Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 29 Jun 2002 15:40:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2837 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
> > I am trying to explain the use of such language as "the Creator" from our
> > very first document as a nation which. Is that offensive to atheists? Why
> > not? Should it be changed? Why not?
>
> Because the Declaration isn't a document of law; it's a Declaration of
> Independence (that's why they call it that).
Thanks, Dave-- your command of the obvious is an inspiration.
BTW, wasn't the DoI *ratified* by the congress?
>
> > > Inserting statements about god into important documents means that,
> > > fundamentally, the US is a religious country (of some sort, of no particular
> > > sort, it doesn't matter really) rather than a country that takes no position
> > > on the matter.
> >
> > Well, that's my point. I think the FFs *did* have a position on that matter.
> > Again, take the DOI for instance.
My point was that they held certain views about God (that one existed and
Created the universe), while not subscribing to any one religion (or any
religion at all).
>
> The Founding Fathers' position on the matter was that Congress shall make no
> law respecting religion. Again, the DOI is not relevant because it's not a
> document of law.
Again, see above.
>
> > > I am glad that the US doesn't have a state religion.
> >
> > As am I.
>
> I don't believe you.
Your perogative.
You can trumpet that there's no state religion, John,
> because the de facto religion of the land is the one to which you
> nominally adhere.
That statement is nonsense.
If the Congress were dominated by an over-loud group of
> Moslems or Hindus who wanted to put "under Allah" or "under Brahma" in the
> Pledge of Allegiance, you wouldn't be so smug about it.
Not analagous.
>
> > I don't condone the persecution of any group.
>
> This is a flat lie. Your position in this entire debate (and in other
> debates such as Creationism v. Evolution) make it clear that you have no real
> respect for other beliefs, nor any desire to understand them.
Ahh, like the respect you and RM and others show for *my* beliefs. Got it.
Please cite where I have oppressed anyone. Or is it that you consider
disagreement "persecution"?
Your sickeningly
> bigoted comment that "no one forced them to become citizens" makes it clear
> that you put your own religious agenda ahead of others' human rights.
As I have stated before, I have no religious agenda-- you are projecting.
>
> > I happen to believe that atheists will be persecuted for their beliefs no
> > matter *what* the US gov does--removing "under God" or "In God we Trust"
> > won't stop that.
>
> Perhaps the persecution would continue, but at least it wouldn't be
> government-mandated persecution as is currently the case.
> > I just find it disingenuous of atheists to say that they are being persecuted
> > *because* of these things, rather than for their beliefs (or lack thereof)
> > themselves.
>
> You're deliberately misreading the issue. As an athiest, I'm not saying
> "under God" persecutes me; I'm saying that the inclusion of "under God" in a
> Congressionally-endorsed document makes it seem okay to persecute those who
> don't believe in God.
Then you *do* have a problem with the Declaration of Independence!
Inconsistent liar!
>
> > > Inserting "under god" into official statements or worse, into things that
> > > people have to *affirm to be citizens* (all new citizens are required to
> > > recite the pledge and I know of no provision for omitting words as the
> > > reciter so chooses), is *intolerance*. It is intolerance of a belief system
> > > or world view that does no harm to others in and of itself, and that I
> > > cannot tolerate.
> >
> > "Under God" isn't intolerate. It may discriminate, but not it's not
> > intolerate.
>
> It discriminates on basis of religion and is therefore forbidden by The
> Constitution.
>
> > Besides, our government discriminates and is intolerant of all kinds of
> > things.
>
> That argument is foolish; two wrongs do not make a right.
How convenient. So are you saying that discriminating against polygamy and cat
and dog eating is wrong? Are you saying that *all* intolerance is wrong???
*That* is foolish.
-John
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
