 | | Re: Under God? (What an amusing debate)
|
|
(...) Do you really? (...) I don't know what to make of such a statement. God can _not_ be "anything you want." You can call a duck, a chicken -- but you're just wrong. I occasionally wonder why teenage girls get so worked up over "nothing." But (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) If you can really believe this, then please explain who this God is. I assume, though correct me if I'm wrong, that the big G indicates the god of Abraham -- Jehovah (or whatever) and no other. I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean Ashur, Odin, or (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Under God? (What an amusing debate)
|
|
I think the girl interveiwed at school by my local news radio station had it completly correct. She stated: "What does it matter if the word god is in the pledge [of allegiance]. God can be anything you want, you can call money god. Why do adults (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Again you miss my point. The name of God is invoked by all, whether they actually believe in God or not-- it is a *cultural* thing. As to your first sentence, I'm not sure what that's about. (...) *a* religion. Using God language doesn't (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) I was responding to part of Richard's post: "I don't really care how this "bs" Pledge of Allegiance issue (bread and (...) He wrote that it was "painfully obvious"..."EXACTLY" what Jefferson felt about Christianity. I cited it to show that (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Well, he *was* writing the *dissent*... My point was the the majority used the concept of a national consensus for justification. If *that's* valid, then I would think that that justification would apply to the pledge case as well (where I (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote: [snipitty] (...) Unless I'm totally misremembering, a good number of the 'American forefathers' were Deists, not Christians. A Deist's 'god' would definitely not be the Judeo-Christian God. Steve (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) a picture of a Jefferson who appreciates the topical philosophy of Jesus while not attributing divinity. Hell, if you include people like that under the umbrella of Christianity, then I suppose you'd call me a Christian too. But of course (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) So in addition to being a self-admited homophobic, misogynist bigot, you also presume to judge who can sincerely invoke God's name? How many times have you cast the first stone, John? (...) Atheism is as American as apple pie. My right to be (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Actually, it was about *NOT* executing the mentally retarded, but your point is off-the-mark at any rate. Scalia castigated the SC for what he perceived as an attempt to establish a national consensus where none exists. If that's the case, (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
