 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —John Neal
|
| | | (...) How do you feel about TJ speaking about a Creator in the DoI? -John (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | (...) How do you feel about having a very limited understanding of TJ's beliefs? This has been asked and answered before, John. It's pretty tiresome of you to bring it up again. TJ could have said "prime mover" -- it's just a whole lot less zippy (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) No, Richard, it hasn't. I am not arguing that TJ was a Christian or any such thing. What I am saying is that he acknowledged a Creator-- Prime Mover, God, Nature's God-- whatever you want to call it. And it is from this entity that our (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) *My* Creator [sic] is a one-word summation of the process of evolution and, more directly, of human biological reproduction. I can point you to various links explaining how my mother and father conceived me, but I expect from your previous (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) That is your interpretation. That's good. Now we both can live with it. (...) How would you know-- you weren't there yet;-) (...) Neither is the pledge. Neither is our currency. (...) It may be *implicitly* Christian, but the actual wording (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) How can you idolize your interpretation of the "intent" of Thomas Jefferson while one simultaneously ignoring the express "intent" of Eisenhower, who declared that "under God" would be a daily proclamation by children to God the Almighty? That (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) I am merely looking at the actual documents themselves as they would appear to someone who wasn't aware of their author's intentions. Thus, I take "Creator" to be a reference to God, you take it as evolution (how inalienable rights stem from (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Here it is, in terms as simple as I am able to formulate, in the hope that--against all prior evidence--you will be able to formulate a rational conclusion: P1: According to the 1st Amendment, Congress has no right to issue any declaration of (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Gee, Dave! we simpletons shur 'preshiate when you smart folk done make it easy-like fer us to understand;-) (...) "Congress shall pass no laws respecting religion or the free exercise thereof;..." What do you mean by "issue any declaration"? (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) To no avail, apparently. Your inability to reason is invulnerable. (...) What do you want to hear, John? That "their Creator" should be stripped frm the Declaration of Independence? Fine, I certainly support that. As Dave K has correctly (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | (...) I don't like to see John stating his own opinions as facts either, esp. when much of what he has to say is contrary to the facts as understood and accepted by the rest of us. The Constitution trumps all other laws. Even the preamble is not (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) What exactly do you mean by that? That all of *yours* are indeed *fact*? The FACT is that the POA stands-- defending it one way or the other is opinion. But I am willing to drop the whole issue until it is decided by the SC. But I know that if (...) (22 years ago, 14-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | | | | Despite my better Judgement I am going to get sucked into this debate. (If only to prove to Dave! that someone who belives God created the universe is capable of rational thought.) (...) First off John, I want to make it perfectly clear that I (...) (22 years ago, 15-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Watch out... Mike has judgement with a capital J! :-) (...) Yes, well said. Glad to see at least one christian gets it. Thank you. (22 years ago, 15-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) *cough* 2 Christians *cough*... Dave K (22 years ago, 15-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) "at least 1" is logically equivalent to "2", in this context anyway. :-) (22 years ago, 15-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | | | | | (...) LOL! Well obviously that was a typo. Funny none the less. (...) we (...) Contrary to popular belief, believing in God does not automatically make a person incapable of seeing things from other perspectives. -Mike Petrucelli (22 years ago, 16-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —William R. Ward
|
| | | | | | | | (...) No, but it helps ;-) --Bill. (22 years ago, 17-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) Mine is. My respect for your right to swing your fist around stops just short of my nose, as the old saying goes. Put another way, I can tolerate anything except intolerance. ++Lar (22 years ago, 15-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | (...) I am only responding to this one part because after reading Larry's reply it occurred to me that this part is intended as a kind of snare -- frankly, a rather lame one at that. I am tolerant of others' views unconditionally -- that is to say (...) (22 years ago, 15-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | John: You are looking at past history and past rhetoric with blinders on. Part of The Enlightenment project was to break with the "divine right of kings." That's why there is language of that type floating around. I am not saying that there weren't (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —William R. Ward
|
| | | | (...) The value of the dollar was once based on the value of gold. It is now based on absolutely nothing but the will of the people to keep it going. Similarly, our "inalienable rights" were originally based on the commonly-held mythology of a God (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) Regrettably, your argument is weakened by the fact that it matters a great deal to us all whether the dollar is backed by gold or not, whether you realise it or not. Try another analogy to make your main point, which I feel you are correct (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | (...) As Larry has pointed out already, this isn't exactly correct. The value of a U.S. dollar is statutory in law and has it's origins in Art.I Sect 10 of the Constitution. That the U.S. has the burden of producing Constitutional dollars is without (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
