Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:47:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
801 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > > http://fyi.cnn.com/2002/fyi/teachers.ednews/09/10/bible.club.ap/index.html
>
> > > The current ruling, I'm sure, is well-justified by precedent, and no doubt
> > > the judges' decision was based on objective reading of the law in general
> > > and The Constitution in particular. Oh, wait a minute--that's the same way
> > > that they made their ruling on The Pledge, and they were condemned for it!
>
> > Apples and Oranges...
>
> If "apples" = "why does the State in one case have the right to endorse or
> restrict religion" and "oranges" = "why does the State not have the right to
> endorse or restrict religion," then I am indeed comparing apples and
> oranges. What's your point?
>
> > Excluding a group *just* because of a faith statement is as absurd as
> > excluding a group because of overall 'geekiness'.
>
> But the implication of your statement is that it's okay to protect the
> freedom of religious expression of some individuals (in this case the club
> and its members), but it's okay to exclude the freedom of religious
> expression from other individuals (those who don't believe in God and who
> don't want a state-endorsed Pledge to invoke that God). If this is not your
> meaning, can you please clarify why it is okay to protect one group's
> relgious freedom while not protecting another group's?
My point is that it is okay to protect *all* matters of freedom of religious
expression up and until people fly planes into buildings... k, that was a
little far--my personal philosophy has *always* been that anyone can believe
what they want as long as it never infringes on other peoples beliefs. Your
non-belief in any god has absolutely no bearing on my belief in God.
>
> > But taking out 'Under God' from the Pledge...
> >
> > Nothing to do with equal rights, or anything like a school social club not
> > getting money 'cause they believe in God.
>
> What if that the school required all members of all clubs to begin each
> meeting with the declaration "we are under no God." Would that be an
> infringement? Of course it would, just as it is an infringement to invoke
> God in the Congressionally-endorsed Pledge of Allegiance. Sure, kids can
> nominally choose *not* to say "under God," but if the teacher--an agent of
> the school and therefore of the State--is reciting the invocation it
> inflicts an explicit and powerful "pro-God" message to the children.
No, you were saying that both these issues were the same--I'm saying they're
different--one is about equity of school clubs, one is about what all
Americans should say during a pledge--hence the situation is 'apples' and
'oranges'. Now if you were referring to the political analysis behind said
decisions, then it may be close to Granny Smiths and Royal Galas
> > As far as the Pledge goes...
> > I don't think the phrase is unconstitutional--I don't think those words
> > violate 'separation of church and state'--it's a pledge, a spoken pledge
>
> That's not the issue, and the fact that you think it *is* the issue
> demonstrates that you, like the media and the Congress--aren't looking at it
> clearly. NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE is saying that an individual cannot say
> "under God" in The Pledge. I'm value the freedom of speech very highly, and
> I would certainly defend someone's right to express one's religious beliefs,
> but, again, that's not the issue. The issue is that The Congress has no
> right to endorse or establish religion in any way, even if that religion is
> as nebulously defined as "some kind of monotheism." THAT'S the issue.
Exactly--separation of Church and State, and my faulty reccollection recalls
that the phrase 'under God' was 'officially' squashed due to the
'unconstitutionalness' of it, and those that wanted to say it could, and
those that didn't want to say it, didn't have to, so people yammering from
one side or the other (take it completely out for *everybody*, or leave it
in for *everybody*) is ludicrous, derisive, and will cause no end of heated
arguements like this... and yet here we are, still yammering...
> **snip of some of the same slippery-slope reasoning you dislike so acutely**
Love those slippery slopes--I sometimes do what I so hate--and just cut to
the bottom of the page ;)
> > Let's also talk about how much money, effort and time was wasted on the
> > 'Under God' fiasco...
>
> Exactly! If the Congress had done the right thing, it never would have
> issued its endorsement of religion in the first place, and think of the
> money that would have been saved! The problem occurred because in 1954 the
> Congress stepped in where it shouldn't have (believe it or not).
Agreed, but when good politicians do what they consider good things for good
reasons at the time... look at the 2nd ammendment for what may happen years
down the road when new situations and different worldviews arise--what was
once a good idea, now becomes vague, disconcerting, derisive and causes no
end of yapping from all sides--times change and we should be adaptable and
not be beholden to something that was written in a time that isn't today.
>
> > And just looking at it now, it's the separation of *church* and *state*, not
> > *God* and *state*... so there you are--no issue!
This was rather suppose to be slightly sarcastic...
> If you're referring to the First Amendment of the US Constitution, then
> perhaps you should be aware of the relevant text, which reads:
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech
>
> Therefore, since "under God" is a clear endorsement of religion,
First, 'under God' is *not* an endoresment of religion, it's an endoresment
of God. Everybody has a religion--atheism is a religion of 'unbelief'.
Secondly, you have the freedom *not* to say it--so don't.
> it's
> unconstitutional by definition. Further, if we're being honest, the
> Congress and Eisenhower in 1954 expressly intended the phrase "under God" to
> be a devotional expression to the Christian God.
Sure, it was 1954 and they thought they were doing something good.
Hindsight is 20/20. Grow, evolve, adapt and move on.
> That's the end of it. This isn't one of those "there are two sides and
> they're both right" situations; Congress has no right to establish religion,
> and to do so is unconstitutional. If you're so confidendent that "under
> God" isn't a statement of religious endorsement, then let's change it to
> "under no God," since that would likewise be a non-religious statement.
If you wish to say 'under no God' then, by all rights and freedoms you have
that right. Just as I have the right to say it. I'm not one of those
'right winger' politicians who stood up and yelled about taking the words
'Under God' out of the pledge. I'm glad they're out. If you want to go for
the penny 'in God we Trust' as well, all the power to you. As for me and my
house, we'll follow the Lord. Jesus said 'render unto Caesar that which is
Caesar's, render unto God that which is the Lords.' I don't need a phrase
in a pledge, or a saying on a penny to believe in God. I just want the
freedom to practice what I believe--that's all.
>
> And in any case you're missing the ultimate point of my post. Obviously I
> maintain that the 9th US Circuit Court was correct to rule the phra • se "under
> God" unconstitutional, just as they are obviously correct to uphold the
> freedom of speech in this case. But my point is that, because the previous
> ruling conflicted with the religious sentiments of Congress et al, they
> couldn't leap onto the condemnation bandwagon fast enough, even though the
> ruling was correct and consistent with precedent. In the current case, the
> judges also ruled correctly in a manner consistent with precedent, but the
> same legislators will not condemn the ruling.
>
> Dave!
Now that is a point worth making, and that is what I surmized from your
original post, but it wasn't totally clear, though looking at my post, it
wasn't clear that I support the official removal of 'under God' from the
pledge, so my bad too.
It is now stated and I wholeheartedly agree with you--we need consistancy
with rulings, and the bias of a lifestyle should not be the defining
factor--if something is found unconstitutional, that unconstitutional ruling
should be supported, when the ruling is in favour of your personal beliefs
*as well as* when the ruling goes against your personal beliefs.
Dave K.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| (...) Hooray--we agree! That's been my intended point all along, in both this exchange and in the previous debate a month or so ago! I absolutely, totally, completely, and unequivocally support your right to religious freedom and freedom of speech! (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| (...) If "apples" = "why does the State in one case have the right to endorse or restrict religion" and "oranges" = "why does the State not have the right to endorse or restrict religion," then I am indeed comparing apples and oranges. What's your (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
220 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
|
|
|
|
