Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:52:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
864 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> 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".
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 a cruel and, by extension, a State-endorsed invocation
of God! Do you understand that Congress acted beyond its bounds when it
endorsed the phrase?
> > 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"?
Eisenhower and the bulk of the US Congress in 1954 weren't Deists. Since
you ascribe so much importance to the "intent" of our legislative authors,
then surely Eisenhower's wishes (re: The Pledge to the Christian God) must
be paramount in your view.
> Perhaps you might explain to me the difference between a Deist and a Theist.
As far as I'm aware, it's like the difference between "apple" and "fruit."
The set of all "fruit" includes all "apples" but also includes "bananas,"
"peaches," and "watermelon," to name a few. A "theist" is simply one who
believes in a god, while a "deist" is one who believes (and this is a big
and incomplete simplification) that some deific entity got the ball of
creation rolling and then washed his hands of it. But even that sort of
Deism is monotheism and is religious in nature, and therefore beyond the
right of Congress to endorse. Congress has no right to establish
legislation endorsing any God, religion, faith, or belief system.
You simply have to stop squawking about the Declaration of Independence,
since it is not a document of US law and is therefore not relevant to the
issue at hand.
> How else can one make an argument for equality, freedom, and human rights?
First off, this is a straw man, since it's not the issue at stake.
Secondly, there are plenty of humanistic ways to derive the origin of rights
that make no appeal to a metaphysical alpha primate.
> 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.
It would also discriminate against those who believe that there is a God,
but believe that God is not the Creator. And it discriminates against those
who believe that there are many Gods, but that several acted together to
create us. It also discriminates against those who believe that God created
us but didn't endow us with any particular rights, since these rights could
as readily have come about through biological and social evolution.
Well, that's the bottom line, and that (along with the first amendment) is
why Congress has no right to make declarations of religious doctrine. Why
did it take you so long to get to the point that I made in my first post?
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
