Subject:
|
Re: Moore foolishness than ever
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 27 Aug 2003 12:50:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
173 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
| |
but noone has challenged the U.S. Dept. of Treasury for
including the phrase “In God We Trust” on every piece of U.S. currency
|
The currency itself is unconstitutional. And if only it were the Dept. of the
Treasury issuing the “coin” of our realm -- instead it is issued by the Federal
Reserve. Not the same thing at all. See the U.S. Constitution Art. I, sections 8
and 10. Check out this phrase: “To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and
of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures” -- that doesn’t
sound like paper to me. Why would you need weights and measures for paper?
We are now a nation of moneychangers!
That’s all a digression, but yours was a bad example to be sure.
| |
public schools for having students recite the phrase “...one nation, under
god...” every morning.
|
There’s a very tedious history behind this “pledge.” The prayer is not the
original one concocted by Bellamy, see:
http://www.crf-usa.org/Foundation_docs/Foundation_lesson_pledge
If you happen to be Xtian try this bit on for size (a pledge is very like an
oath):
Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not
forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto
you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: Nor by the
earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the
great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make
one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for
whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. -- Matthew 5:33-37
I find it strange that so many Xtians are in favor of oaths and pledges in which
they invoke god’s name, when they have basically been told not to do so!
Isn’t pledging allegiance to a flag a double-whammy? It’s both idolatrous and
oath-like.
Anyway, the bigger point is that by favoring the establishment of one kind of
religion, or religious act, the govt. would be excluding others by implication
-- and that is why it is generally not done and is not favored by the courts.
Religious freedom was a foundational principle of this country, why sully it now
with favoring Xtianity? It ain’t broke -- why fix it?
I expect Dave! will have more to say on this, so I leave it there for now...
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Moore foolishness than ever
|
| (...) Ahem. There is only one item in the Constitution of the United States that has any direct bearing on this as a religious matter, and that's the First Amemdment. To quote the appropriate section: "Congress shall make no law respecting an (...) (21 years ago, 27-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
