 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) This is a perfectly valid observation. Certainly there are those that feel the 9th Circuit Court's ruling will be struck down along those lines - the "liberal" Los Angeles Times entitled it's editorial on the subject "A Godforsaken Ruling" and (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) This has nothing to do with Christianity-- you are the one who mentioned it and thus you are the one who denegrated this debate to sarcasm and whatnot (and in doing so missed my initial point entirely). Read Jefferson's Virginia Statute of (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) What I'm arguing is that the FF used religious language pretty freely (non-specific to be sure). Of course they didn't want a state-sponsored religion, but at the same time they recognized the importance of religion to the people. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(URL) now I'm really done. I'm not wasting any more time on someone who doesn't know any better, and doesn't want to know any better. Read other branches of the thread, John. ALL of the rest of us are wrong about Jefferson, and you know better -- is (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(URL) now I'm really done. I'm not wasting any more time on someone who doesn't know any better, and doesn't want to know any better. Read other branches of the thread, John. ALL of the rest of us are wrong about Jefferson, and you know better -- is (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) When he professes that "I am a Christian", I think it makes my argument better than yours. (...) Ahh. Welcome to Christianity 101. You think every Christian believes the same thing? And FWIW, (...) So what's your point? (...) Fine. -John (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) As far as you know. (...) Your cite? (...) The point is that that kind of "religious" language permeates their thought and writings, however they "really" felt about it. You are correct that Jefferson and others cleverly didn't get specific (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Really, John! Do you think Richard is going to fall for that old trick? This is a debate about the separation of church and state, *not* about creationism. The "non-stupidness" of Jefferson referred to by Froggy is merely that he knew how to (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) While Jefferson embraced the ideas of Christ (perhaps the parables, sort of the red letter stuff), he was fairly hostile to the idea of Christ's divinity and to certain aspects of the gospels (esp. Pauline thought). I don't think that (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Well, *I* was going to try and keep it above specifics, but since you mentioned it.... And I don't feel like looking up all your past (...) No need to wonder. I am indeed a Christian, although I feel that that fact is moot in this discussion. (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
