SA>Hi Daryl,

Hi, Steve...

A>Apparently, the "under God" was inserted largely at the insistence
  >of the Knights of Columbus, which got my attention as it is linked
  >with the Knights of the Southern Cross & the International Alliance
  >of Catholic Knights. While most of the work the Knights do here is
  >benign (running retirement villages & nursing homes etc) I do wonder
  >which God they had in mind when inserting those words.

  I think it was originally done in around 1954...in the United States'
"McCarthy-ism" stand against Communism, which is atheistic, anyway. A
senator by the name of Eugene McCarthy spearheaded a bunch of paranoia
legislation, as it were during this time, from what little I remember
about American History. The thing is...I wasn't even born until 1960, so
I obviously could not have witnessed it. :)

  >Referendum, and was rejected. I'm not sure that referring to
  >a generic God serves much purpose, unless it is certain that
  >it is a reference to God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son.

  It's ironic that you can talk about any other religion...but, the
moment you begin mentioning God and Jesus Christ in the same breath,
folks come unglued.

SA>I would be interested in knowing more about the motives of those
  >who had "under God" inserted, and in turn about the motives of
  >those who sought to have reciting the Pledge ruled unconstitutional.

  See above on the "under God". As for the other, the suit was filed by
an athiest in California, who had earlier been part of a divorce from
his Christian wife...she got custody of their daughter. He was saying
that their daughter was "suffering irrepairable harm being exposed to
the 'under God' deal each day". At first, his suits were thrown
out...but, I guess he found a favorable judge, as it were. To me, it's
all part of the great apostasy and falling away of the last days before
the Rapture.

SA>The Knights of Columbus intend to appeal against the decision.

  And other "Christian groups" do so as well.

SA>While I wouldn't denigrate the various Catholic "Knights"
organisations
  >for their good works, I am wary of "the devotion of the Knights to Our
  >Lady" and the "deep loyalty that the Orders possess for the
person and
  >office of the Holy Father and his lawful representatives" as found in
  >The Alliance Emblem on the International Alliance of Catholic Knights
  >web site ( http:/www.iack.org ). They see themselves as "Apostles of
  >the Third Millennium".

  I read a book while I was in college over 20 years ago (I'm showing my
age now )...I think it was called "Daniel And The
Revelation". In it
(and in some of the Gospel Tracts by Jack T. Chick (www.chick.com), they
refer to the Roman Catholic Church as "the Great Whore of the Book Of
Revelation".

  My main bone of contention with them is in the book of Luke, when Mary
sings the Magnificat, saying "my spirit hath rejoiced in God My
Saviour". If Mary is without sin (the Catholics term it the "Immaculate
Conception"...which is NOT Bible Teaching), then WHY would she say what
she did?? As the apostle John wrote in I John 1:10 "If we say we have no
sin, we make Him a liar...and His Word is not in us".

  My wife left the Catholic church years ago (way before we got
married...we knew each other as friends for 17 years before we married
28 months ago)...and she has no desire to go back,
---
 þ OLX 1.53 þ Re-live the Classic Ads of Burma Shave again on this BBS.
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32