Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Eagler on June 26, 2002, 01:40:18 PM
-
Only in San Fran, home of everything wierd & queer:
SAN FRANCISCO –– A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and cannot be recited in schools.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49473-2002Jun26.html
-
So...when does the big one hit that will slide CA off into the ocean never to bother us again? ;)
-
Excellent. The courts get it.
Sling... read up on plate tectonics. California isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Oh... and I guess this means it's time to re-mint our coins and remove the "In God We Trust" toejame...
-
So does this mean that it will NOT be recited at all? Or does it mean that it will be recited pre-1954 without the words "under God" in it?
The ruling is correct though.
"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war." - Dwight D. Eisenhower, on why the two words were added to the pledge.
The words were added 100% as a religious endorsement.
I don't believe in your God, Eagler. Why should I include Him in a Pledge to our country? We are not one nation under God. We might have been at the initial stages were almost every American was a Christian. Since then, there are agnostic/atheists, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, etc that are all American citizens. We're not a nation under any one divine power. Therefore the Pledge as it stands now is not just an unconstitutional endorsement, it's flat out incorrect.
I don't like your football team either (except when they play Miami! or Auburn. or Alabama, but that's just to cheese off hblair!) :p
-
The only time I recited the Pledge of Allegience in school was when I was in grade school. For whatever reason, despite my HS being a catholic HS, they stopped doing it.
Then I went to a public HS for my last year, and they naturally (because of "that" one line) didn't recite anything either.
I dunno, it's still the Pledge of Allegience even if you strike out "one nation under God", isn't it? If they are so concerned with it, they could just do a teleprompter at the front of the class room "...one nation under [insert your deity], indvisible..."
-SW
-
Yet another handsomehunk court ruling.
I'm an agnostic btw.
-
Originally posted by Nifty
...We're not a nation under any one divine power.
Not even the lord god dubya?
-
San Francisco.
Nuff said.
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
The only time I recited the Pledge of Allegience in school was when I was in grade school. For whatever reason, despite my HS being a catholic HS, they stopped doing it.
Then I went to a public HS for my last year, and they naturally (because of "that" one line) didn't recite anything either.
I dunno, it's still the Pledge of Allegience even if you strike out "one nation under God", isn't it? If they are so concerned with it, they could just do a teleprompter at the front of the class room "...one nation under [insert your deity], indvisible..."
-SW
Is it unconstitutional to require a pledge of allegiance regardless of the "under god" line?
I've taken a few oaths. Once during my enlistment, again for my re-enlistment and then again when I became a federal employee, but that's different. It's entirely voluntary.
-
I dunno Sandman, but it was a requirement for me... I guess it's just how you get raised. Not saying it's bad or anything to not say the Pledge of Allegience, it's just "strange" to me since that's how I was raised.
-SW
-
Breaking from conformity is always uncomfortable. After awhile, it gets easier. :)
-
Does it matter Eagler or Ripsnort that this is the 9th Circuit Court, a FEDERAL court which covers about 9 western States and has absolutely nothing to do with San Francisco except its location? Does it matter that the Cheif Judge of the 9th Circuit was an Arizona Federal Judge prior to moving over to the 9th Court of appeals in 1979?
Only in the mind of a Reactionary would the connection with San Francisco make a difference in this decision.
sheesh:rolleyes:
-
One federal court says that Ohio's motto can be "With God All Things Are Possible", but another court says that "God" should not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance?
http://www.ag.state.oh.us/pressrel/mottoupheld.htm
-
One federal court says that Ohio's motto can be "With God All Things Are Possible", but another court says that "God" should not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance?
Like I said, yet another handsomehunk court ruling. Our judiciary system is getting dumber every year.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Does it matter that the Cheif Judge of the 9th Circuit was an Arizona Federal Judge prior to moving over to the 9th Court of appeals in 1979?
Only in the mind of a Reactionary would the connection with San Francisco make a difference in this decision.
sheesh:rolleyes:
He's had 23 years there, it only takes a local SF cult 1 month to brainwash the weak minded, took the judges alittle longer....
-
So not only are you generalizing about San Francisco, you are generalizing about the Judge!
SHE has been there since 79. hehe:eek: Judge Mary Schroeder Chief Judge of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
You guys will never learn.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
One federal court says that Ohio's motto can be "With God All Things Are Possible", but another court says that "God" should not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance?
Why anyone (outslde Ohio) shoud care what Ohio residents do? They may decalre a state religion or paint themselves blue for alI care. If they do not like something, they can move to another state or change their state laws.
Plege of Allegiance is a federal affair. The separation of state and church is guaranteed to us by federal Constitution. Why should our children be brainwashed into religion while preforming perfectly reasonable patriotism-inspiring ritual?
Dollar is a piece of currency we use. We do not need to read all that is inscribed on it other then to ensure it's authenticity. When my child inquites about "In God We Trust" I will just reply - "ignore that traditional meaningless crap".
But when my child says "I plege allegiance...", I want him/her to mean every last word of it, not selected passages.
miko
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So not only are you generalizing about San Francisco, you are generalizing about the Judge!
SHE has been there since 79. hehe:eek: Judge Mary Schroeder Chief Judge of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
You guys will never learn.
I bet she supports socialism, and probably is Pro-life, and votes democrap....
-
I'm Christian and all for the seperation of church and state. But I'm not sure about this ruling. I didn't know that the words "under God" were added in 1954. I don't see what the harm of having those two words in there would do a non-believer. But I don't believe it should be forced down peoples throats either.
I do think the pledge oughta be in grammar school though. I think it helps teach everybody at least a little respect for the flag.
To go kinda go off subject a little, here in alabama we have a (now supreme court justice) judge who hangs the ten commandments on his wall. When he became chief justice he had a big couple ton (makes it hard for the demos to carry off) monument with the 10 commandments on it placed in the state house late one night. The democrats then wanted to have a copy of MLK's "I have a dream" speech put alongside it. For some reason or other he had say so over what went in there, and when the demos were placing the document state troopers made them leave. Now this is just retarded. If the judge is a christian why would he want to alienate so many people? I don't get this.
-
This country was founded on 'In God We Trust'..
next we'll be taking it off our currencty, etc etc etc
b.s.
-
Wlfgng, it was added to our money in the '40s... we were actually founded on the constitution.
-SW
-
anyone ever testify in court?
who do you swear to as you enter the witness box?
" ...so help you God"
===================================
Ain't surprised, amazed at the ever increasing numbers of ppl who do not believe in the Divine. Life and its struggles must be a real drag for you...
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Wlfgng, it was added to our money in the '40s... we were actually founded on the constitution.
-SW
Oh Ya, I remember now, our founding fathers were a bunch of atheists :rolleyes:
-
I don't believe in the "Divine"... I have no deity I bow before.. I make it through life just fine, having fun, and enjoying myself.
Difrent strokes fer difrent folks.
-SW
-
Eagler, I wasn't saying anything other making a correction to a common misconception.
I'm not taking anything away from you religious folks, but the "In God We Trust" wasn't added until WWII on our money.
-SW
-
when i was in grade school , i had to say the pledge of alligence AND the lords prayer, just think how messed up my mind must be from all them years of abuse as a child.
>sub note< the "lords prayer we said in school was different from the one we said in church, when i asked the church about that , the church said " just say the parts we use and ignore the rest".............ahhh , the days of freedom from big goverment and liberal lawyers
>sub note 2 < did you hear about the woman who laid down on sub-way tracks and was injured? she sued the city and won 10 million ( it's on appeal )
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Oh Ya, I remember now, our founding fathers were a bunch of atheists :rolleyes:
Why do you reactionaries always jump to the conclusion that you must be an atheist to stand for separation of Church and State. Our founding fathers were hardly atheists (Ben Franklin is kind of a toss-up) but they did see the abuse caused by a State recognized religion. That is why the First Amendment was written into the Bill of Rights. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
Pledging your allegience to a Flag and stating that it is "Under God" is so obviously against the 1st Amendment it is a wonder this has taken so long. This is a reference to God, and not all religions recognize God as the deity. You don't need to be an atheist to recognize that a State-run institution that requires its members (students) to recite this pledge would be "Respecting the establishment of a religion".
-
Any of you God haters wanna bet the Supreme Court throws this wackos ruling out on its ear where it belongs??
Did you read up on the atheist that press the issue because of his 2nd grade kid had to say the pledge?
what a bunch of morons.................
-
Originally posted by Eagler
anyone ever testify in court?
who do you swear to as you enter the witness box?
" ...so help you God"
I took the Fifth.
-
So, Eagler, would you accept your child having to denounce religion?.
Daff
-
Originally posted by Daff
So, Eagler, would you accept your child having to denounce religion?.
Daff
you can't spin it around
-
Henh. I said the plege of allegiance every day I went to school. complete with the under god refrain.
I was rasied as a lutheran, served my nation, vote, drink and have other bad habits.
I'm a devout agnostic, registered as a democrat (will change it to republican when that becomes the minority party), i'm a rabid patriot and sentimental fool, revere my seniors who served and I read the papers, gamble infrequently, womanize when i get the right signals and watch the Daily Show, instead of Larry King.
In short, that lil recital with the onerous words refering to a deity have had no fediddlein impact on my life, did not force me to be religous or patriotic.. I am who I am because thats who I wanna be. End result..
..the pompous cuddlinghunked robe sporting liberal judge that just made her attention grabbing decision will have about as much affect on the lives of our progeny as did Eisenhowers gratouitous vote pandering proclimation of 50 years ago.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
you can't spin it around
He just did!
-
Originally posted by hblair
I'm Christian and all for the seperation of church and state. But I'm not sure about this ruling. I didn't know that the words "under God" were added in 1954. I don't see what the harm of having those two words in there would do a non-believer.
Simple. I either have to publicly and conspiciously abstain from affirming my patriotism by reciting plege of allegiance, to treat it a meaningless ritual or to LIE by pleging allegiance to "one nation under God" which I do not believe.
Neither choice is palatable to me.
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Wlfgng, it was added to our money in the '40s... we were actually founded on the constitution.
And violent revolt against the lawfull monarch. :)
miko
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Did you read up on the atheist that press the issue because of his 2nd grade kid had to say the pledge?
what a bunch of morons.
So I am a moron for not wanting my child to profane the solemn patriotc ceremony with a LIE?
miko
-
Eagler,
Your welcome to your opinion, but don't condem and demonize others that don't share your religious views. We're already having trouble with some other fundamentalists wanting to force their dogma on others. It was the right decision for America.
A place built on Freedom, not the words of a pledge.
-
You gotta admit "under god" is as generic a term as you can come up with. And how many times a day do you lie anyway? I mean come on man. Why would your concious bother you to the point that you just cannot bring yourself to say "under god"? I'm beginning to see both sides of this arguement.
-
Why not follow Mohammad instead of Christ?
Why not pray to Satan instead of Jehova?
Why believe in a faith at all?
-
Originally posted by hblair
You gotta admit "under god" is as generic a term as you can come up with. And how many times a day do you lie anyway? I mean come on man. Why would your concious bother you to the point that you just cannot bring yourself to say "under god"? I'm beginning to see both sides of this arguement.
That is absolutely true - I can handle that. But imagine that my child turns 5 or 6 or whichever age they start reciting. He will ask me "Daddy, you are telling me that there is no evidence of God out there but my nice teacher makes me swear allegiance to "nation under God"?
So what do I tell him? "Just lie - recite the plege not meaning it". Or - that plege is just silly little patriotic thing - it does mean anything. Recite it as to not attract attention and do not worry about the whole flag, nation and allegiance business...".
Or do I explain to him how it all came to being starting with founding fathers and including Eisenhower?
You know, children are pretty literal at that age and he should be inquisitive if he takes after me. I will definitely teach him to question everything from the very young age, so there will be that question.
Eisenhower was not a fool to force that reigious propaganda on the young children - he knew that brainwashing is much more effective if it starts at early age. Couldn't wait untill the children were old enough to handle money with more religious drivel printed on them - would not work as well.
miko
-
We must now throw open all prisons as the inmates were conviced by laws based on the 10 commandments. That's Jewish law those 10 commandments. Christians embrace those laws too.
Yes, let us clearly demark religion and state. Surely we can write laws that aren't based on the use of the Jewish and Christian religion.
Ok, who will propose the first law?
Then we will examine it for religion and state criteria.
signed,
Judge OZ :)
-
Eisenhower was not a fool to force that reigious propaganda on the young children - he knew that brainwashing is much more effective if it starts at early age. Couldn't wait untill the children were old enough to handle money with more religious drivel printed on them - would not work as well.
Get a grip, for God's sake :rolleyes:
Oops, I'm agnostic, why am I using that God word??
-
Why can't I spin it around?. Do you, as a theist, need special rights?. Or is it just because you don't want to answer?
Daff
-
BZZZZZZT! What's this I hear about laws being based off of the Ten Commandments? What dark, slimy recess did you pull that from? Certainly, many of our laws are on the same wavelength as those in the Ten Commandments, but that's simply because several of them really just amount to a universal moral code - be nice to others, don't kill, etc. etc. It's a general code by which you can be decent to others, and exists across all religions, and none.
Besides, what about the thousands of other laws we have? If the tax law and code are based off of the Ten Commandments, then... then... welll, I don't know what to say exactly, because the idea is so staggeringly wrong.
-
Is there US federal law that states that you must not worship a god besides the jewish god?
Is there US federal law that states that you can't take the lords name in vain?
Is there US federal law that states that you must keep the sabath day holy?
Is there US federal law that states that you must honour you mother and father.
Is there US federal law that states that you must not commit adultery.
Is there US federal law that states that you must not covet your neighbours crap?
Hmmm, that's over half which I don't believe are covered.
-
No and no and no and...
BUT...
There are plenty of backwoods bellybutton country shrecked states in the south that have blue laws. :)
-
ispar said:"Certainly, many of our laws are on the same wavelength as those in the Ten Commandments, but that's simply because several of them really just amount to a universal moral code - be nice to others, don't kill, etc. etc. It's a general code by which you can be decent to others, and exists across all religions, and none."
Where did this "universal moral code" come from???
If there were a universal moral code then animals wouldn't prey on each other. We are animals as we prey on each other. We have laws to control our animal instincts. God gave man the Ten Commandments as man needs to be given limits.
Now back to the subject: please propose a law that will not be unconstitutionial. Lets make it easy, how about one to limit murder?
Please propose a law that would make murder unlawful. Then we will take a look at it to see if it is constitutiontial.
As it stands now murder is lawful if the state can't use religion (Jewish law given by God to Moses) to base law.
There are going to be unintended consequences to today's ruling by these "judges"!!
I believe that Congress passed a law that allowed the use of God in the pledge. Why are these judges over ruling the American people who duly elected these representatives to allow God into the pledge?
This is creating law from the bench. Judges are to interpertate the law not legislate law, right?
-
LOL... what amazingly flawed logic.
-
That's your only responce?
Figures, how about the challege to create a consitiutionial law to stop murder?
I fully expect your side of the argument to degenerate into name calling:)
What do you think of the possibility of unintended consequences of today's ruling?
-
Originally posted by miko2d
So I am a moron for not wanting my child to profane the solemn patriotc ceremony with a LIE?
miko
Doesn't make sense. Even when I was in 1st (71) grade nobody was FORCED to say the pledge of allegience. Kids who didn't want to or weren't "supposed" to (two in my class) were given the choice of sitting quietly or going out in the hall. Big deal. And for those people who're afraid of scarring thier children for life because they aren't part of the crowd, thats a decision to be made isn't it?... how about home schooling? :D
I'm just wondering when they'll make saying the pledge of allegience illegal. It's coming.. you watch.
-
Originally posted by OZkansas
I fully expect your side of the argument to degenerate into name calling:)
Not from me, you won't. It's not my style.
-
Miko, I respect you not wanting to lie to your children.
-
I really want to know if you think there will be unintended consequences to today's ruling. I've outlined the possibility that everyone in prision has a basis for a new trial as the argument could be based on the ruling of separation of church and state. Our laws are based on the bible. It has been determined that if the law is based on Jewish law, the Ten Commandments, then how could you not allow a new trial?
What do you think?
-
Actually, our laws aren't based on the bible. Certainly, there are some parallels, but the legislative branch hasn't simply re-written scripture to suit legal issues.
Believe it or not, there were civilizations on this planet even before the bible and those civilizations even had laws.
-
"Thou shalt not kill" is very simmilar to "Murder is illegal". Now that may not be a direct connection but it's pretty close. So just to be safe lets ban it.
Here's an idea!
Get the two judges to ban "Murder is illegal", then have the two judges shot while murder is legal. :) What an elegant solution. :D
-
Originally posted by OZkansas
Our laws are based on the bible.
SOME of your laws may be also found in SOME of the bible. This however doesn't amount to squat. Because it doesn't mean that ALL of your LAWS are, in fact, based on the bible. You would still have to prove causation anyway.
-
Sandman_SBM said:”Actually, our laws aren't based on the bible. Certainly, there are some parallels, but the legislative branch hasn't simply re-written scripture to suit legal issues.”
Would you agree that the people who wrote our laws were Christians and Jews? If it is true that these people’s lives had religion as part of their lives then we can only conclude that the Bible had influence on the law they produced.
Sandman_SBM said:
“Believe it or not, there were civilizations on this planet even before the bible and those civilizations even had laws.”
Yes and these laws were based on gods! Yes, the people who declared the laws also claimed to be the gods!!!! How about that for church and state thingie heheeeeeee
-
Originally posted by OZkansas
Sandman_SBM said:”Actually, our laws aren't based on the bible. Certainly, there are some parallels, but the legislative branch hasn't simply re-written scripture to suit legal issues.”
Would you agree that the people who wrote our laws were Christians and Jews? If it is true that these people’s lives had religion as part of their lives then we can only conclude that the Bible had influence on the law they produced.
No. I wouldn't necessarily agree.
Sandman_SBM said:
“Believe it or not, there were civilizations on this planet even before the bible and those civilizations even had laws.”
Yes and these laws were based on gods! Yes, the people who declared the laws also claimed to be the gods!!!! How about that for church and state thingie heheeeeeee
Laws were based on gods? I guess god said it was okay for us white folk to own black people, but we changed that law because god said it's wasn't okay anymore. Right?
-
Originally posted by OZkansas
Would you agree that the people who wrote our laws were Christians and Jews? If it is true that these people’s lives had religion as part of their lives then we can only conclude that the Bible had influence on the law they produced.
Have all the US representatives been christian or jewish?
-
Sandman_SBM said: “Laws were based on gods? I guess god said it was okay for us white folk to own black people, but we changed that law because god said it's wasn't okay anymore. Right?”
Yes, laws were handed down by men who proclaimed themselves as gods before God gave us the Ten Commandments.
Hmmmmm, you will need to help me here understand your statement regarding whit folk and black folk. I am of limited understanding of God so you will need to elaborate God’s position regarding white folk owning black folk.
Sandman_SBM said:
“No. I wouldn't necessarily agree.”
Hmmmmmm, what part do you agree with and what part don’t you agree with?
BTW have you come up with a law that would be constitutional to prohibit murder?
Has anyone thought of a law that would be constitutional to prohibit murder? He heeeeeeee judge OZ awaits
-
"Has anyone thought of a law that would be constitutional to prohibit murder? "
Well, not a law, but a perspective: That laws against murder are based upon the inaliable(sp?) rights "Life , Liberty, etc...
My whole problem with all of this is that mainstream religion is being villified everywhere by people carrying the banner of "Seperation of church and state" with the eventual goal of cleansing all religion from public view.
I am not strongly religious, and I believe in evolution (as opposed to strict Creationism.) Yet I was raised Catholic and had to say the pledge every morning at school. Somehow, I came to these conclusions all on my own with all these "evil" influences around. Whatever happened to a little mental toughness?
The government has not forced any religion on me. I am not required to go to church. IMO, the Constitution never meant to cleanse the government of religious influence, just to keep it from forcing a specific religion on the people.
-
Originally posted by hblair
Miko, I respect you not wanting to lie to your children.
How is it a lie? Does miko no for certain there is no God or what was is the mind of the founding fathers?
bs...
-
This ruling will bite the left square in the arse, hopefully this coming November.
If somehow it doesn't, we are further down the road to ruin than I ever imagined....
-
Well, not a law, but a perspective: That laws against murder are based upon the inaliable(sp?) rights "Life , Liberty, etc...
Nah, might wanna rethink that "inaliable right" to life, otherwise you would get into trouble with abortions and capital punishment.
-
Eagler, the left is on the run in the Senate! I heard Senator Bird state these judges who made this ruling should leave this country if they don't like God mentioned in the pledge! Senator Bird sure isn't very open minded as he claims he is. Man, he prolly voted to have these judges appointed.
You gotta love the left, ya just gotta love how they make fools of themselves at every turn, he heeeeeeeee
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Oh Ya, I remember now, our founding fathers were a bunch of atheists :rolleyes:
Actually they were a bunch of Freemasons. A central tenet of freemasonry is that you believe in a "Supreme Being" but they don't distinguish between God, Allah, Buddha etc etc.
-
Originally posted by CH3
Actually they were a bunch of Freemasons. A central tenet of freemasonry is that you believe in a "Supreme Being" but they don't distinguish between God, Allah, Buddha etc etc.
Neither do I & many others.
God, Allah, (name your favorite Supreme Being/New Age Life Force here) are all names of the same final Divine Presence in everything in Life. It's mans free will & his organized religions interpretation of said Divine which screws up the entire thing...
So they did "believe" in the Divine correct?
Or does the Freemasons idea of a "Supreme Being" ride around on a saucer shaped disk and have really big black eyes and long skinny arms and legs :rolleyes:
-
Only in San Francisco are there judges with the balls to get up off their knees, and challenge the Taliban....er, Christian Right. Ironic, eh?
-
NM
-
But I do not want my child to skip pleging his/her allegiance to the United States of America! I want him/her to be an involved citizen, serve in a military etc.
Why does allegiance to the state has to be linked to allegiance to God? Are we living in a fundamental religious state?
As for being able to skipplege of allegiance, you guys are ignorant of your own history. People (Jehova's witnesses and others) were beaten fro refusing to do so. For a few years supreme cort ruling stood that made legal compelling people to recite The Plege against their will.
If the matter were such a trifle, after over 50 years why did fundamentalist christians bothered to insert God into the plege?
Kind of silly appeal to "stand united" in the face of enemy attacks and then immediately exclude a lot of people who do not share your religious views.
miko
-
They were Deists Eagler, look it up if you don't know what it means. What you said above isn't that far off though. You may even be one yourself.
Separation of church and state is something of immense value. Shame you let your reactionary inclinations keep you from appreciating it ;)
-
Originally posted by CH3
They were Deists Eagler, look it up if you don't know what it means. What you said above isn't that far off though. You may even be one yourself.
Separation of church and state is something of immense value. Shame you let your reactionary inclinations keep you from appreciating it ;)
They were Dentists? :)
I feel its all part of a much bigger plan.
As stated by a few here, it causes less harm to those who don't "believe" to those that do. Tell the ones that don't like it to mumble thru those two words if they feel they'd be lying if they spoke them :rolleyes:
-
"seperation of church and state"
Clear as a f'in spring day on top of the rockies.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
"seperation of church and state"
Clear as a f'in spring day on top of the rockies.
-SW
You can have "God" without "church"
I do believe they were refering to the Church of England and the policies there when they wrote those words
-
Asatru - Modern day worship of the Norse gods and goddesses.
Celtic Reconstruction/Restoration - Modern day worship of Celtic gods and goddesses.
Demonolatry - Demonolatry is the practice of calling on elemental/energy forces known as Demons (lesser gods, divine intelligences, wise entities) to aid in ritual magick and/or prayer.
Dianic Wicca
Hinduism
Modern Druidism - Druidism is a Celtic inspired path for seekers of knowledge and Truth. It encourages poetic inspiration, spiritual discipline, scholarship and devotion to the Gods, the Tribe, Earth, Sea, and Sky.
Religion Romana - Modern day worship of the ancient Roman gods and goddesses.
Skertru - Modern day worship of the Norse gods and goddesses.
All Religions that are protected by our Bill of Rights, and ignored by Pledging to "One Nation Under God", because all are polytheistic.
-
They were referring to state sponsored religion. I assume this translate to Federal these days, since back in those times states were independent on one another.
-SW