ACLU take note: People are praying

Boston Herald ^ | 10/29/01 | Don Feder

[Skooz]

A cleansing wind is blowing through the land, clearing away cobwebs in the minds of those accustomed to unquestioningly obeying the elite.

About freaking time.

[Faithfull]

Amen...one of the best posts today. Thanks. I plan to email this to everyone...it is important that we keep reinforcing the need to increase our prayer and patriotic efforts. Too many flags are not flying and people seem to be forgetting already. This is a great reminder....I will pass it on.

[SubSailor]

My pitiful little mind just can't fathom why anyone would be offended by the generic use of the word "God". Could someone please explain it to me? I just don't understand it. I've thought about it over and over and I can think of only one type of entity/person who would be offended: one who is in opposition to God. So, what type of people/entities are in opposition to God?

[VOA]

bump

[goodnesswins]

"Litigation terrorists..."

Now, THAT is a VERY good description....

[Dimensio]

My pitiful little mind just can't fathom why anyone would be offended by the generic use of the word "God". Could someone please explain it to me? I just don't understand it. I've thought about it over and over and I can think of only one type of entity/person who would be offended: one who is in opposition to God. So, what type of people/entities are in opposition to God?

I can think of two situations/groups who might take offense to the generic use of the word "God". Keep in mind that I do not claim to espouse either position.
First, there are those for whom God is very important and very sacred; so sacred, in fact, that His name should only be invoked when directly addressing Him. A "generic" invoking of His name is seen as insincere and meaningless, cheapening the value that has been placed in Him (or Her, or It, depending on the view of God).
Second there are those who do not believe in any gods. They may well take offense when all around them call to a return to God, feeling an implication that those without a belief in any gods are somehow to be treated as lesser citizens. They hear a calling for unity, and then hear for a calling to God and feel as though the call to unity is meant to "anyone but you, since you don't think like we do".

[GoredInMich]

Yes, the litigation terrorists are not happy these days. Their unabashed, blatant attempts to secularize America have been reversed by September 11.

It is unfortunate that 6000 innocent Americans have to die, for this country to wake up and realize where we came from, and how we became who we are, but it is indeed happening.

Any activities which make the Anti-Christian Litigation Unit angry have my support.

I am thrilled that we, as Americans, are rediscovering our patriotism and love for God and country. The rest be damned.

[wasp69]

Because the name of "God" was on the lips of those who killed 4000+ people on September 11, 2001, and one Taliban is bad enough.

No, the name of "Allah" was on the lips of those who killed 4000+ people on September 11, 2001.

[Media2Powerful]

If every word uttered in public places had to have universal agreement and never offend ANYONE then I dare say we'd all live in silence.

[Gargantua]

God Bless Don Feder, and America, and us ALL.

AMEN!!!

[Dimensio]

If every word uttered in public places had to have universal agreement and never offend ANYONE then I dare say we'd all live in silence.

Well I don't think that is the issue. Most (if not all) of the legal challenges against the utterance of "God" are lodged against a group seen as a government authority of some sort (ie a public school district). I've not heard of any large organized effort to prevent people from using the word "God" in public. It's not invoking the name of a God that bothers them so much as an authoritarian source turning it into an official proclimation.

[SubSailor]

That certainly was a nice rant, but it didn't answer my question. So, now that I know that you think (to paraphrase you) 'God is dumb', why are you offended if I and others choose to be dumb? How is the term "God bless America" hurting you?

[ohioman]

You get my vote for idiotic A-hole of the day!

[SubSailor]

Not the Constitution, but the Declaration Of Independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

[Skooz]

Therefore, the Declaration Of Independence is unconstitutional, right?

[Dimensio]

Therefore, the Declaration Of Independence is unconstitutional, right?

Considering that the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document of the United States of America, no it is not unconstitutional.

[Jerez]

I read a survey about 2 years ago that OVER 95% of Americans believe in God (or some version thereof, ie "Allah" or "Great Spirit" -- if you are a monotheist/deist of any sort, you believe in God). That means that only 3-5% of us are atheists. What would we call a country where 5% dictates to 95% what they can say and do in public? I think it is tyranny of the minority. Atheists have had too much influence for too long. It is time for them to accept their mini-minority status. Besides, that way they can really feel superior to the "ignorant/unwashed/superstitious" 95%!

[moneyrunner]

"the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document of the United States"

I have often seen this statement, and it's simply wrong. The Declaration of Independence is an exptremely important and formally binding document which was debated and voted on during the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. (I refer those who doubt this to the recent biography of John Adams).

It was formally adopted by Congress, and was a the proximate cause of the war between the United States and Great Britain.

You may mean that the Declaration is not the framework of our laws, as the Constitution is. That is true and immaterial. The Declaration is not a letter, essay, newspaper article, or the expression of a single individual. It was drafted initially by Thomas Jeffeson, and each phrase was debated and voted on by Congress. In the end each member of congress signed it, giving it the force of law. It's what the subsequent war was about.

Love and peace.