United We Stand..
- Thread starter Torn blue sky
- Start date
darthfoley
Active member
Funny, I\'m still laughing at the guy who did. lol
darthfoley
Active member
And, for those so inclined, a huge cock:
Now we do have a disagreement.
Note that references to God having a long history in our \"culture\" or in our \"country\" tells us nothing about their history in our GOVERNMENT. Nor does that history of what people have in fact done answer any legal questions about whether or not such statements SHOULD be made in official government actions, particularly when at least some people (such as Jefferson and Madison) were clearly concerned about those references from the very beginning. The Founding Fathers were clearly capable of pronouncing a principle and then not following it; they proved that time and again. A Christian influence is to be expected, yes, but we aren\'t talking about influence, we are talking specifically about official government business. And there is little reason to believe a predominantly Christian people need or benefit from government entanglements with religion, even symbolic ones.
I assume you are aware of the fact that the introduction of \"under God\" in the pledge is a McCarthy era development. Does this practice too get the benefit of the historical legacy argument? Or shouldn\'t it work in reverse in this case? Perhaps the innovations of the Cold War shold have yielded to the long history of restraint on that issue. All special pleading anyway, as none of this actually addresses any actual Constitutional provisions.
On the Easter Bunny and Santa, no-one outside a mental institution worships these entities. Whether or not they have a religious origin is beside the point. The question is whether or not they are religious entities now. They are not. Halloween is closer to relevant, given the role of modern Wiccans, but it would still be stretching the truth to suggest that the mainstream celebration of Halloween is a religious event. Same goes for XMas.
Now your statement about not being too bothered when CNN appears on your television is probably the most important. It shows that you are answering a concern that has nothig whatsoever to do with the Establishment Clause. That clause is not there to protect people from insults or offensive speech, and that is not the central objection to ANY of the alleged establishment violations mentioned earlier. I\'m not offended by those things either, but I do oppose them. Offensiveness is simply not the concern at hand, and your claims to the effect that people are being overly sensitive suggest that you have missed the point of those who oppose these things. The view which you are currently dismissing as stupid is one which you have yet to actually address.
[/code]
Ahh, well my view on official govt endorsment or business I think varies a bit from the view point.
My contentention is that govt cannot interfere with freedom of religion, ie ala church of england back in the day as the national religion. The should not nor ever be a Chursh of the US govt or kansas or whatever sanctioned as the only acceptable religion.
What annoys me is the idea that govt cannot allow any kind of religious expression in its day to day functions, whatever they maybe. I don\'t much care of a predominantly Muslim community has local celbrations and parades or displays to celebrate their holidays much like I don\'t care if other cities have nativity scenes or crosses/stars of David or buddah on/for tombstones.
My view is govt has no place preventing or obstructing these kinds of things. I have no problem with the 10 commandments displayed nor with quotes from the Koran. Thoe kinds of things should be left up to the people of those regions/communites to decide for themselves.
The idea that it is thre role of govt to obstruct block these things from public or govt facilities because it can be viewed as an endorsment of religion is totally backwards to me.
However, if some were to try and take it further and institute religious law, I would be completely against that.
My point about it being stupid... it is my view that there will always be a select few who find reason to be offended by anything, often in my opinion, for the sake of being offended. If I seem dismissive of some peoples views, well I am. I\'m not going to sit here and give anyone a line of bull. I respect people rights to have their views, but I will neither endorse them nor attempt remove them. I think that is the most honest thing I can say.
With regard to CNN and the establishment clause, i was trying to make a comparison on how I view it. When CNN appears on Fox as the new channel of record or what have you, does that mean CNN is as they claim to be. No, not in my opinion. If In God we trust appears on the dollar, is the US govt saying christianity is the official religion. I say no. it is not specified or hinted at which God. I think to try and narrow it down more and say only such and such a god of such and such a sect/branch is the official god and unless you are a member of this church you are all going to hell and are having your citizenship revoked is going to far. That in my view is what the establishment clause was designed/intended to do. Prevent only one religion was being the religion of the state. As long as we have variety and most importantly the option to choose or denomination or lack thereof, the establishment clause is working.
And we can agree to disagree, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a good hearted debate over ideas and interpretations. keeps us sharp and open to new ideas and a few old ones too.
Note that references to God having a long history in our \"culture\" or in our \"country\" tells us nothing about their history in our GOVERNMENT. Nor does that history of what people have in fact done answer any legal questions about whether or not such statements SHOULD be made in official government actions, particularly when at least some people (such as Jefferson and Madison) were clearly concerned about those references from the very beginning. The Founding Fathers were clearly capable of pronouncing a principle and then not following it; they proved that time and again. A Christian influence is to be expected, yes, but we aren\'t talking about influence, we are talking specifically about official government business. And there is little reason to believe a predominantly Christian people need or benefit from government entanglements with religion, even symbolic ones.
I assume you are aware of the fact that the introduction of \"under God\" in the pledge is a McCarthy era development. Does this practice too get the benefit of the historical legacy argument? Or shouldn\'t it work in reverse in this case? Perhaps the innovations of the Cold War shold have yielded to the long history of restraint on that issue. All special pleading anyway, as none of this actually addresses any actual Constitutional provisions.
On the Easter Bunny and Santa, no-one outside a mental institution worships these entities. Whether or not they have a religious origin is beside the point. The question is whether or not they are religious entities now. They are not. Halloween is closer to relevant, given the role of modern Wiccans, but it would still be stretching the truth to suggest that the mainstream celebration of Halloween is a religious event. Same goes for XMas.
Now your statement about not being too bothered when CNN appears on your television is probably the most important. It shows that you are answering a concern that has nothig whatsoever to do with the Establishment Clause. That clause is not there to protect people from insults or offensive speech, and that is not the central objection to ANY of the alleged establishment violations mentioned earlier. I\'m not offended by those things either, but I do oppose them. Offensiveness is simply not the concern at hand, and your claims to the effect that people are being overly sensitive suggest that you have missed the point of those who oppose these things. The view which you are currently dismissing as stupid is one which you have yet to actually address.
[/code]
Ahh, well my view on official govt endorsment or business I think varies a bit from the view point.
My contentention is that govt cannot interfere with freedom of religion, ie ala church of england back in the day as the national religion. The should not nor ever be a Chursh of the US govt or kansas or whatever sanctioned as the only acceptable religion.
What annoys me is the idea that govt cannot allow any kind of religious expression in its day to day functions, whatever they maybe. I don\'t much care of a predominantly Muslim community has local celbrations and parades or displays to celebrate their holidays much like I don\'t care if other cities have nativity scenes or crosses/stars of David or buddah on/for tombstones.
My view is govt has no place preventing or obstructing these kinds of things. I have no problem with the 10 commandments displayed nor with quotes from the Koran. Thoe kinds of things should be left up to the people of those regions/communites to decide for themselves.
The idea that it is thre role of govt to obstruct block these things from public or govt facilities because it can be viewed as an endorsment of religion is totally backwards to me.
However, if some were to try and take it further and institute religious law, I would be completely against that.
My point about it being stupid... it is my view that there will always be a select few who find reason to be offended by anything, often in my opinion, for the sake of being offended. If I seem dismissive of some peoples views, well I am. I\'m not going to sit here and give anyone a line of bull. I respect people rights to have their views, but I will neither endorse them nor attempt remove them. I think that is the most honest thing I can say.
With regard to CNN and the establishment clause, i was trying to make a comparison on how I view it. When CNN appears on Fox as the new channel of record or what have you, does that mean CNN is as they claim to be. No, not in my opinion. If In God we trust appears on the dollar, is the US govt saying christianity is the official religion. I say no. it is not specified or hinted at which God. I think to try and narrow it down more and say only such and such a god of such and such a sect/branch is the official god and unless you are a member of this church you are all going to hell and are having your citizenship revoked is going to far. That in my view is what the establishment clause was designed/intended to do. Prevent only one religion was being the religion of the state. As long as we have variety and most importantly the option to choose or denomination or lack thereof, the establishment clause is working.
And we can agree to disagree, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a good hearted debate over ideas and interpretations. keeps us sharp and open to new ideas and a few old ones too.
Hey Gar,
Your last post looks interesting, but it\'s playing havoc with my screen. Suddenly the page is severl feet wide, and your best points take a lot of scrolling to read. I\'m going to take a break and come back to it after dinner. Thanks for the reply and I haven\'t forgotten you.
Now my post is doing it too.
Your last post looks interesting, but it\'s playing havoc with my screen. Suddenly the page is severl feet wide, and your best points take a lot of scrolling to read. I\'m going to take a break and come back to it after dinner. Thanks for the reply and I haven\'t forgotten you.
Now my post is doing it too.
darthfoley
Active member
I knew you\'d like it, Glyn! lol
This is a construction of the free exercise clause, not the establshment clause. If this is what the Establishment clause means, then it is completely redundant, which is not a very promising approach to the subject.
As stated, this appears to be a personal preference. Fair enough, as a personal preference, but it just doesn\'t address the Constitutional issues at stake.
Againm your first sentence appears to be addressing free exercise concerns, not the proscription of establishment. And whether or not some of these things can be displayed depends at least partly on the purpose of teh display. Where the 10 Commandments really displayed for the purpose of history, this isn\'t much of an issue. When it is a government endorsement, it puts the power of government behind the faith in question. You are repeating again that this doesn\'t bother you personally. The problem is that we aren\'t really debating personal preferences; we are debating constitutional principles.
If the issue were only obstruction, then yes, it would most certainly be backwards, but that isn\'t the test in question. The question is consistently whether or not the government is actually endorsing the religion in question. If the answer to that question is no, then it should pass constitutional muster. If it does, then what is required is not obstruction; it\'s cessation of active support.
It\'s not clear what a religious law is. Do you mean only things which determine criminal sanctions?
I don\'t disagree with you about the existence of people who are easily offended. I do disagree that many of the views you are dismissing are actually about offensiveness. When Evangelical Christians complain of witchcraft in Harry Potter the issue is not normally offensiveness but opposition to witchcraft that they believe to be real in HP. They are wrong, I think, but the nature of teh error isn\'t the kind of passive-aggressive behavior you are criticizing. It is a question of faulty assumptions about both witchcraft and Harry Potter. When those of us who government sanctioned religious symbolism object the issue is not normally offensiveness but beliefs about what is and what is not proper for government to do. Those beliefs may be wrong, but you really aren\'t showing them to be so. What you are showing is that you personally restrict your views on the subject to one of the 2 religion clauses in the Constitution and ignore the other entirely.
Interesting, but the roblem is that this interpretation directly contradicts the actual text of the Constitution. The First Amendment does not protect religious freedom while forbidding only an official state church. The word \"religion\" is used in both clauses and there is no reason to believe one use of the term is given more scope than the other. If all religious freedom is protected, then all establishment is also forbidden. To suggest otherwise is to introduce an arbitrary distinction where none exists in the text.
Note also that the possibility of non-preferential establishment is pretty much incoherent. You cannot support religion in general, even Christianity in general, without leaving someone out of the equation.
(I forget which decision uses this argument; it\'s definitely not an original one. But I\'m too lazy to go look it up.)
Here I think I am in complete agreement. Thanks for the exchange.
philologus
Subgenius
Footnotes dude
No Such Agency
New member
OK who buggered the page width :flame:
