|
|
|
Ogami
New Member
USA
15 Posts |
 Posted - 07/12/2002 : 22:46:52 [Permalink]
|
Although I had no idea this was a matter of controversy, from The National Archives & Records Administration:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/declaration/declaration.html
_____________________
The Declaration of Independence
Drafted by Thomas Jefferson between June 11 and June 28, 1776, the Declaration of Independence is at once the nation's most cherished symbol of liberty and Jefferson's most enduring monument. Here, in exalted and unforgettable phrases, Jefferson expressed the convictions in the minds and hearts of the American people. The political philosophy of the Declaration was not new; its ideals of individual liberty had already been expressed by John Locke and the Continental philosophers. What Jefferson did was to summarize this philosophy in "self-evident truths" and set forth a list of grievances against the King in order to justify before the world the breaking of ties between the colonies and the mother country. We invite you to read a transcription of the complete text of the Declaration.
_____________________
You want to tell me I'm ignorant of American civics, fine. Tell them that.
-Ogami
|
 |
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2002 : 22:54:46 [Permalink]
|
Part of the point of the entire problem with Bush appointing common sense judges that realize that our rights come from god is that when Bush says god, he specifically refers to the Judeo-Christian god, not the Creator of Deism as was refered to in the DoI. Bush is of the same mind as those of the Religious Right that say all of our founding fathers were xians - they weren't. Jefferson declared himself an Epicurean. The quote from Jefferson was in regards to a question specifically regarding political office and expression of religious preference.
Declaring religiosity in governmental politics was passe in the 60s when Kennedy was elected. Kennedy said that his religious preference would have no bearing on his duties to secular society. It wasn't until Jimmy Carter that it became fashionable for politicians to proclaim their religiosity for all and sundry. Religion or any test of religious nature have no place in our government nor in secular society.
Now, if your primary problem with things here is the poll under politics then it is up to you to convince the author of the poll that is should perhaps be worded differently. However, it does not change the fact that belief in a power beyond the natural is not and should never become a part of the test for appointment to office - political or otherwise. To state something to the contrary goes against the very foundations of what the founding fathers were attempting to show, that the rights of the government come from the governed. But that is not to say that the majority have the right over the minority - that in itself is a logical fallacy.
---
...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 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2002 : 22:57:29 [Permalink]
|
As you excerpt points out - the DoI is a list of grievances against the King and letting the world know why the colonies wanted to separate from England. It is not a governing document. It's import is in the intent of the colonies to separate from England if they are forced to it by the Kings tyranny over the colonies. It's import is not as a governing document of the United States of America.
---
...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 |
|
|
|
Ogami
New Member
USA
15 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2002 : 23:18:06 [Permalink]
|
Trish wrote:
Part of the point of the entire problem with Bush appointing common sense judges that realize that our rights come from god is that when Bush says god, he specifically refers to the Judeo-Christian god, not the Creator of Deism as was refered to in the DoI.
Thank you for clearly enunciating what you assume. You assume what Bush is thinking, you assume what he really means, you assume he planning to force his religion on the rest of us.
That's an awful lot of assumptions, none of it has any factual basis or relation to the precise sentence Bush was referring to. His statement rests on firm historical ground, not assumptions about his true meaning.
The petition makes two assumptions in particular 1) That Bush is un-educated if not stupid, and 2) He plans to force his religious views on the rest of us.
I've refuted the latter, and Bush refuted the former by precisely capturing the spirit in which Jefferson penned that wonderful opening sentence in the DoI.
Religion or any test of religious nature have no place in our government nor in secular society.
I agree! How fortunate Bush cites an official founding document written by Thomas Jefferson, which cites no specific religion. (Unless it's Epicureanism as you say). Since I've proved Bush's statement is intellectually and historically valid, I guess now you are reduced to telling me that it just doesn't "feel" right? All of the responses I have received have been on an emotional level of near-religious faith, not on a logical level.
Now, if your primary problem with things here is the poll under politics then it is up to you to convince the author of the poll that is should perhaps be worded differently. However, it does not change the fact that belief in a power beyond the natural is not and should never become a part of the test for appointment to office - political or otherwise. To state something to the contrary goes against the very foundations of what the founding fathers were attempting to show, that the rights of the government come from the governed. But that is not to say that the majority have the right over the minority - that in itself is a logical fallacy.
I am sorry if I was mistaken in thinking this topic (of Bush's religious litmus test) was open for discussion. Existing as a thread, an AMA petition, and an official website sidebar poll, I thought it might be important enough to discuss. But if your position is that dogma should prevail over reason, I don't know how to argue that. How it is a 'logical fallacy' to point out the precise document that justifies Bush's statement is beyond me.
-Ogami
|
|
|
|
Ogami
New Member
USA
15 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2002 : 23:21:48 [Permalink]
|
Trish wrote:
As you excerpt points out - the DoI is a list of grievances against the King and letting the world know why the colonies wanted to separate from England. It is not a governing document. It's import is in the intent of the colonies to separate from England if they are forced to it by the Kings tyranny over the colonies. It's import is not as a governing document of the United States of America.
So by your logic, had the final sentence of the DoI been about plumbing, everything else in it should be ruled out as having any bearing whatsoever on Jefferson's thoughts of government.
The paragraph from the website says it all, Jefferson was the author of the Declaration. He declared these wondrous "self-evident truths", drawing upon the work of John Locke and other European philosophers. But, as you state plainly, we can dispense with all of that, because it also dealt with the King of England.
I'm sorry, but I do not follow your point at all.
In the Declaration, Jefferson described the rights of men as coming from the creator of the universe itself. You're free to interpret that as anything, even the absence of a human-like creator. Jefferson then went on to state that because of these rights, continued rulership under the king was intolerable.
You have not provided any evidence that the rights of men Jefferson cited here for breaking away from England had no bearing on the rights he and others had in mind in the crafting of our Constitution. I have never seen any work detailing how Jefferson spent his life trying to undo what he had said in the Declaration, which is an implicit assumption if the Constitution repudiates his sentiments therein.
-Ogami
Edited by - Ogami on 07/12/2002 23:27:33 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2002 : 00:08:36 [Permalink]
|
The DoI is irrelevant to the governance of this country. It is not nor was it ever intended or sold or promoted or whatever as a document of governance. That was the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, but never the Declaration. Regardless of Jeffersons views regarding the governance of man, the Declaration was not written to be the governing factor of the colonies. You are making the jump from what it is to something it is not.
As for the assumptions regarding Bush, what I've stated is not difficult to infer from what Bush has said and what Bush has done thus far in his presidency. If you really want, I suppose I could find the peices of the puzzle that really lead me down that particular path. Starting with his particular religious sect.
---
...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 |
|
|
|
Ogami
New Member
USA
15 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2002 : 00:29:38 [Permalink]
|
Trish wrot:
The DoI is irrelevant to the governance of this country.
I'd like to know how precisely you came to be the determiner of what Jefferson writings are considered acceptable and which ones aren't. I could post the paragraph again from the NARA website, in fact, I will. It precisely describes why the themes Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration were put into practice in the Constitution. There is zero discontinuity between the themes of the two.
The Constitution does not lay out what rights belong to the people. As stated in the Declaration, those rights are self-evident. Rather the Constitution details what rights the government can and cannot have, such as establishing a federally-mandated national religion.
_________________________
The Declaration of Independence
Drafted by Thomas Jefferson between June 11 and June 28, 1776, the Declaration of Independence is at once the nation's most cherished symbol of liberty and Jefferson's most enduring monument. Here, in exalted and unforgettable phrases, Jefferson expressed the convictions in the minds and hearts of the American people. The political philosophy of the Declaration was not new; its ideals of individual liberty had already been expressed by John Locke and the Continental philosophers. What Jefferson did was to summarize this philosophy in "self-evident truths" and set forth a list of grievances against the King in order to justify before the world the breaking of ties between the colonies and the mother country. We invite you to read a transcription of the complete text of the Declaration.
__________________________
It is not nor was it ever intended or sold or promoted or whatever as a document of governance.
Interesting, so it is your contention that these rights that Jefferson wrote of are not self-evident? They only exist if someone in congress comes along and passes a law giving us such rights? That may apply to other countries, but not ours.
You are arguing that the principles stated in the DoI do not exist, and have no bearing on the creation of the Constitution. That is factually untrue, you are putting your own philosophy above Jefferson's own writings!
Regardless of Jeffersons views regarding the governance of man, the Declaration was not written to be the governing factor of the colonies.
I am astonished at the vehemence at which you argue this, as if it would blaspheme the Holy Writ of your orthodoxy that Jefferson could mean what he said in one group of writings, yet another is wholly inadmissable under any context except as a historical curiosity. To maintain your faith, you must not even allow for the possibility that the DoI is relevant to the founding of our country, and our most cherished precepts of government. This is amazing, yet it seems to be a shared view here.
As for the assumptions regarding Bush, what I've stated is not difficult to infer from what Bush has said and what Bush has done thus far in his presidency.
Where precisely has Bush created a federally-mandated Christian religion? Where has John Ashcroft rolled back all civil rights and instituted a theocracy? What you are telling me is that your views are not based in fact, or historical context, but the naked partisanship of the Gore 2000 campaign.
No wonder my post was confusing to several of you, how dare I question the Holy Canon of the left. What is written is inerrant, Bush wants to force his religion on us, end of conversation, end of thought.
Starting with his particular religious sect.
Is this where I raise the question of why you are assuming about Bush the way Kennedy saw his critics assuming about him? Kennedy didn't make America subservient to the Pope, as was the charge before his election. Kennedy didn't make Catholicism the mandatory national religion. If Kennedy had made Bush's statement, there would be no petition, and no poll. Thank you for clarifying what was presented as a Humanist issue, but instead is an example of pure partisanship with only the loosest connection to historical documentation or fact.
Most illuminating.
-Ogami
Edited by - Ogami on 07/13/2002 00:34:45 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2002 : 01:10:20 [Permalink]
|
Thank you for clearly enunciating what you assume. You assume what Bush is thinking, you assume what he really means, you assume he planning to force his religion on the rest of us.
That's an awful lot of assumptions, none of it has any factual basis or relation to the precise sentence Bush was referring to. His statement rests on firm historical ground, not assumptions about his true meaning.
I've addressed this already. It is not an assumption, rather based upon things Bush has said.
The petition makes two assumptions in particular 1) That Bush is un-educated if not stupid, and 2) He plans to force his religious views on the rest of us.
I've refuted the latter, and Bush refuted the former by precisely capturing the spirit in which Jefferson penned that wonderful opening sentence in the DoI.
No, it makes no assumptions regarding Bushes intelligence. I will admit that the inference of Bush forcing his religious views on the rest of us is prevalent. However, you also have to look at Bush's associations and those that he's attempted to appoint to office. For starters, the Secretary of Transportation (I think it was), was a gentleman who was the CEO for an organization that is intent on instituting old biblical law in the United States.
I agree! How fortunate Bush cites an official founding document written by Thomas Jefferson, which cites no specific religion. (Unless it's Epicureanism as you say). Since I've proved Bush's statement is intellectually and historically valid, I guess now you are reduced to telling me that it just doesn't "feel" right? All of the responses I have received have been on an emotional level of near-religious faith, not on a logical level.
I only said that Jefferson declared himself an Epicurean, not that the Declaration declares Epicureanism. You're assuming that part about what I feel. The Declaration was not nor has it ever been a document of governance, it simply declares the intention of the colonies to separate from England if certain greivances are inadequately addressed. The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution are the governing documents that were instituted, the Constitution of course superceding the Articles of Confederation.
I am sorry if I was mistaken in thinking this topic (of Bush's religious litmus test) was open for discussion. Existing as a thread, an AMA petition, and an official website sidebar poll, I thought it might be important enough to discuss. But if your position is that dogma should prevail over reason, I don't know how to argue that. How it is a 'logical fallacy' to point out the precise document that justifies Bush's statement is beyond me.
Huh? You are using a document that has nothing to do with the governing of the United States as support for your position. There is no reason for government to institute a belief in the supernatural (anything beyond nature - i.e., a god) as a reason for appointment to office. It is the same as saying you must believe in god to be a part of the government. What happened to equal representation under the law? Am I equally represented if no atheists are eligible for political or legal appointment? This isn't a feeling, it's unconstitutional.
So by your logic, had the final sentence of the DoI been about plumbing, everything else in it should be ruled out as having any bearing whatsoever on Jefferson's thoughts of government.
Again, I addressed this issue.
The paragraph from the website says it all, Jefferson was the author of the Declaration. He declared these wondrous "self-evident truths", drawing upon the work of John Locke and other European philosophers. But, as you state plainly, we can dispense with all of that, because it also dealt with the King of England.
I'm sorry, but I do not follow your point at all.
You seem to insist that the Declaration is a governing document of the US. It is what it says it is, a declaration to the King of England of the intent of the colonies to sever their politic and filial association with the King and England.
In the Declaration, Jefferson described the rights of men as coming from the creator of the universe itself. You're free to interpret that as anything, even the absence of a human-like creator. Jefferson then went on to state that because of these rights, continued rulership under the king was intolerable
Agreed, Jefferson described the rights of the individual. However, there was not at that time sufficient explanation for the existence of the universe without thought given to a Creator. But again, Bush has given sufficient reasons to the public to infer that when he refers to god he refers specifically to the Judeo-Christian god.
You have not provided any evidence that the rights of men Jefferson cited here for breaking away from England had no bearing on the rights he and others had in mind in the crafting of our Constitution. I have never seen any work detailing how Jefferson spent his life trying to undo what he had said in the Declaration, which is an implicit assumption if the Constitution repudiates his sentiments therein.
Talk about a side-swipe. Considering that is not what I'm saying. I am saying that under the Constitution religious belief is not nor can it be used as a reason to prevent application to or appoint someone to a governmental position. This is what Bush proposes by stating a belief in god. It's his reactionary position to having the recitation of the Pledge declared unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit because it contains the phrase - under god.
I'd like to know how precisely you came to be the determiner of what Jefferson writings are considered acceptable and which ones aren't. I could post the paragraph again from the NARA website, in fact, I will. It precisely describes why the themes Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration were put into practice in the Constitution. There is zero discontinuity between the themes of the two.
Huh? It's not accaptability here, it's governing documents. We are talking about what the government is allowed and not allowed to do. Specifically, the government cannot impose upon those considered for appointment to office their religious preference or lack of preference.
The Constitution does not lay out what rights belong to the people. As stated in the Declaration, those rights are self-evident. Rather the Constitution details what rights the government can and cannot have, such as establishing a federally-mandated national religion.
We aren't talking about the rights of the people in this matter. We are talking about the government instituting a religious test for appointment to office which is specifically prohibited by the constitution.
Interesting, so it is your contention that these rights that Jefferson wrote of are not self-evident? They only exist if someone in congress comes along and passes a law giving us such rights? That may apply to other countries, but not ours.
You are arguing that the principles stated in the DoI do not exist, and have no bearing on the creation of the Constitution. That is factually untrue, you are putting your own philosophy above Jefferson's own writings!
You are twisting what I am trying to point out to you. The Declaration was not a document of how our government can act. That is the constitution. By attempting to institute a test of religion for appointment to the bench Bush is exceeding his authority as granted to him by the constitution.
I have only stated that the Declaration is irrelevant to this particular issue. You are attempting to use the Declaration to prove your own point that god is a part of our government and therefore by extension a part of our |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2002 : 10:05:11 [Permalink]
|
Ogami, this is getting sidetracked and I think it's high time you put up or shut up. First let's start with some irrefutable facts. The Constitution is the sole governing document of the federation known as the United States. Sometimes the text of certain amendments and articles is unspecific and must be interpreted. Sometimes that interpretation is done with the mindset of "intent of the framers" which is gleaned from some of their earlier and later writings.
Now, let's look at part of Article VI:quote:
“no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
One of the more unambiguous passages, IMO.
Here's part of Bush's quote from June 27:quote:
"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."
How does Bush intend to decide which judges "understand that our rights were derived from God"? Is he going to ask them?
Now, obviously it matters not whether Bush's statement was one of personal belief. Article VI makes it clear that Bush could not make Hinduism a requirement for judgeship if he was a Zoroastrian. Your task is now to demonstrate that Article VI can be interpreted to allow Bush's statement Constitutional viability. Personal beliefs of the founders are unacceptable. Good luck and dogspeed.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
Ogami
New Member
USA
15 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2002 : 12:46:01 [Permalink]
|
PhDreamer wrote:
Ogami, this is getting sidetracked and I think it's high time you put up or shut up.
I guess I'll shut up, and drop off the board as quickly as I joined up. I had no idea the American Humanist Association was nothing more than a propaganda arm for the Democratic National Committee, but I am the wiser now.
To repeat my opening post which no one has been able to prove I misquoted or misconstrued in any way:
________________________
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.
________________________
I've been told I'm ignorant of civics, I've been told that because the Declaration refers to the King of England it is completely discredited, and I am told that everything except the Declaration that Jefferson had a hand in penning should be considered the basis for this country's laws. None of that has anything to do with the fact that I correctly pointed out Bush's source for his comment, he is on firm historical and legal ground in his statement.
I didn't comprehend the vehemence at which this dissection of the Declaration was being argued, until it dawned on me that the basis of the petition and the poll was a near-religious belief in the accusations flung by the Democratic party at Bush during the 2000 campaign. The Democratic party is holy and we must all agree with Saint Algore seems to be the credo in play here, not skepticism or humanism based on rational thought and inquiry.
I am sorry if I temporarily interrupted the condemnation of Bush as stupid and overly religious. I really took the title of this website at face value, but I see skepticism here has simply replaced one form of religious orthodoxy for another, that of politics.
You can accuse me of being a coward for bowing out of further discussion, but nothing has been discussed except how I don't "get" the innate truth of the universe that some of you apparently believe you have a monopoly on.
Good day,
-Ogami
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2002 : 14:13:24 [Permalink]
|
Ogami, since you avoided a direct question yet again, I'll try to make it even simpler if you choose to stick around.
Bottom line:
The Constitution is very clear about what should not be a necessary condition of public office.
Bush made it very clear what he thought should be a necessary condition of appointed judges.
These points are the only ones that matter. Not whether the founders used words in the Declaration that somehow make Bush's statement an unwritten, interpreted clause of the Constitution. Not whether the American Humanist Association is a covert arm of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy (TM).
I think it was a bad idea for you to drop out of martyr school early because you really suck at it.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2002 : 17:18:33 [Permalink]
|
I'm reminded of a remark that Ansel Adams made after visiting Ronald Reagan at the White house. I have to paraphrase here, but the gist of it is, after being asked by a reporter what he thought of the President, he replied, "Well, he is kind of opaque. No light goes in and no light comes out."
What Ogami keeps accusing us of is what Ogami is doing. He cannot cope with any criticisms of Bush. Even as an agnostic, she is spinning in Bush's favor. Obviously Bush is his man, and that is that. I know plenty of republicans who slapped their heads when Bush made the litmus test statement. If they were posting here he would have accused them of being leftists, just as he has accused all who have challenged the twisted logic needed to affirm that the DOI can be considered when regarding the laws of this land.
Frankly, I am in awe of such a willful refusal to understand the very simple problem with Bush's statement. You have to admire that kind of fortitude, no matter how misplaced it is.
The Evil Skeptic
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2002 : 21:50:04 [Permalink]
|
It's not just that Kil. He continues to insist that I've somehow implied that because the DoI says something about the King of England that it is an irrelevant document.
I only pointed out that the DoI is just what it says it is instead of what he's making it into. <shrug> Oh well...
A bit of deliberate obtuseness to make their point?
---
...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 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2002 : 08:55:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
PhDreamer wrote:
Ogami, this is getting sidetracked and I think it's high time you put up or shut up.
I guess I'll shut up, and drop off the board as quickly as I joined up. I had no idea the American Humanist Association was nothing more than a propaganda arm for the Democratic National Committee, but I am the wiser now.
To repeat my opening post which no one has been able to prove I misquoted or misconstrued in any way:
________________________
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.
________________________
I've been told I'm ignorant of civics, I've been told that because the Declaration refers to the King of England it is completely discredited, and I am told that everything except the Declaration that Jefferson had a hand in penning should be considered the basis for this country's laws. None of that has anything to do with the fact that I correctly pointed out Bush's source for his comment, he is on firm historical and legal ground in his statement.
I didn't comprehend the vehemence at which this dissection of the Declaration was being argued, until it dawned on me that the basis of the petition and the poll was a near-religious belief in the accusations flung by the Democratic party at Bush during the 2000 campaign. The Democratic party is holy and we must all agree with Saint Algore seems to be the credo in play here, not skepticism or humanism based on rational thought and inquiry.
I am sorry if I temporarily interrupted the condemnation of Bush as stupid and overly religious. I really took the title of this website at face value, but I see skepticism here has simply replaced one form of religious orthodoxy for another, that of politics.
You can accuse me of being a coward for bowing out of further discussion, but nothing has been discussed except how I don't "get" the innate truth of the universe that some of you apparently believe you have a monopoly on.
Good day,
-Ogami
This form of debate seems familiar to me. I believe that it akin to the postings of FARM (short for Friend, Amigo, Reagan!, and MrClean) of the History Channel message board. That individual also claims that the law must honor God and that mob rule (although he calls it majority rule) should take precedent. I have posted several cases which he had claimed supported his position. They did not so he accused me of not being capable of honest debate. I've been going round and round with him on the History Channel message boards concerning the Constitutionality of the 1954 Act which added the words "under God".
He refuses to directly address that issue, too. I think that the cases going back to 1795 relate very nicely to the issue.
Those cases are
VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)
ENGEL v. VITALE, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
ABINGTON SCHOOL DIST. v. SCHEMPP, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
LYNCH v. DONNELLY, 465 U.S. 668 (1984)WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)ALLEGHENY COUNTY v. GREATER PITTSBURGH ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
LEE v. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)
Of these ABINGTON SCHOOL DIST. v. SCHEMPP, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), cites a case Minor v. Board of Education of Cincinnati [374 U.S. 203, 215] (February, 1870) has a quote from Alphonso Taft (father of William Howard Taft, President and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court).
"absolute equality before the law, of all religious opinions and sects......
The government is neutral, and, while protecting all, it prefers none, and it disparages none." -- Superior Court of Cincinnati, February 1870. The opinion is not reported but is published under the title, The Bible in the Common [374 U.S. 203, 215] Schools (Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Co. 1870). Judge Taft's views, expressed in dissent, prevailed on appeal. See Board of Education of Cincinnati v. Minor, 23 Ohio St. 211, 253 (1872), in which the Ohio Supreme Court held that: "The great bulk of human affairs and human interests is left by any free government to individual enterprise and individual action. Religion is eminently one of these interests, lying outside the true and legitimate province of government."
"The place of religion in our society is an exalted one, achieved through a long tradition of reliance on the home, the church and the inviolable citadel of the individual heart and mind. We have come to recognize through bitter experience that it is not within the power of government to invade that citadel, whether its purpose or effect be to aid or oppose, to advance or retard. In the relationship between man and religion, the State is firmly committed to a position of neutrality. Though the application of that rule requires interpretation of a delicate sort, the rule itself is clearly and concisely stated in the words of the First Amendment. " -- Justice Clark writing for the majority ABINGTON SCHOOL DIST. v. SCHEMPP, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
It is in the face of these rulings which invalidates the claims of the President of the United States. Bush should re-read the Constitution and pay more attention to Article IV and Amendment I. His arguement that those that disagree with him do not use "common sense" merely serves to demonize the dissent and fails to support his point.
The DoI clearly states the grievances of the people to the English King. The arguement of some sort of justification for Bush's statements lying in the DoI is completely erroneous. The inclusion of the word Creator indicates that the majority of the body drafting the document were theists. The inclusion of "Year of our Lord" was common usage in that time. A use which has been abandoned since that time. The removal of the text "under God" merely removes a law which had no secular purpose. As proof, allow me to quote the people involved in bringing this verbage into the Pledge on that law.
"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty" -- President Dwight Eisenhower while signing this legislation (100 Congressional Record 8618)
"At this moment of our history the principals underlying our American Government and the America |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2002 : 10:06:24 [Permalink]
|
Ya know, before they let me become an American, I had to take a test (which I aced, by the bye). This might not be bad requirement for those who want to hold public office to have to pass the same citizenship test.
Ogami completely lost me with her logic. The Constitution couldn't be more clear about this matter.
And how is it that church & state remain separate if the generic term God is used but not Jesus? Now we are getting silly.
Though an Atheist, I am sick and tired of the Democratic Party, at least here in CA. They cater far too much to special interest groups. In our last election I received several canvassing calls from them pushing a woman for the board of supervisors. Now she was an extremely intelligent capable person BUT the platform she was running on was that she was black, a woman and a lesbian and could be a great benefit to these groups. Years ago good people raised my consciousness about voting. I now know that you should not vote against someone because of their race or their sex or their sexual orientation. These things have nothing to do with a persons qualifications for office. I explained this to the canvassers--that if I was going to vote based on special interests it would be for a straight white male. They were shocked.
I wouldn't mind switching to the Republicans except they have been firmly in the grip of the Christian Far Right for several decades. This is a special interest group-as far as I'm concerned-on a level with the Nazis. How stupid do they think the rest of us are to believe their boosters claims of innocence. They cannot go on and on about religion and family values for years and then turn around and say that they aren't pushing a Christian agenda. Hell, they impeached Clinton because he was a sinner, not because he broke the law.
I wonder if there is still a Bull Moose Party?
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
