Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer
Great post EW! Very well said. The whole thing reminds me of the "loyalty oaths" from Catch-22.
God bless you ;-) (from a Bu-curious, atheist)
Glad you weren't offended by my overly-sweeping surmise about atheists. Actually, I find that a fair number of them abide in a deeply-mystical frame of mind, just one in which they refuse to subscribe to the "chairman of the board in the sky" model so rabidly promoted by theistic traditions (which, btw, seem historically to be the sources of most of the world's violence.)
I'm aghast that these two DV participants, both well-educated in the law, so blithely float along in this styrofoam analysis where they find exactly zero problem not only in endorsing the establishment of state-sponsored religion, but specifically in endorsing the establishment of one particular type of state-sponsored religion as dominant over and suppressive of other long-established religious traditions.
So, no, I don't think their law degrees are worth anything, either.