Subject:
|
Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 14 Sep 2002 15:51:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1331 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > 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.
> I don't like to see John stating his own opinions as facts either, esp. when
> much of what he has to say is contrary to the facts as understood and
> accepted by the rest of us.
What exactly do you mean by that? That all of *yours* are indeed *fact*? The
FACT is that the POA stands-- defending it one way or the other is opinion.
But I am willing to drop the whole issue until it is decided by the SC. But I
know that if the SC did indeed uphold "under God", you would *still* believe
that you are correct and *they* were wrong. I'm in a lose-lose here, and so
it's rather a pointless discussion.
> The Constitution trumps all other laws. Even the preamble is not actually
> law. Documents that are an important part of our legal heritage are also
> not law; however interesting those documents may be in terms of authorial
> intent as regards some of the framers of the Constitution. Laws that are
> unconstitutional operate as if they had never been written or enacted in the
> first place. One might have to stand one's ground in court, but that's how
> it works ultimately.
Explain how a law can be unconstitutional if it hasn't be challenged in court.
I thought it was the function of the courts to decide on the constitutionality
of laws. Congress can pass any law they please-- constitutionality is not
their concern necessarily, but the Judiciary's.
> A lot of your arguments about Constitutional law are absolutely correct. A
> lot of what John has expressed seems predicated on a limited understanding
> of how the Constitution operates in our political system. I think you have
> pointed out his errors -- the job is done.
> What makes me so hostile to John's views is the lack of respect he has for
> individual rights. Religious freedom does indeed include freedom from >religion.
Hmmm. Reminds me of the smoking/non-smoking/second-hand smoke debate. It's
hard for me to tell whether you are merely annoyed by religion and/or religious
language or if your civil rights are actually be violated.
> Why should anyone respect your views and your rights, John, when you show
> yourself to be so cavalier with everyone's else's views and rights?
Because they think *they* are so tolerate of others' views? Are you saying
that your respect of my rights is conditional?
> The most american of all possible traits is to defend everyone's right to
> difference and disagreement with even a perceived majority. This is what I
> see disappearing from our society as the days, weeks, months, and years >pass...
If you are talking in the context of the military, then I would agree. If you
are talking within the context of litigation, then I'd disagree. (but I'd
rather not get into debating the alleged merits of the ACLU-- an org I suspect
you would hold in rather high esteem).
Are you and Dave! implying that it is not possible in theory for an individual
living in a Theocracy to be free and have complete freedom of religion?
-John
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
