Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon  Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivanhoe Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon
They never told him he could not acknowledge God. They certainly didn't in the video you showed. Do you have a link or transcript that shows otherwise?
| They most certainly did in the video. They asked him will he continue to acknowledge God (the implication being if he did he would be dismissed). He said yes, because...
They said, and here I quote verbatim in the video, "We don't care why, but rather, will you?" | Again, you took a segment of video out of context, and thus don't understand the point of the questioning. Pryor was actually showing that Moore COULD acknowledge God in many ways. You are assuming from the short clip that by answering yes to those questions they ruled against him based on his acknowledgement of God. But this is simply false. The point is that Moore didn't need the monument to acknowledge God, because he could do it in MANY other ways, which is exactly what Pryor was demonstrating in that line of questioning. As I said earlier, that video is deceptive and misleading. |
Moore admitted the very fact that he didn't need the monument. The monument pointed to something deeper: whether he could acknowledge God or not as the source of Law. Perhaps the video is out of context, but the statements there seem rather clear.
Quote:
|
This is completely wrong - they never did any such thing. Again, please find a transcript or a different clip to prove me wrong...
|
With all due respect, I don't feel I need to.