|
|
| Post Number: 21
|
demonk 
The other white meat
Group: Members
Posts: 800
Joined: Aug. 2000
|
 |
Posted on: Jul. 02 2002,06:20 |
|
   |
CK, please please please do some actual research into this topic! The Supreme Court has delt with cases that were much fuzzier about the government endorsing religion than this one, and they always fall on the side of caution. If the removal of the law will not in any way hinder people from pacticing the religion of their choice (or lack if that is their choice), but leaving it along causes even just a little controversy, they have yanked the law. As long as this case goes before the Supreme Court before Bush gets his chance to fuck it all up with changing judges around, this decision will be upheld.
Again, since you don't seem to get this concept, I'm going to go through this slowly, again:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
I'm going to go through this word by word:
Congress: these are the people that we have elected to create laws for us
shall: Something that will take place or exist in the future (dictionary definition)
make: To cause to exist or happen; bring about (dictionary definition)
no: Not at all; not by any degree (dictionary definition)
law: A piece of enacted legislation (dictionary definition)
respecting: To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem (dictionary definition)
establishment: any large organization (dictionary definition)
religion: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe (dictionary definition)
So, to paraphrase:
The people who run this country will not create or bring about, in any degree, a piece of legislation that shows deferential regard towards any large organization of people that believe in a surpernatural power or powers that they view as the ruler(s) of this universe.
That is the meaning. What you were saying "The creation of a state church" is most definatly covered by the First Amendment. But you need to look beyond just that one specific case and look at what the Amendment actually says. And if you want, we can also look at author intent, because that is your favorite angle to play. As have been mentioned many times by people with much more educaion in history than you, the framers of the constitution really weren't religious people. Some even mocked religion. They wanted a way to make sure that religion and governing this country were completely seperate. Too many shitty things in the past happened because religious influience on government. They wanted to make sure that that wouldn't happen again. Even giving in just a bit opens a big door to future incursions of religion into government. This must be prevented.
--------------
I'm just two people short of a threesome!
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 22
|
TheTaxMan
Controversial Thug
Group: Members
Posts: 874
Joined: Apr. 2001
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 02 2002,07:43 |
|
 |
| Quote (CatKnight @ 01 July 2002,21:01) | | hey if you minority don't like it, go sail to your own rock! |
That you for proving my argument.
Land of the free and home of the brave indeed.
--------------
Four billion years of evolution and this is all we have to show for it?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 23
|
wix
politically unstable
Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: Jun. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 02 2002,07:47 |
|
|
From CK:
| Quote | | [QUOTE]It's about the government endorsing religion. |
I don't see anything in the constitution prohibiting this. If you want to add an amendment, it will take more then a panel of 5 wacko judges in the 9th circuit to do it.
[/QUOTE]
Have you Read the first amendment? Besides EVEN if it's not there, please, since this thread isn't about freedom of religion but how the court should interp the consitution, why the hell is it wrong for the court to say that EVEN IF the consitition didn't say this?
--------------
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session."--Judge Gideon J. Tucker, 1866.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 24
|
Bozeman
Guardian
Group: Members
Posts: 762
Joined: Jun. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 02 2002,11:38 |
|
|
| Quote (CatKnight @ 02 July 2002,01:01) | | Quote | | Kids of the elementary school age have a real problem with peer pressure. If the whole class says "under God" they will probably say it too. I was uncomfortabel saying it, and even I felt forced as a little kid. |
| Quote | | the argument that "well kids are coerced by other kids" is bunk because people have free will to act as they please. it is not the government's job to shield every individual from one another. |
I guess you just blanked out on that one, eh?
| Quote | | I'm going to pretend that you got confused from above where we suddenly switched to the 2nd amendment, and you meant to say "first amendment." That's the only way it makes sense. This response will be made as if you said "first amendment." |
lol my bad 
| Quote | | Saying "under God" is a clear promotion of a deity. |
correct.
| Quote | | I fail to see how this is not a violation of the establishment clause, and therefore, the first amendment. |
the reason you fail to see is because you are confused about the term "establishment". what the establishment clause is referring to is the creation of an official state religion that is part of the government. promoting a deity is not the same thing as establishing an official state religion.
| Quote | | I think that an integral part of any freedom to choose is the freedom to not make a choice. |
kids are free to not say the pledge. I'm sure you didn't say it on at least a few occasions. I know I did. We all went through the same school system, you know as well as I that there is no such peer coersion.
| Quote | | This isn't a tyrrany of the minority, it's simply not letting the majority force God on the minority. |
again, you seem to think that just because some people practice their religion, that it somehow interferes with the practice of others. this is not the case.
| Quote | | The only thing that is tyrannical at this point is assuming that just becasue more people are chrisitan than anything else and the government should pander to to them. |
how is that tyrannical? government pandering to a group is not tyranny!
I agree.
| Quote | | The majority didn't decide to sail to this rock... |
hey if you minority don't like it, go sail to your own rock!
| Quote | | It's about the government endorsing religion. |
I don't see anything in the constitution prohibiting this. If you want to add an amendment, it will take more then a panel of 5 wacko judges in the 9th circuit to do it. |
1. No, I did not "blank out." You claim "It's the kids decision, and anyway, even if they are coerced, it's not the government's job to stop it!" That is idiotic. This is a case of a minority's beliefs being smothered by the majority. Why shouldn't the government step in? It's the same as if a Minister made me say 20 hail marys. Kids don't have the prescence of mind to stand up and not be coerced every goddamn time.
2. It happens, don't worry about it.
3. Good.
4. Bad. this is a violation of the establishment clause, as it promotes one religion over any other. See Demonk's post above.
5. Bullshit. If you don't say it, you can wind up in detention. No coercion indeed! It's almost like brainwashing! "OK class! We're all going to chant the same thing all at once!" It's pretty hard not to say it, even if you don't want to.
6. Again, you seem to think that it's OK for the majority to practice their religion, and force others to join in.
7. Isnt it?
8. Taken out of context.
9. I like it here. If you want to say "under God" so badly, YOU GET OUT! I'm sick of the "love it or leave it" attitude. Fuck you. We can affect positive change, becasue it's our country too, and we love it just as much as you.
10. CK fails to understand the establishment clause. No matter how many times we explain it to him, he's not going to get it.
--------------
It's the pop-o-matic bubble, motherfucker!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 25
|
CatKnight
Jedi Republican
Group: Members
Posts: 3807
Joined: Dec. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 02 2002,20:05 |
|
|
| Quote | | The people who run this country will not create or bring about, in any degree, a piece of legislation that shows deferential regard towards any large organization of people that believe in a surpernatural power or powers that they view as the ruler(s) of this universe. |
again, you are still jumping to conclusions that are just not there. again, you state that "the government shall not create a law respecting an establishment" but by establishment they do not mean the judeo-christian views of the people, they are referring to a national state religion, run and funded by the government.
you are going from "federally run church" to "deferential regard towards", and that connection is simply not there.
Edited by CatKnight on Jan. 01 1970,01:00
--------------
[url=http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/b/dbl125/dfa.jpg]If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful that you can possibly imagine.[/url]
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 26
|
kuru
Detonate.net's 9mm wielding geek-hit-Goddess
Group: Members
Posts: 2566
Joined: Aug. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 02 2002,20:22 |
|
|
Except the Constitution doesn't say that.
It doesn't say 'Congress shall make no law establishing religion'.
It says Congress shall make no law with respect to the establishment of religion.
It puts them on a very, very short leash. One which they overstretched in 1954.
--------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 27
|
demonk
The other white meat
Group: Members
Posts: 800
Joined: Aug. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 02 2002,21:06 |
|
|
 5-->| Quote (CatKnight @ 02 July 2002,125) | | you are going from "federally run church" to "deferential regard towards", and that connection is simply not there. |
| Quote | | respecting: To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem (dictionary definition) |
| Quote | | Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; |
Yes, there is a connection. If you can't see it, just by looking at the two sentences above, then I don't even understand how you passed basic high school english! And no, this isn't a flame. I have no doubt in my mind that you are an intelligent person. I'm just waiting for you to explain to me how the above lines do not create a connection. And please, don't just say "because they don't". I've explained very clearly and logicaly the wording and meaning on a per word basis. I've yet to get the same in return from you.
--------------
I'm just two people short of a threesome!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 28
|
CatKnight
Jedi Republican
Group: Members
Posts: 3807
Joined: Dec. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 03 2002,00:30 |
|
|
well there's your problem right there. ye olde english isn't very logical. I agree that you can get your interpretation out of those words, but what I am trying to tell you that is not what the founders intended. The vast majority of the people of the united states agree with me, you guys are a fringe minority, just to let you know.
--------------
[url=http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/b/dbl125/dfa.jpg]If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful that you can possibly imagine.[/url]
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 29
|
demonk
The other white meat
Group: Members
Posts: 800
Joined: Aug. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 03 2002,01:10 |
|
|
So basicly your saying mob rule is ok? Why do you think the founding fathers put a House AND a Senate in place? They didn't want the majority to crush the minority. Just because we are the minority on this subject in no way makes us wrong. If that is the best argument you have CK, just give up now.
Edit: Wanted to add that we have already talked about the founders' intent here and in other threads. You were wrong. So, I've shot down both of your arguments. You have any more?
Edited by demonk on Jan. 01 1970,01:00
--------------
I'm just two people short of a threesome!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 30
|
kuru
Detonate.net's 9mm wielding geek-hit-Goddess
Group: Members
Posts: 2566
Joined: Aug. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 03 2002,03:39 |
|
|
And that's exactly why the Constitution was set up to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
--------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
