| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
Note - I agree that the phrase should go. Secular it AIN’T. Twist your
“logic” any way you want, but it’s not secular, it’s religious, and it’s
holding up one religion (monotheism) over another (polytheism, atheism).
|
It is acknowledging the religious history of this country without necessarily
endorsing it. We are a nation of religious people. So what? It’s not
forcing you to do anything or believe anything. If there is no force or
coercion behind the language, where exactly is the harm?
I’m sorry if you feel like an outsider as an atheist in a religious country,
but the fact is that you have, by your own choice, placed yourself in the
vast minority. But your rights are still intact.
|
Ding! I think I see the problem.
It’s a mistake to frame this as an issue of whether any person’s rights are or
are not compromised by the presence of a religious invocation on US currency.
Instead, the issue should be identified as the unconstitutional over-reaching of
Federal power. Namely, by endorsing a religious invocation, the Federal
government is acting far outside of its authority, just if it had established a
law forbidding Protestants to associate freely or a law barring honest citizens
from bearing arms.
See? It’s not a matter of personal religious freedom or whether some group is
or isn’t a minority. The issue comes down to the most basic question of
conservative political philosophy--how much power should the Federal government
be permitted to wield in excess of the powers explicitly enumerated by the
Constitution?
You’ve mentioned several times that the phrase “in God we trust” is an
acknowledgement of the history of our religious nation. But if we were instead
to begin minting coins that proclaimed “there is no personal, interested god” in
accordance with the Deism of several of the Founding Fathers, would you accept
it as an equally valid acknowlegement of the religious beliefs that shaped our
nation’s history?
Why, or why not?
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Newdow in the News (again)
|
| (...) It is acknowledging the religious history of this country without necessarily endorsing it. We are a nation of religious people. So what? It's not forcing you to do anything or believe anything. If there is no force or coercion behind the (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jun-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
14 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
