Subject:
|
Re: Under God? (What an amusing debate)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Jun 2002 19:33:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
489 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> > > 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.
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 that God is a
term somehow inclusive of the multiple gods of a pantheon and even the nothing
remotely like a god that I know really exists.
> > 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.
Merely forced to recite an oath that one is true to a nation that holds God as
a significant force...right? Even if our government made you _claim_ to
believe in God, they still wouldn't be making you believe. So I'm not sure
your point has any merit.
> 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.
It does! Many many Americans feel disenfranchised by the PoA. Is that a good
thing? If nothing else, this is an opportunity for Christian Americans to
offer an olive branch of inclusion to those of us who are not religious. But I
don't see anyone doing that.
A shame really.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Under God? (What an amusing debate)
|
| (...) Yes (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
