|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
 Posted - 03/10/2004 : 05:25:27 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:quote:
In a democracy the power comes from the consent of the majority. If one undermines that by saying, "if the majority is foolish, we should give the power to the courts" you take away the freedom of the people and change our form of govt. from a democracy to an aristocracy. Nine people ruling and forcing their belief down the throat of the majority who disagree with them. I would by far trust the common man's view of right and wrong over an elite, wealthy group of aristocrats and their concept of morality. Ok, Dave, what if this court that you so strongly support makes a decision against you that you hate and forces it upon you, even though the majority may agree with you in this case, would you still feel as strong in supporting this court, as it takes away the power and freedom of the people to rule the country? (comments from my friend Pastor Steve)
Pastor Steve is wrong. A democracy is not "mob rule," and the SCOTUS has generally seen its job as being one of "protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority" (I forget who said that, but it was fairly recent). It is still clear that neither you nor Pastor Steve understand the checks-and-balances built into our government. Attempts to "reign in" the SCOTUS are generally attempts to remove the checks, or unbalance the three branches. And the idea that Congress is not mostly a bunch of "elites" is simply laughable. It's simply a somewhat larger group of elites than SCOTUS.
The SCOTUS has, indeed, made decisions I didn't agree with. Sometimes, I've learned that they did so for very important reasons, which means that I didn't know everything about the cases in question beforehand, and was forming my opinions in ignorance of either the particulars of the case (as you, Doomar, appear to be doing with regard to Murray), or the particulars of the Constitution (as you appear to be doing with all other cases you've brought up).
More later. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2004 : 05:45:31 [Permalink]
|
| It was James Madison who said that the purpose of the Senate (and therefore the government) was to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2004 : 09:08:09 [Permalink]
|
I can't believe how childish you sound, Doomar. You're whining (yes, whining) because although kids can pray in silently in school, in public, at home, and at church, they can't pray OUT LOUD at school.
As my nephew would say, dial 1-800-WAAHHHH.
Few kids want or need to be told what Easter is "really all about". When I was a kid, my neighbor used to run around looking googly-eyed and saying, "Jesus died on the cross today," every Easter. I didn't care; I was enjoying my chocolate bunnies and my new shiny patent leather Mary Janes. For me, Easter was about candy, egg hunts, and new clothes. It still is, being the heathen I am. 
If a parent wants their child to remember that "Jesus died on the cross today" (or whatever happened; I don't care) on Easter, then it's the parent's responsibility to teach their child about it, not the school's. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2004 : 10:15:15 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo wrote:quote:
It was James Madison who said that the purpose of the Senate (and therefore the government) was to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority.
Well, without becoming a Madison scholar myself, it appears that Noam Chomsky would disagree:In the constitutional debates, Madison raised the same problem. He warned that "democracy would undermine the responsibility of government to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority," that is, to keep them from plundering the rich, as John Foster Dulles and President Eisenhower described the great problem of international affairs in secret some years later.
Madison expected the threat of democracy to become more severe over time because he expected an increase in the proportion of those who "will labor under all the hardships of life and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings." He was concerned by what he called, "the symptoms of a leveling spirit" that he already discerned, and he warned of the future danger "if the right to vote were to place power over property in hands without a share in it."
That problem confronting Madison-the same as Aristotle's problem-could be solved in one of two ways. One is by reducing poverty. The other is by reducing democracy. Aristotle's choice was the first. Madison's was the second. He recognized the problem, but since the prime responsibility of government is to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority, he therefore urged that political power be put in the hands of the more capable set of men, those who represent the wealth of the nation, with the public fragmented and disorganized.
And that's the Madisonian system, which has remained fairly stable over two centuries-although with outcomes that he very soon deplored, as I've indicated. The reason for his surprise, I think, is that Madison, like the rest of classical liberalism, was pre-capitalist and anti-capitalist in spirit. And he expected the leadership to be benevolent and enlightened and so on.
He learned differently very fast. Madison, it appears, was worried about democracy forcing an equal distribution of wealth and power (which seems to be what libertarians want), and naively thought that the people who govern would always consider "the good of the people" when making decisions. Seems that even Founding Fathers can make mistakes.
But, certainly, the First Amendment is designed to protect those who hold minority opinions, in general, or in religion, from the mob rule that Doomar and his Pastor Steve appear to think "democracy" is. According to a 2000 Harris Poll, Protestants only made up 49.5% of U.S. registered voters. Had the Catholics, Mormons, Jews, atheists, and "others" seen eye-to-eye on some issue, and the First Amendment not been passed, the Protestants could have been royally screwed (for example, a law could have been passed which said "advocating Biblical creationism, in public or private, in any communications medium, shall be punishable by deportation").
So, with the First Amendment intact and the SCOTUS enforcing it, Doomar has nothing to fear from the legions of voters who might disagree with his creationist stance. But, rather than appreciate that fact, he instead decries the Court and twists the meaning of the First Amendment when it is his "majority opinion" which I (for one) am being protected against. To me, Doomar's ideas are short-sighted and dangerous to freedom, as he can't seem to see past his own short-term goals. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2004 : 10:20:47 [Permalink]
|
| I don't see how Chomsky disagreed with something that Chomksy himself said, but that's getting this too far off topic. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2004 : 11:25:24 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:quote:
Dave, let me rephrase the word public as opposed to private. By public, I don't mean quiet prayer in a public building, I mean out-loud prayer for others to hear as praying in a group setting. Therefore, by public, I am meaning to say, out-loud multiple person participation type prayer in a state or federal govt. sponsered institution.
Right. There is nothing which prevents a bunch of students from gathering together and saying, out loud, prayers, while on school grounds. What is prevented is any effort by representatives from the government (including teachers) from organizing such group prayers. And the kids don't get to use government property (such as PA systems) to make their message heard by those who wish to ignore them.quote:
Should we make 29 students get permission to attend or just have the one who objects get permission to not attend? The latter is much more efficient.
Yeah, and we all know that the goal of both religion and government is efficiancy. Sarcasm aside, the 14th Amendment says that everyone needs to be treated equally with regard to First Amendment rights. If you make one set of kids go out of their way for their religious beliefs, you've got to make all the kids go out of their way, to the same extent.quote:
This idea of being forced to "listen" to a prayer...wow...we are talking extreme intolerance here, Dave.
Yes, we are. We're talking about your extreme intolerance of non-believers.quote:
So, in respect for the one, we negate the rights of the many and all lose.
No, out of respect of the rights of everyone, we negate the whims of the current tyrannic majority, and all gain.quote:
Except the freedom to "not" exercise a religion is not listed in the bill of rights, Dave, as the freedom to do nothing just isn't needed, people do that without any permission all the time.
Baloney. "Exercising" atheism can take many active forms. Just because you can't think of any doesn't mean that atheists don't have rights that need to be protected from people like you.quote:
It's the right to "do" some things that many of bill of rights list out...
I have the right to be free from unreasonable searches. That requires no effort from me nor anyone else, except when it is abridged. You even acknowledge that "many" of the Rights ennumerated in the Constitution are rights to "do" things, but that doesn't mean that it's a requirement that one, indeed, do something.
Conversely, if church attendance were mandatory, I would definitely not be free to practice my religious beliefs as I choose. The right to not be religious is certainly implied.quote:
...one of which is freedom to freely exercise one's religion.
No matter what that religion is. That you seem to be so blind to think that the First Amendment applies only to Christianity is part of the problem, here.quote:
If somebody doesn't like that, then move to Korea and enjoy the freedom to be nothing, but let those who want to pray, do so.
It's like a broken record. You can pray. You just cannot use the government to enforce or encourage your particular form of prayer.
Also, instead of suggesting that others move out in order for you to get to do what you want, why don't you take action, and move to a country in which your religion is the State religion?quote:
So, you want examples? Oh, by the way, I'm not talking about discussion of religion, but discussion of one's faith...personal faith, personal religion, like a teacher sharing their faith with the class the Friday before Easter, letting their class know what Easter is really about and why it is listed as a holiday on the calendars. Are you meaning cases, like court cases, Dave?
Links to newspaper articles or any other sort of independent proof will do. Your say-so is insufficient, since you have made incorrect claims about Murray and other cases. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2004 : 22:03:56 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by Renae
I can't believe how childish you sound, Doomar. You're whining (yes, whining) because although kids can pray in silently in school, in public, at home, and at church, they can't pray OUT LOUD at school.
As my nephew would say, dial 1-800-WAAHHHH.
I am not whining at all. I am discussing this very important subject on a level much deeper than most consider it. Perhaps you are too young to recall when Guideon Bibles were given out freely to students and some teachers prayed with their students and they sang Christmas songs freely without fear of any lawsuit or retribution.
In early America up to the early 1900's the Bible was used as a reader in the classroom. Those were the days when there were no shootings or stabbings or terroristic takeovers in schools. One didn't have to wait for a life threatening occurance in school to be compelled to pray. Teachers and schools daily invoked the Almighty's blessing upon there learning. Guess it must of worked, cause when the Supreme Court kicked prayer out of school, all forms of trouble in school escalated and that's a fact, Renae, that's a fact. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2004 : 22:18:12 [Permalink]
|
Dave
Is it just me, or do you really worship the ground these 9 human beings walk on? They are just people, fallible people. You talk about them as if your own personal views that might differ from them are those of a peon and they are the mighty equalizer of government. You really need to respect yourself more, Dave.
By the way, these "great men" started the Civil War by butting into the compromise made between northern and southern representatives and declaring it "unconstitutional". As a result, the South was blocked out and the "majority rule" that you seem to distain, was undermined and war broke out. It is the majority rule (representative government) the keeps America free from tyranny, not the judges.
Let's think outside the box for once, Dave..it's not just me against you or them. This is our country and you and I (if we'll believe it) are capable of seeing errors in our own Constitution and "petitioning for a redress of grievances". |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2004 : 22:23:36 [Permalink]
|
To all involved in this discussion:
We are getting off topic by consentrating on individual aspects. If you believe judicial activism, or a "fluid" interpretation of Constitutional law is a good thing, explain to us why. If you believe judicial restraint or abiding by the doctrine of "original intent of the framers" is a good thing, then explain that to us. Let's try to stick within these confines...whether you agree or disagree with me about my interpretation of religious freedom in school. You are also free to just say, "I'm for activism" and leave it at that, or "I'm for restraint". |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2004 : 22:25:57 [Permalink]
|
Chomsky
Madison expected the threat of democracy to become more severe over time because he expected an increase in the proportion of those who "will labor under all the hardships of life and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings." He was concerned by what he called, "the symptoms of a leveling spirit" that he already discerned, and he warned of the future danger "if the right to vote were to place power over property in hands without a share in it."
Sounds like Madison forsaw the workings of communism and socialism to come. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9691 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2004 : 03:24:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
In early America up to the early 1900's the Bible was used as a reader in the classroom. Those were the days when there were no shootings or stabbings or terroristic takeovers in schools. One didn't have to wait for a life threatening occurance in school to be compelled to pray. Teachers and schools daily invoked the Almighty's blessing upon there learning. Guess it must of worked, cause when the Supreme Court kicked prayer out of school, all forms of trouble in school escalated and that's a fact, Renae, that's a fact.
The only connection I can see is that religious indoctrination is a good tool for student mind-control. The idea that any God was preventing bad things from happening is just ridiculous |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2004 : 09:25:25 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:quote:
Let's think outside the box for once, Dave..it's not just me against you or them.
To think outside the box, you first need to understand what is inside the box. You do not. You have demonstrated a lack of understanding of:- The Constitution,
- the three branches of government,
- the intent of the Founders,
- freedom of religion,
- the purpose of the SCOTUS, and
- the Murray decision.
That's at a bare minimum.quote:
This is our country and you and I (if we'll believe it) are capable of seeing errors in our own Constitution and "petitioning for a redress of grievances".
The above implies that you see an error in our Constitution, now. That's a very different subject from "Judicial activism." After all, if SCOTUS is defending the Constitution, but the Constitution is wrong, SCOTUS isn't being "activist."
But, back to your other points:
If you're going to ask me questions, at least have the decency to read my answers and act as if I'm not lying. I neither worship SCOTUS nor consider myself a "peon" in comparison. I do, however, acknowledge that the Justices who sit on the SCOTUS know more about their own jobs and the Constitution than you and I put together. That you refuse to acknowledge this fact is just a symptom of your Christian arrogance, and not much else.
The fact that a civil war erupted shows that "majority rule" is often violent and bloody. Bringing that up had quite the opposite effect on me that you, perhaps, thought it would. It is the tyranny of the majority which would have us all praying at every public function. That's not freedom for me, nor is it for another one out of every ten people in the U.S. (a minority, yes, but a sizeable one).
You wrote to Renae:quote:
In early America up to the early 1900's the Bible was used as a reader in the classroom. Those were the days when there were no shootings or stabbings or terroristic takeovers in schools. One didn't have to wait for a life threatening occurance in school to be compelled to pray. Teachers and schools daily invoked the Almighty's blessing upon there learning. Guess it must of worked, cause when the Supreme Court kicked prayer out of school, all forms of trouble in school escalated and that's a fact, Renae, that's a fact.
No, it's a coincidence, at best. School prayer was definitively eliminated in 1943, but widespread school violence or school terrorism is much more recent than that. The idea that there was no violence in schools prior to 1943 is, of course, ridiculous, since kids were still kids, and got into fights all the time. That kids can acquire and use firearms in schools these days is more a symptom of lax parental oversight and/or of lax enforcement of current firearms laws. Blaming such things on a lack of school-compelled prayer (and I hope that was a typo, as such is assuredly unconstitutional) is simply naive.
And finally, you wrote:quote:
To all involved in this discussion:
We are getting off topic by consentrating on individual aspects. If you believe judicial activism, or a "fluid" interpretation of Constitutional law is a good thing, explain to us why. If you believe judicial restraint or abiding by the doctrine of "original intent of the framers" is a good thing, then explain that to us. Let's try to stick within these confines...whether you agree or disagree with me about my interpretation of religious freedom in school. You are also free to just say, "I'm for activism" and leave it at that, or "I'm for restraint".
I have yet to see any examples in which the SCOTUS inarguably interpreted the Constitution in a different manner from what Constitutional scholars consider to be the intent of the Framers. Since that is their job, I'm for restraint, and I haven't seen anything but judicial restraint in the examples which have been brought up so far in this thread.
Since you obviously feel differently, perhaps you should make your position on these matters clear, using more than a single obviously-biased source and/or your own (and Pastor Steve's) misunderstandings of the government and our Constitution.
Tell us, for example: what, in your opinion, is the purpose of the Supreme Court of the United States? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2004 : 09:38:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
[In early America up to the early 1900's the Bible was used as a reader in the classroom. Those were the days when there were no shootings or stabbings or terroristic takeovers in schools. One didn't have to wait for a life threatening occurance in school to be compelled to pray. Teachers and schools daily invoked the Almighty's blessing upon there learning. Guess it must of worked, cause when the Supreme Court kicked prayer out of school, all forms of trouble in school escalated and that's a fact, Renae, that's a fact.
Wow. What a fallacious statement. According to your definition, the Ohio schools must have been in all kinds of trouble when their Supreme Court kicked institionalized prayer out of school in 1872.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2004 : 23:12:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
[quote]Originally posted by Doomar
[In early America up to the early 1900's the Bible was used as a reader in the classroom. Those were the days when there were no shootings or stabbings or terroristic takeovers in schools. One didn't have to wait for a life threatening occurance in school to be compelled to pray. Teachers and schools daily invoked the Almighty's blessing upon there learning. Guess it must of worked, cause when the Supreme Court kicked prayer out of school, all forms of trouble in school escalated and that's a fact, Renae, that's a fact.
What statement was fallacious?
Wow. What a fallacious statement. According to your definition, the Ohio schools must have been in all kinds of trouble when their Supreme Court kicked institionalized prayer out of school in 1872.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2004 : 23:15:41 [Permalink]
|
Dave said,
Yeah, and we all know that the goal of both religion and government is efficiancy. Sarcasm aside, the 14th Amendment says that everyone needs to be treated equally with regard to First Amendment rights. If you make one set of kids go out of their way for their religious beliefs, you've got to make all the kids go out of their way, to the same extent.
The 14th amendment says no such thing, Dave. Better read it again, quote it and explain to me just how it says what you say it says..I don't read anything like that in it. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
