Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > How could I even follow a constitutional law that doesn't even explain
> > what it means?
> >
> lol Well, the point of the above is that this is precisely how "Biblical 
> law" seems to work. So, given the reason some of them object to liberal 
> interpretations of the constitution, I can only assume its how they 
> think "it" should work too. ;)

If you think about it, that constitutional law not defining what it means
by "Almighty God" could hypothetically create an even worse situation than
just accepting anybody regardless of their world view, including atheists.

Let's assume for a moment that not only is Christianity true, but that
particular view is also true that only those who have the Christian faith
should be leaders, as electing a non-believer into power would make God
angry and could potentially cause misfortune to the country. Now, in this
context, which one of these is potentially more "dangerous"?

a) Accepting into office someone who does not have belief in gods (iow. an
   atheist), or

b) accepting into office someone who does believe in an "Almighty God",
   which happens to be the "wrong" god?

After all, someone on category b) could well proclaim something like
"yes, I believe in the existence of Almighty God, the creator of the
universe and everything", but that "god" would be, for example, Brahma,
the creator god of Hinduism.

So which would make the Christian god angrier, someone who has no belief
in gods, or someone who worships an idol, the god of the wrong religion?

Since "Almight God" is not defined, it could be anything.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message