Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 1 Jul 2002 16:41:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2719 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
> Where's the "force"?
> My words happen to echo Judge Fernandez's dissent (though I hadn't read it at
> the time). No one is being forced to say the pledge (that was ruled upon in
> '43), and "the de minimis tendency of the Pledge to establish a religion or to
> interfere with its free exercise is no constitutional violation at all".
In school (we are talking about PoA in public school) the pressure may come
from the teacher, the state, classmates, or a combination of them. It
happens all the time. It has been noted here before, but you seem to ignore
the point. Claiming that no one is being forced to say the PoA is a dodge,
there are people saying it who really don't want to so they don't attract
attention, and there ARE teachers that do their best not to give children
the option.
>
> It seems to me that that is a reasonable stance to take, but for that I get
> personal attacks. And *I* get accused of being inflexible and stubborn!
> >
> > "I don't condone the persecution of any group. For the most part, I am for
> > tolerance and respect. As long as every group shows tolerance and respect, I
> > can live with that." (Your words)
> > ...unless, of course they're atheists. Then they're fair game for target • practice.
> > (My take on all of your current statements to date as to your obvious • distain/distaste
> > for non-believers).
>
> Excuse me, the distain being shown here is from Newdow et al who are making a
> mountain out of a molehole. The hostility is coming from atheists towards the
> religious, not the other way around.
You keep piping up with lines like this, even when it is established that
many who oppose the "under God" addition of the PoA are not atheists. Also,
this is a battlefield entirely chosen by Christians (not merely "the
religious"). A non-religious statement had to be corrupted into a religious
statement, thus making the mountain out of an anthill.
(snipping hostility comments from various sides)
> And what's next on the edit list, Tom? Coins? Declaration of Independence?
> The National Anthem? The nuts here are those bound and determined to strike
> every iota of reference to God from our culture, regardless of the effect upon
> them or country.
This is an emotional argument having nothing to do with the law. If all of
those violate the law (I'm not saying they do or don't, mostly because I
don't have the time or energy to track all those points) then why shouldn't
they be changed? Inertia? It's inconvenient and upsetting? What you have
is a non-argument - it is only an emotional bluff.
Every response of mine is a duplication of a previous point I have made, and
that you haven't responded to. This is how come you get the accustations
that you simply don't listen.
Bruce
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
