Screw it, I give up

[Vandy Vol]

TL;DR. All I heard was yadda yadda bubbbbbbbbblllllleee bub burp yadda yep doodle dee doo yadda yoo intent bobbity bop Hooooodie Hooooo! What do you think you are a fudgeing lawyer or something?

There were three burps, eight yaddas, and two bubbbbbbbbblllllleees in my post.  Don't twist what I'm saying.

[Kaos]

Through this maze of bullshoot Kaos has crafted, he has successfully been able to saturate the point he was trying to make earlier out of the conversation. You know, before he insulted the profession of half this board, while simultaneously claiming he "knows the profession" better than those who've studied it since their early 20s.

That point was that the poor, white, Christian majority ain't got the same rights no more as ever'one else.

I can't even put myself into the brain of someone who that grossly lacks logic. It would make sense only if quotes from the Q'uaran, Torah, and the works of Buddha were up there, but the Ten Commandments weren't allowed. But of course, again, you know that.

No one is saying you can't decorate your house like this loon in Prattville I grew up down the road from if you want:




Doing that, or any other religious iconography is very clearly endorsing one religion over another. It's also clear from those idiotic statements from the legislature that that is exactly the goal.

And saying that interpreting the First Amendment as a "Separation of Church and State" is some literalist over analysis of what the word "is" is, leaving the actual intention by the wayside?? Again, the unintentional irony is astounding. Do you think Bill Maher & Rachel Maddow came up with the phrase? Or was it, you know, the people who wrote the Constitution?

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
You have to be functionally retarded to interpret that ANY WAY that would allow a government property, let alone a fudgeing court house, to show favoritism to ANY religion over ANY other by prominently displaying its iconography.

Okay, we now know of at least one person who lacks the reading comprehension skills required to interpret the constitution (or any other document) and extract any legitimate meaning. 

That you could take what I have written and turn it into ^^ this frothing rampage?  Pretty shocking inability to comprehend concepts. 

[AUChizad]

Okay, we now know of at least one person who lacks the reading comprehension skills required to interpret the constitution (or any other document) and extract any legitimate meaning. 

That you could take what I have written and turn it into ^^ this frothing rampage?  Pretty shocking inability to comprehend concepts. 

What did I miss?

First Amendment doesn't "expressly mention the separation of church and state."   

While I realize that's how the SC has typically twisted the phrase regarding the "establishment of religion" I disagree with that interpretation. The SC isn't infallible. Study history. That phrase was meant to prevent the government from creating a "Church of the US" and forcing everyone to be subject to the rules of that church as had happened when the "Church of England" had been created and used to impose the personal will of Henry VIII (who only wanted a divorce).  It was never intended to prevent the expression of religion. In fact, the rest of the amendment --which you ignore -- expressly prevents stifling the expression which is what is happening here.

"Separation of Church and State" does not truly exist in the way it has been implemented in the last 30+ years.


This is really a small part of a much larger argument.  We have drifted so far into the protection of the whims of a minuscule minority that the rights of the majority are being trampled. Should 1000 people really be denied their right to express their faith because it makes one person uncomfortable?

We've seen it with smoking. The non-smoking minority of the 70s pushed the agenda to the point that smokers are essentially exiled now.

What about my tomato aversion. The sight of the things makes me physically ill. I hate them. Seeing them on salad bars or on people's sandwiches or plates ruins my dinner. Since I am inconvenienced shouldn't I have the right to demand that all tomatoes be removed from restaurants around the country? Why aren't my rights being considered?

Your false argument that not being able to prominently display the 10 Commandments on a court house wall is equivalent to banning others from consuming tomatoes demonstrates your lack of understanding on the meaning of Separation of Church & State.

No one's taking your Bible away.

[Kaos]

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as Sent

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Please find for me in the Constitution where this exists. I looked and can't find a single mention of the Danbury Baptists. 

This was one man's opinion.  One man who contributed to the discussion that framed the Constitution, but not the sole contributor by any means. 

[CCTAU]

Posting the 10 Commandments makes us like Saudi Arabia and other oppressive countries, where Sharia law and the law of the land are one and the same, and everyone is judged under rules that result in the nearly automatic conviction of non-Christians, and the application of barbaric punishments.  Yeah, I want to be like that.

In this case, not even close. The proposal is to allow it to be hung as a historical document along with others. If hung alone, I see a point.

The problem with the current ruling is that it does not allow for the fact that the ten commandments is and has been a basis for our secular law from a historical point. Nothing in our country's history has ever been based on islamic or sharia law and therefore could not qualify as a historical document pertaining to our laws.

If you hung the Hammurabi code in the wall, I feel that would be historical also. But because that is not associated with Christianity, many would not say a word.

It's not really fair and impartial to throw it out because it is in the Bible is it?

To disallow it from anywhere in government buildings IS religious persecution. And a denial of where our law came from in a historical context. 

[AUChizad]

Please find for me in the Constitution where this exists. I looked and can't find a single mention of the Danbury Baptists. 

This was one man's opinion.  One man who contributed to the discussion that framed the Constitution, but not the sole contributor by any means.

Because every Ammendment is one goddamn sentence. You're the one saying others are trying to speak for the founding fathers. Read what they had to say about it. Read what their obvious intentions were if you don't think they were clear enough in their one sentence, read where he fleshed out the exact phrasing that is in there:

the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

How much clearer can he be? And it's not just him. quoted Madison as well. And it's not just those two. Please find me ONE quote from anyone who framed the Constitution that says they wanted religious iconography to be displayed in a courthouse. Or anything that even remotely indicates that Jefferson was alone in his "separation of church and state" "interpretation" of what he himself wrote, and really they thought that religion should totes be all up in our laws.

[Kaos]

What did I miss?


Your false argument that not being able to prominently display the 10 Commandments on a court house wall is equivalent to banning others from consuming tomatoes demonstrates your lack of understanding on the meaning of Separation of Church & State.

No one's taking your Bible away.

Did I say it was equivalent? 

The tomato analogy was outlined as a part of a much broader discussion. Perhaps you missed that. 

My contention is that in our rush to bow to the will of the few, we trample the rights of the many. The "church and state" argument is a small part of that, but a part nonetheless. The entire "church and state" argument (which is fraudulent on its face) has extended to the point that clerks at Target are prohibited from wishing shoppers Merry Christmas because one in ten thousand might take offense.

Do I think there should be a Church of 'Merica with Brother Bush at its head?  Of course not. I believe people should have the right to choose how or if they worship.  But I also don't believe the First Amendment was designed to prevent a student from wearing a Jesus Saves shirt to school, or a teacher from wearing a cross pin, or a school assembly being required to omit the words "Under God" from the pledge.  Yet these are all real-world examples of how this bogus "church-state" nonsense has been applied.

[Kaos]

Because every Ammendment is one goddamn sentence. You're the one saying others are trying to speak for the founding fathers. Read what they had to say about it. Read what their obvious intentions were if you don't think they were clear enough in their one sentence, read where he fleshed out the exact phrasing that is[/bi] in there:
How much clearer can he be? And it's not just him. quoted Madison as well. And it's not just those two. Please find me ONE quote from anyone who framed the Constitution that says they wanted religious iconography to be displayed in a courthouse. Or anything that even remotely indicates that Jefferson was alone in his "separation of church and state" "interpretation" of what he himself wrote, and really they thought that religion should totes be all up in our laws.

Well perhaps he should have written it that way, then.  Too bad he didn't.  You can't use that now because it's not part of the Constitution.  Any lawyer should be able to tell you that.  Have to read and interpret only what it says.

And "I'M" trying to speak for the Founding Fathers?  No, we've had a Supreme Court twisting that all up for 40 years now. I'm merely reading it and interpreting it in the sense in which I believe it was intended, absent all the reversible case law that's been added as support since.  You do understand that everything you believe can be turned on its head by the next set of robes who can read the same thing and come up with a different conclusion than the previous ones, don't you?  It's happened before. It will happen again.

I guess when they were BUILDING THE CAPITOL they meant for the religious iconography to be excluded from the buildings and simply forgot. Or maybe they thought the statue of Moses was Jerry Garcia. Or maybe when they were carving GOD in the marble, Jefferson was out banging a slave and it was too late for him to object when he finally saw it.

Because all that was done in his lifetime.  Except the slave banging I guess.

[AUChizad]

The entire "church and state" argument (which is fraudulent on its face) has extended to the point that clerks at Target are prohibited from wishing shoppers Merry Christmas because one in ten thousand might take offense.

They choose to no longer say Merry Christmas because alienating non-Christians is not profitable to their bottom line. They're a private business, not a government agency. See Chick-Fil-A for why this has nothing to do with separation of church & state.

But I also don't believe the First Amendment was designed to prevent a student from wearing a Jesus Saves shirt to school

You sure that's "real world"? Cause I've never heard of it, nor is google turning up any results. If true, it sounds like a violation of the other part of that kid's first amendment right. But I doubt it's true, and even further doubt that it was upheld as constitutional.

or a teacher from wearing a cross pin

Again, link? I call BS.

or a school assembly being required to omit the words "Under God" from the pledge.

This is the only legitimate example you listed. "Under God" was artificially added by Eisenhower in 54. The founding fathers would have never put it in there. I don't have strong feelings one way or another about this, other than in hindsight, the addition was unnecessary and kind of is unconstitutional. I'm not crusading to remove it, but if someone claims to be offended by it, I can see their point.

[CCTAU]

And there are many other founding father who had no problem mixing church with state:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755


there is an argument that can always be made from both sides.

Kaos is right, the few have taken form the many. The problem with the few vs. the many, is ther is no middle ground for the few.

The letter from Jefferson to his constituents is not reason enough to base constitutional law on. It is a huge stretch.

If we go by what some of the guys I linked to said, we should have God everywhere in government. But I don't subscribe to that either.

The absolute removal af the ten commandments from government buildings is ridiculous and the greatest example of how the few interpret what seems to be an easy concept by the many.

What Alabama is proposing is in no way unconstitutional according to the original document. (not the hijacked one)

[Snaggletiger]

There were three burps, eight yaddas, and two bubbbbbbbbblllllleees in my post.  Don't twist what I'm saying.

snicker-snort

[AWK]

From this conversation, Kaos and CCTAU would be perfectly fine with hanging quotes and verses from the Quran in Alabama Schools and Courthouses. 

[Vandy Vol]

You sure that's "real world"? Cause I've never heard of it, nor is google turning up any results. If true, it sounds like a violation of the other part of that kid's first amendment right. But I doubt it's true, and even further doubt that it was upheld as constitutional.

The Supreme Court of the United States has long held that public school students retain their constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech and expression. This includes the right to wear Christian t-shirts and other religious paraphernalia. See, e.g., Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007); Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001); Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988); Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981); Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

Consistent decisions from 1969 to 2007 that, under the Constitution, children have the right to wear religious paraphernalia.  Man, our religious freedoms have just been eroded by the liberal court system's improper interpretation of the Constitution since the good ole days.

[CCTAU]

From this conversation, Kaos and CCTAU would be perfectly fine with hanging quotes and verses from the Quran in Alabama Schools and Courthouses.

You stupidly missed all references to historical value.

[Kaos]

They choose to no longer say Merry Christmas because alienating non-Christians is not profitable to their bottom line. They're a private business, not a government agency. See Chick-Fil-A for why this has nothing to do with separation of church & state.
You sure that's "real world"? Cause I've never heard of it, nor is google turning up any results. If true, it sounds like a violation of the other part of that kid's first amendment right. But I doubt it's true, and even further doubt that it was upheld as constitutional.
Again, link? I call BS.
This is the only legitimate example you listed. "Under God" was artificially added by Eisenhower in 54. The founding fathers would have never put it in there. I don't have strong feelings one way or another about this, other than in hindsight, the addition was unnecessary and kind of is unconstitutional. I'm not crusading to remove it, but if someone claims to be offended by it, I can see their point.

You and your freaking links.  There was life before Bing.

I don't have a link to every document I've ever read in my life.  But if you want to google hard enough you'll find examples of people

The  Christian shirt ban was from Delaware I think.  But I've read about several. Here's another where a New York school choir couldn't sing Silent Night.  Of course you have to go to London to read about it because American media won't report this:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2526672/Parents-outrage-teachers-cut-references-Jesus-Christ-school-choirs-rendition-Silent-Night.html

A woman I taught with was personally told to remove a cross pin she was wearing on the collar of her dress when I taught.  I'm sorry I don't have her address and phone number.  I was told I couldn't mention the "religious aspects" of The Crusades when I taught history.  Couldn't figure out how to discuss that without mentioning religion so we just skipped over it.

[Vandy Vol]

And there are many other founding father who had no problem mixing church with state:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755


there is an argument that can always be made from both sides.

The vast majority of those quotes are concerning their own religious beliefs.  "I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world."  "I . . . [rely] upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins."  "I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others."

There is no doubt that the majority of the founders were Christian (although many of those founders who were quoted, such as Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson, were actually deists or had a very distinct religious belief that was loosely based on Christianity).  However, history does not reflect that their desire was to incorporate Christianity or any specific religion into our government in any way.  Regardless of their personal beliefs, they made it clear that those should remain as personal beliefs, and not be espoused or favored by the government.

Afterall, that site full of quotes includes religious statements from Jefferson, who actually originated the "separation of church and state" phrase.  Or Madison, who said that the government functions with complete success "by the total separation of the Church from the State."  Or Franklin, who posited that a religion should be able to support itself, and that if it can not support itself, then it is not a good one.  We can paint the founders as Christians all day, but it doesn't affect their political stance regarding the separation of church and state.

[AWK]

You stupidly missed all references to historical value.

Lulz, thanks for proving my point.  Quran has no historical value?  It is ok to hang it as long as it is your religion.

[CCTAU]

Lulz, thanks for proving my point.  Quran has no historical value?  It is ok to hang it as long as it is your religion.

Whiffed again!

[AWK]

Whiffed again!

My entire point, is that you claim some historical value argument as to why you think the ten commandments should be able to be displayed.  1.  The founding fathers (who some were Christian) and constitution strictly fought to have a separation of Church and State and 2. your argument is just to hide your true reason for wanting the commandments displayed.

[GH2001]

I wouldn't take medical advice from a plumber, plumbing advice from a doctor or legal analysis from someone who isn't qualified to render same.

Would have been nice to know this when a bunch of lawyers wrote the ACA and Dodd Frank. Both failures. And don't even try to argue the second one.  Hint hint - I'm in the financial industry.

For the record and back to the lecture at hand - I'm with Wench here. It's not a secret we aren't atheists or liberals. But I don't really favor displaying ANY religious material on govt property in a public manner either. As long as it's consistent it doesn't bother me. Fair enough right? I try to stick to my libertarian guns as much as possible and wouldn't be able to call myself such if I didn't have this stance.

I'm a Christian (although I have come to despise organized religion) and as long as the govt has not interfered with me and my practicing of freedom of religion, then the govt's Constitutional obligation has been met. Half of the problem is there isn't much of a pragmatic voice in social debates. The religious right gets bent out of shape about wanting their stuff everywhere with authority without much resort to "reason" or "legality" - and the atheist side makes a mockery of everything and anything that someone religious might believe. Not exactly a recipe for civility.