Then you think incorrectly.
No, you think incorrectly. Do you really want to play this game?
I asked you a question.
I ask you questions all the time you don't answer.
It is unmistakable what they wanted to convey in that sentence alive or dead, old or new.
You are the expert in what they wanted to convey?
If it is not please show where it is not.
No, the responsibility is on you to show where the words "under God" are in fact an establishment of religion by the government.
You have failed to show that yet.
It is curious how the words of the dead are crystal clear to me whilst the words of the living Optional 777 offer naught but miscommunication misunderstanding and confusion.
It is not curious to me how you interpret words to suit your agenda, most people do so.
The word God is not unknown. It is a religious word. Religious endorsement by government is unconstitutional. The Constitution states that as so. If it does not ,show how.
As shown previously, the word God can have multiple meanings. One thing quite clear, you certainly see the word God as religious.
You have yet to show that the word God is an endorsement by government of religion.
The unknown you refer to is a religious word. It is unconstitutional for government to endorse religion
Endorsement of religion by using a religious word or words is unconstitutional.
You are now just repeating yourself.
Your opinion of endorsement, is but opinion.
It sounds to me that the word God threatens you more than it does me.
Such a defence of its use although it is unconstitutional , suggests the removal of it makes you feel threatened.
The removal of it doesn't threaten me. I am not bothered by the word, I have not taken action to remove it. Those who want it removed are the ones feeling threatened.
You are asking a question of your own question. Work it out for yourself.
It is a simple question, please answer it.
What rights of yours have been violated by the use of the word God in the pledge and money, rights granted to you by the United States Constitution?
Unconstitutional law is a violation of everyone's rights.
U.S. constitutional rights apply only to US citizens.
Your argument is God is not a religious word. That is not correct. Therefore it is more of a contentious statement, until you can show how the word God is not a religious word (LOL you will continue to struggle with that one). An argument in support of God not being a religious endorsement, requires more than you just saying God is not a religious word.
God is a word used by religions. Cross is a word used by Christians. So is blood. So what?
Just because a word is used by a group, doesn't make that word necessarily representative of a particular group.
God and religion are synonymous. Check it out for yourself. If you think they are not, show me how they are not. So far, all you have done, is simply repeat that incorrect statement of your own.
So, God and religion are synonymous? Then when they said "Clapton is God" they were practicing a religion?
The word God and religion are clearly not synonymous.
Water and drinking are not synonymous either.
Now, if you say "worshiping God" I can agree with you that "worshiping God" is synonymous with religion, but the word God itself alone is not synonymous.
What are you talking about ?
What don't you understand?
Right here...."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." You will need a constitutional amendment to insert the word God in order for it not to be unconstitutional. That's why the insertion is unconstitutional.
You have failed to prove that inserting the word God is the establishment of a religion.
Tell me, where is this church of the religion that the United States of America has established? Where do the followers meet to worship the God established by the State, and what are the rules and regulations for practice of that God. What are the punishments for not worship this God of the religion they established.
If you want to make the argument that there has been an establishment of religion, prove it.
Show us how what the State has done parallels other establishment of religions historically.
Now you are looking rattled. Just like the old Optional 777, ART, FoFum whatever and now zzzzzz. Why the big emphasis? You feel you are cornered so your reaction is to 'make it personal'? I guess just like the bigoted statement at the beginning of all this that tries to separate Americans from Americans, because one group of Americans thinks theirs are the only ideas that can be American.
It is a simple question Stu, now you are looking like you are avoiding the question.
My point is that if you are not an American citizen, then YOUR rights are not an issue.
So assuming you are not an American citizen living in America who is protected by our Constitution, you can freely speak of the rights of Americans, and your opinion on those rights, or your opinion on the legal issues in general, but unless your personal rights are threatened, the issue is not personal.
I think I have given a short personal antecedence somewhere since being a member of this board. So go look it up. Unlike you, I have no other alias and do not change identity every two minutes, through embarrassment or from getting banned.
Fully inconsequential response, and ineffective I might add. You know if there is or is not embarrassment? You can read minds now? Or are you speaking of your own embarrassment at not being able to answer a simple direct question?
I did not read the other threads you refer to, so please, a simple yes or no would do nicely to answer my question.
So I do repeat, are you an American, living in America, protected by the US Constitution? Do you personally have rights granted to you by the US Constitution?
By the way you never answered my question which, unlike yours, is to do with the thread's topic. The government is involving itself in religious endorsement. That is unconstitutional. If it is not, show me where - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." - is unclear.
The words are clear. The proof that they have established a religion, as religions are understood, is lacking.
