|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 06/28/2002 : 21:53:26
|
I couldn't decide if I should post this in religion or in politics. So I'm posting it here, instead.
quote:
Bush Sets Religious Litmus Test for Judges
Now is the time to show our dissatisfaction with the way our elected
officials have handled the recent Pledge ruling.
Yesterday President Bush denounced the common sense San Francisco court
ruling that decided children should not have to feel coerced to give false
statements of sectarian belief in public school. With this decision by the
court, there is now a hope that the Pledge of Allegiance can be returned to
its original form, without the "under God" wording that the Knights of
Columbus lobbied successfully for in the 1950s.
Bush then went on to establish a criterion of particular religious belief
for judicial appointments, saying, "I believe that it points up the fact
that we need common sense judges who understand that our rights were derived
from God. Those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench." Bush's
public statement of intent to discriminate on religious grounds makes a
mockery of the US Constitution. Article VI states “no religious Test shall
ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the
United States.”
Bush ignores the 30 million Americans who identify with no religion, as well
as faithful Buddhists, Hindus and others who do not subscribe to his
monotheistic test for judicial competency. Bush's criterion is so vague and
subjective that he might find only a small percentage of Americans
religiously acceptable for the courts.
Within 24 hours of the Pledge ruling, both the Senate and the House passed
expressions of outrage over the court's decision in the form of official
Resolutions. Rep. Bobbie Scott (D-VA), Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) and Rep.
Michael Honda (D-CA) were the only ones that spoke against and voted against
these reactionary resolutions. All other voting Senators and Representatives
voted in favor of these public statements of religious outrage.
Humanists and other concerned citizens should now let our elected officials
know just how outraged WE are. Please take the time to call, write and email
these politicians and tell them how you feel. President Bush's contact
information follows. To find contact information for your elected officials
visit:
http://www.firstgov.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
If you are looking for wording to use in your responses, visit our web-site
at:
http://www.americanhumanist.org/pledge.html and be sure to let us know how
your calls go and copy us on your letters and e-mails.
American Humanist Association
1777 T Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
202-238-9088
aha@americanhumanist.org
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
202-456-1111
president@whitehouse.gov
The Evil Skeptic
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2002 : 22:57:09 [Permalink]
|
Ah, yes. The old, "common sense is supporting whatever it is I am in favor of" argument. How would one screen for something like this? "Do you support religious freedom?" is far too broad. It would have to be something like, "Are you Christian? If yes, do you support the surreptitious insertion (or maintenance) of specifically religious language into government pledges and documents, while cleverly disguising your rulings to make it look like there's no Constitutional issue to begin with?"
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2002 : 04:27:53 [Permalink]
|
The frightening part of all this is that the foul and incompentent Bush is in a position to do exactly what he proposes.
Who's gonna stop him? The wuss-filled Congress? The SC? Yeah, right!
We've already got at least one preacher (Primitive Baptist) around here ranting about, "Smiting the heathen."
f
Evolution is a bankrupt speculative philosophy, not a scientific fact. Only a spiritually bankrupt society could ever believe it.... Only atheists could accept this Satanic theory.
-- Rev. Jimmy Swaggart (source unknown)
|
|
|
|
Jesus
New Member
USA
34 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2002 : 16:09:21 [Permalink]
|
PD that was well stated .The thing that bothers me most is they ( President Dah!)do not care about the 15% that don"t buy there childish believes ....The decision was correct ,and not one statment has been made to argue that fact in a legal manner ,all I've seen is a lot of name calling .I hope that someone can atleast come up with some kind of legal reason to overturn the 9th curcits rulling
Eat more Xtian,taste like fish |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2002 : 22:26:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
PD that was well stated .The thing that bothers me most is they ( President Dah!)do not care about the 15% that don"t buy there childish believes ....The decision was correct ,and not one statment has been made to argue that fact in a legal manner ,all I've seen is a lot of name calling .I hope that someone can atleast come up with some kind of legal reason to overturn the 9th curcits rulling
Well, be on the lookout for "Ceremonial Deism" or de minimis when the time comes that the bullshit tsunami subsides and the politicos must proffer their actual legal arguments.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
Ogami
New Member
USA
15 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2002 : 18:24:39 [Permalink]
|
Quoting Bush from the petition:
"I believe that it points up the fact that we need common sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God. Those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench."
I believe the basis for this complaint against the President to be flawed, as Bush stands on very firm ground in making this statement. His source is no less an authority than the Declaration of Independence itself:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This is precisely what Bush said, God is by no means a precise designation. Nowhere does Bush or the Declaration say "Jesus", or "the midwestern protestant version of God", or "the Christian God". The Creator of the universe, whomever or whatever force you judge that to be, endowed people from birth with certain inalienable rights. No one is forcing their religion on anyone.
Seems to me the American Humanist Association should at least brush up on the Declaration of Independence before portraying Bush as some sort of Bible-thumping whacko. His statement precisely matches the very sentiment that founded our country, that man is born with these rights, they are not there for a despotic government to grant or take away.
Please someone correct me if I've quoted either Bush or the Declaration inaccurately, did the American Humanist Association think this through before feeling indignant? There's a difference between feeling about an issue and thinking about an issue, they should know better.
-Ogami
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2002 : 18:44:52 [Permalink]
|
The Declaration of Independence is not and never was intended to be the law and that's about all there is to it. Seriously, I cringe when I hear people refer to it as if it were a legal document. I don't cringe out of fear but rather in embarrassment for the person that has such a poor grasp the American civics.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Ogami
New Member
USA
15 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2002 : 18:55:55 [Permalink]
|
Hi Atomic, thanks for responding.
I see, so it is your contention that the Declaration of Independence should be disregarded entirely? It's hard to argue with that logic, just pick and choose whatever founding documents appeal the most, is that it? I admit to not being the foremost scholar, but I believe it was debated and voted on the same as all our subsequent founding documents.
It seems to me that the President is well-educated on one of the most important documents in our country's foundation. That seems at odds with his reputation, doesn't it?
I see you've avoided responding to the proof I've just presented that Bush was not pushing his personal religious beliefs on anyone, that he was citing the Declaration of Independence. Now, if you want to criticize him for favoring a document you personally don't like, that's another discussion. But it's clearly not a religious litmus test that he is urging. The assumption of the American Humanist Association is based on feeling, not reason. A very bad way for skeptics to operate, to put it mildly.
-Ogami
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2002 : 18:59:36 [Permalink]
|
You know I would like to just go on and on with you but I think I have said everything that needs to be said regarding this issue. Perhaps someone else will participate.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Ogami
New Member
USA
15 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2002 : 19:03:47 [Permalink]
|
Well Atomic I don't think you said much of anything beyond a blanket dismissal of my knowledge of civics. That's rather bizarre, you don't even know me. So far your style of discussion strikes me as having little more depth than that of the fundamentalist who declares their belief in the inerrancy of the bible, and dismisses anyone who says otherwise.
You just declared that you are right and the discussion is closed. Hard to argue with that, I guess. I take it you're not a skeptic?
-Ogami
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2002 : 19:23:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Article. VI.
Clause 1: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
I really think this says it all. The Delaration is not a law though it is an important historical document. It also was never intended to be law as the Constitution clearly states that it is the law of the land.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2002 : 20:39:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I see, so it is your contention that the Declaration of Independence should be disregarded entirely? It's hard to argue with that logic, just pick and choose whatever founding documents appeal the most, is that it? I admit to not being the foremost scholar, but I believe it was debated and voted on the same as all our subsequent founding documents.
How about we just deal with the documents that have something to do with the governance of the country?
quote:
It seems to me that the President is well-educated on one of the most important documents in our country's foundation. That seems at odds with his reputation, doesn't it?
It's funny to see the DoI all of a sudden trumpeted as this monumental piece of American history. It's nicely symbolic of our struggle, to be sure, but do you really think such a document was required for our rebellion to take place? Was there an international law statute that said all notices of colonial separation must be put in writing?
quote:
I see you've avoided responding to the proof I've just presented that Bush was not pushing his personal religious beliefs on anyone, that he was citing the Declaration of Independence.
How about "proof" that the use of the words "creator" and "year of our lord" in a document with no legal force are somehow unquestionably indicative of some monolithic thing called "the intent of the founders"?
quote:
Now, if you want to criticize him for favoring a document you personally don't like, that's another discussion.
Congratulations! Your first ad hom on SFN! And a strawman to boot!
quote:
But it's clearly not a religious litmus test that he is urging. The assumption of the American Humanist Association is based on feeling, not reason. A very bad way for skeptics to operate, to put it mildly.
Who the hell says the American Humanist Association speaks for all skeptics? When did the AHA start claiming they were skeptics anyway? They certainly don't represent all skeptics around here.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
Ogami
New Member
USA
15 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2002 : 21:54:12 [Permalink]
|
From Clause 3 of the Constitution as provided by atomic:
but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
'We declare these truths to be self-evident' is pretty self-explanatory, how is that a religious test?
Did I miss something in American history, you're telling me that the writers of the Constitution were repudiating the Declaration? You are the first person I have ever heard of who declared the Declaration apocryphal, like its some forgotten lore that has been retired in our nation's history.
Let me see if I can follow the logic of the petition and poll. A prospective judge is brought up for nomination, and declares he believes otherwise from what Bush stated? That "all men are not created equal, that they are not endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are not Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"?
The assumption of the AMA is that Bush is forcing his religious preferences down our throats. This is an assumption I have just disproven, he is merely citing the Declaration of Independence. The poll is flawed, the petition is flawed.
I'll ignore your personal comment on my lack of civics education, I'm really just curious as to why the president is considered a religious menace by citing the very first line of our Declaration of Independence. Before today, I had no idea that was the height of lawlessness.
-Ogami
Edited by - Ogami on 07/12/2002 22:50:08 |
|
|
|
Ogami
New Member
USA
15 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2002 : 22:12:29 [Permalink]
|
PhDreamer wrote:
How about we just deal with the documents that have something to do with the governance of the country?
The Constitution is a direct extrapolation from founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence, which was an expression against a tyrannical government. Other countries in the world have constitutions, feel free to read them. These foreign constitutions detail the rights that government gives to the people.
Our constitution is unique, still unique in the world. For it details the rights the people give government. Our Constitution details the limits and restrictions on government. That's an astonishing distinction, it was radical for its time, and it's a radical premise today in some parts of the world. Its basis can be tied right to that first line in the Declaration of Independence. I had thought that there was a seamless connection between our founding documents, only to be told now that I am ignorant of civics. So far, declaring me ignorant of civics hasn't done the slightest thing in proving how the Constitution repudiates the Declaration.
It's funny to see the DoI all of a sudden trumpeted as this monumental piece of American history. It's nicely symbolic of our struggle, to be sure, but do you really think such a document was required for our rebellion to take place? Was there an international law statute that said all notices of colonial separation must be put in writing?
That is quite rightly a whole other discussion, how important the Declaration is compared to other documents in our country's early days. My point, which you deliberately ignore, is that Bush was not citing his religious preference, but one of the most important documents in our history. You want to tell me you personally don't consider it important, fine. That is irrelevant to the fact that an American president can cite the Declaration and be on firm ground when he does so.
How about "proof" that the use of the words "creator" and "year of our lord" in a document with no legal force are somehow unquestionably indicative of some monolithic thing called "the intent of the founders"?
I feel like I've stepped into some alternate reality with a completely different history than I've read. Is it your contention that the Constitution liberated us from the patriarchal monotheistic religious oppression of the Declaration? I've never seen it presented that way, but it seems to be a tenet of faith to some.
Congratulations! Your first ad hom on SFN! And a strawman to boot!
???! I have not attacked anyone, I attack the argument. Do you even know what the definition of an Ad Hominem attack is? It means attacking the poster not the position.
I see you had no similar comment for atomic when that person dismissed my comparison by declaring I had no knowledge of civics. That is a sweeping ad hominem attack, attacking the other poster, not the position.
So far all I've been told is that you and atomic don't like the Declaration, so you choose to believe it had no role in the creation of this country, that the credos that went into it had no place in the Constitution. You've provided no evidence that a single person who worked on the Constitution did so to repudiate the opening line of the Declaration. Instead, I've been attacked for daring to question the orthodoxy.
Please let me know where I posted anything that is an Ad Hominem attack on you or atomic. I'm simply making what appears to be an unpopular observation. That does not automatically make me wrong, regardless of what debating circle you subscribe to.
Who the hell says the American Humanist Association speaks for all skeptics? When did the AHA start claiming they were skeptics anyway? They certainly don't represent all skeptics around here.
The Petition is posted on this website's Announcement section. It has another thread in Politics. And it is the official poll of the skeptic website itself. As a skeptic, I am pointing out that the premise of the poll is flawed, the premise of the petition is flawed. So far the only response I've had can be distilled down to two points.
1) The Declaration of Independence is not an important document declaring American principles in any shape matter or form.
2) I am not as learned in American civics, so presumedly my point means nothing.
Those responses may be viscerally (i.e. emotionally) gratifying to you, but they don't address what I have pointed out.
As an agnostic, I am fascinated at the views I am being presented with here in the name of objectivity and freedom from religion. Perhaps rather than accuse me of ignorance, you could explain why Bush is engaging in religious intolerance when he is citing a document that our country has always considered one of the most important in our founding?
-Ogami
Edited by - Ogami on 07/12/2002 22:14:41 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2002 : 22:14:46 [Permalink]
|
The Declaration, if you'd bother to read the document, requests the Crown of England to redress certain greivances in the Colonies. It is not the governing document of the United States. We issued a Declaration to the Crown stating that if the greivances of the colonies were not sufficiently settled that the colonies would separate themselves, by force if required, from the Crown of england.
It is not the Declaration that the armed forces of the US take an oath to defend and uphold but rather the Constitution, our governing document.
'I do affirm that I will defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, both forgien and domestic.'
As @tomic pointed out, the DoI is an historical document of value for making our intentions clear to England, but that's all it is. It is not, nor has ever been a governing document. Prior to the Constitution our primary governing laws were the Articles of Confederation, those held until about 1787, when the Constitution was voted as our governing document.
I believe Thomas Jefferson stated it best when he said, 'We must maintain a wall of separation between the Church and the State, to keep forever from these shores the strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.'
There are reasons for the separation of church and state and for the inclusion of no religious test being required as part of appointment or election to office.
---
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
Edited by - Trish on 07/12/2002 22:16:26 |
|
|
|
Ogami
New Member
USA
15 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2002 : 22:41:12 [Permalink]
|
Trish wrote:
The Declaration, if you'd bother to read the document, requests the Crown of England to redress certain greivances in the Colonies.
Again with an attack on my learning level! I directly quoted the precise sentence Bush cited in his comment about the selection of federal judges today. Please find for me the quote where Bush singles out the Crown of England for criticism!
So far, none of you have presented any proof that the writers of the constitution crafted it with the express purpose of distancing themselves from and repudiating the theme the Declaration begins with.
As @tomic pointed out, the DoI is an historical document of value for making our intentions clear to England, but that's all it is.
Fine! Then the petition and the poll should read, "Should President Bush have cited the opening line of the (outdated and unofficial) Declaration of Independence in his search for federal judges?"
I believe Thomas Jefferson stated it best when he said, 'We must maintain a wall of separation between the Church and the State, to keep forever from these shores the strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.'
That was in a letter he wrote, not in the Constitution. Since that letter, like the Declaration, is not in the Constitution, I assume they carry the same weight with you? Jefferson signed the Declaration too. (He kind of had a hand in both, which I assume you are aware of.)
And one good turn deserves another, since I'm being lectured on my apparent lack of knowledge. Thomas Jefferson lived in a time when an official Church of England was on everyone's minds, and they did not want the United States to establish a similar government-sanctioned religion. The Constitution clearly spells out that no such official church will be tolerated in our government. You are aware that one of the reasons our country was founded was so that many immigrants could get away from the government-mandated churches back in Europe?
Or is that to be considered another Ad Hominem attack on my part?
There are reasons for the separation of church and state and for the inclusion of no religious test being required as part of appointment or election to office.
Quite true. Imagine if Bush had said "I believe that it points up the fact that we need common sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from Jesus". We would not be having this discussion.
Bush didn't do that, he quoted the opening line of a document that had been edited and agreed upon as a consensus. Or am I too lacking in civics knowledge to have read the multiple early drafts of the Declaration to know that?
I've been very polite in the face of preposterous personal attacks berating me for my lack of knowledge, but enough is enough. Control yourselves, focus your points on the discussion, not me. Talking about me means you can't defend your position, and I don't want to win by default.
-Ogami
Edited by - Ogami on 07/12/2002 22:54:51 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
