|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 02/16/2004 : 01:35:36 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:quote:
I will refer to a site where you can read an abridged outline of the various proposed 1st amendments during the decision process. http://www.nff.org/True%20intent.htm After reading this, it is easy to understand what the intent of the framers was as compared to what the SC ruled.
Given that within an article allegedly about what the Framers meant, the authors write:The nation's culture demanding free sex and portraying and selling pre-marital and extra-marital sex, incest, homosexuality and bestiality as normal and even better than marital sex. The White House Christmas party a few years ago featured condoms and sex toys as decorations while Manger scenes are subject of wide prohibition. which has nothing to do with the premise, says to me that the authors are less than careful in how they frame their arguments, and as such, is not to be trusted as being an "authoritative" vision of the intent of the Founders. It should be summarily dismissed, instead, as being a directionless piece of tripe.
You also wrote:quote:
It was not to prevent religion from being promoted, as the second clause clearly states, "or prohibit the free exercise thereof".
And no law in this land, nor SCOTUS decree, prevents religion from being promoted. Instead, the SCOTUS has determined that if the state takes a part, either actively or passively, in promoting one form of religion over another, the state is prohibiting the free exercise of other religions.quote:
The modern SC would totally secularize our nation if it has its way.
That is simply wild assertion, a statement of your own opinion about these matters, based on no legal precedent nor historical basis.quote:
One can also study school history and find that the Bible was commonly used in reading exercies and for devotions within schools. Prayers were common place, yet no SC of the day ever thought of limiting this freedom.
Again, you have yet to provide a single argument that things that are old are necessarily things that are good. That nobody in the past thought to bring suit against the state for unconstitutionally promoting religion doesn't mean that those old practices were fair, it only means that it's possible that people back then who felt as I do were cowed into passivity, or were too poor to afford a lawyer competent enough to do anything about the situation.quote:
You may have whatever opinion you want about religion, but to deny its place and importance within our constitution is to emasculate the basic inalienable rights of citizens and even your own freedom. The very toleration that you experience toward your personal non-religious belief was built into the constitution by the framers so that you would not be publicly abased by the government, but respected as a human being. (The concept is Christian tolerance and love.) Past governments, such as England was, in the 1700's were extremely intolerant of views such as yours. You might of been flogged or imprisoned. In Islamic states, you would be an outcast as an atheist were you to expose your beliefs publicly. The very liberty you enjoy will be erroded if rulings like that in '63 are not overturned some day.
What is really funny about this is that your own religious beliefs would mean death, imprisonment, or torture under the same circumstances. But they do not in the United States of America. You are free to practice your personal religion, and I am free to practice no religion whatsoever, and also free to not have any particular kind of religion shoved down my throat by authorities of the State, either implicitly or explicitly.
In a second post, you wrote:quote:
So first, it's the state can't dictate a prayer and now it's students can't dictate their own prayer in public. I thought you were worried about the state writing the prayer. Now you're worried about students writing a prayer....why not just say, no public prayer anywhere and be done with it, huh, Dave?
Because that is clearly prohibited by the First Amendment. You apparenly cannot be relied upon to read what I write correctly, so I can see this is going to take a lot of time.
I don't care who writes a prayer, or recites a prayer. What matters is how that prayer is delivered, and whether it would be a burden upon people who believe in a different religion (or no religion). Private venues, such as churches, Catholic schools, or even NASCAR races can have all the prayers they want, in whatever manner they wish, since there is no implication that they are branches of State or Federal government. Functions at public schools, on the other hand, carry a mantle of authority from the State. It is implied that what goes on at a public-school function such as a football game is condoned and supported by the government. Prayer using school equipment, in such a case, should be denied unless it is respectful of all religions, including "none."quote:
So, I guess we should eliminate prayer in the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Absolutely, on that matter. I don't see the point.quote:
Then we should ban all chaplins in the military, because they pray publicly.
No, because soldiers aren't forced to attend. If they are, it becomes a violation of their rights. I believe there has been a recent case regarding this very matter, and the chaplin in question was discplined for his bullying attempts at baptizing those who did not wish to be.quote:
Then we should really get rid of any type of public prayer, as a non-believer may be listening and be offended. Wow, you really don't get it do you?
No, you really don't get it, as you're assuming much more than I've said. Who may be "offended" is only a question when it comes to state-endorsed functions. If the guy I have lunch with says grace over his food, I might be offended, but I would have no basis for legal remedy of the situation. If, on the other hand, an IRS auditor tries to get me to join in prayer with him over my tax return, I'll get hi |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2004 : 08:36:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
America, our beloved country, is in a real fix. Activist judges are ruling over our affairs like little dictators, seemingly untouchable and protected from contradiction by anyone except another judge higher up in the food chain. In the past few decades we've seen judges rule against written law, striking down the very laws they are sworn to uphold; laws made by the true lawmakers of our land, the Legislators. What can be done to bring this rebellious segment of judges into check to restore "government of the people, by the people, and for the people"? Or do you think that this newly emerged ruling class should continue to rule as they do? Judicial activism or judicial restraint? What are your thoughts?
My thought is that the Supreme Court is upholding its Constitutional Charter by interpreting what the terms within the Constitution means. The Constitution itself is pretty vague. I have seen no ruling that was really over-the-top wrong from a Constitutional standpoint. One small exception would be the recent Illinois v. Lidster ruling. The roadblock utilized by the Lombard Police was Constitutionally improper as it is viewed alongside Indianapolis v. Edmond's ruling. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2004 : 08:52:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Dave said:
So, if you can find a case in which a Supreme Court Justice, for example, struck down a part of the Constitution of the United States, you might have a point. Or a state Justice striking down part of their State Constitution. Or, a Justice making a new law. Until you find any such thing, it is a Justice's job to eliminate laws which conflict with the Constitution they have sworn to uphold.
Dave, the examples are numerous, but I will list a few: The school prayer issue of 1963 which struck down the state law of New York which included a simple prayer at the beginning of the school day. The constitution's 1st amendment emphasized that "Congress" should not make a law lifting one organization or sect of religion over another, or prohibit the free exercise of any religion. The state of New York was NOT Congress. Neither were they lifting a particular sect up, only prayer to God. The boy in question was not forced to pray or even attend, yet they ruled that such exercises of religion were unconstitutional and by this ruling "prohibited free exercise".
The simple prayer constitutited a governmental agency respecting the establishment of religion. (Also in the First Amendment) It did not prevent any individual from praying on school grounds during unstructured time. ABINGTON SCHOOL DIST. v. SCHEMPP (374 US 203).
quote:
Another example would be Roe vs. Wade in '73. Forty-six state governments had laws on the books forbidding abortion, except for saving the life of the mother. In this one decision, these "supreme judges" ruled for death over life and as a result, struck down the majority rule of the United States and made possible the slaughter of 50,000,000+ babies and counting.
Enumerated the right of a woman to have control over her own life as a fundamental liberty. It also placed limitations after the first trimester on abortions in subsequent rulings. Completely Constitutional.
quote:
In the school bussing decision a judge made law by forcing children to be bussed accross town, contrary to the will of the majority of the people, both black and white.
I have tried researching this, but cannot find it. Please cite the case by either the party names or case number.
quote:
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court struck down the Texas state law forbidding sodomy (anal sex). In so doing they struck down that same law across the land in many states; a legitimate law that had been on the books for many, many years made by elected law makers.
There are many more such examples, too numerous to state. THe fact that you are unaware of these decisions or how they indeed are examples of what I have purported, as are many other cases, only illuminates an ignorance gap that can be filled by a bit of study. So study on, friend. Web search "judicial activism" or "judicial restraint".
Lawrence v. Texas mentions that legislatures have no compelling interest concerning sexual acts by two consenting adults. The state has no compelling interest in stopping such conduct as long as no one gets hurt. It affirms the 14th Amendment protection of equal treatment under the law.
So far, you have enumerated three cases where the Supreme Court upheld the Constitution. It just disagrees with the way you would have liked them to go. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 02/16/2004 09:01:53 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2004 : 09:00:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Doomar
You also wrote:quote:
It was not to prevent religion from being promoted, as the second clause clearly states, "or prohibit the free exercise thereof".
And no law in this land, nor SCOTUS decree, prevents religion from being promoted. Instead, the SCOTUS has determined that if the state takes a part, either actively or passively, in promoting one form of religion over another, the state is prohibiting the free exercise of other religions
Actually, it falls under the first part of the First Amendment oft ignored by the Religious Right which forbids the government from respecting the establishment of religion. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2004 : 09:42:58 [Permalink]
|
Doomar,
quote:
I will refer to a site where you can read an abridged outline of the various proposed 1st amendments during the decision process.
I will give another link in rebuttal and highlight several aspects that shows that your link is quite erroneous
http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm
Ulysses S. Grant (18th U.S. President) on the matter of public education said in his 7th annual state of the union address,
“No sectarian tenets shall ever be taught in any school supported in whole or in part by the State, nation, or by the proceeds of any tax levied upon any community. Make education compulsory so far as to deprive all persons who can not read and write from becoming voters after the year 1890, disfranchising none, however, on grounds of illiteracy who may be voters at the time this amendment takes effect.”
From the article:
“It should be clear, from these quotations, that the concept of separating church and state is hardly of recent invention in the United States, since we see it as far back as at least 1644. It cannot seriously be argued that it sprang as a result of weird ideas in the 1950's and 60's. In point of fact, the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court at that time on school prayer are entirely consistent with the general thrust of U.S. history.”
Also from the article:
“I believe that those who talk about "restoring" prayer to the public school have a misunderstanding of the Supreme Court ruling and have failed to carefully think through their position. The Supreme Court decided in 1962 that for the school administrators to write prayers and read them over the intercoms to the students was wrong. It is hard for me to figure out how anyone in their right mind would think it's a good idea for the state to compose prayers and force them on people.”
Also from the article:
“Some Christians are currently arguing that the concept of separating church and state was not in the minds of the founding fathers, and that it is a recent and pernicious doctrine that is the result of Supreme Court decisions in the 1950's and 60s.
This simply isn't true.”
Now Doomar this was written by a man claiming to be a Baptist, so I don't think he has any hidden atheistic agenda. The point is quite clear that the founding fathers intended for no state sponsored religion, and when the SC struck down state sponsored school prayer they were only carrying out the historical and original intent of the founding fathers.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2004 : 10:12:42 [Permalink]
|
DaveW. wrote:
quote:
No, because soldiers aren't forced to attend. If they are, it becomes a violation of their rights. I believe there has been a recent case regarding this very matter, and the chaplin in question was discplined for his bullying attempts at baptizing those who did not wish to be.
Dave, I have to disagree with this one point. Having been in the military and had to stand in formation while asked to bow my head while some chaplain or another began some ceremony or another with prayer. There is a problem with unit cohesion when a member falls out to not listen to a prayer. I was also ordered to attend certain functions at the chapel in regards to my position with the FACTeam during deployment to Desert Shield/Storm.
With the exception of those who are stationed overseas where attendance at church is questionable, chaplains should not necessarily be part of the military. Is it unreasonable to expect military members to leave base to attend religious ceremonies when they are stationed in the US? No. If their particular brand of religion has no location within a certain distance of the base then a chaplain of that type is a necessity.
But opening military functions where everyone is required to stand in formation with prayer is unacceptable for the military that takes an oath to '...uphold and defend the Constitution, from all enemies, both foriegn and domestic...' It's a bit ironic that military members don't have the same protections under the Constitution that the civilian community have.
http://maaf.info/polchap.html
For more info on chaplains in the military. There are currently no 'secular chaplains' in military service. A service member seeking counselling from a chaplain suffers no repercussions while a secular service member who seeks counselling from a professional may find their fitreps suffering from a perceived notion of being mentally unstable.
There are things here that need to change.
|
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2004 : 11:15:09 [Permalink]
|
| To both Valiant Dancer and Trish: my mistakes. The first was just silly, and the one about military chaplains was just running off memory. My only excuse is that it was about 3:30 in the morning when I posted. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2004 : 12:05:13 [Permalink]
|
Hey Dave,
No problem, it's one of those issues that most don't seem to realize exist. Guess that's what you get with the insular society that comprises the military. It's just recently that servicemembers are speaking out against these kinds of injustices. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2004 : 14:32:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by jmcginn
Doomar,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> I will refer to a site where you can read an abridged outline of the various proposed 1st amendments during the decision process.
I will give another link in rebuttal and highlight several aspects that shows that your link is quite erroneous
http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm
Ulysses S. Grant (18th U.S. President) on the matter of public education said in his 7th annual state of the union address,
“No sectarian tenets shall ever be taught in any school supported in whole or in part by the State, nation, or by the proceeds of any tax levied upon any community. Make education compulsory so far as to deprive all persons who can not read and write from becoming voters after the year 1890, disfranchising none, however, on grounds of illiteracy who may be voters at the time this amendment takes effect.”
From the article:
“It should be clear, from these quotations, that the concept of separating church and state is hardly of recent invention in the United States, since we see it as far back as at least 1644. It cannot seriously be argued that it sprang as a result of weird ideas in the 1950's and 60's. In point of fact, the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court at that time on school prayer are entirely consistent with the general thrust of U.S. history.”
Also from the article:
“I believe that those who talk about "restoring" prayer to the public school have a misunderstanding of the Supreme Court ruling and have failed to carefully think through their position. The Supreme Court decided in 1962 that for the school administrators to write prayers and read them over the intercoms to the students was wrong. It is hard for me to figure out how anyone in their right mind would think it's a good idea for the state to compose prayers and force them on people.”
Also from the article:
“Some Christians are currently arguing that the concept of separating church and state was not in the minds of the founding fathers, and that it is a recent and pernicious doctrine that is the result of Supreme Court decisions in the 1950's and 60s.
This simply isn't true.”
Now Doomar this was written by a man claiming to be a Baptist, so I don't think he has any hidden atheistic agenda. The point is quite clear that the founding fathers intended for no state sponsored religion, and when the SC struck down state sponsored school prayer they were only carrying out the historical and original intent of the founding fathers.
Board of Education of Cincinnati v. Minor, 23 Ohio St. 211, 253 (1872), in which the Ohio Supreme Court held that:
"The great bulk of human affairs and human interests is left by any free government to individual enterprise and individual action. Religion is eminently one of these interests, lying outside the true and legitimate province of government." "
"The place of religion in our society is an exalted one, achieved through a long tradition of reliance on the home, the church and the inviolable citadel of the individual heart and mind. We have come to recognize through bitter experience that it is not within the power of government to invade that citadel, whether its purpose or effect be to aid or oppose, to advance or retard. In the relationship between man and religion, the State is firmly committed to a position of neutrality. Though the application of that rule requires interpretation of a delicate |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 02/17/2004 07:00:44 |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2004 : 00:44:11 [Permalink]
|
Dave, Dave, Dave.
You write off an entire article because the writer included something you don't like. Does that mean that the quotes of Madison, and various Senators and Congressmen are all false? When I read it, I only looked for what the founders wrote. Their words give all the clues. Did not even see what you quoted in the article, as I was looking for the words of the founders.
My assertions are just as valid as yours, Dave, only I've studied this particular case w/ Murry and noticed how no coercion was involved on the student in question. He did not have to attend. It was "negative" impression that the experience might possibly give him that the court worried about. Wow, so potential negative impressions are reason to disallow everyone else's religious freedom? Where is the attitude of tolerance for other religions in that?
As to your absurb notion about Hindu's, you really need not worry, 'cause true freedom gives those with differing opinions the opportunity to not participate or to speak up about their religion without banning the others religion. In the case of the human sacrificers, it's a no brainer, as any so called religious people that break other laws, can have their butts thrown in jail.
I'm too tired to go on now. Later.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2004 : 00:49:19 [Permalink]
|
Valient said:
Actually, it falls under the first part of the First Amendment oft ignored by the Religious Right which forbids the government from respecting the establishment of religion.
I'll remind you that the amendment reads, "respecting an establishment of religion" , not the ; establishment being an organization of religion, not the "act of establishing". Look it up for yourself. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2004 : 00:56:44 [Permalink]
|
Jmcginn wrote:
I will give another link in rebuttal and highlight several aspects that shows that your link is quite erroneous
http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm
In perusing this article I noticed a grievious flaw, namely that they quoted the 1st amendment wrong: >Religious Freedom. - The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (q.v.) requires that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." < THe correct wording is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof.." The wording is crucial to really understand what it means, as it is obvious that the writer did not, nor were direct quotes of the amendment procedure, which would totally refute his claim, even mentioned. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2004 : 01:06:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Trish
Hey Dave,
No problem, it's one of those issues that most don't seem to realize exist. Guess that's what you get with the insular society that comprises the military. It's just recently that servicemembers are speaking out against these kinds of injustices.
Trish, the point is that chaplins are allowed in the service because it was never seen as a conflict with the Constitution, nor should it be. There are chaplins for most religions, not all are Christian. However, most soldiers are from Christian backgrounds.
The free exercise of religion is key..whether you or I like it or not, is not really important, but it is your type of attitude, which is contrary to the founding father's attitude of tolerance, that desires to prohibit the free exercise of religion, as you have clearly shown by your post. Maybe you should rethink your position. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2004 : 01:17:27 [Permalink]
|
JMCGINN wrote (I think):Now Doomar this was written by a man claiming to be a Baptist, so I don't think he has any hidden atheistic agenda. The point is quite clear that the founding fathers intended for no state sponsored religion, and when the SC struck down state sponsored school prayer they were only carrying out the historical and original intent of the founding fathers.
Perhaps you are not aware that many religious types believe in separation of church and state, however, the founding fathers who wrote the constitution did not believe in the separation quoted by this Baptist preacher. They believed religion was of great benefit to society and should, thus, be supported by the state, only not promoting one sect over another. That is why you see laws on the books about Thanksgiving to God, National days of prayer, and advertisement to attend your local church or whatever of your choice. The Feds, up till the 1940's-'60s wholeheartedly supported religion and even still do today. Note that what someone quoted U. Grant as saying stressed that "sectarian" tenets not be taught...prayer is not sectarian, nor is Thanksgiving, or simple Bible reading, and Grant did not oppose these facets in school, as they were a regular part of early AMerican schooling. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2004 : 07:21:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Valient said:
Actually, it falls under the first part of the First Amendment oft ignored by the Religious Right which forbids the government from respecting the establishment of religion.
I'll remind you that the amendment reads, "respecting an establishment of religion" , not the ; establishment being an organization of religion, not the "act of establishing". Look it up for yourself.
I have. The meaning has been interpreted as far back as 1872 as the government will not aid or hinder the practice of religion. The state and it's agencies may not promote nor hinder the exercise of religion through their actions. Likewise, the founding fathers, while religious, recognized the dangers of mixing religion and government. They all believed that the practice of religion was up to every man's conscience and out of the per view of government.
So tell me, how does institutionally led school prayer not respect an establishment of religion? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
