I Say We Duke It Out!

I don't believe I indicated that she was lobbying for an unconstitutional measure.

In fact, MOAN states that she lobbies for bible study classes in public schools. That would violate the separation clause of the first amendment. She either ignores or is incapable of understanding the particularism argument--that this promotes one religion over all others, generally speaking, and that it promotes an evangelical Protestant sectarianism in particular. She also ignores that having such a class in a school is symbolic of state sanction of that particular religious creed, which is precisely why the Supremes have found school prayer unacceptable. And, of course, she ignores that there are significant segments of the population who are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Jain, Buddhist, Animist, Agnostic and Atheist, all of whom can justifiably take exception to having their tax money go to the support of institutions which tout a religion which does not happen to be their religion.

MOAN has specifically stated that she lobbies for such courses.

I don't know if bible study classes in public schools would be constitutional or not. I was just trying to explain why having a majority agree with you isn't always enough to get what you want.

And you, Setanta, ignore the fact that I have stated numerous times, I might add:

that if Bible courses were to be offered as elective courses, then YES YOU WOULD HAVE TO OFFER COURSES IN OTHER RELIGIONS.

I have never said that only Bible classes should be offered or only Christian classes should be offered.

Good grief.

The First Amendment doesn't have a separation clause. It has a non-establishment clause. The claim that non-establishment necessarily requires a strict separation of church and state is a 20th century interpretation by the Supreme Court. Two or three sitting Supreme Court justices disagree with this interpretation. (The uncertain one being Roberts.) What you are confidently stating as a fact is actually the opinion of a transient majority of nine judges. In the future, different majorities may well change the Supreme Court's mind.


Fair enough. And I was trying to get more "god" is just as fictional and abstract a concept as "the social contract", "Earth in the balance", or, to add one I actually believe in, "liberty". As I read it, this part of the disagreement started when Momma Angel's statd her idea of lobbying for laws that she thinks would better comply with the will of god. Some here took issue with that. But as an abstract concept, 'abiding by the will of god' is no more ephemeral and esotherical than strengthening the social contract, or improving social justice, or bringing Earth back into balance, or enhancing liberty. All of which are recognized as perfectly valid reasons to lobby for or against particular bills.

That is correct. I misstated that.



This is false. Jefferson first used the expression "wall of separation" in the early nineteenth century. Andrew Jackson referred to it again within twenty years when he refused to declare a national day of thanksgiving. It has been mentioned again and again in the two hundred years since Jefferson first articulated the concept and coined the phrase. It is, of course, perfectly reasonable to point out my mistake in saying separation clause rather than no establishment clause. It is equally correct for me to point out that as far as the historical origin of the concept of a wall of separation between church and state is concerned, you don't know what you're talking about.



In fact, the court as currently constituted has only ever reviewed animal sacrifice as a part of religious practice in Church of Lukumi Babalu Avenue, Inc. versus Hialeah--finding that it were unconstitutional for the city to ban the killing of animals in a Santarian ceremony when it allowed sport killing and hunting for food. In saying as much i'm being generous in ignoring that neither Mr. Justice Breyer nor Mr. Justice Roberts were members of the court at the time of that decision. In fact, the court as currently constituted has not reviewed any case concerning the issue of separation of church and state: neither the no establishment clause, nor the free exercise clause. Your statment is completely fallacious.



What you are confidently stating is completely devoid of historical context. I refer you to McCollum versus Board of Education, District 71, 1948; to Burstyn versus Wilson, 1952; to Torcaso versus Watkins, 1961; to Engel versus Vitale, 1962; to Abington School District verus Schempp, 1963; to Murray versus Curlett, 1963; to Epperson versus Arkansas, 1968; to Lemon versus Kurtzman, 1971; to Stone versus Graham, 1980; to Wallace versus Jaffree, 1985; to Edwards versus Aquillard, 1987; to Allegheny County versus the American Civil Liberties Union, 1989; to Lee versus Weisman, 1992; to Church of Lukumi Babalu Aveneu, Inc. versus Hialeah, 1993.

It appears that you confidently set out to create an impression that the Supremes have hardly visited this subject and that these are positions which can be overturned on the whim of a few members of the court as currently constituted. But this is completely false. I have only referred to cases reviewed by the Supremes--there is a huge body of case law which derived from the decisions of lower courts of the Federal system, as well as those derived from state court systems. The court as currently constituted would have to revisit and overturn literally dozens upon dozens of Surpreme Court and lower Federal Court decisions, as well as state appellate and Surpreme Court decisions, to reverse the judicial trend to confirm the separation of church and state in the United States. A poor effort altogether on your part.

Set, they sure have been gearing up for something getting all these ultra conservative/religious judges. I agree with you, but I think they might very well try to undo years of such cases and since they are in position to do it, they will probably succeed. I have been feeling like we are heading down major changes for the worse since Bush first 'took' office back in 2000 and we utterly helpless to do anything about it since enough Americans have seen fit to actually elect Bush the last time around.

There are those who will allege that the 2004 election was "stolen" as well.

It will be difficult for a differently constituted court to oveturn separation decisions willy-nilly. Sauce for the goose makes sauce for the gander, and a decision which allows, for example, bible study courses in schools could be used as justification for Quran study courses, Sutra study courses, the study of agnosticism, the study of atheism . . . playing fast and loose with such an issue could well open a judicial and social pandora's box . . . at all events, the Supremes can't go out an drum up business, a case has to make its way to them for review.

It is important not to lose sight of the fact that the lunatic fringe of christianity are the one's who are militant about these things. If they push too hard, if they overreach themselves, they may well find that the great majority of Americans who identify themselves as christian will not only not be on their side, but might actually oppose them. Those who do not accept the divinity of the putative Jesus, for example, may be just as willing to oppose the impositions of the Jesus freaks as are agnostics and atheists.

Why is it that agnostics and atheists are referred to with words that are used in the dictionary to define them. Christians are, however, referred to as Jesus freaks and other such nonsensical names? Reminds me of little children calling other kids names in the schoolyard.

I don't direct this to anyone in particular for a response. Anyone can answer. Thanks.

All Jesus freaks claim to be christians, not all christians are Jesus freaks. I rather doubt that you are engaged in anything here than self-righteous petulance . . .

Petulance . . . reminds me of a good fart joke in French . . .

Pssst! Intrepid. Setanta used "Jesus Freaks" in the context of "the lunatic fringe of christianity".

I doubt that he missed that Mesquite, Intrepid just likes to pick fights on this topic . . . he's one of the very thin-skinned variety of christians . . .

Truthfully, Setanta, haven't you said all Christians are Jesus Freaks? that they're all crazy...?

That was probably me.

I resemble that

Husker, I forgive you.

I kind of been a pill (pain in the rear all day), I think it's the ADD time of the month. I dunno just full of vinegar

Thanks, mesquite. It would be much simpler if he just said that.

Oh, but I did miss that. I have become used to a certain tone that you use. i.e. you insist on using MOAN for Momma angel. Do you think that is particularly clever of you to shout moan? That is what you are doing, isn't it? When one is used to a particular format, one expects it. For someone who constantly picks fights, you are in no position to judge anyone else. If you consider anyone who asks a question or disagrees with you as picking a fight, you have a lot to learn about human nature.

Well, the topic does suggest a duke out, though the concept of theologic fisticuffs - particularly from a Christian perspective - comes close enough to a fit with absurd as to be able to wear custom-tailored clothes from the same closet.