Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When the Founding Fathers said ''God'' or ''Creator'' it was in a general sense though, they didn't mean to have someone pervert it into saying that their god was the 'creator.' The whole thing with 'In God We Trust' on the dollar or 'One Nation Under God,' in the Pledge, I've always wondered what would happen if the word god was changed to government or flying spaghetti monster. So it would say 'Under Government we Trust,' or 'One Nation Under the Nation Under the Government.'
I'd have to agree with FlashTheCash that the U.S. Constitution should be totally seperate from religion and federal jurisdiction.
If that was the meaning then why all the uproar about removing it. Why not just let it be?
I find it absolutely appalling that Justice Antonin Scala, in his dissenting opinion in McCreary County v. ACLU, constructed his model of "the relationship between church and state" in America without even considering the actually text of the Constitution. How do incompetents like him get on the U. S. Supreme Court?
If that was the meaning then why all the uproar about removing it. Why not just let it be?
I think all the uproar stems from the fact that the United States has a multiplicity of religions. The whole 'under god' and 'in god we trust' tends to imply the Christian god. But to a pagan the United States could be one nation under many gods, or to an atheist or agnostic it could be one nation under the government or to a muslim one nation under Allah.
I find it absolutely appalling that Justice Antonin Scala, in his dissenting opinion in McCreary County v. ACLU, constructed his model of "the relationship between church and state" in America without even considering the actually text of the Constitution. How do incompetents like him get on the U. S. Supreme Court?
I agree. The constitution is very clear. Scalia is a case study in legislating from the bench according to his own very narrow religious views. He is the opposite of a constructionist Juror.
I think all the uproar stems from the fact that the United States has a multiplicity of religions. The whole 'under god' and 'in god we trust' tends to imply the Christian god. But to a pagan the United States could be one nation under many gods, or to an atheist or agnostic it could be one nation under the government or to a muslim one nation under Allah.
It also implies a need for religious uniformity, which is the cornerstone of religious tyranny....
The Constitution is confusing especially when it comes to religion.
Quote:
Scalia is a case study in legislating from the bench according to his own very narrow religious views. He is the opposite of a constructionist Juror.
I agree....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He is the opposite of a constructionist Juror.
