If you believe in the Constitution please read.

[grampster]

I've read a lot of the posts and skipped a lot. But I'm with 2dogs on this one, and with whoever it was on another post of similar nature who said quote:"what's the problem with "under God" in the pledge, I'm an atheist and I just didn't say the words." End of quote.

As long as the State does not force me to ascribe to some sect or religious belief in order to seek justice and to expect a modicum of it, what's the problem with ignoring what you can't stomach regarding good advice. Regarding expecting justice, convince me that justice has always been served at all times no matter what the issue.

Regarding Tyme's opinions regarding this particular situation, it seems to me that to follow his reasoning one would have to be an atheist in order to be a judge. But, that of course brings up the same problem from another angle. How could that judge impart a moral or ethical decision in the interest of justice? There can be no ethics or morals that are timeless with an atheist (no offense) because there are no timeless truths to base those kinds of decisions upon as humanists (atheists) have a revolving set of morals or ethics based on whatever is in vogue at the moment. (again, no offense, just my opinion) This is called "situational ethics" and is the darling of the left and those who have no grounding in timeless truth.

IMHO there is no justice unless we have just laws and laws need to be based upon some timeless truth. As long as that truth seems to be good advice, what is the problem? The first two Commandments might be hard for a good atheist to swallow, but the other eight seem to be good advice for a peaceful life for any human being of any stripe. Eight out of ten ain't bad, disregard the first two if you will. what harm is in that?

grampster

 

[Intune]

There is no Constitutional guarantee that you will feel not "lessoned or wronged" when entering the halls of justice. Our prisons are full of individuals who feel like they were "lessoned or wronged" within the halls of justice. More recently, there are victims that feel that way.

They might have felt that way due to the machinations of justice; they should not be made to feel that way because of a governmentally sanctioned religious monument. If the judge had his great grandpappy’s Klan robe on a rotating dais with stage lighting because he felt the Klan performed a great good during the states formative years would that be ok?

Let’s suppose that Moore defies the State of Alabama Supreme Court. Is he still in the right? If he performed a prayer before proceedings and found a prisoner in contempt for not bowing his head, is he in the right? A three-foot cross on the bench, defendant and prosecutor tables. One on the witness stand and jury box just to let everyone know “God’s will and law abide within these hallowed halls.†Where does it stop?

 

[Quartus]

CZ, I think you are veering from the point of law here. It's not about a majority or a minority, it's not even about a treaty with an Islamic nation. (Never should have been signed, though.)

In fact, the only connection this has with Christianity is the historical roots of our legal system. Your point about Moore's motivations being irrelevant is right on target.

But the point of LAW is that the 1A has been twisted to mean something that it does not say, and that cannot be shown to have been the intent of the FF. And a Federal judge is using that judicial REVISION of the Constitution to meddle in something over which he has no authority.

Lawdog, this is a long thread, so it's not surprising that you missed that your argument was answered a long time back. Briefly, here it is:

The statue you propose would not be a violation of the 1A. I would object just as strongly to a Federal judge ordering it removed. It would ALSO be inappropriate, as it has no historical connection to our legal system, but I'd keep my objections at the state leve.


For the sake of illustration, let's get it away from the emotional connection with Christianity. Suppose that Massachusetts erected a monument that depicted (translated, of course) some writings from the ancient Indian tribe of the Taxahatchetts. If historical writings of the day showed that the religious writings of the Taxahatchetts were a profound influence on the political philosophy of the framers of the Massachusetts constitution and laws, the display of a portion of those writings (or even all of them) would not violate the 1A and would be perfectly appropriate.


(And I doubt the ACLU would sue over them.)


But if they can twist the 1A this way, they can twist the 2A any way they want, too.

 

[Intune]

And if those writings happened to be ten in number and that number was ten (oops, sorry, Monty Pythonin’ for a sec)

1. Thou shall have no other gods but the Great Spirit. ALL other gods are false.

2. Kill thy neighbor & rape and pillage his land. Fill his women with seed.

I shan’t go on because it will show my true dark side. But you get my point. Q, you & CZ may not holler & complain but I guarandarntee ya that the howling in protest would reach a screeching crescendo in record speed. “You took little Chad on a field trip where?? And he read that???â€

Religion is a real touchy subject. Nawwwww Yep.

 

[CZ52GUY]

Intune

They might have felt that way due to the machinations of justice; they should not be made to feel that way because of a governmentally sanctioned religious monument. If the judge had his great grandpappy’s Klan robe on a rotating dais with stage lighting because he felt the Klan performed a great good during the states formative years would that be ok?

Many would protest that symbol as have protested the symbol of the Confederate Flag, but what is right in your eyes and mine vs. what the Constitution actually says is the question. To invoke the legal authority of the Constitution one must of a rational basis within the Constitution for doing so. This was not met by the Federal judge, nor do I see how it would be applied in your hypothetical.

Let’s suppose that Moore defies the State of Alabama Supreme Court. Is he still in the right? If he performed a prayer before proceedings and found a prisoner in contempt for not bowing his head, is he in the right? A three-foot cross on the bench, defendant and prosecutor tables. One on the witness stand and jury box just to let everyone know “God’s will and law abide within these hallowed halls.†Where does it stop?

You put forward hypotheticals that are not germane to the merits of the case in question.

However, since the United States Senate is led in a prayer each day, I would allocate the same right to any jurist anywhere who would choose to do so whether his prayer be directed to Jesus, Yahwe, Budda, or Allah, or any other deity or grouping of deities or even Satan if he/she so chose. There is no Constitutional prohibition against it.

Whether it be Cross or Crescent or Star of David or statue of Budda, or Pentagram there is no Constitutional prohibition that applies based on the actual wording of the 1st.

As to Judicial abuses related to "finding in contempt", I think you will find failure to respectfully bow ones head in prayer would likely be outside the reasonable bounds of Judicial conduct with recourse found through that governance model as opposed to invoking non-existent language within the 1st...you could argue the 8th perhaps with a clever enough suit doing the talking


Where does it stop? Where the 1st says it does, with the actual ESTABLISHMENT of a religion or an infringement on Free Exercise...because that's where the 1st says so.

Best wishes,

CZ52'

 

[CZ52GUY]

Quartus

I stand wrongfully accused of "veering"

Actually, I submit that out of courtesy, I pursued courses of discussion which are not central to the original topic of the post...I'd say "sue me", but you'd probably win, and I have no assets to pay the settlement .

"But if they can twist the 1A this way, they can twist the 2A any way they want, too."
Quartus

That is the essential point to be made, without question. Hatred of religion is no excuse for the supposed defenders of the 2nd to become complicit with those who would use the very same technique to obliterate our Constiutional rights.

Best wishes,

CZ52'

 

[CZ52GUY]

Intune

I shan’t go on because it will show my true dark side. But you get my point. Q, you & CZ may not holler & complain but I guarandarntee ya that the howling in protest would reach a screeching crescendo in record speed. “You took little Chad on a field trip where?? And he read that???â€

Religion is a real touchy subject. Nawwwww Yep.

There is nothing wrong with howling in protest. I recall that several colonists howled quite a bit and then, dare I say it, defied the "rule of law" based on...what was that, a "higher law"...being that a CREATOR endowed men with inalienable rights that a tyrant sought to suppress and that it was legitimate to oppose that tyranny to the point of rebellion.

The "rule of law" is only valuable to a society when the rules are made according to the laws as written.

In this case it wasn't, and take some cover, cause the same ordinance is being directed at the 2nd.

Good night gentleman...and any ladies who may also be participating.

CZ52'

 

[Intune]

But they are germane my friend.
To wit:

Legislative prayer
The Supreme Court in its 1983 decision Marsh v. Chambers again abandoned modern establishment-clause tests when it found the practice of legislative prayer constitutional based on historical usage. Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote that as early as 1774 the Continental Congress opened its sessions with prayer by a paid chaplain. He also noted, “Clearly the men who wrote the First Amendment Religion Clause did not view paid legislative chaplains and opening prayers as a violation of that Amendment, for the practice of opening sessions with prayer has continued without interruption ever since that early session of Congress.â€

Although the Supreme Court declined to review a 1991 case involving a North Carolina judge’s practice of beginning court sessions with a prayer, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the practice unconstitutional in North Carolina Civil Liberties Union Legal Foundation v. Constangy. Finding that ceremonial deism did not apply to the judge’s prayer, which began, “O Lord, our God, our Father in Heaven, we pray this morning that you will place your divine guiding hand on this courtroom,†the 4th Circuit distinguished this practice from legislative prayer in Marsh, saying, “The opinion in Marsh clearly focuses on legislative prayer and its ‘unique history'" and that “there is no similar long-standing tradition of opening courts with prayer.†The Supreme Court declined to review the decision.


The Supreme Court repeatedly has used ceremonial deism to uphold certain practices challenged under the establishment clause (e.g., our national motto “In God We Trust,†legislative prayer, and the phrase “under God†in the Pledge of Allegiance), but some legal scholars like Steven Epstein question whether mere historical usage can truly continue to validate these practices. “The year is 2096,†Epstein writes. “Muslims now comprise seventy percent of the American population, while Christians and Jews comprise only twenty-five percent collectively. Elementary school students in most public school systems begin each day with the Pledge of Allegiance in which they dutifully recite that America is one nation ‘under Allah;’ our national currency — both coins and paper — contains the inscription codified as our national motto, ‘In Allah We Trust’… .†Epstein queries, “Would the average Christian or Jew seriously contend that this America of 2096 would not make them feel like outsiders in their own country? How then can Christians and Jews reconcile this feeling of exclusion with approval of a state of affairs … in which non-Christians, non-Jews, and non-religionists have no constitutional basis for attacking ‘ceremonial’ Christian or Judeo-Christian forms of government expression? More to the point, how can the Supreme Court continue to countenance these practices?†Whatever the answer, it does not appear the Supreme Court will abandon the concept of ceremonial deism anytime soon, as discussed above.


The FFs were a mostly religious bunch. Do any of you here think it was an accident that the words Creator, Supreme Being or God are used but not the words Jesus Christ? Oversight? I think not. ALL the PEOPLE

 

[Fair 'n Square]

A few years ago my wife and I went the Washington D.C. area. I remember standing in the Jefferson Memorial and looking at the pillars (or whatever they're called-I'm having a senior moment) surrounding his statue with some of his writings inscribed thereon. I remember being astonished as I read one after the other. I can't remember any that didn't make reference to a Supreme Being (call him what you will). Jefferson certainly did not hesitate to recognize where rights and blessings originate. I think Jefferson himself would be appalled at the use some are making of his "separation of Church and State" phrase.

We don't need a new amentment to the Constitution. We just need people in government who can read the Constitution, and who do not twist it into a meaningless nothingness.

 

[Fair 'n Square]

Pardon the words I left out of my first sentence... Another senior moment!

 

[jimpeel]

“O Lord, our God, our Father in Heaven, we pray this morning that you will place your divine guiding hand on this courtroom,†the 4th Circuit distinguished this practice from legislative prayer in Marsh, saying, “The opinion in Marsh clearly focuses on legislative prayer and its ‘unique history'" and that “there is no similar long-standing tradition of opening courts with prayer.†The Supreme Court declined to review the decision.

And we're not about to let that tradition start, either. Even the legislative prayer had a starting point upon which to base its "‘unique history" and "long-standing tradition". Every tradition has its starting point as reflected by the "First Annual <insert event name>" implies there will be a "Second Annual <insert event name>".

 

[2dogs]

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments."

– James Madison

 

[2dogs]

I hesitated to post the following, mainly because I didn't want anyone here thinking that I am ENDORSING this man's opinion. The fellow however is making an interesting point (albeit from the safety of his keyboard in California- and I don't see him volunteering to lead the charge). I think it is interesting because I've wondered at what point the destruction of the Bill of Rights will be a spark. We always talk about the 2nd amendment and how if they come for the guns, that's it- well who says it will be the 2nd Amendment that brings this on? As has been seen in this thread religion is probably at least as much of a hot button as guns.

What do you think?

----------------------------------






PATRIOTS, GRAB YOUR HOSES
IN ALABAMA, TREE OF LIBERTY NEEDS WATERING

By: Rich Smith

The good but tragically naive Americans gathered this very moment at the Alabama Supreme Court building in Montgomery to prevent authorities from seizing Chief Justice Roy Moore’s Ten Commandments monument are going about this all wrong.




Their plan – articulated by the Alabama chapter of the Christian Coalition – is to engage in peaceful civil disobedience should police or National Guardsmen show up to enforce the order of a federal judge who’d given the defiant Moore until late Wednesday afternoon to voluntarily remove the stonework, which occupies a very public place in the courthouse and is therefore horrifically offensive to the "enlightened" minds of leftists. (Moore courageously said he has no intention of complying with the federal court order, not even after his attempts to quash it were rejected by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and a lone liberal justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.)

The brand of civil disobedience contemplated by the Christian Coalition entails having a knot of First Amendment defenders interfere with removal efforts by kneeling around the monument and bowing their heads in prayer.

This is essentially the same strategy employed years back by pro-lifers on the sidewalks in front of abortion mills in the hope of disrupting the grisly machinery of the baby-killing industry. But you’ll recall the abortion mills pretty much continued to operate as always, their "output" unimpeded by the assembled petitioners to the Almighty. That’s because, when pro-lifers attempted to blockade access to the abortion mills in that peaceful, non-violent manner, the cops simply swooped in, cuffed the protesters and dragged them away to nearby waiting paddy wagons.

The very same thing will occur in Montgomery when the anti-Constitutionalists tell their guys with badges to go grab the Ten Commandments monument.

And, consequently, the monument – a harmless little tribute to the ultimate source of American law – will be removed (if it hasn’t been already by the time you read this).

The First Amendment faithful might as well be driving the forklift themselves, for all the good their save-the-monument strategy will do.

Were I the one in charge of organizing a defense, I wouldn’t have started by asking what the Sierra Club would do. I would have asked what the Founding Fathers would do, they having taken the step of asking what Jesus would do. Remember Him? Jesus – the peace-promoting guy who violently overturned the moneychangers’ tables in the Temple courtyard and beat the living daylights out of the government goons running that obnoxious little racket.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and nearly all the others were men who knew the Holy Scriptures as thoroughly as a lot of people today know this week’s Lotto and Powerball jackpot odds. And one of the conclusions those deeply religious 18th Century fellows drew from their intensive, life-long study of the Bible was that opposition to tyranny required not just prayer but physical resistance in the form of countervailing force.

Think about it. Had the Founding Fathers sought to attain freedom by doing nothing more than kneeling outside the tax collector’s door, we’d still be subjects of the British crown and using pound-sterling to buy stuff at the mall.

I don’t need to tell you what the Founding Fathers did to secure the rights that flow to us from God and God alone. You know exactly what they did. It’s what the patriots marshaled in Alabama today now must do if they truly desire to stop tyranny-by-judicial-fiat dead in its tracks.

To borrow from the immortal words of Jefferson, the tree of liberty is right now very, very thirsty. The defenders of the Ten Commandments monument should be brandishing hoses of the sort capable of furnishing for that tree the peculiar liquid nutrient it so desperately craves.




http://www.etherzone.com/2003/rsmit082203.shtml

 

[CZ52GUY]

You miss the point

Legislative prayer
The Supreme Court in its 1983 decision Marsh v. Chambers again abandoned modern establishment-clause tests when it found the practice of legislative prayer constitutional based on historical usage. Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote that as early as 1774 the Continental Congress opened its sessions with prayer by a paid chaplain. He also noted, “Clearly the men who wrote the First Amendment Religion Clause did not view paid legislative chaplains and opening prayers as a violation of that Amendment, for the practice of opening sessions with prayer has continued without interruption ever since that early session of Congress.â€

Either the 1st prohibits it or it does not. The citing of tradition is bogus, even by Burger.

Although the Supreme Court declined to review a 1991 case involving a North Carolina judge’s practice of beginning court sessions with a prayer, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the practice unconstitutional in North Carolina Civil Liberties Union Legal Foundation v. Constangy. Finding that ceremonial deism did not apply to the judge’s prayer, which began, “O Lord, our God, our Father in Heaven, we pray this morning that you will place your divine guiding hand on this courtroom,†the 4th Circuit distinguished this practice from legislative prayer in Marsh, saying, “The opinion in Marsh clearly focuses on legislative prayer and its ‘unique history'" and that “there is no similar long-standing tradition of opening courts with prayer.†The Supreme Court declined to review the decision.

Either the 1st prohibits it or it does not. Either the limits on Feder Judiciary power grabbing to make themselves an appointed legislative body without the intended balances of the separations of power between those branches are real, or they are not. Either the Federal Government is limited to discrete powers, or they are limitless.

This isn't about advocation of religion vs. seeking to squelch it. The Soviets couldn't squelch religion, and they tried mightily. Communist China has tried their best, yet religion continues to thrive...perhaps more so because of the persecution. Religious belief is something that is internally held with no opportunity for Government interference. Religious practice, free exercise, is something that occurs publicly and for those that practice a religion with devotion (regardless of the brand name), it is a 24/7/365 until their physical existence ends. Many believe that it continues its existence in a spiritual realm thereafter.

The 1st guarantees Free Exercise. Free Exercise is not something that the 1st, or any other part of the Constitution, grants the Federal Government, INCLUDING THE JUDICIARY, the write to freely infringe upon at the whim of anyone.

This is a discussion about the correct application of the rule of law as written. When the rule of law is manipulated, THERE IS NO RULE OF LAW.

That manipulation is what drove the FF to rebel. Over time we'll see how many Patriots are around in the 21st century to beat back the tyrannical threats that are upon us. Not just on this topic, but against the broader premise of the Federal Judiciary allocating to itself extra-Constitutional powers.

The Supreme Court repeatedly has used ceremonial deism to uphold certain practices challenged under the establishment clause (e.g., our national motto “In God We Trust,†legislative prayer, and the phrase “under God†in the Pledge of Allegiance), but some legal scholars like Steven Epstein question whether mere historical usage can truly continue to validate these practices. “The year is 2096,†Epstein writes. “Muslims now comprise seventy percent of the American population, while Christians and Jews comprise only twenty-five percent collectively. Elementary school students in most public school systems begin each day with the Pledge of Allegiance in which they dutifully recite that America is one nation ‘under Allah;’ our national currency — both coins and paper — contains the inscription codified as our national motto, ‘In Allah We Trust’… .†Epstein queries, “Would the average Christian or Jew seriously contend that this America of 2096 would not make them feel like outsiders in their own country? How then can Christians and Jews reconcile this feeling of exclusion with approval of a state of affairs … in which non-Christians, non-Jews, and non-religionists have no constitutional basis for attacking ‘ceremonial’ Christian or Judeo-Christian forms of government expression? More to the point, how can the Supreme Court continue to countenance these practices?†Whatever the answer, it does not appear the Supreme Court will abandon the concept of ceremonial deism anytime soon, as discussed above.

I have news for you, if in the year 2096, the majority population of the USA is 70% Muslim, you will likely see a true Theocracy. For those who have an overwhelming hatred of the specific religion of Christianity, and believe any mention of it in the public square creates a Theocratic system, I invite you to scrutinize Iran, Saudi Arabia, the rule of the Church of Rome during the inquisition...there you will find the difference between truly authoritarian Theocratic rule, and what we've experienced in the United States.

Patriots have a choice to make, either support the rule of law or support the manipulation thereof. If you take the shortcut route of supporting manipulation for its near term benefits because you hate religion, more specifically...the Judeo-Christian heritage that has long been part of the public landscape in the United States since its founding, then you risk the integrity of the system that was designed to provide a vehicle to keep us all free and equal before the Creator who endowed us our inalienable rights.

The FFs were a mostly religious bunch. Do any of you here think it was an accident that the words Creator, Supreme Being or God are used but not the words Jesus Christ? Oversight? I think not. ALL the PEOPLE

The FF writings and speeches are filled with references to a supreme being who is indistinguishable from the deity described within the Christian religion, regardless of flavor of Christianity.

The CIA Factbook says that in 1989, 86% of Americans identified themselves as either Protestant, Catholic, or Jew.

Can you seriously suggest that at the time of the FF, a much more homogeneous society, that the demographics were AT LEAST as high for the Judeo-Christian combination referenced, if not MUCH HIGHER?

To deny the context of the belief system practiced by our FF is to deny reality. One does not have to embrace it for their personal belief system, but when seeking historical context to give credibility to any "interpretation" of the 1st, one has to be daft not to recognize that the political-social-religious priorities of the day would be inconsistent with the modern manipulation of the plain English wording of the 1st.

This is about integrity.

This is about the rule of law as actually written.

This is about acknowledging reality.

This is not about advocacy.

The Judiciary has no business playing in that field.

Again, the 2nd and all of the remainder of our freedoms is threatened when hatred of religion or one religion blinds one from the collateral impact it will have.

I direct this not to Intune directly, but communicate as a general assertion:

The anti's use THIS SAME METHOD to manipulate the 2nd. You become what you despise if you advocate that method in this instance...and you embolden the anti's and their tyrants in robes allies when you take the path of convenience as opposed to principle.

CZ52'

 

[Intune]

Hatred of religion is no excuse for the supposed defenders of the 2nd to become complicit with those who would use the very same technique to obliterate our Constiutional rights

Right up there with the atheist=drivel crack. Visene helps with those eye-logs! Beware that broad brush, it often splatters the wielders shoulders with chips.

One must ask self if they would AS VOLUBLY support a Druid’s right to do the exact same thing in a court or public school without any caveats (history, majority, etc.) and not feel a tiny niggling twinge of hesitancy, which possibly indicates an agenda. Not a negative, just something to be aware of.

One of my brothers is a preacher for the Church of the Nazarene. We’ve discussed religion once or twice. He’s also an attorney. He somehow balances the two.

 

[CZ52GUY]

Intune and thread readers...

Again,

In my haste I fail to as carefully as I would like distinguish between your comments in general, and to assert the dangers of a demographic pursuing a course of action. I edited my post before reading your comments.

What I'm saying, is that if 2nd Amendment supporters who are concurrently considering the merits of the Alabama, must consider ALL the ramifications.

Those that hate religion brought this suit. Those that are likeminded who claim advocacy for the 2nd have a choice to make. Either their hatred of religion or their love of freedom.

For those that are on the fence as to the Alabama case who claim to support the 2nd, I assert that your personal belief system regarding religion or it's place in public life in the USA is immaterial to your evaluation of the substantive aspects of the case.

Non-existent prohibitions within the 1st were cited.

The Rule of Law was violated by the Federal Judiciary.

That same method is embraced by the anti's to usurp the 2nd.

If one supports extra-Constitutional intervention by the Federal Judiciary as a tool of convenience, one invites its use by others.

That's what I was attempting to say.

I stand by the substance of my earlier post. I apologize if you took it as a personal attack, that was not my intent.

If anyone identifies with a Rule of Law by convenience rather than by actual contents of statute, than I have a quarrel with them, regardless of the topic, and regardless of how my personal circumstances may or may not benefit. I see beyond that, and challenge my board brethren to do the same.

Regards,

CZ52'

 

[Intune]

I have news for you, if in the year 2096, the majority population of the USA is 70% Muslim, you will likely see a true Theocracy. For those who have an overwhelming hatred of the specific religion of Christianity, and believe any mention of it in the public square creates a Theocratic system, I invite you to scrutinize Iran, Saudi Arabia, the rule of the Church of Rome during the inquisition...there you will find the difference between truly authoritarian Theocratic rule, and what we've experienced in the United States.

NO! Because we won’t have opened the door for it with cases like Moore’s. This is EXACTLY the point I’m trying to make! One of the FFs said something akin to the fact that the churches actually do themselves a disservice by aligning with government because if the majority ever shifts they could find themselves on the short end of the stick! I’ll find it if you want.

“… overwhelming hatred of the specific religion of Christianity…†Please don’t say stuff like this, it’s so far off base and insulting.

 

[CZ52GUY]

re: Smith comments...

We may not be there yet, but the day may come...


If you look at the FF, physical resistance was used as a last resort.

As I recall, a level of organization occurred to provide some opportunity to make the physical resistance successful (while isolated incidents of early physical resistance occurred...effective resistance was executed based on solid preparation...beyond just willingness and dedication).

I would not advocate that the Alabama allies of Moore pursue physical resistance at this time. They are not organized to do that, they show little sign of being capable of putting up an effective showing.

Some day it may come to that. I pray it does not.

CZ52'

 

[RangerHAAF]

This is not really a question about separating church and state. I don't think that even liberals are offended by the display in the courthouse. The main rub is that someone or a group is standing up to the federal government's authority.

The letter of the constitution says that where there is no constitutional question or concern, state law prevails. This concept has generally been undermined and pushed to the side because of the perceived power and prestige of the Feds and because of their stick and carrot approach to inducing state governments to comply with federal law by withholding federal money.

For example, a lot of people don't know it but the FBI is not the begin all and end all for law enforcement in this country. Each state's elected sheriffs are the top law enforcement officials within their respective counties and parishes. The FBI is supposed to get permission to operate within each sheriffs territory. I don't know if this rule is adhered to but because there is a lot of drug money to confiscate, I really doubt it.

This just another example of the encroachment by federal authorities presuming they know what is in the best interest of the state plebeians.

 

[CZ52GUY]

Intune

[bold]NO![/bold] Because we won’t have opened the door for it with cases like Moore’s. This is EXACTLY the point I’m trying to make! One of the FFs said something akin to the fact that the churches actually do themselves a disservice by aligning with government because if the majority ever shifts they could find themselves on the short end of the stick! I’ll find it if you want.

Your point is irrelevant to whether the means justifies your goals.

Respectfully, but without apology, if you advocate the extra-Constitutional method employed in Alabama, you legitimize its use to obliterate the 2nd.

You continue to pursue a course of discussion based on the merits of the net result of Alabama based on the dangers of Theocratic rule. Those dangers are irrellevant to the wording of the 1st and its appropriate application in this case.

“… overwhelming hatred of the specific religion of Christianity…†Please don’t say stuff like this, it’s so far off base and insulting.

I assert that it is not off base, because within the community of supposed defenders of the 2nd, are those who are blinded by their hatred of religion, and most specifically Christianity.

It has been my experience that when push comes to shove, they are unable to put aside that hatred and will advocate a religious/Christian hostile approach, regardless of the implications to the 2nd.

I call them as I've seen them. I'm sorry you feel insulted, but that is the truth I've observed.

I challenge those with views like that to re-examine them, in a similar manner as you challenge those who are religious apologists to examine theirs.

Where I hope we can find common ground is on two points:

1) That passionate advocacy for one's point of view is admirable
2) That ones methods when pursuing that advocacy should be scrutinized carefully to see if the means involves collateral impact that is intolerable.

I submit that regardless of one's position on the appropriateness of public displays of religion, that debate should be conducted within the Rule of Law as actually written.

Some day, there may be a super majority of religious activists on the bench, I would decry that day equally as our present circumstances.

Rule of law by actual statute content is something we all benefit from.

Rule of law by manipulative political activism harms us all.

There is no "greater good" at play here.

Best wishes,

CZ52'

 

[Intune]

I assert that it is not off base, because within the community of supposed defenders of the 2nd, are those who are blinded by their hatred of religion, and most specifically Christianity.

I trust you don't feel that way per our discussion.

Where I hope we can find common ground is on two points:
1) That passionate advocacy for one's point of view is admirable
2) That ones methods when pursuing that advocacy should be scrutinized carefully to see if the means involves collateral impact that is intolerable.

Yes! Agreed! With the caveat that such scrutiny may result in two diametrically opposed perspectives unable to concur on that which is intolerable. Such as, we agree that the feds were way off intervening on this one. However, I believe the state court has made the right decision. I think you have a somewhat different perspective.

 

[CZ52GUY]

Intune...

I trust you don't feel that way per our discussion.

No sir, not in the full context of our discussion. However, individual statements you've made are indistinguishable from those I've encountered from those who do fit the parameters of the label. Those individual statements do not allocate to you the label you found insulting, but my responses to those individual statements from me may have made you believe I felt that way (e.g. the "drivel" comments).

Yes! Agreed! With the caveat that such scrutiny may result in two diametrically opposed perspectives unable to concur on that which is intolerable. Such as, we agree that the feds were way off intervening on this one. However, I believe the state court has made the right decision. I think you have a somewhat different perspective.

Glad to hear it.

Technically, I believe the State Court has every right to make the decision that they did. I disagree with the decision being forced under duress by the Federal Judiciary. I disagree with the merits of the objections to the "big rock" in the Federal suit.

Should the State Court have heard the arguments and arrived at an unfavorable outcome for Justice Moore based on Alabama Law, I would have been saddened, but respected the rule of law as written and equally applied.

The misapplication of the Constitution in in this instance within an abuse by the Federal Judiciary makes the "State Court decision" suspect in my mind...fruit of the poisoned federal intervention.

I support those who are defying that illegal intervention. I would not support continued obstruction of a lawful order based on legitimate legal grounds.

The Smith comments are just one of many unfortunate collateral impacts of unlawful rulings such as this one and do not bode well for the integrity of the 2nd.

Best wishes,

CZ52'

 

[Intune]

JAMES MADISON'S MEMORIAL AND REMONSTRANCE
AGAINST RELIGIOUS ASSESSMENTS (1785)

To the Honorable the General Assembly
of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
A Memorial and Remonstrance.
We, the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for teachers of the Christian Religion," (1) and conceiving that the same, if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State, to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,

5. Because the bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: The second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.




DRAFTS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS (1)
Amendments Proposed by Rep. James Madison of Virginia (June 8, 1789)


Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clause 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.

Conscience-
Date: 13th century
1 a : the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good b : a faculty, power, or principle enjoining good acts


I daresay that the Ten Commandments DIRECTLY infringe on the "conscience" of ANY who follow a religion or lack thereof other than Christianity.





Amendments Reported by the House Select Committee (July 28, 1789)
In the introductory paragraph before the words, "We the people," add, "Government being intended for the benefit of the people, and the rightful establishment thereof being derived from their authority alone."
Art. 1, Sec. 2, Par. 3--Strike out all between the words, "direct" and "and until such," and instead thereof insert, "After the first enumeration there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand until the number shall amount to one hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress that the number of Representatives shall never be less than one hundred, nor more than one hundred and seventy-five, but each State shall always have at least one Representative."
Art. 1, Sec. 6--Between the words "United States," and "shall in all cases," strike out "they," and insert, "But no law varying the compensation shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. The members."

Art. 1, Sec. 9--Between Par. 2 and 3 insert, "No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed."

"The freedom of speech, and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed."

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."


Amendments Passed by the House of Representatives (Aug. 24, 1789)

ARTICLE THE THIRD.
Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed.
ARTICLE THE FOURTH.
The Freedom of Speech, and of the Press, and the right of the People peaceably to assemble, and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for a redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.
ARTICLE THE FIFTH.
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Amendments Passed by Congress (Sept. 25, 1789)
Article the third . . . Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article the fourth . . . A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


The Bill of Rights, as Ratified (3)
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now, the way it was ratified I can see your point CZ. Hopefully, though, I've shed a little light toward intent. I never went back tthrough drafts before. Very interesting. My best to you and yours.

 

[CZ52GUY]

Intune...

Be careful how you phrase...

I daresay that the Ten Commandments DIRECTLY infringe on the "conscience" of ANY who follow a religion or lack thereof other than Christianity.

Consumption of the words of the Ten Commandments DO NOT directly infringe on anyone's consience. We are creatures of Free Will.

Forced recitation and a requirement to communicate an allegience is coercion. Exposure to them is not.

Let me try another example on you that you may be aware of...

The State of California within its public school curriculum has chosen to include Exposure to the religion of Islam. They believe it is a useful part of exposing children as part of "multiculturalism" efforts.

I would differentiate between public school children being required to read passages from the Holy Quoran from the part of the course that required them to participate in actual Islamic rituals.

I would contend that religion SHOULD be taught in schools from an academic perspective. Ignorance about religions of various types is a missing component in many students awareness of the world around them.

That exposure is useful and not Constitutionally prohibited.

Coerced participation in the Islamic sacrements in my mind violates the Free Exercise aspects of the 1st.

I contend however, that the presence of the course within the curriculum, and academic study of Islam is not Unconstitutional. The requirement for participation does not an Established religion create, so I don't contend that a Protestant would have 1st Amendment support for claiming the prohibition clause.

What the Alabama case represents is exposure, not coercion which violates Free Exercise (which involves freedom of choice). It did not establish any religion.

I challenge you to be faithful to the actual wording of the Constitution and its plain English meaning.

If Exposure = Establishment, than anyone who practices any religion could be subject to a Soviet style requirement to worship in secret.

T-h-a-t i-s n-o-t f-r-e-e e-x-e-r-c-i-s-e. Freedom to believe is internal, freedom to practice is external/public.

There is no greater good argument that can be made Constitutionally from your arguments so far, because you fail to meet the Establishment test.

Give respect to the FF for intentionally choosing that word, E-s-t-a-b-l-i-s-h, and the criteria that the establishment be in the form of Congressional legislation which would impose a specific national religion.

Respectfully,

CZ52'

p.s. Rant warning, rant warning, rant warning.....

I've been exposed to the wording of many faiths as well as to the teachings of athiesm...I like to read. Their public display does not intimidate me and I'd never allocate to their display any importance beyond the content itself. I guess I'm too independent to see your point in that regard and lack empathy for those who do feel intimidated or offended. I have evolved a level of worth based on my own evaluation of my performance, character and values...in part based on the confidence I have that my faith gives me...I don't feel like I'm "in the fight" by myself. Because I set the bar pretty high for myself, I tend to have similar expectations of others...In my reading of the FF words, I get the sense they set fairly high expectations of those they representated, because they pledged themselves to them, to eachother...risked all for what they believed was a noble idea. I feel their noble ideas are cheapened by decisions of this type because the manipulation insults their sacrifice. We owe them something...we owe ourselves and our children more...

 

[Intune]

I feel their noble ideas are cheapened by decisions of this type because the manipulation insults their sacrifice. We owe them something...we owe ourselves and our children more...

And I feel that their noble ideas are cheapened by those who blatantly ignore the intent of our FF, quite clearly laid out in multiple drafts, thereby misleading ourselves, our children and others.


"And God spoke all these words, saying: 'I am the LORD your God…

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'



"nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed."

Our Buddhist friends in Alabama especially those REQUIRED to attend Judge Moore's court appreciate the higher Courts understanding.


On a directly related note, did anyone notice the drafts of the 2nd? Is this where the legal groundwork for being a conscientious objector originated? Interesting.