Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Air Force Academy creates worship area for Pagans, Druids, and Wiccans
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 91 of 244 (556745)
04-20-2010 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
04-20-2010 11:31 AM


Re: The Constitution is OLD
You are suggesting that I take a court judgment as the authority over the view of one of the founding fathers? Clever.
The views of a founding father will do quite nicely.
quote:
"The bill for establishing religious freedom," says the author, "I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that it's protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination." (Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:67)
Thomas Jefferson viewed the First Ammendment as protecting every religion, and the lack thereof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 04-20-2010 11:31 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2010 2:26 AM Taq has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 92 of 244 (556746)
04-20-2010 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Buzsaw
04-20-2010 8:40 AM


Re: Endorsement Not Establishment
That the founders essentially endorsed the Biblical religion
Where in the documents of the founding of the USA is this endorsement?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Buzsaw, posted 04-20-2010 8:40 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by ZephyrWiccan, posted 04-20-2010 11:18 PM Theodoric has replied
 Message 101 by dwise1, posted 04-20-2010 11:41 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 93 of 244 (556748)
04-20-2010 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
04-20-2010 11:31 AM


Re: The Constitution is OLD
You are suggesting that I take a court judgment as the authority over the view of one of the founding fathers? Clever.
Ummmm, yeah!!!
That is how the constitution and government work.
You do realize that Mr. Jefferson was not in any way a christian as you understand a christian to be, don't you?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 04-20-2010 11:31 AM Faith has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 94 of 244 (556749)
04-20-2010 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Faith
04-20-2010 11:57 AM


Re: The Constitution is OLD
Prayer.
That's about it.
Ever read any studies about the effectiveness of prayer? About as worthless as pissing in the wind.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 04-20-2010 11:57 AM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 95 of 244 (556750)
04-20-2010 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Buzsaw
04-20-2010 8:51 PM


Re: The Constitution is OLD
The president said something to the effect that he wanted judges who have an empathy for the people. The problem is which people.
The little guy. You know, me and you. As in the opposite of big corporations, lobbyists, and billionaires.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Buzsaw, posted 04-20-2010 8:51 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 96 of 244 (556752)
04-20-2010 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Faith
04-20-2010 9:52 PM


Re: The Constitution is OLD
Buz's point was that the Supreme Court is to serve the law, justice and truth, not people, and anyone who reduces their obligation to being sensitive to people has already trashed justice.
Then why don't we appoint robots or computers? The very basis of law, justice, and truth is empathy, being able to put yourself in another person's shoes.
No, judges are to be about justice, not people. You know, that lady with the blindfold on holding the scales? That's to symbolize the impartiality of justice, that it's not to be a respecter of persons. The exact opposite of what Obama wants.
Egads. You do want computers to run this country. How sad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 04-20-2010 9:52 PM Faith has not replied

  
ZephyrWiccan
Junior Member (Idle past 5087 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 04-18-2010


Message 97 of 244 (556753)
04-20-2010 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Theodoric
04-20-2010 11:07 PM


Re: Endorsement Not Establishment
quote:
Where in the documents of the founding of the USA is this endorsement?
Hmmm...... could it be, ....... The Treaty of Tripoli?
The one that says:

Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed, and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.
As a preface, and later says:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
Couldn't be that one, could it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Theodoric, posted 04-20-2010 11:07 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Theodoric, posted 04-20-2010 11:27 PM ZephyrWiccan has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 98 of 244 (556754)
04-20-2010 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by ZephyrWiccan
04-20-2010 11:18 PM


Re: Endorsement Not Establishment
Treaty of Tripoli was an unendorsement of christianity.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by ZephyrWiccan, posted 04-20-2010 11:18 PM ZephyrWiccan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by ZephyrWiccan, posted 04-20-2010 11:32 PM Theodoric has replied

  
ZephyrWiccan
Junior Member (Idle past 5087 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 04-18-2010


Message 99 of 244 (556756)
04-20-2010 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Theodoric
04-20-2010 11:27 PM


Re: Endorsement Not Establishment
Exactly - not sure if the sarcasm came across in my post or not, but it was meant to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Theodoric, posted 04-20-2010 11:27 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Theodoric, posted 04-20-2010 11:37 PM ZephyrWiccan has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 100 of 244 (556757)
04-20-2010 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by ZephyrWiccan
04-20-2010 11:32 PM


Re: Endorsement Not Establishment
I have had 6 beers tonight and really wished I could have had a 420 toke so I seem to be missing things like sarcasm.
I really need to get to know Oni better.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by ZephyrWiccan, posted 04-20-2010 11:32 PM ZephyrWiccan has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 101 of 244 (556759)
04-20-2010 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Theodoric
04-20-2010 11:07 PM


Re: Endorsement Not Establishment
Also not in James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance, written a few years before he drafted the First Amendment.
A couple exerpts (do please read it in its entirety):
quote:
1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.
That last should really sting Buz, who has repeatedly expressed the desire for the majority to trample the rights of the minority.
quote:
2. Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.
The earliest expression of the Wall of Separation that I know of. Written by the drafter of the First Amendment a few years before that draft. Remember the Radical Religious Right's mantra of the 1980's? Original intent.
There are 13 more articles, much of which outline the corrupting influence of religion upon civil government and vice versa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Theodoric, posted 04-20-2010 11:07 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-21-2010 10:12 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 102 of 244 (556764)
04-21-2010 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Rahvin
04-20-2010 9:55 PM


Re: prohibiting the free exercise of religion in the service of the first amendment
Faith, there is a rather large difference between prohibiting the formation of a school club (which would receive money/space/whatever from public dollars and thus constitute an official endorsement of that religion over others) and prohibiting the possession of Bibles or prayer by individual students.
I'm not perfectly clear about what you're saying, so if I misunderstand, please forgive me, but I think you are incorrect about part of this.
If a school generally lets student groups use school facilities, the school may not prohibit religiously oriented groups from using the facility on the same basis as the other groups. There is a specific Federal statute on this issue, and my opinion is that the Constitution requires this equality of treatment. This does not amount to an establishment of religion, instead it is an accommodation of religion.
There is an inherent tension between the Establishment and Free Exercises Clauses. Reasonable minds can come to different conclusions on particular resolutions of different situations. But it is clear under current jurisprudence that schools must allow student religious groups access to school facilities to the same extent that other student groups have it.
As far as just about everything Faith says in this thread, she is so irretrievably wrong that it would take someone with the wisdom of Oliver Wendell Holmes and the patience of Job to explain it to her. Since I lack both, I see no point in banging my head on that brick wall.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Rahvin, posted 04-20-2010 9:55 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 103 of 244 (556774)
04-21-2010 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Taq
04-20-2010 11:06 PM


Re: The Constitution is OLD
That wasn't actually about the First Amendment, but about a bill in Virginia to protect religious freedom. However it does nicely show Jefferson's thinking and there is every reason to expect that he thought in the same way about the First Amendment's religious freedom clause. Which, we note, likewise made no specific reference to any religion. And any suggestion that the lack of any such mention was a mere oversight because Christianity was considered the only religion of significance obviously cannot stand in the light of this quote. Jefferson recognised the existence of other religions and thought that they should share in religious freedom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Taq, posted 04-20-2010 11:06 PM Taq has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 104 of 244 (556806)
04-21-2010 5:52 AM


The bottom line is that it is unfair to all Americans to promote one religion in the schools, government, etc at the expense of those who practice other religions.
Freedom of religion does not grant you the right to trample the freedoms of other religions (or non-believers) whether it be at school, government, the military or any other means of employment inside the United States of America.
That is true justice (the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, fairness, or equity). And yes justice would cease to exist without their being people to which it applies to.
If you want a theocracy move to Iran, Saudi Arabia or the Vatican. Or go off and create your own.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Faith, posted 04-21-2010 12:45 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied
 Message 174 by Buzsaw, posted 04-22-2010 8:16 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4510 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 105 of 244 (556842)
04-21-2010 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by dwise1
04-20-2010 11:41 PM


Re: Endorsement Not Establishment
dwise1 (quoting James Madison) writes:
The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.
But you do realize that the only Religion is Christianity? If it's not Christianity, then it's not Religion at all but a trap of Satan. Thus the First Ammendment is only about protecting Christianity.
Makes sense to me.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by dwise1, posted 04-20-2010 11:41 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-21-2010 11:59 AM ZenMonkey has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024