Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:13:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
770 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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.
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 saying it, he doesn't have to".
> You seem desperate to pretend that "God" is a word somehow free of
> religious connotation, and that's just nonsense.
Isn't that the very definition of a "Deist"? Perhaps you might explain to me
the difference between a Deist and a Theist.
In any case, this country was founded on the principles of freedom, with the
believe that those freedoms were inalienably endowed from a Creator. Our
entire government is predicated upon that fact. Without freedom from a source
higher than man, we are just another country that is vulnerable to the whims of
an given despot. *No* man has the right to rule another, because all rights
are equal. These rights come from God. How else can one make an argument for
equality, freedom, and human rights? As TJ knew: by appealing to an ultimate
source for rights and freedoms, without endorsing or establishing any
particular religion.
It does, however, discriminate against those who would assert that there is no
God. I suppose that it also discriminates against those who would say that we
are all gods.
-John
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | 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!
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
