Subject: Re: [LPNY DISCUSS] under god Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 12:50:34 -0500 To: From: Bob Armstrong Damn , Greg , you're getting more logical more of the time all the time . Good point ! On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:12:48 -0000, greghevia wrote: >=A0I have been very impressed by Newdow, mostly because I had= given him >=A0a snowball's chance in hell's hottest volcano. But what I am >=A0dissappointed in is that he hasn't brought up the word 'under'= to >=A0strengthen his case. =A0 =A0Think of the term 'under god', what= does that >=A0mean? 'Beneath God', 'Subservient to god'. =A0Even if the= Supremes can >=A0get by by saying that 'under god' isn't a prayer, the use of= the >=A0word 'under' should be enough to indicate that the phrase means= that >=A0humans are subservent to the deity, therefore contrasting with >=A0atheist beliefs and supporting religion through gov't. > > >=A0--- In lpny_discuss@yahoogroups.com, Bob Armstrong= =A0wrote: >=A0>=A0I saw Newdow on C-SPAN . He is a great voice of logic . >=A0>=A0I've ceased expecting ANY intellectual integrity from this= court . >=A0> >=A0>=A0They won't stand up to the Theist pols . >=A0>=A0Are you offering to bet that they will ? >=A0> >=A0>=A0On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:57:11 -0500, G Triest wrote: >=A0>=A0>=A0Newdow is soo good. He makes me completely envious of his= public >=A0oratory >=A0>=A0>=A0skills. >=A0>=A0>=A0He struck a home run on his fact, law and mostly his >=A0presentation. He is >=A0>=A0>=A0a genious, handling things on the fly and even acheiving= an >=A0unheard of >=A0>=A0>=A0applause from the court audience. Amazing. >=A0>=A0> >=A0>=A0>=A0This is such a hot topic, its hard to determine whether the= court >=A0will >=A0>=A0>=A0rule conclusively or waffle. >=A0>=A0>=A0I would take bets on whether he wins on the merits or not= ;-) >=A0>=A0> >=A0>=A0>=A0Gary T. --=A0 =A0Bob Armstrong -- http://CoSy.com -- 212-285-1864 Libertarian Presidential Candidates =A0:= http://CoSy.com/Liberty.htm