mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (03/01/85)
Don Blank and his kind are one of the major reasons why I read net.religion. Because I find it so hard to believe that there are people out there who think like that. I'm going to respond (in separate notes) to several of his points. First, can you spot the inconsistancies in these three citations? In article <806@decwrl.UUCP> black@nisysg.DEC writes: > ... All I want to see happen is a return to the > priciples of God's laws and covenants as laid out in Scripture and > codified in the Constitution of the United States. ... > The Constitution clearly states that Congress shall pass no > law recognizing the establishment of a religion, nor prohibiting the > free exercise thereof. ... > In future submissions, I will try to offer reasonable evidence > the United States and Canada were founded for Christian purposes, > with the intent that God's law would be the law of the land. I won't quibble about the Bill of Rights being an amendment to the constitution (in #2). It was clearly intended by the framers of the constitution. (I recall that at the time of the ratification of the constitution, it was agreed that a bill of rights would be added later.) Thus, it squarely contradicts #1 and #3. Now, the error could be in the constitution being contradictory or in Don's ideas. Guess which I'd pick? -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh