To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 17517
17516  |  17518
Subject: 
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 11 Sep 2002 12:45:14 GMT
Viewed: 
718 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:

The Founding Fathers were deists, not theists.  They believed in a
Creator, not the xian god.

I never suggested otherwise.  They acknowledged the existence of God without
necessarily endorsing a particular brand of religion's understanding of Him.

  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, since Eisenhower and the Congress intended the phrase as an oath of
fealty to The Christian God.  But in any case, that's 100% NOT the point.  The
State (ie, The Congress) has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to make any statement of
acknowledgement of any God or religion or lack of religion.    If Congress
passed an act tomorrow that said:

"Every morning John Neal must publicly declare that God does not exist."

you wouldn't say "that's okay, since they're not endorsing any religion, nor are
they explicitly forbidding any religion."  Yet that statement is exactly
analogous to requiring an atheist to say "under God."  If you think otherwise,
please explain the difference.
  You seem desperate to pretend that "God" is a word somehow free of religious
connotation, and that's just nonsense.

     Dave!



Message has 1 Reply:
  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)

Message is in Reply To:
  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)

220 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR