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 19:50:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1229 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> Gee, Dave! we simpletons shur 'preshiate when you smart folk done make it
> easy-like fer us to understand;-)
To no avail, apparently. Your inability to reason is invulnerable.
> > 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.
What do you want to hear, John? That "their Creator" should be stripped
frm the Declaration of Independence? Fine, I certainly support that. As
Dave K has correctly pointed out, the worship of a document is a ridiculous
basis for any government (or belief system, if you want the truth), so there
is nothing wrong with eliminating inappropriate religious references.
And for the last time, when it comes to law, the Constitution trumps the
Declaration. The Constitution says such language is illegal, and so it is.
> > 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*.
And to "one nation, under God." Remember? That's the part that's
unconstitutional.
> > 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.
No, it's unconstitutional upon inception. That's why court convictions
based on unconstitutional laws are retroactively overturned.
> > 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:
> 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.
Unbelievably, you are blurring the issue yet again. Stevens isn't saying
"the Court deems this practice to be unconstitutional because the public
says so"--he's saying that the court's decision was motivated to reflect the
current sensibilities of the public. That's not a statement of
constitutionality, which is entirely separate from public opinion.
If "the public" suddenly decides that it's okay to torture John Neal to
death, does that make it constitutional?
> > 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*.
Only because Jehovah's witnesses took it to court, and that was in the
1940's, years prior to the unconstitutional Congressional endorsement of
religion in 1954.
It is not enough that the pledge is not mandatory. The fact that it is a
State-endorsed declaration of religion, and that's enough to make it
unconstitutional.
> 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.
Either you are illiterate or you are so hopelessly caught up in your
zealotry that you are unable to reason at all. On second thought, I have
the impression that you can read.
Newdow does not want the Pledge axed--where have you heard otherwise?
What Newdow wants--and he is correct to want it--is for the unconstitutional
phrase "under God" to be stricken from the official, State-endorsed Pledge
of Alleigance. The original text of the Pledge will remain.
Since you are so slavishly devoted to the intentions of authors, perhaps
you should be aware that Francis Bellamy, the author of the pledge--a
baptist minister--specifically did NOT want God mentioned in the pledge, or
else he'd have put it there. Once again you are reasoning selectively,
ignoring facts that are inconvenient to you and unquestioningly swallowing
facts that suit your cause. As Richard has pointed out previously, you
simply tune out whole passages of people's posts when those passages give
arguments that you can't refute, or that are uncomfortable or offensive to you.
By the way--apes and humans have a common ancestor, and speciation occurs
as a result of natural selection.
> 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.
You're evangelizing rather than reasoning. The eradication of slavery
tore the fabric of our society, very much for the better. The suffrage of
women and blacks tore the fabric of our society, likewise for the better.
The Jehovah's Witness' success in making the pledge voluntary tore the
fabric of our society. The elimination of State-endorsed religious
discrimination can only improve the state of freedom in this country, and
the sooner the better.
And, aside from fearmongering, do you have a evidence for your
speculations on Newdow's future plans?
> 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.
You're lauding cowardice, and yet again you are confusing what you
perceive as "the will of the people" and "what is constitutional." If "the
people" decide that all Christians should be machine-gunned for being
Christian, would you say that it was constitutional just because "the
people" wanted it?
> > As I mentioned before, I guarantee you that I support that
> > right [of religious freedom] more fervently than you do.
>
> Okay, I'll bite. How?
I will defend to the best of my ability your right to religious freedom,
while you will fight with all of your ability to restrict my religious
freedom. The fact that you tell me "it doesn't matter" or "most people
believe it" or "it's voluntary" is wholly irrelevant. Your stated and
obvious intent is to eliminate freedom of religion (and freedom of
association, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of
lifestyle, while we're at it); you are manifestly a bigot with an agenda.
> > 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?
Courts have ruled repeatedly that Congress violates the 1st Amendment
whenever it endorses religion, even if that endorsement is not in the form
of a law.
> > 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.
Why did you not answer this part? It's the crux of the debate.
> Even if "under God" were striken, the POA would *still* be offensive to some,
> and would *still* be voluntary.
Those are two entirely separate issues, and I am endlessly dismayed that
you are unable to focus.
The Constitution doesn't forbid Congress from enacting "offensive" laws;
the Constitution forbids Congress from endorsing religion.
> The only solution would be to do away with it completely. Good luck, Michael
> Newdow-- you are going to be handed your shorts.
Classic straw man. Newdow is not trying to eliminate the Pledge, yet you
summarize his legitimate argument in your soundbyte caricature to give
yourself an easy target to knock down.
But to answer your insipid point; the only answer would be to eliminate
the unconstitutional language: to wit, the endorsement of God.
> The fact remains that a voluntary pledge *in no way* infringes on your
> religious freedom whatsoever.
Classic straw man. The issue is not whether or not the Pledge is
voluntary. The issue is that Congress in 1954 gave a religious endorsement
when it had no right or power to do so.
> 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.
The existence of the State-endorsed phrase "under God" is explicit proof
that the official Pledge is unconstitutional. Your inability to comprehend
that is really separate from the issue. Further, Creationists generally
(and you in particular, from all past examples) have no idea what "concrete
evidence" is, so I'm not surprised that you don't understand.
> > 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.
You know, half a dozen people have cautioned me against trying to reason
with you, and I don't know why I haven't listened. You are a poor debater,
and you have no interest in reason or rationality.
Dave!
If anyone feels that I have not made my point adequately or that John is
worth wasting more time on, please tell me so via email or in this forum,
and I will happily continue. Otherwise I will, a la Pilate, wash my hands
of this.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
