"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
...


I have sat on juries in Ohio and Maryland. Neither required a
religious
oath.

That's sad and further evidence of morals going down the tubes. I have been
in Texas court rooms on numerous occasions and the oath required So help me
God.


Any requirement that a person make a statement implying
religious belief is a clear blatant violation of the First Amendment.

If that person objects, he can simply say in him mind, I take all that back.
He can deal with that when his time comes. If he does not believe in those
set of beliefs or morals, they should not matter to him. It should only
bother him and his God if he is being deceitful or dishonest. You see, God
is not easily fooled and knows whether you are being honest or not.



Disallowing the use of religious icons to decorate a public building,
is
hardly tatamount to removing God from the building. Unless my
childhood religious education was very much in error, no earthly
power can remove God from anywhere. ISTM that if someone who
insists on conspicuous displays of their religious icons by their
government is a person who is without faith.

A constant reminder of God is no harm to anyone not is it a sign of lack
of
faith.

Why does a person who has faith need a constant reminder?
and why does a person who has faith need to canstantly remind
other people?

I don't know about you but I and many others are still only human and have
many faults. We all need constant reminders so that the constant presence
of evil does not dominate.
Who? reminds others?


A conspicous display of their religious icon by anyone, is not a sign of
a
person who is with out faith. If you believe that, explain that to any
priest. It matters not, where the display is.


We simply disagree.

No kidding.


"Under God" is not part of the Pledge of Allegiance. It was 'added'
by a well-intentioned but ill-considered act of Congress in the
1950's.

Thats crap. The Under God IS a part of the pledge, not all the time but
has
been for a very long time. If you want to argue, just say so.

The Congress didn't write the Pledge of Allegiance so it is no more
appropriate for the Congress to edit it than it is for the Congress
to
edit anyone else's writings.

What purpose is served by adding divisive language to the Pledge?

I cannot explain that to you. Most prefer it and are conforted by it. I
would much rather feel that this nation is monitored by God than not. Maybe
you feel that you don't need or feel his presence if you have to ask that
question.