In paragraph 1 you tell everyone to poo-poo the religious connection to the words "under God". Then in paragraph 3 you say this whole flap over the button with "under God" on it is a blatant violation of religious liberty!
Obviously, if "under God" is just about history or just about ceremony, as Christian defenders of those words say in court, then "under God" has as much importance as an TV commercial.
But look how much everyone cares about this guy's button! Obviously many more people think there is a religious connection to "under God" than you let on. Eisenhower was inspired to push for those words after hearing a sermon about our "theological war" with the soviets. Eisenhower upon signing the bill made explicit references to God the Almighty.
If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's OBVIOUSLY not in violation of the constitution because, after all, it's just about ceremony and history.
Nubis Pertusus
Nov 04, 2009
1:15 p.m.
Did you actually THINK when you wrote this?
In paragraph 1 you tell everyone to poo-poo the religious connection to the words "under God". Then in paragraph 3 you say this whole flap over the button with "under God" on it is a blatant violation of religious liberty!
Obviously, if "under God" is just about history or just about ceremony, as Christian defenders of those words say in court, then "under God" has as much importance as an TV commercial.
But look how much everyone cares about this guy's button! Obviously many more people think there is a religious connection to "under God" than you let on. Eisenhower was inspired to push for those words after hearing a sermon about our "theological war" with the soviets. Eisenhower upon signing the bill made explicit references to God the Almighty.
If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's OBVIOUSLY not in violation of the constitution because, after all, it's just about ceremony and history.
NubisPertusus.wordpress.com