Subject:
|
Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:50:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1034 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > > How do you feel about having a very limited understanding of TJ's beliefs?
> > > This has been asked and answered before, John.
> > No, Richard, it hasn't. I am not arguing that TJ was a Christian or any
> > such thing. What I am saying is that he acknowledged a Creator-- Prime
> > Mover, God, Nature's God-- whatever you want to call it. And it is from
> > this entity that our inalienable rights originate. I want the atheists to
> > deal with that.
> *My* Creator [sic] is a one-word summation of the process of evolution
> and, more directly, of human biological reproduction.
That is your interpretation. That's good. Now we both can live with it.
> I can point you to
> various links explaining how my mother and father conceived me, but I expect
> from your previous postings that you'd find them obscene and would call for
> their removal.
How would you know-- you weren't there yet;-)
> Having said all that, and since you still haven't in any way demonstrated
> that "under God" is a non-religious statement, nor have you demonstrated
> where in the US Constitution there is any mention of "God," I would remind
> you yet again that the Declaration of Independence is NOT a document of
> United States law
Neither is the pledge. Neither is our currency.
> and is thus irrelevant to the issue of Constitutional
> church/state separation.
> > Once again for those who are prone to reading into things that which isn't
> > there-- this has nothing to do with Christianity, so kindly stop obfuscating
> > by interjecting it <text snipped>.
> The initial issue of "under God" is expressly Christian, so stop trying to
> steer the dicussion away from the elephant in the room.
It may be *implicitly* Christian, but the actual wording "under God" by itself
is vague. "Under Jesus Christ" would be expressly Christian. So stop bringing
that animal into the room where it doesn't belong.
As I have argued before, I really think that God language is a reflection of
patriotism rather than a religious proclamanation. The phrase "God bless
America" really is an ultimate expression of hope for all the best for our
country. "God bless" is an expression of goodwill. To take it any other way
would be pugnacious.
-John
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
