| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"quibbler" |
| Date: |
27 Jun 2005 02:41:29 PM |
| Object: |
SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
Breaking news. Eat that *****. Listen to the fundies whine.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.commandments.ap/index.html
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
29 Jun 2005 06:49:14 AM |
|
|
In article <MPG.1d29bdfb9a155e41989767@news.readfreenews.net>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Breaking news. Eat that *****. Listen to the fundies whine.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.commandments.ap/index.html
The decisions taken together are more than a little bit confusing. It's
OK to display the 10Cs in a 'historical' context, but not OK if the
intent is to promote religion. However, the Court gave no clear
guidelines on how to distinguish between the two. I can see the fundy
hair splitters working overtime to protect their precious little show
and tells.
I think that we are going to be looking at a lot of lawsuits for a long
long time.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
27 Jun 2005 04:27:41 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:41:29 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
thought hard and wrote:
Breaking news. Eat that *****. Listen to the fundies whine.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.commandments.ap/index.html
But not the Ten Commandments on government property.
Meh.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 17 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Razor 616" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
27 Jun 2005 04:03:46 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:41:29 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Breaking news. Eat that *****. Listen to the fundies whine.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.commandments.ap/index.html
Personally I find it frightening that 4/9 supreme court justices put
their religion above the constitution. And they decided to violate it
anyway, by placing them in state capitols.
--
#1295
.
|
|
|
| User: "RobH" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
27 Jun 2005 04:16:07 PM |
|
|
Razor 616 <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:mp80c1dod90jpjgjkcs9vkcv3bivnsr0im@4ax.com:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:41:29 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Breaking news. Eat that *****. Listen to the fundies whine.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.commandments.ap/index.html
Personally I find it frightening that 4/9 supreme court justices put
their religion above the constitution. And they decided to violate it
anyway, by placing them in state capitols.
--
#1295
Bush's model supreme court justice is Antonin Scalia, who puts his idea
of gods law ahead of American law every time. So it's just a matter of
time before these rulings swing the other way. Once Bush got put in
office again, our seperation of church and state began its decline. The
democrats have all but said they won't fillibuster again. So Bush is
free to nominate an evangelical christian fundamentalist to the supreme
court. Look for it to happen.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
28 Jun 2005 02:33:02 PM |
|
|
This should not be taken as a great cause
for celebration.
It's in fact disturbing that there appears to be a sense
that the ten commandments are somehow "legal history".
The legal traditions of the US can perhaps be
traced to Greek and Rome, with maybe some impact
from Judea. But the latter was not overly influential,
or the SCOTUS would today have a long list of lower
court rulings of eye gouging (where somebody lost
an eye in an industrial negligence case) and
public stonings (eg for extra-marital sex), to review.
Nor have those laws evolved into general principles
of equal retaliation, or industrialized
versions of social killings.
To see how it could have been otherwise, notice
the laws of the very recent society formed by
the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The legal tradition of the ten commandments was
clearly absorbed by the Taliban. Equally clearly,
it was not so absorbed by Jefferson et al.
It's disrespectful and unjustly-so (being untruthful)
to imply otherwise. Not to mention harmful to
pluralism and the future.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
27 Jun 2005 09:03:39 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
Breaking news. Eat that *****. Listen to the fundies whine.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.commandments.ap/index.html
A point to notice, I think, is the following: in his dissent in the
Kentucky case, J Scalia (joined in this part by CJ Rehnquist and J
Thomas) while repeating many of the themes he has oft brought to the
table in Establishment cases and which come up again in Rehnquist's
plurality opinion in the Texas case, makes a novel and disturbing
claim: that the Establishment Clause provides no solace or protection
for those who are not monotheists, and apparently that it merely
prevents the government from prefering one brand of monotheism from
others (he graciously includes jews and muslims). He states that the
long-standing understanding of the clause as preventing government from
favoring all religions over irreligion is false (see footnote in pp. 50
of the slip opinion). In the Opinion for the Court, J Souter (who has
long taken it upon himself to challenge Scalia's recounting of the
history of the Establishment Clause, showing I think persuasively that
Scalia picks and chooses his quotes to present a slanted picture) calls
this assertion "a surprise", so it must be rather novel for Scalia.
Another important point I think is that the Kentucky case establishes
that one may look at government action as part of a series of actions,
and that this may inform the decision of whether the action has a
secular purpose or not. The display in question was the third in a
sequence (the second having been put up almost immediately after the
first was challenged in court, and the third immediately upon, and on
advise of, new counsel being hired by the counties); the counties
argued that the fact that it was a third in a sequence was immaterial,
and one could only consider the display itself, and not the original
displays, the stated reasons for the original displays, the stated
reasons for the change, or even the legislative statement of purpose
that was made on the second display (which clearly indicated there was
a desire to promote religion). The Court rejected this (as did the
original courts and the appelate court) as disingenious.
Arturo Magidin, sans .sig
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
28 Jun 2005 02:06:26 AM |
|
|
<magidin@math.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:1119906219.404170.262290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
quibbler wrote:
Breaking news. Eat that *****. Listen to the fundies whine.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.commandments.ap/index.html
A point to notice, I think, is the following: in his dissent in the
Kentucky case, J Scalia (joined in this part by CJ Rehnquist and J
Thomas) while repeating many of the themes he has oft brought to the
table in Establishment cases and which come up again in Rehnquist's
plurality opinion in the Texas case, makes a novel and disturbing
claim: that the Establishment Clause provides no solace or protection
for those who are not monotheists, and apparently that it merely
prevents the government from prefering one brand of monotheism from
others (he graciously includes jews and muslims). He states that the
long-standing understanding of the clause as preventing government from
favoring all religions over irreligion is false (see footnote in pp. 50
of the slip opinion). In the Opinion for the Court, J Souter (who has
long taken it upon himself to challenge Scalia's recounting of the
history of the Establishment Clause, showing I think persuasively that
Scalia picks and chooses his quotes to present a slanted picture) calls
this assertion "a surprise", so it must be rather novel for Scalia.
Another important point I think is that the Kentucky case establishes
that one may look at government action as part of a series of actions,
and that this may inform the decision of whether the action has a
secular purpose or not. The display in question was the third in a
sequence (the second having been put up almost immediately after the
first was challenged in court, and the third immediately upon, and on
advise of, new counsel being hired by the counties); the counties
argued that the fact that it was a third in a sequence was immaterial,
and one could only consider the display itself, and not the original
displays, the stated reasons for the original displays, the stated
reasons for the change, or even the legislative statement of purpose
that was made on the second display (which clearly indicated there was
a desire to promote religion). The Court rejected this (as did the
original courts and the appelate court) as disingenious.
Having read the decisions today, I have to say that the issue of where and
under what circumstances these displays are allowed is more muddled than
ever. As you pointed out, the majority has effectively removed a key
element of the Lemon test, that being the intent of those who would display
the !0 Cs. But what have they replaced it with? Nothing, that coherent
that I can find. I too reject Scalia's absolutist notion that our founders
intended religious involvement to the extent he advocates, I find him
correct in assreting that the court has sowed the seed of chaos by failing
to establish any criteria that those acting in good conscience can follow.
It seems that any display in the future is left in doubt and the lower
courts must find their own way. Scalia did raise some very valid
criticisms, however. For example, what if KY had provided snuck
their 3rd and apparently acceptable display into the court in the middle
of the night, a la Roy Moore? Would that have passed muster since
the history of the display would not have included prior attempts that
coudn't?
What really disappointed me in both rulings, however, was a failure to
distinguish the significance of our courthouses from other public
facilities. When I first heard that the displays in the KY courthouses were
ruled illegal and the TX state house display acceptable I had hope that it
was related this fact. Sadly it wasn't. I say that courthouses differ from
State Houses or Post Offices. parks or other public facilites becaue of
their mission. The court, unlike the elected branches of government, exist
to allow individuals to exert their rights. I find it easier to abide
public displays (even those I don't like) at places which are dedicated to
the popular branches of government.
This distinction is illustrated by a simple example. Suppose that I, an
atheist, am dismissed from my job at an equal opportunity employer because I
am an atheist. I go to the courthouse to sue my former employer and upon
entering am confronted with a plaque or statue or sign that begins with the
words, "I am the lord they God," and gets worse from there. Well as I read
it, my first thought would be that I don't do that *****, and that is why the
hell I'm there to begin with! Can I reasonably expect to obtain a fair
hearing in tis building? And if the decision goes against me, can I
reasonably be expected to believe that if I were a Xian who was fired for
being a Xian that the judgement would not be different? These questions are
logically follow from the presence of such displays as the 10 Cs. Their
presence serves to undermine the comfidence to many of those who go to seek
justice in the one place dedicated to that purpose. I find it a sad pity
that the court could not have said as much.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arturo Magidin" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
28 Jun 2005 04:54:04 PM |
|
|
In article <Cg2we.36118$k24.421146@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
<magidin@math.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:1119906219.404170.262290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
quibbler wrote:
Breaking news. Eat that *****. Listen to the fundies whine.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.commandments.ap/index.html
A point to notice, I think, is the following: in his dissent in the
Kentucky case, J Scalia (joined in this part by CJ Rehnquist and J
Thomas) while repeating many of the themes he has oft brought to the
table in Establishment cases and which come up again in Rehnquist's
plurality opinion in the Texas case, makes a novel and disturbing
claim: that the Establishment Clause provides no solace or protection
for those who are not monotheists, and apparently that it merely
prevents the government from prefering one brand of monotheism from
others (he graciously includes jews and muslims). He states that the
long-standing understanding of the clause as preventing government from
favoring all religions over irreligion is false (see footnote in pp. 50
of the slip opinion). In the Opinion for the Court, J Souter (who has
long taken it upon himself to challenge Scalia's recounting of the
history of the Establishment Clause, showing I think persuasively that
Scalia picks and chooses his quotes to present a slanted picture) calls
this assertion "a surprise", so it must be rather novel for Scalia.
Another important point I think is that the Kentucky case establishes
that one may look at government action as part of a series of actions,
and that this may inform the decision of whether the action has a
secular purpose or not. The display in question was the third in a
sequence (the second having been put up almost immediately after the
first was challenged in court, and the third immediately upon, and on
advise of, new counsel being hired by the counties); the counties
argued that the fact that it was a third in a sequence was immaterial,
and one could only consider the display itself, and not the original
displays, the stated reasons for the original displays, the stated
reasons for the change, or even the legislative statement of purpose
that was made on the second display (which clearly indicated there was
a desire to promote religion). The Court rejected this (as did the
original courts and the appelate court) as disingenious.
Having read the decisions today, I have to say that the issue of where and
under what circumstances these displays are allowed is more muddled than
ever. As you pointed out, the majority has effectively removed a key
element of the Lemon test, that being the intent of those who would display
the !0 Cs.
Which majority? The Kentucky or the Texas case? (The latter
technically only had a plurality). JJ Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and CJ
Rehnquist have long argued for eliminating the Lemon test, and in
particular the intent prong.
[.snip.]
What really disappointed me in both rulings, however, was a failure to
distinguish the significance of our courthouses from other public
facilities. When I first heard that the displays in the KY courthouses were
ruled illegal and the TX state house display acceptable I had hope that it
was related this fact. Sadly it wasn't. I say that courthouses differ from
State Houses or Post Offices. parks or other public facilites becaue of
their mission. The court, unlike the elected branches of government, exist
to allow individuals to exert their rights. I find it easier to abide
public displays (even those I don't like) at places which are dedicated to
the popular branches of government.
I have to agree here. The location in a courthouse is particularly
worrysome; I'm not at all happy with the Texas one, but I'm willing to
concede that it is at least a point worthy of argument given the
context in which it is currently placed (if not its history). This
would have been a good opportunity to note this, and to tie it up with
some of the differing rulings on creches and nativity scenes (where,
again, displays in courthouses were struck down while displays in
public parks were generally allowed to stand).
--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
27 Jun 2005 04:38:48 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
Breaking news. Eat that *****. Listen to the fundies whine.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.commandments.ap/index.html
Not complete though
The justices voting on the prevailing side in the Kentucky case left themselves legal wiggle room, saying that some displays inside courthouses would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.
6-foot-granite monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol -- one of 17 historical displays on the 22-acre lot -- was determined to be a legitimate tribute to the nation's legal and religious history.
I like stevens commnet
"The monument is not a work of art and does not refer to any event in the history of the state," Stevens wrote. "The message transmitted by Texas' chosen display is quite plain: This state endorses the divine code of the Judeo-Christian God."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
27 Jun 2005 02:58:17 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
Breaking news. Eat that *****. Listen to the fundies whine.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.commandments.ap/index.html
W00t!
Kudos to Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and O'Connor. Raspberries to
Scalia, Rehnquist, Kennedy and Thomas.
Poor theologs. They can't whine about activist judges because 3
Republicans and 2 Democrats voted for the prohibition, including one
judge (Stevens) who was nominated by Gerald Ford!
Ah well. A triumph for secularism. Thomas Jefferson would be proud.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
27 Jun 2005 11:58:26 PM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote in message ...
quibbler wrote:
Breaking news. Eat that *****. Listen to the fundies whine.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.commandments.ap/index.html
W00t!
Kudos to Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and O'Connor. Raspberries to
Scalia, Rehnquist, Kennedy and Thomas.
Poor theologs. They can't whine about activist judges because 3
Republicans and 2 Democrats voted for the prohibition, including one
judge (Stevens) who was nominated by Gerald Ford!
Ah well. A triumph for secularism. Thomas Jefferson would be proud.
Are you sure? Remember that Jefferson was the one who attended Sunday church
services held in the Senate chamber (or maybe it was the House.)
- Rick
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
28 Jun 2005 01:22:18 PM |
|
|
Rick wrote:
DanielSan wrote in message ...
quibbler wrote:
Breaking news. Eat that *****. Listen to the fundies whine.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.commandments.ap/index.html
W00t!
Kudos to Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and O'Connor. Raspberries to
Scalia, Rehnquist, Kennedy and Thomas.
Poor theologs. They can't whine about activist judges because 3
Republicans and 2 Democrats voted for the prohibition, including one
judge (Stevens) who was nominated by Gerald Ford!
Ah well. A triumph for secularism. Thomas Jefferson would be proud.
Are you sure? Remember that Jefferson was the one who attended Sunday church
services held in the Senate chamber (or maybe it was the House.)
Remember, also, that it was Jefferson who drafted the very first law creating an
official policy of non-intereference by government in the matter of religion,
added to the state constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1786.
Jefferson was so proud of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom that he
directed it to be one of his three greatest accomplishments on his tombstone,
along with his drafting the Declaration of Independence and founding the
University of Virginia.
http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/religion/va-religiousfreedom.html
Jefferson insisted that a similar protection be added to the United States
Constitution via the first set of amendments, and along with James Madison
(President of the US after Jefferson left office) worked to craft what would
become the First Amendment.
And most importantly, it was Jefferson who coined the phrase "a wall of
separation between Church and State", a phrase that in the last 200 years has
become the short hand description of the policy whereby government is not
permitted to promote or otherwise interfere in the religious beliefs of the
people. Jefferson's letter the Danbury Baptist Association, and the
association's letter which prompted President Jefferson's response, are part of
the national archives and can be read here:
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/misc/danbury.htm
Being religious does not, in any way, mean you must demand State sanction of
your religion and religious beliefs.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"It is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful
to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving;
it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe. It is
impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that
mental lying has produced in society. When man has so far corrupted and
prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional
belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the
commission of every other crime." - Thomas Paine, "The Age of Reason"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
29 Jun 2005 01:29:40 AM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow wrote in message <42C14F0A.96588585@serv.net>...
Rick wrote:
DanielSan wrote in message ...
quibbler wrote:
Breaking news. Eat that *****. Listen to the fundies whine.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.commandments.ap/index.html
W00t!
Kudos to Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and O'Connor. Raspberries to
Scalia, Rehnquist, Kennedy and Thomas.
Poor theologs. They can't whine about activist judges because 3
Republicans and 2 Democrats voted for the prohibition, including one
judge (Stevens) who was nominated by Gerald Ford!
Ah well. A triumph for secularism. Thomas Jefferson would be proud.
Are you sure? Remember that Jefferson was the one who attended Sunday
church
services held in the Senate chamber (or maybe it was the House.)
Remember, also, that it was Jefferson who drafted the very first law
creating an
official policy of non-intereference by government in the matter of
religion,
added to the state constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1786.
Jefferson was so proud of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom that
he
directed it to be one of his three greatest accomplishments on his
tombstone,
along with his drafting the Declaration of Independence and founding the
University of Virginia.
http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/religion/va-religiousfreedom.html
Jefferson insisted that a similar protection be added to the United States
Constitution via the first set of amendments, and along with James Madison
(President of the US after Jefferson left office) worked to craft what
would
become the First Amendment.
And most importantly, it was Jefferson who coined the phrase "a wall of
separation between Church and State",
Yes, I think I've seen that expression before...somewhere. In fact, I saw
the actual draft of that letter, which originally said "wall of eternal
separation." He moderated his originally strongly worded statement.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html
It was a great experience seeing this exhibit. Just about everything is on
the website - minus the audiotape commentary.
a phrase that in the last 200 years has
become the short hand description of the policy whereby government is not
permitted to promote or otherwise interfere in the religious beliefs of the
people. Jefferson's letter the Danbury Baptist Association, and the
association's letter which prompted President Jefferson's response, are
part of
the national archives and can be read here:
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/misc/danbury.htm
Being religious does not, in any way, mean you must demand State sanction
of
your religion and religious beliefs.
And I'm not making that argument. The disagreement comes in the meaning of
"sanction." The absolutist "Freedom From Religion" concept is not supported
by the actions of the very one who coined the concept of "separation." Do
you think allowing religious services in the Capital building is sanctioning
religion? I don't. The Supreme Court decision was not absolute. Some
displays are still allowed.
My own view is very far from Barton and his ilk, but I also think that you
and other folks here want to take things too far the other way. I do realize
that it's difficult to find the proper balance.
- Rick
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
28 Jun 2005 01:59:20 PM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow wrote:
Rick wrote:
DanielSan wrote in message ...
quibbler wrote:
Breaking news. Eat that *****. Listen to the fundies whine.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.commandments.ap/index.html
W00t!
Kudos to Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and O'Connor. Raspberries to
Scalia, Rehnquist, Kennedy and Thomas.
Poor theologs. They can't whine about activist judges because 3
Republicans and 2 Democrats voted for the prohibition, including one
judge (Stevens) who was nominated by Gerald Ford!
Ah well. A triumph for secularism. Thomas Jefferson would be proud.
Are you sure? Remember that Jefferson was the one who attended Sunday church
services held in the Senate chamber (or maybe it was the House.)
Piggybacking here.
I can find no reference to the "Sunday church services held in the
Senate chamber (or maybe it was the House.)" Can you please cite it for
me as I'm having difficulty locating it myself.
Remember, also, that it was Jefferson who drafted the very first law creating an
official policy of non-intereference by government in the matter of religion,
added to the state constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1786.
Jefferson was so proud of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom that he
directed it to be one of his three greatest accomplishments on his tombstone,
along with his drafting the Declaration of Independence and founding the
University of Virginia.
http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/religion/va-religiousfreedom.html
Here is the text right from the Virginia State Constitution:
Sec. 16. That religion or the duty which we owe our Creator, and the
manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and
conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all
men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion,
according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the
mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love,
and charity towards each other. No man shall be compelled to
frequent or support any religious worship, place, or minis-
try whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested,
or burthened in his body or goods, nor shll otherwise suffer
on account of his religious opinions or belief; but all men
shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their
opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in no
wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious
test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advan-
tages on any sect odenomination, orpass any law requiring
authorizing any religious society, or the people of any dis-
trict within this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or
others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house of
public worship, or for the support of any church or minis-
try; but it shall be left free to every person to select his
religious instructor, and to make for his support such pri-
vate contract as he shall please.
Jefferson insisted that a similar protection be added to the United States
Constitution via the first set of amendments, and along with James Madison
(President of the US after Jefferson left office) worked to craft what would
become the First Amendment.
Here are some of the rough drafts proposed by Madison for the 1st Amendment:
As of June 7, 1789:
"The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious
belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor
shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on
any pretext infringed. No state shall violate the equal rights of
conscience or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal
cases."
The House Select Committee on July 28, 1789 edited it to:
"No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of
conscience be infringed"
Edited by Samuel Livermore on August 15, 1789:
"Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights
of conscience."
Edited again by the House, on August 20, 1789:
"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the
free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."
Sent to the Senate, on September 3, 1789 as:
"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof."
Senate alteration, on September 9, 1789:
"Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of
worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."
Final draft, according to the Conference Committee, accepted by the
House on September 24, 1789:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
It was ratified by the Senate the next day and was sent to the States
where it was ratified in 1791.
Personally, I prefered Madison's original concept.
And most importantly, it was Jefferson who coined the phrase "a wall of
separation between Church and State",
For more information, here is the full text of the letter Jefferson sent
to the Federal government on New Year's, 1802:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between
man and his God, that he owes to none other for his faith or his
worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only,
and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the
whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and
State."
a phrase that in the last 200 years has
become the short hand description of the policy whereby government is not
permitted to promote or otherwise interfere in the religious beliefs of the
people. Jefferson's letter the Danbury Baptist Association, and the
association's letter which prompted President Jefferson's response, are part of
the national archives and can be read here:
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/misc/danbury.htm
Well, shoot, that site expands on what I posted above. Well, I guess I
should've read on. ;-)
Being religious does not, in any way, mean you must demand State sanction of
your religion and religious beliefs.
Well, according to theologs (usually Christian), any negation of bias
towards the theologs' own personal flavor of religion equals a bias
against and turns into a "slippery slope" in the prohibition of all
religion.
They're so scared of losing their "Special Rights" that they'll do
anything to attack those that try to equalize the rights amongst
religions and nonreligion, including but not limited to, making laws
against those "other" religions or nonreligion, lying about the "other"
religions or nonreligion, and, in rare cases, violence. (See also
"Matthew Shepard," "9/11," etc.)
Sickening, really.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
29 Jun 2005 01:39:07 AM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote in message ...
Gregory Gadow wrote:
Rick wrote:
DanielSan wrote in message ...
quibbler wrote:
Breaking news. Eat that *****. Listen to the fundies whine.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.commandments.ap/index.html
W00t!
Kudos to Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and O'Connor. Raspberries to
Scalia, Rehnquist, Kennedy and Thomas.
Poor theologs. They can't whine about activist judges because 3
Republicans and 2 Democrats voted for the prohibition, including one
judge (Stevens) who was nominated by Gerald Ford!
Ah well. A triumph for secularism. Thomas Jefferson would be proud.
Are you sure? Remember that Jefferson was the one who attended Sunday
church
services held in the Senate chamber (or maybe it was the House.)
Piggybacking here.
I can find no reference to the "Sunday church services held in the
Senate chamber (or maybe it was the House.)" Can you please cite it for
me as I'm having difficulty locating it myself.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html
******************************************************
It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the
administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison
(1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration,
Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives.
Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on
horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four.
Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the
Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory
and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared.
(Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a
female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style
exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a
"crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church
services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the
Supreme Court chambers.
Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the
relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been
embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation
between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently
declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of
Rights, to a "national" religion. In attending church services on public
property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering
symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.
******************************************************
Jefferson had practically an animosity towards religion, but didn't allow
that to get in the way of how the country was governed.
Remember, also, that it was Jefferson who drafted the very first law
creating an
official policy of non-intereference by government in the matter of
religion,
added to the state constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1786.
Jefferson was so proud of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom that
he
directed it to be one of his three greatest accomplishments on his
tombstone,
along with his drafting the Declaration of Independence and founding the
University of Virginia.
http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/religion/va-religiousfreedom.html
Here is the text right from the Virginia State Constitution:
Sec. 16. That religion or the duty which we owe our Creator, and the
manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and
conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all
men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion,
according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the
mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love,
and charity towards each other. No man shall be compelled to
frequent or support any religious worship, place, or minis-
try whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested,
or burthened in his body or goods, nor shll otherwise suffer
on account of his religious opinions or belief; but all men
shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their
opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in no
wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious
test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advan-
tages on any sect odenomination, orpass any law requiring
authorizing any religious society, or the people of any dis-
trict within this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or
others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house of
public worship, or for the support of any church or minis-
try; but it shall be left free to every person to select his
religious instructor, and to make for his support such pri-
vate contract as he shall please.
Jefferson insisted that a similar protection be added to the United
States
Constitution via the first set of amendments, and along with James
Madison
(President of the US after Jefferson left office) worked to craft what
would
become the First Amendment.
Here are some of the rough drafts proposed by Madison for the 1st
Amendment:
As of June 7, 1789:
"The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious
belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor
shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on
any pretext infringed. No state shall violate the equal rights of
conscience or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal
cases."
The House Select Committee on July 28, 1789 edited it to:
"No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of
conscience be infringed"
Edited by Samuel Livermore on August 15, 1789:
"Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights
of conscience."
Edited again by the House, on August 20, 1789:
"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the
free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."
Sent to the Senate, on September 3, 1789 as:
"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof."
Senate alteration, on September 9, 1789:
"Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of
worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."
Final draft, according to the Conference Committee, accepted by the
House on September 24, 1789:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
It was ratified by the Senate the next day and was sent to the States
where it was ratified in 1791.
Personally, I prefered Madison's original concept.
And most importantly, it was Jefferson who coined the phrase "a wall of
separation between Church and State",
For more information, here is the full text of the letter Jefferson sent
to the Federal government on New Year's, 1802:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between
man and his God, that he owes to none other for his faith or his
worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only,
and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the
whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and
State."
a phrase that in the last 200 years has
become the short hand description of the policy whereby government is not
permitted to promote or otherwise interfere in the religious beliefs of
the
people. Jefferson's letter the Danbury Baptist Association, and the
association's letter which prompted President Jefferson's response, are
part of
the national archives and can be read here:
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/misc/danbury.htm
Well, shoot, that site expands on what I posted above. Well, I guess I
should've read on. ;-)
Being religious does not, in any way, mean you must demand State sanction
of
your religion and religious beliefs.
Well, according to theologs (usually Christian), any negation of bias
towards the theologs' own personal flavor of religion equals a bias
against and turns into a "slippery slope" in the prohibition of all
religion.
You appear to have an equally irrational fear of the opposite.
They're so scared of losing their "Special Rights" that they'll do
anything to attack those that try to equalize the rights amongst
religions and nonreligion, including but not limited to, making laws
against those "other" religions or nonreligion, lying about the "other"
religions or nonreligion, and, in rare cases, violence. (See also
"Matthew Shepard," "9/11," etc.)
Sickening, really.
Now you appear to be talking about some extremists with whom I also
disagree. That's your slippery slope. There's a lot of ground between the
two slopes.
- Rick
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
27 Jun 2005 04:35:54 PM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
quibbler wrote:
Breaking news. Eat that *****. Listen to the fundies whine.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.commandments.ap/index.html
W00t!
Kudos to Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and O'Connor. Raspberries to
Scalia, Rehnquist, Kennedy and Thomas.
I know Scalia, Rhenquist and Thomas are always likely to vote with the
fundies, is Kennedy the same?
Seems it was not a total victory, if they can pretend it is for
historical reasons, it is allowed
[quote]In contrast, a 6-foot-granite monument on the grounds of the
Texas Capitol -- one of 17 historical displays on the 22-acre lot -- was
determined to be a legitimate tribute to the nation's legal and
religious history.
"Dissenting in the Texas case, Justice John Paul Stevens argued the
display was an improper government endorsement of religion. Stevens
noted in large letters the monument proclaims 'I AM the LORD thy God."'
"The sole function of the monument on the grounds of Texas' State
Capitol is to display the full text of once version of the Ten
Commandments," Stevens wrote.
"The monument is not a work of art and does not refer to any event in
the history of the state," Stevens wrote. "The message transmitted by
Texas' chosen display is quite plain: This state endorses the divine
code of the Judeo-Christian God."[/quote]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
27 Jun 2005 03:11:56 PM |
|
|
In article <duUve.155$Iv6.104@trnddc03>,
says...
quibbler wrote:
Breaking news. Eat that *****. Listen to the fundies whine.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.commandments.ap/index.html
W00t!
Kudos to Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and O'Connor.
Awww Hell Yeah!!!
Raspberries to
Scalia, Rehnquist, Kennedy and Thomas.
They're just a bunch of knee jerk theist morons and O'Connor fucked them
all with their own tiny dicks.
Poor theologs. They can't whine about activist judges because 3
Republicans and 2 Democrats voted for the prohibition, including one
judge (Stevens) who was nominated by Gerald Ford!
That's if theocrats are even paying attention, or trying to be honest,
neither of which is likely.
Ah well. A triumph for secularism. Thomas Jefferson would be proud.
All of america should be proud.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Razor 616" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
27 Jun 2005 04:06:28 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 14:58:17 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
Ah well. A triumph for secularism. Thomas Jefferson would be proud.
I'm afraid I don't see this is a victory at all. They still decided to
place them in state capitols, and the fact that nearly half the
supreme court voted to allow them in courtrooms, well... it frightens
me.
--
#1295
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
27 Jun 2005 04:59:55 PM |
|
|
In article <vr80c1hhloe25ko8rrtii1rdkvtnc8apvh@4ax.com>,
nobody@nowhere.net says...
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 14:58:17 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
Ah well. A triumph for secularism. Thomas Jefferson would be proud.
I'm afraid I don't see this is a victory at all.
Well, I hear ya dude, but let's not mope about the few positives that
turn up. It could have upheld the courtroom display.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
27 Jun 2005 03:37:01 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 14:58:17 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
quibbler wrote:
Breaking news. Eat that *****. Listen to the fundies whine.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.commandments.ap/index.html
W00t!
Kudos to Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and O'Connor. Raspberries to
Scalia, Rehnquist, Kennedy and Thomas.
Poor theologs. They can't whine about activist judges because 3
Republicans and 2 Democrats voted for the prohibition, including one
judge (Stevens) who was nominated by Gerald Ford!
Ah well. A triumph for secularism.
Thomas Jefferson would be proud.
He wouldn't be proud of how close the vote was.
I consider Scalia, Rehnquist, Kennedy and Thomas as more dangerous for
our country than any terrorist, after all, they are in a better
position to cause the greatest damage to our freedoms.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
27 Jun 2005 03:22:20 PM |
|
|
fOn Mon, 27 Jun 2005 14:58:17 GMT, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
quibbler wrote:
Breaking news. Eat that *****. Listen to the fundies whine.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.commandments.ap/index.html
W00t!
Kudos to Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and O'Connor. Raspberries to
Scalia, Rehnquist, Kennedy and Thomas.
Poor theologs. They can't whine about activist judges because 3
Republicans and 2 Democrats voted for the prohibition, including one
judge (Stevens) who was nominated by Gerald Ford!
Ah well. A triumph for secularism. Thomas Jefferson would be proud.
5-4 is scary though. It only neds one of the 5 to be replaced by one
of Bush's fundies....
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
27 Jun 2005 03:31:08 PM |
|
|
In article <6360c198fa6dsin4i1q9dfd60dkim0vhrm@4ax.com>,
calee@optonline.net says...
fOn Mon, 27 Jun 2005 14:58:17 GMT, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
quibbler wrote:
Breaking news. Eat that *****. Listen to the fundies whine.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.commandments.ap/index.html
W00t!
Kudos to Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and O'Connor. Raspberries to
Scalia, Rehnquist, Kennedy and Thomas.
Poor theologs. They can't whine about activist judges because 3
Republicans and 2 Democrats voted for the prohibition, including one
judge (Stevens) who was nominated by Gerald Ford!
Ah well. A triumph for secularism. Thomas Jefferson would be proud.
5-4 is scary though. It only neds one of the 5 to be replaced by one
of Bush's fundies....
Yes, but Rehnquist is already a rightard, so replacing him can, at best
allow Bush to install a younger conservative. It's only when one of the
liberals resigns that we really need to worry. I've got my fingers
crossed for the next few years.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
27 Jun 2005 05:07:01 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
5-4 is scary though. It only neds one of the 5 to be replaced by one
of Bush's fundies....
Yes, but Rehnquist is already a rightard, so replacing him can, at best
allow Bush to install a younger conservative. It's only when one of the
liberals resigns that we really need to worry. I've got my fingers
crossed for the next few years.
My biggest fear is assassination. If none of the liberals are willing to step
down, what are the chances that one of Bush's buddies will "encourage" a bit of
profitable domestic terrorism? I mean, wasn't it Robertson who has been calling
for the death of "activist judges"?
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"It is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful
to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving;
it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe. It is
impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that
mental lying has produced in society. When man has so far corrupted and
prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional
belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the
commission of every other crime." - Thomas Paine, "The Age of Reason"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
27 Jun 2005 05:33:00 PM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:42C03235.62AB1D06@serv.net:
quibbler wrote:
5-4 is scary though. It only neds one of the 5 to be replaced by
one of Bush's fundies....
Yes, but Rehnquist is already a rightard, so replacing him can, at
best allow Bush to install a younger conservative. It's only when
one of the liberals resigns that we really need to worry. I've got
my fingers crossed for the next few years.
My biggest fear is assassination. If none of the liberals are willing
to step down, what are the chances that one of Bush's buddies will
"encourage" a bit of profitable domestic terrorism? I mean, wasn't it
Robertson who has been calling for the death of "activist judges"?
I think you're going more than a little bit over the line, Greg.
While I despise Robertson every bit as much as you do, I have to say
that he didn't call for earthly assassinations.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
27 Jun 2005 07:26:09 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:42C03235.62AB1D06@serv.net:
quibbler wrote:
5-4 is scary though. It only neds one of the 5 to be replaced by
one of Bush's fundies....
Yes, but Rehnquist is already a rightard, so replacing him can, at
best allow Bush to install a younger conservative. It's only when
one of the liberals resigns that we really need to worry. I've got
my fingers crossed for the next few years.
My biggest fear is assassination. If none of the liberals are willing
to step down, what are the chances that one of Bush's buddies will
"encourage" a bit of profitable domestic terrorism? I mean, wasn't it
Robertson who has been calling for the death of "activist judges"?
I think you're going more than a little bit over the line, Greg.
While I despise Robertson every bit as much as you do, I have to say
that he didn't call for earthly assassinations.
Directly? No. But he has made some very alarming statements that could
easily incite acts of violence against lawmakers and judges. On May 1,
2005, Pat Robertson spoke on national TV that there was an "unelected
oligarchy" that was worse than Osama Bin Laden and more a threat to the
United States than al-Qaida. While he did not mention the Supreme Court
directly, his context was quite evident.
This was not his first comment in that vein. After 9/11, he stated on the
700 Club that the attacks were a direct result of the Court "insulting" God
who, as a result, "is lifting His protection from us" and further said that
"this is only a foretaste, a little warning, of what is going to happen" if
the Court did not turn to God's Law.
In a press release on his website, Robertson makes very plain his beliefs
that the Court must be brought in to line because of the Court's rulings on
homosexuality and abortion.
(http://www.patrobertson.com/PressReleases/supremecourt.asp) Failure of the
Court to come to Robertson's heel will, he prophesies, result in the total
destruction of the United States. Neo-con fundamentalists have committed
murder and exploded bombs for the sake of preventing abortions; why
wouldn't neo-con fundamentalists commit murder and explode bombs for the
sake of preserving God's Own Country?
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"It is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful
to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving;
it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe. It is
impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that
mental lying has produced in society. When man has so far corrupted and
prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional
belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the
commission of every other crime." - Thomas Paine, "The Age of Reason"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
27 Jun 2005 10:25:49 PM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:42C052D1.431419FC@serv.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:42C03235.62AB1D06@serv.net:
quibbler wrote:
5-4 is scary though. It only neds one of the 5 to be replaced by
one of Bush's fundies....
Yes, but Rehnquist is already a rightard, so replacing him can, at
best allow Bush to install a younger conservative. It's only when
one of the liberals resigns that we really need to worry. I've
got my fingers crossed for the next few years.
My biggest fear is assassination. If none of the liberals are
willing to step down, what are the chances that one of Bush's
buddies will "encourage" a bit of profitable domestic terrorism? I
mean, wasn't it Robertson who has been calling for the death of
"activist judges"?
I think you're going more than a little bit over the line, Greg.
While I despise Robertson every bit as much as you do, I have to say
that he didn't call for earthly assassinations.
Directly? No. But he has made some very alarming statements that could
easily incite acts of violence against lawmakers and judges. On May 1,
2005, Pat Robertson spoke on national TV that there was an "unelected
oligarchy" that was worse than Osama Bin Laden and more a threat to
the United States than al-Qaida. While he did not mention the Supreme
Court directly, his context was quite evident.
Plenty of liberals have made similarly alarming statements. They still
aren't inciting violence.
This was not his first comment in that vein. After 9/11, he stated on
the 700 Club that the attacks were a direct result of the Court
"insulting" God who, as a result, "is lifting His protection from us"
and further said that "this is only a foretaste, a little warning, of
what is going to happen" if the Court did not turn to God's Law.
In a press release on his website, Robertson makes very plain his
beliefs that the Court must be brought in to line because of the
Court's rulings on homosexuality and abortion.
(http://www.patrobertson.com/PressReleases/supremecourt.asp) Failure
of the Court to come to Robertson's heel will, he prophesies, result
in the total destruction of the United States. Neo-con fundamentalists
have committed murder and exploded bombs for the sake of preventing
abortions; why wouldn't neo-con fundamentalists commit murder and
explode bombs for the sake of preserving God's Own Country?
I beg to differ, the abortion clinic bombers were not neocons. Neocons
are just as upset by that sort of violence as you are. Every rednecked
reactionary is not a neocon.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
27 Jun 2005 11:56:36 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote in message
<1119911149.50f99f163fa88ba3a0dfb2445dce084f@teranews>...
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:42C052D1.431419FC@serv.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:42C03235.62AB1D06@serv.net:
quibbler wrote:
5-4 is scary though. It only neds one of the 5 to be replaced by
one of Bush's fundies....
Yes, but Rehnquist is already a rightard, so replacing him can, at
best allow Bush to install a younger conservative. It's only when
one of the liberals resigns that we really need to worry. I've
got my fingers crossed for the next few years.
My biggest fear is assassination. If none of the liberals are
willing to step down, what are the chances that one of Bush's
buddies will "encourage" a bit of profitable domestic terrorism? I
mean, wasn't it Robertson who has been calling for the death of
"activist judges"?
I think you're going more than a little bit over the line, Greg.
While I despise Robertson every bit as much as you do, I have to say
that he didn't call for earthly assassinations.
Directly? No. But he has made some very alarming statements that could
easily incite acts of violence against lawmakers and judges. On May 1,
2005, Pat Robertson spoke on national TV that there was an "unelected
oligarchy" that was worse than Osama Bin Laden and more a threat to
the United States than al-Qaida. While he did not mention the Supreme
Court directly, his context was quite evident.
Plenty of liberals have made similarly alarming statements. They still
aren't inciting violence.
This was not his first comment in that vein. After 9/11, he stated on
the 700 Club that the attacks were a direct result of the Court
"insulting" God who, as a result, "is lifting His protection from us"
and further said that "this is only a foretaste, a little warning, of
what is going to happen" if the Court did not turn to God's Law.
In a press release on his website, Robertson makes very plain his
beliefs that the Court must be brought in to line because of the
Court's rulings on homosexuality and abortion.
(http://www.patrobertson.com/PressReleases/supremecourt.asp) Failure
of the Court to come to Robertson's heel will, he prophesies, result
in the total destruction of the United States.
There's absolutely nothing there that could by any rational means be
construed as inciting violence. In fact, the sort of nonsence you're
peddling could just as well be incitement to violence by some of the more
extreme folks. Or at least you and your ilk are working hard to provide
David Limbaugh material for his next book on Christian persecution (yes, I
know it's not really persecution.)
Neo-con fundamentalists
have committed murder and exploded bombs for the sake of preventing
abortions; why wouldn't neo-con fundamentalists commit murder and
explode bombs for the sake of preserving God's Own Country?
THat's quite an extraordinary leap of logic.
I beg to differ, the abortion clinic bombers were not neocons. Neocons
are just as upset by that sort of violence as you are. Every rednecked
reactionary is not a neocon.
There seems to be no end to the ignorance of folks like Greg who seem
otherwise intelligent. The White Supremicists and many others like Fred
Phelps have nothing but contempt for the American Religious Right.
- Rick
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
28 Jun 2005 01:10:35 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:42C052D1.431419FC@serv.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:42C03235.62AB1D06@serv.net:
quibbler wrote:
5-4 is scary though. It only neds one of the 5 to be replaced by
one of Bush's fundies....
Yes, but Rehnquist is already a rightard, so replacing him can, at
best allow Bush to install a younger conservative. It's only when
one of the liberals resigns that we really need to worry. I've
got my fingers crossed for the next few years.
My biggest fear is assassination. If none of the liberals are
willing to step down, what are the chances that one of Bush's
buddies will "encourage" a bit of profitable domestic terrorism? I
mean, wasn't it Robertson who has been calling for the death of
"activist judges"?
I think you're going more than a little bit over the line, Greg.
While I despise Robertson every bit as much as you do, I have to say
that he didn't call for earthly assassinations.
Directly? No. But he has made some very alarming statements that could
easily incite acts of violence against lawmakers and judges. On May 1,
2005, Pat Robertson spoke on national TV that there was an "unelected
oligarchy" that was worse than Osama Bin Laden and more a threat to
the United States than al-Qaida. While he did not mention the Supreme
Court directly, his context was quite evident.
Plenty of liberals have made similarly alarming statements.
You can cite them, right? Or do you mean "plenty of liberals" in your usual
paranoid-delusional way?
They still aren't inciting violence.
This was not his first comment in that vein. After 9/11, he stated on
the 700 Club that the attacks were a direct result of the Court
"insulting" God who, as a result, "is lifting His protection from us"
and further said that "this is only a foretaste, a little warning, of
what is going to happen" if the Court did not turn to God's Law.
In a press release on his website, Robertson makes very plain his
beliefs that the Court must be brought in to line because of the
Court's rulings on homosexuality and abortion.
(http://www.patrobertson.com/PressReleases/supremecourt.asp) Failure
of the Court to come to Robertson's heel will, he prophesies, result
in the total destruction of the United States. Neo-con fundamentalists
have committed murder and exploded bombs for the sake of preventing
abortions; why wouldn't neo-con fundamentalists commit murder and
explode bombs for the sake of preserving God's Own Country?
I beg to differ, the abortion clinic bombers were not neocons. Neocons
are just as upset by that sort of violence as you are. Every rednecked
reactionary is not a neocon.
As Quibbler quibbled, there is a difference between neo-conservatism and
paleo-conservatism. I believe it is a far extension of the word "neocon" for
it to include those who, driven by neocon ideology, have taken up terrorist
tactics to implement that ideology.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"It is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful
to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving;
it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe. It is
impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that
mental lying has produced in society. When man has so far corrupted and
prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional
belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the
commission of every other crime." - Thomas Paine, "The Age of Reason"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
28 Jun 2005 02:11:05 PM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:42C14C4B.D9AE6E@serv.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:42C052D1.431419FC@serv.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:42C03235.62AB1D06@serv.net:
quibbler wrote:
5-4 is scary though. It only neds one of the 5 to be replaced
by one of Bush's fundies....
Yes, but Rehnquist is already a rightard, so replacing him can,
at best allow Bush to install a younger conservative. It's
only when one of the liberals resigns that we really need to
worry. I've got my fingers crossed for the next few years.
My biggest fear is assassination. If none of the liberals are
willing to step down, what are the chances that one of Bush's
buddies will "encourage" a bit of profitable domestic terrorism?
I mean, wasn't it Robertson who has been calling for the death
of "activist judges"?
I think you're going more than a little bit over the line, Greg.
While I despise Robertson every bit as much as you do, I have to
say that he didn't call for earthly assassinations.
Directly? No. But he has made some very alarming statements that
could easily incite acts of violence against lawmakers and judges.
On May 1, 2005, Pat Robertson spoke on national TV that there was
an "unelected oligarchy" that was worse than Osama Bin Laden and
more a threat to the United States than al-Qaida. While he did not
mention the Supreme Court directly, his context was quite evident.
Plenty of liberals have made similarly alarming statements.
You can cite them, right? Or do you mean "plenty of liberals" in your
usual paranoid-delusional way?
I'm not the paranoid-delusional one around here.
http://www.moveon.org
http://www.dailykos.com/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/
They still aren't inciting violence.
This was not his first comment in that vein. After 9/11, he stated
on the 700 Club that the attacks were a direct result of the Court
"insulting" God who, as a result, "is lifting His protection from
us" and further said that "this is only a foretaste, a little
warning, of what is going to happen" if the Court did not turn to
God's Law.
In a press release on his website, Robertson makes very plain his
beliefs that the Court must be brought in to line because of the
Court's rulings on homosexuality and abortion.
(http://www.patrobertson.com/PressReleases/supremecourt.asp)
Failure of the Court to come to Robertson's heel will, he
prophesies, result in the total destruction of the United States.
Neo-con fundamentalists have committed murder and exploded bombs
for the sake of preventing abortions; why wouldn't neo-con
fundamentalists commit murder and explode bombs for the sake of
preserving God's Own Country?
I beg to differ, the abortion clinic bombers were not neocons.
Neocons are just as upset by that sort of violence as you are. Every
rednecked reactionary is not a neocon.
As Quibbler quibbled, there is a difference between neo-conservatism
and paleo-conservatism.
There is also a difference between conservatives and reactionaries.
I believe it is a far extension of the word
"neocon" for it to include those who, driven by neocon ideology, have
taken up terrorist tactics to implement that ideology.
I agree that it is a *far* stretch to call White Supremacists and other
reactionary far-right religious thugs "neocons".
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: SCOTUS SMACKS down ten commandments in courthouse |
28 Jun 2005 01:14:32 AM |
|
|
In article <1119911149.50f99f163fa88ba3a0dfb2445dce084f@teranews>,
fstone69@earthling.com says...
I beg to differ, the abortion clinic bombers were not neocons.
Well, actually, neocon is primarily contrasted with paleocon, who were
the fiscally responsible, separation of church and state, Barry
Goldwater types. Some the present theocratic abortion clinic bombers
probably are appropriately described as neocons.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
