Should God be replaced? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TigerPaw who wrote (12831)	6/27/2002 7:00:46 AM
From: Frederick Smart	Read Replies (3) of 28931

Atheistic Hysteria In America by Dean Fagerstrom Once again a federal court has succumbed to the hysterical outcry of an atheistic point of view. Previously it was due to an atheist’s view that it was acceptable to murder a human fetus, and most recently the idea that the words "under God" contained in the Pledge Of Allegiance to the American flag constituted a violation of the so-called "establishment clause" – vaguely referring to a phrase not contained in the Constitution. The argument stems from an erroneous phrase: separation of church and state. At best this is only a presumption – even if such a phrase was included in the Constitution’s wording. This phrase was extracted from a letter by Thomas Jefferson who at the time was occupied with producing illegitimate children via a mistress. It is probably no mystery that this man of dubious character wanted a clear distinction between his own affairs and those of the Nation, and to insinuate that "separation of church and state" had something to do with the Constitution’s wording implies both ignorance and an apprehensive view of himself. The Constitution states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Declaration Of Independence includes such phrases as Creator, the Supreme Judge Of The World , the protection of Divine Providence. Perhaps an atheistic view would also like to denounce this document as somehow involving the avowed aims of a nation as one that acknowledges a God – but not a religion. God is a title, not the name of any religion. When clear-thinking people recognize that human happiness and betterment does not rely on either a religious or a political system the outcome will simply be a free exercise of love toward the neighbor with no religious strings attached. If any atheist would do the Nation a favor he or she would raise an outcry against certain political leaders who have no compunction about sleeping in the same bed with money. This is the reality of the erroneous phrase" separation of church and state." What needs to be separated in the Nation is ignorance from truth. The institution of the great experiment called democracy contains sufficient latitude not to support ridiculous ideas, not to mention the barbaric practice of killing a human fetus or believing that the mention of God constitutes an oppressive religion. It is obvious that hysterical people may still be beating the bushes for malingering Redcoats, or those representing an archaic religion known as The Church Of England. This was in fact the prevailing reason why the authors of the Constitution made it clear that no religion should be established—not because its connotation with God was suspect—but because its proximity to a political process might once again erect tyranny. Should this Federal Appeals court’s ruling be up held it would mean that every piece of paper money and every coin bearing the inscription "In God We Trust"—would have to be recalled and replacements issued. This would constitute a logistical challenge of incredible proportion – or else another atheist might suggest considering all offending money as counterfeit. One absurdity leads to another. --------------- 119293!!

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next