Constitution Hating Republicans strike again - Page 4

jj · 28th January 2013, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

Theconstitution ends "in the year of our lord."

That's the date, mate. That's one of the lamest attempts on record.

jj · 28th January 2013, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by monty1

My opinion is that they should nearly destroy it before they can eliminate the rot within it, then maybe the US can grow up, throw out it's ugly style of capitalism, and fit in with the modern world.

So you're in with the right-wing Alinskyist strategy then?

aggle-rithm · 28th January 2013, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

I'm confused, I thought one of the points of civic responsibility was to speak out against bad legislation before it's passed. Are you suggesting we wait first to see if it passes before we speak out against it?

I'm just saying I'd be worried more if this type of legislation regularly made it that far.

RandFan · 28th January 2013, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

I'm just saying I'd be worried more if this type of legislation regularly made it that far.

I don't think it has anything to do with being worried. When idiotic legislation is suggested I think it wrong to assume it could never pass. And bear in mind we are talking about AZ, they are quite adept at passing idiotic legislation.

eeyore1954 · 28th January 2013, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by jj

That's the date, mate. That's one of the lamest attempts on record.

It was a little lame but the beginning of the Declaration of Independence is not.
The founding fathers included god in many things. I am not saying someone should have to recite that pledge. But while I think the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have really stood the test of time well I don't view them as infallible and unchangeable

RandFan · 28th January 2013, 08:10 PM

BTW: This is what happens when people don't speak out against bad legislation. The spike is when most people were not aware that the GOP was working very hard to take away a woman's reproductive rights. Thanks to the elections and the idiotic rhetoric from GOP candidates the people were made aware and made their voices heard. After Roe v Wade I would not have thought that was even possible.

SezMe · 28th January 2013, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by marplots

Lenin, Marx, Stalin, Mao

and Obama.

SezMe · 28th January 2013, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

The founding fathers included god in many things.

Well, the phrases they used were "Nature's God" and "Creator". Such terminology was not accidental and really does differentiate their usage of the word "god" from what is usually meant in the Christian context today.

jj · 28th January 2013, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

It was a little lame but the beginning of the Declaration of Independence is not.

Ok, and that says exactly what. Quote it, please.

"Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" if I recall correctly. That doesn't exactly map to YHWH the way you want it to, now, does it?

eeyore1954 · 29th January 2013, 02:52 AM

Originally Posted by jj

Ok, and that says exactly what. Quote it, please.

"Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" if I recall correctly. That doesn't exactly map to YHWH the way you want it to, now, does it?

I think that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, does map pretty well.

jj · 29th January 2013, 03:18 AM

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

I think that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, does map pretty well.

So, my mom what?

RandFan · 29th January 2013, 06:00 AM

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

I think that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, does map pretty well.

Where in the Bible, or anywhere else, does YHWH state that humans have inalienable rights? How come for around two thousand years after Abraham no one spoke of inalienable rights? How come for much of that time people believed that only kings had rights? Why were people tortured during the inquisitions if people believed in inalienable rights? Why is slavery condoned in the bible? Why is the punishment for so many things death if people have an inalienable right to life? In the Bible adulterers and fornicators are to be killed. In the Bible god instructs the Israelite to kill people who work on the Sabbath. God orders the killing of children. Where are these inalienable rights? I've read the Bible cover to cover. I served a mission and I graduated seminary, I see nothing from YHWH about inalienable rights. Other than having the word "creator" It doesn't map at all.

eeyore1954 · 29th January 2013, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Where in the Bible, or anywhere else, does YHWH state that humans have inalienable rights? How come for around two thousand years after Abraham no one spoke of inalienable rights? How come for much of that time people believed that only kings had rights? Why were people tortured during the inquisitions if people believed in inalienable rights? Why is slavery condoned in the bible? Why is the punishment for so many things death if people have an inalienable right to life? In the Bible adulterers and fornicators are to be killed. In the Bible god instructs the Israelite to kill people who work on the Sabbath. God orders the killing of children. Where are these inalienable rights? I've read the Bible cover to cover. I served a mission and I graduated seminary, I see nothing from YHWH about inalienable rights. Other than having the word "creator" It doesn't map at all.

Maybe i misunderstand what maps well is supposed to mean.
What maps well to me is the idea that the "founding fathers" thought a creator should be mentioned in the Declaration of Independence much like the people who crafted this bill also believe God should be mentioned. The bill does not say so help me YHWH or so help me Jesus or so help me any particular god just as no particular god was mentioned 200+ years ago.

I do not agree that graduates should have to speak any type of oath or allegiance to receive there diploma but I don't believe what they are asking for is a sign of "Constitution hating ".

RenaissanceBiker · 29th January 2013, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

One thing I can't fathom is what believers think they will get out of forcing unbelievers to take an oath that will remain meaningless to them - other than making a statement of dominance, that is.

It's purely political grandstanding. Enforcement is impossible. Are schools required to check a box on a form indicating that a student recited the pledge before issuing a diploma? Can a student later be prosecuted for violating the pledge?

JoeTheJuggler · 29th January 2013, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

I don't know if I agree they are against the Constitution as a whole. At least not as the writers intended. The constitution ends "in the year of our lord." The Declaration of Independence says
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,"

I'm unsure what these two bits are meant to support. It sounds like you're making the "Christian nation" argument which as nothing to do with the legality of forcing people to make oaths.

At any rate, the Declaration of Independence has no legal meaning at all. The Constitution similarly uses the conventional English names for days of the week which were based on Norse gods. Would it follow that it would be legal for a state to make someone swear an oath "by Odin" or "by Thor" without an option to simply give an affirmation?

Quote:

Did anyone suggest yet in this thread that the uphold the constitution part is aimed non citizens, AKA undocumented , aka illegal aliens? I suspect it is.

I see no evidence to support that idea. It sounds like they want all high school graduates to have taken their oath. If their intention was only to require illegals to take this oath, this is a very poorly written law.

JoeTheJuggler · 29th January 2013, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

I do not agree that graduates should have to speak any type of oath or allegiance to receive there diploma but I don't believe what they are asking for is a sign of "Constitution hating ".

Fair enough. I prefer the more conventional term "unconstitutional". If the authors of this proposed law don't reject the Constitution (or at least the First Amendment), they are either ignorant of what is says or have a terribly flawed misunderstanding of what it means.

In fact, I've been using the phrase "wrong and unconstitutional" because I believe this proposed law is both.

I also don't think it will ever become law, but it's certainly political fodder in assessing a movement within the Republican Party. I suspect the people who proposed this law are counting on more of their electorate being in favor of it (despite the legal problems) than opposed to it.

JoeTheJuggler · 29th January 2013, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by RenaissanceBiker

Enforcement is impossible. Are schools required to check a box on a form indicating that a student recited the pledge before issuing a diploma? Can a student later be prosecuted for violating the pledge?

The principal or head teacher would have to sign a document indicating that the student has recited the oath. The proposed law would make this a requirement for high school graduation.

At any rate, enforcement won't be an issue because even if this ever passes into law (it probably won't) it won't survive an injunction motion as part of a lawsuit challenging the legality of the law, and it inevitably won't survive such a lawsuit. In other words, it will never be effective law--at least not as written.

If it's amended to include an affirmation option, it might go into force, but I doubt even that. I see conflicting motives even within the same ideological base. The same people who might support this kind of thing are also strongly anti-government intrusion into personal lives. I can't see a Tea Bagger (either of conservative or libertarian stripe) supporting a requirement to recite any thing like an oath of allegiance.

JoeTheJuggler · 29th January 2013, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

I think that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, does map pretty well.

I think the point is that you are equating theism with Deism. [ETA: Perhaps if the oath required text such as "so help me Creator who may no longer exist and has no involvement whatsoever in human activities"!]

But again, the Declaration of Independence has no legal import.

<tangent>

It was a post hoc philosophical/religious justification for using violence.

It also committed one of the biggest blunders in argumentation one can make: the assertion that the premise of your entire argument is "self evident".

Also, the whole "inalienable rights" thing is contradictory as it's worded. (If the rights really are inalienable, then why the need to cast off the rule of a tyrant? In fact, how could tyranny even be possible if rights are divinely endowed and inalienable?) </>

RandFan · 29th January 2013, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

What maps well to me is the idea that the "founding fathers" thought a creator should be mentioned in the Declaration of Independence much like the people who crafted this bill also believe God should be mentioned.

I'm sorry but I don't accept that a single point of comparison has any significant meaning.

Quote:

The bill does not say so help me YHWH or so help me Jesus or so help me any particular god just as no particular god was mentioned 200+ years ago.

For the founders the "creator" included nature. Given the light of the times, what they meant by creator and what is meant by this oath simply do not relate. At that time there were no organized and outspoken atheists. The animistic notion of gods was still the prime explanation for human existence. Thankfully the founders chose not to use the word "god" but instead chose "creator".

Quote:

I do not agree that graduates should have to speak any type of oath or allegiance to receive there diploma but I don't believe what they are asking for is a sign of "Constitution hating ".

It most certainly is counter to the concept of freedom of religion. Freedom of religion has little meaning if one cannot be free to not believe in religion. Freedom of religion is freedom of conscience. And I think we should make clear that the founders were expressing their opinion that rights are natural and not that there is a god. They did not demand that everyone agree that there is a god. They did not require that any one should take an oath to god. On the contrary, they said, "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

If public officials are not required to swear an oath to god then I would think that the founders would not be in favor of requiring private citizens to take one.

No, I have to say, I find it completely counter to the founders intentions.

28th January 2013, 07:10 PM	#121
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,520	Originally Posted by eeyore1954 Theconstitution ends "in the year of our lord." That's the date, mate. That's one of the lamest attempts on record.
	__________________ The Power to Quit

28th January 2013, 07:11 PM	#122
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,520	Originally Posted by monty1 My opinion is that they should nearly destroy it before they can eliminate the rot within it, then maybe the US can grow up, throw out it's ugly style of capitalism, and fit in with the modern world. So you're in with the right-wing Alinskyist strategy then?
	__________________ The Power to Quit

28th January 2013, 07:40 PM	#123
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,156	Originally Posted by RandFan I'm confused, I thought one of the points of civic responsibility was to speak out against bad legislation before it's passed. Are you suggesting we wait first to see if it passes before we speak out against it? I'm just saying I'd be worried more if this type of legislation regularly made it that far.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

28th January 2013, 07:51 PM	#124
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,417	Originally Posted by aggle-rithm I'm just saying I'd be worried more if this type of legislation regularly made it that far. I don't think it has anything to do with being worried. When idiotic legislation is suggested I think it wrong to assume it could never pass. And bear in mind we are talking about AZ, they are quite adept at passing idiotic legislation.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

28th January 2013, 08:08 PM	#125
eeyore1954 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,126	Originally Posted by jj That's the date, mate. That's one of the lamest attempts on record. It was a little lame but the beginning of the Declaration of Independence is not. The founding fathers included god in many things. I am not saying someone should have to recite that pledge. But while I think the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have really stood the test of time well I don't view them as infallible and unchangeable
eeyore1954 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,126	Last edited by eeyore1954; 28th January 2013 at 08:11 PM.

28th January 2013, 08:10 PM	#126
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,417	BTW: This is what happens when people don't speak out against bad legislation. The spike is when most people were not aware that the GOP was working very hard to take away a woman's reproductive rights. Thanks to the elections and the idiotic rhetoric from GOP candidates the people were made aware and made their voices heard. After Roe v Wade I would not have thought that was even possible.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

28th January 2013, 10:02 PM	#127
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,367	Originally Posted by marplots Lenin, Marx, Stalin, Mao and Obama.

28th January 2013, 10:09 PM	#128
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,367	Originally Posted by eeyore1954 The founding fathers included god in many things. Well, the phrases they used were "Nature's God" and "Creator". Such terminology was not accidental and really does differentiate their usage of the word "god" from what is usually meant in the Christian context today.

28th January 2013, 11:59 PM	#129
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,520	Originally Posted by eeyore1954 It was a little lame but the beginning of the Declaration of Independence is not. Ok, and that says exactly what. Quote it, please. "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" if I recall correctly. That doesn't exactly map to YHWH the way you want it to, now, does it?
	__________________ The Power to Quit

29th January 2013, 02:52 AM	#130
eeyore1954 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,126	Originally Posted by jj Ok, and that says exactly what. Quote it, please. "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" if I recall correctly. That doesn't exactly map to YHWH the way you want it to, now, does it? I think that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, does map pretty well.
eeyore1954 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,126

29th January 2013, 03:18 AM	#131
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,520	Originally Posted by eeyore1954 I think that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, does map pretty well. So, my mom what?
	__________________ The Power to Quit

29th January 2013, 06:00 AM	#132
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,417	Originally Posted by eeyore1954 I think that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, does map pretty well. Where in the Bible, or anywhere else, does YHWH state that humans have inalienable rights? How come for around two thousand years after Abraham no one spoke of inalienable rights? How come for much of that time people believed that only kings had rights? Why were people tortured during the inquisitions if people believed in inalienable rights? Why is slavery condoned in the bible? Why is the punishment for so many things death if people have an inalienable right to life? In the Bible adulterers and fornicators are to be killed. In the Bible god instructs the Israelite to kill people who work on the Sabbath. God orders the killing of children. Where are these inalienable rights? I've read the Bible cover to cover. I served a mission and I graduated seminary, I see nothing from YHWH about inalienable rights. Other than having the word "creator" It doesn't map at all.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 29th January 2013 at 06:02 AM.

29th January 2013, 07:09 AM	#133
eeyore1954 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,126	Originally Posted by RandFan Where in the Bible, or anywhere else, does YHWH state that humans have inalienable rights? How come for around two thousand years after Abraham no one spoke of inalienable rights? How come for much of that time people believed that only kings had rights? Why were people tortured during the inquisitions if people believed in inalienable rights? Why is slavery condoned in the bible? Why is the punishment for so many things death if people have an inalienable right to life? In the Bible adulterers and fornicators are to be killed. In the Bible god instructs the Israelite to kill people who work on the Sabbath. God orders the killing of children. Where are these inalienable rights? I've read the Bible cover to cover. I served a mission and I graduated seminary, I see nothing from YHWH about inalienable rights. Other than having the word "creator" It doesn't map at all. Maybe i misunderstand what maps well is supposed to mean. What maps well to me is the idea that the "founding fathers" thought a creator should be mentioned in the Declaration of Independence much like the people who crafted this bill also believe God should be mentioned. The bill does not say so help me YHWH or so help me Jesus or so help me any particular god just as no particular god was mentioned 200+ years ago. I do not agree that graduates should have to speak any type of oath or allegiance to receive there diploma but I don't believe what they are asking for is a sign of "Constitution hating ".
eeyore1954 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,126

29th January 2013, 07:24 AM	#134
RenaissanceBiker Eats shoots and leaves. Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: South Carolina Posts: 6,810	Originally Posted by TimCallahan One thing I can't fathom is what believers think they will get out of forcing unbelievers to take an oath that will remain meaningless to them - other than making a statement of dominance, that is. It's purely political grandstanding. Enforcement is impossible. Are schools required to check a box on a form indicating that a student recited the pledge before issuing a diploma? Can a student later be prosecuted for violating the pledge?
	__________________ "Truth does not contradict truth." - St. Augustine "Faith often contradicts faith. Therefore faith is not an indication of truth." - RenaissanceBiker

29th January 2013, 07:34 AM	#135
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,833	Originally Posted by eeyore1954 I don't know if I agree they are against the Constitution as a whole. At least not as the writers intended. The constitution ends "in the year of our lord." The Declaration of Independence says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," I'm unsure what these two bits are meant to support. It sounds like you're making the "Christian nation" argument which as nothing to do with the legality of forcing people to make oaths. At any rate, the Declaration of Independence has no legal meaning at all. The Constitution similarly uses the conventional English names for days of the week which were based on Norse gods. Would it follow that it would be legal for a state to make someone swear an oath "by Odin" or "by Thor" without an option to simply give an affirmation? Quote: Did anyone suggest yet in this thread that the uphold the constitution part is aimed non citizens, AKA undocumented , aka illegal aliens? I suspect it is. I see no evidence to support that idea. It sounds like they want all high school graduates to have taken their oath. If their intention was only to require illegals to take this oath, this is a very poorly written law.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

29th January 2013, 07:40 AM	#136
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,833	Originally Posted by eeyore1954 I do not agree that graduates should have to speak any type of oath or allegiance to receive there diploma but I don't believe what they are asking for is a sign of "Constitution hating ". Fair enough. I prefer the more conventional term "unconstitutional". If the authors of this proposed law don't reject the Constitution (or at least the First Amendment), they are either ignorant of what is says or have a terribly flawed misunderstanding of what it means. In fact, I've been using the phrase "wrong and unconstitutional" because I believe this proposed law is both. I also don't think it will ever become law, but it's certainly political fodder in assessing a movement within the Republican Party. I suspect the people who proposed this law are counting on more of their electorate being in favor of it (despite the legal problems) than opposed to it.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

29th January 2013, 07:46 AM	#137
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,833	Originally Posted by RenaissanceBiker Enforcement is impossible. Are schools required to check a box on a form indicating that a student recited the pledge before issuing a diploma? Can a student later be prosecuted for violating the pledge? The principal or head teacher would have to sign a document indicating that the student has recited the oath. The proposed law would make this a requirement for high school graduation. At any rate, enforcement won't be an issue because even if this ever passes into law (it probably won't) it won't survive an injunction motion as part of a lawsuit challenging the legality of the law, and it inevitably won't survive such a lawsuit. In other words, it will never be effective law--at least not as written. If it's amended to include an affirmation option, it might go into force, but I doubt even that. I see conflicting motives even within the same ideological base. The same people who might support this kind of thing are also strongly anti-government intrusion into personal lives. I can't see a Tea Bagger (either of conservative or libertarian stripe) supporting a requirement to recite any thing like an oath of allegiance.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

29th January 2013, 07:53 AM	#138
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,833	Originally Posted by eeyore1954 I think that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, does map pretty well. I think the point is that you are equating theism with Deism. [ETA: Perhaps if the oath required text such as "so help me Creator who may no longer exist and has no involvement whatsoever in human activities"!] But again, the Declaration of Independence has no legal import. <tangent> It was a post hoc philosophical/religious justification for using violence. It also committed one of the biggest blunders in argumentation one can make: the assertion that the premise of your entire argument is "self evident". Also, the whole "inalienable rights" thing is contradictory as it's worded. (If the rights really are inalienable, then why the need to cast off the rule of a tyrant? In fact, how could tyranny even be possible if rights are divinely endowed and inalienable?) </>
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 29th January 2013 at 07:54 AM.

29th January 2013, 10:01 AM	#139
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,417	Originally Posted by eeyore1954 What maps well to me is the idea that the "founding fathers" thought a creator should be mentioned in the Declaration of Independence much like the people who crafted this bill also believe God should be mentioned. I'm sorry but I don't accept that a single point of comparison has any significant meaning. Quote: The bill does not say so help me YHWH or so help me Jesus or so help me any particular god just as no particular god was mentioned 200+ years ago. For the founders the "creator" included nature. Given the light of the times, what they meant by creator and what is meant by this oath simply do not relate. At that time there were no organized and outspoken atheists. The animistic notion of gods was still the prime explanation for human existence. Thankfully the founders chose not to use the word "god" but instead chose "creator". Quote: I do not agree that graduates should have to speak any type of oath or allegiance to receive there diploma but I don't believe what they are asking for is a sign of "Constitution hating ". It most certainly is counter to the concept of freedom of religion. Freedom of religion has little meaning if one cannot be free to not believe in religion. Freedom of religion is freedom of conscience. And I think we should make clear that the founders were expressing their opinion that rights are natural and not that there is a god. They did not demand that everyone agree that there is a god. They did not require that any one should take an oath to god. On the contrary, they said, "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." If public officials are not required to swear an oath to god then I would think that the founders would not be in favor of requiring private citizens to take one. No, I have to say, I find it completely counter to the founders intentions.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 29th January 2013 at 10:17 AM.