OT- for Americans - found this of interest (x-posted)

I found this in the course of research about someone who
cited this from an email which claimed that Michael Newdow
who is fighting to have the pledge thrown out of his child's
school presented it to the court or in some of his public
interviews. I think it would be a much better pledge, though
I still don't believe it should be insisted upon in our schools.

It turns out that it was presented to a voter march rally.

Reference at the end of the URL is:
Keynote Speech at VoterMarch Rally San Francisco, May 19, 2001 by Ed
Reiman
*** Veteran and member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Ed Reiman
is also one of the founding members of Vietnam Veterans of America
Chapter 144. He gave the keynote speech at the opening ceremony for
the traveling Vietnam Veterans' wall, sponsored by the VVA. During the
80s he was a volunteer facilitator for veteran counseling groups,
working with team leader Steve Tice. Mr. Reiman returned to Vietnam
for the first time in November 2000 in the aftermath of Election 2000.
Ed Reiman may be reached via e-mail at

http://www.legitgov.org/library_Ed.html

A pledge of allegiance for today --

"I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and to
the Republic for which it stands: One nation, indivisible, with
Liberty and Justice for all."


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

Michael Newdow is a crackpot. He doesn't even have legal responsibility over
his daughter, his daughter doesn't object to saying "under God" and neither
does the girl's mother. Newdow, an avowed atheist, is simply trying to push his
agenda and got the support of a known crackpot Circuit Court to back him on it.


The objective is nothing less than the removal of all Christian references from
public society, despite the fact that there's no such thing as "separation of
church and state" in the Constitution. This document states that Congress shall
not establish a particular religion, but neither shall it hinder it. This
country was founded, nonetheless, on Christian principles, by God-fearing men,
who would be sickened by people like Newdow and their attempts to make
second-class citizens of Christians in America.

On 06 Nov 2003 01:35:48 GMT, (GI Trekker) wrote:

Michael Newdow is a crackpot. He doesn't even have legal responsibility over
his daughter, his daughter doesn't object to saying "under God" and neither
does the girl's mother. Newdow, an avowed atheist, is simply trying to push his
agenda and got the support of a known crackpot Circuit Court to back him on it.


The objective is nothing less than the removal of all Christian references from
public society, despite the fact that there's no such thing as "separation of
church and state" in the Constitution. This document states that Congress shall
not establish a particular religion, but neither shall it hinder it. This
country was founded, nonetheless, on Christian principles, by God-fearing men,
who would be sickened by people like Newdow and their attempts to make
second-class citizens of Christians in America.

The founding fathers didn't write the pledge, and the words "under
God" weren't inserted into until 1954. Were we a nation of godless
heathens from 1892 to 1954 because the pledge to the flag lacked
homage to the Christian deity?

I don't go into churches and lecture about differential calculus, so
why can't Christians reciprocate by keeping their religion out of
government funded public schools?

"GI Trekker" wrote in message
...

This
country was founded, nonetheless, on Christian principles, by God-fearing
men,
who would be sickened by people like Newdow and their attempts to make
second-class citizens of Christians in America.

Um, yeah, you guys really have it rough. So how does the water
taste from those Christian-only drinking fountains? For us heathens,
if flows Evian!


P.
Tierney

On 06 Nov 2003 01:35:48 GMT, (GI Trekker) wrote:

Michael Newdow is a crackpot. He doesn't even have legal responsibility over
his daughter, his daughter doesn't object to saying "under God" and neither
does the girl's mother. Newdow, an avowed atheist, is simply trying to push his
agenda and got the support of a known crackpot Circuit Court to back him on it.


The objective is nothing less than the removal of all Christian references from
public society, despite the fact that there's no such thing as "separation of
church and state" in the Constitution. This document states that Congress shall
not establish a particular religion, but neither shall it hinder it. This
country was founded, nonetheless, on Christian principles, by God-fearing men,
who would be sickened by people like Newdow and their attempts to make
second-class citizens of Christians in America.


Actually Article XI of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with
Tripoli, which was signed during the Washington administration in 1796
and ratified by the Senate in 1797 during the Adams administration
states explicitly:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense
founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of
enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as
the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility
against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no
pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an
interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. "

The whole document is located at:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/di...y/bar1796t.htm

On 06 Nov 2003 01:35:48 GMT, (GI Trekker) wrote:

Michael Newdow is a crackpot. He doesn't even have legal responsibility over
his daughter, his daughter doesn't object to saying "under God" and neither
does the girl's mother. Newdow, an avowed atheist, is simply trying to push his
agenda and got the support of a known crackpot Circuit Court to back him on it.

However, this was NOT created by Newdow, but by a respected Vietnam
Vet, Ed Rieman.

The fact that I found it while researching Newdow was only mentioned
to let people know why I found it/


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On 06 Nov 2003 01:35:48 GMT, (GI Trekker) wrote:

The objective is nothing less than the removal of all Christian references from
public society, despite the fact that there's no such thing as "separation of
church and state" in the Constitution. This document states that Congress shall
not establish a particular religion, but neither shall it hinder it. This
country was founded, nonetheless, on Christian principles, by God-fearing men,
who would be sickened by people like Newdow and their attempts to make
second-class citizens of Christians in America.

You are, as usual, quite wrong. The fact is that church and state are
separated so that our government cannot interfere in our religions.
And that means that any institution which is run by the government
should leave all religions out of the mix, imho.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 21:45:16 -0500, atanarjuat
wrote:

The founding fathers didn't write the pledge, and the words "under
God" weren't inserted into until 1954. Were we a nation of godless
heathens from 1892 to 1954 because the pledge to the flag lacked
homage to the Christian deity?

So is there any comment about this pledge as written by Ed Reiman?

A pledge of allegiance for today --

"I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and to
the Republic for which it stands: One nation, indivisible, with
Liberty and Justice for all."


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

"toto" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 21:45:16 -0500, atanarjuat
wrote:

The founding fathers didn't write the pledge, and the words "under
God" weren't inserted into until 1954. Were we a nation of godless
heathens from 1892 to 1954 because the pledge to the flag lacked
homage to the Christian deity?

So is there any comment about this pledge as written by Ed Reiman?

A pledge of allegiance for today --

"I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and to
the Republic for which it stands: One nation, indivisible, with
Liberty and Justice for all."

Sounds good. It would require people to know about the
document that the Founding Fathers *intended to be public*
instead of making assumptions about their religions that
many of them intended to be private.

Why many hotels include Bibles in their bedside tables
instead of a copy of the Constitution, or at least a pamphlet
with the Bill of Rights, is a bit baffling.


P. Tierney

GI Trekker wrote:

This
country was founded, nonetheless, on Christian principles, by God-fearing men,
who would be sickened by people like Newdow and their attempts to make
second-class citizens of Christians in America.

This is absolutely not true, but that has been discussed here several
times. Read up on the founding fathers a bit, they were certainly not
Christians.