From: David Ruether on

<stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hq7okb$6e0$2(a)news.albasani.net...
> David Ruether wrote:

>> Again thanks. I've always been annoyed by that intrusion of
>> religion into the pledge, and also with the words, "in god we
>> trust" on our money, as if that represents the views of all who
>> use the money, and therefore of all US citizens. The tendency
>> of a majority of people to believe that their *beliefs* are
>> universal and "true" can be oppressive.
>> --DR

> While I do believe in God and go to church every sunday, I also don't think it has any place in the government because who knows
> if what "Their God wants" is the same as my view of God. Clearly in this case we are discussing it isn't and given the wide range
> of denominations, there are a variety of ways He is viewed.
>
> Stephanie

Or "It", since a single god has no need for gender...;-)
--DR


From: Chris H on
In message <hq7bog$ig9$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, David Ruether
<d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> writes
>
>"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:XOmdnSdpaeQPsVvWnZ2dnUVZ_hidnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>> "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:0tvas5p1kubk1om
>>jorb7tiginnhi3p0bjk(a)4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:38:59 -0400, "David Ruether"
>>> <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>A case in point is the rise
>>>>of Sarah Palin... We are in a time when a near idiot can rise to
>>>>within reach of the presidency
>
>>> Please, in the interests of accuracy, less of the "near"?
>
>> No, we are in a time when a near idiot has risen to the presidency.
>>He is currently engaged in giving the whole ball park away to
>> the visiting team, and putting our grandchildren (and theirs) into
>>terrible debt. We have only one more chance to get rid of him,
>> and that chance may be too late.
>
>I guess I disagree with you on several counts. I think
>no one else would call Obama an idiot.

Certainly not compared to GW Bush or Palin

>

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



From: stephe_k on
Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hq7okb$6e0$2(a)news.albasani.net...
>> David Ruether wrote:
>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Again thanks. I've always been annoyed by that intrusion of
>>> religion into the pledge, and also with the words, "in god we
>>> trust" on our money, as if that represents the views of all who
>>> use the money, and therefore of all US citizens. The tendency
>>> of a majority of people to believe that their *beliefs* are
>>> universal and "true" can be oppressive.
>>> --DR
>>
>> While I do believe in God and go to church every sunday, I also don't
>> think it has any place in the government because who knows if what "Their
>> God wants" is the same as my view of God. Clearly in this case we are
>> discussing it isn't and given the wide range of denominations, there are a
>> variety of ways He is viewed.
>>
>> Stephanie
>
> Are you suggesting that people of faith have no business being active in
> government?

They have no business trying to impose their faith on other people if
that is why they are being active.

They also have no business trying to control what other people do based
on their faith or religious beliefs. As I stated, I am a person of
faith, I am active in government but would NEVER use the government to
force my religious beliefs on other people.

While the founding fathers felt religion was needed to guide the
country, they also created separation of church and state for good reason.

Stephanie
From: Neil Harrington on

<stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hq7ofg$6e0$1(a)news.albasani.net...
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>
>>>>
>>> It is the job of the US Constitution to protect the rights of the
>>> minority from the tyranny of the majority,
>>
>> And you really believe "the tyranny of the majority" is more onerous than
>> the tyranny of a tiny minority (and their enablers)? How exactly do you
>> think democracy is supposed to work?
>
> Again, do you consider 48% a "tiny minority" because that's how many
> people voted to approve this the last time it was voted on. You keep
> spouting this "tiny fraction" when it is anything but.

Approve what, where? I don't know what you're talking about.


From: Neil Harrington on

"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hq7u8g$n7s$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>
> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:hq7okb$6e0$2(a)news.albasani.net...
>> David Ruether wrote:
>
>>> Again thanks. I've always been annoyed by that intrusion of
>>> religion into the pledge, and also with the words, "in god we
>>> trust" on our money, as if that represents the views of all who
>>> use the money, and therefore of all US citizens. The tendency
>>> of a majority of people to believe that their *beliefs* are
>>> universal and "true" can be oppressive.
>>> --DR
>
>> While I do believe in God and go to church every sunday, I also don't
>> think it has any place in the government because who knows if what "Their
>> God wants" is the same as my view of God. Clearly in this case we are
>> discussing it isn't and given the wide range of denominations, there are
>> a variety of ways He is viewed.
>>
>> Stephanie
>
> Or "It", since a single god has no need for gender...;-)

A single god wouldn't. But the Greek gods did. ;-)