A theory on the Church/State question.

[jtexas]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by Ralph:<br /> Well said Alden - and that's what leads to a major backlash.<br />

alden I understand your position, however you do not understand mine. <br /><br />I assert that the constitution does not need to be amended, that it already prohibits Congress from making a pledge of allegiance including a religious reference into a law. In 1954 Congress passed such a law, it is 4 USC 4. <br /><br />Note that the supreme court has not yet ruled on this issue. When it does, and if my prediction is correct, you will have available to you the procedure you described for amending the constitution.<br /><br />It didn't harm me, but I am not in a position to judge whether it harms someone else; the constitution itself assigns that to the supreme court. You are suggesting that one dishonors the constitution by following the procedure outlined by the constitution. I find that illogical.<br /><br />The supreme court will rule on the issue.<br /><br />[edit-i didn't read JB's last post before typing, I see this part was redundant]<br /><br />

<br />JT, you'll have to show me where God is defined to be the Judeo-Christian God. Good luck. You'll also have to show me where people are forced to say the Pledge.<br />

You spent a lot of bandwidth trying to convince me that it is. I'll refer you back to your own arguments.<br /><br />

<br />Again, you can't offend 999 people just to make one person "feel" better. You can't build a society on that kind of logic when it involves something that is at the core of so many people lives; their belief in God - no matter how they define it. It is up to the 1 to be tolerant and understanding. <br />

The constitution protects the 1 from being oppressed by the 999. <br /><br />

<br />This hasn't been an issue for over 200 years until now because of a small group using the courts to further their agenda.<br />

Either it's constitutional or it's not; the supreme court is given power to decide.<br /><br />

<br />Now, why the big push to get God out of public life? One theory is, it's the first step at removing all moral based judgments - removing all the societal prohibitions on behavior. Now who would want such a thing? Gee, I wonder...<br />

I keep talking about the pledge and the currency and you keep putting other words in my mouth "get God out of public life." One might think that is because you need to expand the scope of the discussion in order to find support for your position.<br /><br />I assert that the removal of religious references from the pledge of alliegence and the currency will not result in the downfall of Christianity.<br /><br />The words "Gee, I wonder..." imply that you have an answer in mind - would you care to share it with us?<br /><br />

<br />Like Washington said:

<br />let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle

we already discussed this it's one man's opinion, reference my previous remarks from Madison. That's two of the framers; the others also published opinions. So what.<br /><br />

<br />Remember, I am not very religious but I understand its importance in the history and health of this nation. Just look to what is happening to Europe since they gave God the boot. Keep a close eye on them and read everything you can about what is really happening to them and their cultures. There but for the grace of God go us.

Remember, God agrees with me.

 

[jtexas]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by Ralph:<br /> I am just going to include this from the other post for completeness sake:<br />

<br />Newt Gingrich puts it best. What separates this country and its government from all others ever created is this: This nation was founded on the concept that all rights flow from God to the people and the people lend some of them back to the government. (We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness)<br /><br />All other governments are founded on the premise that all rights flow from the government to the people.<br /><br />Therefore, this is one nation under God rather than one nation under a government.

Gingrich is just dead wrong - what separates our government from others is that most other governments claimed to derive their authority to rule from God; ours gets its authority from the people. <br /><br />

governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

 

[jtexas]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by Quietcat:<br />[QB] <br /><br />JB asked if "under Buddha" would offend me. Not if I was immigrating to somewhere that already had that in place. I would have to accept that I was aware of that line (maybe) and I'd be an idiot to not understand their existing culture before I made a decision to go.

Are you suggesting that 1st generation naturalized American citizens are not entitled to the same rights and privileges as 3rd or 10th generation Americans?<br /><br />Okay, what if you were native born 3rd or 4th generation who had fought for your country, your native-born dad & grandad had fought & maybe died for it. <br /><br />

<br />The ostracizing of children in schools is done by bullies and zealots. That is not protected behavior and IMHO needs to be dealt with on its own. You can’t make people behave properly simply by removing a word in a Pledge or by its being there in the first place.<br />

See scenario described above. No ostracism, no bullies, other than your government, to whom you cannot pledge allegiance without denying your religion.<br /><br />

<br />The very definition of conservative is to leave well enough alone. The very definition of liberal is to desire and pursue change. I submit when it comes to the association of this country, its values, its Constitution and its history to Judeo-Christian values; I want it left alone . . . .

Then, you must agree with the liberals of 1955. A true conservative would want to put it back like it was.<br /><br />Tell me this: what does your religion tell you about the relationship between church and state?

 

[QC]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by jtexas:<br />

Originally posted by Quietcat:<br />[QB] <br /><br />JB asked if "under Buddha" would offend me. Not if I was immigrating to somewhere that already had that in place. I would have to accept that I was aware of that line (maybe) and I'd be an idiot to not understand their existing culture before I made a decision to go.

Are you suggesting that 1st generation naturalized American citizens are not entitled to the same rights and privileges as 3rd or 10th generation Americans?<br />

No, I'm saying that imigrants need to assimilate. Then the 2nd 3rd and 4th generations will be just fine. Some will call this racist, some will call this bigoted or whatever. It is purely a statement that cultural diversity is not necessarily a good thing. We should celebrate our heritage and live as Americans.<br /><br />

Originally posted by jtexas:<br /> Then, you must agree with the liberals of 1955. A true conservative would want to put it back like it was.

I was born in 1959 . . . And again I am against the change in the Pledge purely because it is IMHO just the first grain of sand. Logically, separately, without any other influence other than the Constitution, it should not be there. Oh, and who said I was a true conservative?<br /><br />

Originally posted by jtexas:<br /> Tell me this: what does your religion tell you about the relationship between church and state?

I dunno. Who said I was religious?

 

[alden135]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by JB:<br /> More irrelevant arguments.<br /><br />The question, for the fifth time, is whether Congress may make a law placing "under God" in the Pledge.<br /><br />That is the only question.<br /><br />These hysterical whines that nullifying the law is going to stamp out Christianity or deny Christians and Jews some inalienable right are nothing but a paranoid smokescreen.<br /><br />Get used to it, friends. The Constitution forbids Congress from making any law regarding the establishment of a state religion. Arguments that it ought to be able to because of blah, blah, blah require an amendment.<br /><br />If 999 people infringe the rights of one, they are wrong; and it is the job of the Supreme Court to say so.

Typical whining from JB in recent weeks. His way or the highway. All other viewpoints are "irrelevent" . His constitutional interpretations are flawed at best.

 

[jtexas]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by Quietcat:<br /> No, I'm saying that imigrants need to assimilate. Then the 2nd 3rd and 4th generations will be just fine.

Sounds like, when you say "assimilate," you mean "convert to Christianity" but I doubt that's what you meant. So did you mean "learn to profess a belief in our God regardless of what you actually believe?"<br /><br />

you wrote:<br /> I was born in 1959 . . . And again I am against the change in the Pledge purely because it is IMHO just the first grain of sand.

Hey, I was born in '59, too! So it's the old "slippery slope" theory. I understand that. Trust me, it'll be fine. <br /><br />

you wrote:<br /> Who said I was religious?

just wondered

 

[QC]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

jt,<br /><br />By assimilate I guess in this case I mean don't look for things to be offended by and you probably won't find any.<br /><br />I consider myself a Christian, but do not go to church much. I absolutely know that we did not poof out of nothing. There is a lot we don't understand, but when you think about it poofing out of nothing sounds an awful lot like creation to me too. I also know that if you believe in a higher authority you are more likely to behave decently. I am not saying that atheists can't behave, they just have no real reason to.

 

[DaleT]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

The assertion that atheists have no reason to behave is completely off base. If one has respect for both themselves and others they will "behave." I firmly believe if someones actions do not effect me I don't care what they do, live and let live. That bieng the case, I will not harm you so long as you are not trying to harm me. Harm being anything that is a direct detriment to my well being. <br /><br />To JBs question, my feeling is the Supreme Court will uphold the removal of the phrase, if it is even heard by the court. The allowance of the phrase, regardless of majority opinion, implicates a higher respect for faiths that use the term god. By giving these religions preferrential acceptance it forces other belief systems into a position where they must, in some way, accept a religion not of their choice. Not matter how many times you say its optional, it is not an acceptable social option.

 

[wilkin250r]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

I haven't seen any atheistic viewpoint that wishes to replace "under God" with "God does not exist".<br /><br />It seems to me, the atheist groups wish to remove ALL references, not insert their own.

 

[QC]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Dale,<br /><br />Let me clear my statement up. Without anything other than him/herself to answer to, the only reason that an atheist behaves is because he/she feels like it (forget jail for a minute). If you are alone in a dark alley and 4 men start walking down that alley, would you be comforted to know that they had just left Bible study?<br /><br />I never said that atheists behave badly and I don't believe that the vast majority of atheists behave badly. I do believe that there are a lot of indecent church goers.<br /><br />I am not sure why you would be offended with those clarifications.<br /><br />BTW, child molesters don't affect you unless they are molesting YOUR kids.

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

What religion is established by putting "under God" in the pledge or "their Creator" in the Declaration? What church is it?

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

You spent a lot of bandwidth trying to convince me that it is. I'll refer you back to your own arguments.

Show me where.<br /><br />

Then, you must agree with the liberals of 1955. A true conservative would want to put it back like it was

Silly argument as we'd go all the way back to where Christianity was so intertwined with government that it would set your brain on fire. When we prayed in teh classroom. Where we celebrated Christmas in the classroom. Where we had nativity scenes on the common paid for with public money, when laws were written stright from the bible, etc., etc., etc.<br /><br />It was changed in 55 to make clear where the power derived from and to differentiate us even more clearly from the Communists who were destroying the religious heritages of the people they were enslaving. It most countries the government is the ultimate authority, in the US it is God (no matter what your concept of God is)<br /><br />I'll put my money on the professor of history when it comes to where power is derived from in all the governments ever formed - The Communist - rights come from the Government. Dictatorships - from the government - Monarchies from God to the Monarch to the people. In the US from God, to the people to the government.

 

[QC]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by Ralph:<br />Communists who were destroying the religious heritages of the people they were enslaving.

And if those of you on the total separation kick don't see this as a real possibility, how did that happen in this case? Are Russian people just stupid? Do we have some monopoly on common sense? Oh and do you remember the name of St. Petersburg Russia prior to the current Gov't. Hmmmmm . . . Leningrad.

 

[JB]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

The same article that forbids Congress making laws with regard to establishment of a state religion also forbids Congress infringing on the free practice of religion.<br /><br />It seems to me that the argument that the Supreme Court (which hasn't said anything at all about "under God" in the Pledge) is trying to forbid God in public life is illogical.<br /><br />It seems to me that the framers, overwhelmingly devout Christians and Jews, wanted Congress and the rest of the government to not meddle in or with religion one way or the other. Congress and the Government clearly have meddled in and with religion (clear to me, anyway).<br /><br />I have no argument with the speeches about the contributions many religions have made to civilized behavior, or to our heritage. I just think they are beside the point. They are not legally relevant in questioning the meaning of the Constitution.

 

[jtexas]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Show me where.

must have been somebody else, sorry. <br /><br />

<br />

Then, you must agree with the liberals of 1955. A true conservative would want to put it back like it was

Silly argument

of course it was it was in response to a silly assertion made by somebody else.<br /><br />

<br />It was changed in 55 to make clear where the power derived from and to differentiate us even more clearly from the Communists who were destroying the religious heritages of the people they were enslaving. It most countries the government is the ultimate authority, in the US it is God (no matter what your concept of God is)<br />

I see you've read the congressional record, you've probably seen Eisenhower's speech. I know they were Christians, I believe that was their meaning.<br /><br />

<br />I'll put my money on the professor of history when it comes to where power is derived from in all the governments ever formed - The Communist - rights come from the Government. Dictatorships - from the government - Monarchies from God to the Monarch to the people. In the US from God, to the people to the government.

Exactly, from God to the people to the government; no direct link between God and govt.<br /><br />You're entitled to your opinion, the supreme court will decide.

 

[jtexas]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by Quietcat:<br /> jt,<br /><br />By assimilate I guess in this case I mean don't look for things to be offended by and you probably won't find any.<br />

I agree. I thought this case went beyond "looking for things" but I understand your point of view.<br /><br />

you wrote:<br />I consider myself a Christian, but do not go to church much. I absolutely know that we did not poof out of nothing. There is a lot we don't understand, but when you think about it poofing out of nothing sounds an awful lot like creation to me too. I also know that if you believe in a higher authority you are more likely to behave decently. I am not saying that atheists can't behave, they just have no real reason to.

I feel compelled to tell you that as a Christian I was surprised by your assertion that my religion is the only real reason for me to behave decently. I can't say for sure that it's wrong...I hope it's wrong.

 

[jtexas]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by alden:<br /> To Whom it May Concern,<br /><br />If you're one of those folks who support removing religious refrences from public, than try growing some stones and do it in the light of day.<br />We have a mechanism to have the Constitution ammended in this country. The reason you don't pursue that path is because you are sure to fail. Instead, you continue to dishonor the Constitution by utilizing activist judges to legislate from the bench to get your way. At some point, the legislature will be forced to reign in the unlawful actions of those same judges and begin to function as a true "equal" branch of government. If you truly feel you have a valid reason to change the Constitution, than go through the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE. That was the intention of the framers. Any dumb a$$ can at least understand that notion by reading the document, even the "living changeable doucument" crowd.

The responsibility of applying the constitution to laws passed by congress was given to whom?<br /><br />THE SUPREME COURT<br /><br />Where does the supreme court derive its responsibility to apply the constitution to laws passed by congress?<br /><br /> THE CONSTITUTION <br /><br />How does it dishonor the constitution when the supreme court excersizes its responsibility?<br /><br />IT DOESN'T<br /><br />The Constitution is fine as is, in my opinion, it does not require amending. If the supreme court makes an interpretation you disagree with, you are free to apply the mechanism you mentioned above.<br /><br />Why do you resort to name-calling, alden? Do you think it make you look smarter, or dumber?

 

[ebbtide176]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

yes, this has been a good topic. JT you seem to always be on the offensive. not even liberal or conservative, just trying to see what kind of debate you can run. that's something else. good luck. just remember to turn the light off when you're finished <br />(take that with a grain of salt as most do)<br /><br />thanx for the good topic JB. i remember times when most of the oldies here said ok i'm just gonna be me and the rest of ya can go do your own thing. kinda like what we find out in the constitution. i can see the need for some changes, but i also see what some think of as progress isn't very progressive. we have to abide by the constitution we were given, and hopefully we won't be changing it in every instance someone gets their feelings hurt.

 

[SpinnerBait_Nut]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Yea ebb, times have changed in the last couple years or so on here, huh?<br /><br />I too have noticed that about JT, always on the offensive like someone is out to get em or something.<br />Oh well, on to the next topic.

 

[DaleT]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

QC, all apologies if I infered something into your post that was not there. Just get a little touchy on the "heathen atheist" retoric, not your words. <br />Four men walking down an alley at me coming from Bible Study would actually alarm me, if you see the alleys around here you'ld understand. But I see your point, and to be honest the thought of they're religion/faith would not cross my mind. Honestly not something I ever think about.<br />As to the child molestation well we could get going on the whole "it takes a village" thing, but thats a whole different beast.