Subject:
|
Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Sep 2002 19:30:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1138 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> The word "God" by itself may carry certain connotations, but by itself
> specifies no particular religious understanding of it.
Here it is, in terms as simple as I am able to formulate, in the hope
that--against all prior evidence--you will be able to formulate a rational
conclusion:
P1: According to the 1st Amendment, Congress has no right to issue any
declaration of religious faith
P2: The acknowledgement the existence of a deity is a declaration of
religious faith
P3: Pledging oneself to be "under" an entity is an explicit acknowledgement
of the existence of that entity
P4: If Congressional Act is passed that violates the Constitution or any
of its amendments, then that Act is unconstitutional
P5: If an Act is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional regardless of the
perceived will of the majority of US citizens
P6: Congress endorsed the inclusion of the phrase "under God" in The Pledge
of Allegiance in 1954 by Congressional Act
--------------------
C1: Congress violated the 1st Amendment in 1954
> We are most certainly *not* a secular nation. And this is what is so
> egregious to most Americans-- the perceived attempt to secularize it by the
> likes of Newdow.
Your misperception of Newdow's intent (and of Jefferson's intent, and your
deliberate disregard of Eisenhower's intent) doesn't change the fact that
you are wrong. Newdow was not trying to turn the country into a secular
nation--it IS a secular nation by charter (namely, the Constitution).
Newdow was attempting to undo a grievous over-reaching by the 1954 Congress,
and thereby Newdow sought to remove a State-endorsed infringement upon
religious freedom.
You keep saying "most Americans this" and "most Americans that." You know
what? That frankly doesn't matter. Most Americans voted for Gore, but Bush
was appointed President regardless. Most Americans believe that aliens have
visited the planet.
> Most Americans profess a believe in a God. The Constitution
> may not respect religion, but Americans do. We are a nation of people, not a
> piece of paper.
You are, for the thousandth time, attempting to equate "the citizens of this
nation" with "the nation as a State," and the two are most certainly NOT
equivalent. The PEOPLE are free to believe whatever they want, no matter
how crazy it is. They can believe that John Edward speaks to the dead, or
they can believe that a man in a pre-industrial era built a big boat full of
lots of animals. As I mentioned before, I guarantee you that I support that
right more fervently than you do.
However...
THE NATION, AS A STATE, HAS NO RIGHT TO ISSUE ANY STATEMENT OF RELIGIOUS
DOCTRINE, EVEN IF THAT STATEMENT IS AS SIMPLE AS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE
EXISTENCE OF A DEITY.
I have no idea why you don't get this point. Actually, that's a lie--you
don't get it because you perceive it to encroach on your own religious
beliefs, which you are so desperate to protect that you will eagerly dispose
of anyone else's freedoms, especially if you perceive that their beliefs or
lifestyle conflict with your concept of propriety.
> Since day one, Congress has been talking about God.
But since 1787, Congress has had NO RIGHT to pass legislation about religion.
Why don't you state outright whether or not you accept that Congress has
no right to issue any formal statement on relgion? I don't care that
currency mentions God, and I don't care that "God Bless America" is a
popular tune, and I don't care that your so-called majority of Americans
believes in something other. Tell me simply whether you acknowledge that
Congress has no right to issue formal declarations on religion.
If you accept it, then the argument is over, because you will have
accepted my initial assertion, and all your subsequent ranting has been
irrelevant.
If you deny it, then the argument is over, because you're simply denying
reality, and all your ranting is irrelevant.
> This all boils down to what you define as "establishment". I'm pretty sure
> that our FF meant that Congress shouldn't set up a State Church or endorse any
> one particular faith over another. You say that the voluntary phrase "under
> God" sets up a State religion and that it violates your civil rights. I just
> don't see the offense. Perhaps it annoys you that most of the country believes
> in God and likes the phrase, but it doesn't limit your civil liberties in the
> least.
So you're saying that my religious freedom is not compromised by the
the State-mandated religious declaration in the official Pledge of
Allegiance to the flag of my nation? The phrase is not voluntary--it is a
State-established part of the official pledge.
> Like it or not, this country was founded by people who believed in God and who
> believed this country to be divinely blessed. We still believe it today. The
> fact that you don't believe it doesn't matter; nobody is forcing you to. But
> attempts to purge God references from the fabric of this society are doomed
> because they are perceived as a hostile attack to what most Americans hold dear.
It is perceived as a hostile attack because Lott and Byrd and Limbaugh and
o'Reilly and Gallagher and Reagan and Harvey and Falwell and Robertson all
pretend that it's an attack, and the many in the conservative audience are
so used to obeying without thinking and they are used to condemning anything
percieved as "liberal" or "secular" or "humanistic" that they simply haven't
reviewed the matter objectively. Have you even read the text of the decision?
Here's a good passage from page 24:
> The [1954] Act's affirmation of "a belief in the sovereingy of God" and its
> recognition of "the guidance of God" are endorsements by the government of
> religious beliefs. The Establishment Clause is not limited to "religion as
> an institiution"; this is clear from cases such as "Santa Fe," where the
> Court struck down student-initiated and student-led prayer at high school
> fooball games (530 US 310-16). The Establishment Clause guards not only
> against the establishment of "religion as an institution," but also against
> the endorsement of relgious ideology by the government.
from:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FE05EEE79C2A97B688256BE3007FEE32/$file/0016423.pdf?openelement
Read it, and quit making a fool of yourself.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
