Topic: The Bill of Non-Rights (Read 12825 times)

Demosthenes · « **Reply #25 on:** June 08, 2004, 12:44:38 PM »

Quote from: reimero

You can't remove the historical faith element from government completely. Or would you remove all military and Congressional chaplains, re-mint every piece of currency, rework the Great Seal (which dates back to 1781), change the national anthem (read the third verse sometime) and most of our other patriotic songs, and eliminate Christmas as a national holiday?

Sounds good to me! None of those have any purpose other than to promote or endorse religious views, so they don't belong.

Note that this again in no way interferes with the religious practices of anyone that does happen to be religious.

Well, I guess with the exception of those that insist that their religious practices MUST include state endorsement of their religion, but that doesn't really count.

Quote

People who want every religious element removed from anything remotely related to government are nothing but self-serving idiots with no sense of national identity or history who are mostly interested in being jackasses.

Well that was certainly uncalled-for. I was under the impression that this could be a fairly civil discussion, but I was apparently incorrect.

And "self-serving"? NOT promoting religion via the government serves more than excluding those that don't share whatever faith is being promoted. It creates the most fair environment for the widest possible array of belief systems, INCLUDING those that might not want to believe in anything at all.

Contrast this with insisting that the government promote ONLY CHRISTIANITY or ONLY MONOTHEISM.

Oh that's just ducky if you happen to be a Christian or a monotheist, right? But for those that are not, you're basically saying "screw you, you bunch of filthy heathens!".

So on one hand, you have A) A concept that allows greatest number of individuals the greatest possible lattitude, and B) A concept that excludes anyone that doesn't share your religious beliefs.

Which one of those is "self-serving"?

Quote

Frankly, I'd rather the federal government not waste its time and money worrying about this sort of thing (not that they should be spending the time and money figuring out how to work it in, either.)

I agree! It's a lot simpler and cheaper for the taxpayers to just leave it all out instead of fighting tooth-and-nail to do something that it shouldn't be doing to begin with and serves no purpose in government anyway.

Quote

But I find extreme anti-religious-symbol zeal quite offensive and ignorant.

So do I. I make a very conscious point to be as accepting of the beliefs of others as I possibly can.

Silly me though... I also have this nagging little insistence that I be shown respect in turn. Believe in your god, go to your place of worship, pray how you wish, raise your kids with whatever faith you like.

But keep it off of my money, out of my courthouses, and out of the government, because it serves no purpose there but to proselytize and exclude, and that is not the role of a civilized government towards its own citizens. That is the role of an oppressive, primitive, backward one.

And frankly, this revisionist dogma regarding the Founding Fathers is getting pretty ridiculous these days.

Tell me something... if a bunch of Christians got together to found and write the cornerstone of a "Christian Nation", don't you think they would have mentioned God or Christ at least ONCE in the document they would have created to start the ball rolling? Even once? Somewhere?

The United States' cornerstone is the US Constitution. God doesn't show up in my copy of it. Neither does Christ. Or Calvin. Or Allah. Or Aquinas.

But a whole MESS of stuff does show up that's almost word-for-word taken from the works of Locke and other writers of freethought philosophy of the time... things that promote individual rights over the state, and rights to speak one's mind, and believe how one wants, and to do what one wishes in order to be happy by their own standards, and respecting those same rights of others.

It's funny, but a country founded as a "Chrisian Nation" would respect none of those things that our Founding Fathers apparently held very dear.

And it's funny, but "religion" itself isn't even mentioned in the Constitution, except as a negative, where it's prohibited from being established officially and where it is prohibited to require public servants to be religiously affiliated.

But I think this discussion is essentially over if we must resort to ad hominems for lack of valid arguments.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #26 on:** June 08, 2004, 12:58:19 PM »

Quote from: xolik

What of people going out of their way to remove anything remotely religious from our society? Things of historical significance that just happen to be based on a particular faith. Like a little tiny, itty-bitty, cross on a state seal that was put there to represent the role missions had in founding a state. Does that count as an endorsement? There were a bunch of other, non-religious symbols on said seal that acknowledged other parts of our history as well. It's not like it was a giant cross and nothing else.

I'd be a heck of a lot more willing to compromise on things like that that aren't so exclusionary and all-encompassing. Like I've said, I'm not on an "anti-religious" crusade.

A tiny cross on a state flag isn't an endorsement, not in my opinion anyway. I don't think there are many out there that are really claiming that it is... none that I'm familiar with anyway that have any real credibility as anyone other than a frothing, writhing extremist.

IN GOD WE TRUST on every fricken piece of currency out there sure as hell is an endorsement though. It's totally unnecessary, and at the very least is misrepresentational of the citizenry as "WE".

Maybe if it said "IN GOD MANY OF US TRUST, BUT SOME OF US TRUST IN OTHER DEITIES, AND SOME TRUST IN NONE, AND SOME ARE UNWILLING TO MAKE UP THEIR MINDS".

Wait... too awkward and encumbering to try and accommodate every possibility?

It'd be a lot easier to just not bother, wouldn't it? That's not "anti-religious", Xolik... that's just expediency, common sense, and in my opinion a lot more respectful of the beliefs of others.

And what do you know? It doesn't violate anyone's rights! Simple solution!

Quote

If California was founded by Satanists, I'd expect an inverted pentagram on the state seal somewhere as well. If anything, it would be cooler looking...

But still pretty inappropriate. How do you think non-Satanists living in California would feel about an emblem of their state representing them as something they're not?

Quote

There is quickly becoming no middle ground here. It's either the guys on one side who want to turn this country into a Theocracy or the other side that wants to make it hate crime to say "God bless" to somebody if that person sneezes.

Well, I'm not of that side. That's oppressive and infringing of individual rights. Say "God bless" if you want. I won't stop you. Go to church. Go to no church. You won't get any interference from me.

In fact, I'll go out of my way to speak out in your favour if anyone DOES try and interfere with your rights to practice your religion or faith however you please.

Unless you insist that that practice will infringe on the rights of others. Then you'll find me opposing you.

I think what grates against some people is the fact that the "middle ground" means "not picking favorites", so it's a lot easier to just mislabel that middle ground as "anti-religious" than it is to admit that respecting everyone's rights is the correct approach.

Quote

Look, like it or hate it Christians played a part in making this country. So did Jews. So did just about everybody else from all over. When it gets to the point when we try to hide and shame one group of people or drive them out of the arena of ideas based solely upon what that group believes in, then we have given up everything that the founders worked so hard to create.

I agree wholeheartedly!

Quote

One more thing that's been bugging me...the Ten Commandments? Not Christian. Jewish, thank you very much. Do Christians claim to follow them? Sure. Did Christ pull them out of his rear and hand them to the disciples as some new great thing? Well, I wasn't there personally, but I'd say no. To imply that the whole Ten Commandments thing is an exclusive thing only to Christians is grossly mistaken.

Yeah, I've never really gotten that either. Why aren't Jews jumping up and down about the 10C being removed from courthouses? It was their set of rules before it was Christians', wasn't it?

xolik · « **Reply #27 on:** June 08, 2004, 12:58:51 PM »

See, this is what I like so much about Demosthenes. He can be eloquent with his points and not run out of substance and resort to name calling. It's always a pleasure to have a political\religious discussion with him because I know I'm going to get, if anything, a well thought out response. I'm happy being a Christian and he's happy with not being one, and yet throughout the entire time we've known each other, neither one of us tried to convert the other or resort to name calling. Then comes reimero, who isn't helping the cause. Demo, I don't think you're going to find an explicit mentioning of Jesus anywhere in the founding documents because, as it was stated earlier, this is why we left England in the first place. To get away from a govt. mandated\backed\promoted shamelessly religion.

**edit**

@ Maybe if it said "IN GOD MANY OF US TRUST, BUT SOME OF US TRUST IN OTHER DEITIES, AND SOME TRUST IN NONE, AND SOME ARE UNWILLING TO MAKE UP THEIR MINDS".

Very well then, abortions for some, tiny American flags for others!

Demosthenes · « **Reply #28 on:** June 08, 2004, 01:03:54 PM »

Thanks, Xolik. That's the nicest thing anyone's said to me in weeks.

reimero · « **Reply #29 on:** June 08, 2004, 01:10:16 PM »

All right, I apologize for the offending remarks.

But this neo-revisionist view of seperation of church and state angers me greatly. The monotheistic insinuations and leanings are well-documented. This isn't some 1950s right-wing religious plot to re-integrate Christianity into American culture, a lot of this stuff was here from the beginning. And while the founders' documents may not refer to Calvin or Luther or the Bible, the philosophical undertones are quite prevalent.

Min · « **Reply #30 on:** June 08, 2004, 01:15:16 PM »

Quote from: Binoboy

And why is putting God on money a good thing for either party involved?

Alexander Hamilton has every fricking right to be on that $10 bill, I don't care if he was never President.

...oh. You were talking about that "In God we Trust" thing, weren't you?

Law · « **Reply #31 on:** June 08, 2004, 01:52:14 PM »

Quote from: reimero

Quote
"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."

That sounds a lot different than "The display of words or symbols of religious derivative, or supplications and prayers of the same nature or any other display indicative of religious faith in any public setting is hereby prohibited."

No, that's exactly what it says. No law respecting the establishment of a religion. The government sealing something with a religious symbol has the same effect as making a law about it. It is the government endorsing the use of religion. Illegal. But done anyway.

Quote

The law, as written, means that the federal government cannot establish Calvinism as the national religion. There is nothing in there indicating that Utah cannot make Mormon the official religion of Utah. That said, SCOTUS retroactively (and incorrectly) applied that ruling (in spite of the fact that the explicit wording is "Congress shall make no law...")

Heh. Most of the people who wrote the Constitution and many of the SC justices who interpreted it early on were Freemasons (hardly your ideal Christian group) and I think the majority of the modern religious right would be a little horrified to actually spend some time reading what the founders actually thought of religion.

That said, the law, as written, says the government cannot establish anything as a national religion nor can the government do anything that appears to endorse anything as a national religion. (Further, Utah and the other 49 states agreed to not legislate against the dominant US Constitution when they ratified it to become states. So, no, Utah cannot make a state religion.)

Does money violate this? Hardly. Removing the Great Seal, changing the mint, rewriting history in a religion neutral manner is ridiculous. History is history, foundation is foundation. If you are really that bothered by 'In God We Trust' on your money, you spend way too much time staring at your money. Look up, the world is country is moving on. Does g_d belong in the Courtroom? No. In the Congress? No. Do we need to excise 220+ years of history to pretend that the United States was not founded on a Judeo-Christian ideal? Hardly.

Nobody makes you acknowledge god when you buy a candy bar, how much is it really effecting your life? You are not forced to worship. A symbol is only a symbol if you give it credence. If it's not your symbol, ignore it. Choose another one.

If you want an agnostic/atheistic President and Legislature, get one elected. But leave history alone, enough damage has been done rewriting American history already, there's simply no point in trying to erase what was clearly an inherent character of a fledgling country.

reimero · « **Reply #32 on:** June 08, 2004, 02:01:33 PM »

I was more referring to the "Congress shall make" part, but that's neither hither nor thither. I tend to agree with a lot of what you posted: it makes far more sense to look forward than backward. I think we've been spending far too much time looking backward.

As an aside, I just saw a report that will ease up the penalties for campaigning and politicking in places of worship. This is something I don't like.

And what I really don't like is that there's this dogmatic seperation of church and state, and yet the government feels entitled to use church basements and parochial schools as polling places. That, more than anything else, would seem to be a violation of said seperation. I mean, suppose I belong to the UltraFundamentalist Church of Reimero Is Always Right and every other faith is heathen, heretic and worthy only of contempt (and Deity of Your Choice forbid you actually set foot in one of their buildings!). Isn't forcing me to vote in the basement of the First United Methodist Church a violation of my Constitutional rights? I mean, it's a choice between observation of my religious faith or exercising my Constitutional right, nay, duty, to vote.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #33 on:** June 08, 2004, 03:28:20 PM »

Quote from: reimero

And what I really don't like is that there's this dogmatic seperation of church and state, and yet the government feels entitled to use church basements and parochial schools as polling places. That, more than anything else, would seem to be a violation of said seperation. I mean, suppose I belong to the UltraFundamentalist Church of Reimero Is Always Right and every other faith is heathen, heretic and worthy only of contempt (and Deity of Your Choice forbid you actually set foot in one of their buildings!). Isn't forcing me to vote in the basement of the First United Methodist Church a violation of my Constitutional rights? I mean, it's a choice between observation of my religious faith or exercising my Constitutional right, nay, duty, to vote.

That one doesn't bother me quite as much, but then, I'm not exactly involved in a sect that says I'm damned if I set foot in some other sect's church. I'd probably be more bothered about it if I were.

But then, as an atheist, I've always been kind of confused by religious folks insisting that the government be involved in religion.

I mean, from an atheistic or agnostic point of view, being subject to state religion is an annoyance, but since I don't believe in anything resembling an afterlife or "judgement", it's not exactly anything for me to worry about where my "eternal soul" that I don't believe in to begin with is concerned.

But from a religious point of view, isn't getting government involved in matters of faith putting far more at stake?

I would think that if anything, it would be religious folks that would be up in arms about this kind of thing, far more than nonbelievers are. I've never understood that.

gorgeous_si · « **Reply #34 on:** June 08, 2004, 03:33:58 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

I would think that if anything, it would be religious folks that would be up in arms about this kind of thing, far more than nonbelievers are. I've never understood that.

Try moving the elections to a mosque and see what consternation it causes!

reimero · « **Reply #35 on:** June 08, 2004, 03:41:12 PM »

All right, I'm back in full-blown rant mode here.

The federal government has, in its infinite wisdom, informed the Catholic Church (and probably others) that parish priests are precluded from endorsing political candidates from the pulpit or other official church-sanctioned events (like parish picnics and whatnot.) Yet this same government has the right to take over the auditorium/gym on voting days, disrupting the course of normal school operations and allowing voting to take place, even for candidates at odds with Church teaching.

Yes, I went to Catholic school. Yes, I had to deal with it. Yes, it was a pain.

It just seems like a double standard, you know?

Faith and religion are tricky things. See, the thing about faith is that you KNOW you're right, even in the absence of empirical proof. That's what faith is, by definition. Put another way, to a person without faith, the very notion of faith flies in the face of logic (whereas to a person with faith, it is the most logical thing there is.) Faith is the ultimate circular argument.

The hardest thing is that it is impossible to prove the existence of God. It is equally impossible to disprove the existence of God. Actually, I think it's easier to prove the existence of a "Prime Mover" (as Aristotle put it) than anything else, but it's still not scientific fact. All you're left with is faith, or lack thereof.

The terrible irony of all this is that I'm hard-pressed to find any other issue in human history which has exacted a greater cost in animosity, human life, war, destruction and terror than the issue of faith. And the vast majority of faiths any more tend to view their god(s) as benevolent.

Law · « **Reply #36 on:** June 08, 2004, 03:50:07 PM »

Quote from: Detta

Alexander Hamilton has every fricking right to be on that $10 bill, I don't care if he was never President.

Um...Detta? You may want to start hoarding bills...

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #37 on:** June 08, 2004, 03:50:59 PM »

Quote from: reimero

The terrible irony of all this is that I'm hard-pressed to find any other issue in human history which has exacted a greater cost in animosity, human life, war, destruction and terror than the issue of faith. And the vast majority of faiths any more tend to view their god(s) as benevolent.

And here we have the reason for my atheism. Divine plan or no, should I choose to accept the reality of a God, I'd never be able to forgive said power.

reimero · « **Reply #38 on:** June 08, 2004, 03:54:54 PM »

Quote from: Lacerda

Quote from: reimero

The terrible irony of all this is that I'm hard-pressed to find any other issue in human history which has exacted a greater cost in animosity, human life, war, destruction and terror than the issue of faith. And the vast majority of faiths any more tend to view their god(s) as benevolent.

And here we have the reason for my atheism. Divine plan or no, should I choose to accept the reality of a God, I'd never be able to forgive said power.

Interesting point of view. Personally, I don't blame my God for the failings of humans. And I have very, very little regard for humans claiming to be acting in the name of God, because we've demonstrated conclusively that no good can come of it. I mean, heck, if you read between the lines, most of the 10 Commandments are basically about treating others with dignity and respect. Is that so hard?

Apparently it is.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #39 on:** June 08, 2004, 03:56:33 PM »

Quote from: reimero

All right, I'm back in full-blown rant mode here.

The federal government has, in its infinite wisdom, informed the Catholic Church (and probably others) that parish priests are precluded from endorsing political candidates from the pulpit or other official church-sanctioned events (like parish picnics and whatnot.) Yet this same government has the right to take over the auditorium/gym on voting days, disrupting the course of normal school operations and allowing voting to take place, even for candidates at odds with Church teaching.

Yes, I went to Catholic school. Yes, I had to deal with it. Yes, it was a pain.

It just seems like a double standard, you know?

That IS a double standard... and I'm certainly in agreement with you on that. The Federal government should not be commandeering private school facilities for public elections.

I don't understand how they are able to get away with that, if that's what's going on.

Quote

Faith and religion are tricky things. See, the thing about faith is that you KNOW you're right, even in the absence of empirical proof. That's what faith is, by definition. Put another way, to a person without faith, the very notion of faith flies in the face of logic (whereas to a person with faith, it is the most logical thing there is.) Faith is the ultimate circular argument.

Agreed.

Quote

The hardest thing is that it is impossible to prove the existence of God. It is equally impossible to disprove the existence of God. Actually, I think it's easier to prove the existence of a "Prime Mover" (as Aristotle put it) than anything else, but it's still not scientific fact. All you're left with is faith, or lack thereof.

Well, it's pretty easy to logically disprove most conventional definitions of "God", because as a concept, it's irrational and absurd, involving numerous odd assumptions, unknowns, contradictions, exaggerations, and other strangeness that pretty much rules itself out as any kind of logical argument.

That's why as an atheist, I can do the epistemological footwork and be able to logically conclude, using nothing but reason, that "God does not exist".

I don't need to physically prove a negative (which is impossible) to prove that something is irrational and beyond reason and therefore nonsensical to even discuss the existence of... the concept itself logically disproves itself in the same way mathematical proofs work to further logical concepts numerically.

Try and argue reason with someone who sees only abstract faith, however, and they simply shrug and say "well you just don't understand God, so you've proven nothing".

Which actually proves the point quite well, most of the time, in my experience.

Quote

The terrible irony of all this is that I'm hard-pressed to find any other issue in human history which has exacted a greater cost in animosity, human life, war, destruction and terror than the issue of faith. And the vast majority of faiths any more tend to view their god(s) as benevolent.

You said it, brutha.

The main reason for that destruction, war, and terror is the exact thing we're arguing about today... it's the tendency for most religions to insist on pushing their message on the unwilling, particularly expressing that tendency through government.

To me, that's the problem... not religion itself.

hackess · « **Reply #40 on:** June 08, 2004, 03:58:47 PM »

I agree. Why should I need religion to tell me how to treat other human beings?

Min · « **Reply #41 on:** June 08, 2004, 04:08:57 PM »

Quote from: Law

Quote from: Detta
Alexander Hamilton has every fricking right to be on that $10 bill, I don't care if he was never President.

Um...Detta? You may want to start hoarding bills...

What else? That's a fricking dumb looking picture they want to put on there.

reimero · « **Reply #42 on:** June 08, 2004, 04:22:29 PM »

I don't think it's so much imposing faith through government as imposing faith through whatever vehicle is particularly convenient at the moment. All things considered, I still think we do a pretty good job here in the States. I mean, honestly, I'm glad I don't have to be the one sorting out the Shiite to Sunni ratio in the new Iraqi government.

About 10 years ago I promised myself that I wouldn't impose my religious views on others for this exact reason. Either I'm preaching to the choir or fostering animosity. What good can come of it?

Demosthenes · « **Reply #43 on:** June 08, 2004, 04:54:23 PM »

Quote from: reimero

I don't think it's so much imposing faith through government as imposing faith through whatever vehicle is particularly convenient at the moment. All things considered, I still think we do a pretty good job here in the States. I mean, honestly, I'm glad I don't have to be the one sorting out the Shiite to Sunni ratio in the new Iraqi government.

Gah. No kidding. Both think they should be in charge, and both insist that a secular government is an invalid one.

That should lead to lots of really great strife, I'm sure.

reimero · « **Reply #44 on:** June 08, 2004, 04:57:11 PM »

You can only solve a problem when all parties agree that the problem is solved. That is the problem with religion.

Dark Shade · « **Reply #45 on:** June 08, 2004, 05:08:46 PM »

Quote from: reimero

You can only solve a problem when all parties agree that the problem is solved. That is the problem with religion.

I would agree. Each and every individual or 'group' religion seems to always have their own takes and views on what their religion 'is'. It's not necessarily correct in each set of eyes who see the practiced religion, but it's real enough for them to gather a slight grasp on the foothold of that person's viewpoint.

Confused? I certainly am.

Anonymous · « **Reply #46 on:** June 08, 2004, 05:24:23 PM »

On an unrealted note, my school has the Star of David painted on a mural in one of the hallways. Should they have to take that down?

Dark Shade · « **Reply #47 on:** June 08, 2004, 05:25:48 PM »

Quote from: Chris

On an unrealted note, my school has the Star of David painted on a mural in one of the hallways. Should they have to take that down?

I'll assume your school isn't 'Religion Oriented' in any way?

You'd think they wouldn't put anything up like that. If anything, they'd try to keep it a 'secret', moreso 'sheltered' from the general student body than anything else.

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #48 on:** June 08, 2004, 05:39:11 PM »

Quote from: reimero

Interesting point of view. Personally, I don't blame my God for the failings of humans..

I don't blame God for the failings of humans either--I blame God for not making it abundantly clear that He/She/It is watching, if for no other reason than to dissuade said humans.

If God cannot do this, then one must assume that God is not all-powerful, and therefore not God by any definition.

Law · « **Reply #49 on:** June 08, 2004, 06:20:14 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

That IS a double standard... and I'm certainly in agreement with you on that. The Federal government should not be commandeering private school facilities for public elections.

I don't understand how they are able to get away with that, if that's what's going on.

Not really a problem. Most municipalities ask for large landholders or building residents to donate space to hold elections in. Most towns and cities don't have the public space to set up enough polling places, so they ask the community for help.

All sorts of organizations volunteer, parochial schools, private arenas, etc. I hardly think anyone would consider voting in the gym of a Catholic school an unlawful establishment clause violation.

</former legislative intern>

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: The Bill of Non-Rights (Read 12825 times)

Anonymous