Newsweek's Poll on the 10 Commandments

[ReillyT]

By the way Musicman, I stated you were a twit on a post last week when you wrote something that really got my hackles raised. I apologize. I was just in a bad mood, I guess. You are really quite thoughtful and I wish that I hadn't written that.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

On top of that, there is ambiguity in what the First Amendment really means and to what extent it extends to matters like nativity decorations and the like.

It's not ambiguous at all. it just doesn't say what the Christophobes wish it said.

Does the establishment clause mean that the government can have nothing to do with any religion or religious symbols? I think that this is exactly what it means (with a couple of common sense exceptions) because I think it is the surest way to make sure that government also stays out of the way people practice their religions privately, but reasonable minds could definitely differ on this issue.

Again, for the dense. A decoration is not a law establishing religion, nor is it a law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

 

[musicman]

By the way Musicman, I stated you were a twit on a post last week when you wrote something that really got my hackles raised. I apologize. I was just in a bad mood, I guess. You are really quite thoughtful and I wish that I hadn't written that.

No problem, Reilly. As I recall, things got a bit heated both ways. Just one of those misunderstandings that pop up as a consequence of spirited debate now and then. I enjoy chatting with you!

 

[musicman]

Does the establishment clause mean that the government can have nothing to do with any religion or religious symbols? I think that this is exactly what it means (with a couple of common sense exceptions) because I think it is the surest way to make sure that government also stays out of the way people practice their religions privately, but reasonable minds could definitely differ on this issue.

Ah, but who is this government, who may have nothing to do with religion? The only clear specificity given by the Constitution is "Congress" - which , of course, means the federal government. This was designed as communities' protection from centralized government, handing down edicts from on high, on matters that are none of its business. To lump in community government - which is to say, the community - is to use constitutional protections - meant for the community - AGAINST the community, in favor of the very centralized government the founders were trying to protect the community from in the FIRST place.

He who would interpret the Constitution should take the Constitution in CONTEXT.

 

[Merlin1047]

And no, the Constitution does not make reference to God. The founders did that purging for us. You have simply conveniently created that 'fact' for your own purposes.

Well no, actually I didn't "create" that. But I got it wrong anyway. Confused the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution's preamble. Senior moment, I guess. Sorry.

But here is what I was referring to:

http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

See? Lots of mention of God there, although it's not in the Constitution as I stated. So I'll admit I goofed on my reference. But I doubt that the founding fathers ever envisioned the degree to which leftists have hounded any mention of God. Matter of fact, you can find plenty of statements which imply that government and law should be based on religious precepts.

 

[Zebra]

There are ambiguities. First, the most obvious way that the 14th amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights would be in the section of the 14th amendment that says states cannot deprive individuals of the "privileges and immunities" of federal citizenship. That section, however, was rendered meaningless by Supreme Court decisions in the 1870's that were aimed at preserving the rights of state governments to keep black people from voting, etc. Then, decades later, the USSC rhad to resurect the meaning of the amendment by using the Equal Protection clause to say that, in fact, the States really can't deprive persons of federal rights and immunities. Second, the amendment refers to states, but the Supreme Court has applied it to municipality governments as well. I think there are good reasons to do so, but I am not sure if the text makes it clear that this is necessary. (It might, does anyone know if municipal governments are considered as sub-units of state governments? I have no idea.)

On top of that, there is ambiguity in what the First Amendment really means and to what extent it extends to matters like nativity decorations and the like. Does the establishment clause mean that the government can have nothing to do with any religion or religious symbols? I think that this is exactly what it means (with a couple of common sense exceptions) because I think it is the surest way to make sure that government also stays out of the way people practice their religions privately, but reasonable minds could definitely differ on this issue.

Anyway, lots of issues. I do like the 14th Amendment though. I think it does add a lot of protections for individual persons from the government.

what do you think?