Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Jun 2002 23:44:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2689 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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?
As I mentioned before, it is to me (and to Ike as well). Perhaps not to you.
But the phrase in question is "under God" anyway, so the point is moot.
> 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,
Not exactly. I said it would be a dilemma for someone who was polytheistic and
couldn't decide to which of his gods he should envoke-- it was an attempt at
humor.
so the phrase is ultimately, fundamentally, and undeniably
> exclusionary, and it should therefore be stricken from the text.
Exclusion happens all the time. Big deal. The phrase "under God", however, is
not exclusivary, because it doesn't specify whose brand of God this God is,
your assertion to the contrary-- unless there is proof somewhere that God with
a capital G is the Christian God?
Instead of me proving that the God in question isn't necessarily Christian, why
don't you somehow show that it is?
The bottom line here is that the state is not establishing, supporting,
endorsing, or advocating any national religion here by the use of the phrase
"under God" (Or "In God we trust", etc). It just isn't. You may infer that it
is, but that's about the only way.
-John
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
