Subject:
|
Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:29:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1048 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > The initial issue of "under God" is expressly Christian, so stop trying to
> > steer the dicussion away from the elephant in the room.
>
> It may be *implicitly* Christian, but the actual wording "under God" by itself
> is vague. "Under Jesus Christ" would be expressly Christian. So stop
> bringing that animal into the room where it doesn't belong.
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 is why it's expressly Christian.
You haven't answered this question despite being asked several times.
> As I have argued before, I really think that God language is a reflection of
> patriotism rather than a religious proclamanation.
If the God language is really a test of patriotism, then we're living in a
theocracy, and it's time for me to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights.
Honestly, I am disgusted by the fact that you are trying to force a
secular nation to bow to God. It speaks ill of your alleged faith, and it
speaks monstrously of your ability to think clearly on matters of state.
> The phrase "God bless America" really is an ultimate expression of hope for
> all the best for our country. "God bless" is an expression of goodwill. To
> take it any other way would be pugnacious.
You're blurring the issue. If a private citizen says "God Bless America,"
there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. But when Congress comments on
the existence of God, it has overstepped its bounds and acted illegally.
For some reason you are desperate to perceive this as a call to persecute
Christians, but that's just foolishness. I can pretty much guarantee you
that I would defend your right to religious freedom more fervently than you
would defend mine, since you are aggressively trying to eliminate mine.
What I am attempting to do is point out to you why Congress has no right to
establish religious doctrine or even to issue a religious statement of any kind.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
