Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

One nation under God: C-SPAN now.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 07:50 AM
Original message
One nation under God: C-SPAN now.
Michael Newdow (father who filed suit and is arguing the case) and Kevin Hassen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 08:15 AM
Response to Original message
1. Scalia is recusing himself from the case.
He spoke up against the lower court ruling. Geez.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NuttyFluffers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. "the atheist" is articulate
funny hearing him being called "the atheist" as if he's some sort of superhero/villain.

but yeah, saw the C-SPAN and he was quite articulate and well informed. and most of it seems to have been done on personal time, not part of a degree - most impressive. he was quite kind with a lot of the callers, especially the fire and brimstone speakers. more patience than i could've mustered.

the other guy, who was pretty kind himself, was desperately trying to get the issue off topic from corporeal issues of government and governance and onto some weird philosophical debate. it was cute, but "the atheist" wisely did not bite. it really isn't what the issue is about. it's about how does a secular constitutional democratic republic with a separation of church and state within its mandates chooses to deal with leftovers of bad judgment from a witch hunt period.

it's high time these last vestiges of McCarthyism are swept away.

if they really wanna say "under god" then they can whisper it under breath real fast as the rest of the pledge is said. nothing stopping that. besides, turns a pledge into its better sounding original.

and if they are so adamant that religious stuff must be mandated through our governmental procedures then we should pluralize and feminize "under god" and call it "under goddesses." if they really think *some* form of spiritual representation be present i think the fire 'n brimstone folk would dig this just as well, wouldn't they ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. Met the man
He is not going to go quietly away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewHampster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
4. this is bad timing for another Wedge issue
The Pledge is another wedge issue thrown out by the Rovians.

They dream of an ad next October telling the American public, "the same people who support gay marriage and taking god out of your pledge of allegiance are now asking you to replace your God Fearing President with a Northeast Liberal Papist. Vote for *, Vote for God."

distract divide defeat

and IMHO that is the truth.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
5. Related: In God We Trust
Dan Brown's novel, "Angels & Demons" points out an interesting contradiction on the US dollar: The motto under the pyramid on the back translates to "New Secular Order", while the new motto above the "ONE" (added in the 1950's) says "In God We Trust"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kodi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
6. it is from self consciousness, not gods that rights arise.
Edited on Mon Mar-22-04 03:23 PM by kodi
the issue that the pro "a nation under god" fellow states is that a creator is the basis of rights, and he is misdirecting the basis from what is the property of humans that demand freedom of consciousness.

it is a weird coupling of the "I am" principle found in human consciuousness with the "I am" principle of a personal (as opposed) to an impersonal Deism.

we grant as a priori that each of us has "inalienable" rights because we see in other humans the same trait of self consciousness, not that we are created the same.

anyone recall the star trek show where data was to be dismantled and was not on the basis of such sentience he possessed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 02:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC