Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:09:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3284 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > > 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!:)
I'd say that the actual start of our country is somewhat nebulous. I guess it
feels good for us to say that it is 4 July 1776, but we had been effectively
governing ourselves for some time at that point. Further, I think the adoption
of the constitution is a more valuable indicator of our nation's birth than the
DoI. So I could make a case for our country being actually older or younger
than that.
> So are you trying to argue that the DoI isn't recognized by the Constitution?
> I'm unclear as to your implication.
I think the point is that while the second Continental Congress did formally
adopt the DoI, our current Congress did not. And by the laws of the land (as
specified in the US Constitution) the extant Congress -- delineated in Article
One, is our only national legislature.
But I'm not sure it matters. In effect, "we" did adopt the DoI. Another chunk
of Dave's point (as I read it) is that the DoI predates the first amendment
considerably. It may be that thoughts on seperation were not formalized at
that point.
I would further claim that what Jefferson did in the DoI was not really
assert that our rights are a grant from a higher power, but use a rhetorical
tool that would be popular (then and now). What is this "nature and nature's
God" anyway? Is he saying that our rights originate from Gaia? I think he's
just saying that by our very nature, we have these rights...after all they are
self-evident, correct?
> 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)
Ashcroft favors prayer in school.
> 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...
I don't know if that's really so. Is it?
I believe that many of our institutions favor certain people and actions based
on nothing but religion. Polygamy, abortion (maybe), prostitution,
homosexuality, advantages to marriage, benefits to churches, special
priviledges to groups like the BSA and YMCA, etc. And in most cases, I
disagree with the traditional "Christian" stance. I think the harm is that
people feel too free to legislate their morality on the rest of us.
> > > 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.
Isn't "under God" still an endorsement of monotheism?
> 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 that's quite a claim! The US Constitution is quite remarkable for it's
ingenuity. If it were the obvious evolution of J-C values, surely it would
have come about sometime in the intervening 3000 years. It is more an
expression of contemporary philosophy than of J-C values, IMO.
> -I am for separation of Church and State.
> -I am against the government establishing religion.
> -I'm against prayer in school.
Out of curiosity: required, lead, or allowed? A friend of mine was a high
school math teacher and was instructed to halt student prayer -- even when
silent. This is a completely unreasonable intrusion as far as I'm concerned.
I'm against bossiness in school!
> -I'm even against *requiring* anyone to recite the pledge (interesting
But what force are you counting toward "requiring?"
> 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.
When sufficient social pressure is put on kids to conform, by taking part in a
quasi-religious ceremony, their right to _not_ worship is being infringed.
Chris
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
