response 156 of 236:

Sep 4 05:57 UTC 2000

I know Congress "enacts" laws, but I have never heard of an authority
that any agency has to "establish" laws. You must have invented this
new concept about government. All the Supreme Court does is settle
disputes over the constitutionality of laws. Are all the laws the
Supreme Court does *not* take on for consideration "unestablished" (whatever
that means).

response 158 of 236:

Sep 4 13:20 UTC 2000

<remmers finds it odd to be reading this religious discussion
 in the "film" conference>

response 160 of 236:

Sep 5 01:00 UTC 2000

I rented "Any Given Sunday" on friday.  Great football movie.  Very honest
portrayl of pro football, aging, and egos.  Loved it.  Al Pachino was and is
a god.

response 162 of 236:

Sep 5 02:20 UTC 2000

The dictionary definitions are irrelvant - only the legal definitions are
meaningful here. The constitution speaks of laws respecting the
"establishment"  of religions, but *not of laws*.

response 164 of 236:

Sep 5 11:22 UTC 2000

but...but...they are tasked with doing that.  that's what they do.  again,
i will ask you....what system would you prefer to make it "right?"

response 166 of 236:

Sep 6 03:57 UTC 2000

Joe, would you mind elaborating on what part of these court decisions you
think is wrong and why?  I'm wondering which things they've banned you think
are not state sponsored religious expressions, or which particular things
they've permitted you think are, and why?  Or if you are saying that the
government should conduct official prayers, which religion you think ought
to be represented in those prayers, and why.

It's a rather weak argument to say that the court is wrong and leave it at
that.

response 168 of 236:

Sep 6 04:48 UTC 2000

Which specific case are you talking about?

I'm not aware of any court case saying that a group of people cannot decide
to pray together while not in church.  In the cases I'm aware of, the courts
have said that the leaders of government sponsored gatherings cannot lead
their audience in a prayer, and that they can't permit a specific prayer while
banning other speech.  If there were a gathering where people were just
talking freely, saying whatever they wanted, and they were prevented from
praying, I'm sure the court would have a problem with that as well.  

I fail to see how this is an enforcement of atheism.  I've talked to you in
person, and I don't think you suddenly became an atheist during those
conversations.  And yet, you were somehow able to have a conversation without
interrupting it for a prayer.  Likewise, if everybody at a school function
were required to listen to a school official give a speech about there not
being a god, I very much doubt the court would look kindly on that.

response 170 of 236:

Sep 6 06:05 UTC 2000

Just as the Court found the "right to privacy" (on which it decided
Roe vs.  Wade) in the "penumbra" of the Bill of Rights, so too is its
position on the establishment of Atheism as the official religion of the
United States found in the penumbra of its decisions on the matter: the
apparent goal is not neutrality on the question but rather denial that there
even is a question: there can be no mention of God (or even gods).  No one
case sums it up, but each adds to the load that leads to the breaking of
the camel's back.  Take the most recent decision, on the football game
in Texas (and I've not read the decision, merely the reporting of it
in the news): students were, in that case, forbidden to lead a prayer.
Or so it has been reported.

(I rather liked the comment on the matter in tonight's AA News; he said
much to agree with.  I don't feel like going upstairs, or I'd identify
the writer.  A syndicated columnist, anyway.)

I understand the Court has not yet rendered a decision on Ohio's motto,
nor on the attempt to put the United States' motto on some school walls.
I do not expect it to affirm either action, *based on how it is has
decided all similar questions since 1964* (or thereabouts).

The United States is not, nor should it be, a Christian nation.  (I don't
believe such to be possible, either.)  However, neither is it, nor should
it be, atheistic.

BTW, some would say that the law that admitted Utah to the Union is
unconstitutional: it required the banning of a specific practice of a
specific religion.  On the face of it, that was a prohibited interference
with the free practice of that religion.

response 172 of 236:

Sep 6 06:23 UTC 2000

I'm not an athiest, but I still think that it's perfectly appropriate
and best for government to separate itself from religious practice, and
if that means no prayers before school football, that's just fine.  In
some religions, an appropriate pre-football religious ceremony might
involve the sacrifice of a chicken or small goat - I wonder how many of
these "pro-school-prayer" groups would be willing to tolerate that? And,
for the "bible is the truth" folks, I'd like to point out the old
testament has quite a bit of information on the kinds of animal
sacrifice that will please God the most.  Personally, I'd like to see
the "In God We Trust" disappear off of US currency as well.  It wasn't
there before 1864, and doesn't need to be there today.  I'd also like to
see the "under god" disappear out of the pledge of allegiance.  It
wasn't there originally, and there are plenty of religious folks in the
US today who believe in more than one god.

response 174 of 236:

Sep 6 07:02 UTC 2000

Yep, no more kosher ballpark franks at Cubs games, thats what it
means...

response 176 of 236:

Sep 6 15:43 UTC 2000

Re #171: no, atheism isn't even a "belief". It is not codified, has no
tenets, and has no rites or rituals that adherents must obey. As far as it
goes, it is an *observation* that there is zero evidence for supernatural
effects or entities (gods). Given zero evidence, it makes no sense to
invent such supernatural entities, except to control other people's
thoughts and behaviors. This has been done in abundance, throughout
history. But that's a sham. The *observation* that there are not gods is
also testable - produce some, or some of their purported actions, and put
them to a test of reproducibility and absence of human fakery or error.

It is illogical to consider the absence of beliefs about supernatural
phenomena to be a supernatural belief in the absence. If it is absent, one
just forgets about it and acts in accord with the absence.

But that is a separate issue from the constitutonal mandate that
governments here may not take actions to establish any religion. Not just
not one in preference to others, but NONE. That means, no governmental
branch, agency, or employees thereof, may take any action (in their
official capacity)  that promotes any or all religions.

There is a lot of ad-hoc violation of this principle (all the symnbolism
that Marcus mentions, the congressional chaplains, etc), but fortunately
these violations are not taken so far as to impose upon the lives of
citizens in really atrocious ways (as does prayer in governmentally
sponsored or supported venues).

response 178 of 236:

Sep 6 19:43 UTC 2000

<nods in agreement with Ric>

response 180 of 236:

Sep 7 00:12 UTC 2000

In the Texas case, the school was trying to do an end run around the
Constitution by having a student elected by the other students to say
"whatever he wanted to say," but which was clearly expected to be a prayer
of the community's majority religion.  The school's position was that the
student wasn't part of the Government.  But what is the Government?  The
Government isn't some magical force that is inherently powerful, but rather
a group of people elected by whatever population they govern.  The Federal
government is elected by the people of the US, and the State governments are
elected by the people of those states.  From there, the state governments
delegate power to smaller local governments, such as school boards, elected
by smaller constituencies.  The elected governments in turn delegate power
to to their employees, elected commissions, unelected commissions, and so
forth.  In this case the school board had presumably delegated the power to
lead the school in prayer to school administrators, who had then delegated
that power to a student elected by the other students.  The argument that the
student wasn't part of the government because he had been elected by the
students to a position created by government actors could also be used to
argue that any elected official anywhere in the US was not part of the
government.  It makes no sense.

In the Texas case, I seriously doubt the court would have had any problem with
a situation where some people were praying, others were talking about other
things, or saying different prayers, and anybody who wanted to say "la la la
la la" very loudly over the rest of the crowd would have been permitted to
do so.  Those would all be individual expression.  But that's not what was
happening.  Instead, an elected student official was leading the rest of the
assembled student body in a prayer for the majority religion, whether the
other students wanted to participate or not.