Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Jun 2002 19:48:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2399 times
|
| |
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > You can say that Chris is wrong, but you're either lying, benighted, or
> > simply misinformed. When he signed the Bill in 1954, President Eisenhower
> > wrote that "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city
> > and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation
> > and our people to the Almighty." That's not "whomever you deem it to be."
> > It's "THE" [so-called] Almighty.
>
> Notice, however, the addition wasn't "in Jesus God" or "in Christ Almighty".
> That may be what Eisenhower had in his mind, but that isn't necessarily what
> it should mean to others. It is in the spirit of walking the thin line begun
> by our FFs.
Oh, please. "God The Almighty" is undeniably the God of The Bible, and if
you claim otherwise then you're bearing false witness--two Commandments in
one day, John--and still you cast stones?
Point me to one other deity in the history of mankind referred to as God
the Almighty, and then maybe your case will seem more credible, but not
likely. And even if you could, by your own assertion in
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=16766
the notion of a single supreme God is "a dilemma" to those who believe in no
such entity, so the phrase is ultimately, fundamentally, and undeniably
exclusionary, and it should therefore be stricken from the text.
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
|
|
|
|