Subject:
|
Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 15 Sep 2002 03:14:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1233 times
|
| |
|
|
Despite my better Judgement I am going to get sucked into this debate. (If only
to prove to Dave! that someone who belives God created the universe is capable
of rational thought.)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> 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.
First off John, I want to make it perfectly clear that I belive all Atheists
are going to burn in Hell. While most Americans probably believe this as well,
it does not change the fact that under their beliefs are protected under the
First Amendment. The phrase 'under God' is in direct contradiction to any
religous belief in no God or more than one god. As it conflicts with freedom
of religion and is a State endorsed Pledge it is in violation of the First
Amendment. Really what is so hard about understanding that?
>
> 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.
Just because a court has not ruled otherwise, does not mean that a law is
constitutional. Anyone capable of reading is capable of determining the
constitutionality of a law.
>
> > 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?
So someone living in a Theocracy (state mandated religion) has complete freedom
of religion? What!?
Well here in the USA we are allowed to believe what ever we want so long as we
do not try to impose our beliefs on others. That's what freedom is all about.
That is what the POA is violating with the 'under god' phrase.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
