Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

wandeljw wrote:

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this morning on the Texas monument case. A transcript should be available on the court's website within a week. Some comments made by the justices have already been reported in the press:

Justice Kennedy: "If an atheist walks by, he can avert his eyes."

Justice Scalia: "a profound religious message believed in by a vast majority of the American people."

Justice Souter: "hard to find anything here but an expression of approval by the state of Texas for a religious expression."

At least Scalia seems to be recognizing that it is a religious message. What the percentage that believe the message has to do with it escapes me. I hope that it is just a lack of context that makes his statement so obnoxious.

Souter is on target.

Kennedy sounds as if he has been reading foxfyre. Laughing

0 Replies

The question will not be whether it is religious. Of course it is religious. The question, I hope, will be whether it is an establishment of religion and whether it violates anybody's rights. If not, I hope the Court will rule that the monument(s) can stay.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

hyper426, As much as foxfyre wishes that it was, this is not an inalienable rights issue. It is a separation of church and state issue.

I though that they were intertwined in the sense that separation of church and state was enacted to protect inalienable rights. How am I wrong in this?

0 Replies

That's the way I see it Hyper. But then my opinion is there was never intended to be a 'separation of Church and State' but rather the intention was that there never be a state-supported, state-approved, state-endorsed religion that would put non believers or different believers at a disadvantage. I believe the courts have greatly overstepped the boundaries of that intention and have rather infringed on the free exercise of relgion through their court rulings. Maybe now, the efforts the anti-religious who keep bringing these kinds of suits will force the issue to a head and the Supremes will rein in these activist courts who presume to deny some their inalienable rights.

Or not. We should know in a few weeks when they finally getting around to writing their opinions.

0 Replies

Hyper426, Freedom of and from religion was one of the specific rights and the first one spelled out by the founders. If separation deteriorates to the point where individual rights have been violated, it will be already too late. This is a fact that should be appreciated by the religious and non religious alike.

0 Replies

In my opinion, rights are already being violated. So there we'll just have to disagree Mesquite.

I never believe anything is unrepairable however, or that reasonable people cannot find the best solution for the most difficult questions. That's where we also disagree.

But then my philosophy of life is that the best solutions are always win-win solutions.

0 Replies

Just the fact that a bill such as the "Pledge Protection Act would even be introduced, let alone have 226 Cosponsors should be a wake up call for all.

Foxfyre, just what right of yours is being violated?

0 Replies

I do not have the right to hear a Christmas concert at the local highschool or carolers in the town square anymore, Mesquite. The city won't be able to have the luminaria display in the Old Town Plaza. I can't have the satisfaction of a simple prayer before the football game. I can no longer smile at the beautiful crech on the courthouse lawn during the yule season or the profuse lily display that used to grace the same spot during Easter. And, if the anti-religious fanatics have their say, I will no longer be able to enjoy any sort of religious art along with all other art scattered around the city. Even Leonardo da Vinci's classic "The Last Supper" will be illegal in any public place.

All of this I see as denying the free exercise of religion, my inalienable right.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I do not have the right to hear a Christmas concert at the local highschool anymore, Mesquite. I can't have the satisfaction of a simple prayer before the football game. I can no longer smile at the beautiful crech on the courthouse lawn during the yule season or the profuse lily display that used to grace the same spot during Easter. And, if the anti-religious fanatics have their say, I will no longer be able to enjoy any sort of religious art along with all other art scattered around the city. Even Leonardo da Vinci's classic "The Last Supper" will be illegal in any public place.

All of this is see as denying the free exercise of religion, my inalienable right.

Why do you automatically assume that separation of church and state will put an end to school concerts?

You don't need to pray at a football game. Don't you go to church to pray and go to a football game to watch football? And if you want to pray, no one is stopping you from praying wherever you're standing. You can pray in the grocery store, if you want to. In order to be satisfied, why do you need a government actor in a government building to announce to an entire stadium, "Please, everyone, bow your heads and let us pray." You can't find satisfaction in simple prayer any other way? Or does your satisfaction come from imposing prayer upon others who choose not to endorse prayers in public places?

Why can't you smile at the beautiful crech on the lawns of your local churches during the yule season? Why do you need to have one on the courthouse lawn to make you happy? Why do you need the government to plant lilies in celebration of Easter? The government can plant as many flowers as the taxpayers want to finance, for all I care . . . but the government has no business in planting lilies specifically for the purpose of endorsing religion.

Why do you resort to name-calling. People who demand separation of church and state are not your enemies. They are not "anti-religious fanatics." They just want a government that serves the people -- a legislative branch that makes laws that provide due process and equal protection to all persons -- an executive branch that enforces the laws -- and a judicial branch that dispenses justice on a neutral basis.

There is not one person here who is denying freedom of religion to YOU simply because they demand separation of church and state as mandated by our Constitution.

0 Replies

Are you suggesting, with a straight face, that the ACLU is not "anti-religion"?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Are you suggesting, with a straight face, that the ACLU is not "anti-religion"?

What are you suggesting? If the ACLU brings lawsuits to enforce the First Amendment, it must be a fanatical anti-religious organization? If so, then I guess you must also characterize people like Foxfyre who demand the satisfaction of prayer before a football game as religious fanatics.

Are you suggesting there are only two categories: Religious fanatics and Anti-religious fanatics?

I don't get your post . . .

0 Replies

Foxfyre, Debra said what I was going to say, only better.

How do you feel about the Pledge Protection Act?

0 Replies

The ACLU does not bring suit in these cases without some anti-religious person enlisting their support. Of course they are willing to give it. I will put Debra down as one who doesn't see the point of view of those who feel their right to religious freedom is being trampled. All the points in her post I have addressed multiple times in this thread.

The Pledge Protection Act is a classic example of self-defense against an attempted anti-religious tyranny. It would never have come up at all if people were just willing to extend tolerance in two directions and live and let live. We will see much more of that kind of legislation if a small anti-religious minority of fanatics keeps pushing these kinds of issues and that is unfortunate. Such legislation should never be necessary in a society of reasonable people.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The ACLU does not bring suit in these cases without some anti-religious person enlisting their support. Of course they are willing to give it. I will put Debra down as one who doesn't see the point of view of those who feel their right to religious freedom is being trampled. All the points in her post I have addressed multiple times in this thread.

As a lawyer, I represented people who were accused of crimes. I even represented people who were accused of sexual abuse of children. That doesn't make me a criminal or an abuser. The ACLU may represent an atheist. That doesn't make the ACLU a fanatical anti-religious organization.

The ACLU is even willing to support Rush Limbaugh in his fight concerning his right to privacy protected by the Constitution. The ACLU supports the Constitution.

When my son was on his public school basketball team, I went to the games on public school property to watch him play basketball and to root for the team. I didn't go to the games so that I could pray. If you want prayers at school events in order to have the satisfaction you desire, no one is stopping you from placing your kids in a privately paid religious school. I'm not trampling on your religious freedom by demanding separation of church and state.

0 Replies

Debra my fight isn't with the ACLU. I didn't bring it up as pertinent to the discussion. You or somebody else did. My desire is that my constitutional right to the free exercise of religion not be infringed. That's all I ask. I feel that this right has steadily been eroded through anti-religious fanatics and sympathetic activist courts. As a lawyer, you have to know there are good and bad judges, those who hold to the letter and intent of the law and those who push the envelope on that. I am not a lawyer, but I do have some legal training and I have sat in many a courtroom bringing or defending a case in numerous insurance matters. There are certain judges I very much wanted to get and some I rejected on principle especially in workers compensation cases.

You very well may have a different opinion than I have on the whole issue of the First Amendment. I feel I can make a very good case for my point of view. I only hope the attorneys arguing 'my side' before the Supreme Court today also made a good case.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The Pledge Protection Act is a classic example of self-defense against an attempted anti-religious tyranny. It would never have come up at all if people were just willing to extend tolerance in two directions and live and let live. We will see much more of that kind of legislation if a small anti-religious minority of fanatics keeps pushing these kinds of issues and that is unfortunate. Such legislation should never be necessary in a society of reasonable people.

I take it then that you are ok with the Pledge Protection Act trampling the Constitution because the end justifies the means.

The Act is an not only an assault on the first amendment, but on the balance of powers as well, with the legislative branch attempting to limit the scope of the judicial branch.

0 Replies

Only you could read that into what I said Mesquite.

0 Replies

Do you mean then that you disagree with the PPA?

0 Replies

I neither agree nor disagree with it. I do believe it would never have come up nor would it have occurred to anybody to have introduced it had the anti-religious fanatics not shown complete disregard for the constitutionally protected right to free expression of religion.

0 Replies

If you do not disagree, then my initial reading of your position would seem to be on target.

0 Replies

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know