Thomas Jefferson's Fear of the Supreme Court

[DOC]

I am of the opinion that the 1st amendment was greatly changed by the Supreme Court in 1947 and it used Jefferson's own words as part of their justification in doing so. I find this ironic if we are to believe these 8 quotes by Jefferson, because he feared this very thing happening.

From the website Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Jefferson's reaction to Marbury vs. Madison 1803

http://www.landmarkcases.org/marbury/jefferson.html

[DOC]

The 1947 case (Everson vs. The Board of Education) which I might talk about later basically created the "legal term" separation of church and state. Here is some background on that.

----

Let me try to clear up this whole Seperation of Church and state subject. Dr. Kennedy says that liberals and others have completely misrepresented the intent of the letter. The Danbury Baptist Assoc. had written to Jefferson and expressed worry about the increasing power of the relatively "new" Federal Government. Remember the power of the King of England over the church.

Well Jefferson wrote back, according to Kennedy, to simply calm the fears of the association. Jefferson who, by the way, was out of the country when the Bill of Rights was created and had nothing to do with them, assured the association that he agreed with what the people had created. That Congress should make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

Now notice the 1st Admendment "only" says what "Congress" can't do. It says nothing about what the "church" can't do. And yet groups (liberals, ACLU, etc.) have completely turned this around to say what the Church can and can not do. It has nothing to do with what the Church can and can't do -- only Congress.

Kennedy goes on to say that the wall metaphor actually first came from Roger Williams, the founder of the Baptist Church in America, who talked about "erecting a wall around the garden of the church to protect it". And Jefferson used this same metaphor to demonstrate his desire to keep the Government off the backs of the Churches.

Once again the whole purpose of the admendment was to keep another Church of England from happening, and not to restrict the Churches.
___________

[Ichneumonwasp]

I am of the opinion that the 1st amendment was greatly changed by the Supreme Court in 1947 and it used Jefferson's own words as part of their justification in doing so. I find this ironic if we are to believe these 8 quotes by Jefferson, because he feared this very thing happening.

From the website Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Jefferson's reaction to Marbury vs. Madison 1803

http://www.landmarkcases.org/marbury/jefferson.html

You are welcome to your opinion. The court, however, disagrees with you.

Jefferson's concerns were shared by many and were expressed long before Marbury v. Madison. I noticed that you have toned down your language in this post, no longer suggesting that it was Jefferson who originated the ideas and no longer claiming that he was prophetic.

From the words of an Anti-Federalist:
. . . this court will be authorised to decide upon the meaning of the constitution; and that, not only according to the natural and obvious meaning of the words, but also according to the spirit and intention of it. In the exercise of this power they will not be subordinate to, but above the legislature . . . The supreme court then has a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void; and therefore in this respect their power is superior to that of the legislature.

Hamilton, in his defense of the passages concerning the court in Federalist 78, clearly implies that it is the right of the Supreme Court to be the sole interpreter of the Constitution -- and this includes its amendments (by extension).

The meaning of the Constitution is the way that we use it, much like the meaning of the word "lift" differs considerably on different sides of the Atlantic.

If you want to argue that the Supreme Court should not have this power -- a power that both Federalists and anti-Federalists recognized before the document was ratified, then you simply wish to re-write it.

Otherwise, you simply don't agree with the court. Well, OK, but tough noogies. By the Constitution itself, the court decides what the document means. Your recourse is to prosyletize for change much like the NAACP did to overturn the mistake that was Plessy v. Furgeson.

The court is not perfect. It has decided at various times that slavery was implied by the Constitution (actually it was, but Dred Scott was a vile decision of the Taney court), that the government has the right to take your property for private commercial development purposes, and that tomatoes are vegetables.

I obviously don't agree with some of those decisions. But tough noogies for me too.

If you want to argue against the court's decision, though, you need something stronger than "James Kennedy says they screwed up" and incessant whining about 'separation of church and state' as a clause. That particular line of argument is fruitless. While it is true that there are people who over-reach with the separation issue, it is clear that the framers did not want the government inposing itself on the church and also did not want any church imposing itself into government business because they feared the consequences on both sides - hence the strict prohibition against a religious test for the holding of public office.

Where all of this gets sticky is that we have a very different structure from the original founding of the country -- and this is simply a direct consequence of historical contingency. We are not an agrarian society of gentleman farmers any longer (if we ever were). Now the federal government funds many, many state programs -- and with this change as well as the 14th amendment -- the separation of powers between state and federal governments has been completely blurred. The Court has been pretty consistent in allowing religious expression in a variety of cases, even on federal government land (or federally supported land, such as schools) -- as long as it does not look like an attempt by the government to prefer one religion over another (have the appearance of the government establishing one religion superior to another).

The original conception of the Senate that the framers devised no longer exists, but no gets up in arms about that (possibly because we passed an amendment to change that issue) but there are plenty of folks who want to interpret the first and second amendments in their own peculiar ways.

So, I will repeat, if you want to argue that the court made a mistake, I would suggest that you provide a strong argument. To date, I don't think many folks agree that you have done so.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Let me clarify some of the above.....

If you want to argue that the Court subverted original intent, then you need to show two things very clearly -- (1) what was the original intent with significant background data, and (2) why does 'original intent' trump any other potential interpretation of the first amendment?

As to the first issue, good friggin' luck. The Constitution, and this definitely includes the first amendment, is a compromise. There was no monolithic original intent. There were a variety of opinions even concerning the wording of that amendment, so deciding upon some mythical 'original intent' is probably a fool's errand. And it is also probably misplaced because the document was intended to be re-interpreted over time -- that is why the Supreme Court was charged with interpreting it.

As to the second issue, well I dealt with it a little above, but you need to realize that this country simply is not what it was at its founding. We are now much more pluralistic, so any interpretation of the first amendment must take this into account. This is not a 'land of Christians' now -- actually it never was, that is just one more myth that is bandied about -- since there have always been many faiths on these shores. Keep in mind that the Constitution was drafted for a particular purpose -- not to protect the majority, but to protect the rights of minority groups from persecution. That theme is re-stated repeatedly throughout the Federalist Papers.

[zooterkin]

Y It has decided at various times that slavery was implied by the Constitution (actually it was, but Dred Scott was a vile decision of the Taney court), that the government has the right to take your property for private commercial development purposes, and that tomatoes are vegetables.

Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put one in a fruit salad.

[Fordama]

Once again the whole purpose of the admendment was to keep another Church of England from happening, and not to restrict the Churches.
___________I do not think that I have ever heard of any laws that really "restrict" churches. I have heard of laws and ordinances that keep government from being involved in church activities, such as promoting the viewpoint of a church, but never a law that restricts an actual church.

Fordama

[joobz]

Ichneumanwasp,
Your post was extremely informative and a joy to read.

thank you.

[Crossbow]

The 1947 case (Everson vs. The Board of Education) which I might talk about later basically created the "legal term" separation of church and state. Here is some background on that.

----

Let me try to clear up this whole Seperation of Church and state subject. Dr. Kennedy says that liberals and others have completely misrepresented the intent of the letter. The Danbury Baptist Assoc. had written to Jefferson and expressed worry about the increasing power of the relatively "new" Federal Government. Remember the power of the King of England over the church.

Well Jefferson wrote back, according to Kennedy, to simply calm the fears of the association. Jefferson who, by the way, was out of the country when the Bill of Rights was created and had nothing to do with them, assured the association that he agreed with what the people had created. That Congress should make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

Now notice the 1st Admendment "only" says what "Congress" can't do. It says nothing about what the "church" can't do. And yet groups (liberals, ACLU, etc.) have completely turned this around to say what the Church can and can not do. It has nothing to do with what the Church can and can't do -- only Congress.

Kennedy goes on to say that the wall metaphor actually first came from Roger Williams, the founder of the Baptist Church in America, who talked about "erecting a wall around the garden of the church to protect it". And Jefferson used this same metaphor to demonstrate his desire to keep the Government off the backs of the Churches.

Once again the whole purpose of the admendment was to keep another Church of England from happening, and not to restrict the Churches.
___________

Can you tell me how churches are restricted?

I sure have not seen anything like that.

[DOC]

Can you tell me how churches are restricted?

I sure have not seen anything like that.

Well for one thing a preacher has to give up his freedom of speech every time he gets into the pulpit with regard to endorsing a political candidate. His freedom of speech is taken away in regard to that area. This is all because of a bill Lyndon Johnson introduced way back when he was in Congress regarding this matter. Before this bill preachers were "not restricted" from doing this. So Federal income tax which wasn't introduced until about 115 years after the Constitution, and a bill by Lyndon Johnson, "restricted" a portion of the Church's free speech.

And during the administration of Jefferson, as well as other presidents, voluntary church services were allowed in the Capitol building and Jefferson was a regular attendee of these. Churches are now "restricted" from doing that, even on a total volunteer basis.

And organizations such as the boy scouts which one judge has determined is a religious organization had their 90 year lease agreement with the city of San Diego discontinued because of their religious aspects and thus their freedom to do the same thing they were doing for 90 years "was restricted". This was allowed to happen because of the great change that happened to the 1st amendment when the "legal concept" of separation of church and state was formed in the 1947 Everson case.

[JoeEllison]

And organizations such as the boy scouts which one judge has determined is a religious organization had their 90 year lease agreement with the city of San Diego discontinued because of their religious aspects and thus their freedom to do the same thing they were doing for 90 years "was restricted". This was allowed to happen because of the great change that happened to the 1st amendment when the "legal concept" of separation of church and state was formed in the 1947 Everson case.

That's a pretty dishonest representation of that situation... as a Christian, don't you believe that lying in wrong?

[Cleon]

Well for one thing a preacher has to give up his freedom of speech every time he gets into the pulpit with regard to endorsing a political candidate. His freedom of speech is taken away in regard to that area.

This is not correct.


This is all because of a bill Lyndon Johnson introduced way back when he was in Congress regarding this matter. Before this bill preachers were "not restricted" from doing this. So Federal income tax which wasn't introduced until about 115 years after the Constitution, and a bill by Lyndon Johnson, "restricted" a portion of the Church's free speech.
This is not correct.


And during the administration of Jefferson, as well as other presidents, voluntary church services were allowed in the Capitol building and Jefferson was a regular attendee of these. Churches are now "restricted" from doing that, even on a total volunteer basis.This is not correct.


And organizations such as the boy scouts which one judge has determined is a religious organization had their 90 year lease agreement with the city of San Diego discontinued because of their religious aspects and thus their freedom to do the same thing they were doing for 90 years "was restricted". This was allowed to happen because of the great change that happened to the 1st amendment when the "legal concept" of separation of church and state was formed in the 1947 Everson case.
This is not correct.

Result: 0 points. Game over.

Thanks for playing.

Please insert another quarter to continue.

[Hokulele]

Well for one thing a preacher has to give up his freedom of speech every time he gets into the pulpit with regard to endorsing a political candidate. His freedom of speech is taken away in regard to that area. This is all because of a bill Lyndon Johnson introduced way back when he was in Congress regarding this matter. Before this bill preachers were "not restricted" from doing this. So Federal income tax which wasn't introduced until about 115 years after the Constitution, and a bill by Lyndon Johnson, "restricted" a portion of the Church's free speech.


And I am not allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

And during the administration of Jefferson, as well as other presidents, voluntary church services were allowed in the Capitol building and Jefferson was a regular attendee of these. Churches are now "restricted" from doing that, even on a total volunteer basis.


Wrong.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2590203#post2590203

And organizations such as the boy scouts which one judge has determined is a religious organization had their 90 year lease agreement with the city of San Diego discontinued because of their religious aspects and thus their freedom to do the same thing they were doing for 90 years "was restricted". This was allowed to happen because of the great change that happened to the 1st amendment when the "legal concept" of separation of church and state was formed in the 1947 Everson case.


Wrong.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2695443#post2695443


Got anything new?

[DOC]

This is not correct.

This is not correct.

This is not correct.


This is not correct.

Result: 0 points. Game over.

Thanks for playing.

Please insert another quarter to continue.

Care to elaborate

[Crossbow]

Well for one thing a preacher has to give up his freedom of speech every time he gets into the pulpit with regard to endorsing a political candidate. His freedom of speech is taken away in regard to that area. This is all because of a bill Lyndon Johnson introduced way back when he was in Congress regarding this matter. Before this bill preachers were "not restricted" from doing this. So Federal income tax which wasn't introduced until about 115 years after the Constitution, and a bill by Lyndon Johnson, "restricted" a portion of the Church's free speech.

And during the administration of Jefferson, as well as other presidents, voluntary church services were allowed in the Capitol building and Jefferson was a regular attendee of these. Churches are now "restricted" from doing that, even on a total volunteer basis.

And organizations such as the boy scouts which one judge has determined is a religious organization had their 90 year lease agreement with the city of San Diego discontinued because of their religious aspects and thus their freedom to do the same thing they were doing for 90 years "was restricted". This was allowed to happen because of the great change that happened to the 1st amendment when the "legal concept" of separation of church and state was formed in the 1947 Everson case.

Wow!

Thanks for responding, but this information quite clearly shows that you do not know what you are talking about.

Religion is quite available in both the House of Representatives and in the Senate. If one does not know how to obtain such data, then one just has to contact the Chaplin for the House or the Senate.

http://chaplain.house.gov/
http://senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Chaplain.htm

As for early services being conducted in the Capitol buildings, that was because there was no other place to hold these services because the early years of Washington had so few churches.

I do not think that the services are restricted, instead they are just not needed since there are so many different churches to choose from and the members have considerable powers to travel home every week-end.

Further, ministers can endorse anyone they like from their pulpit. I have seen Reagan get such endorsements, H.W. Bush, and G.W. Bush get such endorsements.

I am sure that you have as well.

And just because some Boy Scout group did not get an automatic renewal on the lease they had, that does not constitue a religious restriction.

Instead, the city just decided that they may want to do something else with the property. That sort of thing happens all the time.

As far as income taxes go, those are in the Constitution.

Just check Article 16 which was ratified in 1913!


ARTICLE XVI.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes,
from whatever source derived, without apportionment
among the several States, and without regard to any census or
enumeration.

[DOC]

Doc Quote:

And during the administration of Jefferson, as well as other presidents, voluntary church services were allowed in the Capitol building and Jefferson was a regular attendee of these. Churches are now "restricted" from doing that, even on a total volunteer basis.




Wrong.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2590203#post2590203

The Library of Congress exhibit "Religion and the Federal Republic" says I'm correct.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

[joobz]

Doc Quote:

And during the administration of Jefferson, as well as other presidents, voluntary church services were allowed in the Capitol building and Jefferson was a regular attendee of these. Churches are now "restricted" from doing that, even on a total volunteer basis.




The Library of Congress exhibit "Religion and the Federal Republic" says I'm correct.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html
And it's been proven conclusively that that source is unreliable.

[shadron]

Let me try to clear up this whole Seperation of Church and state subject. Dr. Kennedy says that liberals and others have completely misrepresented the intent of the letter. The Danbury Baptist Assoc. had written to Jefferson and expressed worry about the increasing power of the relatively "new" Federal Government. Remember the power of the King of England over the church. yada yada

So now Dr. Kennedy seems to feel that the judges were wrong and his interpretation of what occurred in 1947 is the one true way. Pardon me if I don't see the good doctor's opinion as any more liberating that the Supreme Court's own decision. I have a problem with activist religionists.

Whatever does all this have to do with "Jefferson's Fear of the Supreme Court"? I think you are conflating your own fear here.

[Hokulele]

DOC, have you already forgotten the importance of primary sources? Do you even know what a primary source is?

[JoeEllison]

And it's been proven conclusively that that source is unreliable.

Why is DOC allowed to keep starting threads? Isn't there a rule about basically posting the same topic over and over? He posts whatever, and then the same 12 or so links pop up, the way they do on every thread. Then, at some point, he'll link to one of his neo-Nazi websites and/or say something positive about genocide.

Since they're all really the same thread, shouldn't he only get one?

[DOC]

As for early services being conducted in the Capitol buildings, that was because there was no other place to hold these services because the early years of Washington had so few churches.

So if a town only has a few churches and synogogues and let's say half are destroyed in a earthquake, then I would assume you and the federal government would have no problem if Catholic and Jewish groups held there services in the Federal courthouse until they buildings were rebuilt.

Further, ministers can endorse anyone they like from their pulpit. I have seen Reagan get such endorsements, H.W. Bush, and G.W. Bush get such endorsements.

I am sure that you have as well.

Yea, they can do it but they would be breaking the law. And would probably get a letter from the IRS to cease their endorsements from the pulpit or they would lose their tax exemption. Thus a portion of their freedom of speech is restricted. This was not the case in Jefferson's time. Or even before the 1947 Everson case and the Lyndon Johnson bill.

[hgc]

Well for one thing a preacher has to give up his freedom of speech every time he gets into the pulpit with regard to endorsing a political candidate.
...


Said preacher can endorse, campaign or do any political activity he wants from the pulpit, as long as the church pays taxes like other businesses. I think it's a swell idea.

As long as we're subsidizing their snake oil medicine show with tax exemptions, reasonable controls over their (the religious institution, not the private individuals outside of conducting the business of the church - "preaching") participation in the political process that builds our government institutions is warranted. Not behind the pulpit? No restriction. Jerry Falwell, a vile, bloated, megalomaniac, big business preacher recently ejected from the host of the living, exercised the same freedom of speech we all do - on the television and in numerous other contexts.

[DOC]

Why is DOC allowed to keep starting threads? Isn't there a rule about basically posting the same topic over and over? Well the only reason I started this one is because there was some question as to whether it was related to religion. So I brought it into the history forum.

And why do you keep coming into my threads. It's very simple, if you think a thread topic has been covered then stay out of the thread and go to one you like.

[JoeEllison]

Yea, they can do it but they would be breaking the law. And would probably get a letter from the IRS to cease their endorsements from the pulpit or they would lose their tax exemption.

You're reading the issue exactly backwards. Currently, churches get a special tax privilege, in exchange for accepting certain restrictions on their behavior. They can choose to pay their fair share of taxes like everyone else, OR they can follow those restrictions. The way you paint it, churches are being unfairly singled out, when in reality they are getting a special tax break. For some reason, you see the restrictions as being somehow apart from the exemption, when in reality they are bundled together.

[JoeEllison]

And, BTW, churches don't have "freedom of speech" anyway. Freedoms are for PEOPLE, and every member of a church, including the pastor, can personally endorse anyone they want to, on their own time.

[DOC]

Said preacher can endorse, campaign or do any political activity he wants from the pulpit, as long as the church pays taxes like other businesses. I think it's a swell idea.

In that case, freedom of speech would not be free and would cost a preacher some money. I'm of the opinion that freedom of speech should never be dependent on paying taxes.

[Cleon]

Care to elaborate

Not particularly. These topics have been done to death with you, with numerous people providing you with substantial information as to why you're incorrect.

You've chosen to ignore all of that information.

I see no reason to provide you with it again, seeing as how it would be a complete waste of effort.



The Library of Congress exhibit "Religion and the Federal Republic" says I'm correct.

And it's been explained to you, in detail, that this exhibit is, at best, questionable with regard to its scholarship.

You've chosen to ignore that, too.

[hgc]

In that case, freedom of speech would not be free and would cost a preacher some money. I'm of the opinion that freedom of speech should never be dependent on paying taxes.


Now DOC, if you're just gonna pretend that you don't understand what numerous people here are explaining to you, people might begin to think that you really are obtuse.

It's not the preacher who's freedom of action is at stake here - it's the church - you know, the business that is subsidized with tax exemptions. The government gives this tax exemption TO THE CHURCH in exchange for not engaging in politics. The preacher behind the pulpit is acting as an agent of the church, and is thus enclosed by that restriction. He does not have to pay for free speech for himself. But as an arm of the church, he's indirectly being paid already not to politick in his capacity as church agent, by means of tax exemptions. The church does not have to accept this payment by exemption. They can give it up any time.

[DOC]

And, BTW, churches don't have "freedom of speech" anyway. Freedoms are for PEOPLE, and every member of a church, including the pastor, can personally endorse anyone they want to, on their own time.

So if the time you and your pastor or rabbi spends in church or synagogue is not your own time than whose time is it.

[Cleon]

In that case, freedom of speech would not be free and would cost a preacher some money.

No, it would cost the church money.

Any preacher is free to endorse any candidate he wants. He does not have to pay for the right. This is a plain and simple fact. Case in point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_huckabee).

If a church wants to act like a political machine, they have to pay taxes like other political machines. To do otherwise would be discriminatory in favor of churches, which would be a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

This is not about "freedom of speech," this is about the conditions of being a tax-exempt organization. Planned Parenthood isn't allowed to endorse candidates, either.



I'm of the opinion that freedom of speech should never be dependent on paying taxes.

Your opinion is flawed in many, many ways.

[JoeEllison]

So if the time you and your pastor or rabbi spends in church or synagogue is not your own time than whose time is it.

It is the church's time, and as an entity subject to American laws, it can only keep its tax exempt status if it does not act as a political entity.

[ceo_esq]

While it is true that there are people who over-reach with the separation issue, it is clear that the framers did not want the government inposing itself on the church and also did not want any church imposing itself into government business because they feared the consequences on both sides - hence the strict prohibition against a religious test for the holding of public office.

I do think there is a strong case that the contemporary understanding (and perhaps in a more general sense a post-Fourteenth Amendment understanding) of the effect of the Establishment Clause yields a degree of "separation" that doesn't correspond to what Jefferson, or probably most of his peers, contemplated. I think a goodly number of my brethren at the bar acknowledge that Justice Black's wall is not Jefferson's. I'll requote here an excerpt (cited earlier in the other active TJ thread) from Prof. Dreisbach's excellent Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State (NYU Press 2002):

The "wall" Jefferson erected in his letter to the Danbury Baptists served primarily to separate state and nation in matters pertaining to religion, rather than to separate ecclesiastical and all government authorities. ... This jurisdictional (or structural) interpretation of the metaphor is rooted in the text, structure, and historic, pre-Fourteenth Amendment understanding of the Bill of Rights, in general, and of the First Amendment in particular. This view is buttressed by the text of the Danbury letter (including evidence gleaned from a preliminary draft), as well as by Jefferson's explanation of the letter and his stance on specific church-state issues apparently addressed in his correspondence with the Connecticut Baptists. ...

It is plausible, even likely, that Jefferson desired each state, through its respective constitutions and laws, to erect its own wall of separation between ecclesiastical and state authorities, but ... while he specifically denied that the federal government had the "power to prescribe any religious exercise," he acknowledged that such power "[r]ests with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority." Notwithstanding the useful purposes Jefferson thought were served by the First Amendment "wall," he understood that its strictures were not imposed on state governments. ...

This controverts the conventional notion that Jefferson's metaphor encapsulated a general constitutional, prudential, and libertarian doctrine of church-state relationships and religious liberty. ... There is no evidence that Jefferson considered the metaphor the quintessential symbolic expression of his church-state views. There is little evidence to indicate that Jefferson thought the metaphor encapsulated a universal principle of religious liberty or of the prudential relationships between religion and all civil government (local, state, and federal). There is much evidence ... that the "wall" has been used in ways - rhetorically and substantively - that its architect almost certainly would not have recognized and, perhaps, would have repudiated.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Ichneumanwasp,
Your post was extremely informative and a joy to read.

thank you.

Wow, thank you.

This thread seems headed in the same direction as all the others, so..........

[ceo_esq]

If a church wants to act like a political machine, they have to pay taxes like other political machines. To do otherwise would be discriminatory in favor of churches, which would be a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Actually, probably not. Tax exemptions for churches have fared pretty well in the federal courts, which have indicated that they generally don't result in an establishment of religion even though they arguably discriminate in favor of churches. More interestingly, the courts have suggested that the degree of government entanglement with religion occasioned by taxing churches exceeds the degree of entanglement occasioned by creating exemptions for them - such that, ironically, exempting them is generally the constitutionally safer way to go.

[Cleon]

Actually, probably not.

Actually, probably. You misread my post. Try again.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I do think there is a strong case that the contemporary understanding (and perhaps in a more general sense a post-Fourteenth Amendment understanding) of the effect of the Establishment Clause yields a degree of "separation" that doesn't correspond to what Jefferson, or probably most of his peers, contemplated. I think a goodly number of my brethren at the bar acknowledge that Justice Black's wall is not Jefferson's. I'll requote here an excerpt (cited earlier in the other active TJ thread) from Prof. Dreisbach's excellent Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State (NYU Press 2002):

Agreed. That is why I have no intention of touching the Danbury letter. One of the things that seems to piss off some on this issue is that the Civil War and the 14th amendment changed the face of it (probably irrevocably), since many try to frame it in state's rights terms. My guess would be that Jefferson would have wanted each state to decide on its own this issue (as is argued by Prof. Dreisbach) -- that certainly seems in keeping with his general tenor.

But we live in a different world now.......

[Bob Blaylock]

The obvious intent of the First Amendment is, in general terms, to protect the right to believe what you will, and to express your beliefs, whatever they may be.

I've always thought it quite bizarre how the First Amendment has come to be twisted and perverted into an excuse for censoring and suppressing certain classes of belief and expression; in a manner that goes very much against the obvious original intent of this Amendment.

[ceo_esq]

Actually, probably. You misread my post. Try again.

You said "If a church wants to act like a political machine, they have to pay taxes like other political machines." That is simplifying the matter a bit, but is basically a correct statement of the current requirements of the Internal Revenue Code (as opposed to the Constitution). However, you then went on to say "To do otherwise would be discriminatory in favor of churches, which would be a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment." And I think that is probably incorrect. Congress could hypothetically amend the Internal Revenue Code to remove any political-nonintervention conditions on the tax-exempt status of churches without committing a "clear violation of the Establishment Clause". This is why I said, "Actually, probably not." Now, how did I misread your post?

[DOC]

And it's been proven conclusively that that source is unreliable.

Where has it conclusively been proven that the Library of Congress Exhibit on "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" is unreliable.

[drkitten]

Where has it conclusively been proven that the Library of Congress Exhibit on "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" is unreliable.

In every previous thread where you have brought it up, starting with the initial Jefferson thread in R&P.

[Hokulele]

Where has it conclusively been proven that the Library of Congress Exhibit on "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" is unreliable.


Here.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2935697#post2935697

[Crossbow]

So if a town only has a few churches and synogogues and let's say half are destroyed in a earthquake, then I would assume you and the federal government would have no problem if Catholic and Jewish groups held there services in the Federal courthouse until they buildings were rebuilt.


Well, I guess that you were too smart to check those links I provide, because one of them is a history of the Senate chaplains written by Senator Byrd of West Virginia (http://senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Chaplain.pdf).

Page four of this document states:


...

When the seat of government moved to Washington, the nation's capital was little more than a tiny village. In 1800, it offered only two churches: a small frame Catholic chapel on F Street and an Episcopal church, formerly a tobacco warehouse, at the base of Capitol Hill. Although more churches sprang up as the population grew in the early nineteenth century, the House of Representatives chamber, which today serves as Statuary Hall, was the scene of some of the city's most interesting services.

...


Now then as to your most interesting question,
IF some sort of disaster were to strike Washington, D.C. that somehow wiped out virtually all of the churches, prevented people from readily getting home, but somehow left the Capitol buildings in tact,
THEN no, I would have not have a problem in holding various church services in the Capitol buildings as they did some two hundred years ago.

HOWEVER, practically thinking, I seriously doubt that such a disaster could ever occur.

FURTHER, I doubt that you would approve such a thing yourself, because doing so would mean that all religions would have to be give equal time. Thus, sometimes Catholic services would be held, other times Protestant, other times Muslim, other times Buddhist, other times Jewish, and so on.

Are you sure that this is really what you want to happen?


Yea, they can do it but they would be breaking the law. And would probably get a letter from the IRS to cease their endorsements from the pulpit or they would lose their tax exemption. Thus a portion of their freedom of speech is restricted. This was not the case in Jefferson's time. Or even before the 1947 Everson case and the Lyndon Johnson bill.

Sorry, but I think that is quite reasonable.

If someone is given a tax exemption on the grounds that they are doing non-profit religious work, then they should lose that exemption if they are no longer doing that work. And doing political work for a specific canididate does not have anything to do with non-profit religious work.

[fuelair]

The 1947 case (Everson vs. The Board of Education) which I might talk about later basically created the "legal term" separation of church and state. Here is some background on that.

----

Let me try to clear up this whole Seperation of Church and state subject. Dr. Kennedy
__

We have established that "Dr." Kennedy is a dead pointless guy with little knowledge of actual history. You've fed from that trough way too long.

Second, please do not feel required to talk later about anything - you're good for laughs occasionally but that's about it.

[JoeEllison]

I've always thought it quite bizarre how the First Amendment has come to be twisted and perverted into an excuse for censoring and suppressing certain classes of belief and expression; in a manner that goes very much against the obvious original intent of this Amendment.
I've never, ever seen that to be the case... maybe you can enlighten us?

[ceo_esq]

In every previous thread where you have brought it up, starting with the initial Jefferson thread in R&P.

I'll admit that as the other Jefferson thread got longer and longer I may have missed sections of it, but my recollection is that most of the posts dealing with the credibility of the LOC materials were devoted to assertions that the curators were not infallible. I seem to remember someone pointing out an oral statement Dr. Huston made in another context (not the exhibit), and then making an argument tending to show that Huston's statement might have have constituted an overgeneralization. I don't recall seeing anything that, to my mind, would generally undermine the credibility of the exhibit or of Huston's legitimate expertise generally. It's very possible I missed it in that long thread.

[joobz]

Where has it conclusively been proven that the Library of Congress Exhibit on "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" is unreliable.
To elaborate a bit upon what Drkitten and Hokulele said:
In every previous thread where you have brought it up, starting with the initial Jefferson thread in R&P.
Here.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2935697#post2935697


When I refer to conclusive proof, I mean the objective variety. The kind of proof that doesn't require your approval in order for it to be true. In other words, all of reality.

[Tanstaafl]

I guess DOC's lies were too voluminous to fit within the existing threads.

[JoeEllison]

I guess DOC's lies were too voluminous to fit within the existing threads.

Nah, they are the same dozen or so, repeated over and over again... sometimes, he just posts links to earlier time that he posted one of them, to save the typing.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Where has it conclusively been proven that the Library of Congress Exhibit on "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" is unreliable.

Here (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=alley_18_4) for starters:

Sadly, the Library of Congress decided to edit what Jefferson had written to Rush in 1803. It begins its butchery by noting that Jefferson asserted that he was "Christian, in the only sense in which [Jesus] wished any one to be." Scholarly integrity would require the Library to note that Jefferson placed no period after the word be. There is, rather, a semi-colon followed by the words, "sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all other; ascribing to himself every human [underscored in the original] excellence, and believing he never claimed any other." As was his practice, Jefferson contended that Jesus never claimed to be a deity. That sentiment had already ignited severe opposition by a large segment of the religious establishment in his day. The Library appears to be advancing an alternate theory that has no legitimacy, but may be more to the liking of Christian orthodoxy. This may explain why the Library continues its commentary on the subject by quoting only a fragment of a rather lengthy sentence by Jefferson in his Syllabus. The Library is shameless in doctoring that sentence, which reads in its entirety:
The question of his being a member of the god-head, or in direct communication with it, claimed for him by some of his followers, and denied by others, is foreign to the present view, which is merely an estimate of the intrinsic merit of his doctrines.
The Library of Congress altered it to read:
Jefferson declined to consider the "question of [Jesus] being a member of the god-head, or in direct communication with it, claimed by some of his followers, and denied by others."


Deliberate alteration of historical documents to make a political point is not good scholarship, DOC. However, since you play fast and loose with primary sources (when you actually try to use them, that is), it shouldn't surprise us that you approve of Hutson's academic fraud.

[Gazpacho]

Congress could hypothetically amend the Internal Revenue Code to remove any political-nonintervention conditions on the tax-exempt status of churches without committing a "clear violation of the Establishment Clause".
Amending the code this way would create a financial advantage for political activity by churches vs. other groups and would therefore tend toward establishment.

In any event, churchgoers have no trouble setting up organizations to manage their political activity within the current laws.

[Gazpacho]

So if a town only has a few churches and synogogues and let's say half are destroyed in a earthquake, then I would assume you and the federal government would have no problem if Catholic and Jewish groups held there services in the Federal courthouse until they buildings were rebuilt.
That would depend on whether the courthouse is made available on equal terms for meetings by other groups. See for example Good News Club v. Milford Central School.

[hgc]

That would depend on whether the courthouse is made available on equal terms for meetings by other groups. See for example Good News Club v. Milford Central School.


Let's not forget that, unless every other building in town besides the courthouse is knocked down, a congregation can rent space or use donated space in all manner of privately owned building.

This is a common intellectual leap for those seeking to undo the separation of religion and government - that there is no other recourse to religious freedom than that government institutions actively support them. It's the restriction of politicking at the pulpit, as if they can't politick outside the church. It's the school prayer thing, as if they can't pray on their own in school. It's the Christmas creche, as if there is no private property available for the display. There is endless recourse to religious freedom. But religious freedom is not the goal - theocracy is.

[shadron]

The obvious intent of the First Amendment is, in general terms, to protect the right to believe what you will, and to express your beliefs, whatever they may be.

That's quite a novel interpretation there. How does that apply to, say, ritual cross burning, or bigamy, or iconoclasm vis-a-vis vandalism? Your "obvious" is other's belly laugh, or perhaps their mysterious scripture.

I've always thought it quite bizarre how the First Amendment has come to be twisted and perverted into an excuse for censoring and suppressing certain classes of belief and expression; in a manner that goes very much against the obvious original intent of this Amendment.

There's that word again. It's obviously thus-and-so, without objective evidence or even argument. Did Jefferson tell you what he or what his colleagues had in mind? Perhaps he did; after all, if Robertson can talk to God, then you may well be able to determine the founders' wills. But then, has nothing changed in 300 years that might make a difference? I'd say that that is obvious.

[ceo_esq]

Amending the code this way would create a financial advantage for political activity by churches vs. other groups and would therefore tend toward establishment.

Probably not within the meaning of the Establishment Clause, no. It's a hypothetical situation of course, but the Supreme Court's precedents suggest that the financial advantage still would not violate the Constitution (even though the Court has acknowledged that tax exemptions extended to religious entities can be enormously advantageous to them). From Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970):

The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship, since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches, but simply abstains from demanding that the church support the state. ... There is no genuine nexus between tax exemption and establishment of religion. … The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other. …

Few concepts are more deeply embedded in the fabric of our national life, beginning with pre-Revolutionary colonial times, than for the government to exercise at the very least this kind of benevolent neutrality toward churches and religious exercise generally so long as none was favored over others and none suffered interference. …

Nothing in this national attitude toward religious tolerance and two centuries of uninterrupted freedom from taxation has given the remotest sign of leading to an established church or religion, and, on the contrary, it has operated affirmatively to help guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief. …

It appears that, at least up to 1885, this Court, reflecting more than a century of our history and uninterrupted practice, accepted without discussion the proposition that federal or state grants of tax exemption to churches were not a violation of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. … [W]e now confirm that view.

[Bob Blaylock]

The obvious intent of the First Amendment is, in general terms, to protect the right to believe what you will, and to express your beliefs, whatever they may be.
That's quite a novel interpretation there. How does that apply to, say, ritual cross burning, or bigamy, or iconoclasm vis-a-vis vandalism? Your "obvious" is other's belly laugh, or perhaps their mysterious scripture.

It is not my contention that any form of freedom of expression is absolute. At some point, where one might choose to express one's beliefs in a manner which violates another's rights, such as any means that involves trespassing, assault, destruction of another's property, slander, fraud, extortion, and so on; that clearly is outside of the scope of what the First Amendment was intended to protect. I would never argue — nor accept is as a valid argument from anyone else — that in such cases, the suppression of such inappropriate forms of expression are required by the First Amendment, or justified based on the First Amendment. Under no circumstances do I consider it as reasonable to argue that the First Amendment itself supports or requires any form of suppression or censorship. Such suppression or censorship can only be justified on the basis that the rights which are thus protected are more important than the right of expression that is being suppressed. For example, I think most would agree that my right to say to you “Hand over all your cash and valuables, or else I will kill you.”; must not prevail over your right not to be subject to extortion and robbery.


I've always thought it quite bizarre how the First Amendment has come to be twisted and perverted into an excuse for censoring and suppressing certain classes of belief and expression; in a manner that goes very much against the obvious original intent of this Amendment.
There's that word again. It's obviously thus-and-so, without objective evidence or even argument. Did Jefferson tell you what he or what his colleagues had in mind? Perhaps he did; after all, if Robertson can talk to God, then you may well be able to determine the founders' wills. But then, has nothing changed in 300 years that might make a difference? I'd say that that is obvious.


If you will not accept what the First Amendment itself explicitly says, then I cannot imagine what “objective evidence” you would accept to support my interpretation of what it says. Nowhere in the First Amendment is there any language that can reasonably be construed as requiring or supporting censorship and suppression of any belief or expression; in fact, all the language in the First Amendment is very clearly written to oppose censorship and suppression.

[Ichneumonwasp]

It is not my contention that any form of freedom of expression is absolute. At some point, where one might choose to express one's beliefs in a manner which violates another's rights, such as any means that involves trespassing, assault, destruction of another's property, slander, fraud, extortion, and so on; that clearly is outside of the scope of what the First Amendment was intended to protect. I would never argue — nor accept is as a valid argument from anyone else — that in such cases, the suppression of such inappropriate forms of expression are required by the First Amendment, or justified based on the First Amendment. Under no circumstances do I consider it as reasonable to argue that the First Amendment itself supports or requires any form of suppression or censorship. Such suppression or censorship can only be justified on the basis that the rights which are thus protected are more important than the right of expression that is being suppressed. For example, I think most would agree that my right to say to you “Hand over all your cash and valuables, or else I will kill you.”; must not prevail over your right not to be subject to extortion and robbery.





If you will not accept what the First Amendment itself explicitly says, then I cannot imagine what “objective evidence” you would accept to support my interpretation of what it says. Nowhere in the First Amendment is there any language that can reasonably be construed as requiring or supporting censorship and suppression of any belief or expression; in fact, all the language in the First Amendment is very clearly written to oppose censorship and suppression.

I'm afraid that you've lost me. What censorship and/or suppression are we discussing? I'm not aware of any actual censorship that has occurred as a result of any of these policies.

Sure, they're being stretched a bit, but where is the censorship?

Just as I cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theater (but I can shout it all I want in the privacy of my own home), I cannot insist that others pray for a particular god in my school if that school receives federal funding. No one's right to prayer is being stopped. So, to what examples of censorship do you refer?

[DOC]

I am of the opinion that the 1st amendment was greatly changed by the Supreme Court in 1947 and it used Jefferson's own words as part of their justification in doing so. I find this ironic if we are to believe these 8 quotes by Jefferson, because he feared this very thing happening.

From the website Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Jefferson's reaction to Marbury vs. Madison 1803

http://www.landmarkcases.org/marbury/jefferson.html


You are welcome to your opinion. The court, however, disagrees with you.

Jefferson's concerns were shared by many and were expressed long before Marbury v. Madison. I noticed that you have toned down your language in this post, no longer suggesting that it was Jefferson who originated the ideas and no longer claiming that he was prophetic...

In the "Jefferson's Admiration... of Christianity" thread in the religion forum you said Jefferson "parroted" the words of others with regard to his concerns about the power of the Supreme Court. Which one of the 8 Jefferson quotes regarding his concerns and fears about the power of the Supreme Court (mentioned in the Post #1) do you believe this great thinker and writer parroted.

And I still stand by my belief that Jefferson's fears regarding the Supreme Court were "realized" (as I alluded to in posts 1 and 2) and thus his beliefs could be considered prophetic. And your statement that I suggested Jefferson "originated" the ideas is false; although I would certainly have to believe that many of his thoughts expressed in his 8 quotes are original until proven otherwise.

[Ichneumonwasp]

DOC,

Read my posts above. I don't see how you don't get it, unless your only deisre is to gainsay.

I am not arguing that Jefferson's fears were not realized. I corrected you about who said it first. You said that Jefferson was prophetic. To be prophetic he would need to have originated the idea. The anti-federalist who called himself 'Brutus' was the prophetic one. The idea was quite wide-spread and feared by many at the time, so really there wasn't anything particularly prophetic about it. As those who read it knew, this was simply a power that was granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. This isn't difficult.

[Bob Blaylock]

Now then as to your most interesting question,
IF some sort of disaster were to strike Washington, D.C. that somehow wiped out virtually all of the churches, prevented people from readily getting home, but somehow left the Capitol buildings in tact,
THEN no, I would have not have a problem in holding various church services in the Capitol buildings as they did some two hundred years ago.

HOWEVER, practically thinking, I seriously doubt that such a disaster could ever occur.

FURTHER, I doubt that you would approve such a thing yourself, because doing so would mean that all religions would have to be give equal time. Thus, sometimes Catholic services would be held, other times Protestant, other times Muslim, other times Buddhist, other times Jewish, and so on.

Are you sure that this is really what you want to happen?


Why not? Objecting to having my own religion discriminated against certainly doesn't mean that I think all other religions than my own should be discriminated against. As long as the Catholics get to use a particular public facility; why should they object when Protestants are also allowed to use that same facility; or Jews, or Buddhists, or Muslims?

Your objection here seems to be based on the ideas that we must censor and suppress all religions equally, lest we somehow discriminate among them. My position is that we should not censor or suppress any organization on the basis of it being religious in nature.

[DOC]

I am not arguing that Jefferson's fears were not realized. I corrected you about who said it first. You said that Jefferson was prophetic. To be prophetic he would need to have originated the idea. The anti-federalist who called himself 'Brutus' was the prophetic one...

You continue to make a false statement by saying that I "said" Jefferson was the first to come up with the idea. If you believe I implied it then say so, but it is a false statement to say I said it.

And do you believe all 8 of Jefferson's quotes from post #1 about the Supreme Court are unoriginal or just some of them.

And according to your reasoning if some guy named Joe Blow predicted in 1960 that Kennedy would be killed and then in 1961 Jean Dixon also predicted that Kennedy would be killed then Jean Dixon would not have predicted that Kennedy would be killed.

[joobz]

You continue to make a false statement by saying that I "said" Jefferson was the first to come up with the idea. If you believe I implied it then say so, but it is a false statement to say I said it.

And do you believe all 8 of Jefferson's quotes from post #1 about the Supreme Court are unoriginal or just some of them.

And according to your reasoning if some guy named Joe Blow predicted in 1960 that Kennedy would be killed and then in 1961 Jean Dixon also predicted that Kennedy would be killed then Jean Dixon would not have predicted that Kennedy would be killed.
now you're changing words to avoid error. You said he was prophetic, which implies something more substantial than a mere prediction.

Anyway, None of this really matters since Jefferson's views are not by any means sacrosanct. In much the same way you state that Jesus was against slavery, I say that Jefferson would support modern views of church-state seperation. It's clear that his primary intent was for there to be a republic whose laws were designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority. I'm confident that he would see the wisdom in seperating as much as possible religion from publicly run institutions. Such seperation doens't prevent people from worship but it is the only practical means of ensuring that no one religion takes precendent over others.

[Ichneumonwasp]

You continue to make a false statement by saying that I "said" Jefferson was the first to come up with the idea. If you believe I implied it then say so, but it is a false statement to say I said it.

And do you believe all 8 of Jefferson's quotes from post #1 about the Supreme Court are unoriginal or just some of them.

And according to your reasoning if some guy named Joe Blow predicted in 1960 that Kennedy would be killed and then in 1961 Jean Dixon also predicted that Kennedy would be killed then Jean Dixon would not have predicted that Kennedy would be killed.

DOC, listen to me and stop acting like a petulant child, please.

The Supreme Court was given this power that you say Jefferson was prophetic about. Many people knew this -- that is why I corrected you. All you have to do is read the friggin' document and you can see it too. There was nothing prophetic about it. The Anti-Federalists saw it. Hamilton saw it and tried to down-play it in Federalist 78. It was widely discussed. People make a huge deal out of Marbury v. Madison as though the court created some new power in that decision and that the decision came out of the blue. Well, it didn't. That is the whole point behind this.

I am trying to tell you that you are making a specious argument that goes no where. So, get over it and move on.

The real argument in all these discussions is merely, "I don't like the Court's decision."

You cannot argue that the Court doesn't have the power unless you want to rewrite the Constitution. So, you are left with only one recourse -- show why the decision was wrong.

All this blathering about the phrase "separation of church and state" is sideshow.

The Court has the power to decide and it bought Leo Pfeffer's argument. Whatever 'original intent' means, none of that matters. We are not that society any longer.

So, get to the meat of the argument - why was the Court wrong?

[mijopaalmc]

You continue to make a false statement by saying that I "said" Jefferson was the first to come up with the idea. If you believe I implied it then say so, but it is a false statement to say I said it.

I know other people have probably told you this before, but don't lie about what you said when it can so easily be found.

Here is where you called Jefferson "prophetic":

I hate to break this to you, but Jefferson was not the prophet. Please read some of the anti-Federalist papers -- this was all discussed in great detail by several authors before the Constitution was ratified.

I'm not talking about the other authors, I'm talking about Jefferson. And he was greatly concerned about the power of the Supreme Court to change laws. And how prophetic of him, because the 1st Amendment was greatly changed in 1947 by the likes of Hugo Black and former ACLU committee member Leo Pfeffer. And they even used Jefferson's own quote mined words to do it.(emphasis added)

[Gazpacho]

I often wonder, when this matter of the court's authority over constitutional questions come up, how people like DOC expect the constitution to have any effect unless someone gets to decide what is and isn't constitutional.

[mijopaalmc]

I often wonder, when this matter of the court's authority over constitutional questions come up, how people like DOC expect the constitution to have any effect unless someone gets to decide what is and isn't constitutional.

God, of course.:p

[DOC]

I often wonder, when this matter of the court's authority over constitutional questions come up, how people like DOC expect the constitution to have any effect unless someone gets to decide what is and isn't constitutional.

I would agree with Jefferson on this. In a democracy the people should have the final say, not 9 politically appointed judges. Maybe every 4 years each of the top 2 political parties can pick 3 controversial decisions by the Supreme Court. Then if any of those decisions are overruled by the people's vote then that particular Supreme Court decision would be void. This would lessen the influence of people like Hugo KKK Black and Leo Pfeffer on the American way of life.

[joobz]

I would agree with Jefferson on this. In a democracy the people should have the final say, not 9 politically appointed judges. Maybe every 4 years each of the top 2 political parties can pick 3 controversial decisions by the Supreme Court. Then if any of those decisions are overruled by the people's vote then that particular Supreme Court decision would be void. This would lessen the influence of people like Hugo KKK Black and Leo Pfeffer on the American way of life.
But such a plan would be entirely against jefferson's views on minority rights.

For example, in most states, such a procedure would obviously block gay marriage. However, it's clear that in a society which is based upon equal rights for all, gay marriage must be legalized regardless of popular opinion.

I doubt very highly that if your system of law was enacted that we would ever had an end to segregation. The majority (regardless of their religion) aren't always the most moral.

[Gazpacho]

I would agree with Jefferson on this. In a democracy the people should have the final say, not 9 politically appointed judges. Maybe every 4 years each of the top 2 political parties can pick 3 controversial decisions by the Supreme Court. Then if any of those decisions are overruled by the people's vote then that particular Supreme Court decision would be void. This would lessen the influence of people like Hugo KKK Black and Leo Pfeffer on the American way of life.
How novel. You have grossly misunderstood the purpose of having a constitution in the first place.

[ceo_esq]

For example, in most states, such a procedure would obviously block gay marriage. However, it's clear that in a society which is based upon equal rights for all, gay marriage must be legalized regardless of popular opinion.

I'm not sure that is fully clear. I think it depends largely on one's view of what it means for a society to be "based upon equal rights for all". I suppose the strictest possible view of egalitarianism would require a society to eliminate every explicit or implicit legislative classification.


I doubt very highly that if [DOC's] system of law was enacted that we would ever had an end to segregation.

I disagree. In fact, by the time Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954, it was arguably not the Supreme Court that was taking an antimajoritarian stance; it was Congress (especially the Senate) and Southern state politics (which, among other things, relied on disenfranchising blacks who otherwise could have contributed to a possible voting majority). When Brown invalidated school segregation, only a minority (albeit a substantial one) of U.S. states still segregated their schools, and if not for the Constitution's protections of state's rights those states might have been forced to bow to national opinion earlier.

As Michael J. Klarman noted in From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality (Oxford UP 2004):

By the early 1950s, powerful political, economic, social, and ideological forces for progressive racial change had made judicial invalidation of segregation conceivable. Slightly more than half of the nation supported Brown from the day it was decided. Thus, Brown is not an example of the Court's resistance to majoritarian sentiment, but rather of its conversion of an emerging national consensus into a constitutional command. By 1954, the long-term trend against Jim Crow was clear. Justices observed that segregation was "gradually disappearing" and that it was "marked for early extinction." They understood that Brown was working with, not against, the current of history.

...

[T]he Court's race decisions from the 1920s onward may have reflected national opinion better than did Congress's (in)action.

[DOC]

But such a plan would be entirely against jefferson's views on minority rights.

For example, in most states, such a procedure would obviously block gay marriage. However, it's clear that in a society which is based upon equal rights for all, gay marriage must be legalized regardless of popular opinion...

My plan in post #65 would not block gay marriage because to my knowledge there is nothing about gay marriage in the US constitution. The problems occur when activist judges get involved and make policy like Hugo Black (and indirectly Leo Pfeffer) did when they helped make the non-constitutional policy of separation of church and state in the 1947 Everson case.

And when the 9 non-elected Supreme Court judges do overstep their authority and try to tinker with or bizarrely interpret the Constitution then the people can overturn it "if" they desire to.

[DOC]

double post - deleted

[joobz]

My plan in post #65 would not block gay marriage because to my knowledge there is nothing about gay marriage in the US constitution. The problems occur when activist judges get involved and make policy like Hugo Black (and indirectly Leo Pfeffer) did when they helped make the non-constitutional policy of separation of church and state in the 1947 Everson case.

And when the 9 non-elected Supreme Court judges do overstep their authority and try to tinker with or bizarrely interpret the Constitution then the people can overturn it "if" they desire to.
So your argument is that the argument of equal rights under the law doesn't really mean equal rights?

[joobz]

I'm not sure that is fully clear. I think it depends largely on one's view of what it means for a society to be "based upon equal rights for all". I suppose the strictest possible view of egalitarianism would require a society to eliminate every explicit or implicit legislative classification.
How can you have equality without giving every citizen access to the same rights? As DOC has pointed out, there's no mention of gay marriage in the constitution, but neither is there mention of marriage being a union of man and woman.



I disagree. In fact, by the time Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954, it was arguably not the Supreme Court that was taking an antimajoritarian stance; it was Congress (especially the Senate) and Southern state politics (which, among other things, relied on disenfranchising blacks who otherwise could have contributed to a possible voting majority). When Brown invalidated school segregation, only a minority (albeit a substantial one) of U.S. states still segregated their schools, and if not for the Constitution's protections of state's rights those states might have been forced to bow to national opinion earlier.

As Michael J. Klarman noted in From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality (Oxford UP 2004):
I concede this point. But then my question is, and goes to the original issue, how do you guard against the majority's will stripping away minority rights under the DOC system?

[Crossbow]

I would agree with Jefferson on this. In a democracy the people should have the final say, not 9 politically appointed judges. Maybe every 4 years each of the top 2 political parties can pick 3 controversial decisions by the Supreme Court. Then if any of those decisions are overruled by the people's vote then that particular Supreme Court decision would be void. This would lessen the influence of people like Hugo KKK Black and Leo Pfeffer on the American way of life.

Sorry, but I fail to see what it is that you are so concerned about.

Any decision made by the Supreme Court can be reversed by changing the US Constitution, and there are provisions in the Constitution for doing just that.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC

My plan in post #65 would not block gay marriage because to my knowledge there is nothing about gay marriage in the US constitution. The problems occur when activist judges get involved and make policy like Hugo Black (and indirectly Leo Pfeffer) did when they helped make the non-constitutional policy of separation of church and state in the 1947 Everson case.

And when the 9 non-elected Supreme Court judges do overstep their authority and try to tinker with or bizarrely interpret the Constitution then the people can overturn it "if" they desire to.

So your argument is that the argument of equal rights under the law doesn't really mean equal rights?

Non Sequitur -- my argument is don't tinker with or bizarrely interpret the US constitution. And if you do then the people should be able to void that interpretation.

[drkitten]

Any decision made by the Supreme Court can be reversed by changing the US Constitution, and there are provisions in the Constitution for doing just that.

Yes, but that would require popular support for his position. At a minimum, he'd have to find a third person besides himself and Kennedy who shared his view that a Christian theocracy with total disregard for human rights would be a good thing.

Much better if he can simply enforce his view of the law on the rest of us without actually considering prior case law or the founders' intent. Wait a minute--isn't that what he's accusing "activist judges" of doing?

[joobz]

Non Sequitur -- my argument is don't tinker with or bizarrely interpret the US constitution. And if you do then the people should be able to void that interpretation.
But such provisions have already been established in the consitution to allow this.

DOC, my point is and has been that Jefferson's view was to have a government system that would provide the will of the majority without sacrificing the rights of the minority. That's exactly what the ruling you are so upset up did. I contend that the strengthening of the church state seperation is entirely in lines with Jefferson's primary goal. In much the same way that you contend that Jesus was actually against slavery.

[DOC]

Sorry, but I fail to see what it is that you are so concerned about.

Any decision made by the Supreme Court can be reversed by changing the US Constitution, and there are provisions in the Constitution for doing just that.

The way its set up now, its almost impossible to void any Supreme Court Decision. I can't think of any Supreme Court decision that has been reversed by an amendment.

My plan in post 65 would help keep activist Supreme Court judges from trying to set policy according to their own whims and personal world views.

[joobz]

The way its set up now, its almost impossible to void any Supreme Court Decision. I can't think of any Supreme Court decision that has been reversed by an amendment.

My plan in post 65 would help keep activist Supreme Court judges from trying to set policy according to their own whims and personal world views.
you really should read all posts in a thread before posting, becuase your statement after Drkitten had already said
Yes, but that would require popular support for his position. At a minimum, he'd have to find a third person besides himself and Kennedy who shared his view that a Christian theocracy with total disregard for human rights would be a good thing.

Much better if he can simply enforce his view of the law on the rest of us without actually considering prior case law or the founders' intent. Wait a minute--isn't that what he's accusing "activist judges" of doing?
is just a bit embarrassing to read.

[Crossbow]

The way its set up now, its almost impossible to void any Supreme Court Decision. I can't think of any Supreme Court decision that has been reversed by an amendment.

My plan in post 65 would help keep activist Supreme Court judges from trying to set policy according to their own whims and personal world views.

Excuse me, but have you ever read the US Constitution?

If not, then I can think of one example right off, and that is Scott v. Sandford and the other pro-slavery decisions which were nullified by Article 13 of the US Constitution.


ARTICLE XIII.

SECTION 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as
a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject
to their jurisdiction.
SECTION 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.



Granted, it is difficult to amend the Constitution, however the process is far from impossible as has been demonstrated by the several amendments that have been proposed and ratified over the last 200 years.

[ceo_esq]

The way its set up now, its almost impossible to void any Supreme Court Decision. I can't think of any Supreme Court decision that has been reversed by an amendment.


Supreme Court decisions interpreting Acts of Congress have been "overruled" on many occasions; Congress simply amends the law.

It's rarer for the Constitution to be amended for the purpose of "overruling" the Supreme Court, but it does happen. The Eleventh Amendment was adopted in reaction to the Supreme Court's ruling in a 1793 case called Chisholm v. Georgia. The Sixteenth Amendment was largely a response to an 1895 ruling in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.

(To say nothing of all the Supreme Court decisions that have been incidentally rendered moot by subsequent amendments to the Constitution.)

[ceo_esq]

If not, then I can think of one example right off, and that is Plessey v. Ferguson and the other pro-slavery decisions which were nullified by Article 13 of the US Constitution.


Plessy v. Ferguson was decided in 1896 and was about segregation rather than slavery as such. You might be thinking of the holding in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), parts of which were nullified by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments (although I wouldn't say that the specific motivation behind those amendments was to overrule the Supreme Court's decision).

[Gazpacho]

NM, already discussed

[Crossbow]

Plessy v. Ferguson was decided in 1896 and was about segregation rather than slavery as such. You might be thinking of the holding in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), parts of which were nullified by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments (although I wouldn't say that the specific motivation behind those amendments was to overrule the Supreme Court's decision).

Ugh!

Sorry about that!

You are quite correct, I should have cited Scott v. Sandford instead. But fortunately, I was able to use the 'Edit' feature and change the citation accordingly.

Thanks for the correction!

[ceo_esq]

How can you have equality without giving every citizen access to the same rights?

What that means is subject to interpretation, though. Note, just as a preliminary example, that you've subtly shifted from "equal rights for all" to the arguably lower threshold of "access to the same rights" (my emphasis). At some point, egalitarianism runs into conflict with other policy goals and values. Our constitutional law recognizes that, which is why we distinguish between different kinds of legislative discrimination. Taken to a logical extreme, if egalitarianism were our only concern, we could not justify different treatment of any classes (not only white vs. nonwhite, but also pregnant vs. non-pregnant, top tax bracket vs. bottom tax bracket, competent vs. incompetent, criminals vs. noncriminals). It's impossible to pursue public policy under those circumstances, though, so we require the government to show different levels of relation to a policy goal in order to justify discrimination. Under our system, for better or worse, that happens to permit the disallowance of same-sex marriage. You could argue that allowing it would be more egalitarian (though that argument has its own weaknesses), but that doesn't mean that a society that doesn't allow it can't be fairly described as egalitarian.


As DOC has pointed out, there's no mention of gay marriage in the constitution, but neither is there mention of marriage being a union of man and woman.

True, at least for the time being. But was anyone arguing that same-sex marriage was against the federal Constitution?

[shadron]

If you will not accept what the First Amendment itself explicitly says, then I cannot imagine what “objective evidence” you would accept to support my interpretation of what it says. Nowhere in the First Amendment is there any language that can reasonably be construed as requiring or supporting censorship and suppression of any belief or expression; in fact, all the language in the First Amendment is very clearly written to oppose censorship and suppression.

So it is obvious by inspection, the words mean exactly what they say, and no argument is required to explain or justify. Fine. But how then do you say that what it says contains no "language that can reasonably be construed as requiring or supporting censorship and suppression of any belief or expression", when you just got through telling me that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" doesn't really mean that when the speech is sufficiently evil in some sense? If that's true, then I postulate an equivalent restriction in "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" when it violates what I think of as a more important ideal, to wit the freedom to not have to be exposed to religion on public grounds.

you say "Such suppression or censorship can only be justified on the basis that the rights which are thus protected are more important than the right of expression that is being suppressed", when wanting to suppress some speech you find less important; I simply find an equivalent loophole for religious expression. You can draw a reasonable inference about my values and priorities from that as you wish.

[shadron]

I would agree with Jefferson on this. In a democracy the people should have the final say, not 9 politically appointed judges. Maybe every 4 years each of the top 2 political parties can pick 3 controversial decisions by the Supreme Court. Then if any of those decisions are overruled by the people's vote then that particular Supreme Court decision would be void. This would lessen the influence of people like Hugo KKK Black and Leo Pfeffer on the American way of life.

How about the best three out of five, DOC? Eh? Four out of seven?

[ceo_esq]

But how then do you say that what it says contains no "language that can reasonably be construed as requiring or supporting censorship and suppression of any belief or expression", when you just got through telling me that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" doesn't really mean that when the speech is sufficiently evil in some sense? If that's true, then I postulate an equivalent restriction in "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" when it violates what I think of as a more important ideal, to wit the freedom to not have to be exposed to religion on public grounds.

you say "Such suppression or censorship can only be justified on the basis that the rights which are thus protected are more important than the right of expression that is being suppressed", when wanting to suppress some speech you find less important; I simply find an equivalent loophole for religious expression. You can draw a reasonable inference about my values and priorities from that as you wish.



The problem here, at least from my perspective as a jurist, is that your loophole is not actually equivalent (or alternatively, that your proposed countervailing "freedom not to have to be exposed to religion on public grounds" does not satisfy such a loophole in the same way). Because we can look at the statutory and common law environment prior to and contemporaneous with the First Amendment, the regulation of speech in the colonies by the British Crown and so forth, it's possible to defend the construction of the Free Speech Clause as intended to allow the restriction of particular kinds of speech (e.g. defamation, threats, divulging of state secrets, etc.). I agree that we can engage (and indeed our legal system has always engaged) in a similar exercise with regard to the religion clauses of the Constitution, but it doesn't reveal any absolute freedom not to "be exposed to religion on public grounds", so it would be unreasonable to construe the First Amendment to be implicitly subject (your proposed "loophole") by such a countervailing freedom.

[DOC]

Posted by DOC

I would agree with Jefferson on this. In a democracy the people should have the final say, not 9 politically appointed judges. Maybe every 4 years each of the top 2 political parties can pick 3 controversial decisions by the Supreme Court. Then if any of those decisions are overruled by the people's vote then that particular Supreme Court decision would be void.

How about the best three out of five, DOC? Eh? Four out of seven?

Hey, if the framers of the Constitution can choose the figures 2/3 of Congress, and 3/4 of states (for ratification), then I should be able to pick the figure 3 every 4 years.

[joobz]

What that means is subject to interpretation, though. Note, just as a preliminary example, that you've subtly shifted from "equal rights for all" to the arguably lower threshold of "access to the same rights" (my emphasis). At some point, egalitarianism runs into conflict with other policy goals and values. Our constitutional law recognizes that, which is why we distinguish between different kinds of legislative discrimination. Taken to a logical extreme, if egalitarianism were our only concern, we could not justify different treatment of any classes (not only white vs. nonwhite, but also pregnant vs. non-pregnant, top tax bracket vs. bottom tax bracket, competent vs. incompetent, criminals vs. noncriminals). It's impossible to pursue public policy under those circumstances, though, so we require the government to show different levels of relation to a policy goal in order to justify discrimination. Under our system, for better or worse, that happens to permit the disallowance of same-sex marriage. You could argue that allowing it would be more egalitarian (though that argument has its own weaknesses), but that doesn't mean that a society that doesn't allow it can't be fairly described as egalitarian.It's rather facetious to compare gay vs straight as being the same distinction between criminal-noncriminal.

We make a value judgement in some those distinctions. By providing more rights to one person than another, we state that our society values one more than another. Obviously in criminal v. non-criminal, we place emphasis on the rights of law abiding citizens over those who break the law. In competent vs. incompetent, we recognize the value of those who are effective, productive members to a company and reward them accordingly.

In distinctions where we have no inherent value of one group over another (which may be debatable), policy usually works to level the playing field. For instance, in rich vs. poor, we provide extra support to poor for access to health care in effort to level the access. In abolitioning the seperate but equal policies, we made access to education equal between different races.

In gay marriage, the debate is to restrict rights and not level the playing field. Therefore, it's a clear value judgement that is being made that straight is more valuable than gay. And there is no good argument to support such a view outside of religious context.


True, at least for the time being. But was anyone arguing that same-sex marriage was against the federal Constitution?
that's arguable. being that the only critique against gay marriage is a religious one, any law that would restrict it could be considered establishing one religion over others.

[ceo_esq]

It's rather facetious to compare gay vs straight as being the same distinction between criminal-noncriminal.

"Gay vs. straight" is not actually a distinction made by conventional marriage laws. But in any event, I wasn't saying any two distinctions resembled each other, just that the strictest form of commitment to equal rights would not allow either distinction (or any other) to be made. Nobody wants that, of course. If you can't exercise some discrimination in setting social policy, you end up running your society indiscriminately. This leads back to my earlier point that you can't just point to an instance of discrimination (if the enforcement of opposite-sex marriage is one) and say that a society "based on equal rights" would not tolerate it. When people say that a society is "based on equal rights", they may mean different things, but none of them mean a society of truly absolute equality of rights.


By providing more rights to one person than another, we state that our society values one more than another.

It's not necessarily a statement that our society values one person more than another. I don't think society values adults more than children, or even that it values people with a driver's license more than people without one.

In many cases it's a statement (or at least a reflection) of the fact that the society (through its instruments of government) prefers a certain outcome that the allocation of rights is designed to facilitate.


In distinctions where we have no inherent value of one group over another (which may be debatable), policy usually works to level the playing field. For instance, in rich vs. poor, we provide extra support to poor for access to health care in effort to level the access.

True, but there we are arguably sacrificing the principle of equal rights - because we are surely allocating the legal rights differently - for a different principle (perhaps equal outcomes).


In gay marriage, the debate is to restrict rights and not level the playing field.

That's a false dilemma. Once again, there it has to do with favoring certain outcomes, not people.


Therefore, it's a clear value judgement that is being made that straight is more valuable than gay.

I'm inclined to agree with your statement, so far as it goes, provided that "straight" and "gay" are referring to marriages, not individuals.


And there is no good argument to support such a view outside of religious context.

...

that's arguable. being that the only critique against gay marriage is a religious one, any law that would restrict it could be considered establishing one religion over others.

My question was whether anyone was arguing that same-sex marriage was against the Constitution, not whether restrictions on same-sex marriage were against the Constitution.

That said, it is untrue that "the only critique against gay marriage is a religious one". Religious arguments against same-sex marriage are not even a significant part of the civic debate in the nation's legislatures and courts. I've spilled far too much electronic ink on that subject in other threads, though, so I won't get into it here.

[Crossbow]

Posted by DOC

I would agree with Jefferson on this. In a democracy the people should have the final say, not 9 politically appointed judges. Maybe every 4 years each of the top 2 political parties can pick 3 controversial decisions by the Supreme Court. Then if any of those decisions are overruled by the people's vote then that particular Supreme Court decision would be void.

Hey, if the framers of the Constitution can choose the figures 2/3 of Congress, and 3/4 of states (for ratification), then I should be able to pick the figure 3 every 4 years.

Excuse me, but how does putting such important decisions that affect everyone in the nation in the hands of a political party (which may not even represent 50% of the population), make it a decision by the people?

Indeed, if you actually worried about having public representation, then you should support the amendment process and not try to find ways to undercut it.

[Gazpacho]

If the Supreme Court understands the constitution to mean X, and a referendum says "It doesn't mean X," how does that help courts determine what the constitution means in the future?

[ceo_esq]

If the Supreme Court understands the constitution to mean X, and a referendum says "It doesn't mean X," how does that help courts determine what the constitution means in the future?

I was thinking the same thing.

[DOC]

Indeed, if you actually worried about having public representation, then you should support the amendment process and not try to find ways to undercut it.

All I know is that the framers of the Constitution made a first amendment that says in part:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

Which means in everyday language:

"Congress" can't make a law that creates a Nation Religion (like the Church of England). Or a law that prevents the free exercise of religion.

From that simple phrase prohibiting an official national religion (like the Church of England) we get all kinds of restrictions on religious rights and freedoms imposed on us by a Supreme Court that did exactly what Jefferson feared it would do as demonstrated by this quote:

"The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

—Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

http://www.landmarkcases.org/marbury/jefferson.html

And no amendment under the current system has been able to put Humpty Dumpty back together again the way the founders made it. And thus we have a substantial change in our laws and society that leads to things like students ending up handcuffed in the back of a police car after praying around a flagpole and the five separate school shootings in a week we had 2 or 3 weeks ago.

[joobz]

And no amendment under the current system has been able to put Humpty Dumpty back together again the way the founders made it.
The way the founders intended?
So, do you mean that we should end women's sufferage, legalize slavery and have slaves count as 3/5th of a person?


And thus we have a substantial change in our laws and society that leads to things like students ending up handcuffed in the back of a police car after praying around a flagpole and the five separate school shootings in a week we had 2 or 3 weeks ago.Don't forget about the church shooting where one church going christian shot another church going christian.

You also forgot to mention that the greatest benefactors in our country have been agnostics/athiests.

[Gazpacho]

students ending up handcuffed in the back of a police car after praying around a flagpole
I must say that's pretty slick how you say "after" instead of "for." I almost missed it myself. Of course, the Gate City students were not arrested for the act of praying around the flagpole, but for what they did afterward.

[JoeEllison]

You conveniently gloss over the fact that the Gate City students were not arrested for the act of praying around the flagpole, but for what they did afterward.

Lying for Jesus DOES seem to help... but only when talking to Christians. They like their stories to be "right" even if they aren't actually true. It is that "truthiness" thing.

[joobz]

How novel. You have grossly misunderstood the purpose of having a constitution in the first place.
I know it's a delayed reaction, but I nominated this. Such an elegant and accurate undressing of DOC's argument.

[Crossbow]

All I know is that the framers of the Constitution made a first amendment that says in part:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

Which means in everyday language:

"Congress" can't make a law that creates a Nation Religion (like the Church of England). Or a law that prevents the free exercise of religion.

From that simple phrase prohibiting an official national religion (like the Church of England) we get all kinds of restrictions on religious rights and freedoms imposed on us by a Supreme Court that did exactly what Jefferson feared it would do as demonstrated by this quote:

"The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

—Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

http://www.landmarkcases.org/marbury/jefferson.html

And no amendment under the current system has been able to put Humpty Dumpty back together again the way the founders made it. And thus we have a substantial change in our laws and society that leads to things like students ending up handcuffed in the back of a police car after praying around a flagpole and the five separate school shootings in a week we had 2 or 3 weeks ago.

Ummm, lying to support your case is very counter-productive.

First of all, you are quoting something that relates to the Marbury v. Madison case which involved an appointment for Justice of the Peace. Therefore, the data you present is irrelevant.

Second of all, those people were not arrested for praying.

If you wish to be treated with some degree of respect, then stop being a liar.

[Gazpacho]

By the way DOC, here's a copy of the ACLU complaint (http://www.aclu-tn.org/pdfs/doe_vs_wilson_county_complaint.pdf) against a school for improperly promoting "See You at the Pole," among other things. Just in case you want to know about the details that don't fit into soundbites.

Please read through it all, as the discussion of "See You at the Pole" does not end on page 7.

"See You at the Pole" events have been held within the law at many schools. The Lakeview School, according the facts alleged, was not one of them.

[slingblade]

And thus we have a substantial change in our laws and society that leads to things like students ending up handcuffed in the back of a police car after praying around a flagpole and the five separate school shootings in a week we had 2 or 3 weeks ago.

You story about the students has been debunked thoroughly. Don't bother bringing that poor, dead horse up for another beating.

I can't figure out why you brought up school shootings.

Except, if there is a God, he condones them. He must, as they keep happening, and he doesn't stop them. Who are you to question God?

[joobz]

You story about the students has been debunked thoroughly. Don't bother bringing that poor, dead horse up for another beating.

I can't figure out why you brought up school shootings.

Except, if there is a God, he condones them. He must, as they keep happening, and he doesn't stop them. Who are you to question God?
He's insinuated in another thread that school shootings are a result of america "moving away from god."
and that life was better in the 50s (just look at leave it to beaver):boggled:

[slingblade]

In that case, then, his move to the Phelps' camp has either already happened or isn't too far behind.

It's Teh Gheys who are ruining this country, you know. <--tongue very firmly in cheek.

[PrincessIneffabelle]

In that case, then, his move to the Phelps' camp has either already happened or isn't too far behind.

It's Teh Gheys who are ruining this country, you know. <--tongue very firmly in cheek.


Teh Gheys?? Oh, man! I thought it was the Godless Intellectuals, Feminists, and Pseudo-Skeptics that were ruining the country! Now I'm gonna have to change all my subversive literature!

That is, if my husband allows me* to!




*FYI - DOC recently trotted out that old "the Bible says men are in charge" canard.

[MRC_Hans]

In that case, freedom of speech would not be free and would cost a preacher some money. I'm of the opinion that freedom of speech should never be dependent on paying taxes.It is absolutely free and not dependent on paying taxes. What is NOT free is the tax-excemption. It comes at a cost, namely some limitations to what may be said from the pulpit.

Hans

[slingblade]

Teh Gheys?? Oh, man! I thought it was the Godless Intellectuals, Feminists, and Pseudo-Skeptics that were ruining the country! Now I'm gonna have to change all my subversive literature!

At least as often as you change underwear, if you're a good subversive, that is.

That is, if my husband allows me* to!

Maybe between the beatings you so richly deserve for not being submissive enough, no doubt.




*FYI - DOC recently trotted out that old "the Bible says men are in charge" canard.

I hope someone with some sense sent it limping back, and left it speaking at a somewhat higher pitch?

[joobz]

I hope someone with some sense sent it limping back, and left it speaking at a somewhat higher pitch?
Well, Slingblade, I tried to nail the argument into the ground, unfortunately, I tend to be not as eloquent as other posters. But here's the exchange that went down*:
*note that I will bring this back to the thread topic as this diversion is still related to the thread topic...

DOC attempts to make the case that Jefferson was really a christian...
I do not believe Jefferson was a "genuine" Christian even though he thought he was. But that's between him and God. Bottom line is Jefferson thought of himself as a Christian, was a regular attendee of church services and contributed to the building of other churches.

I don't think there are many educated people in the world who don't think the world is better off because this man (who thought of himself as a Christian) lived.
I ignore that claim but rather address his interesting statement that Jefferson did the "christian thing" by being against slavery.
I agree, we are much better off (especially in this country).

But now you have somewhat of a logical contradiction.
In a previous argument when asked if you think that women can be leaders of a household, you said:
In answer to your first question I would say no, and in answer to your second question, I would have to say as a Christian that the man is given the authority by God to be the spiritual and moral head of the family. That doesn't mean the woman doesn't have input, but my interpretation of the bible is that the man is the spiritual head of the family. And when that doesn't happen, for whatever reason, there are going to be problems somewhere down the line because as I've said before there is always a negative consequence to anything that goes against God's laws.{bolding mine}

When asked what it would mean if a denomination of christianity didn't follow this precept, what would that mean.
What denominations don't follow the that precept?

I have no idea of the percentage, but I believe the lower it gets, the worse off we'll be. As a Christian I have no doubt about that.{bolding mine}

Now, it is obvious that Jefferson went against the bible by arguing against slavery. Afterall, it was clear that by abolishing slavery, Jefferson was removing the christian policies of master-slave relationships. This would represent a removal away from god's laws and by your own argument, Jefferson's actions should have resulted in a negative consequence. But you claim that we are better off.

Doc attempts to divert away from my argument by rehashing a misinterpretation of previous arguments..
We know you believe Hitler was a Christian and God is in to slavery. I've tried to reason with you how those two beliefs are absurd but you don't accept my arguments so why don't we leave it at that.
I refuse to let this occur and hammer home the main point..
Because it's clear that you are aware of the trap that exists here. Before we get to that, let's set the record straight.
The hilter point I had conceeded. I admit that hitler wasn't a christian during his reign. Rather, he was a cult unto himself. Your referencing of it here is a rather dubious tactic on your part and hurts your credibility.

Also, I don't claim god is "into" slavery. Merely that he permitted it to be and therefore condoned the practice. The fact that Jesus gave rules on how slaves should behave is CLEAR indication that he condones slavery (or admits to being too powerless to do anything about it). There really isn't anything more to it than that.

Your argument against this point was that slavery was against the spirit of Jesus' teachings. (you had quoted the golden rule for this). But, here, we must also assume under the same argument that women are equal to men in the ability to be leaders. Unless, of course, you are claiming that the golden rule doesn't apply to women.

DOC, it is my belief that you wish me to drop this argument becuase you realize the trap you are in.
You've been caught creating a double standard for the bible based entirely on your prejudices. It's clear that if we are "moving" away from the bible because of issues with equal rights for women, then we also moved away from the bible because of the abolition of slavery (another equal rights issue). Since you have admitted to the fact that we are better off because of Jefferson, it is clear that our success has NOTHING to do with the bible. Any preceived move toward or away from god has NO REAL EFFECT on the success of a government or its people.


Bringing this back to the topic at hand-- I state in the same vein that was made to support Jesus as an opponent of slavery-- that it is clear that Jefferson's main issue in our government was to establish a method which balanced minority rights vs. the majority's will. It's clear that as our public works system became more substantial an enhancement of the seperation of church and state was needed to prevent subversive tactics which would favor one religion over another. As such, I strongly contend that the current political view of church state seperation is in direct agreement with Jefferson's will and does not represent something he would condemn.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Aren't you guys and gals finished with the cat toy yet?:D

[DOC]

I must say that's pretty slick how you say "after" instead of "for." I almost missed it myself. Of course, the Gate City students were not arrested for the act of praying around the flagpole, but for what they did afterward.

Yes, they continued to pray when asked by police to stop. And thus were handcuffed and put in the back a police car.

And are you sure you talking about the same incident I am involving Misty Newberry.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2560384#post2560384

[JoeEllison]

Yes, they continued to pray when asked by police to stop. And thus were handcuffed and put in the back a police car.

And are you sure you talking about the same incident I am involving Misty Newberry.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2560384#post2560384

Are you still lying about this? Still?

[DOC]

Are you still lying about this? Still?

In what way. I'm just repeating what was said at a congressional hearing.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju57840.000/hju57840_0.HTM#0

[joobz]

In what way. I'm just repeating what was said at a congressional hearing.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju57840.000/hju57840_0.HTM#0

DOC, it's been established that you do not fully research your references, so your statement here can't be taken on good faith. Indeed, it's clear from the context of the story that the students were arrested for disobeying police.

But anyway, Let's check the source. I also represented Misty Newberry. Misty Newberry was arrested by Massac County Sheriff's Department and Metropolis, Illinois police and placed into a sheriff's county cruiser for the crime of praying in the morning before the first bell rang, when she had the right to be on campus, but was not required yet to be in the classroom, with a group of five other students, around a flag pole, during the National Day of Student Prayer. And while it is true that some cases are resolved favorably to the students' rights, and Misty's was, not all cases are resolved favorably to the students' rights.

The event you reference was found to be resolved in the student's favor. In other words, their actions weren't deemed illegal. So what's your problem???

I think now is a good time for you to read Gazpacho's reference and tell me if the school's actions in that case were equally acceptable as Misty's. Would it be acceptable if the school promoted Islam or the jewish faith?

[JoeEllison]

In what way. I'm just repeating what was said at a congressional hearing.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju57840.000/hju57840_0.HTM#0

Yep, you're still lying, as usual, and adding your pretend ignorance at your own dishonesty, as per the usual.

[Gazpacho]

Yes, they continued to pray when asked by police to stop. And thus were handcuffed and put in the back a police car.

And are you sure you talking about the same incident I am involving Misty Newberry.
I didn't have the pleasure of reading the previous thread, so no, I had no idea what you were talking about. The Gate City students were arrested for refusing to attend class while on school property.

Since I'm not impressed by your accuracy rate, I'll wait until I have more details about the Newberry incident. What matters more is that the ACLU (and other commie libruls) have said that flagpole prayer events are OK as long as they are conducted within guidelines that students at many schools have managed to follow.

[JoeEllison]

I didn't have the pleasure of reading the previous thread, so no, I had no idea what you were talking about. The Gate City students were arrested for refusing to attend class while on school property.

Since I'm not impressed by your accuracy rate, I'll wait until I have more details about the Newberry incident.

SO far, he has that one moronic quote, and no other information at all.

[PrincessIneffabelle]

Well, Slingblade, I tried to nail the argument into the ground, unfortunately, I tend to be not as eloquent as other posters.

Oh, Joobz, you're too modest! I thought you did a awesome job pointing out that DOC had hoisted himself by his own canard.

[DOC]

Posted by DOC
In what way. I'm just repeating what was said at a congressional hearing.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees...u57840_0.HTM#0


Yep, you're still lying, as usual, and adding your pretend ignorance at your own dishonesty, as per the usual.

When people continue to make generalized non informative statements that deal with my honesty then I have the right to continue to say I have 20 threads with around 130,000 hits and if anyone wants to see them and judge my honesty for yourself you can go to my profile and get a link to all my threads.

[Ichneumonwasp]

When people continue to make generalized non informative statements that deal with my honesty then I have the right to continue to say I have 20 threads with around 130,000 hits and if anyone wants to see them and judge my honesty for yourself you can go to my profile and get a link to all my threads.

Golly jeepers, and stupid brainless me always thought the proper response to "you are lying" was "Oops, you caught me, sorry", or "No, I'm not bugger breath", or "No, I'm not and here's why........."

Not "The sun hitting Jupiter's outer atmosphere shines brightly in the contemplative assignment of ulterior diasporic wishfulfillment" which is as appropriate a response as you continue to offer. Except that your response continues to show your incredible ego-centricism, greatly increasing everyone else's mirth at your expense.

To which you will completely miss the point and respond -- "Oooh look, it's attack the messenger # 43", though it isn't since you brought up the subject of you. Why don't we just start a stickied thread called "Come look at DOC" and skip all the intermediaries?

[wahrheit]

Could DOC himself, or a resident psychologist, please explain to me what this repeated bragging about "I have 20 threads with around 130,000 hits" means? Seriously, I don't get it. I find it rather embarrassing, and it seems to mangle cause and effect.

[DOC]

...But anyway, Let's check the source.
The event you reference was found to be resolved in the student's favor. In other words, their actions weren't deemed illegal. So what's your problem???

My problem is that groups like the ACLU have so brainwashed people with this "Separation of Church and State" phrase (that is not in the Constitution) that this handcuffing incident of students could happen in a country that has an official motto of "In God We Trust".

[calebprime]

wiki is at least a good starting-point, if not completely trustworthy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_State s

[Gazpacho]

My problem is that groups like the ACLU have so brainwashed people with this "Separation of Church and State" phrase (that is not in the Constitution) that this handcuffing incident of students could happen in a country that has an official motto of "In God We Trust".

Again, slowly:

The ACLU does not mind a bit (http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16146leg19950412.html) if students pray around the flag pole provided

- They organize and lead the prayer themselves

- They do it before or after school

- The school does not encourage or discourage it

These are the same guidelines laid out by the Klinton administration.

[joobz]

My problem is that groups like the ACLU have so brainwashed people with this "Separation of Church and State" phrase (that is not in the Constitution) that this handcuffing incident of students could happen in a country that has an official motto of "In God We Trust".
Your problem is that cops would arrest people for disobeying them??? Because that was why they were arrested. Do you understand the concept of law enforcement?

When you get pulled over by the cops, do you feel that a person has the right to speed away, disobeying the cops order?


BTW, you ignored my question. Do you feel that school in the case that Gazpacho was acting appropriately? Would you feel differently if the school was promoting Islam instead of christianity?

[Hokulele]

DOC's Misty Newberry story get pwned by Nova Land (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2970148#post2970148).

There are several other posts by Nova Land all within a page or two on either side of the post I linked, but this is the one that shows how dishonest DOC's sources are, and how poor of a researcher DOC is to simply accept everything they say.

[DOC]

DOC's Misty Newberry story get pwned by Nova Land (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2970148#post2970148).

There are several other posts by Nova Land all within a page or two on either side of the post I linked, but this is the one that shows how dishonest DOC's sources are, and how poor of a researcher DOC is to simply accept everything they say.

I'll just basically repeat what I said in the other thread. Doc this, and Doc that. Notice very little about what created the mindset that caused this incredible fiasco of 2 young students ending up being driven away handcuffed in a police car from their own school in front of their friends and driven to the other side of the school. This is incredible that this happened and who are the bad guys in all of this --Doc and his sources (the one I brought in here was testimony from a congressional hearing, "not" some newspaper account which didn't have a author). And don't forget the girl student who was told she couldn't read her Bible on the School Bus. I guess Doc and his sources are the bad guys in that to.

I've got to hand it to some of you though, your masters at putting the focus on the people like me who bring this stuff to the attention of everyone.

[Hokulele]

I'll just basically repeat what I said in the other thread. Doc this, and Doc that. Notice very little about what created the mindset that caused this incredible fiasco of 2 young students ending up being driven away handcuffed in a police car from their own school in front of their friends and driven to the other side of the school. This is incredible that this happened and who are the bad guys in all of this --Doc and his sources (the one I brought in here was testimony from a congressional hearing, "not" some newspaper account which didn't have a author). And don't forget the girl student who was told she couldn't read her Bible on the School Bus. I guess Doc and his sources are the bad guys in that to.


If you lie to support your cause, then yes, you are the bad guys.

I've got to hand it to some of you though, your masters at putting the focus on the people like me who bring this stuff to the attention of everyone.


That is due to the fact that most of what you bring to people's attention is wrong, demonstrably so. Maybe one of these days you will learn how to research properly.

[joobz]

I'll just basically repeat what I said in the other thread. Doc this, and Doc that. Notice very little about what created the mindset that caused this incredible fiasco of 2 young students ending up being driven away handcuffed in a police car from their own school in front of their friends and driven to the other side of the school. What does this mean?
"The mindset that created.."??

I need to understand what you mean. can you please read through Gazpacho's ACLU report and tell us if you think that it was appropriate for the school in that case to promote religion? Would it be appropriate if they were promoting Islam instead of Christianity?

[Gazpacho]

And don't forget the girl student who was told she couldn't read her Bible on the School Bus. I guess Doc and his sources are the bad guys in that to.
What exactly are we supposed to remember about her? Something other than a principal not understanding the law and being corrected, out of court?

It was over and done with in 1989. Yet Congress-critters were still ranting about it in nine years later and you are 19 years later. WHY?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Don't you know?

There's pollution in the land and the gods demand expiation for the transgression committed against poor defenseless Misty Newberry.

Oedipus, sorry -- the ACLU -- has killed father church and married mother secular humanism and single-handedly created the stinking cesspool otherwise known as multicultural secular American pluralistic society, rife with school shootings, drug use, and prostitution rings that bring down our righteous governors.

Blind Tiresias is trying to tell you, but no one will listen.

[DOC]

Posted by DOC

And don't forget the girl student who was told she couldn't read her Bible on the School Bus. I guess Doc and his sources are the bad guys in that to.



What exactly are we supposed to remember about her? Something other than a principal not understanding the law and being corrected, out of court?

It was over and done with in 1989. Yet Congress-critters were still ranting about it in nine years later and you are 19 years later. WHY?

Because in a country that has as its official motto "In God We Trust" such a thing happening shows you just how much the ACLU and others have the general public brainwashed. It should be talked about 50 years from now because it was so outrageous.

[wahrheit]

Hey, seems it was time to bump one of your old Jefferson threads, DOC. This one was happily rotting away for two months.

Because in a country that has as its official motto "In God We Trust" such a thing happening shows you just how much the ACLU and others have the general public brainwashed. It should be talked about 50 years from now because it was so outrageous.

There's no need to address your old claims or "facts" of your previous post since this has been done a gazillion times already, but I didn't miss the irony of a Christian fundamentalist complaining about society being brainwashed by organizations such as the ACLU. Because, you know, churches and priests, they would never brainwash and deceive people. :rolleyes:

I've been monitoring DOC's threads for the last few months and there is pattern of behaviour that is not in the spirit of the Forum. I.e. DOC's threads fall off the front page of the section and he then bumps them by just regurgitating the same discredited opinions and information that have already been gone over literally dozens of times. Therefore I am closing this and the other threads.