initial shredding of the constitution. Of course it pales 
to the shredding of recent times, but it opened the door.

How the frickin' heck is saying "under god" not an establishment of 
religion?

Dave

lfalen wrote:
> For the record "Under God" was inserted into the pledge in either 1953 0r 54 for what little difference that make.
> Roger
> -----Original message-----
> From: Donovan Arnold donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
> Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:03:51 -0700
> To: Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com
> 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 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
> =======================================================
>
>
> 

-- 
Windows, OSX, or Linux is the same choice as:
McDonalds, Burger King, or a (real) Co-Op.

=======================================================
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
=======================================================

---------------------------------
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080318/3efcfdc2/attachment-0001.html 