|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 02/18/2004 : 07:53:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
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.
"The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect." (U. S. Supreme Court, Watson v. Jones, 1872, as quoted by John M. Swomley, Religious Liberty and the Secular State: The Constitutional Context, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1987, p. 7.)
"Christianity is not established by law, and the genius of our institutions requires that the Church and the State should be kept separate....The state confesses its incompetency to judge spiritual matters between men or between man and his maker ... spiritual matters are exclusively in the hands of teachers of religion." (U. S. Supreme Court, Melvin v. Easley, 1860, as quoted by Samuel Rabinove, "Church and State Must Remain Separate," in Julie S. Bach, ed., Civil Liberties: Opposing Viewpoints, St. Paul: Greenhaven Press, 1988, p. 53.)
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. " Article 11, Treaty of Tripoli, 1797
|
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 - 02/18/2004 : 09:21:11 [Permalink]
|
Doomar,
The misquote of the 1st ammendment does not change the meaning as you claim. Lastly quite a few writings from various founding fathers do not agree with your assessment nor do they agree with your claim that the American democratic government was Biblically based.
James Madison quotes:
quote:
The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
quote:
Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).
quote:
Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
quote:
Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).
quote:
Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?(Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).
Here is a good overview of the argument:
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/quote4.htm
and several good webpages:
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/tnpidx.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2004 : 09:21:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
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.
Doomar,
The point is that servicemembers of all religious backgrounds and no religion at all are FORCED to stand in formation and bow their heads for a prayer. That is not tolerance of religion, that's FORCING religion on a group of servicemembers who have no other choice except to stand where they are and listen. This is the government forcing religion on its citizens.
This isn't tolerance for other religious views, this is enforced religious inculcation. How you are capable of saying that this is religious tolerance is beyond me.
I don't disagree that chaplains are necessary to the military, in some instances and limited context. I do disagree with the fact that, I, who wouldn't go to a chaplain for counselling would suffer adversely as a Marine were I to seek out secular counselling within the framework of the military. A religious servicemember was not singled out as being mentally unstable to seek religious counselling, but an atheist seeking out secular counselling is labled as mentally unstable. This is inappropriate.
The role of the chaplain in the military needs to change, to one of being where they are necessary for the religious needs of servicemembers - that's all - that's it. Ceremonies should not be opened with prayer, with possibly the exception of a retirement where the retiree deems prayer in line with their wishes - it is their retirement after all, not mine.
You seem to deliberately misunderstand anything that is not in line with anything you think/believe. |
...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
|
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2004 : 13:34:06 [Permalink]
|
Doomar, rather than complaining about the US government's commitment to keeping religion out of government-sponsored activity....
Why don't you instead feel grateful for the religious freedoms you DO have?
You can put a tacky plastic Jesus statue on your lawn. You can build huge gothic expensive churches like the Catholics do. You can establish a religion and do religious activities--all without paying taxes to the government that protects your rights. You can put Bibles in motel rooms. You can hand me a Jesus brochure while I'm standing at the bus stop. You can knock on my door and tell me earnestly about Jehovagod. You can wear a cross necklace, tatoo a cross on your arse, and pray in the middle of Central Park.
Quit yer whining and be grateful you live in a country that tolerates your religion and the many, many expressions of it. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2004 : 13:44:00 [Permalink]
|
| And for those of us who took the oath in the military will defend your right to do so, Doomar. While I'm defending your rights, I don't appreciate have my rights ground under the ideology that this is a christian nation, when it's a free nation. Freedom for you means that I also have the same freedoms. |
...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
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2004 : 13:51:12 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:quote:
Dave, Dave, Dave.
You write off an entire article because the writer included something you don't like.
Not at all. I wrote off an entire article because it strayed so far from its self-stated thesis that I doubt the author is competent to write an accurate article about that subject.quote:
Does that mean that the quotes of Madison, and various Senators and Congressmen are all false?
Frankly, I don't know. Religious fundamentalists have a long history of taking quotes from their less-fanatical fellow men and twisting them beyond reason, even claiming that the quotes "prove" that Person X had a point of view opposite of what that person would themselves state. Given the fanaticism apparent in that article, I cannot assume the quotes to be either accurate or complete, and I don't have time to look them all up.quote:
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.
Great, so you didn't even read the whole thing. I assume you believe its portrayal of the Founders to be accurate?quote:
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?
Apparently, you haven't studied enough.
First off, the decision in question specifically says that the 14th Amendment makes the First Amendment apply to states as well as Congress, so your complaint early in this thread that New York wasn't Congress had actually been decided long ago.
Secondly, forcing those who wish to opt out of public prayer to do so via "permission slips" or other public methods make them look and be treated like second-class citizens. That fails to respect their religion, or lack thereof. If a law singles anyone, even Unitarians, out in such a manner, it is in violation of the Establishment clause.
From the decision:quote:
Second, this Court has rejected unequivocally the contention that the Establishment Clause forbids only governmental preference of one religion over another. Almost 20 years ago in Everson, supra, at 15, the Court said that "[n]either a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another." And Mr. Justice Jackson, dissenting, agreed:"There is no answer to the proposition . . . that the effect of the religious freedom Amendment to our Constitution was to take every form of propagation of religion out of the realm of things which could directly or indirectly be made public business and thereby be supported in whole or in part at taxpayers' expense. . . . This freedom was first in the Bill of Rights because it was first in the forefathers' minds; it was set forth in absolute terms, and its strength is its rigidity." Id., at 26. [374 U.S. 203, 217] Further, Mr. Justice Rutledge, joined by Justices Frankfurter, Jackson and Burton, declared:"The [First] Amendment's purpose was not to strike merely at the official establishment of a single sect, creed or religion, outlawing only a formal relation such as had prevailed in England and some of the colonies. Necessarily it was to uproot all such relationships. But the object was broader than separating church and state in this narrow sense. It was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion." Id., at 31-32. The same conclusion has been firmly maintained ever since that time, see Illinois ex rel. McCollum, supra, at pp. 210-211; McGowan v. Maryland, supra, at 442-443; Torcaso v. Watkins, supra, at 492-493, 495, and we reaffirm it now.
While none of the parties to either of these cases has questioned these basic conclusions of the Court, both of which have been long established, recognized and consistently reaffirmed, others continue to question their history, logic and efficacy. Such contentions, in the light of the consistent interpretation in cases of this Court, seem entirely untenable and of value only as academic exercises.
Later on in the decision:quote:
As we have indicated, the Establishment Clause has been directly considered by this Court eight times in the past score of years [between 1943 and 1963] and, with only one Justice dissenting on the point, it has consistently held that the clause withdrew all legislative power respecting religious belief or the expression thereof.
In this 20-year period, the following Justices sat on the Court:- Harlan Fiske Stone, CJ, 1941-1946
- Fred M. Vinson, CJ, 1946-1953
- Earl Warren, CJ, 1953-1969
- Owen J. Roberts, 1930-1945
- Hugo Black, 1937-1971
- Stanley R. Reed, 1938-1957
- Felix Frankfurter, 1939-1962
- William O. Douglas, 1939-1975
- Frank W. Murphy, 1940-1949
- Robert H. Jackson, 1941-1954
- Wiley B. Rutledge, 1943-1949
- Harold H. Burton, 1945-1958
- Tom C. Clark, 1949-1967
- Sherman Minton, 1949-1956
- William J. Brennan, Jr., 1956-1990
- John Marshall Harlan II, 1955-1971
- Charles E. Whittaker, 1957-1962
- Potter Stewart, 1958-1981
- Byron R. White, 1962-1969
- Arthur J. Goldberg, 1962-1965
So, if you'd like to make the argument that all eight cases referenced were argued before the same kind of "activist court," there is your ammunition. It appears to me that Justices Black and Douglas were the only ones who sat on the court for that entire 20-year span, however.
As to your contention about the "negative" impressions the court was "worried about":quote:
The conclusion follows that in both cases the laws require religious exercises and such exercises are being conducted in direct violation of the rights of the appellees and petitioners. 9 Nor are these required exercises mitigated by the fact that indi |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2004 : 08:03:42 [Permalink]
|
What happens if quotes are not presented in its full context?
Fundies are know for this tactic.
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
"disallow everyone else's religious freedom"
"religious people that break other laws, can have their butts thrown in jail."
(Edit: spelling) |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/20/2004 08:13:01 |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2004 : 19:59:01 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by Dave W.
First off, the decision in question specifically says that the 14th Amendment makes the First Amendment apply to states as well as Congress, so your complaint early in this thread that New York wasn't Congress had actually been decided long ago.
The actual 14th amendment states:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
No priviledges of the defendant were abridged, but the priviledges of the majority of the students were indeed abridged, Dave. In fact, they were deprived of the religious liberty recognized by the founding fathers as an inalienable right.
Secondly, forcing those who wish to opt out of public prayer to do so via "permission slips" or other public methods make them look and be treated like second-class citizens. That fails to respect their religion, or lack thereof. If a law singles anyone, even Unitarians, out in such a manner, it is in violation of the Establishment clause.
And to force the majority who were freely exercising their priviledge to no longer be allowed to do so, that is no problem?
From the decision:[quote]Second, this Court has rejected unequivocally the contention that the Establishment Clause forbids only governmental preference of one religion over another. Almost 20 years ago in Everson, supra, at 15, the Court said that "[n]either a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another." And Mr. Justice Jackson, dissenting, agreed:"There is no answer to the proposition . . . that the effect of the religious freedom Amendment to our Constitution was to take every form of propagation of religion out of the realm of things which could directly or indirectly be made public business and thereby be supported in whole or in part at taxpayers' expense. . . . This freedom was first in the Bill of Rights because it was first in the forefathers' minds; it was set forth in absolute terms, and its strength is its rigidity." Id., at 26. [374 U.S. 203, 217] Further, Mr. Justice Rutledge, joined by Justices Frankfurter, Jackson and Burton, declared:[bq]"The [First] Amendment's purpose was not to strike merely at the official establishment of a single sect, creed or religion, outlawing only a formal relation such as had prevailed in England and some of the colonies. Necessarily it was to uproot all such relationships. But the object was broader than separating church and state in this narrow sense. It was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion."
This is so blatantly against what is good and right and the true meaning of the amendment that is simply shows the disregard of the writer for truth and honesty.
Harlan Fiske Stone, CJ, 1941-1946
Fred M. Vinson, CJ, 1946-1953
Earl Warren, CJ, 1953-1969
Owen J. Roberts, 1930-1945
Hugo Black, 1937-1971
Stanley R. Reed, 1938-1957
Felix Frankfurter, 1939-1962
William O. Douglas, 1939-1975
Frank W. Murphy, 1940-1949
Robert H. Jackson, 1941-1954
Wiley B. Rutledge, 1943-1949
Harold H. Burton, 1945-1958
Tom C. Clark, 1949-1967
Sherman Minton, 1949-1956
William J. Brennan, Jr., 1956-1990
John Marshall Harlan II, 1955-1971
Charles E. Whittaker, 1957-1962
Potter Stewart, 1958-1981
Byron R. White, 1962-1969
Arthur J. Goldberg, 1962-1965[/*][/list=1]So, if you'd like to make the argument that all eight cases referenced were argued before the same kind of "activist court," there is your ammunition. It appears to me that Justices Black and Douglas were the only ones who sat on the court for that entire 20-year span, however.
You have nicely exposed all the rebellious judges who misinterpreted the 1st amendment, contrary to the far greater body of judges before them who did not. The twisted reasoning and blatant disregard for the true meaning of the 1st clause of the 1st Amendment is a glaring rebuke to every one of these misguided judges. Also, the second clause which clarifies the meaning of the 1st was blatantly ignored and thereby, the "free exercise of religion" was prohibited in public schools. To say that the 1st clause is in opposition to the second clause is to deny the basic logic of the founders. The first clause denied Congress (or states) from showing greater respect toward one denomination over another, thus preventing not only a national church, but any special priviledges being given to a particular sect over another. The second clause reinforced the meaning of the first so that none would think that it gave license on the opposite spectrum to deny any religion there rights of free exercise. Not using both sides of the clause when making any decision was a clear sign of the misinterpretation of the original purpose of the amendment. To deny the original meaning and twist it to embrace the misinterpreted doctrine of "separation of church and state" was a deliberate twisting of the law to gain a further step toward secularization of society, a concept that was anathema to the founders. Remember, it was the same founders who instituted prayer in Congress. With there clarity of understanding they realized the advantage of promoting "prayer and thanksgiving" and the practicing of religion as vital to the stability of the nation and its morals.
[purple]As to your contention about the "negative" impressions the court was "worried about":[quote]The conclusion follows that in both cases the laws require religious exercises and such exercises are being conducted in direct violation of the rights of the appellees and petitioners. 9 Nor are these required exercises mitigated by the fact that individual students may absent [374 U.S. 203, 225] themselves upon parental request, for that fact furnishes no defense to a claim of unconstitutionality under the Establishment Clause. See Engel v. Vitale, supra, at 430. Further, it is no defense to urge that the religious practices here may be relatively minor encroachments on the First Amendment. The breach of neutrality that is today a trickling stream may all too soon become a raging torrent and, in the words of Madison, "it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties." Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, quoted in Everson, supra, at 65.
Wow, talk about taking stuff out of context here with Madison.
True religion doesn't need restrictions, only bogus religion. Way too many issues you've brought up, Dave..try to limit them next time using separate posts....
But beyond just our little discussion here there is way too much contention, lawsuits, etc. in our modern society because of the different interpretations of this amendment.
I think we've shown by o |
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 |
| Edited by - Doomar on 02/20/2004 20:07:51 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2004 : 22:31:44 [Permalink]
|
Doomar, the number of issues I bring up in any single post is irrelevant. If you need more time to answer them, the polite thing to do would be to say so, rather than complaining and rudely telling me to change my ways.
The most important issue is your previous agreement that "freedom of religion" is indeed limited, and not truly free. In light of that agreement, any statements you make about the inability of people to use a public-school's PA system for prayer being an abridgment of that freedom are necessarily hypocritical. If we lived in a land with true freedom of religion, you would have to admit that people who still follow the rules laid out in Leviticus (and elsewhere in the Old Testament) would be allowed to, for example, make burnt offerings in the school cafeteria, or to stone students to death in the gym (without benefit of due process of law) for wearing clothes made of two different fibers.
Beyond that, the idea that you know what the First Amendment means, and that almost every Supreme Court Justice since 1943 has twisted it, is simply beyond belief. And the implication that the Founders were united in instituting Congressional Chaplains is ludicrous, in light of the James Madison quotes provided by jmcginn.
And the really mind-boggling thing is your idea that the Justices in Murray failed to use "both sides of the clause when making [their] decision..." Had you truly studied the ruling, as you said you did, you would know that they considered both clauses both separately and together.
The only support you've offered for your position is one tremendously-biased article, topped off with your own indignation. I think you've shown that willful ignorance (such as your own) is a serious problem in this country, and should not be tolerated when discussing things of national importance. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2004 : 20:05:56 [Permalink]
|
The only support you've offered for your position is one tremendously-biased article, topped off with your own indignation. I think you've shown that willful ignorance (such as your own) is a serious problem in this country, and should not be tolerated when discussing things of national importance.
Dave,
Wow, can one get more condescending if one's tries? Probably, but you're close to reaching the pinacle. I guess all us ignoramuses should shut up and bow to the Dave's of the world, while the government continues on a downward slide toward tyranny. Some of your arguments are just repeating only what somebody else said and evidence of being brainwashed by the politically correct ideas. They don't seem to come from someone who thinks these ideas through for themselves. You might as well carry a rubber stamp labeled, "Dave's Politically Correct Answer". I think you may be fooling me as someone who actually thinks through these ideas. (this was my toned down and edited answer for general audiences) |
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 |
| Edited by - Doomar on 02/21/2004 20:07:40 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2004 : 22:18:01 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:quote:
Dave,
Wow, can one get more condescending if one's tries? Probably, but you're close to reaching the pinacle.
I wasn't condescending in the least. Had I been, I would have used small words to explain what I meant. Instead, I honestly observed that I find your determined ignorance of the subject something which needs to be rectified on a country-wide scale. You've demonstrated this ignorance in various ways in this thread, including (but not limited to) ignorance of how the three branches of government interact, and why they are supposed to interact that way. Worst of all, you claimed to have studied the Murray decision, but you displayed complete ignorance about what that decision was, what it meant, and how it was reached (as determined by reading the decision itself, which I linked to).
Condescending? No, I am terrified by the idea that people like you might form even a simple majority of voters in the U.S.quote:
I guess all us ignoramuses should shut up and bow to the Dave's of the world, while the government continues on a downward slide toward tyranny.
Not at all. However, it is your brand of parroting of religious fanatics which is leading us towards religious tyranny, and away from religious freedom. And all you've done here is repeat the same stuff, over and over. Mostly it's "that's not what the Founders meant!" but you've failed to demonstrate that you know what they were thinking any better than a fatally-biased article which agrees with your misplaced ideals.quote:
Some of your arguments are just repeating only what somebody else said and evidence of being brainwashed by the politically correct ideas.
Look in a mirror: you are doing exactly what you accuse me of, here. And I am hardly "politically correct," a term which implies an appeal to the masses to figure out what's right. The majority of Americans think "under God" should be a part of the Pledge of Allegiance. The majority think it's okay to display the Ten Commandments on government property. I, however, disagree with both of these things, because of the First Amendment. And so, I promote politically incorrect ideas. The fact that I don't discuss these things in my mother-in-law's home because it would upset her is "politically correct," and it rubs me raw.quote:
They don't seem to come from someone who thinks these ideas through for themselves.
What, precisely, do you think I haven't thought through? I, certainly, have seen no indication from you that your ideas are well thought-out or in any way original.quote:
You might as well carry a rubber stamp labeled, "Dave's Politically Correct Answer".
As I said above: baloney. The added irony is that it is politicians who are attempting to erode our freedom of religion, but you see their actions as correct.quote:
I think you may be fooling me as someone who actually thinks through these ideas.
I really have no idea what you mean by this sentence.quote:
(this was my toned down and edited answer for general audiences)
How pleasant.
Of course, you have completely failed to address the real issue here, and instead thrown up a smoke-screen of irrelevant ad hominems and further indignation.
So, if you wish to have a productive discussion here, answer this: should people who wish to sacrifice animals to God, in the manner(s) described in the Old Testament, in a public-school cafeteria during lunch, be allowed to do so? Yes or no, and why? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2004 : 08:12:24 [Permalink]
|
Doomar, do you see ANY harm in the government endorsing a religion?
I'm a geneology nerd. My 10th Great Grandma was hanged in Boston in the 1500s for her Quaker beliefs. Is that why she and her husband came to America from England, Doomar? So that they could experience the same government-endorsed religious intolerance? Or do you think, maybe, they came here for religious FREEDOM?
How much tolerance did settlers show for the Native American religions, Doomar? Would you like to know how much tolerance my great-grandmother, a Native American, experienced, at a government-run "re-education" school? She was five years old when she was told she was going to "hell". How loving and tolerant those Christians were.
I can only assume you fail to understand the concepts of religious tolerance and religious equality. You seem to want a government that endorses one religion (Christianity--surprise--YOUR religion) over others without the slightest bit of concern for the ways it impinges on others' religions.
You can argue the minutae of the Consitution and the law all you want. I'm giving you examples (personal, real-life examples) of what happens when the government is allowed to endorse a religion. Is what happened to my family OK with you? After all, majority rules, right? |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2004 : 09:47:48 [Permalink]
|
Doomar,
quote:
The actual 14th amendment states:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
No privileges of the defendant were abridged, but the privileges of the majority of the students were indeed abridged, Dave. In fact, they were deprived of the religious liberty recognized by the founding fathers as an inalienable right.
This is such bullshit, that its quite amazing that you typed this with a straight face.
#1. The religious liberty of the majority in no way was abridged. They were and still are allowed to practice their religion in any way they see fit except by using a government body to force their religion upon the minority. They were and still are allowed to pray all they wish, go to their churches, read their Bibles, and worship in anyway they see fit. The only thing they lost in this case was the right to use a body of the government to force their religion down the throats of the minority. A right they shouldn't have had to begin with.
#2. Now however the person bringing the case did have one of their immunities abridged. That of having a religion coerced upon them from a state government body. Thus their immunity to religious coercion was violated by the state as was their rights to equal protection under the law. Notice that the majority didn't have to worry about having a different religion forced upon them by the state.
quote:
And to force the majority who were freely exercising their privilege to no longer be allowed to do so, that is no problem?
Again more bullshit. Where in this decision do you see it saying the majority cannot practice their religion? What it said, is that the majority cannot use the state as a tool to force their religion upon the minority.
quote:
This is so blatantly against what is good and right and the true meaning of the amendment that is simply shows the disregard of the writer for truth and honesty.
LOL. Doomar I have to question your motives on this. Why any sane person would want the government deciding based on the majority what religion to be practiced I do not know. The only reason I can think of, is because you feel you are in the majority and you can then use the power of the state to force your religion upon others and also deal with people such as I and many others on this board with the power of the state. What are your motives?
quote:
The first clause denied Congress (or states) from showing greater respect toward one denomination over another, thus preventing not only a national church, but any special priviledges being given to a particular sect over another. The second clause reinforced the meaning of the first so that none would think that it gave license on the opposite spectrum to deny any religion there rights of free exercise.
Not just denomination or sect, but any religion or lack thereof. The early writings were quite clear on this as they indicated the government should have no bearing on the "consciences of men." By allowing one religion to use a state government body as a body to deliver its message and not others violates this very statement and gives special priviledges to a particular religion.
Secondly the decision in no way violated the rights of the majority to practice their religion. They were and still are free to practice all they want. And again they just can't use the state government to get special priviledges.
quote:
Not using both sides of the clause when making any decision was a clear sign of the misinterpretation of the original purpose of the amendment.
And to continue to ignore the fact that the majority in no way lost their rights to practice their religion is illogical as hell. To ignore the fact that all the majority lost was the right to get special priviledges from the state government and to claim otherwise flies in the face of the facts at hand.
#1. The majority was getting special privileges from state government bodies by having their religion taught in schools.
#2. The minority was not getting equal protection under the law of the state and was not getting the same priviledges as the majority.
#3. The court rules the state should not be giving the majority this special priviledges and thus ordered it stopped.
#4. The court did not rule that the majority was no longer allowed to practice their religion, but that they couldn't use the state as a vehicle to promote their religion.
quote:
Remember, it was the same founders who instituted prayer in Congress
More hogwash.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/chaptest.htm
The concept of clergy in congress and prayer at congress was hotly debated and many argued that it violated a separation of church and state even then. Madison was strongly against this as it violated the 1st amendment.
Madison definitely came out against the system. He asked whether the fact that the Chaplains were paid by "the nation" did not involve the principle of establishment forbidden by the Bill of Rights, and also whether, since some groups like Catholics and Quakers could scarcely be elected to the office, the provision of chaplains by a majority vote were not a palpable violation of civil rights and unfair to minorities."
In fact Madison gives the same reason I gave above for not allowing the majority to use a state government body to push its religion.
Also many of these were traditions that existed before the BoR.
(emphasis mine)
quote:
Thus we have the basic history of Chaplains in Congress, and the Military as well for that matter. Does the fact that they exist "prove" that the founders never meant a complete separation of church and state? No, it does not.
Does the making of proclamations for days of fasting, prayer, and thanksgiving "prove" that separation was never meant? No, it does not.
Both began and were well established as "traditions" of the government before there was a Constitution or Bill of Rights. That they were continued after both documents did come into being, and did become the law of the land is an incongruency that should not exist yet does.
Just as we were a country with a Bill of Rights dedicated to individual rights, while women and |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2004 : 16:49:18 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by jmcginn
Quotes taken out of context are generally shown to be interpreted differently within context. |
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 - 03/07/2004 : 16:54:54 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by Trish
Trish,
Bowing one's head in respect to others praying in no way is forcing religion upon a person. Would you have them all milling around while others pray, or staring at those who are praying. Showing respect and being quiet while another prays is not a religious act, but mere tolerance with kindness. Now if all were expected to go to a widow's house and help them out, now that would be forcing religion upon them. Even making them repeat a prayer might be considered forcing religion upon them, but this is not the practice, is it? |
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 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
