| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Del" |
| Date: |
19 Oct 2003 01:54:55 PM |
| Object: |
Re: USSC to rule on Pledge |
(Old GodsSoldier) wrote in message news:<23023-3F9164E6-46@storefull-2375.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
Re: USSC to rule on Pledge
Group: alt.politics.usa.constitution Date: Fri, Oct 17, 2003, 10:19pm
From: (Carol Lee Smith)
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Old GodsSoldier wrote:
Re: USSC to rule on Pledge
Group: alt.politics.usa.constitution Date: Fri, Oct 17, 2003, 1:27pm
From: (Carol Lee Smith)
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Old GodsSoldier wrote:
<<<<<<<Government neutrality supresses no one.
Government neutrality supresses no particular values.
Why should the government prop up religion. Is it such a weak concept it
cannot stand on its own?>>>>>>>>>
GS: That is what Franklin said, and it is true. But the question today
is should government "prop up" Atheism, secularism, or humanism.
Oh I see. To not prop up Christianity or any religion
is to prop up atheism or humanism? As for secularism,
it is well defined in the First Amendment.
Can it not "stand on its own"?
You're asking can "no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" not
stand on its own?
<<<<<What moral absolutes?>>>>>>>
GS: That is the problem with Atheism. Since there are no "absolutes"
everything is "relative" to ones feelings.
Tsk, tsk, attempting to put words in your correspondents
mouth. Do you feel you will be at a disadvantage if you
allow the other side to state their own position?
Let's try again. Can you cite chapter and verse a list of
these moral absolutes of yours?
Moral absolutes are the opposite of the ambiguous morality you would
accept.
Well you are very good at saying what your moral absolutes
are NOT. Can you be a little more specific and say precisely
what these absolutes of yours ARE? It can't just be the 10 C.
For one thing, at least 40% of them would be unconstitutional
as laws in this country.
<<<<Ethics are situational. Take murder/killing for instance.
In certain situations it is OK, whether it is contrary to religious
sensibilities or not.>>>>>
GS: You do understand the difference between murder, and killing, do you
not? Murder is never "OK".
But that is what is wrong with "situational ethics". It blurs the line
between the two.
Oh, ok. Well I assume you believe in "God" right? The
one as described in the Bible, no? You have a personal
relationship with your God--do correct me if I am wrong
in any of the particulars here.
Assuming this, my questions are,
1. would you kill women and children in cold blood if you
were convinced that your God wanted you to? Yes or no.
Let me point out that "he would never ask me to do that"
is not an answer because, according to the Bible, he has
in fact made such requests of believers many times. One
Example is in Numbers 31. And the Book of Joshua is full
of such examples of wholesale slaughter, in cold blood,
of women, children and suckling infants, all at the
behest of the same God I assume you call your own. The
Bible also says "Cursed be he that keepeth back his
sword from blood" -- Jeremiah 48:10
Next question:
2.If Yes to #1 would it be moral to do so? Yes or no.
<<<<<<There is as much evidence for Santa Clause and his helpers (were
they dwarves, or are you thinking of Snow White) as there is for the
imaginary friend folks are supposed to talk to in their closets.>>>>>>>
GS: But one is allowed to be expressed openly while the other is not.
You are free to believe as you wish, as I am. The difference lies in who
can express those beliefs, and who cannot.
Do you know of any law, or USSC ruling, that states Atheists cannot
express their views?
Oh dear. Believers can't express their views? Yeah, not
giving theist's beliefs official government sanction means
that believers cannot express their views. Right
In Santa Claus 2 (I think that was the movie) they were dwarves.
<<<<<<<Morality and ethics are not original to nor exclusive to
religion.>>>>>>>
GS: Nor are they defined by human nature, but are better expressed in
religious beliefs.
By all means, expand on this thought.
<<<<<<<Oh, so you have heard about Santa Fe Independent School District
v. Doe?
Was the case brought by atheists? No. One family was Mormon. One family
was Catholic.
Were the justices who decided correctly atheists?
Well? Were they?>>>>>>>
GS: Who says the USSC decided "correctly"? I can cite many cases in
which the USSC was way off base IMO such as the recent decision on
"kiddy porn", and their "interpretation" of what "virtual kiddy porn"
is. The recent ruling in the Lawrence case on sodomy laws, while correct
on its face, leaves a lot to be desired when it addressed other issues
such as sexual orientation, and private conduct.
Are they Atheists? No. Are they liberal? Yes.
Liberal! I think this says more about your politics
than it does about theirs. Let's look at just who
was responsible for this liberal court. We got 9
justices, right?
Nixon
Ford
Reagan
Reagan
Reagan
Bush
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
7 of the current 9 were placed on the bench by
conservatives and, in fact, conservative nominees
have held an overwhelming majority on the bench for
at least 30 years.
So please, take some responsibility here.
<<<<<<<Do you suppose that the government (federal, state or local)
would interfere in religious expression which caused bodily harm or
property damage? Or religious expression which caused cruelty to
animals?>>>>>>>
GS: That it has a right to do. But it does not have the right to
interfere with peaceful expression, or demonstrations.
Do you remember Texas v. Johnson (1989) which protected flag burning,
and Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which protected a KKK leader advocating
unlawfulness as a means of political reform, and the Court decided that
the "First Amendment protects expression, be it of the popular variety
or not."
<<<<<Bring a jurisdiction into the Federal Courts? What does that
mean?>>>>>>>
<<<<<<<Apparently their "understanding" of the Constitution is different
from yours. Why do you suppose that is?>>>>>>>
GS: For the same reason that I oppose the viewpoint of the USSC in its
interpretation of, and expansion of, the Commerce Clause in the 30's,
and the "privacy" rights in Roe v Wade.
The Federal gov't was limited in its juresdiction under the concept of
the Founders. ALL other authority was left to the individual States.
I suppose people had more rights when the Bill of Rights
did not apply to the states? I suppose you don't like the
14th amendment either then.
The
expansion of the Federal powers has eliminated the rights of the States,
Governments do not have rights. They have "powers."
and greatly reduced the rights of the individual.
Let's go back to applying the Bill of Rights only to
people in federal jurisdictions then.
<<<<<No one is fighting against religion. There is concern about
government endorsement of religion, and it is not just a concern shared
by atheists, but by many people of faith.>>>>>>
GS: Total rubbish. How many cases has the ACLU, as an example, taken on
that support the Christian religion, and how many has it taken on that
oppose the Christian religion?
I give up. How many? Just because you don't like a position
the ACLU argues does NOT mean it was in opposition to the
Christian religion. You might be surprised at how many
Christians don't want government exstablishment; who
opposed organized school prayers for example.
<<<<<<Are you suggesting the government is forcing humanism on anyone?
How are they doing that?
Do you have any proof of this?>>>>>>>
GS: The entire government sponsored educational system is proof enough.
There is a slight difference between providing evidence
and simply pointing to something and asserting that it
IS evidence.
Or are you saying that the values of Humanism is not the prevailing
morality in education?
Here it is, the special pleading. You assume that NOT
teaching Christian values is the same as teaching
"humanist" values. This is a false dichotomy. Not
teaching Christian "values" is only that: not teaching
Christian values. It is not the same as teaching
something else.
"Lest anyone argue in 1802 that his "wall" language implied hostility
toward religion,
Straw man. Who claimed this? No one that's who. This
is just dumb considering that the letter was to the
Danbury Baptists. How could the non hostile letter to
the Danbury Baptists be interpreted as hostile toward
religion? This borders on false witnessing.
The truth is it has been fundies who have typically
and historically tried to distort the meaning of the
letter, and you know it. It has been the militant
religionists who have claimed that Jefferson didn't
really mean what he said.
two days after composing the Danbury letter Jefferson
attended Sunday church services at the Capitol building for the first
time as President.
He knew his presence there would be widely noticed and reported in the
press. For the remaining seven years he served in office, he regularly
attended services supplied by a variety of clergy of various
denominations in a government building.
The symbolism was irrefutable.
LOL of what? Is this why the clergy of his day accused him
of being an infidel and an atheist (while he was running
for president). He was for instance, branded "an
atheistical monster" by the president of Trinity College
(Methodist), now called Duke University. The president
said Jefferson's establishment of the University of Virginia
was "a long-range plan for the subversion of Christianity"
and "a bold enterprise and deistic daring of enormous
proportions." He called him "a deist, an infidel, agnostic
and materialist." (M. D. Peterson, The Jefferson Image, p. 243)
Have you ever seen the Jefferson Monument? Ever read the
words carved into the Rotunda? The ones that say "I have
sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against
every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
The words are slightly out of context. What and who Jefferson
was talking about was the clergy who vilified him when
he ran for president. Here is the quote with a bit more
context:
"[The clergy] believe that any portion of power
confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their
schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn
upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every
form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all
they have to fear from me: and enough too in their opinion."
As President, Jefferson wanted to foster religious freedom, particularly
in places like New England, which still had state establishments of
religion;
Yes, indeed, here is something he had to say on that
subject:
"They have tried upon me all their various batteries of
pious whining, hypocritical canting, lying and
slandering. I have contemplated their order from the
Magi of the East to the Saints of the West and I have
found no difference of character, but of more or less
caution, in proportion to their information or
ignorance on whom their interested duperies were to be
played off. Their sway in New England is indeed
formidable. No mind beyond mediocrity dares there to
develop itself."
-- letter to Horatio Spofford, 1816
but he never desired a "government without religion." That
charge, he confided to a friend, was a "lie" spread by his political
foes."
Jefferson had nothing against religion. He had quite a
bit against churches and the clergy. Jefferson made it
clear he wanted a wall of separation between church and
state. He had no problem with beliefs that did not "pick
my pocket or break my leg" and that included religious
beliefs.
Regardless, it was Madison who was the Father of the
Constitution. What did he have to say?
" The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions
with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of
the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly
increased by the total separation of the church from the State."
(Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
Can't get much clearer than that.
But let's try:
" Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the
Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already furnished
in their short history"
(Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).
"Every new and successfUl example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have
no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done,
in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity
the less they are mixed together"
(Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
" I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case,
to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the
civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and
doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or
the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be
best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from
interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public
order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by
others".
(Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).
.
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC to rule on Pledge |
19 Oct 2003 02:45:19 PM |
|
|
Are they Atheists? No. Are they liberal? Yes.
Liberal! I think this says more about your politics
than it does about theirs. Let's look at just who
was responsible for this liberal court. We got 9
justices, right?
Nixon
Ford
Reagan
Reagan
Reagan
Bush
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
7 of the current 9 were placed on the bench by
conservatives and, in fact, conservative nominees
have held an overwhelming majority on the bench for
at least 30 years.
So please, take some responsibility here.
Let us also not forget the person who started this "controversy"...Judge Alfred
Goodwin of the 9th Circuit Court. Who appointed him? Richard Nixon. What
political party has given Goodwin all his judicial appointments? The Republican
Party.
So, it would seem that so-called "conservatives" have the biggest problems with
"conservative" presidents and their appointments.
Then the question has to be asked as to whether or not the concept of
state-mandated religion is a "conservative" principle. Let us ask the person
who was the personification of extremist right-wing conservatism through the
60s and 70s that question and see what he thinks.
"Well, I've spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the 'Old
Conservatism.' And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of
these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal
politics. The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element
that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they
gain sufficient strength. Being a conservative in America traditionally has
meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution. We
conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We
treasure the freedoms that document protects.... By maintaining the separation
of church and state the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so
divided the rest of the world with religious wars .... Can any of us refute
the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage in
Iran, the bloodshed in Northem Ireland, or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and
yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of
state. The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless
the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in
public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to
make their views the only alternatives... We have succeeded for 205 years in
keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of
religious groups and we mustn't stop now. To retreat from that separation would
violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers
built this democratic republic." - Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), Senate
Speech, 15 September 1981
It is the people who are attacking Newdow who are attacking conservative
principles, not upholding them. Newdow is fighting for the conservative
principle of smaller government...a government limited in power by the
Constitution. His opponents are the ones who are fighting for bigger, more
powerful government in contradiction to the principles of the Constitution.
Newdow and his supporters are the real conservatives here...not Bush.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "M. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC to rule on Pledge |
20 Oct 2003 10:28:04 AM |
|
|
Del <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
GodsSoldier57@webtv.net (Old GodsSoldier) wrote in message
news:<23023-3F9164E6-46@storefull-2375.public.lawson.webtv.net>... > Re:
USSC to rule on Pledge
Group: alt.politics.usa.constitution Date: Fri, Oct 17, 2003, 10:19pm
From: (Carol Lee Smith)
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Old GodsSoldier wrote:
Re: USSC to rule on Pledge
Group: alt.politics.usa.constitution Date: Fri, Oct 17, 2003, 1:27pm
From: (Carol Lee Smith)
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Old GodsSoldier wrote:
<<<<<<<Government neutrality supresses no one.
Government neutrality supresses no particular values.
Why should the government prop up religion. Is it such a weak concept it
cannot stand on its own?>>>>>>>>>
GS: That is what Franklin said, and it is true. But the question today
is should government "prop up" Atheism, secularism, or humanism.
Oh I see. To not prop up Christianity or any religion
is to prop up atheism or humanism? As for secularism,
it is well defined in the First Amendment.
Please clarify your statement. It's somewhat contradictory to assert
that an amendment that guarantees freedom of religious expression also
defines secularism.
M. Clark
Can it not "stand on its own"?
You're asking can "no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" not
stand on its own?
<<<<<What moral absolutes?>>>>>>>
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC to rule on Pledge |
21 Oct 2003 08:43:37 AM |
|
|
(M. Clark) wrote in message news:<1g33013.1b56ixb1lzgpknN%>...
Del <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
GodsSoldier57@webtv.net (Old GodsSoldier) wrote in message
news:<23023-3F9164E6-46@storefull-2375.public.lawson.webtv.net>... > Re:
USSC to rule on Pledge
Group: alt.politics.usa.constitution Date: Fri, Oct 17, 2003, 10:19pm
From: (Carol Lee Smith)
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Old GodsSoldier wrote:
Re: USSC to rule on Pledge
Group: alt.politics.usa.constitution Date: Fri, Oct 17, 2003, 1:27pm
From: (Carol Lee Smith)
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Old GodsSoldier wrote:
<<<<<<<Government neutrality supresses no one.
Government neutrality supresses no particular values.
Why should the government prop up religion. Is it such a weak concept it
cannot stand on its own?>>>>>>>>>
GS: That is what Franklin said, and it is true. But the question today
is should government "prop up" Atheism, secularism, or humanism.
Oh I see. To not prop up Christianity or any religion
is to prop up atheism or humanism? As for secularism,
it is well defined in the First Amendment.
Please clarify your statement.
I meant the First defined a secular approach to the issue.
"Secular:" not religious. From the dictionary:
1. Worldly rather than spiritual.
2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body
--The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
It's somewhat contradictory to assert
that an amendment that guarantees freedom of religious expression also
defines secularism.
"Define:"
3. To serve to distinguish; characterize: "portraits
that defined the style of an epoch" (Gloria Vanderbilt)
-Ibid
To neither encourage nor restrict religion, to stay out of
it, to be neutral seems to characterize a secular approach
to the issue of government involvement in religion. It
certainly isn't a religious approach.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC to rule on Pledge |
19 Oct 2003 08:13:53 PM |
|
|
Seventh Day Adventists:
http://www.libertymagazine.org/
http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/articleview/391/1/2/
Tangled web of "ceremonial deism."
http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/articleview/382/1/2/
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
