Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:17:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1771 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > That Creator, although capitalized, could be anything: a lump of clay, an
> > amoeba in a bog, some sort of prime mover, nature, nature's god, etc. It is
> > so vague as to be almost meaningless except for the meaning you wish to
> > imbue it with. Do you think Jefferson was stupid? I think not...
>
> I think you are if you think that your creator was an amoeba. Nice squirming,
> though.
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 play it both ways, so that the LCDs would be appeased, while
making it clear to those who thought about it a bit what he *really* meant.
NOT to the innate intelligence inherent in a person being able to reject the
creation myth. Which he did, your cited letter notwithstanding.
Now you could argue that this sort of deviousness in wording, which shows up
in many places, and which presumably was there in order to get the whole
shebang passed and accepted, is actually detrimental... as it leaves room
for doubt.
For instance, (just picking an example at random here, trust me) it's
perfectly clear to ME what the Second Amendment means, but I certainly wish
it had been worded even more clearly... something more along the lines of:
"any man portable weapon, now existing, or to be invented in the future,
that any army anywhere can have, is also AOK for our citizens to own, and
there shall be no restrictions placed on such ownership by citizens"
THAT would be a lot clearer, wouldn't it? If you read the Federalist Papers
the commentary makes clear that's what was intended. It just wasn't SAID
nearly that clearly. Instead we get "well regulated militia" which might
have been clear(ish, or at least sorta clearish) then but is not
particularly clear now since the meanings of regulated and militia have
wiggled around on us.
So while I'm on the side of the angels (grin) on this one, I find it ironic
that some of my allies in this (say, in the ACLU) conveniently ignore what
the founding fathers said when it is convenient for them to do so because
listening might gore their pet oxen.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
