Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site sdcc3.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!sdcc3!ec120bgt
From: ec120bgt@sdcc3.UUCP (ANDREW VARE)
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.religion,net.politics
Subject: Re: Violation of human dignity and fair play?
Message-ID: <2896@sdcc3.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 31-May-85 23:53:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcc3.2896
Posted: Fri May 31 23:53:28 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 3-Jun-85 00:26:54 EDT
References: <1192@opus.UUCP> <2083@sdcc6.UUCP> <1702@aecom.UUCP> <162@mb2c.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center
Lines: 33
Xref: linus net.legal:1388 net.religion:6622 net.politics:8610

In article <162@mb2c.UUCP>, mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina) writes:
> > > 
> > > I'd like to add an interesting tid bit to Brian's discussion
> > > of Curch and State.  In an Anthropology class I once took we
> > > studied religion in the U.S., and we noticed that in EVERY
> > > one of the inaugural (sp?) speaches made by past
> > > Presidents, G-d was mentioned.  In no way was it ever
> > > offensive, but It was another direct play with the influence
> > > of church and state.  
> 
> I do not see a violation of the Seperation requirement if a President
> uses God in his speech, if God is marked on a coin, or if a Priest
> makes the opening invocation at a governmental function.  I would interested
> in knowing why readers on the net see such a conflict.
> 
> One thing you must remember is that the Constitutional requirement
> primarily frowns on a Governmental intertwining with the Church.
> The mere allusion to a God or a Church is not unconstitutional.
> 
> 				 Mark Reina
> 				
What about those of you out there who are "GODLESS" ? Do you feel
alienated by this guy who was just sworn in, and made reference to a
deity whom you cannot see, touch or feel? A deity whose disciples
have T.V. shows in Orange County whose net revenues exceed operating
costs by 75 percent? A deity who only published once? And who made
some awfully unscientific remarks about the origins of life? Whither
rational thought on this net? Might I be so bold as to posit that there 
are some who might like no mention of such a deity, in the affairs
of state? Can you say "moral majority?" I knew you could...

ATV
would like no mention of