 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) The Founding Fathers were deists, not theists. They believed in a Creator, not the xian god. --Bill. (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I never suggested otherwise. They acknowledged the existence of God without necessarily endorsing a particular brand of religion's understanding of Him. -John (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) John! For pity's sake, read what you're writing! The acknowledgement of the existence of God (or even "a" God) is an explicit endorsement of religion! I don't care if you want to pretend that "it could be *any* God," because you're wrong, (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) First, there is no "requirement". The state will not force you to speak those words (in fact it *allows* you to *not* speak them). A perfect analogy would be if Congress passed that same law but then included, "But if he feels uncomfortable (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) But if I want to say the *official* pledge, then by definition I have no choice but to speak the phrase. That's the problem, and, in addition, one's choice not to say the *official* pledge is easily construed as a lack of patriotism, which is (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) but wouldn't that fact that the state "asked" that you say the words bad enough? I will have to say the pledge of allegance when I become a naturalized citizen. Do you think I won't say "under god", when the INS officer asks me to? Of course I (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) They didn't say "God." The closest they got was "Creator." I think that's a big difference. --Bill. (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) You are arguing semantics. -John (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I believe that one can acknowledge God without endorsing any particular religion. The fact is that the vast majority of Americans believe that we are a country under God. The religious background of those same Americans is wildly different. (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) You believe incorrectly. That's like saying "One can deny all gods without rejecting any particular religion." And in any case you are ONCE AGAIN missing the point. If the State acknowledges ANY God, then the State is mandating the (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: <snip> in any case you are ONCE AGAIN missing the point. If the State (...) While I agree with you in your point about keeping religion out of state run affairs... I have the freedom to believe what I (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Believing in God, and believing we are a country under God (a theocracy) are two vastly different things. Even if you are accurate in your claim, it would simply indicate that the vast majority of Americans are delusional (50 million Frenchmen (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) But that's not quite the point, either. If the State has the right to mandate religion (which it does NOT, despite John's wishes to the contrary), then I have no legal recourse if the State throws me in jail for not bowing at the alter of the (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Sounds pretty bigotted. Why not just say they are wrong or misguided? (...) Disagree. I'll bet you 99 out of 100 people would disagee with you. (...) Christianity has been intimately involved with this nation since its inception. The (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) America is not most definitly moving willingly to the right--it's being *forced* to the right by the 'chicken littles'--"Oh no! The sky is falling! Remember the good ol' days when kids didn't kill one another in school, when planes weren't (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Since I include any culture, it would seem not to be bigoted, beyond I am bigotted against bigotted people. And since the religious ethno-centricism is usally used to exploit/murder/steal from someone else not so "blessed", "wrong" and (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Sorry, if 99 people out of 100 vote that the sun rises in the west, does that mean it does? No. If 99 people out of 100 vote to expropriate the property of all Tshirt manufacturers does that mean it is morally correct to do so? No. If this (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) You are plainly false. The state does operate essentially mandatory concentration camps for children in which statist and religious propaganda are administered to the inmates. Technically those inmates do have the right to not participate in (...) (22 years ago, 17-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Since the notion of "God" is absurd why should he or anyone be encouraged to speak of it at all? And how can you claim that God isn't an artifact of a particular religion? Does God mean Hera and Zeus? (...) We haven't been blessed. The very (...) (22 years ago, 17-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) No he doesn't! He's a namby pamby anti-gun leftist. :-) (...) Yes it is. (...) What if the system doesn't allow reform? (...) The US is founded on the notion that recurring revolutions _will_ be needed. And I don't see how a revolution (...) (22 years ago, 18-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) :) (...) Show me. Show me how people dying needlessly is a good thing. Show me how a revolution would make the United States of America better right now. Show me how not working within the system that you have set up down there, a system, I (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
