Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 2 Jul 2002 03:17:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3550 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
> > Thanks, Dave-- your command of the obvious is an inspiration.
>
> Not really; if my command of the obvious were so astounding, I'd have
> realized long ago that you are unable to employ logic or reason, but here I
> am still trying to persuade you.
:-)
>
> > BTW, wasn't the DoI *ratified* by the congress?
>
> Okay, maybe we've come upon a legitimate example of my ignorance. Please
> tell me when the United States Congress, as established by the United States
> Constitution, ratified the Declaration of Independence? Or are you talking
> about the 1776 ratification of the Declaration of Independence, prior to the
> establishment of the First Amendment?
Um, aren't we splitting hairs here? The Continental Congress ratified the DoI
on July 4, 1776. We mark this date as the beginning of our country (you're no
the only one who has a command of the obvious!:)
So are you trying to argue that the DoI isn't recognized by the Constitution?
I'm unclear as to your implication.
>
> > You can trumpet that there's no state religion, John,
> > > because the de facto religion of the land is the one to which you
> > > nominally adhere.
> >
> > That statement is nonsense.
>
> How so? The President, as well as a goodly chunk of the Congress, is a
> practicing and proselytizing Christian, Ashcroft was approved at least in
> part because he's a religious man. The entire stem-cell debate, not to
> mention the entire abortion debate, not to mention the entire same-sex
> marriage debate, not to mention the entire faith-based-initiative debate,
> not to mention the entire Pledge-of-Allegiance debate, is based entirely on
> so-called Christian so-called morality! If the pro-Christian agenda of the
> ruling body of the Government isn't enough to make you realize that the de
> facto State Religion is Christianity, then there's no use in arguing with
> you further, since you're obviously or comfortable with the encroachment of
> relgion into State matters.
I'll give you that the president, Ashcroft have Christianity as their moral
compass (the overwhelming majority of the FF did as well), but never have they
or tried to *establish* Christianity as a state religion (though I agree that
some have tried-- prayer in school for example-- and were correctly ruled
unconstitutional)
It seems to me that people having Christianity as their moral compass and
people who would have Christianity become a state religion are two different
things entirely. Even if I concede that Christianity is the de facto religion
of the land, where is the harm there? Certainly Christianity was much more the
religion of the land in the FF's time...
>
> > If the Congress were dominated by an over-loud group of
> > > Moslems or Hindus who wanted to put "under Allah" or "under Brahma" in the
> > > Pledge of Allegiance, you wouldn't be so smug about it.
> >
> > Not analagous.
>
> Why not? "Under God" is expressly equal, in terms of religious content,
> to "under Allah" or "under Brahma," or "under Deity X" or "under no deity."
> I know that you have a fondness for "is not, 'nuff said"-style arguments,
> but I'd really like to hear your elaboration of why these examples aren't
> analogous.
Sure. First, I'd say the proper analogy would be "under Christ" (if you were
trying to assert that "God" refers to Christianity). "God" is just too generic
a term, no matter what connotations you would associate with it. I would equate
it with "our Maker" or "our Creator". It simply is not specific enough to be
labeled any one particular religion.
"Under Allah" is blantantly Islamic. "Under Yahweh", BTW, would be a
violation as well, even though I'd call "God" and "Yahweh" the same.
<Uh, some replies got snipped here somehow>
See my first question about which Congress ratified the Declaration. If
> indeed it is the post-Constitutional Congress, then I would say that the
> Declaration is likewise faulty. No inconsistency there at all.
But look what you have just said! I am dumb-founded! You have just called the
cornerstone of our government "faulty". Dave, you are missing the forest for
the trees here!
I am no Constitutional scholar by any means, the only reference I could find
where the Constitution refers to the DoI is in Article VII, where it dates the
existence of the United States back to the ratification date. That would seem
to me to be an endorsement of it.
Even if you don't buy that, I still think that anyone who clings to their issue
at the cost of calling the DoI "faulty" needs to reexamine a few things.
>
> > > > Besides, our government discriminates and is intolerant of all kinds of
> > > > things.
<snip>
As to why polygamy is illegal, I
> really don't know; if all parties are agreeable, it should be fine. The
> basic reason, allegedly, is that polygamy would constitute a tax cheat, but
> that's not really the issue. You should actually ask your religious
> representatives in Congress why it's illegal, since it's primarily based on
> Judeo-Christian tradition. But I can't bleed for everyone; the illegality
> of polygamy is frankly not as vital an argument to me as the freedom of (and
> from) religion.
It's based on J-C *values*, as is the Constitution for that matter. I think it
is a fatal flaw for your position to *equate* J-C values with the establishment
of a J-C religion. I point to your willingness to acknowledge the faultiness
of the DoI as an example.
The line may gray at times, and certainly is has been crossed at times as well,
but there is a difference. This is certainly one of our main points of
contention.
> Me, I'd like nothing better than to sit down with my six wives and have a
> big meal of roast dog. Darned discrimination!
Be sure to say grace first;-)
Seriously, I want to go on the record here.
-I am for separation of Church and State.
-I am against the government establishing religion.
-I'm against prayer in school.
-I'm even against *requiring* anyone to recite the pledge (interesting question
for new citizens, though... I couldn't find whether or not that was required.
The oath of allegiance is (which contains "so help me God"), but I did find
cases where people have been exempted from that.
Please don't call me a liar. If you think you find an inconsistency in my
position, than say so. I think I know where you do, and we can go from there.
Does "under God" effectively violate the establishment clause of the 1st
Amendment? (assuming that that is the crux of your argument)
I say it doesn't. Perhaps you could show evidence of this establishment of
some religion since "under God" was added in '54, because I don't believe the
mere existence of it in a voluntary pledge does this.
You may find it offensive, but it isn't violating any of your constitutional
rights to worship (or not) freely. I need to see some evidence.
-John
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
