View Single Post
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 06-25-2007, 05:38 PM
FredFlashInTexas FredFlashInTexas is offline
Temporarily Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 337
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Follower of Jesus
The motto is so theologically ambivelent as to be worthless.
Perhaps that's because it is a vile corruption of a sacred religious principle.

Quote:
That's why I would not fight to keep it on the coin if a serious effort were made to remove it.
Why not join pro-actively in the fight to remove it?

Quote:
I generally believe the government doesn't need to be giving religious advice.
Why not allow the civil magistrate to give religious advice to the people, if no force and violence is involved? Where does it say that God has the absolute and exclusive right to use reason and persuasion in matters of religion? The civil magistrate can be just as competent in matters of religion, as God is. Right?

If the civil government is competent to give us advice regarding trust in God and submitting to God's authority, why is it not competent in all other matters of religion?

Quote:
My support is more for collective religious expression rather than conscious direction given to the minority. That, in my view, infringes on the minority's rights to freely practice their religion.
I pray thee, give us a more precise idea of what an acceptable collective religious expression is, and isn't. Are there any rules or principles that would enable us to distinguish acceptable collective religious expression from unacceptable religious advice?

Last edited by FredFlashInTexas : 06-25-2007 at 05:44 PM.
Reply With Quote