Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by jedifighter, Jul 11, 2002.
The cheap shots need to stop in this thread or it will be closed.
"For Clarification, here is my argument:
It is my belief, as interpreted by the Constitution, that the government "Shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion". As I see it, the government has been violating this "guide" from day 1 (if you take into account your previously mentioned laws passed by James Madison and others). The very mention of "God" defies this "guide".
"Your" interpretation is not correct. Tell me Cheveyo because you have never argued this premise of yours and I don't see how the conclusion logically follows. I can understand why you would not want to comment on it because it is a very weak premise. Tell me how the phrase, "Establishment of Religion" translates logically into as you noted, "Organized religion," and then you erroneously conclude this to mean, "any and all religious references even those which are non-denominational and make no reference to an organized religion." So how does "organized religion" which is very narrow in scope and prohibits religious beliefs such as Judaism(organized religion), Christianity(organized religion), Islam(organized religion), and Buddhism(organized religion), lead to the conclusion religious references which do not belong to any organized religion such as the word (higher power), (Almighty Power), (Omniscient being), (Holy one), are also precluded? The conclusion does not logically follow for a reason.
As I said before the words, "Establishment of religion" does not include "Any and all religion" and the words "organized religion" also does not include "any and all religion even those which do not belong to any organized religion" yet you conclude both do. How do you make such a tremendous jump in reasoning?
Cheveyo you gave the definition of "Establishment" in an earlier post. Combine that definition with "religion" in the order of "Establishment of religion" and it would read, "Congress shall make no law respecting an organized religion/ or an organized belief in a higher power/ or an organized/established church." I am not changing the definition of the words at all. What the definition of these terms allows is for Congress and the states to make references to religion which do not reflect an organized religion such as Judaism or Christianity, an organized belief in a higher power such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism, or an or organized/established church such as Pentacostal, Baptist, or Catholicism.
This is why James Madison signed a law calling for a national day of prayer because it did not violate the Establishment Clause because the Establishment Clause in plain english means exactly what I said it did in the preceding paragraph; since there was not any reference to an organized church, organized belief in a higher power such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism, nor any particular organized church, in either the law itself or President Madison's proclamation there was not any violation of the Establishment clause.
What you have done, and many left wing Judges have done, is taken what you personally believe the law should say and apply it to the Establishment Clause even though your "vision" does not reasonably comport with the clause itself. You talk about misinterpreations of the clause but can't give any historical examples the Framer's intent was the same as your interpretation. Rather all of the Framer's actions demonstrate unequivocally your interpretation is the misinterpretation, the incorrect interpretation.
There are court cases which demonstrate the correct interpretation of the Establishment clause an interpretation which is both compatible with the plain English of the text and the Framer's intent and yet you think they erred in their interpretation and give no evidence, no proof, to suggest the Court's made such an error and your interpretation is the correct one. Rather you retreat to what you think the law should say and what you'd prefer to happen but then you quickly find there is not a court case or a Framer of the Constitution which supports your inter
Ok, I' am going to attempt to passively say something here, so as not to get anyone's feathers in a ruffle.
a) I never claimed to be an expert of ANYTHING in this manner. I'm simply stating my opinion (isn't that what these boards are about?)
b) I am NOT (thank the universe) a law student, nor do I care for Law as it is practiced. The very concept of it bewilders me, as lawyers are not concerned with what is right, but rather what works for their argument (IMO).
c) When did this become a verbal attack on my character? I thought we were talking about a national topic, next thing I know, I have to justify myself and give you some sort of validation for my beliefs.
d) As your apparent moral, legal, and intellectual inferior (a label you seem to be aiming toward) perhaps I am not the one you are looking for in this suddenly "courtroom-Drama style" debate. I suggest you look for your equal... someone who doesn't give a statement without first looking for precedence.
e) You said:Well let me be the first to tell you that those who do not believe in a god or believe in more than one god and are thereby excluded has no relevance. The Establishment Clause does not take exclusion into account for those who are non-believers this is nothing more the an appeal to pity argument and that is pseudoreasoning.Have you lost sight of the argument here? I am not an atheist, so I have not been playing that role in the discussion; however, the original argument was that by saying "under God", the POA excludes atheists and other polytheist (and some monotheist) religions. You say thaat the very argument they are trying to make doesn't exist because they don't count? I must be truly dense, as I don't understand this.
Cheevyo I apologize if you were offended by the 5 year old thing. It's an expression I use everyday including my posting and if you were offended then I'm sorry. It wasn't my intention.
Now on to the 2 things you wants. Part 1 is very true, and that is why I don't want anything changed. This country was founded on the basis of religion, but as you know in this country we have hundreds of different believe systems in this country. Every single religion has the right to practice their own religion and not be persecuted for it. Now of course there have been times in our nations history that people have been attacked for their religious believes but that is not as common anymore. Heck Maryland was founded by Catholics as a refuge from attacks by others. So when you say our country is violating peoples rights I have to laugh and say where. "Under God" "In God We Trust" are just words nothing more, but they happen to represent the majority in this country and to exclude them isn't fair to that majority.
So this country is for religious tollarance and you will not be treated as a second class citizen like in other countries which don't have these rights for religious freedom. So we have a lot of freedom when it comes to religion, and to complain about this freedom or trying to change it is totally wrong. You should appreciate what you have, and to admit that from day one that this country has gone away from seperation of Church and State just reinforces my stance of if this has been the case and to see how much diversity we have here and how much freedom we have without this concrete separation of Church and State should speak wonders for this nation. I mean you look at every president who has been in office they were sworn in with a Bible, and everyone of them were Christian.
Also I would like to add where have these words in your life or anyones life kept them from being all they wanted to be???? It doesn't deny you life, liberty or pursuit of happiness now does it??? That is why I'm not for any change at all, because it non-sense to say people are suffering over this when they should be thanking their lucky stars there in this country of religous tollarance .
I have a question about the James Madison Law of a National Day of Prayer... which day is that again? I looked thru the calendar, didn't see it.
And Darth Pigfoots, you are getting repetitious with constant requests for proof of harm. The issue raised by the Ninth Circuit was one of a parent being undermined by the Pledge of Allegiance in his religious teaching of his child.
Here, In your terms, Darth Pigfeets...A parent teaches his child full frontal face value to be skeptical of God and to not make any immediate assumption of God, and yet the child is bombarded full frontal face value with a repetitious mantra supposedly dealing with allegiance to the country, but sidetracked in 1954 by McCarthy era political correctness. That's the way it is and if you can't take it at full frontal face value then don't stay in this country. Love it or leave it Piggy. Period.