- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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:
To which you shut her down with…..
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.
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:
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.
To which you shut her down with…..
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.
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.
Last edited: