|
|
 | | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
| (...) As I mentioned before, it is to me (and to Ike as well). Perhaps not to you. But the phrase in question is "under God" anyway, so the point is moot. (...) And even if you could, by your own assertion in (...) Not exactly. I said it would be a (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
| (...) What if one worships no god or higher power? What then? You did not answer that point yet. To say that the nation is under god (any god, your god, the hindu pantheon, the blue mud rubbers, Larritarianism, Mammon, whatever) is to establish (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
| (...) Oh, please. "God The Almighty" is undeniably the God of The Bible, and if you claim otherwise then you're bearing false witness--two Commandments in one day, John--and still you cast stones? Point me to one other deity in the history of (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Under God? (What an amusing debate)
|
| (...) god. (...) you (...) I don't assume god = God. But the PoA says "God" and not "god." So I can only assume that they meant Jehovah. And if you can make any case that God does not mean Jehovah (which I doubt) then you would still have to show (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
| (...) Notice, however, the addition wasn't "in Jesus God" or "in Christ Almighty". That may be what Eisenhower had in his mind, but that isn't necessarily what it should mean to others. It is in the spirit of walking the thin line begun by our FFs. (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
