Felicity-vs-Jerry: In God We Trust.

Many a blogger will spend their debate-life floating from forum to forum, issue to issue, and form their world views by battling it out in the arena of ideas. Rare is the debater who finds a true ally, someone who always has his back, gives support, a shoulder to cry on and a bud to hang out with in PM and Chat.

Today I find myself counted as one of the few who have been so blessed with the friendship and alliance of an intelligent and articulate ally: Felicity.
arty

Felicity and I have traversed some of the deepest dungeons of biased and inhuman forums, battled great dragons like Steen with a considerable measure of victory, kept a watchful eye out for rat-trolls and rooted them out when they were found.

I could go on for pages, but I’ll just say that one could not ask for a better debate buddy, a better online friend, than Felicity; which is why the need for this thread pains me.

For over a year now I have read Felicity’s arguments against Secular Humanists, radical ideologists and moral relativists. Her arguments are always clear and to the point, sprinkled with humor and, until now, factually acuret.

Felicity and I can usually iron out misunderstandings in PM. However in this case, which is the first of its kind, we both feel that our disagreement needs to be aired in a forum so that we can solicit helpful input from uninvolved parties, but also in a place where we can discuss the matter without being derailed.

Felicity and I are currently debating In God We Trust, and as usual we see most of the facts eye to eye: Examples of clear violations of the 1st Amendment include the presence of Annuit Coeptis on our currency, a priest’s legal authority to officiate a secular municipal marriage license, 501 c status to churches, the existence of the Chaplin Corps, and similar.

There is but very critical argument we can not reconcile.

Though this may seem hostile and I may receive mod action for saying it: Felicity, your arguments in PM that I kick more asss than you are patently false, and I have given you more than sufficient evidence supporting the truth of my claim that you are the superior warrior.

I am not but your humble squire.

Case in point:

OKgrannie said:

God represents an ESTABLISHED religion, not the INSTITUTION of some religion. Those having a "personal" trust in God, even if they don't support any institution of religion, are worshipping an "established" religion. As you pointed out, while the majority of the population does worship a God, not 100% does, so the statement is a lie as well.

Click to expand...

To which you shut her down with…..

Felicity said:

You know...the word that hangs me up on this is "respecting."

I think it is being used to say "concerning"--not offering "high regard for."

If you read it Congress should make no law "concerning" the establishment of religion--the point is moot. That means Congress should just stay out of it--make no laws for or against. But also the amendment says you can't abridge the free exercise of religion--so if people want to put up the 10 commandments and say "In God We Trust"--even if it's on our money....Congress needs to let that happen.

Click to expand...

You clearly point out that since IGWT establishes no national religion nor gives any church municipal authority, the people are free to express their beliefs in such a harmless motto.

Out of respect I will give you chance to respond before I continue.

Likewise, I have traversed the cyber-cosmos for years—battling wits with those ulcerated by the modern plague of relativist thinking. I have done this in an attempt to counteract the epidemic with the medicine of objective Truth. In this great quest, I have found no greater comrade–at-arms than you, dear Jerry.

Jerry, I have found no greater ally than you in the trenches of debate forums. You have been supportive and rational as well as a resource of knowledge. You mount a campaign of logic and reason that renders the relativist mired in the confusion of his own foundationless claims. But more than that...in the traffic of wit you maneuver with grace and aplomb—all while demonstrating a kick-as$ sense of humor. Truly I count myself blessed to be numbered among your ranks.

In my first post in the thread you cite, I offered this bit of scripture:

Felicity said:

51 Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.

Click to expand...

I believe wholeheartedly that it is appropriate in this instance as well.

It is with regret that I must now beg to differ with you on one point. Here, you are utterly mistaken and I feel it necessary--no, my DUTY--to correct the error. Jerry, we part ways profoundly here and I cannot support your conclusion in the least. We are divided on this issue most completely.

It is in fact YOU, Jerry, by far, who offered the most cogent and compelling argument—not I.

Sun Tzu himself would be proud to study at your feet. Let me demonstrate a few of your more spectacular arguments:

The hypocrisy exposed:

Jerry said:

In other threads I see arguments posed from Atheists and Agnostics supporting abortion or gay marriage under the reasoning that such things are doing no one any harm.

Why is that reasoning not present on this topic by folks who oppose “In God We Trust”?.

Click to expand...

The irony elucidated:

A dollar's a dollar and it'll help pay for that abortion rather it says "In God We Trust" or not.

If "In God We Trust" were an establishment of religion then every dollar spent on a gay lover would be a Federal offence.

Click to expand...

The irrelevancy revealed:

I can do ya one better.
There is a Greek goddess on the CA state seal.

Click to expand...

But above all, I am humbled by your daring demonstration of supreme equanimity and your ability to argue BOTH sides of the debate! You render the opposition speechless—so much so that they are unable to take up the arms you deftly present:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/494322-post54.html

Click to expand...

Not only do you defend the ranks of the God fearing, but you do it while arming the opposition. I am in sheer awe of your audacious bravery. However, if I were half the debater you are, I suppose I could do the same, only my attempt would pale in comparison with your exceeding panache.

And that is why, dear Jerry, at least in this debate, you must admit defeat and concede my points--tout de suite!:surrender

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post in a 'vs' thread, but just one quick observation - you guys really need to take it to a motel.

tryreading said:

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post in a 'vs' thread, but just one quick observation - you guys really need to take it to a motel.

Click to expand...

Not only are you not allowed, your not supposed to be physically able.

When I made this thread I specified the User ID's which were to be permitted, and yours was not one.

I'll contact the mod team to have what ever error I made corrected.

Please delete your post.
Thanks.

Not only are you not allowed, your not supposed to be physically able.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah? :funny

Jerry, Felicity, I did what I could to fix it.

Anyone reading this...if this thread is still showing you a "Post Reply" option, please PM myself or another member of the mod team and let us know, so that we may look into this further.

Stace said:

Jerry, Felicity, I did what I could to fix it.

Anyone reading this...if this thread is still showing you a "Post Reply" option, please PM myself or another member of the mod team and let us know, so that we may look into this further.

Click to expand...

I appreciate the fix.

I PMed Cain on the general thing Felicity and I are up to here, and I know that right now the thread just seems to be corny, but just wait and see.

Thanx a bunch.

I seem to be able to post. Let me look further into it.

Efficiency

Felicity said:

Likewise, I have traversed the cyber-cosmos for years—battling wits with those ulcerated by the modern plague of relativist thinking. I have done this in an attempt to counteract the epidemic with the medicine of objective Truth. In this great quest, I have found no greater comrade–at-arms than you, dear Jerry.

Jerry, I have found no greater ally than you in the trenches of debate forums. You have been supportive and rational as well as a resource of knowledge. You mount a campaign of logic and reason that renders the relativist mired in the confusion of his own foundationless claims. But more than that...in the traffic of wit you maneuver with grace and aplomb—all while demonstrating a kick-as$ sense of humor. Truly I count myself blessed to be numbered among your ranks.

Click to expand...

:2grouphug

Felicity said:

In my first post in the thread you cite, I offered this bit of scripture:

Felicity said:

Luke 12
51
Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.
52
From now on a household of five will be divided, three against two and two against three;
53
a father will be divided against his son and a son against his father, a mother against her daughter and a daughter against her mother, a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."

He separates the sheep from the goats.

Click to expand...

I believe wholeheartedly that it is appropriate in this instance as well.

Click to expand...

Here again you demonstrate your great knowledge of how God’s word applies in everyday life. I would have never thought to make such a comparison.

Felicity said:

Let me demonstrate a few of your more spectacular arguments:

The hypocrisy exposed:

Jerry said:

In other threads I see arguments posed from Atheists and Agnostics supporting abortion or gay marriage under the reasoning that such things are doing no one any harm.

Why is that reasoning not present on this topic by folks who oppose “In God We Trust”?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Only by ignoring the fact that our weak opposition was arguing that IGWT violates the 1st. Amendment could I have made such an error in judgment.

You know better than I that a law which violates the Constitution harms us all.

Felicity said:

The irony elucidated:

Jerry said:

A dollar's a dollar and it'll help pay for that abortion rather it says "In God We Trust" or not.

If "In God We Trust" were an establishment of religion then every dollar spent on a gay lover would be a Federal offence.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Here you can plainly see my sophistry. In one post I issue 2 Red-Herrings; my first was an attempt to change the subject from IGWT to abortion, and my second was attempt to change the topic from IGWT to gay' marriage.

Now I grant you that our intellectually inferior opponents did not pick up on the great void of logic in that post, but it was never the less an obvious error that someone as well educated as yourself would never have made.

Felicity said:

The irrelevancy revealed:

Jerry said:

I can do ya one better.
There is a Greek goddess on the CA state seal.

As a former citizen of CA and as a Christian who views the Greek gods as the Nephilim described in Genesis 6, I have no issue with it.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Here again I was not quite on point, as the issue at hand is of the Federal Government, not the State Government. There could be a good argument showing that a state has the right to display such things, while the Fed does not. However, if there is such an argument which could have shut me down, no doubt our opponent’s unfamiliarity with the law would have disabled them from making it.

I escaped only by my opponents being weaker, not by me being stronger.

Felicity said:

But above all, I am humbled by your daring demonstration of supreme equanimity and your ability to argue BOTH sides of the debate! You render the opposition speechless—so much so that they are unable to take up the arms you deftly present:

Not only do you defend the ranks of the God fearing, but you do it while arming the opposition. I am in sheer awe of your audacious bravery. However, if I were half the debater you are, I suppose I could do the same, only my attempt would pale in comparison with your exceeding panache.

Click to expand...

While I do deeply appreciate the kind hand of friendship you offer, your superior vocabulary only serves to reinforce my argument. Only by mastering the English language could I ever hope to become as articulate as you and create posts which are as clear and concise as yours.

You are a certified English teacher while I am a lowly carpenter’s apprentice. I stand no hope.

Case in point:

Felicity said:

And again--"God" isn't a religion. The only ones who may have a beef are atheists and you cannot deny that the founders INTENDED a government that was deist. So "IGWT" is completely legit--it isn't a religion, nor is it promoting a religion, it is simply stating a historical fact.

Click to expand...

It took me 3 posts to say what you said in one, that IGWT is a cultural vestige, nothing more.

Felicity said:

tryreading said:

That means religious symbols and monuments can be kept out of public buildings. There is no freedom to do whatever one wants in the name of their religion.

Click to expand...

I suppose I can see MANDATING a symbol of a specific religion like symbols for Judeo-Christian religions--but "allowing" symbols? Why is that a problem? And that still doesn't affect the non-specific "IGWT" statement which is not a symbol of any particular religion.

Click to expand...

Here yet again your pint is made in a short, clear post; that IGWT leaves the reader free to insert whatever God or Flying Monster they choose. Perhaps if our opposition were paying attention and had read post 54 they could have attempted some half-baked argument, but I’m certain that you would have simply shut them down again with another clever volley of logic.

Felicity said:

OKgrannie said:

Anti-separatists usually say "Judeo-Christian" in order to gain some support from the Jewish population. It is actually a faction of Christians pushing for theocracy.

Click to expand...

Where's your evidence of this? Congress is full of "Christians pushing for theocracy?" :rofl

Click to expand...

Now see, I quoted a site in post 54 which gave our opposition the exact evidence needed to respond to your post with, yet while I continue to engage our opposition in vain attempts to impress reason upon them, you simply issue an easily answerable one-liner which shuts them down.

I waste my time with long winded posts, you cut them off by knowing that they aren’t reading the evidence we provide, even when it helps their case.
Hands down you are a more efficient communicator than I.
You kick their asss better than I kick their asss.
End of story.

Re: Divinity

Jerry said:

:2grouphug



Here again you demonstrate your great knowledge of how God’s word applies in everyday life. I would have never thought to make such a comparison.

Click to expand...

Oh but Jerry...when speaking to Godless heathens, it is a liability to quote the Good Book. It is seen merely as hysterical hope in the Big Sky-Daddy and most certainly is more likely to elicit ridicule that concession. I began my participation on that thread in a most foolish way, and I am certain you would never have made that error.

Only by ignoring the fact that our weak opposition was arguing that IGWT violates the 1st. Amendment could I have made such an error in judgment.

Click to expand...

But while I foolishly perceived it as a language issue (cursed be my degree!) you wisely saw the inherent flaw in their argument and in MY questioning of the word “respecting” meaning “concerning”. You wrong yourself when you claim that your arguments are not concise and to the point. It was pure genius that you would point out, as you did so succinctly, that if, what the opponents claimed was accurate, then the 1st amendment ITSELF violates its own admonition.

Jerry said:

If Congress can make no law *concerning* an establishment of religion, then the very next line in that amendment is illegal.

Click to expand...

Look at the succinct rebuttle! In ONE sentence, you wipe out the opposition and gently correct my foolish error. You are indeed a man of great talent and generosity.

Jerry said:

Here you can plainly see my sophistry. In one post I issue 2 Red-Herrings; my first was an attempt to change the subject from IGWT to abortion, and my second was attempt to change the topic from IGWT to gay' marriage.

Click to expand...

I find this just another example of your extreme humility. Your modesty is charming, but wholly unnecessary. It is obvious that your superior mental acumen allows you to see how the tentacles of relativist ideology grope and strangle civilized society. If you are unwilling to blow the clarion of your superior intellect, I am only too willing to humbly serve as your advocate in that regard.

Your self-effacing temperament led you once again to suggest your lowly status in an effort to raise up the esteem of your fellow man—how truly selfless of you to acknowledge my feeble attempts at impressing others with vocabulary:

Jerry said:

You are a certified English teacher while I am a lowly carpenter’s apprentice. I stand no hope.

Click to expand...

However, you need not be so reticent in touting your superiority. As I am sure you well know, God himself deemed a lowly carpenter worthy of foster-fathering His only Son—and Jesus Christ was in fact an apprentice such as you are. But, I can also see that you are unpretentious, just as our Lord was, and that you again are merely demonstrating those divine qualities that separate the sheep from the goats. As a fellow debater, I merely walk in your shadow—but I fear no evil, because you are always beside me to inspire me to be a better person as well as a better debater.

I thank you most graciously for your tolerence and your guidance.

Re: Divinity

Felicity said:

Oh but Jerry...when speaking to Godless heathens, it is a liability to quote the Good Book. It is seen merely as hysterical hope in the Big Sky-Daddy and most certainly is more likely to elicit ridicule that concession. I began my participation on that thread in a most foolish way, and I am certain you would never have made that error.

But while I foolishly perceived it as a language issue (cursed be my degree!) you wisely saw the inherent flaw in their argument and in MY questioning of the word “respecting” meaning “concerning”. You wrong yourself when you claim that your arguments are not concise and to the point. It was pure genius that you would point out, as you did so succinctly, that if, what the opponents claimed was accurate, then the 1st amendment ITSELF violates its own admonition.

Look at the succinct rebuttle! In ONE sentence, you wipe out the opposition and gently correct my foolish error. You are indeed a man of great talent and generosity.

I find this just another example of your extreme humility. Your modesty is charming, but wholly unnecessary. It is obvious that your superior mental acumen allows you to see how the tentacles of relativist ideology grope and strangle civilized society. If you are unwilling to blow the clarion of your superior intellect, I am only too willing to humbly serve as your advocate in that regard.

Your self-effacing temperament led you once again to suggest your lowly status in an effort to raise up the esteem of your fellow man—how truly selfless of you to acknowledge my feeble attempts at impressing others with vocabulary:

However, you need not be so reticent in touting your superiority. As I am sure you well know, God himself deemed a lowly carpenter worthy of foster-fathering His only Son—and Jesus Christ was in fact an apprentice such as you are. But, I can also see that you are unpretentious, just as our Lord was, and that you again are merely demonstrating those divine qualities that separate the sheep from the goats. As a fellow debater, I merely walk in your shadow—but I fear no evil, because you are always beside me to inspire me to be a better person as well as a better debater.

I thank you most graciously for your tolerence and your guidance.

Click to expand...

Now see that's just the sort of creative artistic display I'm speaking of.

I can't top that.

You have obliterated my argument no different then you destroy the argument of those who seek the removal of IGWT.

Unlike them, however, I will not stagger on in delusion that I can somehow defeat you. Though I remain unconvinced that I kick more asss on that thread then you do, it is clear that you kick more *** here, and so I bow to your superior debate skills.

I honestly expected this to go on for a time, but it's apparent that I underestimated you.

Re: Divinity

Jerry said:

Now see that's just the sort of creative artistic display I'm speaking of.

I can't top that.

You have obliterated my argument no different then you destroy the argument of those who seek the removal of IGWT.

Unlike them, however, I will not stagger on in delusion that I can somehow defeat you. Though I remain unconvinced that I kick more asss on that thread then you do, it is clear that you kick more *** here, and so I bow to your superior debate skills.

Click to expand...

See, there you go again--that humility--truly inspiring! We all know who leads the fray and we follow gladly in your shadow! You'll never convince me otherwise, so, though it pains me deeply, we will just have to agree to disagree.:2wave:

Re: Divinity

Felicity said:

See, there you go again--that humility--truly inspiring! We all know who leads the fray and we follow gladly in your shadow! You'll never convince me otherwise, so, though it pains me deeply, we will just have to agree to disagree.:2wave:

Click to expand...

......:2mad:.......:2mad:.....

:rofl :blushing:

Re: Felicity-vs-Jerry: that was fun!

Okay folks....commence the barfing!:mrgreen: