 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) But that's not quite the point, either. If the State has the right to mandate religion (which it does NOT, despite John's wishes to the contrary), then I have no legal recourse if the State throws me in jail for not bowing at the alter of the (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Believing in God, and believing we are a country under God (a theocracy) are two vastly different things. Even if you are accurate in your claim, it would simply indicate that the vast majority of Americans are delusional (50 million Frenchmen (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: <snip> in any case you are ONCE AGAIN missing the point. If the State (...) While I agree with you in your point about keeping religion out of state run affairs... I have the freedom to believe what I (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Ok, lets explore this. You say that people tend to want to not want to help, that they would vote to keep the money for themselves, and that only a government can convince them to help others. Well, what is the government made up of? Last I (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Counterfactual, as I said. (...) I'm sure FDR would have a bone to pick with you if he was alive. (...) I'm ashamed of you, Larry! Libertarians is the answer, of course. They stick to their guns - or dogma, depending on your viewpoint - better (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) You believe incorrectly. That's like saying "One can deny all gods without rejecting any particular religion." And in any case you are ONCE AGAIN missing the point. If the State acknowledges ANY God, then the State is mandating the (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) <snip> (...) I'm happy with a claim that anything done to the point of the exclusion of *anything else*, doesn't work. Pure democracy does not work, for it's 'mob rule'--the most voices dictate what happens and the underdogs get (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) That is your interpretation. That's good. Now we both can live with it. (...) How would you know-- you weren't there yet;-) (...) Neither is the pledge. Neither is our currency. (...) It may be *implicitly* Christian, but the actual wording (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> (...) Ooops, fergot the smiley Should've read: (...) Again, IMHO, what Larry said is what I would've if I could've... Though here's a debate... Hypothetically, a teacher askes her grade 3 (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I believe that one can acknowledge God without endorsing any particular religion. The fact is that the vast majority of Americans believe that we are a country under God. The religious background of those same Americans is wildly different. (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Yes, but which party staunchy 'misinterprets' the 2nd ammendment so Homer can have his cache of assault weapons "cause 'looky right there--that's what it says in black and white, now git off my porch ya varmit!" while adapting others, "Well, (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) It took Larry to uncloud the muddy waters??? What's the world coming to?? That was perfectly said ++Lar. Dave K. (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) *My* Creator [sic] is a one-word summation of the process of evolution and, more directly, of human biological reproduction. I can point you to various links explaining how my mother and father conceived me, but I expect from your previous (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) You are arguing semantics. -John (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Practices... Amen, brother. They all **practice** it, but none of them have gotten it to WORK. (...) Don't confuse using with working. I'm happy with my claim, socialism doesn't **work**. (...) Um... I dunno. :-) What party sacrifices (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I suppose that depends on what level of socialism you are refering to. Virtually every nation on the planet practices some form of socialism, so I'd have to say that your claim that socialism working is counterfactual is...well, (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) As Larry has pointed out already, this isn't exactly correct. The value of a U.S. dollar is statutory in law and has it's origins in Art.I Sect 10 of the Constitution. That the U.S. has the burden of producing Constitutional dollars is without (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Regrettably, your argument is weakened by the fact that it matters a great deal to us all whether the dollar is backed by gold or not, whether you realise it or not. Try another analogy to make your main point, which I feel you are correct (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) OK. But you're a socialist, right? Since belief that a socialist system can actually work is counterfactual, holding such a belief is a kind of religion since it requires faith. (...) Separation of Church and State. A permanent mural (contrast (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
