[Vision2020] Satanism Was: Of, By
Dave
tiedye at turbonet.com
Thu Mar 20 07:35:26 PDT 2008
Donovan, it might not establish a particular religion, but it does
establish the religions that believe in a god as supreme.
Your last paragraph is the only thing you've said recently that makes
any sense (except the last part).
I'm still amazed that you think fighting for your civil rights should be
considered a capitol offense.
Dave
Donovan Arnold wrote:
> Keely,
>
> Placing the words, Under God, doesn't establish a religion. It might
> state that we believe in a God that is above the nation, but it doesn't
> specify or establish a religion.
>
> I might lend to the notion that it excludes those that believe in
> multiple Gods, except with the fact that it doesn't really do that even
> because those that believe in multiple Gods would also most likely
> believe that one in particular would be the God of the United States.
>
> The establishment of Religion was written to make sure the government
> would not establish Catholicism, Judaism, Baptist, or the Church of
> England, and the official Church of the land with the President of the
> United States as its head. Past European nations had Kings and Queens,
> and even other leaders, that established religions at the State religion
> and others were prosecuted for not following it. I don't think these two
> words do that.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Donovan
>
> */keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com>/* wrote:
>
> The religion that believes in a single, ontologically trinitarian,
> omniscient/omnipresent/omipotent Being of whom the three great world
> religions speak in their Scriptures. In a supposedly "Christian"
> nation, that would be Yahweh of the Hebrew Old Testament, with
> emphasis on the Christian identification of Him in the New Testament
> at the expense of the Islamic and Judaic tradition.
>
> So, yes, in a de jure way it establish that God, and in a de facto
> way identifies Him with Christianity. And because I am a Christian,
> my God is too important to my life and worldview to be dropped into
> a civil religious exercise as a concession to some vague notion that
> perhaps we really oughta consider acknowledging the power and
> sovereignty of the Divine, as long as it doesn't get all hard and
> costly and messy and stuff.
>
> Keely
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:52:57 -0700
> From: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
> To: tiedye at turbonet.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
> CC: donaledwards at hotmail.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Satanism Was: Of, By
>
> "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.
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. Get it now!
> <http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
> Search.
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>
>
--
Windows, OSX, or Linux is the same choice as:
McDonalds, Burger King, or a (real) Co-Op.
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list