Pledge Unconstitutional

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by D. Scarlatti


What am I saying they meant? I didn't say anything about their "original intention."

Have you ever heard of judicial review? It's been in force in this country since 1809. And that's what the 9th Circuit did. They held the 1954 act of Congress up to judicial review, and found it violative of the establishment clause. And in doing so the 9th Circuit relied entirely on Supreme Court precedent.  The Supreme Court has already wrestled with the framers' original intention; in fact original intention is often the methodology employed when evaluating whether legislation passes constitutional muster. 

Yes I have heard of judicial review.  And you showed my point.  I think that it is clear the signers never meant to say what is being said today.  That is very clear.  Now does this make it wrong?  No.  But we must look at that very carefully. 

However it is one method among many and it is fraught with difficulty. But if it is "obvious" to you what the framers meant, then you are free to pontificate away, because decades and decades of federal jurisprudence has failed to agree what is "obvious" to you. [/B]

Well if they they wrote state constitutions that had religous tests after they signed the constitution is that not obvious? Now i am not saying religous test are right but I think it makes it pretty clear that their interpretation of what was written varies greatly with the current view.

Then why did it take until the 1954 for "under God" to appear in the Pledge of Allegience? Why doesn't "God" appear all over the Constitution? Why doesn't it appear anywhere in the Constitution? And how do you know they didn't want "God" on their money? Did they have "God" on their money? No.[/B]

 

Okay they did not have God on their money.  So what?!  What is more revealing religous test or "god" on money?  Now why is god not mentioned in the U.S. constitution is a good question.  I do not know.  And I believe some church and state seperation (as we believe it today) was believed by them.  And that could be the reason that god is not mentioned in teh constitution.  However I feel again that it is clear that the men who signed the constitution did not believe that no form of government could make no mention of god.   

Then you are a truly remarkable individual because the federal courts, comprising some of the finest legal and historical minds in the country, have failed to discern what is so strikingly "obvious" to you.

Possibly some reading of federal establishment clause decisions are in order? Specifically today's 9th Circuit decision? [/B]

You know your sarcasm is funny.  You say I am wrong because other experts say they do not know if I am wrong or not.  You forget that it is everyone's DUTY to make up their own minds on what the constitution says and how it is interpreted.  Now my belief does not hold a lot of weight when it comes to what is DEEMED as unconstitutional or Constitutional but it is still my duty to study and have my own view of how to interpret the constitution. 

So if the only thing you have is an argument an appeal to authority then do not bother replying. 

blackhawk

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet



Good, you agree that atheism is not a religion. Excellent.


Inasmuch as Mathematics, then, is a belief in the effectiveness of math, Linguistics is a belief in the principles of language, and Etymology is the belief in the derivations of words, then yes, atheism is the belief that there are no gods.

BTW, instead of quoting dictionary definitions of atheism by uncertain sources (most of whom are likely not atheists), gee, perhaps you might want to defer to actual atheists on the subject? (Kind of like how I'd defer to mothers about whether childbirth is painful or not.) 

   Jeff

 

I have spoken to many atheists about the definition of atheism.  I do not see why that makes much difference though. 

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

So if the only thing you have is an argument an appeal to authority then do not bother replying. 

blackhawk

Likewise, if your only argument is an appeal to Websters ...

   Jeff

 

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Blackhawk

Well if they they wrote state constitutions that had religous tests after they signed the constitution is that not obvious? Now i am not saying religous test are right but I think it makes it pretty clear that their interpretation of what was written varies greatly with the current view.

Or they figured they could get away with it, or they figured that individual states could make laws that the federal government couldn't - which was certainly the case.

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by Blackhawk


I have spoken to many atheists about the definition of atheism.  I do not see why that makes much difference though. 

Just that we might (gasp) have a pretty good idea about what atheism is and is not.

    Jeff

 

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet


Likewise, if your only argument is an appeal to Websters ...

   Jeff

 

 

was my definition wrong?  show me where it was. 

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by Blackhawk


 

was my definition wrong?  show me where it was. 

Moot. A definition does not an argument make.

   Jeff

P.S. I bet nobody catches the joke in this post!

 

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet


Just that we might (gasp) have a pretty good idea about what atheism is and is not.

    Jeff

 

okay but you do not have to be an atheist to know what an atheist is.  Just like you do not have to be a theist to know what a theist is. 

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Blackhawk

was my definition wrong?  show me where it was. 

In practice, it's incomplete. The word "atheism" is used to refer both to lack of opinion about God, and active disbelief. It's confusing, but it's certainly part of the language now.

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by Blackhawk


okay but you do not have to be an atheist to know what an atheist is.  Just like you do not have to be a theist to know what a theist is. 

Possibly, but when there's a dispute between an atheist and a non-atheist about what an atheist is ...

   Jeff

 

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by seebs


Or they figured they could get away with it, or they figured that individual states could make laws that the federal government couldn't - which was certainly the case.

interesting point but it still says that they believed that some forms of government should not be subject to the "seperation of church and state" as we believe it today.  Which was a point way back there somewhere. 

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by Blackhawk


interesting point but it still says that they believed that some forms of government should not be subject to the "seperation of church and state" as we believe it today.  Which was a point way back there somewhere. 

If you want to live in a place where there's no separation of church and state, you might want to consider moving to Iran.

   Jeff

 

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet


If you want to live in a place where there's no separation of church and state, you might want to consider moving to Iran.

   Jeff

 

Hmmm. So I have either total 100% seperation using todays belief in it or I want the U.S. to be like Iran?  Is there nothing in between? 

 

[MyJhongFist]

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet



Good, you agree that atheism is not a religion. Excellent. 




 

 

I agree Jeff.  It is not a religion.  But, more often than not, I find it clung to with religious fervor.

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by Blackhawk


Hmmm. So I have either total 100% seperation using todays belief in it or I want the U.S. to be like Iran?  Is there nothing in between? 

I honestly don't think so. It's a bivalent statement: either all religions are treated equally, or they are not treated equally. If you give any religion or group of religions preference, you do so to the detriment of all the others. (Not to mention the atheists and agnostics.)

   Jeff

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by MyJhongFist


 

I agree Jeff.  It is not a religion.  But, more often than not, I find it clung to with religious fervor.

I'd rather phrase that as "fantaticism" instead, to avoid confusing the issue. Do you agree that this is what you meant?

    Jeff

 

 

[MyJhongFist]

Originally posted by Blackhawk


Hmmm. So I have either total 100% seperation using todays belief in it or I want the U.S. to be like Iran?  Is there nothing in between? 

 

It's that way with most supporters of this type of decision.  It's either all or nothing.  All one way or the other, with no compromise.

the anti establisment clause clearly states:  Congress shall make no law in regards to establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof....

For people who support this legislation, that means that government cannot even mention God at all.  That is a gross mis-interpretation. 

All the anti establishment clause means is that government cannot establish a state religion and force people to ascribe to it.  That has not happened. 

In no way is it even implied that government cannot even breathe about, or make mention of God or gods. 

 

 

[MyJhongFist]

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet


I'd rather phrase that as "fantaticism" instead, to avoid confusing the issue. Do you agree that this is what you meant?

    Jeff

 

 

Yes, I will agree with that. 

However the parallel between fanatacism and religious fervor is very close indeed.

I am a Christian, and I even admit so....

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

I disagree. The government supporting a religion or group of religions is de facto establishing a state religion (or group thereof).

Oh, this is so ironic. All these Christians arguing against freedom of religion, when that was what brought them here in the first place.

Again, for the umpteenth time, imagine that instead of stressing "God" they were stressing "Budha". Would you truly be this supportive of this point of view if that were the case? Honestly now? Would you be encouraging our government to keep using "Buddha" in an official capacity?

Jeff

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by MyJhongFist


 

Yes, I will agree with that. 

However the parallel between fanatacism and religious fervor is very close indeed.

I am a Christian, and I even admit so....

Thank you. It's important to differentiate between atheism and a religion, and using the word "religious" in the same sentence as "atheism" simply muddies the water.

I agree that there are fanatic atheists. There are fanatics in every profession, philosophy, and hobby. Atheism is no different in that respect. There are people who argue the physics of "Star Trek" back and forth, and who debate whether Superman could beat up Batman.

But fanaticism is characterized by irrational zeal, and the tough part of the definition is the question, "What is rational zeal, and who makes that determination?"

Thus, like theists, whether someone is a fanatic depends on your point of view. Certainly, from Al Queda's point of view, the terrorists are not fanatic. From our point of view, they are.

But I'm not sure how fanaticism ties in to this discussion. Can you please elaborate?

   Jeff