Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the stupidity....

[The Doctor.]

You find something like this on a 'conservative' site you might have otherwise respected if it were not for the 'morans' that frequent it;
(No commentary by me- bright DU'ers will get this...)

QUOTE(random_stuff @ Sep 15 2005, 07:10 PM)
I added the bold for illustration.
Even by you De Oppresso Liber?
Again, I added the bold... Many of you still insist in putting in the "a" when it does not exist. Also some of you seem to think that Congress is barred from establishing a State (or national) religion. This is your interpretation. This is something you are using to try to show that adding "under God" is acceptable according to the Constitution since it isn't one specific religion. That is not what the Constitution says.

"Congress shall pass no laws respecting an establishment of religion..."

There is no "a" in there. Congress is not prevented from establishing a State religion, or even "a" religion, but from establishing any religion altogether, specific or not. Where else but in religion do you find God?

Also, Congress is given certain and specific powers by the Constitution. Adding religious based phrases to the Pledge of Allegience during the height of the Cold War is not one of them. Therefore, Congress acted outside of it's Constitutionally authorized powers. In other words, Congress acted unconstitutionally.

According to my Random House dictionary: religion, n, 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as teh creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances and often having a moral code for the conduct of human affairs.

So your non-denominational, non-specific "God" is the "superhuman agency" as mentioned n the definition. If we are a nation "under God", that is the link establishing religion. Not "a" specific religion, as that is not the test, but religion in general.

And the response...

Rock N' Roll Right Winger Today, 05:38 PM They use "an" not "a" because the English language requires that if the next word begins with a vowel when you need to use "a", you use "an" instead of "a".
"Establishment" begins with the letter "E" which is a vowel.

"Congress shall pass no laws respecting an establishment of religion..."

Basic English 101. ;)

Try and spin that like you are still doing with all the plain English that most children can easily comprehend. :giggle:

- LOL! Apparently I must have missed something...

I'll bet a few bright DU'ers can ferret this 'degrammaration' out...

[Berry Cool]

1. OK, so I see what you mean

but your point is dampened a bit by the fact that you yourself don't appear to be able to tell the difference between

its = possessive
it's = it is

I don't mean to give aid and comfort to the enemy here, but it bugs me a bit to see DU'ers ripping freepers and the like up and down for being "stupid" based on their supposed lack of reading comprehension, spelling skills or bad grammar when their *own* posts have spelling and grammatical errors.

Besides, spelling and grammatical ability are not necessarily signs of high intelligence, nor are lack of those skills signs of low intelligence. They do, however, tend to suggest a person who is too lazy to look things up in a dictionary or read a grammar book.

[Kenneth ken]

2. went right over you head didn't it?

Dr E didn't write either of the posts.

use that as a starting point, and think about the two posts in relation to each other.

:hi:

[The Doctor.]

4. LOL... "Ding-Ding!"

If I had noticed it, I would have cited the possesive error so as not to confuse anyone.

-but Im so use to those...

;)

[Kenneth ken]

5. like you

I'm pretty willing to overlook spelling/grammar errors unless they are frequent and egregious as long as the content of the message is clear.

But your example is the main reason I don't bother trying to debate with cons. You can lead a con to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.

argument: Congress acted outside it's scope in allowing Under God to be added to the Pledge.

rebuttal: I like oranges; they're tasty and juicy.

Kind of makes debating a waste of time.

[The Doctor.]

3. Apparently not...

the simple grammatical error regarding the apostrophe is almost irrelevant to the issue.

A silly little error like that would hardly hold up to the bigger error...

The respondent, "Rock and roll right winger", completely misses the assignation of 'a' that the previous poster is considering and rather chooses that which is closest in format than understanding the proper determination of 'a' that "Random_Stuff" is addressing.

Rock n' roll' emphasized 'an';

"Congress shall pass no laws respecting an establishment of religion..."

While Random_Stuff was making an allusive interjection; "Congress shall pass no laws respecting an establishment of a religion...", in order to make the point.

MYpoint is that this is the reason debate is very difficult in this country...

We play by different rules of 'academia' and have little respect for those that are 'differently educated'.

While I am widely accustomed to making allowances for simple grammatical and spelling errors (I make enough for myself thankyou), the point is that with different levels of 'understanding'- we find ourselves in a 'literal' bind.

After completely missing the point made by 'Random_Stuff', 'Rock n' Roll Right Winger' posts and argument with no relevance to the point in question because the abstract is quite possibly beyond him.

This is not a simple smear of 'the other side', it is an illustration of why genuine dialogue in this country is a true chimera.

(Sorry- gotta vent about the divisiveness now and again)

{oe}- LOL! spelling...