 | | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
Wow. Strong emotions from a strong people. That said... once again into the fray... (...) Greatest? History, my friend, will see about that. Greeks thought... Romans thought... whatever. Arrogance does not make one great. The ability to take over (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) can't) (...) Unless I fill in the blanks first... It was Marbury v. Madison in 1803. From (URL) : The new Constitution declared itself to be the "supreme law of the land a fundamental law binding upon state and federal officers alike. To make (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Freedom of Speech can be restricted by requirements of circumstance and profession. If W announced that we were about to obliterate Canada with nuclear bombardment and said that we've just launched the missiles, would you say "oh, that's just (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) I'm not looking up the specifics, but as I recall, in the first years of the Supreme Court, maybe during the reign of Madison(?), the court decided that some big name law passed by Congress (that we should all remember, but I can't) was (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) I believe the word you're looking for is 'idealism' (...) And I think it's important for our neighbours to the south to recall that we Canadians play the best Americans on T.V. I can;t speak for the ROC, but I know that I like my entertainment (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Uh, just so there's no confusion, I was kidding about the "that's MINE" bit. Dave! (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
Oh I hate when this happens--I had a most beautiful resonse in the making and I accidentally closed explorer!! Grr!!! K, here goes--take 2 Using West Wing for a basis of research on politics is like using Pretty Woman for the basis of reasearch on (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) I've never watched the show, but I'm given to wonder if the people to whom it's marketed are themselves disposed to the sort of government depicted on the small screen. I'm loathe to use the term "statist" since it's become something of a (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) See the following. I rather found it interesting: (URL) Oh, he had a private life--the problem is that everyone knew about it! (...) That's not democracy, if one opinion is higher than all others. It may be reality, but it's anathema to the (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Hmm. Good point. Still, it's risky for the leader of the nation to take a stance on religion when there's a very real chance of being exclusionary on that basis. (...) Oh, he had a private life--the problem is that everyone knew about it! (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) lol, and it is *because* of this self-imposed slavery that we *remain* the "free-est" and greatest nation on the planet. (...) Wrong. They are the cornerstone of our greatness. Without them we would be nothing. They *are* sacred, or at least (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> You would be well served not to use "West Wing" as your basis for research, or even for sound bites. It's terribly biased in the statist/socialist direction and the writers are quite skillful (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
Back into the fray (from a much needed absence 'cause I had to re-evaluate the way I come across in my posts...) /America rant on The next time anyone tells me the USofA is the 'free-est' nation on the planet, I'm going to point to this thread (and (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Interesting that the same Amendment that you cite condemning his "endorsment" of religion protects his right to do so. But I think you are applying it incorrectly in this case. The First Amendment prohibits *congress* from establishing (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) In every speech in which W invokes God on behalf of America, he's endorsing religion. When he condemned the court's decision, he explicitly endorsed religion. In his private life, George can worship absolutely anything he chooses, but as The (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) I'd say that the actual start of our country is somewhat nebulous. I guess it feels good for us to say that it is 4 July 1776, but we had been effectively governing ourselves for some time at that point. Further, I think the adoption of the (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. )
|
|
(...) This is exactly what I think happened. (...) That is probably good advice in many instances. But generally I guage my efforts by how amusing it is TO ME to make the response. Yes, if you can believe it -- I entertain myself this way at times. (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. )
|
|
(...) Nope, I am not the slightest interested in acknowledgement of the effort at all, not unless it leads to interesting discussions. That would be cool. FWIW, it has also been my understanding that there is no real standard of behavior as to (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) :-) (...) Um, aren't we splitting hairs here? The Continental Congress ratified the DoI on July 4, 1776. We mark this date as the beginning of our country (you're no the only one who has a command of the obvious!:) So are you trying to argue (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. )
|
|
(...) Whew! I'm sure I will. I place an unseemly value on "the really good notes" in this forum. Most of those have been written by you about the law and related politics, LFB about history and particularly it's effects on our current perceptions, (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. )
|
|
(...) Your tone suggests, contrary to your words, that you'd appreciate an acknowledgement of your effort. And I don't think that's out of line, but I'm also not sure what our common understanding of this issue is (if there is one). (...) I think a (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. )
|
|
(...) No one can tell you whether you should or should not be offended, but had I gone to the trouble to write what you wrote and got no acknowledgment specifically from the person who requested the info, you bet I'd be offended. (But then I guess (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. )
|
|
Dave and Lar: Thanks for the replies. I am really interested in what people have to say about this issue, but at the same time I am really NOT offended that Christopher has done nothing at this point. It is merely that his having done nothing allows (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. )
|
|
(...) Agree with Larry. Netiquette could swing both ways depending on who, when, and what forum. (...) Ok, my take is a very definite "no". My advice is: Don't be offended by anything. Or try not to be. It's a waste of emotion, and being a negative (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. )
|
|
(...) If it had been me that asked for info I probably would have sent you a private thanks. Or maybe even a public one. The line between clutter and politeness is indistinct in this area. I doubt very much that Chris slighted you deliberately, (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Netiquette Question (was Re: Legal Education? etc. )
|
|
I am just curious about something... Christopher posed a request here, and I have gone to some lengths to fulfill that request in the previous post. Now it happens that I don't care if he responds to the previous post or not (REALLY!), but I wonder (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) I've been following this since last week and I've got to say that that quote is one of the funniest things I've seen recently. Good work. Matt (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) In school (we are talking about PoA in public school) the pressure may come from the teacher, the state, classmates, or a combination of them. It happens all the time. It has been noted here before, but you seem to ignore the point. Claiming (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Not really; if my command of the obvious were so astounding, I'd have realized long ago that you are unable to employ logic or reason, but here I am still trying to persuade you. (...) Okay, maybe we've come upon a legitimate example of my (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) I agree! If the US Mint has the wherewithal to commission 50 new designs of quarter, it really should take much to scour the religious invocations from future stampings. And to address John's frothing over-reaction; no one here is trying to (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) The force is a social compulsion. When I was young, I thought that the right thing to do was to refuse to recite the pledge because I didn't agree to it. My first grade teacher (Mrs. Henderson - Fern Drive Elementary, Fullerton, CA) tried to (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Where's the "force"? down everyone's throats, as long as they keep (...) persecuted for (...) My words happen to echo Judge Fernandez's dissent (though I hadn't read it at the time). No one is being forced to say the pledge (that was ruled (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Legal Education? (was: real conspiracies?)
|
|
First, let me just say: Holy Crap! What a lot of complicated questions! Obviously, I have to make the usual I AM NOT A LAWYER warning here. But, really -- I am not a lawyer and you shouldn't consider anything I say any kind of legal advice. These (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One Nation (Under God) Indivisible, With Liberty...(was: Re: Troll Alert)
|
|
Well, if you were someone we've been debating with, that new word would obviously be "freedoms", since he has absolutely no clue whatsoever about the meaning of the word from his statements to date. (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
Yet you see no problem in forcing God down everyone's throats, as long as they keep their mouths shut and stop "crying": "(unless one is an atheistic activist who goes about crying about being persecuted for believing in nothing)." (your words) "I (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One Nation (Under God) Indivisible, With Liberty...(was: Re: Troll Alert)
|
|
(...) Hah! Who says .debate is useless??? I've learnt a new word today! It's up to you to guess which one.... ROSCO FUT: .o-t.fun (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Hardly. What I meant was it's irrelevant to me because it is none of my business *what* other people believe-- they are free to believe what they wish. -John (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | One Nation (Under God) Indivisible, With Liberty...(was: Re: Troll Alert)
|
|
(...) Hey, that's how I felt about the Troll Alert-- funny, but not very useful;-) I suspect that in this current (...) I gathered. Your posts seem to fit his definition (...) Thank you for recognizing that fact. Of course I'm not a troll, and while (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Legal Education? (was: real conspiracies?)
|
|
(...) Richard, In the past you have made references to your legal education and the woeful lack of legal education in virtually all of The People. I'm wondering if you have any reasonable suggestions about how to obtain said education. I applied to (...) (22 years ago, 30-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: real conspiracies?
|
|
(...) money and you will find your answers -- while all the pretended reasons (morality, justice, etc.) remain mute. Another example: Some call if graft, others call it Title 12 of the U.S. Codes. -- Hop-Frog (awaiting the year of Jubilee) (22 years ago, 30-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | real conspiracies?
|
|
Hi all, This may be old news, but have y'all read this? (URL) are some pretty nefarious connections suggested by the article. Chris (22 years ago, 30-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Troll Alert
|
|
(...) debate Richard was referring to you. Your posts seem to fit his definition well, HIS posts on the other hand have not fit that definition at all. However I am not sure I agree with his characterization of you (if that is what was intended by (...) (22 years ago, 30-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Troll Alert
|
|
(...) Helpful example: (URL) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Reading Suggestion for General Edification
|
|
In this thread I've seen a lot of "America has a special purpose, and therefore has become a special place...etc" here--so I'd suggest that anyone who's internalized that take a look at Anders Stephanson's _Manifest Destiny_--which really points (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | One nacho, underpants, with licorice and jugs of wine for owls
|
|
(...) "sesquipedalian" is hereby my Word of the Day. But I never knew you were missing half of one of your feet, Dave! (...) Besides, "Under God" was added in 1954, and has no place in the original Pledge. I've seen letters in local newspapers--both (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Thanks, Dave-- your command of the obvious is an inspiration. BTW, wasn't the DoI *ratified* by the congress? (...) My point was that they held certain views about God (that one existed and Created the universe), while not subscribing to any (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Because the Declaration isn't a document of law; it's a Declaration of Independence (that's why they call it that). (...) The Founding Fathers' position on the matter was that Congress shall make no law respecting religion. Again, the DOI is (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
Sure, it's irrelevant to you because you have no problem cramming it down other's throats. Repugnant. (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) All I am saying is that the phrase "so help me God" is a part of it. Whether one believes in God or not is irrelevant (to me at least). -John (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) you didn't but you seem to imply that if I don't believe in God, I shouldn't bother applying for citzenship...? Dan (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) What are you talking about??? Do you know what the oath naturalized citizens must take says? "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) You'd better elaborate on this, John, because the above statement makes you sound like a truly disgusting person without further expansion. It makes you sound like you're saying "if they don't say "under God", they shouldn't become citizens? (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Yes. I am trying to explain the use of such language as "the Creator" from our very first document as a nation which. Is that offensive to atheists? Why not? Should it be changed? Why not? (...) Well, that's my point. I think the FFs *did* (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Troll Alert
|
|
I think it is possible to discuss things and disagree in a civil manner. I do it in real life all the time. I think I have done it here before. I hate to use a pop psychology term here, but all I ask of other participants that they "fight fair." In (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) I read his statement and was at a loss for words. I interpret it exactly as you do. I had no idea how to respond. I guess you did a good job. I eventually came to believe (once more -- maybe I'll learn someday) that it is impossible for me (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Troll Alert
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes: <snip> Good advice but the problem I have is that you can (in this debate) apply that definition to a number of people... some more than others, maybe but we all have preconceived notions, ne? (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Troll Alert
|
|
Definition: troll (trol) verb To post a message in a newsgroup or other online conference in the hopes that somebody else will consider the original message so outrageous that it demands a heated reply. ~~~...~~~ For further consideration, the use (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
We have a disconnect here. There is something resistant to logical analysis in what John is saying. It just doesn't gibe with what the other side is saying, in that it shows a lack of understanding of the fundamental point. (...) And the above seems (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Now really, Larry, how wrong could it be for the entire population to be required to send in your love offering? That's like 280,000,000 bricks! ;-) Chris FUT -> .fun (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Say again? How can one worship the absence of God? or higher power? Higher Power, God. Semantics here? What then? You did not answer (...) Well, I happen to believe that establishing a religion entails a little more than that, and I think that (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) I would say that it refers generically to God the creator, and if one is into polytheism, then I'd say it refers to the highest ranking god one worships. If all of those gods are exactly equal, then I guess one has a dilemma. -John (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Under God? (What an amusing debate)
|
|
(...) Yes (...) Why do you automatically assume god = God? (Or maybe I am taking your meaning wrong) Anything can be a god. Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (c) 1963 1 -god- 1: a being or object believed to have more than natural (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Again, the PoA was *changed* (corrupted during the Cold War). There is absolutlely no question as to who is rocking the boat, and it is the people who made and support that change. Bruce (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) From a previous thread. I'll dig it up, if you'd care to review it... (...) "God language" is an imprecise euphemism. If Congress enacts legislation saying "include 'under God' in the Pledge," then Congress has absolutely, unequivocally, and (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Under God? (What an amusing debate)
|
|
"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:GyFDrF.G02@lugnet.com... (...) you (...) But (...) important (...) I also agree that these fundamental freedoms are important. If an individual doesn't belong to any of the belief (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) You can say that Chris is wrong, but you're either lying, benighted, or simply misinformed. When he signed the Bill in 1954, President Eisenhower wrote that "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Can I deem it to be no one at all, that no such power exists? If not, then my religious freedom is abrogated by any such state sponsored statement referring to a god whether big or little "g" is used. I prefer the usage used in oaths now "do (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) assume, (...) -- (...) The capitalization indicates that it's a proper noun -- the name of a unique individual. Therefore, all gods are not God. Above, you say that I'm wrong, but without an explanation of it, I have to stick to my (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) You are very wrong. It is *intentially* vague. It is whomever you deem it to be. For *me*, yes, it is the God of Abraham and Jacob. -John (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
While you guys are making heat, I suggest reading the document: VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM (URL) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
Indeed. Although I haven't read the founders as such, I can read the Declaration of Independence and find that the alleged invocation is of the form of "...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Amen, brother!!!! You are preaching to the choir on that one! (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Right -- Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, etc... (...) Yes, fair enough -- but while there continues to be some psycho-xtian movement afoot to show that the framers were bible thumpers -- or that they even cared about such things, I think I can (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) Um, you're overgeneralizing. SOME of the Founding Fathers were indeed professed and practicing christians... Just not any of the ones that did the heavy lifting to get this nation off the ground. So you need to be more specific, I think, (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) It's pretty obvious what brands of religion are going to be the most concerned about this issue. And I don't feel like looking up all your past posts merely to discover that you ARE indeed some kind of christian, it is my assumption that you (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
