Subject:
|
Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Sep 2002 16:53:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1191 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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:
Gee, Dave! we simpletons shur 'preshiate when you smart folk done make it
easy-like fer us to understand;-)
> P1: According to the 1st Amendment, Congress has no right to issue any
> declaration of religious faith
"Congress shall pass no laws respecting religion or the free exercise
thereof;..." What do you mean by "issue any declaration"?
> P2: The acknowledgement (of) the existence of a deity is a declaration of
> religious faith
I don't agree. I use TJ and the DoI as evidence.
> P3: Pledging oneself to be "under" an entity is an explicit acknowledgement
> of the existence of that entity
Except that the POA is a pledge of allegiance to a *flag* and a *Republic*.
> P4: If Congressional Act is passed that violates the Constitution or any
> of its amendments, then that Act is unconstitutional
Yes, after a court has so stated.
> P5: If an Act is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional regardless of the
> perceived will of the majority of US citizens
Wrong. I cite the recent decision of the SC reversing its 1989 ruling on
capital punishment for the mentally retarded:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa062102a.htm
Specifically: "According to the majority opinion in the case of Atkins v.
Virginia, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the court's decision responds
to changes in public opinion on capital punishment since 1989. Since 1989, the
number of states barring execution of the mentally retarded has increased from
two to eighteen.
'It is not so much the number of these states that is significant, but the
consistency of the direction of the change,' wrote Justice Stevens."
Rehnquist was so lit up that he read the dissent from the bench!
> 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
Which the SC ruled and thus making the pledge *voluntary*.
> > 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 kno 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.
It does matter. When Newdow tries and ax the POA, all heck is going to break
loose. It has already been established that forcing one to speak the pledge is
unconstitutional, but that isn't enough for Newdow-- he wants it gone. And
then he's going to go after "In God We Trust". Whatever his intent, the
perception will be that he is trying to tear the fabric of our society. He is
trying to change America through judical activism, and it is wrong. If
Congress is too spineless to take stands on these issues, it is for a reason.
Because they are responding to the will of the people.
> > 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.
Okay, I'll bite. How?
> 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.
Again, what does this mean? Are you talking about a law?
> 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.
THE *PLEDGE* IS VOLUNTARY-- THE SC RULED ON THAT DECADES AGO!!! And that was
because there were those who didn't believe in making *pledges*. Even if
"under God" were striken, the POA would *still* be offensive to some, and would
*still* be voluntary. The only solution would be to do away with it
completely. Good luck, Michael Newdow-- you are going to be handed your shorts.
The fact remains that a voluntary pledge *in no way* infringes on your
religious freedom whatsoever. You may say that the government is establishing
religion somehow, but until you show *concrete* evidence other than the
existence of the POA itself, I am not buying your grievance. Because there is
none. *That* would be unconstitutional.
> > 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.
Don't flatter yourself.
-John
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
