Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:21:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1538 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > I'm sure your concern stems from the popular view that "Under God" is a
> > not an endorsement of religion at all, but is rather a traditional
> > invocation. With that in mind, I'm sure you'd have no trouble if The Pledge
> > were changed to "One nation, hail Satan, with liberty and justice for all."
>
> Love people who try to get their points across by jumping right to the end
> of the slippery slope.
You only perceive it as a slippery slope because you're heavily invested
in your particular deity. That's your right, obviously, but that doesn't
mean The State can endorse a deity. To an athiest, an agnostic, a humanist,
or even to someone objectively examining the situation, the phrase "hail
Satan" is no more or less religiously charged than "under God."
> And this has nothing to do with separation of Church and State--I
> don't have to go to church to believe there's a god.
And I don't have to believe in a god to be an American, so why should The
Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag endorse God?
> Everyone can believe what they, as individuals, want to believe. So you
> don't believe in a creator--seriously, that's your own opinion--stop forcing
> that opinion on me.
Are you kidding? I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone, other than by
seeking to prevent others from forcing their opinions on me, or on my
children, or on anyone else who doesn't want to be forced to endorse God.
> The society, in general, as the fonding of the
> *nation*, the people, however you want to say it, started out as a God
> loving country. So stop trying to rewrite history, stop trying to say that
> we have to go to the lowest common denominator that states 'oh we don't want
> to offend *anybody* 'cause you're offending *me* when you do that.
I'm absolutely not trying to rewrite history, so your accusation is libel.
I admit 100% that many of the founding fathers were men of faith, but so
what? Many of them owned slaves and believed that light travels infinitely
fast. Besides which, they consciously and explicitly excluded "God" from
The Constitution--why do you suppose they did so? Was it because "the
People believe in some god?" Or was it because the founding fathers knew
that no State endorsement of religion is appropriate?
> You can't make all the individuals in society happy--it's impossible. So just
> stop it. Do what's *right*, what's Just, what's good for *the people*. The
> People believe in some god. So shaddap when you say they don't.
Again, you're being libelous. Point out where I said that "the people"
don't believe in some god. What I said was that The State has no business
endorsing or enforcing any particular religion, even in such broad terms as
"some god," since that is manifestly an endorsement of monotheism and
therefore forbidden under the 1st Amendment.
> That said, I'm going to sing '..God keep our land, Glorious and Free...'
> with a little more emphasis from now on, and I'll fight to keep that line in
> there with everything I have.
Do it! Sing your songs and keep "under God" in your renditions of The
Pledge. Just don't pretend that The State is entitled to endorse one
religion over another (or over a lack of religion).
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
