governemental endorsement of a certain religion, which according to
the constitution is not allowed. It does not matter whether the person
is a believer or not, what does matter is a governement mandated
religious practice.
larry
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 22:04:15 -0500, brobborb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well you are not forced to say it or believe in it (if you are, then that is not wrong and possibly illegal!). Using that logic, i can just say...there are people on this earth who believe in God, implying that not believing in a God is incorrect, let's get rid of these people!
>
> I hope you dont see everything in life this way, you can be offended at anything!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ben Doom
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 5:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Religious oppression in action
>
> > Implied by the law? no way!
>
> Implied by the Pledge itself. Including the text "under God" implies
> that there is, in fact, at least one god, and probably only one God
> (note capitilizaion) depending on interpretation.
>
> --Ben
>
> > > See there's a difference. You got in trouble for NOT SAYING IT. Now
> > > that is something I am against! it's not the pledge of allegiance that
> > > should be changed, but the people who are forcing you to say "under
> > > God". Please don't take it out on the pledge of allegiance!
> >
> > There is still the implication that if I don't believe in God, I'm
> > wrong. Not saying "under God" doesn't imply that believing in God is
> > incorrect. At least that's the way I feel.
> >
> > --Ben
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
