Bible-beater pilots

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message


And then check the constitution. VERY disturbing.

Careful, now. "..Shall make no law barring..." is a far cry from
acknowledging a god. You'll need to come up with a better argument than
that, I'm afraid.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
____________________

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message


And then check the constitution. VERY disturbing.

Careful, now. "..Shall make no law barring..." is a far cry from
acknowledging a god. You'll need to come up with a better argument than
that, I'm afraid.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
____________________


If you're going to use quotes, use them accurately:

" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

Seems to me "no" means "no" as in "none", "not any", "zero".

H.
Parting out N502TB, BE58P

"H. Adam Stevens" wrote in message


" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
"

Seems to me "no" means "no" as in "none", "not any", "zero".

The quote wasn't intended to be verbatim, but thanks for posting the text as
it illustrates my point quite clearly. Read the text carefully: "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establisment of religion or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof..."

Where does it say that the Treasury cannot use "In God we trust" on its
money? Where does it say that Congress shall not acknowledge God (with the
prayer before each session, for instance)? What law has been passed that
establishes a religion? What law infringes the people's free exercise
thereof?

One more point: Don't misconstrue my position on this as an endorsement of
any religion, either. The point I'm trying to make is this amendment
was intended to prevent the establishment of a state-sponsored religion
(like the Church of England), not to turn the government into an atheist or
agnostic entity. You still need to find a better argument than the US
Constitution.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

Where does it say that the Treasury cannot use "In God we trust" on its
money? Where does it say that Congress shall not acknowledge God (with
the
prayer before each session, for instance)?

It is an obvious bias to a specific theology; which goes against the spirit
of the letter of the constitution. I do not want to see ANY religious
references on government issued documents; their presence is quite
presumptions and offensive.

"John Harlow" wrote in message


It is an obvious bias to a specific theology; which goes against the
spirit of the letter of the constitution.

But...if that's the bias of the majority of the Members, where's the harm?
More importantly, what makes it illegal? The "spirit" of the amendment was
to prevent state-sponsored religion. That has been strenuously adhered to
in the US.

I do not want to see ANY
religious references on government issued documents; their presence
is quite presumptions and offensive.

That is the crux of your argument: You don't *want* to see any reference to
religion. That's a far different matter than trying to claim that "In God
we trust", for example, is illegal.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

I do not want to see ANY
religious references on government issued documents; their presence
is quite presumptions and offensive.

That is the crux of your argument: You don't *want* to see any reference
to
religion. That's a far different matter than trying to claim that "In God
we trust", for example, is illegal.


If that's not state sponsored religion I don't know what is. "In God (or
Allah, Buddha, Satan or whoever) we trust" simply has no place on a
government issued document, no matter how many people it makes feel all warm
and fuzzy.

John Harlow wrote:

If that's not state sponsored religion I don't know what is.

Then you don't know what is. Congress is only forbidden to pass a *law* about
religion. Even in this case, Congress didn't pass any law stating that the
phrase "In God We Trust" be placed on our money.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
no other way.

That ain't even CLOSE to state-sponsored religion.

For real examples of state sponsored or oppressed religions, try Iran, Iraq,
Europe in Middle Ages, Soviet Russia, Cambodia's Kmer Rouge, the Vatican,
etc for examples. The differences might be too subtle for you to see, but
to most folks, the difference is like night and day.


"John Harlow" wrote in message
...
I do not want to see ANY
religious references on government issued documents; their presence
is quite presumptions and offensive.

That is the crux of your argument: You don't *want* to see any reference
to
religion. That's a far different matter than trying to claim that "In
God
we trust", for example, is illegal.


If that's not state sponsored religion I don't know what is. "In God (or
Allah, Buddha, Satan or whoever) we trust" simply has no place on a
government issued document, no matter how many people it makes feel all
warm
and fuzzy.

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
"John Harlow" wrote in message


It is an obvious bias to a specific theology; which goes against the
spirit of the letter of the constitution.

But...if that's the bias of the majority of the Members, where's the harm?
More importantly, what makes it illegal? The "spirit" of the amendment
was
to prevent state-sponsored religion. That has been strenuously adhered to
in the US.

I do not want to see ANY
religious references on government issued documents; their presence
is quite presumptions and offensive.

That is the crux of your argument: You don't *want* to see any reference
to
religion. That's a far different matter than trying to claim that "In God
we trust", for example, is illegal.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________



I argue that it is explicitly unconstitutional for Congress to make a law
placing "In God We Trust" on a government document or "Under God" in the
Pledge of Alliegance. Beginning a session of Congress with a prayer is not
the same thing as making a law. Now if the Executive were to simply direct
the Treasury Department to do something, or if there were some other sort of
decision making, fine. Congress is explicitly prohibited from making any law
whatsoever "respecting an establishment of religion".

Blus skies
H.
N502TB

"H. Adam Stevens" wrote in message


I argue that it is explicitly unconstitutional for Congress to make a
law placing "In God We Trust" on a government document or "Under God"
in the Pledge of Alliegance.

Not necessarily. As long as the law passed does not endorse any specific
religion, it is within the bounds of the US Constitution.

Congress is
explicitly prohibited from making any law whatsoever "respecting an
establishment of religion".

They have not done so. That's my point. It's fine if you want to make a
case that "In God we trust" should be changed. You just don't have a
Constitutional argument for your case.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________