To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 16763
16762  |  16764
Subject: 
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 28 Jun 2002 17:51:52 GMT
Viewed: 
2176 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:

Of course it was a joke when Bill Clinton would say, "God bless America"-- he
wouldn't know God from a cigar butt, but he still said it.

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?

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.

  From a previous thread.  I'll dig it up, if you'd care to review it...

You seem to be pretending that Richard or Bruce or I am insisting that no
citizen maintain his own religious beliefs, and we certainly are not
claiming that.  Instead, we are requiring that Congress, in accordance with
The Constitution of The United States of America, not establish a religion.

*a* religion.  Using God language doesn't establish *a* religion.

  "God language" is an imprecise euphemism.  If Congress enacts legislation
saying "include 'under God' in the Pledge," then Congress has absolutely,
unequivocally, and un-Constitutionally endorsed God, which is at the very
least an endorsement of monotheism, which is a religion.
  And here's the axe you SHOULD be grinding:  if "under God" is simply a
rhetorical affectation, then you should be calling for its removal because
it defies the 2nd Commandment (and if "under God" is an after-the-fact
affectation, then what's the harm in removing it); if "under God" is a
religious invocation, then it should be removed because it is a
State-endorsed religious invocation.

How do you
explain Jefferson envoking God all of the time in his writing?  Certainly *he*
believed in separation of church and state?  If I must I'll go dig up Madison
quotations where he uses God language.  Please address this seeming
contradiction.

  Did Madison or Jefferson invoke God in the text of The Constitution?
THAT'S the issue.  I don't care if Jefferson said "God guide my hand as I
write this document," as long as the document itself is free from religion,
which it is.  There is no contradiction.

I never wanted to bring religious flavors into this debate, but you all seem
to think that that is a hidden agenda of mine.  Please try not to read into
my argument too deeply.  I do not have the full agenda of the
Conservative Christian right hidden in my pocket.

  That may be the case, but I flatly don't believe you when you say that
your motivations for keeping "under God" in the Pledge are not religious in
nature.  It doesn't even seem like a "hidden" agenda; it's right there on
the table, given previous debates with you and the tack you take in just
about all of them.

the fact remains that he believed absolutely in
the freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.

Agreed, Dave!  Now just explain to me why Jefferson began the Virginia Statute
of Religious Freedom thusly:

"WHEREAS Almighty God hath created the mind..."  That's all I'm asking for.

  I don't give a hoot about the Virginia Statute drafted in 1777, since
we're discussing the United States Constitution of 1787, the
un-Constitutional actions of the US Congress in 1954, and the [some of the
very likely] un-Constitutional actions of the US Congress in 2002.

What *is* my "agenda"?  To leave well-enough *alone*.  That's it.  *I* am not
the one trying to rock the boat.

  No?  Well, you're squarely on the side of those who are.  "The Boat" is
the separation of church and state.

     Dave!



Message has 1 Reply:
  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)

Message is in Reply To:
  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)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR