Law
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
When the choice is between a million little local tyrannies and one big centralized one, all true Jeffersonians understand that the former is always to be preferred to the latter.
And yet Jefferson considered his defeat of one of those local religious tyrannies to be one of only three life accomplishments worthy of inclusion on his tombstone.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
And yet Jefferson considered his defeat of one of those local religious tyrannies to be one of only three life accomplishments worthy of inclusion on his tombstone.
But only as a member of the Virginia government, not as a member of the federal government. HERE WAS BURIED THOMAS JEFFERSON AUTHOR OF THE DECLARATION OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE OF THE STATUTE OF VIRGINIA FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND FATHER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA He also wrote... "The federal judiciary [is] an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like gravity by night and by day gaining a little to-day and a little to-marrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. ... when all government ... in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government against another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
espeir wrote:
Uhhhh...Wrong. The reason local governments cannot enforce such laws is because state constitutions do not allow it. The federal constitution does not allow the federal congress to make such enforcements or restrictions (although this evolved after the civil war), but state governments apply such restrictions and enforcements to smaller governments within the states. Jefferson encouraged states to model state-level constitutions after the then federal one in many ways (not just by encouraging them to adopt 1st amendment-like provisions).
Fine, change "local ordinance" to "state law". My point was that, according to you and Stan, if a state were to change their constitution to compel church attendance, that would be peachy so long as the change was the will of the people. Jefferson actively campaigned against this in Virginia.
espeir wrote:
You individual opinion is irrelevant. You do not have a fundamental right granted by the constitution to drink on Sunday or any other day. It is therefore within the ordinary power of our various legislatures to determine rules as to when drinking can be allowed. This includes making bars close at 2 AM, which most places do.
Your assertion is irrelevant. My point was that laws should restrict rights only when such restrictions are necessary to maintain social order. Legislating arbitrary religious tenets does not meet that standard. It is admittedly a personal standard, but was held by most of the founders, and by most people outside of fundamental religious groups.
espeir wrote:
What are you talking about? I just said not 2 posts ago that doing so would be unconstitutional because it forces people to adhere to a religion (specifically prohibited by the first amendment).
What is the difference between legislating a dry Sabbath and mandatory church attendance? Both are compelling behavior based solely on religious beliefs.
espeir wrote:
In another thread you stated that Democracy is a failure.
Now you're just making shit up. I defy you to find that thread, jackass. I have said, and would say, no such thing.
espeir wrote:
I therefore lump you on the opposite end of the extremist spectrum as militant Islam.
Interestingly, I lump you squarely on the same end
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Fine, change "local ordinance" to "state law". My point was that, according to you and Stan, if a state were to change their constitution to compel church attendance, that would be peachy so long as the change was the will of the people. Jefferson actively campaigned against this in Virginia.
We've already been over this. You believe that the people should not be entrusted with the Democratic authority to govern themselves. Militant Islam believes the exact same thing. Again, the constitution protects us from extremists like you and for that I thank our founding fathers.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Your assertion is irrelevant. My point was that laws should restrict rights only when such restrictions are necessary to maintain social order. Legislating arbitrary religious tenets does not meet that standard. It is admittedly a personal standard, but was held by most of the founders, and by most people outside of fundamental religious groups.
And you have a Democratic right to push for such laws. However, you go a step further in stating that the people cannot be entrusted to decide which laws are reasonable. As you just stated, you fear the Democratic process because of your faulty perception of it. Again, I thank our founding fathers that our country is safe from people like you.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Now you're just making sh*t up. I defy you to find that thread, jackass. I have said, and would say, no such thing.
This one! Sheesh!
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Interestingly, I lump you squarely on the same end of the extremist spectrum as militant Islam. Hopefully, we have a form of government that will protect us from your desire that we not be allowed to drink on your holy days, and continue, in general, to protect people like me from extremists like you.
Extremists will always view the mainstream world as extremist, so this is of no surprise to me. Fortunately, the founding fathers did well to assure that our country is not ruled by small groups of people who hold views contrary to the general populace.
-
Just where did your pointy, little head get the notion that I endorse this mythical "international law"?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
pointy, little head
You always use that same lame little put-down every time you've got nowhere to go. Pathetic.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
pointy, little head
You always use that same lame little put-down every time you've got nowhere to go. Pathetic.
Yeah, and you use "try to keep up", "you need to take * 101", etc. Glad we're both so pathetically predictable. And you didn't answer my question, pointy-head.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
What about a local ordinance compelling church attendance on Sunday?
What about it? How about the federal government enforcing a school curriculum that requires teaching children a secular world view? When the choice is between a million little local tyrannies and one big centralized one, all true Jeffersonians understand that the former is always to be preferred to the latter. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson -- modified at 16:36 Tuesday 18th July, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
teaching children a secular world view
It amazes me that you can't see that not teaching a religious world view is not at all the same as teaching a secular world view.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
teaching children a secular world view
It amazes me that you can't see that not teaching a religious world view is not at all the same as teaching a secular world view.
Again, I'm eternally greatful that the founding fathers would be so wise as to protect us from you.
-
Yeah, and you use "try to keep up", "you need to take * 101", etc. Glad we're both so pathetically predictable. And you didn't answer my question, pointy-head.
Actually today was the first time I used "101" with you and I didn't use "try to keep up". Here's another new one: Are you EVER right?
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Fine, change "local ordinance" to "state law". My point was that, according to you and Stan, if a state were to change their constitution to compel church attendance, that would be peachy so long as the change was the will of the people. Jefferson actively campaigned against this in Virginia.
We've already been over this. You believe that the people should not be entrusted with the Democratic authority to govern themselves. Militant Islam believes the exact same thing. Again, the constitution protects us from extremists like you and for that I thank our founding fathers.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Your assertion is irrelevant. My point was that laws should restrict rights only when such restrictions are necessary to maintain social order. Legislating arbitrary religious tenets does not meet that standard. It is admittedly a personal standard, but was held by most of the founders, and by most people outside of fundamental religious groups.
And you have a Democratic right to push for such laws. However, you go a step further in stating that the people cannot be entrusted to decide which laws are reasonable. As you just stated, you fear the Democratic process because of your faulty perception of it. Again, I thank our founding fathers that our country is safe from people like you.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Now you're just making sh*t up. I defy you to find that thread, jackass. I have said, and would say, no such thing.
This one! Sheesh!
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Interestingly, I lump you squarely on the same end of the extremist spectrum as militant Islam. Hopefully, we have a form of government that will protect us from your desire that we not be allowed to drink on your holy days, and continue, in general, to protect people like me from extremists like you.
Extremists will always view the mainstream world as extremist, so this is of no surprise to me. Fortunately, the founding fathers did well to assure that our country is not ruled by small groups of people who hold views contrary to the general populace.
espeir wrote:
You believe that the people should not be entrusted with the Democratic authority to govern themselves.
No, I'm just one of those leftists (by your standards) who interpret the establishment clause as expressing the intent for government to remain a secular institution of moral and ethical men and women, preserving *everyones* personal right to worship as they choose.
espeir wrote:
And you have a Democratic right to push for such laws. However, you go a step further in stating that the people cannot be entrusted to decide which laws are reasonable. As you just stated, you fear the Democratic process because of your faulty perception of it. Again, I thank our founding fathers that our country is safe from people like you.
I don't fear the democratic process; I fear religious tyranny, and those who believe that religious tyranny is acceptable so long as enough people voted for it.
espeir wrote:
This one! Sheesh!
So quote me, jackass! Sheesh!
espeir wrote:
Extremists will always view the mainstream world as extremist, so this is of no surprise to me.
Good thing your brain is immune to logical inconsistency.
espeir wrote:
Fortunately, the founding fathers did well to assure that our country is not ruled by small groups of people who hold views contrary to the general populace.
Fortunate, indeed. Otherwise people like you might frighten rather than amuse.
-
Again, I'm eternally greatful that the founding fathers would be so wise as to protect us from you.
Do you have that on a macro, or are you still typing it every time?
-
Actually today was the first time I used "101" with you and I didn't use "try to keep up". Here's another new one: Are you EVER right?
How about "you need to take a class in *" as a variation? And "try to keep up" just sprang to mind because you used it in practically alternating messages in every thread for a while. You have a phenomenal ability to miss the point of even the shortest, simplest statement. Is it something you've worked at?
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
And yet Jefferson considered his defeat of one of those local religious tyrannies to be one of only three life accomplishments worthy of inclusion on his tombstone.
But only as a member of the Virginia government, not as a member of the federal government. HERE WAS BURIED THOMAS JEFFERSON AUTHOR OF THE DECLARATION OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE OF THE STATUTE OF VIRGINIA FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND FATHER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA He also wrote... "The federal judiciary [is] an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like gravity by night and by day gaining a little to-day and a little to-marrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. ... when all government ... in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government against another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
And yet he apparently saw state involvement in religion to be just as oppressive. What do you think his opinion would be of any state -- or community -- that attempted to codify religious beliefs as law?
-
The christian version. It has a better track record. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
Stan Shannon wrote:
The christian version.
Yup... We haven't burned any witches in a while.
Scottish Developers events: * .NET debugging, tracing and instrumentation by Duncan Edwards Jones and Code Coverage in .NET by Craig Murphy * Developer Day Scotland: are you interested in speaking or attending? My: Website | Blog
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Let's just skip to the end, where I say "the right to restrict rights isn't a right," and you disagree while making a disparaging comment about leftists eating live kittens.
OK. Thats my favorite part anyway. (Except that I would brilliantly point out the obvious that in addtion to the kittens, secularists have been restricting rights they don't like for a long time now.) :-D "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
Stan Shannon wrote:
secularists have been restricting rights they don't like for a long time now.
Only one: the right of fanatical, live-puppy-eating religious extremists to restrict everyone's rights.
-
And yet he apparently saw state involvement in religion to be just as oppressive. What do you think his opinion would be of any state -- or community -- that attempted to codify religious beliefs as law?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
And yet he apparently saw state involvement in religion to be just as oppressive.
That is because it is just as oppressive. But just not as oppressive as the central federal government imposing its will to affect religion one way or another or to promote some other set of opposing philosophical principles. Find me some example of Jefferson saying "Gee, I sure wish those supreme court guys would outlaw prayer in the schools of Virginia so we would never have to decide the issue for ourselves!" "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
teaching children a secular world view
It amazes me that you can't see that not teaching a religious world view is not at all the same as teaching a secular world view.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
not teaching a religious world view is not at all the same as teaching a secular world view.
But teaching a secular world view is teaching a secular world view. A couple of years ago I attentend a weekend highschool band competition that my son was participating in one weekend at a nearby school. While waiting for him to play, I was walking around the cafeteria and happended to notice that the walls were covered with "Compassion" posters. There were posters invovling famous quotes from famous people about compassion, Martin Luther King, jr. Gandhi and every body you could possibly think of except for any quotes from Jesus or the Bible. No "Do unto others..." No goldern rule. Nothing. I would submit to you that represents an example of the secular state promoting a moral agenda of its own formulation, designed specifically and purposefully to present children with a non-christian, pro-seucular world view, in order for them to see the secular state as a legitimate source of moral authority rather than the church. Modern scularism is not the same thing that Jefferson would have understood as secularism. It is not the benign, all inclusive, compassionate, multi-cultural philosophy the left tries to push. It has positioned itself as a competitive set of moral and philosophical principles. It is in fact nothing less than the state finally finding a way to force its moral will upon a people precisely as was once done by the church. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
secularists have been restricting rights they don't like for a long time now.
Only one: the right of fanatical, live-puppy-eating religious extremists to restrict everyone's rights.
How about my right to come together with my neighbors and decide that we don't want people buring a flag in our community? "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
espeir wrote:
You believe that the people should not be entrusted with the Democratic authority to govern themselves.
No, I'm just one of those leftists (by your standards) who interpret the establishment clause as expressing the intent for government to remain a secular institution of moral and ethical men and women, preserving *everyones* personal right to worship as they choose.
espeir wrote:
And you have a Democratic right to push for such laws. However, you go a step further in stating that the people cannot be entrusted to decide which laws are reasonable. As you just stated, you fear the Democratic process because of your faulty perception of it. Again, I thank our founding fathers that our country is safe from people like you.
I don't fear the democratic process; I fear religious tyranny, and those who believe that religious tyranny is acceptable so long as enough people voted for it.
espeir wrote:
This one! Sheesh!
So quote me, jackass! Sheesh!
espeir wrote:
Extremists will always view the mainstream world as extremist, so this is of no surprise to me.
Good thing your brain is immune to logical inconsistency.
espeir wrote:
Fortunately, the founding fathers did well to assure that our country is not ruled by small groups of people who hold views contrary to the general populace.
Fortunate, indeed. Otherwise people like you might frighten rather than amuse.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I fear religious tyranny, and those who believe that religious tyranny is acceptable so long as enough people voted for it.
So you fear your neighbors, but trust the government to protect you from tyranny. How very Jeffersonian of you. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
not teaching a religious world view is not at all the same as teaching a secular world view.
But teaching a secular world view is teaching a secular world view. A couple of years ago I attentend a weekend highschool band competition that my son was participating in one weekend at a nearby school. While waiting for him to play, I was walking around the cafeteria and happended to notice that the walls were covered with "Compassion" posters. There were posters invovling famous quotes from famous people about compassion, Martin Luther King, jr. Gandhi and every body you could possibly think of except for any quotes from Jesus or the Bible. No "Do unto others..." No goldern rule. Nothing. I would submit to you that represents an example of the secular state promoting a moral agenda of its own formulation, designed specifically and purposefully to present children with a non-christian, pro-seucular world view, in order for them to see the secular state as a legitimate source of moral authority rather than the church. Modern scularism is not the same thing that Jefferson would have understood as secularism. It is not the benign, all inclusive, compassionate, multi-cultural philosophy the left tries to push. It has positioned itself as a competitive set of moral and philosophical principles. It is in fact nothing less than the state finally finding a way to force its moral will upon a people precisely as was once done by the church. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
Stan Shannon wrote:
non-christian
Non-Christian, not anti-Christian.
Stan Shannon wrote:
the secular state as a legitimate source of moral authority
So they were presenting secular quotes from very religious men, and they left one out. I don't see the problem. It is the parent's responsibility, not the state's, to present children with the option of seeing religion as a source of moral authority.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Modern scularism is not the same thing that Jefferson would have understood as secularism. It is not the benign, all inclusive, compassionate, multi-cultural philosophy the left tries to push. It has positioned itself as a competitive set of moral and philosophical principles. It is in fact nothing less than the state finally finding a way to force its moral will upon a people precisely as was once done by the church.
The state is a source of moral and philosophical principles. When those principles are secular, they don't compete with any religion.
-
How about my right to come together with my neighbors and decide that we don't want people buring a flag in our community? "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
How about my right to come together with my neighbors and decide that we don't like that pesky "free speech" stuff? That people of other religions should be driven from our community? That thou shalt not suffer a witch to live? The difference is quantitative, not qualitative.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
non-christian
Non-Christian, not anti-Christian.
Stan Shannon wrote:
the secular state as a legitimate source of moral authority
So they were presenting secular quotes from very religious men, and they left one out. I don't see the problem. It is the parent's responsibility, not the state's, to present children with the option of seeing religion as a source of moral authority.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Modern scularism is not the same thing that Jefferson would have understood as secularism. It is not the benign, all inclusive, compassionate, multi-cultural philosophy the left tries to push. It has positioned itself as a competitive set of moral and philosophical principles. It is in fact nothing less than the state finally finding a way to force its moral will upon a people precisely as was once done by the church.
The state is a source of moral and philosophical principles. When those principles are secular, they don't compete with any religion.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
It is the parent's responsibility, not the state's, to present children with the option of seeing religion as a source of moral authority.
It is not the state's responsibility to teach children anything other than what the parents prefer be taught. But clearly the state has taken upon itself the responsibility of promoting a secular moral agenda. If that doesn't bother you than you don't have the slightest clue what separation of church and state was intended to achieve.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
When those principles are secular, they don't compete with any religion.
They do when they are intentionally crafted to. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson