Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:21:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2907 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> Thanks, Dave-- your command of the obvious is an inspiration.
Not really; if my command of the obvious were so astounding, I'd have
realized long ago that you are unable to employ logic or reason, but here I
am still trying to persuade you.
> BTW, wasn't the DoI *ratified* by the congress?
Okay, maybe we've come upon a legitimate example of my ignorance. Please
tell me when the United States Congress, as established by the United States
Constitution, ratified the Declaration of Independence? Or are you talking
about the 1776 ratification of the Declaration of Independence, prior to the
establishment of the First Amendment?
> 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.
How so? The President, as well as a goodly chunk of the Congress, is a
practicing and proselytizing Christian, Ashcroft was approved at least in
part because he's a religious man. The entire stem-cell debate, not to
mention the entire abortion debate, not to mention the entire same-sex
marriage debate, not to mention the entire faith-based-initiative debate,
not to mention the entire Pledge-of-Allegiance debate, is based entirely on
so-called Christian so-called morality! If the pro-Christian agenda of the
ruling body of the Government isn't enough to make you realize that the de
facto State Religion is Christianity, then there's no use in arguing with
you further, since you're obviously or comfortable with the encroachment of
relgion into State matters.
> 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.
Why not? "Under God" is expressly equal, in terms of religious content,
to "under Allah" or "under Brahma," or "under Deity X" or "under no deity."
I know that you have a fondness for "is not, 'nuff said"-style arguments,
but I'd really like to hear your elaboration of why these examples aren't
analogous.
> > 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.
I absolutely 100% support your right to believe in the deity of your
choice, but your desire to censor and indoctrinate other views is anathema
to freedom and, frankly, to the principals of the Founding Fathers which you
allege to cherish.
> > 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!
See my first question about which Congress ratified the Declaration. If
indeed it is the post-Constitutional Congress, then I would say that the
Declaration is likewise faulty. No inconsistency there at all.
> > > 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???
John, perhaps you're aware of the term "Straw Man." If so, you must
recognize that your statement above is a classic example. I've made no
claims whatsoever about polygamy, and your attempt to caricature my argument
in those terms is a misrepresentation. However, consider this:
When one resides within a nation, one accepts certain terms of a social
contract, both implied and express. Among those terms is the agreement to
adhere to the laws of the land or else face the prescribed penalties for
breaking them. Currently polygamy is generally against the law, as is
dog-eating, but these do not descend from rights explicitly protected by the
Constitution.
The Consitution guarantees freedom of religion, and laws of the land must
be subordinate to that document. Obviously, certain religious practices may
be curtailed when they impinge upon the rights of others; that's why human
sacrifice is rare in modern US religions. As to why polygamy is illegal, I
really don't know; if all parties are agreeable, it should be fine. The
basic reason, allegedly, is that polygamy would constitute a tax cheat, but
that's not really the issue. You should actually ask your religious
representatives in Congress why it's illegal, since it's primarily based on
Judeo-Christian tradition. But I can't bleed for everyone; the illegality
of polygamy is frankly not as vital an argument to me as the freedom of (and
from) religion.
Dave!
Me, I'd like nothing better than to sit down with my six wives and have a
big meal of roast dog. Darned discrimination!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
