Politics and the Bible

[Darwinist]

Exactly. Goverment cannot endorse ONE religion. It also can't discrimanate against any religion, like not allowing Christians to pray in school.

But the very establishment of one religion as favored by the government necessarily discriminates against the rest. Discrimination against one religion is not the establishment of all the others, however, if the discrimination applies to ALL religion. So the unconstitutionality of prayer organized by the representative agents of a school does not discriminate against Christianity because it applies with equal vigor to all other religions as well.

Christians have always been and are even now allowed to pray in school. They just cannot do so disruptively, and they are prohibited from attempts to compel others to pray with them or to expose others to public expressions of religious iconography. (And no, that does not include necklaces with religious symbols, which are personal iconographic symbols, unless those symbols are obtrusively large.)

[Darwinist]

Try giving some examples why the Ten Commandments, which by the way are hung above the judge in every courtroom, shouldn't be allowed outside a courthouse.

Really? Above the judge in every courtroom, you say? I suggest you come to Lewiston, Idaho - which by the way is pretty darn conservative on the whole - and look for the 10Cs on any courtroom wall in the Nez Perce Country Courthouse. You'll look in vain - they aren't there.


Give us some examples why a nativity can't be placed inside or out a public school alongside a Star of David or a muslim crescent.

Who needs examples? How about this: it's been declared unconstitutional, as per the rendered decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America over the course of the last 41 years. What more could you ask for?

[Ian]

Really? Above the judge in every courtroom, you say? I suggest you come to Lewiston, Idaho - which by the way is pretty darn conservative on the whole - and look for the 10Cs on any courtroom wall in the Nez Perce Country Courthouse. You'll look in vain - they aren't there.

Well why don't you come to LA, which is pretty darn liberal, and look in the courtrooms here. If I overlooked a courtroom in Lewiston, Idaho it's because I've never heard of some backwater place like Lewiston, Idaho. If you are not a lawyer, I wonder how you know the courtrooms so well.

Who needs examples? How about this: it's been declared unconstitutional, as per the rendered decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America over the course of the last 41 years. What more could you ask for?

How is allowing a nativity next to a mennorah and a crescent endorsing one religion?

[MO]

If you are not a lawyer, I wonder how you know the courtrooms so well.

My guess is that he has been a defendant.

The Ten Commandments still hangs in the meeting room of the United States Supreme Court!

[Darwinist]

Well why don't you come to LA, which is pretty darn liberal, and look in the courtrooms here. If I overlooked a courtroom in Lewiston, Idaho it's because I've never heard of some backwater place like Lewiston, Idaho. If you are not a lawyer, I wonder how you know the courtrooms so well.

Well, aren't you the unpleasant little cur? You sound as if you think LA is the whole world. It's not. In fact, it's not even a fraction of the better part of the world: I know, I've spent time there.

I know the courtrooms of Lewiston, yes, because I've been in them a few times on traffic violations. (I like to drive fast - you may as well sue me, since the state fines me.)


How is allowing a nativity next to a mennorah and a crescent endorsing one religion?

It doesn't endorse one: under the conditions you lay out, it unconstitutionally establishes three religions.

If you actually read the Establishment Clause, the exact wording says "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

The Supreme Court has further clarified the meaning of the Clause to include the appearance of religious establishment by the government (because that implies the previous passage of law establishing). 'Establishment' for legal purposes of the Court is equivalent to the endorsement or favored treatment of any religious faith over another. That means, Ian and MO, that in order to maintain constitutionality the government must treat all religions with fully equal "respecting."

And since the Establishment Clause plainly says that there will be no "establishment of religion," rather than 'an establshment of A religion' or 'an establishment of SOME religions' or even 'an establishment of ALL religions,' and because the wording of the Clause leaves the government with no choice but to treat all religion with equality, the only way it can do that is by treating all with equal indifference.

And that's why it's not just unconstitutional to erect a creche scene on public property, it's equally unconstitutional to put up a crescent, a star of David, or a statue of of the Hindu goddess Kali complete with bloody human skulls and entrails; nor can they be grouped together, because it the establishment of religion (period!) that's prohibited: the establishment of several religions simultaneously is just that - the establishment of several religions simultaneously. And it's unconstitutional.

I know you don't like it. But you know what? You're free to try to change the system: that's what Madalyn Murray O'Hair did, back in '63.

You see - that's the great thing about America: anybody has the right to try to change the system; and sometimes they succeed.

But if all you can do is bellyache like spoiled primadonnas, then here's an observation you might find useful: There are borders north and south of the U.S., and nothing stops you from using them. Permanently.

[Darwinist]

My guess is that he has been a defendant.

You got some kind of metaphysical problem with speeding tickets, Mother Theresa?


The Ten Commandments still hangs in the meeting room of the United States Supreme Court!

That, too, shall pass.

[MO]

This is a RANT/discussion board. Please don't imply that those that don't agree with you should keep their mouths shut. You are just pontificating and spouting your opinions, yourself. It has only been in fairly recent years that radicals have been going after all public displays or mention of God. Secular humanism is a religious belief, too. That shouldn't be promoted above all others. Those with a working knowledge of the founding fathers know that their intent is being distorted. It is you that has a distorted view of the first amendment. You're entitled to your opinions, even if they are bogus. Don't claim I shouldn't have mine.

[Favre]

The Supreme Court has further clarified the meaning of the Clause

There is your problem. In your babbling you forgot the rest of the sentence. Read the whole thing.



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

[Darwinist]

This is a RANT/discussion board. Please don't imply that those that don't agree with you should keep their mouths shut.

I'm not implying that at all. I'm saying, clearly, distinctly, that anyone who does nothing but rant is part of a problem not part of a solution.


You are just pontificating and spouting your opinions, yourself.

You keep using that word to describe what I do - 'pontificate.' In my experience 'pontificate' is a word that people use when (a) they don't like what someone is saying, and (b) are unable to respond or are incapable of responding in a cogent manner. ...IOW, when your only other choice is embarrassed silence, call the other guy a 'pontificator.'

Yes, I am "spouting" my opinions. But on this particular First Amendment issue my 'opinion' happens to be affirmed up by more than 40 years of consistent, confirmatory Supreme Court case decision - while your 'opinion' happens to be backed up by more than 40 years of equally consistent failure in that very same venue. ...I submit that establishes our respective opinions as perhaps not so much 'opinion' as instead representative of what is objectively the Law of the Land (mine), and what is not (yours.) Deal with it.


It has only been in fairly recent years that radicals have been going after all public displays or mention of God.

Define "fairly recent." I'm 48 years old, and I remember such legal challenges going back at least to my late grade-school days. Madalyn O'Hair's challenge of compulsory prayer in public schools wasn't successful until 1963. That's pretty recent if you ask me - it's within my lifetime, after all.

But tell me: what does it matter how "recently" the decisions were made? The fact is they were made and have been consistently upheld both in principle and detail, by every Supreme Court configuration ever since the original rulings. The constitution has been interpreted by the Judiciary (as the Framers intended), and subsequent cases have found the earlier decisions legally and constitutionally sound in all their particulars: precedent has been established and confirmed; and unless you can figure out a way to seat at least 5 brimstone-belching Protestant fundamentalist theocrats on the Court, that precedent will see you and I and our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren to the grave.


Secular humanism is a religious belief, too.

What garbage. Did you get that off a bumper-sticker too?

Why don't you amuse me: outline the ways in which 'secular humanism' is a religion. Completeness counts. Sloppy work will receive a lower grade.


That shouldn't be promoted above all others.

Well, if it was really a religion I'd agree with you.


Those with a working knowledge of the founding fathers know that their intent is being distorted.

Ballocks. What "working knowledge" do you have? Are you a constitutional scholar? Are you or were you ever a clerk for a Supreme Court Justice?

You mean above no more or less than what everyone else means when they yap and snarl about the "intentions of the Founders":

'My ox is being gored by this ruling of the Court, and I know in my heart of hearts the Founders never intended that my ox be gored! Therefore, without a doubt, the intent of the Founders has been distorted!' (...Usually followed by "Grrrr!" - you forgot that part.)

The Founders only intent was that the constitution remain a living document, difficult to change but still able to as times required change. The portions that were never meant to change are written in language so plain that the original intent is quite obvious; in the portions the Founders knew must remain flexible through time to come, the language is somewhat more ambiguous because that very ambiguity provides the flexibility for change.

We no longer live in the world of the 18th or 19th centuries, and there is no way that men as farsighted as Jefferson and Franklin, Monroe and Adams, and a dozen other of the intellectual giants who forged this country, ever intended that we should continue to exist in "their time."


It is you that has a distorted view of the first amendment. You're entitled to your opinions, even if they are bogus. Don't claim I shouldn't have mine.

I delightedly invite you to show that my views of the First Amendment are any sort of distortion. Please, trot out your evidence.! I LOVE to get into this fight!

[Favre]

I delightedly invite you to show that my views of the First Amendment are any sort of distortion. Please, trot out your evidence.

I just did you pompous crapbag. You ignore the whole premise of the clause.


Edited to add: Crapbag? That's not what I said!

[Darwinist]

There is your problem. In your babbling you forgot the rest of the sentence. Read the whole thing.

---Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.[/i]

Do you see the 'comma' between the clauses? It's there for a reason, to separate one clause from the other while maintaining a relationship between the two. (And that's why the first clause is called the Establishment Clause, and the second clause is called the Free Exercise Clause, and this concludes our combined American History and English lesson for the day. ...Mr. Favre, I'd like to see you after class about your failing grade....)

But tell me, in what way, precisely, have your free exercise rights been prohibited? Until you can answer that question cogently, your implied assertion (you couldn't even be more direct than that??) is nothing but empty air, since you don't see fit to offer evidence to back yourself up. Now why would that be? Could it be because you're just "babbling?"

[Darwinist]

I just did you pompous crapbag. You ignore the whole premise of the clause.

Oh. I get it! Because you challenged my conclusion that's equal to refuting my conclusion!

Holy Mother-of-Pearl!! *slaps forehead!*

And to think, all these years I've been under the retarded impression that it takes EVIDENCE to refute a claim!! Think of all the WORK I could have avoided just by making unsupported assertions!!

Man, do I feel silly now!

[MO]

Are you a pompous ass or do you just play one on the internet?

The Ten Commandments are the basis of the three largest monotheistic religions of the world and the beginning framework of our system of law. Tell me how they would promote one religion over another and why they would prohibit your rights?

[Favre]

ARRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHHH! I just did a whole refutation of this idiot and Rant got rid of it because it was too long!!!!!!!!!!!! It told me to shorten my post and when I went back, it was all gone!!!!!!!!!

[MO]

As far as I'm concerned, it's just a troll, anyway. I don't see the point in arguing complete opposite worldviews. That's why I post on conservative boards.