|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 236 responses total. |
gelinas
|
|
response 131 of 236:
| 
Sep 1 02:36 UTC 2000 |
The second observation is related only by subject with the first.
There are many opportunities today to make the second observation.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 132 of 236:
|
Sep 1 06:00 UTC 2000 |
I have a hard time taking seriously anyone who really believes it.
At the very least, anyone who thinks that the US populace is blatantly
hostile towards public professions of religious belief has been watching
a presidential campaign very different than the one in my universe.
|
giry
|
|
response 133 of 236:
|
Sep 1 16:54 UTC 2000 |
Cinema 40 <-> Agora 112
Sorry it took me so long to link this, but better late than never;)
|
gelinas
|
|
response 134 of 236:
|
Sep 2 03:34 UTC 2000 |
That's part of why it is so hard to understand why so much effort is going
into outlawing religious expression. And it also explains why it's the
courts, and not the legislature, doing the outlawing.
|
scg
|
|
response 135 of 236:
|
Sep 2 07:18 UTC 2000 |
I'm sure we've been olver this argument before, but the courts are hardly
outlawing religious expression. The courts have said pretty consistently that
government agencies, including schools, can't sponsor religion. As such,
students aren't forced to participate in activities related to the dominant
religion or religions in school. But if anybody were to try to ban
individual religious expression, the courts, ACLU, and so forth would be
pretty resolutely against that ban as well.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 136 of 236:
|
Sep 2 09:06 UTC 2000 |
re#135: It that what the constitution said? Last time I looked that
there 'constitional' thingy prohibited an establishment of a
'state religion'. A 'strict constructionist' would claim that while it
ment that while 'connecticut' might recognize 'gay marriage' it could
not impose its 'religious view' on Utah which has a rather different
religious tradition...A 'liberal' interpretation of the Constitution
might be that a US citizen from Florida or Texas with a legal 'CCW'
permit from either must be allowed to carry such in any other 'state'.
The courts *are* outlawing individual religious expression as well as
all other 'states rights'. They are.
I don't have to make up hypothetical situations. There are more than
enough in the current media.(biased as it is)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 137 of 236:
|
Sep 2 15:10 UTC 2000 |
*Individual* religious expression is private prayer, private contemplation
of whatever, following of various rites and rules, etc. As long as it
is individual (your word), there is no constitutional violation. Any
forms of religious expression that are not individual - that are forced
upon others so they cannot enjoy their own individual rights without
being bothered by others - is what I read the constitution to forbid.
What INDIVIDUAL - not public or forced upon the public, but solely
practiced individually - religious expression is forbidden anywhere?
By the way - the phrase 'state religion' does not appear in the constitution.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 138 of 236:
|
Sep 2 18:11 UTC 2000 |
The word used in the first amendment is "establish", which at that time meant
"state religion." The thing being banned was the Church of Virginia, the
Church of Scotland, the Church of England, and so on so forth: there would
NOT be a Church of the United States.
Public prayer is not an establishment of religion, no matter how much the
Supreme Court (following the lead of the atheists) might try to say it is.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 139 of 236:
|
Sep 2 18:36 UTC 2000 |
It certainly is - and the Supreme Court is correct. The whole object of
that part of the 1st amendment is to prevent religious observances from
being forced upon citizens. This has been contentious (and a source
of enormous human misery) from the beginning of human civilizations, where
the "church" was an arm of government, and cruelly suppressed all
opposition.
|
scg
|
|
response 140 of 236:
|
Sep 2 19:30 UTC 2000 |
If a kid going to school has to sit and pray with the rest of the class, it
makes very little practical difference whether the kid is told that the prayer
is part of being a good person, a universal belief in the Christian God, or
the Church of Burns Park Elementary. It's still the school dictating
("establishing") religion for its students. Since public schools are
considered to be government actors, when a school religion is established,
a government religion is established. Likewise, if a school official were
to declare to their students that there is no god, that would be a school
establishment of atheism, and would also probably be illegal.
But that's all about schools, and to a lesser extent other government
agencies, doing things in an official capacity. If an individual wants to
talk about their religion, or pray, or whatever, they can do so as openly as
they want, as long as they're not creating a disruption of the sort that would
be banned if the content were non-religious. If a student wants to pray
quietly at their desk, and it's not interfering with the rest of the class,
that's not illegal. If a student wants to pray out loud at recess, when the
other kids are running around talking about whatever they want, it would be
illegal to stop them. Where the problem comes in is when somebody wants the
rest of the class to pray along with them, since doing so would involve the
class, and by extension the school and the government, establishing a class
religion.
The Constitution doesn't spell that out all that explicitly. It doesn't spell
out anything else all that explicitly either. There is more than 200 years
of case law interpreting the Constitution, and the recent caselaw is pretty
consistent on this.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 141 of 236:
|
Sep 2 21:50 UTC 2000 |
But the recent caselaw is all wrong. The recent caselaw is *explicitly
establishing Atheism as the State religion.* Exactly as you note: Atheists
can force us to go along with *their* views, by requiring our silence.
|
jerryr
|
|
response 142 of 236:
|
Sep 3 01:21 UTC 2000 |
"Public prayer is not an establishment of religion, no matter how much the
Supreme Court (following the lead of the atheists) might try to say it is."
i'm confused. i thought the job of the supreme court was to say just that.
yea or nay. what system of government do you live under, gelinas?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 143 of 236:
|
Sep 3 01:30 UTC 2000 |
Atheism does not require silence and atheists only call for silence where
it is generally required, like libraries, movie theatres, etc. It is ONLY
the constitution that requires that there be no official public support of
religious observances, or interference with an individuals exercise of
religious practices in private (or among solely like minded groups). If it
didn't, then atheists in power could forbid religious observances anywhere
and any time. Is that what you want?
|
danr
|
|
response 144 of 236:
|
Sep 3 01:32 UTC 2000 |
re #141: I'm sorry, but the courts are not forcing you to be silent at all. You
can pray and observe all you want. You just can't do it at government-sponsored
events and in facilities paid for by the government. And that's the way it
should be.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 145 of 236:
|
Sep 3 02:23 UTC 2000 |
Jerry, the Supreme Court establishes and interprets the laws. That doesn't
make them right. ;)
Rane, Dan, we will just have to disagree. We've been over this ground before,
and neither is going to convince the other. God is present at graduations
and such. To not admit that, and to not welcome it, is just wrong. It may
be legal, but it is still wrong.
|
ric
|
|
response 146 of 236:
|
Sep 3 04:12 UTC 2000 |
They establish laws? Wow, that's news to me.
Nothing stops you from praying in school. Absolutely nothing. In fact, it
would probably be a violation of your constitutional rights if the government
tried to prevent you from praying in school.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 147 of 236:
|
Sep 3 04:22 UTC 2000 |
Yes, we disagree, Joe. I have never seen evidence for gods present at
graduation, or anywhere else. There is equally no basis for saying it is
"wrong" to perceive this. If you want to believe in supernatural things
like gods, that is your privilege, but because some people believe it
doesn't make it true, much less a matter of ethics or morality.
|
jerryr
|
|
response 148 of 236:
|
Sep 3 11:32 UTC 2000 |
re: #145 & 146 ummmm....congress establishes bills, the president signs them
into law, the supreme court interpets them. where does one look to be
"right?"
|
rcurl
|
|
response 149 of 236:
|
Sep 3 20:25 UTC 2000 |
I have just observed support for my position from a most unlikely source -
the far-right reactionary columnist Cal Thomas. He says, in a column in
today's paper, that there is no more justification for having public
prayer at football games as there is to hold football games in a church!
He also quotes the biblical statement attributed to Jesus, that says
prayer should be done by oneself, in private, in one's own chamber, and
not in public.
|
jerryr
|
|
response 150 of 236:
|
Sep 3 22:30 UTC 2000 |
and now if someone would care to explain the link between the star spangled
banner and sports?
|
md
|
|
response 151 of 236:
|
Sep 3 23:37 UTC 2000 |
Tradishuuuuuuuuuun
|
ric
|
|
response 152 of 236:
|
Sep 4 00:20 UTC 2000 |
re 147 - Joe's an agnostic I think, Rane.. he doesn't much "believe" in God
or any other supernatural being, near as I can tell.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 153 of 236:
|
Sep 4 02:59 UTC 2000 |
#145 does not sound "agnostic" - pretty direct assertions of god(s) hanging
around varous ceremonies.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 154 of 236:
|
Sep 4 03:15 UTC 2000 |
Re #148: nope. Congress *enacts* laws, but it is the Court that *establishes*
the law, by telling us what Congress what actually meant (no matter what the
language of the law; if the Court disagrees, the Court wins).
Well, I've only heard Twain's "War Prayer" once, but that was enough to show
that he was on the right track. Prayer at a football game is likely to be
for a similar purpose. Done right, though . . .
|
bdh3
|
|
response 155 of 236:
|
Sep 4 04:53 UTC 2000 |
Given the media uproar over Lieberman, I do think we have 'demonized'
any conventional expression of religious sentiment of any kind.
|
