|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ruling: No Separation of Church and State? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
RAZD writes: clearly this is stretching well beyond the truth to make a point that does not in fact stand to honest scrutiny. So you think that they're covering up the religious nature of the display, rather than just wrong about the historical significance of the Ten Commandments?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
After all, Ashcroft ANNOINTED HIMSELF IN OIL upon taking office as AG! That's more than just a little weird. Is that really true? I hadn't heard that at all. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
It's interesting that the judge seems to have adopted the Teddy Ruxpin defense of the Ten Commandments. As Dahlia Lithwick put it four years ago in yet another court battle concerning government displays of religious iconography:
Courts after Lynch and Allegheny put a heavy emphasis on the other symbols scattered around the allegedly religious display. That means that a Teddy Ruxpin adjacent to the baby Jesus may well save a nativity scene from violating the Establishment Clause and that, as was the case in Allegheny, a Christmas tree may somehow save a menorah. The problem, of course, is that O'Connor's continual attempts to devise good law out of bad cases, creating generalized tests that only make sense in the light of the single, specific case that was presented, has resulted in precisely that: Tests that make no sense in any other context. And the fundamentalists know that. They heard that if they stick a Teddy Ruxpin next to Jesus, they can claim that it's a "holiday" display and thus push their religious message while lying about its true purpose. Alas, I've never understood a person's need to have his government tell him how to show reverence to his god. But, such people seem to exist. They seemingly cannot celebrate their religion without having the government tell them that they're #1 and the bestest, most wonderfulest religion out there. And they're willing to put up with Frosty the Snowman in order to have their government tell them that. This message has been edited by Rrhain, 12-24-2005 09:23 PM Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
RAZD writes:
quote: Not only that, they are quote mining the DoI. Here's the entire phrasing:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Now, why would they completely ignore the second sentence there? You know, the one that talks about how "governments are instituted among men" and how those powers come not from god but from "the consent of the governed" and how it is the "right of the people" to control the government and not god's right. Combine this with the fact that the Constitution starts off with the three words, "We, the people," rather than "By god's grace," you wind up noticing that while the framers of the US government were certainly religious, they were not establishing a religious government but rather a distinctly secular one. This is not surprising given the societal climate: They were Neo-Classicists, a great number of them Deists, and the paradigm of the clockwork universe reigned. There's a reason that the DoI reads like a geometry proof. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nuggin writes:
quote: Incorrect. The true power of the US government, as was intended from the very beginning, lies among all three branches. Each are co-equal to the other. That's the entire point behind checks and balances: No one branch has "true power." Though, if one wants to trace it all the way back, the "true power" is in the people, themselves. All three branches are bound by the Constitution and only the people have the power to change it. [Question to Admins: Why is it I could not use the word "lies" in the above sentence? It came out as asterisks. I had to spell it out in ASCII code. There are certain words we aren't allowed to use? We cannot use the common English word that describes a position in (meta)physical space? We are not allowed to say, "He's lying down"?] Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
It's quite clear that the term separation of Church and State stems from the Anabaptists and indeed is qualitatively different than the pro-secularist positiuon you advance. Good there is your challenge then. You produce evidence that the term "separation of Church and State" as used by Anabaptists (or others), specifically when enacting laws and govt within the US, is qualitatively different than the position I advance. Indeed I would like to also see what you believe "pro-secularist" means to me. I have told you several times and have had to repeat myself because you keep returning to a totally different concept. As a beginning we can start with a common point of reference, Roger Williams. You posited him in specific as an example of emerging and founding systems of law within the colonies which used SoC&S. From Wiki...
In 1630 Roger and Mary Williams set sail for Boston on the Lyon. Arriving on February 5, 1631, he was almost immediately invited to supply the place of the pastor... But he had found that it was "an unseparated church" and he "durst not officiate to" it. He was prompted to give utterance to his conviction... that the magistrate may not punish any sort of "breach of the first table [of the Ten Commandments]," such as idolatry, Sabbath-breaking, false worship, and blasphemy and that every individual should be free to follow his own convictions in religious matters. The first idea--that the magistrate should not punish religious infractions--meant that the civil authority should not be the same as the ecclesiastical authority. The second idea--that people should have freedom of opinion on religious matters--he called "soul-liberty." It is one the foundations for the United States Constitution's guarantees of non-establishment of an official state religion and of freedom to choose and practice one's own religion. It is also a hallmark concern of most Baptists in America today. This is all relevant to the general question of separation but even more important to the specific question of this court case. The display of 10 Commandments is always accompanied with the claim that it has influenced our govt and laws. That most certainly occured in this court case as RAZD has shown. Clearly the usage of SoC&S was such that it EXCLUDED the 10 Commandments from influence in laws and govt. Thus such claims are **** or willfully ignorant distortions, by such proponents. I'll start with that and your challenge is clear. If you respond with more fundamentalist assertions and misrepresentations of my "secular" position, you'll reveal youself for what you are and what value your words have. This message has been edited by holmes, 12-24-2005 07:18 AM holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
"Clearly seen??" WHERE??? I don't see any reference to the 10 commandments in the DOI at all More important than this is that the claim made was "profoundly influenced the formation of Western legal thought and the formation of our country". There is no mention of any references in the display to the actual PROFOUND influences like Locke on legal thought, and the Declaration is neither a pronouncement of legal thought nor formative structures for our nation. I'm wondering if you noticed a potentially more troubling issue within the decision itself. The Judge appears to have created a new test within such cases, being the "reasonable person" test. That is courts need only worry about whether a reasonable person is complaining about religious iconography.
Our concern is that of the reasonable person. And the ACLU, an organization whose mission is "to ensure that... the government [is kept] out of the religious business," does not embody the reasonable person." Thus the claim gets based on the intention or temperament of the complainant? Holy shit. How can the ACLU ever get a case accepted, or feel that it is being accepted in that court, without partisan bias given that it is now deemed an "unreasonable person" on such issues. Intriguingly the court does not suggest it is appropriate to judge the reasonability of those promoting the display in contention. For example the ACLJ is a dramatic proponent of merging state and religion.
Because nothing in the display, its history, or its implementation supports the notion that Mercer County has selectively endorsed the sectarian elements of the first four Commandments, we fail to see why the reasonable person would interpret the presence of the Ten Commandments as part of the larger "Foundations" display as a government endorsement of religion. Thus the test is born. If you do not agree with the court it must be because you are unreasonable. Excuse me but the history does show an intention to promote religion. It only does not if you accept the court's argument that you must divorce the actions of one group from another, even if they appear to have derived their idea from that other group. Intriguingly if you buy into that argument then the 10 Commandments have no reason to belong on that wall anyway. And it does not matter that they did not promote the four commandments which were religious, they did not denounce them as being irrelevant and inconsistent either. They gave the full set and said that set helped form the basis of our nation. That has implications, even to a reasonable person. Furthermore the reasonable person will note that they have omitted fully secular influences to legal thought, and provided no reasonable explanation of how the remaining 6 commandments were somehow a unique contributor to Western thought. The last 6 can generally be found in most laws and govts stemming from the beginning of history.
If the reaonable observer perceived all government references to the Deity as endorsements, then many of our Mation's cherished traditions would be unconstitutional, including the Declaration of Independence and the national motto. Fortunately, the reasonable person is not a hyper-sensitive plaintiff... Instead he appreciates the role religion has played in our government institutions, and finds it historically appropriate and traditionally acceptable for a state to include religious influences, even in the form of sacred texts, in honoring American legal traditions. First of all the "national motto" is E Pluribus Unum. At least that was the one that is a cherished TRADITION. The motto In God We Trust came about later and was not fully incorporated until 1956 in a fit of religious overstepping. A reasonable person has a reasonable complaint against that. Second, the Declaration was before our govt existed and so could not be unconstitutional speech. Nor did it endorse anything in the same way that the 10 commandments does. But this is less important than what this court has just set up. Now, anyone who does not ENJOY display of religious iconography by the govt is deemed unreasonable. That is not only do you have to like it, you must believe that there is some real connection between specific religious texts and our laws and govt, despite none being shown at all. I am not against personal expressions of religious belief by govt officials, or noting that those that founded the nation were religious and what those religions were. But when people undermine the actual influences on politics and law which they themselves note in their own writings, and replace them with mere religious prosyletization in pretense that we were an emerging Xian vanguard, then THEY are being unreasonable. This decision has placed the courts as defender of religion having formed our govt against anyone which questions such assertions. The latter are now powerless and unreasonable people. This seems to me a rather dangerous and offensive precedent. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Exactly what I was about to write
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Yeah! The guy is a FREAK!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
The true power of the US government, as was intended from the very beginning, **** among all three branches. That's not entirely true. There are checks and balances, but look at them. The Executive can veto the Congress, but the Congress can over turn the Veto. The Congress can oust the President, the President can not throw out a Congressman. The Supreme Court can strike down a law of Congress - (BEST PART OF THE GOVERNMENT!!!) but they can not generate law themselves. Only Congress can declare war. The original lay out clearly puts more power in Congress (where is should reside, since it's a deliberative body). The founders were sick of power residing in one man (King) and having him wield it unchecked. **** -- Weird, it astericked me as well on li es
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Only Congress can declare war.
That might be true in theory. It does not seem to apply in practice. Impeach Bush.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Yeah, hence my earlier post about the problems with the power shift toward the executive.
Congress should control the real power of the Government, the executive should be little more than a figure head.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
Y'all need a parliamentary system.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I think they are playing fast and loose with the facts, and that doing so is usually an indication that a scam of some kind is in progress.
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Now, why would they completely ignore the second sentence there? Um, because it doesn't fit the radical fundamentalist activist agenda? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024