Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 2 Jul 2002 17:58:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3241 times
|
| |
|
|
Back into the fray (from a much needed absence 'cause I had to re-evaluate
the way I come across in my posts...)
/America rant on
The next time anyone tells me the USofA is the 'free-est' nation on the
planet, I'm going to point to this thread (and other places) and say,
'They're slaves to a piece of paper written 200+ years ago.'
The Constitution and the DoI are not Holy Writs, not divine, nor are they
anything other than a guideline written by people for the people of the time
for which they were written. Nothing more, nothing less.
/America rant off
Both documents are a good read. Both are crafted by truly eloquent and
intelligent people, who tried to cover the bases. But the people of the
time could not predict what was going to happen a week later, yet alone 200+
years.
Big West Wing excerpt:
---
President: Here's an interesting statement [reads statement from judge], "I
join Judge Black insomuch as while enjoying my privacy, I am compelled to
admit the gov't has the right to invade it, unless specifcally prohibited by
some specific constitutional provision."
...
Judge: Judges are bound to interpret the constitution within the strict
parameters of the text itself. The constitution doesn't provide for a right
of privacy--the right doesn't exist.
Sam Seaborne: The third ammendment says soldiers cannot be quartered in
private homes, the fifth provides protection against self incrimination, and
the fourth against unreasonable searches--do you deny that the right to
privacy lives in those passages.
Judge: No I do not deny it, but the fact that the framers enumerated those
specific protections is all the more reason to believe that they had no
intention of making privacy a de-facto right
Sam: They just fought a revolution--they had no question about
freedoms--the bill of rights was to codify the most crucial of those rights,
not to limit the others
...
President: Payton (Judge) Do I have the right to put on an ugly plaid
jacket and a loud polka-dot tie and walk down Main Street?
Judge: Yes
President: And where in the Constitution is that right guaranteed?
Judge: First Ammendment--freedom of expression
President: What about the use of cream in my coffee--surely there can be no
'free speech' arugment to made there.
Judge: No
President: So you would have no objection to the State of New Hampshire
passing a law banning the use of cream in coffee?
Judge: I would have strong objection, Mr. President, as I like cream as
well, but I would have no constitutional basis to strike down the law when
you brought your case to the Supreme Court.
...
Sam: In 1787 there was a sizeable block of delagates who were initally
opposed to the Bill of Rights. This is what a member of the Georgia
delagation had to say by way of opposition, "If we list a set of rights,
some fools in the future are going to claim the people are entitled to those
rights enumerated and no others..."
...
Judge: Gentlemen, laws must emenate from the Constitution
Toby: There are natural laws, Judge
Judge: I do not deny there are natural laws, Mr Ziegler--I only deny that
judges are empowered to enforce them.
Toby: Then who will?
...
Sam: [This issue] is about the next 20 years... '20's and '30's it was
about the role of gov't, '50's and '60's it was civil rights--the next two
decades it's about privacy--I'm talking about the internet, I'm talking
about cell phones, I'm talking about health records and who's gay and who's
not, and moreover, in a country born on the will to be free, what can be
more fundamental than this?
---
/end West Wing Excerpt
I have no idea how historically accurate the Georgia thing is, nor does it
matter to the discussion.
2 things:
1- The Constitution is not 'all encompassing' as the above shows. (Nor is
the Bible but I'm sure others will point that out so I don't have to)
2-The right to privacy, also pointed out in this WW episode, says that
matters of privacy is going to be the biggest thing in the next few decades.
Just throwing it out there, to hopefully change the topic away from the C &
S debate.
Dave
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> >
> > > 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
> >
> > In every speech in which W invokes God on behalf of America, he's
> > endorsing religion. When he condemned the court's decision, he explicitly
> > endorsed religion.
>
> Interesting that the same Amendment that you cite condemning his "endorsment"
> of religion protects his right to do so. But I think you are applying it
> incorrectly in this case. The First Amendment prohibits *congress* from
> establishing religion (ie through law). Since the excutive branch is not
> empowered to create law, it by definition couldn't "establish" religion.
>
> In his private life, George can worship absolutely
> > anything he chooses, but as The President of The United States of America,
> > he should serve the country first and not issue religious policy.
>
> I'm not sure a President of the United States *has* a private life while he is
> in office-- just ask Willy Clinton;-)
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Ah! Now I see where you're coming from. However, as has been pointed out
> > previously, the invocation of "God" is an endorsement of a supernatural
> > higher power or, at the very least, an endorsement of monotheism.
> > But at least I understand your "under Jesus" point now!
>
> This is why I keep going back to the DoI. If the FFs (talking "heavy hitters"
> here) were such firm believers in separation of church and state (to which I
> wholeheartedly agree), how can such obvious references to God in the DoI be
> explained? Either:
>
> 1. The mere mentioning of God doesn't establish religion (my view)
> 2. The DoI does indeed establish religion, in which case Jefferson (for one) is
> inconsistent. (your view)
>
> I'm not willing to start second-guessing our FFs, or changing the DoI.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > We may have reached an impasse, then. To me, there's no need to show
> > "evidence of this establishment" beyond the fact that Congress endorsed the
> > inclusion of the phrase "under God." It doesn't matter whether there's been
> > an upsurge of sincere Christian belief or if there are no God-police
> > knocking down my atheist door; the fact that Congress endorsed the phrase
> > is, all by itself, inappropriate establishment of religion.
>
> Yes, I think at this point it becomes opinion, and the highest opinion in the
> land gets to decide. I still think Jefferson's mentioning of a Creator in the
> DoI is a salient argument that such language *doesn't* constitute establishment.
> >
> > > 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.
>
> > During my senior year of high school a student died in a car crash. My
> > school was fairly small (~500 kids) and very close-knit, so we were all
> > affected by her death. In the days following the accident the school
> > brought in counsellors to speak with the students, if the students wished.
> > There were also numerous teacher-led prayer sessions. At the time I didn't
> > really mind, since I was less prone to argue for my beliefs in those days,
> > but I certainly didn't participate. However, outside of the counseling,
> > non-believers like myself had no non-religious venue in which to share our
> > feelings. If the prayer-groups had been organized and led by students,
> > there would have been no problem. But because they were teacher-run, the
> > school made a clear, if only implicit, endorsement of community based on faith.
>
> This is a great example. Death is the ultimate question and fear we will all
> face, and therefore the stakes are about as high as they come. At times like
> those, people (and kids especially) need meaning to go along with comfort and
> support. Naturally, for the religious, those answers come from a belief in
> God. I don't fault religious people who try and provide meaning and comfort
> the only way they know how-- their intentions are good.
>
> I honestly wouldn't know where to begin to comfort an atheist in such
> situations (perhaps you might be willing to shed some light here as to what you
> might find comforting or meaningful in such situations).
>
> > Granted, this example (like my earlier example of the teacher who made us
> > say grace (1)) isn't expressly about The Pledge, but it speaks of the very
> > fragile wall that actually separates the State from the church. Chris stated
> > the point very well when he observed that it's just not reasonable to expect
> > children to handle that kind of social pressure, especially when a teacher
> > (or similar authority figure) is leading the charge, and even moreso during
> > a time of trauma.
>
> Personally, I think that children *need* some sort of assurances of a God in
> those type of situations. Atheism is a pretty brave and mature attitude to
> hold and I would say above kids' intellects (as if theism and atheism weren't
> far beyond our own;-) Teach them about a God when they are young; let them
> eschew those beliefs when they are old enough to think for themselves if they
> wish (that's just my feelings about the subject-- please spare the tar and
> feathering)
>
> Either way, it is a difficult situation to be sure. Agreed, public schools are
> especially delicate places. Mandatory prayer, grace, etc are troublesome--
> topics such as integrity, honesty, and truthfulness should be emphasized more.
> Problem is, being good for many is a direct result of their religion.
>
> I still don't have an adequate reason why an atheist should act "good"...
>
> -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
|
|
|
|
