Subject:
|
Re: Under God? (What an amusing debate)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Jun 2002 19:16:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
385 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> > I think the girl interveiwed at school by my local news radio station had it
> > completly correct.
>
> Do you really?
Yes
>
> > 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 get so worked up over nothing."
>
> 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.
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 attributes and
powers and to require man's worship; one controlling a particular aspect or
part of reality 2: a person or thing of supreme value 3: a powerful ruler
2 -God- 1: the supreme or ultimate reality as a: the Being perfect in power,
wisdom, and goodness whom men worship as creator and ruler of the universe b:
the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite
Mind
3 -god- : idolize, deify
> I
> occasionally wonder why teenage girls get so worked up over "nothing." But
> that doesn't decrease the importance of the "nothing" to them.
>
> It's funny...I'd have to say that fundamental freedoms are about as important
> as they come.
Last time I checked no one is being forced by the government to belive in God.
I see this as a media stunt that has no real impact at all. What difference
does it make really? If 'under god' is removed from the Pledge, does in change
anything that would otherwise be if it is not? Somehow I doubt it, and as such
I do not really care if it goes or stays.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
