| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Steven Litvintchouk" |
| Date: |
23 Nov 2004 08:16:47 PM |
| Object: |
Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
Uriel Heilman, THE JERUSALEM POST Nov. 23, 2004
US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia used an appearance at an
Orthodox synagogue in New York to assail the notion that the US
government should maintain a neutral stance toward religion, saying it
has always supported religion and the courts should not try to change that.
Speaking at a conference on religious freedom in America on Monday
hosted by Manhattan's Congregation Shearith Israel, the oldest Jewish
congregation in North America, Scalia said that the founding fathers
never advocated the separation of church and state and that America has
prospered because of its religiousness.
"There is something wrong with the principle of neutrality," said
Scalia, considered among the court's staunchest conservatives.
Neutrality as envisioned by the founding fathers, Scalia said, "is not
neutrality between religiousness and nonreligiousness; it is between
denominations of religion."
Scalia cited early examples of support of religion in the public sphere
by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, the last
of whom went so far as to argue at the Constitutional Convention in 1787
for the institution of daily prayers.
Today, Scalia noted, the government exempts houses of worship from
real-estate tax, pays for chaplains in Congress, state legislatures, and
the military, and sanctions the opening of every Supreme Court session
with the cry, "God save the United States!"
"To say that the Constitution allows the court to sweep away that
long-standing attitude toward religion seems to me just wrong," he said.
"I do think we're forgetting our roots."
Scalia's speech, at a conference marking the 350th anniversary both of
Jews in America and of Shearith Israel, elicited a standing ovation.
Scalia was nominated to the nine-member Supreme Court in 1986 by
president Ronald Reagan to fill the seat vacated by William Rehnquist,
who became the chief justice after Warren Berger retired. Now, with
speculation that Rehnquist is on the verge of retirement after a recent
diagnosis of thyroid cancer, Scalia may be the leading candidate to take
his place.
It is widely believed that President George W. Bush will appoint a
staunch conservative as chief justice if he gets the chance, and the
only other Supreme Court justice considered sufficiently conservative is
Clarence Thomas, appointed by president George H.W. Bush.
Originally from New York, Scalia wore a black skull cap as he addressed
the congregation with his back to the ark.
"The founding fathers never used the phrase 'separation of church and
state,'" he said, arguing that rigid separation of religion and state –
as in Europe, for example – would be bad for America and bad for the Jews.
"Do you think it's going to make Jews safer? It didn't prove that way in
Europe," he said.
"You will not hear the word 'God' cross the lips of a French premier or
an Italian head of state," Scalia said. "But that has never been the
American way."
Most establishment Jewish groups, however, are staunch supporters of
church-state separation. Earlier this month, for example, the American
Jewish Committee was part of a coalition that won a lawsuit to block a
Florida program allowing state aid to go to parochial schools. In 2000,
the Anti-Defamation League led several Jewish groups in criticizing vice
presidential candidate Sen. Joseph Lieberman for talking too much about
God on the campaign trail.
Scalia said expunging religion from public life would be bad for
America, and that the courts, instead, should come around to most
Americans' way of thinking and to the founding fathers' vision for the
US. He noted that after a San Francisco court last year barred the
recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools because it
includes the phrase "under God," Congress voted nearly unanimously to
condemn the decision and uphold use of the phrase.
"I suggest that our jurisprudence should comport with our actions," he said.
If America's approach toward religion does change, it should be through
democratic process, not "judicial fiat." America believes in "a personal
God who takes an interest in the affairs of man," Scalia said. Quoting a
line from Psalms that says the faithful will surely prosper, he added,
"I think it is no accident that America has prospered."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1101183314944
[
"We know that the Constitution wisely separates church from state, but
remember: the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom
from religion."
-- Senator Joseph Lieberman, August 2000
]
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
.
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
24 Nov 2004 04:26:55 PM |
|
|
"Steven Litvintchouk" <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:jaSod.10262$pK6.1425@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Uriel Heilman, THE JERUSALEM POST Nov. 23, 2004
US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia used an appearance at an Orthodox
synagogue in New York to assail the notion that the US government should
maintain a neutral stance toward religion, saying it has always supported
religion and the courts should not try to change that.
Speaking at a conference on religious freedom in America on Monday hosted
by Manhattan's Congregation Shearith Israel, the oldest Jewish
congregation in North America, Scalia said that the founding fathers never
advocated the separation of church and state and that America has
prospered because of its religiousness.
"There is something wrong with the principle of neutrality," said Scalia,
considered among the court's staunchest conservatives. Neutrality as
envisioned by the founding fathers, Scalia said, "is not neutrality
between religiousness and nonreligiousness; it is between denominations of
religion."
Scalia cited early examples of support of religion in the public sphere by
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, the last of
whom went so far as to argue at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 for
the institution of daily prayers.
Today, Scalia noted, the government exempts houses of worship from
real-estate tax, pays for chaplains in Congress, state legislatures, and
the military, and sanctions the opening of every Supreme Court session
with the cry, "God save the United States!"
"To say that the Constitution allows the court to sweep away that
long-standing attitude toward religion seems to me just wrong," he said.
"I do think we're forgetting our roots."
Scalia's speech, at a conference marking the 350th anniversary both of
Jews in America and of Shearith Israel, elicited a standing ovation.
Scalia was nominated to the nine-member Supreme Court in 1986 by president
Ronald Reagan to fill the seat vacated by William Rehnquist, who became
the chief justice after Warren Berger retired. Now, with speculation that
Rehnquist is on the verge of retirement after a recent diagnosis of
thyroid cancer, Scalia may be the leading candidate to take his place.
It is widely believed that President George W. Bush will appoint a staunch
conservative as chief justice if he gets the chance, and the only other
Supreme Court justice considered sufficiently conservative is Clarence
Thomas, appointed by president George H.W. Bush.
Originally from New York, Scalia wore a black skull cap as he addressed
the congregation with his back to the ark.
"The founding fathers never used the phrase 'separation of church and
state,'" he said, arguing that rigid separation of religion and state – as
in Europe, for example – would be bad for America and bad for the Jews.
"Do you think it's going to make Jews safer? It didn't prove that way in
Europe," he said.
"You will not hear the word 'God' cross the lips of a French premier or an
Italian head of state," Scalia said. "But that has never been the American
way."
Most establishment Jewish groups, however, are staunch supporters of
church-state separation. Earlier this month, for example, the American
Jewish Committee was part of a coalition that won a lawsuit to block a
Florida program allowing state aid to go to parochial schools. In 2000,
the Anti-Defamation League led several Jewish groups in criticizing vice
presidential candidate Sen. Joseph Lieberman for talking too much about
God on the campaign trail.
Scalia said expunging religion from public life would be bad for America,
and that the courts, instead, should come around to most Americans' way of
thinking and to the founding fathers' vision for the US. He noted that
after a San Francisco court last year barred the recitation of the Pledge
of Allegiance in public schools because it includes the phrase "under
God," Congress voted nearly unanimously to condemn the decision and uphold
use of the phrase.
"I suggest that our jurisprudence should comport with our actions," he
said.
If America's approach toward religion does change, it should be through
democratic process, not "judicial fiat." America believes in "a personal
God who takes an interest in the affairs of man," Scalia said. Quoting a
line from Psalms that says the faithful will surely prosper, he added, "I
think it is no accident that America has prospered."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1101183314944
[
"We know that the Constitution wisely separates church from state, but
remember: the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom
from religion."
-- Senator Joseph Lieberman, August 2000
]
I find Scalia to be an extremely interesting jurist. I often find my self
not liking what he has to say, and disagreeing with it, until I spend the
time to read his opinions or hear him out more completely. I have always
found him to have a solid basis in the law, and not what he would liket he
law to be. IMHO, he is the greatest justice of my lifetime. This appears
to be one of those instances. I am a proponent of most separation
positions, but I'm also interested in a deeper understanding of what is or
isn't permissable under our Const.
As for my personal leanings, I feel that the context of a gov facility must
be considered as part of deciding whether religious expression by
individuals is permitted there. For example, a courthouse or post office is
a place of gov business. It must remain, IMHO, secular. OTOH, in the case
of public parks such as Soledad, I tend to be more flexible. It's purpose
is in part for public expression and I don't have a problem with that
expression containing symbolism that theists (the majority) find meaningful.
As for those who are offended (I am not), I do not think that our Const
provides for the right for us to not be offended.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
24 Nov 2004 05:18:16 PM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote
I find Scalia to be an extremely interesting jurist. I often find
my self not liking what he has to say, and disagreeing with it,
until I spend the time to read his opinions or hear him out
more completely. I have always found him to have a solid
basis in the law, and not what he would liket he law to be.
gosh it's so shoking to see you cheering on the religious reich
and the destruction of the separation of church & state... yes
it is.. oh yes it is.. oh my, yes.
They say that "Conservatism" is born in shame. You prove this
every time you feel it necessary to post here, misrepresenting
yourself as something other than the dedicated soldier of the
religious reich.
Why are you ashamed to admit the truth?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Litvintchouk" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
24 Nov 2004 08:46:07 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
As for my personal leanings, I feel that the context of a gov facility must
be considered as part of deciding whether religious expression by
individuals is permitted there. For example, a courthouse or post office is
a place of gov business. It must remain, IMHO, secular.
Does that mean that the Post Office should stay open for business on
Christmas Day?
After all, Muslims and Jews think that December 25 is just another
workday like any other.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
24 Nov 2004 08:58:19 PM |
|
|
"Steven Litvintchouk" <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:PHbpd.817$Ua.716@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Fester wrote:
As for my personal leanings, I feel that the context of a gov facility
must be considered as part of deciding whether religious expression by
individuals is permitted there. For example, a courthouse or post office
is a place of gov business. It must remain, IMHO, secular.
Does that mean that the Post Office should stay open for business on
Christmas Day?
After all, Muslims and Jews think that December 25 is just another workday
like any other.
Don't forget us non-superstitious atheists. The answer is, of course since
it is a national holiday. Should it be a national holiday? I can see
arguing against that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
25 Nov 2004 01:05:50 AM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote
Don't forget us non-superstitious atheists.
You're joking, right?
Non-superstituious atheists are the single greatest
cheerleaders of the religious reich. You are.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
24 Nov 2004 08:35:35 AM |
|
|
In our last episode
<jaSod.10262$pK6.1425@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Steven
Litvintchouk lept out of the bushes shouting:
US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia used an appearance at an
Orthodox synagogue in New York to assail the notion that the US
government should maintain a neutral stance toward religion, saying it
has always supported religion and the courts should not try to change
that.
That's because the neo-conservatives believe religion is necessary to
impose order on society. That is, on *us. The interesting thing being that
they also hold that the ruling elite is exempt.
One of the strangest things I've run across about them is that they are,
in the main, atheistic and nihilistic. One way, these days, to tell
someone in a position of power does *not believe in god nor religion is
they talk endlessly about god and religion.
They're a curious bunch. They've come to an utterly unwarranted conclusion
that as there is no "god" and no "ultimate truth," there is no morality.
That there can be *no social order and, so, they must *impose one using
religion--ANY religion--in which they, themselves, don't believe.
It's a seriously, well, stupid position. Morality exists. If there is no
evidence for "god" nor for "ultimate truth," that means morality has some
*other source. Not that morality vanishes in a puff of smoke. Just as the
lack of evidence for a "creator" doesn't make the universe disappear.
So they believe they must hide from the public their own flawed conclusion
else social order will break down. Well, they have something of point
there in that their nihilistic position *is disruptive. What they miss is
they, themselves, are *wrong. The position doesn't need to be "hidden" so
much as discarded as foolish.
But self-appointed feudal lords cannot conceive of the idea they could be
wrong. They are, after all, the elite. They cannot be flawed!
It's the oddest sight these days, watching the devoutly religious line up
in droves to elect amoral atheists as their rulers. Especially given that
those of us atheists who are *honest with our positions and state them out
right are despised and reviled by the people rushing to anoint *dishonest
atheists as their kings.
Personally, it's quite the source of shame to find that neo-conservative
thought is, in the main, atheistic. That the neo-cons are "one of us" is
deeply disturbing and something I wish were not true. But there it is.
Atheists are running the US. At the demand of the religious no less...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
23 Nov 2004 08:35:45 PM |
|
|
Steven Litvintchouk wrote:
"There is something wrong with the principle of neutrality," said
Scalia, considered among the court's staunchest conservatives.
Neutrality as envisioned by the founding fathers, Scalia said, "is not
neutrality between religiousness and nonreligiousness; it is between
denominations of religion."
Religions are so diverse, that in order to be neutral amongst
denominations, in practice you have to be neutral between religiousness
and nonreligiousness. Even as simple a concept as God is not neutral
towards all denominations.
If America's approach toward religion does change, it should be through
democratic process, not "judicial fiat."
Does Scalia believe the democratic process should be allowed to prefer
one religion over another?
"We know that the Constitution wisely separates church from state, but
remember: the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom
from religion."
What does "freedom from religion" mean?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
24 Nov 2004 08:38:16 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <41A3F381.30805@gotcha.comcast.net>, Josh Rosenbluth
lept out of the bushes shouting:
Steven Litvintchouk wrote:
"There is something wrong with the principle of neutrality," said
Scalia, considered among the court's staunchest conservatives.
Neutrality as envisioned by the founding fathers, Scalia said, "is not
neutrality between religiousness and nonreligiousness; it is between
denominations of religion."
Religions are so diverse, that in order to be neutral amongst
denominations, in practice you have to be neutral between religiousness
and nonreligiousness. Even as simple a concept as God is not neutral
towards all denominations.
If America's approach toward religion does change, it should be through
democratic process, not "judicial fiat."
Does Scalia believe the democratic process should be allowed to prefer one
religion over another?
"We know that the Constitution wisely separates church from state, but
remember: the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom
from religion."
What does "freedom from religion" mean?
Freedom from the coercive power of the state of course.
The one true religion of the neo-con elite is *power...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Litvintchouk" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
23 Nov 2004 08:51:19 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Steven Litvintchouk wrote:
"There is something wrong with the principle of neutrality," said
Scalia, considered among the court's staunchest conservatives.
Neutrality as envisioned by the founding fathers, Scalia said, "is not
neutrality between religiousness and nonreligiousness; it is between
denominations of religion."
Religions are so diverse, that in order to be neutral amongst
denominations, in practice you have to be neutral between religiousness
and nonreligiousness. Even as simple a concept as God is not neutral
towards all denominations.
If America's approach toward religion does change, it should be
through democratic process, not "judicial fiat."
Does Scalia believe the democratic process should be allowed to prefer
one religion over another?
"We know that the Constitution wisely separates church from state, but
remember: the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom
from religion."
What does "freedom from religion" mean?
What Lieberman meant, was the belief by the ACLU and their buddies that
all vestiges of religion that occurs in public institutions should be
stamped out.
Here in Massachusetts (and the same thing happens in other states), the
ACLU descends like a SWAT team on some town that happens to have a
Nativity display in the public square, to have it removed on the grounds
that it violates separation of church and state. This isn't enforcing
freedom of religion, it's enforcing Government secularism.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
24 Nov 2004 08:38:42 AM |
|
|
In our last episode
<HGSod.10278$pK6.1111@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Steven
Litvintchouk lept out of the bushes shouting:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Steven Litvintchouk wrote:
"There is something wrong with the principle of neutrality," said
Scalia, considered among the court's staunchest conservatives.
Neutrality as envisioned by the founding fathers, Scalia said, "is not
neutrality between religiousness and nonreligiousness; it is between
denominations of religion."
Religions are so diverse, that in order to be neutral amongst
denominations, in practice you have to be neutral between religiousness
and nonreligiousness. Even as simple a concept as God is not neutral
towards all denominations.
If America's approach toward religion does change, it should be through
democratic process, not "judicial fiat."
Does Scalia believe the democratic process should be allowed to prefer
one religion over another?
"We know that the Constitution wisely separates church from state, but
remember: the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom
from religion."
What does "freedom from religion" mean?
What Lieberman meant, was the belief by the ACLU and their buddies that
all vestiges of religion that occurs in public institutions should be
stamped out.
Here in Massachusetts (and the same thing happens in other states), the
ACLU descends like a SWAT team on some town that happens to have a
Nativity display in the public square, to have it removed on the grounds
that it violates separation of church and state. This isn't enforcing
freedom of religion, it's enforcing Government secularism.
On a secular government no less. How weird...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
23 Nov 2004 10:56:14 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 02:51:19 GMT, Steven Litvintchouk
<sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> said in alt.atheism:
This isn't enforcing freedom of religion, it's enforcing Government secularism.
sec·u·lar·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sky-l-rzm)
n.
1. Religious skepticism or indifference.
2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from
civil affairs or public education.
#2 seems to be exactly what the Constitution demands.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Litvintchouk" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
24 Nov 2004 10:48:21 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 02:51:19 GMT, Steven Litvintchouk
< > said in alt.atheism:
This isn't enforcing freedom of religion, it's enforcing Government secularism.
sec·u·lar·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sky-l-rzm)
n.
1. Religious skepticism or indifference.
2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from
civil affairs or public education.
#2 seems to be exactly what the Constitution demands.
The First Amendment says absolutely no such thing.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
24 Nov 2004 10:28:39 AM |
|
|
Steven Litvintchouk <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> writes:
What Lieberman meant, was the belief by the ACLU and their buddies
that all vestiges of religion that occurs in public institutions
should be stamped out.
All vestiges of the appearance of favor within a public
instutition for one specific religion should be stamped out. The
establishment of an official state religion, or the appearance of favor
towards one, is corrosive on the public trust.
Let's turn it around: there are cities in New York and
Pennsylvania where Muslims are currently trying to gain popular
majorities and control of the public coffers. Would the establishment
of a month where restaurants were forbidden to be open during daylight
hours, especially when that establishment is enforced using public
dollars collected from Muslims, Christians, Jews, and atheists alike,
offend you?
Here in Massachusetts (and the same thing happens in other states),
the ACLU descends like a SWAT team on some town that happens to have a
Nativity display in the public square, to have it removed on the
grounds that it violates separation of church and state.
Which it does.
It's also a bit unfair to target the ACLU on this hand, and on
the other completely ignore those cases where the ACLU has defended a
child's right to say grace, carry a bible, make a book report from the
bible, and other rights that really do exist.
It must completely stick in the craw of some conservatives that
the ACLU, and not the ACLJ, has been the primary defender of religious
freedom for the individual, free from state intrusion, for the past
fifty years.
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Litvintchouk" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
24 Nov 2004 08:01:33 PM |
|
|
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
Steven Litvintchouk < > writes:
What Lieberman meant, was the belief by the ACLU and their buddies
that all vestiges of religion that occurs in public institutions
should be stamped out.
All vestiges of the appearance of favor within a public
instutition for one specific religion should be stamped out. The
establishment of an official state religion, or the appearance of favor
towards one, is corrosive on the public trust.
Let's turn it around: there are cities in New York and
Pennsylvania where Muslims are currently trying to gain popular
majorities and control of the public coffers. Would the establishment
of a month where restaurants were forbidden to be open during daylight
hours, especially when that establishment is enforced using public
dollars collected from Muslims, Christians, Jews, and atheists alike,
offend you?
What "offends" me is not the issue. I can't force the government to
change because its practices "offend" me. That is totally subjective.
If I could, then I would simply stop paying my income tax because what
the Government does with my tax money "offends" me too.
What is the issue, is whether someone's rights are being violated.
And that already happens. Public institutions are all shut down on
Christmas Day. Yet that day is a workday like any other to Orthodox
Jews. To shut down public buildings on Christmas Day is a violation of
the Jews' rights to conduct business during days and hours that they are
accustomed to. There is no logical difference between shutting the Post
Office down on Christmas Day versus shutting the Post Office down on Yom
Kippur.
Ask orthodox Jews which they would prefer--being unable to mail an
important business letter on Christmas Day because the Post Office is
closed, versus keeping the Post Office open for business but having some
simple Christmas decorations on the walls.
It's also a bit unfair to target the ACLU on this hand, and on
the other completely ignore those cases where the ACLU has defended a
child's right to say grace, carry a bible, make a book report from the
bible, and other rights that really do exist.
If we were discussing the ACLU generally, I would agree with you. But
we were discussing Scalia's comments on religion in public life. And
there he, and many other conservatives, are completely opposed to the
ACLU's position.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
25 Nov 2004 10:30:07 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 02:01:33 GMT, Steven Litvintchouk
<sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> said in alt.atheism:
Ask orthodox Jews which they would prefer--being unable to mail an
important business letter on Christmas Day because the Post Office is
closed, versus keeping the Post Office open for business but having some
simple Christmas decorations on the walls.
Or, the proper thing for government to do, not close and not have
religious decorations.
Assuming that a quasi-governmental corporation is subject to the same
prohibitions that the government is.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
23 Nov 2004 08:57:32 PM |
|
|
Steven Litvintchouk wrote:
What does "freedom from religion" mean?
What Lieberman meant, was the belief by the ACLU and their buddies that
all vestiges of religion that occurs in public institutions should be
stamped out.
Here in Massachusetts (and the same thing happens in other states), the
ACLU descends like a SWAT team on some town that happens to have a
Nativity display in the public square, to have it removed on the grounds
that it violates separation of church and state. This isn't enforcing
freedom of religion, it's enforcing Government secularism.
Or maybe it enforces government neutrality?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Litvintchouk" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
23 Nov 2004 09:35:05 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Steven Litvintchouk wrote:
What does "freedom from religion" mean?
What Lieberman meant, was the belief by the ACLU and their buddies
that all vestiges of religion that occurs in public institutions
should be stamped out.
Here in Massachusetts (and the same thing happens in other states),
the ACLU descends like a SWAT team on some town that happens to have a
Nativity display in the public square, to have it removed on the
grounds that it violates separation of church and state. This isn't
enforcing freedom of religion, it's enforcing Government secularism.
Or maybe it enforces government neutrality?
No. "Government neutrality" would imply that any type of religious
display would be tolerated in the public square. If the people decided
to put up a Nativity display and a Hanukkah display and a Kwanzaa
display, neutrality would mean that all would be permitted.
Secularism means that NO religious display of any kind will be tolerated.
Today, Lynne Cheney lit the Christmas tree on the White House lawn.
Should that be banned too?
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
24 Nov 2004 08:43:00 AM |
|
|
In our last episode
<JjTod.10352$pK6.945@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Steven
Litvintchouk lept out of the bushes shouting:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Steven Litvintchouk wrote:
What does "freedom from religion" mean?
What Lieberman meant, was the belief by the ACLU and their buddies that
all vestiges of religion that occurs in public institutions should be
stamped out.
Here in Massachusetts (and the same thing happens in other states), the
ACLU descends like a SWAT team on some town that happens to have a
Nativity display in the public square, to have it removed on the
grounds that it violates separation of church and state. This isn't
enforcing freedom of religion, it's enforcing Government secularism.
Or maybe it enforces government neutrality?
No. "Government neutrality" would imply that any type of religious
display would be tolerated in the public square. If the people decided to
put up a Nativity display and a Hanukkah display and a Kwanzaa display,
neutrality would mean that all would be permitted.
Secularism means that NO religious display of any kind will be tolerated.
Today, Lynne Cheney lit the Christmas tree on the White House lawn. Should
that be banned too?
Except the truth is that what's being enforced is the exact position you
describe. That is you can allow *any and *all religions or *none. You
can't pick and choose. Nor can you fund one at all.
And the idea the ACLU has a "swat team" like response is just *****.
Someone with standing has to contact them and convince them to take their
case. The idea they roam the country looking to snatch Jesus dolls out the
hands of crying children is just propaganda.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
| User: "BugeyedDemmieLosers" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
24 Nov 2004 08:47:04 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:_cqdnWvmFuntADncRVn-sg@megapath.net...
And the idea the ACLU has a "swat team" like response is just *****.
Someone with standing has to contact them and convince them to take their
case. The idea they roam the country looking to snatch Jesus dolls out the
hands of crying children is just propaganda.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
Congress Tries to Save Mt. Soledad Cross
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
November 24, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - Efforts to save a 43-foot tall cross on top of Mount Soledad
in San Diego appear to be paying off.
Congress has now joined the fight to keep the cross where it is by
designating the land on which it stands -- and the granite walls surrounding
it -- as a national veterans' memorial.
The Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center, which defends the religious
freedom of Christians, said U.S. Reps. Duncan Hunter and Randy "Duke"
Cunningham, both California Republicans, inserted the memorial designation
into the omnibus spending bill that Congress passed on Saturday.
According to the congressional designation, once the City of San Diego
donates the land to the United States, the Secretary of the Interior would
administer the memorial as a unit of the National Park System.
With help from the American Civil Liberties Union, an atheist named Phillip
Paulson has waged a 15-year legal battle to get the cross removed. A federal
court has backed Paulson, ordering San Diego to remove the cross, which was
erected 50 years ago to honor U.S. veterans.
Both Paulson and the ACLU of San Diego criticized the federal measure
designating city land around the cross as a national veterans' memorial. The
ACLU called it "political gamesmanship."
But San Diego attorney Charles LiMandri of the Thomas More Law Center called
the congressional action "an act of God." He said Congress is not endorsing
religion by declaring the cross a veterans' memorial -- and he pointed to
crosses honoring veterans at Arlington National Cemetery.
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Law Center, said,
"Those who want the Mt. Soledad cross removed erroneously base their case on
the 'separation of church and state,' a phrase found nowhere in the
Constitution.
"This cross and memorial, soon to be officially designated a national
veterans memorial is constitutionally permissible. It's time to stop
government by the ACLU and for the ACLU."
President Bush is expected to sign the omnibus spending bill within the next
few weeks. But defenders of the Mt. Soledad cross acknowledge the battle is
far from over.
"We fully expect further legal challenges to tear down the cross, but we are
not giving up either," said Thompson.
Donald E. Wildmon, founder and chairman of the American Family Association,
is urging his group to send an urgent email to President Bush, asking him to
make Mt. Soledad a national memorial.
Wildmon notes that under a federal law known as the Antiquities Act, the
president may designate landmarks and structures as national monuments,
making the land on which they sit federal property. Former President Bill
Clinton used the Antiquities Law to establish various new national monuments
during his term.
In addition, Wildmon noted, the Historic Sites Act allows the Secretary of
the Interior to designate certain places as national historic landmarks,
bringing them under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service.
Just this month, on Veterans' Day, a new plaque was added to the Mt. Soledad
Memorial to honor President Reagan, further strengthening its status as a
monument worthy of national protection, Wildmon said.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
24 Nov 2004 09:06:30 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <I91pd.2817$NU3.847@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
BugeyedDemmieLosers lept out of the bushes shouting:
Congress Tries to Save Mt. Soledad Cross By Susan Jones
Yes. You just proved my point.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Litvintchouk" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
24 Nov 2004 11:17:09 AM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In our last episode <I91pd.2817$NU3.847@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
BugeyedDemmieLosers lept out of the bushes shouting:
Congress Tries to Save Mt. Soledad Cross By Susan Jones
Yes. You just proved my point.
I don't like Congress getting involved.
But why does the ACLU insist on removing it? What possible harm is it
doing to anyone?
I don't give a flying crap that some atheists or Muslims might be
offended by it. There's nothing in the Bill of Rights that gives us the
right not to be offended.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
24 Nov 2004 03:42:43 PM |
|
|
In our last episode <pm3pd.297$Ua.59@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Steven Litvintchouk lept out of the bushes shouting:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In our last episode
<I91pd.2817$NU3.847@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
BugeyedDemmieLosers lept out of the bushes shouting:
Congress Tries to Save Mt. Soledad Cross By Susan Jones
Yes. You just proved my point.
I don't like Congress getting involved.
But why does the ACLU insist on removing it? What possible harm is it
doing to anyone?
I don't give a flying crap that some atheists or Muslims might be offended
by it. There's nothing in the Bill of Rights that gives us the right not
to be offended.
Public property, at public expense is an endorsement of the religion and a
violation of separation. The courts agree.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
24 Nov 2004 07:29:10 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:17:09 GMT, Steven Litvintchouk
<sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> in news message
<pm3pd.297$Ua.59@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In our last episode <I91pd.2817$NU3.847@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
BugeyedDemmieLosers lept out of the bushes shouting:
Congress Tries to Save Mt. Soledad Cross By Susan Jones
Yes. You just proved my point.
I don't like Congress getting involved.
But why does the ACLU insist on removing it? What possible harm is it
doing to anyone?
I don't give a flying crap that some atheists or Muslims might be
offended by it. There's nothing in the Bill of Rights that gives us the
right not to be offended.
I agree the Bill of Rights gives us no protection against being
offended, but this case has nothing to do with offense. The reason it
needs to be removed is that a cross erected on government owned land
is a government endorsement of a particular religion. The government
is not allowed to endorse religion.
Why would you think that atheists are offended by religious symbols?
I pass at least 20 churches on my way to work each with their display
of a cross on signs or steeples. It doesn't bother me at all. You
may wear and display any symbol you wish as a private citizen. It
doesn't offend me in the least. Conversely, the government may not
display such symbols as the government has no religious rights, and
indeed is prohibited from engaging in religious displays whether or
not anyone at all is offended.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Religion may in most of its forms be defined as the
belief that the gods are on the side of the government.
-- Bertrand Russell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
25 Nov 2004 07:01:56 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <9bdaq0dfdtor1muj5la12gld5nkkgut0br@4ax.com>, Liz lept
out of the bushes shouting:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:17:09 GMT, Steven Litvintchouk
<sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> in news message
<pm3pd.297$Ua.59@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In our last episode
<I91pd.2817$NU3.847@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
BugeyedDemmieLosers lept out of the bushes shouting:
Congress Tries to Save Mt. Soledad Cross By Susan Jones
Yes. You just proved my point.
I don't like Congress getting involved.
But why does the ACLU insist on removing it? What possible harm is it
doing to anyone?
I don't give a flying crap that some atheists or Muslims might be
offended by it. There's nothing in the Bill of Rights that gives us the
right not to be offended.
I agree the Bill of Rights gives us no protection against being offended,
but this case has nothing to do with offense. The reason it needs to be
removed is that a cross erected on government owned land is a government
endorsement of a particular religion. The government is not allowed to
endorse religion.
Why would you think that atheists are offended by religious symbols? I
pass at least 20 churches on my way to work each with their display of a
cross on signs or steeples. It doesn't bother me at all. You may wear
and display any symbol you wish as a private citizen. It doesn't offend
me in the least. Conversely, the government may not display such symbols
as the government has no religious rights, and indeed is prohibited from
engaging in religious displays whether or not anyone at all is offended.
And are we being told that if some government in the US were erecting the
American Atheist symbol and *only that symbol on public property at public
expense, using tax money to maintain it, nobody would object?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
25 Nov 2004 07:37:15 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 07:01:56 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in news message
<r8GdnXGi_7ugSjjcRVn-sQ@megapath.net> wrote:
In our last episode <9bdaq0dfdtor1muj5la12gld5nkkgut0br@4ax.com>, Liz lept
out of the bushes shouting:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:17:09 GMT, Steven Litvintchouk
<sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> in news message
<pm3pd.297$Ua.59@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In our last episode
<I91pd.2817$NU3.847@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
BugeyedDemmieLosers lept out of the bushes shouting:
Congress Tries to Save Mt. Soledad Cross By Susan Jones
Yes. You just proved my point.
I don't like Congress getting involved.
But why does the ACLU insist on removing it? What possible harm is it
doing to anyone?
I don't give a flying crap that some atheists or Muslims might be
offended by it. There's nothing in the Bill of Rights that gives us the
right not to be offended.
I agree the Bill of Rights gives us no protection against being offended,
but this case has nothing to do with offense. The reason it needs to be
removed is that a cross erected on government owned land is a government
endorsement of a particular religion. The government is not allowed to
endorse religion.
Why would you think that atheists are offended by religious symbols? I
pass at least 20 churches on my way to work each with their display of a
cross on signs or steeples. It doesn't bother me at all. You may wear
and display any symbol you wish as a private citizen. It doesn't offend
me in the least. Conversely, the government may not display such symbols
as the government has no religious rights, and indeed is prohibited from
engaging in religious displays whether or not anyone at all is offended.
And are we being told that if some government in the US were erecting the
American Atheist symbol and *only that symbol on public property at public
expense, using tax money to maintain it, nobody would object?
I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth already.
I think the argument is that the Cross® is a harmless non-religious
symbol, which should be proudly displayed by the government as part of
our non-religious heritage. (Praise Jesus!) Whereas, an atheist
symbol, the Star of David, or a Islamic crescent publicly displayed
would be a horrible intrusion of religion in government where it
obviously doesn't belong, which would rend the whole fabric of
democracy from the American Way of Life© and leave the country morally
bankrupt leading to terrible, just and sure punishment by the wrath of
God®! Amen.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Religion may in most of its forms be defined as the
belief that the gods are on the side of the government.
-- Bertrand Russell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
25 Nov 2004 08:17:00 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <8inbq01131128u3v6b89u7cktci0p7gv5p@4ax.com>, Liz lept
out of the bushes shouting:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 07:01:56 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in news message
<r8GdnXGi_7ugSjjcRVn-sQ@megapath.net> wrote:
In our last episode <9bdaq0dfdtor1muj5la12gld5nkkgut0br@4ax.com>, Liz
lept out of the bushes shouting:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:17:09 GMT, Steven Litvintchouk
<sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> in news message
<pm3pd.297$Ua.59@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In our last episode
<I91pd.2817$NU3.847@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
BugeyedDemmieLosers lept out of the bushes shouting:
Congress Tries to Save Mt. Soledad Cross By Susan Jones
Yes. You just proved my point.
I don't like Congress getting involved.
But why does the ACLU insist on removing it? What possible harm is it
doing to anyone?
I don't give a flying crap that some atheists or Muslims might be
offended by it. There's nothing in the Bill of Rights that gives us
the right not to be offended.
I agree the Bill of Rights gives us no protection against being
offended, but this case has nothing to do with offense. The reason it
needs to be removed is that a cross erected on government owned land
is a government endorsement of a particular religion. The government
is not allowed to endorse religion.
Why would you think that atheists are offended by religious symbols? I
pass at least 20 churches on my way to work each with their display of
a cross on signs or steeples. It doesn't bother me at all. You may
wear and display any symbol you wish as a private citizen. It doesn't
offend me in the least. Conversely, the government may not display
such symbols as the government has no religious rights, and indeed is
prohibited from engaging in religious displays whether or not anyone
at all is offended.
And are we being told that if some government in the US were erecting
the American Atheist symbol and *only that symbol on public property at
public expense, using tax money to maintain it, nobody would object?
I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth already.
I think the argument is that the Cross® is a harmless non-religious
symbol, which should be proudly displayed by the government as part of
our non-religious heritage. (Praise Jesus!) Whereas, an atheist
symbol, the Star of David, or a Islamic crescent publicly displayed
would be a horrible intrusion of religion in government where it
obviously doesn't belong, which would rend the whole fabric of democracy
from the American Way of Life© and leave the country morally bankrupt
leading to terrible, just and sure punishment by the wrath of God®!
Amen.
Isn't that amazing to watch? Christian symbols are secular one second,
religious the next. Trivial in one moment, critical in another. Something
nobody should get upset about but worthy of marching in the streets to
defend.
You could get *dizzy trying to keep up with the equivocations...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
25 Nov 2004 09:23:45 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:uPidnRZMIfNIdTjcRVn-oA@megapath.net...
In our last episode <8inbq01131128u3v6b89u7cktci0p7gv5p@4ax.com>, Liz lept
out of the bushes shouting:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 07:01:56 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in news message
<r8GdnXGi_7ugSjjcRVn-sQ@megapath.net> wrote:
In our last episode <9bdaq0dfdtor1muj5la12gld5nkkgut0br@4ax.com>, Liz
lept out of the bushes shouting:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:17:09 GMT, Steven Litvintchouk
<sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> in news message
<pm3pd.297$Ua.59@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In our last episode
<I91pd.2817$NU3.847@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
BugeyedDemmieLosers lept out of the bushes shouting:
Congress Tries to Save Mt. Soledad Cross By Susan Jones
Yes. You just proved my point.
I don't like Congress getting involved.
But why does the ACLU insist on removing it? What possible harm is it
doing to anyone?
I don't give a flying crap that some atheists or Muslims might be
offended by it. There's nothing in the Bill of Rights that gives us
the right not to be offended.
I agree the Bill of Rights gives us no protection against being
offended, but this case has nothing to do with offense. The reason it
needs to be removed is that a cross erected on government owned land
is a government endorsement of a particular religion. The government
is not allowed to endorse religion.
Why would you think that atheists are offended by religious symbols? I
pass at least 20 churches on my way to work each with their display of
a cross on signs or steeples. It doesn't bother me at all. You may
wear and display any symbol you wish as a private citizen. It doesn't
offend me in the least. Conversely, the government may not display
such symbols as the government has no religious rights, and indeed is
prohibited from engaging in religious displays whether or not anyone
at all is offended.
And are we being told that if some government in the US were erecting
the American Atheist symbol and *only that symbol on public property at
public expense, using tax money to maintain it, nobody would object?
I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth already.
I think the argument is that the Cross® is a harmless non-religious
symbol, which should be proudly displayed by the government as part of
our non-religious heritage. (Praise Jesus!) Whereas, an atheist
symbol, the Star of David, or a Islamic crescent publicly displayed
would be a horrible intrusion of religion in government where it
obviously doesn't belong, which would rend the whole fabric of democracy
from the American Way of Life© and leave the country morally bankrupt
leading to terrible, just and sure punishment by the wrath of God®!
Amen.
Isn't that amazing to watch? Christian symbols are secular one second,
religious the next. Trivial in one moment, critical in another. Something
nobody should get upset about but worthy of marching in the streets to
defend.
You could get *dizzy trying to keep up with the equivocations...
Agreed, but you uncharacteristically didn't work the word "neo-con" into
your rant. Not feeling well today or just forgetful?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
25 Nov 2004 01:28:44 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 08:17:00 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In our last episode <8inbq01131128u3v6b89u7cktci0p7gv5p@4ax.com>, Liz lept
out of the bushes shouting:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 07:01:56 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in news message
<r8GdnXGi_7ugSjjcRVn-sQ@megapath.net> wrote:
In our last episode <9bdaq0dfdtor1muj5la12gld5nkkgut0br@4ax.com>, Liz
lept out of the bushes shouting:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:17:09 GMT, Steven Litvintchouk
<sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> in news message
<pm3pd.297$Ua.59@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In our last episode
<I91pd.2817$NU3.847@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
BugeyedDemmieLosers lept out of the bushes shouting:
Congress Tries to Save Mt. Soledad Cross By Susan Jones
Yes. You just proved my point.
I don't like Congress getting involved.
But why does the ACLU insist on removing it? What possible harm is it
doing to anyone?
I don't give a flying crap that some atheists or Muslims might be
offended by it. There's nothing in the Bill of Rights that gives us
the right not to be offended.
I agree the Bill of Rights gives us no protection against being
offended, but this case has nothing to do with offense. The reason it
needs to be removed is that a cross erected on government owned land
is a government endorsement of a particular religion. The government
is not allowed to endorse religion.
Why would you think that atheists are offended by religious symbols? I
pass at least 20 churches on my way to work each with their display of
a cross on signs or steeples. It doesn't bother me at all. You may
wear and display any symbol you wish as a private citizen. It doesn't
offend me in the least. Conversely, the government may not display
such symbols as the government has no religious rights, and indeed is
prohibited from engaging in religious displays whether or not anyone
at all is offended.
And are we being told that if some government in the US were erecting
the American Atheist symbol and *only that symbol on public property at
public expense, using tax money to maintain it, nobody would object?
I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth already.
I think the argument is that the Cross® is a harmless non-religious
symbol, which should be proudly displayed by the government as part of
our non-religious heritage. (Praise Jesus!) Whereas, an atheist
symbol, the Star of David, or a Islamic crescent publicly displayed
would be a horrible intrusion of religion in government where it
obviously doesn't belong, which would rend the whole fabric of democracy
from the American Way of Life© and leave the country morally bankrupt
leading to terrible, just and sure punishment by the wrath of God®!
Amen.
Isn't that amazing to watch? Christian symbols are secular one second,
religious the next. Trivial in one moment, critical in another. Something
nobody should get upset about but worthy of marching in the streets to
defend.
You could get *dizzy trying to keep up with the equivocations...
Honesty is against Christian policy-never mind what "Jesus"
instructed.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
25 Nov 2004 10:25:50 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:35:05 GMT, Steven Litvintchouk
<sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> said in alt.atheism:
No. "Government neutrality" would imply that any type of religious
display would be tolerated in the public square.
Since it's "government" that's putting on the display, it's not
neutrality.
If the people decided to put up a Nativity display
"The people" don't have the right to put a display on government
property. If the people want to put up displays on property they have
the right to put displays on, they're free to do so.
Secularism means that NO religious display of any kind will be tolerated.
Neutrality means that no display will be put up by the government.
Today, Lynne Cheney lit the Christmas tree on the White House lawn.
Should that be banned too?
Of course.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia Sez Government Should Support Religion |
24 Nov 2004 02:44:23 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:35:05 GMT, Steven Litvintchouk
<sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Steven Litvintchouk wrote:
What does "freedom from religion" mean?
What Lieberman meant, was the belief by the ACLU and their buddies
that all vestiges of religion that occurs in public institutions
should be stamped out.
Here in Massachusetts (and the same thing happens in other states),
the ACLU descends like a SWAT team on some town that happens to have a
Nativity display in the public square, to have it removed on the
grounds that it violates separation of church and state. This isn't
enforcing freedom of religion, it's enforcing Government secularism.
Or maybe it enforces government neutrality?
No. "Government neutrality" would imply that any type of religious
display would be tolerated in the public square. If the people decided
to put up a Nativity display and a Hanukkah display and a Kwanzaa
display, neutrality would mean that all would be permitted.
Secularism means that NO religious display of any kind will be tolerated.
Today, Lynne Cheney lit the Christmas tree on the White House lawn.
Should that be banned too?
If a coven of Witches wanted to hold a skyclad Yule Sabbat in the
public square, should that be allowed too? Why or why not?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
