Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (90183)	12/1/2004 11:42:36 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

(the year of "our lord") Hmm. Interesting point. I've heard many people argue that the Constitution, unlike the Declaration of Independence, makes no acknowledgement of God, but clearly it does (BTW, the "L" is capitalized in the document). Now, I'm not saying that proves the claims that the early leadership of this nation intended it to be a "Christian nation" - it does not and I would never try to support that claim, anyway. But what it does, IMO, show is that the framers did not fear the mere acknowledgement of God or consider it to constitute "establishment of religion." The fact that most, if not all, presidents to date and many other public officials have taken an oath of office with their hand on the Bible likewise, IMO, supports the notion that mere acknowledgement of religion does not constitute establishment. In that case, it's a matter of tradition or of wanting public oaths to be the strongest kind of oath a given person can make, regardless of what entity (or non-entity) they believe (or don't believe) in, not to make faith in God or following of any religion a qualification for office. If a Deist president wants to swear to a non-specific Creator or Nature's God, or if a Jewish president wants to use the Torah, or if an atheist president wants to use the Constitution itself or swear on his mother's biodegraded organic remains - that's all fine, too. Where bringing God into it becomes dangerous is not mere acknowledgement or reference, but rather, as Jefferson and others clearly did fear, making the holding or practicing of some particular faith, any faith or even no faith a condition of any right or office, or government actively promoting or working against any faith. Of course, that last clause is the one that is the subject of so much heated disagreement. What constitutes promotion or its opposite and what is reasonable acknowledgement or reference?