Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:02:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
943 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > If the state can "allow" me not to speak the words (as you said above)
> > then it's "asking" me to speak them. And that's an endorsement of
> > religion.
>
> I believe that one can acknowledge God without endorsing any particular
> religion.
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 non-recognition of
atheists. The State is explicitly declaring itself:
"One Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all except atheists."
which is, in terms of State-run discrimination, equivalent to:
"One Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all except blacks."
or
"One Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all except homosexuals."
or
"One Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all except people
who own guns."
or
"One Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all except people
who speak out against popular opinion."
or
"One Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all except Christians."
> How many senators last year on 9-11 sang along with "God Bless America" who
> were atheists? A lot. Why? Because it was the patriotic thing (if not
> politically wise) to do.
God is not patriotic. The senators hopped on the bandwagon because it's
an election year, and because, if they hadn't, the next campaign against
them would have been:
"Senator Smith doesn't believe in God--do you want him representing you?"
Further, Galilleo recanted his heliocentric theory because he knew it would
have meant his death if he had not. The same is true now, politically. The
fact that religious bigotry has advanced no further in five centuries is
truly chilling.
Let's look at it another way: if the State lined up 50 Christians and
said to them "We're going to destroy your career and livelihood and
finanacial security unless you keep your mouth shut about your faith for ten
minutes," how many of those 50 would choose that moment to begin preaching
the Word? Maybe a few, but certainly not 50.
And let's face it. This whole hubbub is politics. Michael Newdow has issues.
You're attempting an ad hominem, since you're implying that Newdow has
some sort of axe to grind or some agenda due to his "issues." Newdow
objects to the State's endorsement of God, and he is 100% correct to do so.
> There's no tyranny or persecution going on-- if anything I'd say that
> Christianity itself is being persecuted.
Conservative Rhetorical Tactic #107: Accuse the victim of the wrong that
you are committing against him.
My apolgies to those Conservatives among us who are not bigotted religious
zealots.
> So I say to atheists--let the misguided be. It's all a bunch of hooey anyway;
> why let it bother you?
Well, since you're going to heaven anyway, why don't you have someone beat
your shins with a crowbar for the next six months? It's all a fleeting,
fleshy shell anyway--why let it bother you?
If I hadn't witnessed your bigotry and mad pseudo-reasoning so many times
before, I'd honestly believe that you were kidding. What's horrifying is
that many politicians, such as Lott, Byrd, Bush, and Ashcroft share your views.
> Think of it as Nationalism (which I believe much of it is),
> or is it with Nationalism that you all have a problem?
Blind Nationalism is as much an evil as KKK-style bigotry, so you're
certainly right that I have a problem with it, and I'm very proud to have a
problem with it.
If you're referring instead to patriotism, which is a respect and
admiration for the laudable achievements of one's country, while
simultaneously recognizing the failures and shortcomings of that nation,
then you're grossly misguided in trying to equate belief in your God with
patriotism.
> I'm just afraid that if atheists like Newdow keep pressing these issues, there
> is going to be a nasty backlash that nobody wants to see.
Well, it'll be about time. I for one am sick of self-righteous and
bigotted Christians persecuting everyone else, so if it takes a revolution
to establish a state of true religious freedom, then I say get me my rifle!
I apologize to the vast majority of Christians who are not self-righteous
bigots.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
