2
   

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

 
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 07:37 am
Setanta wrote:
The question is whether or not it is a sacrament in the Anglican church, which is what Thomas and i were discussing when Fox had her hissy fit . . . read your definition again: ". . . the Protestant sacraments are baptism and the Lord's Supper;"


Yeppers - I got that, Set.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 07:38 am
wandeljw wrote:
I think that some posters are putting each other in categories labled "people I always disagree with".


That is unnecessary, Wandel. Thomas and i were discussing the sacraments of the Anglican church in another thread. Fox erupted into her typical know-it-all hysteria, because the thread concerned gay marriage, a topic which seems to send her right round the bend. I ignored her there. She was not content, however, and imported her nonsense here. You might want to know a little more whereof you speak before making such pronouncements.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 07:45 am
Walter writes
Quote:
So I just took Brandy's kind advice and asked.


As did I, Walter. And two different priests and a bishop from the Diocese of the Rio Grande here in Albuquerque have all confirmed that they consider marriage to be a sacrament.

Also the last link I posted was written by a seminary student at the Episcopal seminary at the University of the South at Sewanee TN. (I completed a four-year seminary theological study through that institution which is why I went there looking for information.) He is doing coursework with Dr. Gotta, an ordained Episcoapl priest, and would certainly have not included the 'marriage as a sacrament' information in his thesis if she opposed that theory.

Did you ask your sources specifically if marriage was a sacrament? Are German and American anglicans that much different?

Setanta's comments re gay marriage have absolutely nothing to do with this issue no matter how much he wishes to make that the issue.

(Edit to remove a word 'student' that didn't fit in a sentence.)
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 07:50 am
set,
I usually hate to make pronouncements. I was not referring to you alone. To me, an endless back and forth on a minor point seems that people are stereotyping each other. Usually, I do not consider you to be narrow-minded. I apologize if that's what it sounded like.
-wandel
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 07:52 am
Wandel, i can proudly state that i am as capable as the next man of being narrow-minded. In this case, my responses have been based upon Fox's gay-marriage paranoia, and her insistence on importing this argument from another thread. I do not intend to respond to her again on the topic, as i have said. I also don't intend to let others visit the topic on me by proxy.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 12:17 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Walter writes
Quote:
So I just took Brandy's kind advice and asked.


As did I, Walter. And two different priests and a bishop from the Diocese of the Rio Grande here in Albuquerque have all confirmed that they consider marriage to be a sacrament.


The Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande seems to be - at least the name indicates that - an Episcopal church, while I asked Anglican offices - I've always referred to the Anglican church with my quotes.


Hmm, a four-year theological study shouild have ended in a BA, if not a MA in theology. I just got my knowledge from school, some related courses at university* and what I've read.

I must admit, you are the real expert here, sorry that I didn't notice that.
(That's meant honestly!)



*Addendum: I took those courses not a at theological faculty, but when I studied social work: two of our law professors were doctores iuris utriusque and taught "for fun" canon law etc.

eddited for addendum
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 12:44 pm
Walter writes
Quote:
Hmm, a four-year theological study shouild have ended in a BA, if not a MA in theology. I just got my knowledge from school, some related courses at university and what I've read.

I must admit, you are the real expert here, sorry that I didn't notice that.
(That's meant honestly!)


No, no, thank you, but the course I was engaged in was theological studies for the laity and taught off campus. (I took the course in Kansas). I earned college credit for it, but it was not a degree program. (My college major(s) were not theology.)

Due to this very intense study and a long history with faith based organizations, however, including eight years with the Episcopal Church, I have acquired some expertise. I did not work for the Diocese of the Rio Grande, but worked closely with the former Bishop on various national church programs and when I moved to Albuquerque, he offered to ordain me Deacon with little further study being required. Smile I declined as there was no way I could fulfill the duties required in that role without abandoning my own church and did not wish to do that.

But anyhow, Wandel is right that we've been arguing a minor point here. But I dislike continually being referred to by various uncomplimentary adjectives, so just decided to stick to my guns on this one.

I return the thread to Hyper and apologize for the lengthly hijacking of it.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 05:19 am
Government gets its authority from God?
I was reading the transcripts from the oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the Ten Commandments cases. The decision(s) should come soon as the Court is nearing the end of the term.

In the transcript of the Van Orden v. Perry case, Justice Scalia questioned or commented as follows:

2 JUSTICE SCALIA: You know, I think
3 probably 90 percent of the American people believe in
4 the Ten Commandments, and I'll bet you that 85
5 percent of them couldn't tell you what the ten are.

6 (Laughter.)

7 JUSTICE SCALIA: And when somebody goes by
8 that monument, I don't think they're studying each
9 one of the commandments. It's a symbol of the fact
10 that government comes -- derives its authority from
11 God. And that is, it seems to me, an appropriate
12 symbol to be on State grounds.

(Tr. at 16.)

It is NOT a fact that government derives its authority from God.

That's a misstatement of phenomenal proportions. Government derives its authority from the consent of the governed--from "we the people."
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 07:14 am
Re: Government gets its authority from God?
Debra_Law wrote:
7 JUSTICE SCALIA: And when somebody goes by
8 that monument, I don't think they're studying each
9 one of the commandments. It's a symbol of the fact
10 that government comes -- derives its authority from
11 God. And that is, it seems to me, an appropriate
12 symbol to be on State grounds.

(Tr. at 16.)

It is NOT a fact that government derives its authority from God.

That's a misstatement of phenomenal proportions. Government derives its authority from the consent of the governed--from "we the people."


Exactly. Scalia is an idiot of phenomenal proportions.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 10:01 am
Scalia subsequently stated in an interview
Quote:
I mean, we're a tolerant society religiously, but just as the majority has to be tolerant of minority views in matters of religion, it seems to me the minority has to be tolerant of the majority's ability to express its belief that government comes from God, which is what this is about.
http://left2right.typepad.com/main/2005/03/justice_scalia_.html


This puts a little different spin on it I think.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 10:05 am
Fox, It depends upon when Scalia spoke those words. What he says during SC hearings is different than what he says during a news conference. But I agree with the above post; he's an idiot.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 09:00 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Scalia subsequently stated in an interview

Quote:
I mean, we're a tolerant society religiously, but just as the majority has to be tolerant of minority views in matters of religion, it seems to me the minority has to be tolerant of the majority's ability to express its belief that government comes from God, which is what this is about.

http://left2right.typepad.com/main/2005/03/justice_scalia_.html


This puts a little different spin on it I think.



Scalia's comments did not come from an interview. The comments you quoted came directly from the bench during arguments before the court:

Transcript of Van Orden v. Perry, oral arguments:

Page 15:

15 JUSTICE SCALIA: I thought Muslims accept
16 the Ten Commandments.

17 MR. CHEMERINSKY: No, Your Honor, the
18 Muslims do not accept the sacred nature of the Ten
19 Commandments, nor do Hindus, or those who believe in
20 many gods, nor of course, do atheists.
21 And for that matter, Your Honor, if a
22 Jewish individual would walk by this Ten
23 Commandments, and see that the first commandment
24 isn't the Jewish version, I am the Lord, thy God,
25 took you out of Egypt, out of slavery, would realize

Page 16:

1 it's not his or her government either.

2 JUSTICE SCALIA: You know, I think
3 probably 90 percent of the American people believe in
4 the Ten Commandments, and I'll bet you that 85
5 percent of them couldn't tell you what the ten are.

6 (Laughter.)

7 JUSTICE SCALIA: And when somebody goes by
8 that monument, I don't think they're studying each
9 one of the commandments. It's a symbol of the fact
10 that government comes -- derives its authority from
11 God. And that is, it seems to me, an appropriate
12 symbol to be on State grounds.


13 MR. CHEMERINSKY: I disagree, Your Honor.
14 For the State to put that symbol between its State
15 Capitol and the State Supreme Court is to convey a
16 profound religious message. If you're just saying,
17 now, this isn't there for its secular reason.
If
18 someone were to read this monument, one sees that it
19 emphasizes its religious content.

20 JUSTICE SCALIA: It is a profound
21 religious message, but it's a profound religious
22 message believed in by the vast majority of the
23 American people,
just as belief in monotheism is
24 shared by a vast majority of the American people.
25 And our traditions show that there is

Page 17:

1 nothing wrong with the government reflecting that. I
2 mean, we're a tolerant society religiously, but just
3 as the majority has to be tolerant of minority views
4 in matters of religion, it seems to me the minority
5 has to be tolerant of the majority's ability to
6 express its belief that government comes from God,
7 which is what this is about.


8 As Justice Kennedy said, turn your eyes
9 away if it's such a big deal to you.

10 MR. CHEMERINSKY: I disagree, Your Honor.
11 Because this Court has said that above all, the
12 government can't make some feel like they're insiders
13 and some like outsiders. Even if they're the
14 majority religion -


(Click on Transcript Link to read entire transcript.)

**********

What spin are YOU trying to place on Scalia's erroneous statement that the Ten Commandments are a symbol of the fact that government derives its authority from God?

This is not a statement of fact. It is a misstatement of fact. The LIE doesn't gain any credibility or a "new spin" simply because Scalia declares that the majority of the people share his mistaken belief that government comes from God.

Government authority is not derived from God. It is derived from the consent of governed--from "we the people."
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 09:17 pm
It is, perhaps, time to remind people of the very first foundational document in our history:

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 . . .
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 09:22 pm
Debra, Thank you for that clarification; that a SC Judge would presume and believe that his authority comes from god shows the ignorance of the very people we rely on to maintain the laws of this land. How long has Scalia been on the bench?
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 09:26 pm
The Ten Commandments represent a "profound religious message" which, according to Scalia, is "believed in by the vast majority of the American people." The minority should not have to "avert their eyes" when they walk past that "profound religious message" when that message is endorsed by their government. They should not be made to feel like outsiders in their own political community.

Justice O'Connor set forth Establishment Clause jurisprudence in her concurring opinion in LYNCH v. DONNELLY, 465 U.S. 668 (1984):

Justice O'Connor wrote:
The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community. Government can run afoul of that prohibition in two principal ways.

One is excessive entanglement with religious institutions, which may interfere with the independence of the institutions, give the institutions access to government or governmental powers not fully shared by nonadherents of the religion, and foster the creation of political constituencies defined along religious lines. E. g., Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116 (1982).

The second and more direct infringement is government endorsement or disapproval of religion. Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community. Disapproval sends the opposite message. See generally Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963).
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 09:36 pm
"One is excessive entanglement with religious institutions, which may interfere with the independence of the institutions, give the institutions access to government or governmental powers not fully shared by nonadherents of the religion, and foster the creation of political constituencies defined along religious lines. E. g., Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116 (1982)."

This is precisely what president Bush has done and continues to do. His recent action to deny stem cell research is based on his religious beliefs, but nobody is speaking out against this infringement.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 10:50 pm
Setanta wrote:
It is, perhaps, time to remind people of the very first foundational document in our history:

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 . . .


Bravo! A fundamental, undeniable truth worthy of repeating--over and over again!
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 10:58 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Debra, Thank you for that clarification; that a SC Judge would presume and believe that his authority comes from god shows the ignorance of the very people we rely on to maintain the laws of this land. How long has Scalia been on the bench?


Justice Scalia's official biography:

Quote:
Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice, was born in Trenton, New Jersey, March 11, 1936. He married Maureen McCarthy and has nine children— Ann Forrest, Eugene, John Francis, Catherine Elisabeth, Mary Clare, Paul David, Matthew, Christopher James, and Margaret Jane.

He received his A.B. from Georgetown University and the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, and his LL.B. from Harvard Law School, and was a Sheldon Fellow of Harvard University from 1960–1961. He was in private practice in Cleveland, Ohio from 1961–1967, a Professor of Law at the University of Virginia from 1967–1971, and a Professor of Law at the University of Chicago from 1977–1982, and a Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University and Stanford University. He was chairman of the American Bar Association’s Section of Administrative Law, 1981–1982, and its Conference of Section Chairmen, 1982–1983. He served the federal government as General Counsel of the Office of Telecommunications Policy from 1971–1972, Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States from 1972–1974, and Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel from 1974–1977.

He was appointed Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1982. President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat September 26, 1986.


http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/biographiescurrent.pdf
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2005 12:03 am
Scalia
If Scalia had his way, the Constitution would simply cease to have any meaning in the present and future, but would simply fade away as an insignificant, out-dated document that commemorates the ideas of dead white men from an antiquated time.

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0205/articles/scalia.html
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2005 02:42 am
I hope Scalia was serious when he stated his views have nothing to do with how he votes on cases. I hope that even Scalia would refrain from writing formal opinions that state "our law comes from God."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/26/2022 at 08:56:42