Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: jcotton1@*********.net (Joseph Cotton)
Subject: EXTREMELY off-topic reply...
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:48:00 -0500
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Hiller
> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 2:22 AM
>
> I see the same attention-getting
> common denominator as the guy in California who took
> to the U.S. Supreme Court the notion to strike down
> the phrase "under God" from the US Constitution. He
> obviously has problems with God and conveniently
> forgets that other people may not share his view, and
> that, in striving to excercise HIS constitutional
> right, he was infringing on the rights of others.)

Was it the Constitution or the Pledge of Allegiance? You might keep
in mind (if it was the latter) that phrase was added within fairly
recent memory as a response to the "Red Menace" back in the 50's. I
don't have the Constitution memorized and don't feel like looking it
up right now, but I'm pretty sure the Declaration of Independence
doesn't mention "God" but rather uses phrases like "supreme being" or
"creator"; and it wouldn't surprise me if the Constitution was the
same way.

Also, there is that pesky "no state-sponsored religion" clause in the
Constitution -- this is why military oaths don't require you to swear
to Big Jubu in the Sky, but rather give you the option to just say "I
affirm".

Yes, you do have the right to practice your own religion. The
government does not have the right to force you to go thru the forms
of someone else's, though.
Message no. 2
From: anders@**********.com (Anders Swenson)
Subject: EXTREMELY off-topic reply...
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 08:44:08 -0800
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Cotton" <jcotton1@*********.net>
To: "'Shadowrun Discussion'" <shadowrn@*****.dumpshock.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 6:48 AM
Subject: EXTREMELY off-topic reply...


>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Scott Hiller
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 2:22 AM
>>
>> I see the same attention-getting
>> common denominator as the guy in California who took
>> to the U.S. Supreme Court the notion to strike down
>> the phrase "under God" from the US Constitution.
[snip}>
> Was it the Constitution or the Pledge of Allegiance?
[snip}
Just the Pledge of Allegiance, which originally didn't have that phrase
anyhow.
--Anders
Message no. 3
From: Paul.Grosse@***********.com (Paul Grosse)
Subject: EXTREMELY off-topic reply...
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 11:58:29 -0500
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Scott Hiller
> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 2:22 AM
> >>
> >> I see the same attention-getting
> >> common denominator as the guy in California who took
> >> to the U.S. Supreme Court the notion to strike down
> >> the phrase "under God" from the US Constitution.
> [snip}>
> > Was it the Constitution or the Pledge of Allegiance?
> [snip}
> Just the Pledge of Allegiance, which originally didn't have
> that phrase
> anyhow.
> --Anders
>

Yes, it was added by Roosevelt, if I remember right, in the early
1950's.

Paul G.
Message no. 4
From: hangfire@*****.com (Tim)
Subject: EXTREMELY off-topic reply...
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 17:13:05 -0000
Actually it was the knights of columbus
Message no. 5
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: EXTREMELY off-topic reply...
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 19:49:36 +0100
According to Paul Grosse, on Wednesday 05 January 2005 17:58 the word on
the street was...

> Yes, it was added by Roosevelt, if I remember right, in the early
> 1950's.

Did we just identify another immortal elf?

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 6
From: pentaj2@********.edu (John C. Penta)
Subject: EXTREMELY off-topic reply...
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 15:45:17 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Grosse <Paul.Grosse@***********.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 5, 2005 11:58 am
Subject: RE: EXTREMELY off-topic reply...


> Yes, it was added by Roosevelt, if I remember right, in the early
> 1950's.

Eisenhower, actually, in 1954.
Message no. 7
From: Paul.Grosse@***********.com (Paul Grosse)
Subject: EXTREMELY off-topic reply...
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:10:05 -0500
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Grosse <Paul.Grosse@***********.com>
> Date: Wednesday, January 5, 2005 11:58 am
> Subject: RE: EXTREMELY off-topic reply...
>
>
> > Yes, it was added by Roosevelt, if I remember right, in the early
> > 1950's.
>
> Eisenhower, actually, in 1954.
>
>
>

At least I had the decade right :)
Message no. 8
From: mrnexx@*********.net (Mr. Nexx)
Subject: EXTREMELY off-topic reply...
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 15:50:07 -0600
Paul Grosse wrote:

>>>Yes, it was added by Roosevelt, if I remember right, in the early
>>>1950's.

> At least I had the decade right :)

Yes, but Roosevelt died before that decade began. ;-)

--
***
Nexx
aka Skaldmark
aka Mark Hall
***
http://www.editors-wastebasket.org/nexx/
***
"We have not even to risk the adventure alone, for the heroes of all
time have gone before us."
-Joseph Campbell

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about EXTREMELY off-topic reply..., you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.