Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri
First, that's illogical.
|
It's perfectly logical if you start with the Calvinistic assumption that the government should have authority over religion.
Quote:
|
Refusing to make a statement about religion neither supports nor attacks religion or atheism or anything else.
|
Yes it does, according to Christian extremists, such as the The Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, North America, circa 1834.
Read the 1864 letter written by Reverend Wilkerson proposing that the people's trust in God be placed on the nation's coins. He accuses the founders of being Godless heathens.
Quote:
|
Because the coins don't mention apples, can we assume that the state hates apples or supports apple atheism?
|
That makes sense you you and me, but not to those who believe what Calvin did about religion and civil authority.
Quote:
|
Second, that's a weird argument to make. Putting the words on in the first place isn't promoting religion, but removing it is?
|
If you want some more odd arguments, you should read the following:
ARGUMENT FOR THE JURY LAW.
[Published as an Overture, 1834.]
by
The Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, North America.
...We proceed now to establish the charge of immorality against the Constitution of the United States.
1. It does not acknowledge or make any reference, to the existence or providence of the Supreme Being. The nation, as such, has no God. This is an essential evil in the constitution, which involves the hideous charge of national atheism! "The general government is erected for the general good of the United States, and especially for the management of their foreign concerns: but no association of men for moral purposes can be justified in an entire neglect of the Sovereign of the World. No consideration will justify the framers of the federal constitution, and the administration of the government, in withholding a recognition of the Lord and his anointed from the grand charter of the nation."
http://www.covenanter.org/RPCNA/jurylaw.htm