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 17:50:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1141 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> How can you idolize your interpretation of the "intent" of Thomas
> Jefferson while one simultaneously ignoring the express "intent" of
> Eisenhower, who declared that "under God" would be a daily proclamation by
> children to God the Almighty? That is why it's expressly Christian.
> You haven't answered this question despite being asked several times.
I am merely looking at the actual documents themselves as they would appear to
someone who wasn't aware of their author's intentions. Thus, I take "Creator"
to be a reference to God, you take it as evolution (how inalienable rights stem
from evolution is beyond me, but that is beside the point). The word "God" by
itself may carry certain connotations, but by itself specifies no particular
religious understanding of it.
> > As I have argued before, I really think that God language is a reflection of
> > patriotism rather than a religious proclamanation.
> If the God language is really a test of patriotism, then we're living in a
> theocracy, and it's time for me to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights.
> Honestly, I am disgusted by the fact that you are trying to force a
> secular nation to bow to God.
We are most certainly *not* a secular nation. And this is what is so
egregious to most Americans-- the perceived attempt to secularize it by the
likes of Newdow. Most Americans profess a believe in a God. The Constitution
may not respect religion, but Americans do. We are a nation of people, not a
piece of paper.
> It speaks ill of your alleged faith, and it
> speaks monstrously of your ability to think clearly on matters of state.
Whatever.
> > 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.
> You're blurring the issue. If a private citizen says "God Bless America,"
> there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. But when Congress comments on
> the existence of God, it has overstepped its bounds and acted illegally.
Since day one, Congress has been talking about God.
> For some reason you are desperate to perceive this as a call to persecute
> Christians, but that's just foolishness. I can pretty much guarantee you
> that I would defend your right to religious freedom more fervently than you
> would defend mine, since you are aggressively trying to eliminate mine.
> What I am attempting to do is point out to you why Congress has no right to
> establish religious doctrine or even to issue a religious statement of any kind.
This all boils down to what you define as "establishment". I'm pretty sure
that our FF meant that Congress shouldn't set up a State Church or endorse any
one particular faith over another. You say that the voluntary phrase "under
God" sets up a State religion and that it violates your civil rights. I just
don't see the offense. Perhaps it annoys you that most of the country believes
in God and likes the phrase, but it doesn't limit your civil liberties in the
least.
Like it or not, this country was founded by people who believed in God and who
believed this country to be divinely blessed. We still believe it today. The
fact that you don't believe it doesn't matter; nobody is forcing you to. But
attempts to purge God references from the fabric of this society are doomed
because they are perceived as a hostile attack to what most Americans hold dear.
Bottom line is this: Americans would rather have God language here and there
that annoys atheists but doesn't really hurt them than have it removed by
atheistic activists.
-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
|
|
|
|
