View Single Post
Old 04-04-2007, 10:49 AM   #110
Happy Monkey
I think this line's mostly filler.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce View Post
Bah, you're weaseling like a lawyer.

I am a independent cab driver, ok?
I say, "No black person, because they are black, will be barred from my cab.

I have made no statement about anyone else but blacks, and you can weasel away, but I have not implied a damn thing about anyone.

If I were writing a constitution I would do the same. Besides why should they try to be sneaky? They were making the rules, they could do anything they wanted. Their concern, as was the framers of the federal constitution, that people would be discriminated for their religion, not lack of it.
It's not sneaky. It's deliberate. They were saying that any religion is fine as long as recognizes God and heaven. It's probably based on the idea that morals come from fear of punishment.

Your analogy fails because you used the same word in both places. Someone who "acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments" is not identical to someone with "religious sentiments".
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]

Last edited by Happy Monkey; 04-04-2007 at 10:55 AM.
Happy Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote