To: curiosity; PatrickHenry
It's hard to argue any of the above things don't have the primary effect of advancing religion. Actually the argument is that they indeed do not advance religion since it's only Ceremonial Deism which is not unconstitutional.
92 posted on
11/17/2005 3:44:13 AM PST by
BMCDA
(Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent. -- L. Wittgenstein)
To: BMCDA
Actually the argument is that they indeed do not advance religion since it's only Ceremonial Deism which is not unconstitutional. Which is a bunch of BS, IMHO. It's a way of violating the First Amendment, but pretending it doesn't because the politicians (be they Legislators or Judges) don't want to upset the religious nutballs who'll howl and scream...
To: BMCDA
Actually the argument is that they indeed do not advance religion since it's only Ceremonial Deism which is not unconstitutional Really? Please name a single congressional chaplain who was a deist.
Also, why would a deist trust in God? What point would there be in trusting in a deity who is uninterested in the affiars of men?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson