T
TonyM.
Guest
Once again Mark Twain (It's a ficticious name Shania) sums up this scenario beautifully with his quote, "Patriotism is the last refuge for a scoundril."
House Blocks Court on Pledge of Allegiance Ruling
- Thread starter hardheadjarhead
- Start date
And I have just as much right to not include that "under God" line while I am saying the pledge if it is something that I don't want to say without it taking away from the "Pledge" idea of the "Pledge of Allegiance."Marginal said:
Leave it in, take it out, exercise your individual right to personally omit it.... how many people really have to say it or even say it with any sense of reverence or meaning anymore anyway?
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Here we go again, indeed. It doesn't matter, unless of course I don't get my way.
If it doesn't matter, why'd the Congress--in the heart of the McCarthy era, mind you--step in and change the Pledge, inserting, "God," and "America," despite it had been the SPECIFIC INTENT of the minister who wrote the damn thing to leave them out? If it doesn't matter, why would our present Republican-controlled Congress--in the heart of a war era, with its own little witch hunts going on everywhere--start up with something that really isn't an issue?
The problem is that the Protestant white guy viewpoint remains normative in this country--the common sense, "zero degree," of discussion. So, everything else continues to be taken as an unnecessary change from that norm.
If it doesn't matter, why'd the Congress--in the heart of the McCarthy era, mind you--step in and change the Pledge, inserting, "God," and "America," despite it had been the SPECIFIC INTENT of the minister who wrote the damn thing to leave them out? If it doesn't matter, why would our present Republican-controlled Congress--in the heart of a war era, with its own little witch hunts going on everywhere--start up with something that really isn't an issue?
The problem is that the Protestant white guy viewpoint remains normative in this country--the common sense, "zero degree," of discussion. So, everything else continues to be taken as an unnecessary change from that norm.
The legislative branch of the government polices the judicial branch. If they don't like the rulings of the supreme court, they are more than welcome to try to change the constitution, so the court then has a different set of rules to interpret.
the legislative branch does NOT have the right to tell the supreme court not to hear a case. that decision lies with the court alone. What they did do, however, is send a message to the court that they would prefer the court not hear that case prior to the elections. The court will probably hear the case, but probably after the election.
the legislative branch does NOT have the right to tell the supreme court not to hear a case. that decision lies with the court alone. What they did do, however, is send a message to the court that they would prefer the court not hear that case prior to the elections. The court will probably hear the case, but probably after the election.
punisher73
Senior Master
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...Yet, the supreme court and other courts have ruled that the posting of the 10 commandments is "unconstitutional" yet you can have other religious texts posted as "historical" or taught in schools. You can't have school prayer anymore yet that went against previous case law before it when the supreme court ruled against it (it was also against public majority also.
----
Although most of the Framers of the Constitution anticipated that the Federal judiciary would be the weakest branch of Government, the U.S. Supreme Court has come to wield enormous power with decisions that have reached into the lives of every citizen and resolved some of the most dramatic confrontations in U.S. history. The word of the Supreme Court is final. Overturning its decisions often requires an amendment to the Constitution or a revision of Federal law. (quote taken from the national archives experience.)
--------
James Madison, the father of our Constitution said..."we have stacked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
John Jay, the very first Supreme Court justice said, "Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."
Patrick Henry said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
Samuel Adams said, "Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness." He also said, "The religion of America (are) the religion of all mankind." In other words, these fundamental beliefs belong to all world faiths and could therefore be taught without being offensive to any sect or denomination. (The Making of America, pp 677).
Benjamin Franklin also said, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom."
John Adams said, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
George Washington: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.... forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle."
------------
I don't buy the line about "giving up rights" on the "whim of the masses". Well, it's the masses that give power to the Constitution. It factors in there if the "masses" want something changed than they have the power to do so. There is too much given up from the majority to appease those in the minorities that have nothing to do with "rights" as people like to toss around. Think about it, we can say "G*d D*mn" on TV because that's our "freedom of speech" but I can't say God in a prayer becaue it might offend someone who doesn't believe the way I do. Why is it than that Congress opens each session with prayer if it's unconstitutional?
----
Although most of the Framers of the Constitution anticipated that the Federal judiciary would be the weakest branch of Government, the U.S. Supreme Court has come to wield enormous power with decisions that have reached into the lives of every citizen and resolved some of the most dramatic confrontations in U.S. history. The word of the Supreme Court is final. Overturning its decisions often requires an amendment to the Constitution or a revision of Federal law. (quote taken from the national archives experience.)
--------
James Madison, the father of our Constitution said..."we have stacked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
John Jay, the very first Supreme Court justice said, "Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."
Patrick Henry said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
Samuel Adams said, "Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness." He also said, "The religion of America (are) the religion of all mankind." In other words, these fundamental beliefs belong to all world faiths and could therefore be taught without being offensive to any sect or denomination. (The Making of America, pp 677).
Benjamin Franklin also said, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom."
John Adams said, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
George Washington: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.... forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle."
------------
I don't buy the line about "giving up rights" on the "whim of the masses". Well, it's the masses that give power to the Constitution. It factors in there if the "masses" want something changed than they have the power to do so. There is too much given up from the majority to appease those in the minorities that have nothing to do with "rights" as people like to toss around. Think about it, we can say "G*d D*mn" on TV because that's our "freedom of speech" but I can't say God in a prayer becaue it might offend someone who doesn't believe the way I do. Why is it than that Congress opens each session with prayer if it's unconstitutional?
Xequat
Black Belt
Nightingale said:
Well said. There has become way too much crossover between the roles of the three branches of government.
One thing I think we need to keep in mind is that there is a difference between God and religion. Using the words "under God" does not establish a state religions, as the Constitution was designed to prevent, but it does tie in with the history of religious persons in US history. "God" could mean Jesus, Allah, or the Force. The freedom of religion idea was there in part to prevent another example of a state religion such as the Anglican Church, which was established in England so that the king could get a divorce and force the entire nation to follow his beliefs. Using the words "under God" promotes God, but no particular religion because it does not define God.
There is a history as Punisher73 has displayed. Couple that with "In God We Trust" on the money and you can see that God has played a part in many decisions. But, all of the people who were doing things in the name of God were not of the same faith, although most were Christian.
Marginal
Senior Master
punisher73 said:
That's not really true however. You can have prayer in school as long as you're not having the school officials lead that prayer. Nothing's stopping a kid from praying in class, reading the Bible etc. 10 Commantments, similar deal. It's being posted in classrooms to preach at students in a captive environment.
THis is contrary to freedom of religion (and people would be screaming bloody murder if a Wiccan etc tried to do what's considered "reasonable" by the religious right in their attempts at forced indoctrination.)
As for the Christian influence, that was then, this is now. The FF supported slavery and genocide among other platforms that are unpopular now because of their blatant infringement of the rights of all, but nobody wistfully invokes the FF in those causes....
From the original article....
Glad to know the heart of our country is macho.
And a minor thread-gank... this "pledge" debate was lumped in with gay marriage and flag-burning, I believe.
Here's my thing about "flag burning".
I have seen so many people driving around with mini flags on their cars. Flags out front of their houses. Flags they wave in parades.
I support the right of anyone who wants to politically demonstrate to burn the flag if they want. I think it won't be a successful demonstration, and is stupid, and I won't be crazy about it, but that's me. That's your right.
On the other hand, I was a Girl Scout for many years. We learned how to fold, store, raise, lower, and otherwise take care of the American flag. I took these rules to heart - and they idea that, if you respect something, show it respect, don't just say you do.
Some rules for anyone out there who loves the flag so much, like the hundreds of people flying car flags, or flags over their fast-food buisness.
1) Don't fly it in inclement weather
2) Don't let it touch the ground
3) Don't fly it in the dark
So I get a little peevish when someone who I saw just drop a mini American flag to the ground - or is flying one when it's dark and rainy - also rants about "flag-burning".
For true flag nitty-gritty (although this goes beyond anything I learned in Scouts)....
http://www.usflag.org/flag.etiquette.html
/end gank
I didn't realize you can emasculate a heart. Neato.
Glad to know the heart of our country is macho.
And a minor thread-gank... this "pledge" debate was lumped in with gay marriage and flag-burning, I believe.
Here's my thing about "flag burning".
I have seen so many people driving around with mini flags on their cars. Flags out front of their houses. Flags they wave in parades.
I support the right of anyone who wants to politically demonstrate to burn the flag if they want. I think it won't be a successful demonstration, and is stupid, and I won't be crazy about it, but that's me. That's your right.
On the other hand, I was a Girl Scout for many years. We learned how to fold, store, raise, lower, and otherwise take care of the American flag. I took these rules to heart - and they idea that, if you respect something, show it respect, don't just say you do.
Some rules for anyone out there who loves the flag so much, like the hundreds of people flying car flags, or flags over their fast-food buisness.
1) Don't fly it in inclement weather
2) Don't let it touch the ground
3) Don't fly it in the dark
So I get a little peevish when someone who I saw just drop a mini American flag to the ground - or is flying one when it's dark and rainy - also rants about "flag-burning".
For true flag nitty-gritty (although this goes beyond anything I learned in Scouts)....
http://www.usflag.org/flag.etiquette.html
/end gank
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
First off, I absolutely agree about the Flag etiquette, having been a Boy Scout...hard to imagine, I know. One would think the Young Communist league, or something...especially because Americans like Michael Savage have forgotten, if indeed they ever knew, all the different forms patriotism has taken in this country. Personally, I'd a helluva lot rather sing of Olaf glad and big than kiss some piece of cloth every ten minutes.
Second--is it just me, or is it actually the case that just as you can tell how good a diner in a small town is going to be by the number of calendars at the register, you can tell how arrogantly and stupidly somebody's going to be driving by the number of flag decals and stickers?
Third--sorry, "punisher," but I don't care to live in your Nehemiah Scudder theocracy. If you don't like the libertarian traditions and freedom of religion that so many struggled and died for, you should leave...try Iran. (Sorry...I hadda say it.)
Fourth--yes, some of the so-called Founding Fathers were Christians. Unfortunately for your argument, this included Masons, Catholics and Deists, as well as others who did not at all agree with today's whacked-out fundamentalists. And, hate to tell ya, it included people like Roger Williams, founder of my home state, and it most def included atheists like Tom Paine. "Protestantism," "Christianity," "morality," and "religion," are not synonyms.
Fifth--as has been pointed out, you've always been perfectly free to pray in school. You're perfectly free to hold meetings, and use school facilities for religious activities. You are NOT free to exclude religions and beliefs you don't like, and you are NOT allowed to ram your own beliefs about the Great Punta down everybody else's throat. Whatever the hell happened to that injunction of Jesus' NOT to pray in public, like the Pharisees and Hypocrites?
Second--is it just me, or is it actually the case that just as you can tell how good a diner in a small town is going to be by the number of calendars at the register, you can tell how arrogantly and stupidly somebody's going to be driving by the number of flag decals and stickers?
Third--sorry, "punisher," but I don't care to live in your Nehemiah Scudder theocracy. If you don't like the libertarian traditions and freedom of religion that so many struggled and died for, you should leave...try Iran. (Sorry...I hadda say it.)
Fourth--yes, some of the so-called Founding Fathers were Christians. Unfortunately for your argument, this included Masons, Catholics and Deists, as well as others who did not at all agree with today's whacked-out fundamentalists. And, hate to tell ya, it included people like Roger Williams, founder of my home state, and it most def included atheists like Tom Paine. "Protestantism," "Christianity," "morality," and "religion," are not synonyms.
Fifth--as has been pointed out, you've always been perfectly free to pray in school. You're perfectly free to hold meetings, and use school facilities for religious activities. You are NOT free to exclude religions and beliefs you don't like, and you are NOT allowed to ram your own beliefs about the Great Punta down everybody else's throat. Whatever the hell happened to that injunction of Jesus' NOT to pray in public, like the Pharisees and Hypocrites?
punisher73
Senior Master
Fifth--as has been pointed out, you've always been perfectly free to pray in school. You're perfectly free to hold meetings, and use school facilities for religious activities---Not true. Many schools do not allow religious groups to use school facilities to gather. Back when I was in high school (later 80's, early 90's) several "church groups" requested to be able to use a classroom either before school or after school to have a bible study and/or prayer group and were repeatedly turned down.
Whatever the hell happened to that injunction of Jesus' NOT to pray in public, like the Pharisees and Hypocrites? Do you even understand what this meant? Jesus didn't say you couldn't pray in public, he said not to pray LIKE the pharisees. The pharisees would yell and scream and tear their garments to draw attention to themselves while interupting other people at the temple to worship.
--------
Third--sorry, "punisher," but I don't care to live in your Nehemiah Scudder theocracy. If you don't like the libertarian traditions and freedom of religion that so many struggled and died for, you should leave...try Iran. (Sorry...I hadda say it.) --- I don't care what religion you are, or what your beliefs are. I think that there are universal truths in all religions. I just happen to feel when around 80% of the country professes to believe in God (and I'm not identifiying what that belief means to each individual, or how they perceive what/who God is) that the majority of the people should be heard and listened to. If I went to Iran, I wouldn't (not like I could anyways) pitch a fit about all their prayers to Allah, or if I went to China and heard prayers to Buddha. I would respect that the MAJORITY of people there believed that way and would not interfere with that. And if it really offended me that much, I just wouldn't go to those places. Why does the MAJORITY in the US have to take a backseat to the minority on this issue?
Whatever the hell happened to that injunction of Jesus' NOT to pray in public, like the Pharisees and Hypocrites? Do you even understand what this meant? Jesus didn't say you couldn't pray in public, he said not to pray LIKE the pharisees. The pharisees would yell and scream and tear their garments to draw attention to themselves while interupting other people at the temple to worship.
--------
Third--sorry, "punisher," but I don't care to live in your Nehemiah Scudder theocracy. If you don't like the libertarian traditions and freedom of religion that so many struggled and died for, you should leave...try Iran. (Sorry...I hadda say it.) --- I don't care what religion you are, or what your beliefs are. I think that there are universal truths in all religions. I just happen to feel when around 80% of the country professes to believe in God (and I'm not identifiying what that belief means to each individual, or how they perceive what/who God is) that the majority of the people should be heard and listened to. If I went to Iran, I wouldn't (not like I could anyways) pitch a fit about all their prayers to Allah, or if I went to China and heard prayers to Buddha. I would respect that the MAJORITY of people there believed that way and would not interfere with that. And if it really offended me that much, I just wouldn't go to those places. Why does the MAJORITY in the US have to take a backseat to the minority on this issue?
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
First off--in reverse order--see, the way this works is that the Bill of Rights protects the rights of the MINORITY because the right of the MAJORITY don't need protecting. In other words--and please do check up on me here--the Constitution is written to protect the rights of worship, speech, etc., of EVERYBODY, not just those in power.
Second off--will you PLEASE actually read the Bible, if you're going to thump it? Sorry for the intemperate tone and I KNOW the devil can quote Scripture, but will you PLEASE actually learn what you're defending.
This, goddammit, is Matthew 6, as translated in the
"New Oxford Annotated Bible," as cited in "The Norton Anthology of World Masterpieces," 713:
"6. Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them; otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in Heaven. Therefore when ye doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: that thine alms may be in secret: and thy father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you: they have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut the door, pray to thy Father which is in secret, and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do; for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking..."
Translation: keep your charity secret, so it doesn't make you vain and proud--God knows what you do, and sees your action. Keep your prayers to yourself, so you do not grow smug about how holy you are, or come to expect to be slapped on the back by the crowd. Instead, be humble, go home, pray in private, open your heart rather than reciting a dead formula...God knows, and can hear you--and He wants you to focus on your soul and on Him, rather than upon looking good.
I hear that Tehran is nice during our winter--and just incidentally, could you explain how calling yourself, "punisher," reconciles with ANY of Christ's teachings?
Second off--will you PLEASE actually read the Bible, if you're going to thump it? Sorry for the intemperate tone and I KNOW the devil can quote Scripture, but will you PLEASE actually learn what you're defending.
This, goddammit, is Matthew 6, as translated in the
"New Oxford Annotated Bible," as cited in "The Norton Anthology of World Masterpieces," 713:
"6. Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them; otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in Heaven. Therefore when ye doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: that thine alms may be in secret: and thy father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you: they have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut the door, pray to thy Father which is in secret, and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do; for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking..."
Translation: keep your charity secret, so it doesn't make you vain and proud--God knows what you do, and sees your action. Keep your prayers to yourself, so you do not grow smug about how holy you are, or come to expect to be slapped on the back by the crowd. Instead, be humble, go home, pray in private, open your heart rather than reciting a dead formula...God knows, and can hear you--and He wants you to focus on your soul and on Him, rather than upon looking good.
I hear that Tehran is nice during our winter--and just incidentally, could you explain how calling yourself, "punisher," reconciles with ANY of Christ's teachings?
punisher73
Senior Master
Second off--will you PLEASE actually read the Bible, if you're going to thump it? Sorry for the intemperate tone and I KNOW the devil can quote Scripture, but will you PLEASE actually learn what you're defending.
-------
You were the one who brought up the bible and not praying like the pharisees, and I have read it and understood it. You are the one mistaken here. The verses are referencing not praying in public but praying in public to be noticed by everyone. Again, this is not talking about a led prayer like before Congress or a prayer led before a sporting event.
"We must not be proud and vain-glorious in prayer, nor aim at the praise of men. And here observe, 1. What was the way and practice of the hypocrites. In all their exercises of devotion, it was plain, the chief thing they aimed at was to be commended by their neighbours." "What the places were which they chose for their devotion; they prayed in the synagouges, which were indeed proper places for public prayer...They prayed in the corners of the streets, broad streets (so the word signifies), which were most frequented. It was to cause themselves to be taken notice of. "Their pride in choosing public places, which is expressed in two things; They love to pray there. They did not love prayer for its own sake, but they loved it when it gave them an oppourtunity of making themselves noticed. It is that they may be seen of men; not that God might accept them, but that men might admire and applaud them." (Matthew Henry Commentary pg. 1227)
I have never once said that I was a Christian on any of these threads. You assume much. I am not a Christian, but that still does not change my views on this matter.
------------
First off--in reverse order--see, the way this works is that the Bill of Rights protects the rights of the MINORITY because the right of the MAJORITY don't need protecting
"The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will" Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison 1803. The "will of the people" has amended the bill of rights 17 other times since it's inception. Why do you have such a problem with Congress passing this law and then if they chose to through popular vote of the people create an amendmant concerning the pledge?
-------
You were the one who brought up the bible and not praying like the pharisees, and I have read it and understood it. You are the one mistaken here. The verses are referencing not praying in public but praying in public to be noticed by everyone. Again, this is not talking about a led prayer like before Congress or a prayer led before a sporting event.
"We must not be proud and vain-glorious in prayer, nor aim at the praise of men. And here observe, 1. What was the way and practice of the hypocrites. In all their exercises of devotion, it was plain, the chief thing they aimed at was to be commended by their neighbours." "What the places were which they chose for their devotion; they prayed in the synagouges, which were indeed proper places for public prayer...They prayed in the corners of the streets, broad streets (so the word signifies), which were most frequented. It was to cause themselves to be taken notice of. "Their pride in choosing public places, which is expressed in two things; They love to pray there. They did not love prayer for its own sake, but they loved it when it gave them an oppourtunity of making themselves noticed. It is that they may be seen of men; not that God might accept them, but that men might admire and applaud them." (Matthew Henry Commentary pg. 1227)
I have never once said that I was a Christian on any of these threads. You assume much. I am not a Christian, but that still does not change my views on this matter.
------------
First off--in reverse order--see, the way this works is that the Bill of Rights protects the rights of the MINORITY because the right of the MAJORITY don't need protecting
"The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will" Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison 1803. The "will of the people" has amended the bill of rights 17 other times since it's inception. Why do you have such a problem with Congress passing this law and then if they chose to through popular vote of the people create an amendmant concerning the pledge?
punisher73
Senior Master
First off--in reverse order--see, the way this works is that the Bill of Rights protects the rights of the MINORITY because the right of the MAJORITY don't need protecting
"The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will" Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison 1803. The "will of the people" has amended the bill of rights 17 other times since it's inception. Why do you have such a problem with Congress passing this law and then if they chose to through popular vote of the people create an amendmant concerning the pledge? I would feel the same way with WHATEVER religion this dealt with not just "God". That's the crux of my argument, it's not for "Christian Worship" in a public place. It's that the vast majority of the people want the pledge to have the term "under God" in it. It does not affect anyone's religious beliefs or worship practices to have that in there, so you are not infringing on someone's religious rights to have that. If the vast majority of people wanted to take it out and this case was reversed and Congress passed something that said the supreme court couldn't hear cases to add it in I would support that also.
The majority of this counrty happens to have judeo-christian beliefs and others should recognize that and respect that whether they believe that also. Again, if I go to China I'm not going to be offended if they pray before a soccer game to Buddha. I'm against ALL religions of any kind being taken out of public places. I mentioned before groups not being able to use schools to have bible/prayer groups. What I didn't mention was I have also heard of schools denying "christian groups" this because then it would mean that they would have to allow other religious groups to do that also. I do think that is wrong because it is discriminating against someone's religous beliefs. But that is not what is at question here, no one is taking away someone's right to worship how they choose or believe what they want.
"The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will" Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison 1803. The "will of the people" has amended the bill of rights 17 other times since it's inception. Why do you have such a problem with Congress passing this law and then if they chose to through popular vote of the people create an amendmant concerning the pledge? I would feel the same way with WHATEVER religion this dealt with not just "God". That's the crux of my argument, it's not for "Christian Worship" in a public place. It's that the vast majority of the people want the pledge to have the term "under God" in it. It does not affect anyone's religious beliefs or worship practices to have that in there, so you are not infringing on someone's religious rights to have that. If the vast majority of people wanted to take it out and this case was reversed and Congress passed something that said the supreme court couldn't hear cases to add it in I would support that also.
The majority of this counrty happens to have judeo-christian beliefs and others should recognize that and respect that whether they believe that also. Again, if I go to China I'm not going to be offended if they pray before a soccer game to Buddha. I'm against ALL religions of any kind being taken out of public places. I mentioned before groups not being able to use schools to have bible/prayer groups. What I didn't mention was I have also heard of schools denying "christian groups" this because then it would mean that they would have to allow other religious groups to do that also. I do think that is wrong because it is discriminating against someone's religous beliefs. But that is not what is at question here, no one is taking away someone's right to worship how they choose or believe what they want.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
OK, one last try...then, balloon animals.
The reason we have a Supreme Court and a system of laws is to protect the rights of the MINORITY against the demands of the MAJORITY. It is not a matter of voting, because some folks--and you are clearly one of them--would cheerfully vote away basic rights. That's well-established in our Constitution, in our legal system, in our history, and in all sorts of discussions. You talk about respect: why don't you have any for the basic institutions of your country?
I see you skipped over any and all recogniztion that this country was not founded simply by fundamentalist Christians. I would too, if I were arguing your case. But personally, I prefer historical reality.
You're quite right: nobody's talking away religious rights. They are taking away the rights of clowns like Pat Robertson to force loopy Christian beliefs upon everybody else, and to get teachers, public officials and the cops to help them do it. Why do you even WANT to be able to force people to pray your way? It's un-American; it's what they do in Tehran.
I see that rather than simply quoting the Bible and offering an interpretation, you've quoted a commentary. Hm. Well, I would too, because the actual text is unequivocal. Why would you want to distort it?
Nice selective quoting of Madison. Please read the actual Declaration and Constitution: you won't have to go far down the page. They actually say that rights are, "self-evident;" because they come from a "Creator," and are "inalienable," which means that they cannot be taken by people because they were not given by people. Why would you WANT to allow voters to vote away little things like freedom of speech?
Oh well. This is useless. You don't know the texts nor the history; like too many folks, you simply think that you should get your way regardless. Fortunately, our Constitution forbids that--whatever our latest crop of Congressional dolts comes up with so they can pander to the worst impulses of their constituents during an election.
The reason we have a Supreme Court and a system of laws is to protect the rights of the MINORITY against the demands of the MAJORITY. It is not a matter of voting, because some folks--and you are clearly one of them--would cheerfully vote away basic rights. That's well-established in our Constitution, in our legal system, in our history, and in all sorts of discussions. You talk about respect: why don't you have any for the basic institutions of your country?
I see you skipped over any and all recogniztion that this country was not founded simply by fundamentalist Christians. I would too, if I were arguing your case. But personally, I prefer historical reality.
You're quite right: nobody's talking away religious rights. They are taking away the rights of clowns like Pat Robertson to force loopy Christian beliefs upon everybody else, and to get teachers, public officials and the cops to help them do it. Why do you even WANT to be able to force people to pray your way? It's un-American; it's what they do in Tehran.
I see that rather than simply quoting the Bible and offering an interpretation, you've quoted a commentary. Hm. Well, I would too, because the actual text is unequivocal. Why would you want to distort it?
Nice selective quoting of Madison. Please read the actual Declaration and Constitution: you won't have to go far down the page. They actually say that rights are, "self-evident;" because they come from a "Creator," and are "inalienable," which means that they cannot be taken by people because they were not given by people. Why would you WANT to allow voters to vote away little things like freedom of speech?
Oh well. This is useless. You don't know the texts nor the history; like too many folks, you simply think that you should get your way regardless. Fortunately, our Constitution forbids that--whatever our latest crop of Congressional dolts comes up with so they can pander to the worst impulses of their constituents during an election.
Short version -
Yup
For my opinions on the loyalty oath, its wording, rewording and history, a search of older threads will turn up a previously heated discussion. Short summary - "under god" doesn't belong there.
....
Yup
For my opinions on the loyalty oath, its wording, rewording and history, a search of older threads will turn up a previously heated discussion. Short summary - "under god" doesn't belong there.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Thank you, Robert. I do not think this part of the Bible needs a translation. I think it says pretty clearly how Jesus thought people should pray. I wish several on this board would recall this scripture; especially in the 'Proof' threads.rmcrobertson said:
If they can't remember this scripture, I think it was Psalms that says 'make a joyful noise' ... which is not something I see the believers doing. Fire and Brimstone, Hell and Damnation for us.
Mike
punisher73
Senior Master
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed--- Again you keep on preaching the big brother of government is here to protect the people from the people. Name one "right" that the majority of have people willingly just "voted away" like you claim could/would happen if we weren't watched over? Or a right that people have talked about just giving up because we don't know what's best for us but the gov't does..Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness (except for those merciless Indian Savages mentioned also in the Declaration of Independence)
-----
I see you skipped over any and all recogniztion that this country was not founded simply by fundamentalist Christians. I would too, if I were arguing your case. But personally, I prefer historical reality. I never said that they were fundamentalist Christians, I talked about their belief in God and the majority of them had judeo-christian beliefs. I could give you quotes from Thomas Jefferson saying how bad Christianity is, I know that some didn't believe in a "fundamentalist christian" and I didn't choose to ignore it. I have read the documents many times, along with a constitutional law class in college. So let me get this straight a "God" gave us they inalienable rights that are self-evident in this country but we are not "one nation under God"? Most of the founders believe in "God", you are the one saying that they were fundamentalist Christians, not me. I pointed out their belief in a God and how it helped shape some of their thinking.
--I see that rather than simply quoting the Bible and offering an interpretation, you've quoted a commentary. Hm. Well, I would too, because the actual text is unequivocal. Why would you want to distort it?
You brought up the verse, I responded what it was talking about and you claimed I was wrong. So I used other scholarly work that supported the sinterpretation of what the verses mean. You were the one who distorted the verse to mean no praying in public, not the meaning of the verse that talks about making a big production of praying in public to draw attention to yourself.
You're quite right: nobody's talking away religious rights. They are taking away the rights of clowns like Pat Robertson to force loopy Christian beliefs upon everybody else, and to get teachers, public officials and the cops to help them do it. Why do you even WANT to be able to force people to pray your way? It's un-American; it's what they do in Tehran----HMMMM again, where does this have to do with FORCING someone to pray someone else's way? You keep on hounding on "forcing people to pray a certain way" where has that been said? You are bringing other people's arguments that I haven't made into this discussion. For the record I think Pat Robertson is loopy (come on now how many revisions of your 'the end is at hand' book can you have before people notice you might be wrong about it) and don't agree with his agenda Sitting in a room while someone prays before a gathering is not forcing someone to pray a certian way. I deal with ALOT of INS inmates and as part of their religious beliefs they are to face mecca at certain times of the day and kneel down to pray, they are allowed to do that...it is their RIGHT to choose to do so and it doesn't bother me that I have to be in there while they are doing it. They have chapel services in the housing unit for muslims and christians and if you don't want to be there in the room no one is forcing you to attend it. If we were "forcing" someone to pray a certain way we would pass laws against that and make that illegal, no one has said we should be doing this except for your phantom argument that people are forcing people to pray a certain way, which I agree with you on. I just don't agree that being in the room while others pray is being forced to pray that way also.
-----
I see you skipped over any and all recogniztion that this country was not founded simply by fundamentalist Christians. I would too, if I were arguing your case. But personally, I prefer historical reality. I never said that they were fundamentalist Christians, I talked about their belief in God and the majority of them had judeo-christian beliefs. I could give you quotes from Thomas Jefferson saying how bad Christianity is, I know that some didn't believe in a "fundamentalist christian" and I didn't choose to ignore it. I have read the documents many times, along with a constitutional law class in college. So let me get this straight a "God" gave us they inalienable rights that are self-evident in this country but we are not "one nation under God"? Most of the founders believe in "God", you are the one saying that they were fundamentalist Christians, not me. I pointed out their belief in a God and how it helped shape some of their thinking.
--I see that rather than simply quoting the Bible and offering an interpretation, you've quoted a commentary. Hm. Well, I would too, because the actual text is unequivocal. Why would you want to distort it?
You brought up the verse, I responded what it was talking about and you claimed I was wrong. So I used other scholarly work that supported the sinterpretation of what the verses mean. You were the one who distorted the verse to mean no praying in public, not the meaning of the verse that talks about making a big production of praying in public to draw attention to yourself.
You're quite right: nobody's talking away religious rights. They are taking away the rights of clowns like Pat Robertson to force loopy Christian beliefs upon everybody else, and to get teachers, public officials and the cops to help them do it. Why do you even WANT to be able to force people to pray your way? It's un-American; it's what they do in Tehran----HMMMM again, where does this have to do with FORCING someone to pray someone else's way? You keep on hounding on "forcing people to pray a certain way" where has that been said? You are bringing other people's arguments that I haven't made into this discussion. For the record I think Pat Robertson is loopy (come on now how many revisions of your 'the end is at hand' book can you have before people notice you might be wrong about it) and don't agree with his agenda Sitting in a room while someone prays before a gathering is not forcing someone to pray a certian way. I deal with ALOT of INS inmates and as part of their religious beliefs they are to face mecca at certain times of the day and kneel down to pray, they are allowed to do that...it is their RIGHT to choose to do so and it doesn't bother me that I have to be in there while they are doing it. They have chapel services in the housing unit for muslims and christians and if you don't want to be there in the room no one is forcing you to attend it. If we were "forcing" someone to pray a certain way we would pass laws against that and make that illegal, no one has said we should be doing this except for your phantom argument that people are forcing people to pray a certain way, which I agree with you on. I just don't agree that being in the room while others pray is being forced to pray that way also.
Flatlander
Grandmaster
punisher73 said:
michaeledward
Grandmaster
I am going to pass over the really big things, like the Central Intelligence Agency, which by Constitutional Reckoning is illegal. Seems to me that somewhere in that there Constitution, the Executive Branch is required to report the amount of money they are spending to the Legislative Branch. A scant handful of people know how much money this organization spends and where they spend it.punisher73 said:
We'll ignore that 'right' that was given away ... and take a look at something a bit more close by ... ...
YASER HAMDI
Perhaps you have heard that this American Citizen was held for two years without the right to council. He is to be (or has been) released without charge.
President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Attorney General Ashcroft should be ashamed of themselves. That they could so casually cast aside the rights of an American Citizen is reason enough for them to be removed from office.
Similarly Supreme Court Justice Thomas should be impeached for his lone disregard of citizen's rights.
Michael Edward
