Bitter Irony
-
The "seperation of church and state" may be a modern legal principle, but it is a principle backed only by a mythic precedent. There is no law that invokes that restriction. Sadly, from my point of view, the US Justice system is more concerned with legal precedent (and worse, international precedents are beginning to surface) than actually enforcing the letter of the law.
-
The actual law of this country, clearly stated in the federal constituion, says that the legislative branch of the federal government, the Congress, shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religoin or the free excercise thereof. By definition there is no law giving the federal government the power to tell the state of Alabama whether or not it can but the 10 commandments anywhere it damned well pleases. The federal court has, for a good long while now, placed itself above that very clear legal sanction placed upon the federal government at its founding. That is precisely what Moore was purposefully standing up to. He was not trying to make a religious statement, but a legal one. The Bill of Rights was put in the Constitution specifically to weaken the federal government's power in regard to the state's not to strengthen it. That is what the founders were trying to grant to you and I.
Stan Shannon wrote: The actual law of this country, clearly stated in the federal constituion, says that the legislative branch of the federal government, the Congress, shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religoin or the free excercise thereof. By definition there is no law giving the federal government the power to tell the state of Alabama whether or not it can but the 10 commandments anywhere it damned well pleases. Thanks for the explanation. I, too, was a bit puzzled as to what you were unhappy about. I suspect that a lot of non-Americans, including myself, are a bit perplexed by the huge separation of state and federal government although I understand a bit of the historical reasons for it. Let's say the state of Utah decides that is going to be a religious state and government shall be done according to Mormon principles. Would the federal government be able to do anything about it?
"Sucks less" isn't progress - Kent Beck [^] Awasu 1.1.3 [^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031113/ap_on_re_us/ten_commandments_25&cid=519[^] Moore is thrown off the court for placing himself above the law? No, Moore took a stand against judges who have placed them selves above the law. He was thrown off the court for having the audacity to stand up to a legal system which no longer recognizes any legal or constitutional restraint of any kind. It now has the power to do what ever it please and has perverted this nation into the very thing its founders were most fearful it would become. And there are those who a fearful of Bush and Ashcroft! God bless Judge Moore, I wish him the best. I also hope Ashcroft has his way with this nation - it deserves him.
The really amusing part is that for a couple of seconds, I thought you were talking favourably about Michael Moore[^]. Yawn. It's a tablet with some words on it. Who cares? If the guy is that wild about Christianity, he should have become a minister. I guess he's got some time on his hands now. Always a silver lining. Eco
-
Stan Shannon wrote: The actual law of this country, clearly stated in the federal constituion, says that the legislative branch of the federal government, the Congress, shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religoin or the free excercise thereof. By definition there is no law giving the federal government the power to tell the state of Alabama whether or not it can but the 10 commandments anywhere it damned well pleases. Thanks for the explanation. I, too, was a bit puzzled as to what you were unhappy about. I suspect that a lot of non-Americans, including myself, are a bit perplexed by the huge separation of state and federal government although I understand a bit of the historical reasons for it. Let's say the state of Utah decides that is going to be a religious state and government shall be done according to Mormon principles. Would the federal government be able to do anything about it?
"Sucks less" isn't progress - Kent Beck [^] Awasu 1.1.3 [^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
I will confess up front that I am one of the strongest proponents of that most ancient of American political principles known as "state's rights" that you are likely to find. I think it was the most important principle of our political system and primarily responsible for our long term success as a democracy. Too much power concerntrated in a federal authority is a dangerous thing (think Ashcroft). Our Civil War involved the question of state's rights but only to the extent of whether or not a state has the right to secceed. Apparently, they don't. However, that does not invalidate the concept itself. It is crucial to the stability of a large, complex society. The federal constitution is currently being used to assault the most dearly held spiritual tradtions of this society by a a set of judges who's motives are entirely religious - although not in the traditional way. They view religion as a treat for precisly the same reason Marx did, and fully intend to implement his philosophies on the subject.
-
I will confess up front that I am one of the strongest proponents of that most ancient of American political principles known as "state's rights" that you are likely to find. I think it was the most important principle of our political system and primarily responsible for our long term success as a democracy. Too much power concerntrated in a federal authority is a dangerous thing (think Ashcroft). Our Civil War involved the question of state's rights but only to the extent of whether or not a state has the right to secceed. Apparently, they don't. However, that does not invalidate the concept itself. It is crucial to the stability of a large, complex society. The federal constitution is currently being used to assault the most dearly held spiritual tradtions of this society by a a set of judges who's motives are entirely religious - although not in the traditional way. They view religion as a treat for precisly the same reason Marx did, and fully intend to implement his philosophies on the subject.
Stan Shannon wrote: It is crucial to the stability of a large, complex society. I don't quite see how excessive state autonomy can promote stability within a large country. Taken to extremes, you would have each state an entity unto itself and passport controls on every border :-) While I can understand the distrust that states may have had in the past of an all-powerful, far-away, centralized government, don't you, at some point, have to say "well, we're part of one country, the United States of America." The dangers that Ashcroft et.al. present are not so much because he is federal but an issue with power itself. What's to stop a similar kind of thing happening at a state level?
"Sucks less" isn't progress - Kent Beck [^] Awasu 1.1.3 [^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: The federal court has, for a good long while now, placed itself above that very clear legal sanction placed upon the federal government at its founding. I don't see it that way, and jurists in this country haven't seen it that way either. The separation of church and state is a basic principle of the law of the land. I don't see how you can possibly state that Moore's attempt to dominate the Alabama Court with his own personal religion is anything but an arrogant attempt to overturn what has been proven, time and again, to be an appropriate removal of religion from the realm of government. Stan Shannon wrote: The Bill of Rights was put in the Constitution specifically to weaken the federal government's power in regard to the state's not to strengthen it. I believe one of the founders stated that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the rights of individuals from an 'arrogant majority'. I would suggest that Moore's tantrum was precisely the sort of thing this statement had in mind.
LunaticFringe wrote: I don't see it that way Yeah, I know. LunaticFringe wrote: and jurists in this country haven't seen it that way either Hence the problem. LunaticFringe wrote: The separation of church and state is a basic principle of the law of the land. A mechanism for invalidating the letter of the constitution itself in order to promote their own (and your's I imagine) religious agenda. LunaticFringe wrote: I don't see how you can possibly state that Moore's attempt to dominate the Alabama Court with his own personal religion is anything but an arrogant attempt to overturn what has been proven, time and again, to be an appropriate removal of religion from the realm of government. The constitution of the state of Alabama, which Moore swore an oath to, requires recognition of religion. Just as the state of Virginia's did when Thomas Jefferson swore his oath upon becoming governor. Jefferson didn't seem to have a problem with it. LunaticFringe wrote: I believe one of the founders stated that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the rights of individuals from an 'arrogant majority'. I would suggest that Moore's tantrum was precisely the sort of thing this statement had in mind. The Bill or Rights was never intended to protect individual liberties but to stipulate the relationship between the states and the newly formed federal government. The founder's were far more concerned about abuse of power on the part of the federal government than they were about the states the were from. The saw the states as having a much greater vested interest in protecting the rights of their citizens than the federal government did. Is your argument supported by many years of legal precedent? Yes it is. I do not deny that. But precendent or no, the greatest threats to our civil liberties is coming from the federal judiciary which no longer has any constintutional restrictions of any kind on its power. That should concern you far more than some bone headed Attorny General who will be replaced in some upcoming election.
-
The really amusing part is that for a couple of seconds, I thought you were talking favourably about Michael Moore[^]. Yawn. It's a tablet with some words on it. Who cares? If the guy is that wild about Christianity, he should have become a minister. I guess he's got some time on his hands now. Always a silver lining. Eco
The issue has nothing to do with religion.
-
The issue has nothing to do with religion.
-
Brandon Haase wrote: the US Justice system is more concerned with legal precedent Isn't that one of the ways that laws and their interpretation evolve?
I think the laws should evolve, not the interpretation of them. Considering the legislative branch seems to be paralyzed when it comes to many issues, it's no surprise the way things have turned out... oh well... hindsight is 20/20. Although, I would say it is probably a good thing the process is slow. Take a look at the laws that have passed relatively quickly in recent days... DMCA, PATRIOT, etc. Which do you think is more important, the letter of the law or one judge's (or panel of judges) interpretation of it?
-
Stan Shannon wrote: It is crucial to the stability of a large, complex society. I don't quite see how excessive state autonomy can promote stability within a large country. Taken to extremes, you would have each state an entity unto itself and passport controls on every border :-) While I can understand the distrust that states may have had in the past of an all-powerful, far-away, centralized government, don't you, at some point, have to say "well, we're part of one country, the United States of America." The dangers that Ashcroft et.al. present are not so much because he is federal but an issue with power itself. What's to stop a similar kind of thing happening at a state level?
"Sucks less" isn't progress - Kent Beck [^] Awasu 1.1.3 [^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
Taka Muraoka wrote: Taken to extremes, you would have each state an entity unto itself and passport controls on every border While I can understand the distrust that states may have had in the past of an all-powerful, far-away, centralized government, don't you, at some point, have to say "well, we're part of one country, the United States of America." But the constitution legitimately covers those extremes. The constitution has been appropriately amended to cover such contingencies. (I have no problem with amending the constitution as a means of evolving our political system.) Does Utah have the right to become a theocracy? Well, yeah. But so does the federal government and it would be much easier to deal with Utah as a theocracy than with the federal government. Centralized political power, as the founders recognized, is a dangerous thing. They fought a revolution to free themselves (and me) from it. The irony is that we are going to become exactly what the lefties fear most, precisely because of the power they have allowed to accrue in the hands of an elite judiciary in a foolish attempt to protect their own secular agenda.
-
The really amusing part is that for a couple of seconds, I thought you were talking favourably about Michael Moore[^]. Yawn. It's a tablet with some words on it. Who cares? If the guy is that wild about Christianity, he should have become a minister. I guess he's got some time on his hands now. Always a silver lining. Eco
he's probably gonna run for governor. and he'll probably win. ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
Taka Muraoka wrote: Taken to extremes, you would have each state an entity unto itself and passport controls on every border While I can understand the distrust that states may have had in the past of an all-powerful, far-away, centralized government, don't you, at some point, have to say "well, we're part of one country, the United States of America." But the constitution legitimately covers those extremes. The constitution has been appropriately amended to cover such contingencies. (I have no problem with amending the constitution as a means of evolving our political system.) Does Utah have the right to become a theocracy? Well, yeah. But so does the federal government and it would be much easier to deal with Utah as a theocracy than with the federal government. Centralized political power, as the founders recognized, is a dangerous thing. They fought a revolution to free themselves (and me) from it. The irony is that we are going to become exactly what the lefties fear most, precisely because of the power they have allowed to accrue in the hands of an elite judiciary in a foolish attempt to protect their own secular agenda.
Hmmm.... Something to ponder over (instead of working :rolleyes: ) Thanks :-)
"Sucks less" isn't progress - Kent Beck [^] Awasu 1.1.3 [^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
-
LunaticFringe wrote: I don't see it that way Yeah, I know. LunaticFringe wrote: and jurists in this country haven't seen it that way either Hence the problem. LunaticFringe wrote: The separation of church and state is a basic principle of the law of the land. A mechanism for invalidating the letter of the constitution itself in order to promote their own (and your's I imagine) religious agenda. LunaticFringe wrote: I don't see how you can possibly state that Moore's attempt to dominate the Alabama Court with his own personal religion is anything but an arrogant attempt to overturn what has been proven, time and again, to be an appropriate removal of religion from the realm of government. The constitution of the state of Alabama, which Moore swore an oath to, requires recognition of religion. Just as the state of Virginia's did when Thomas Jefferson swore his oath upon becoming governor. Jefferson didn't seem to have a problem with it. LunaticFringe wrote: I believe one of the founders stated that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the rights of individuals from an 'arrogant majority'. I would suggest that Moore's tantrum was precisely the sort of thing this statement had in mind. The Bill or Rights was never intended to protect individual liberties but to stipulate the relationship between the states and the newly formed federal government. The founder's were far more concerned about abuse of power on the part of the federal government than they were about the states the were from. The saw the states as having a much greater vested interest in protecting the rights of their citizens than the federal government did. Is your argument supported by many years of legal precedent? Yes it is. I do not deny that. But precendent or no, the greatest threats to our civil liberties is coming from the federal judiciary which no longer has any constintutional restrictions of any kind on its power. That should concern you far more than some bone headed Attorny General who will be replaced in some upcoming election.
Stan Shannon wrote: greatest threats to our civil liberties is coming from the federal judiciary which no longer has any constintutional restrictions of any kind on its power. Totally agree. It is not the right of judges to make law; their sole power is to interpret the laws passed by the Legislative branch, and executed by the Executive branch of the Federal government to ensure that such laws and the application of them do not conflict in intention or application with the Constitution. They have no right to create law, nor to reinterpret the Constitution as they please. The Constitution further states that every single power not specifically granted to the Federal government by the Constitution is reserved exclusively to the States, or to the People. That portion of the law of the land has been consistently ignored for the past 70 years or more, and the abuse has accelerated during the past 30 years. "Your village called -
They're missing their idiot." -
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031113/ap_on_re_us/ten_commandments_25&cid=519[^] Moore is thrown off the court for placing himself above the law? No, Moore took a stand against judges who have placed them selves above the law. He was thrown off the court for having the audacity to stand up to a legal system which no longer recognizes any legal or constitutional restraint of any kind. It now has the power to do what ever it please and has perverted this nation into the very thing its founders were most fearful it would become. And there are those who a fearful of Bush and Ashcroft! God bless Judge Moore, I wish him the best. I also hope Ashcroft has his way with this nation - it deserves him.
I believe John F. Kennedy wrote an excellent book about political courage. This story sounds like JFK gave examples of in his book, Politicians making unpopular decisions, but necessary for checks and balances. I truly believe this is why the framers decided to implement the importance of God in our society. I found this interesting part of that article standing out to support this concept: ""They stole my vote. The judiciary stole my vote. I voted for Roy Moore," he said. Moore said he had no animosity toward the panel. But, he said, unless the states stand up, "public acknowledgment of God will be taken from us. `In God we trust' will be taken from our money and `one nation under God' from our pledge." " I mean, he did actually brought something religious based into a court of law, but he does have a point that "It's about whether or not you can acknowledge God as a source of our law and our liberty." Whether he is right or wrong, his actions are politically courageous. And are important ideas to be debated for this self-government nation, imo. There are religious people in the USA, and they need to be represented in the Federal Judiciary Branch also. Later, JoeSox One thing vampire children have to be taught early on is, don't run with wooden stakes. --Jack Handy Deep Thoughts www.joeswammi.com ↔ www.humanaiproject.org
-
LunaticFringe wrote: I don't see it that way Yeah, I know. LunaticFringe wrote: and jurists in this country haven't seen it that way either Hence the problem. LunaticFringe wrote: The separation of church and state is a basic principle of the law of the land. A mechanism for invalidating the letter of the constitution itself in order to promote their own (and your's I imagine) religious agenda. LunaticFringe wrote: I don't see how you can possibly state that Moore's attempt to dominate the Alabama Court with his own personal religion is anything but an arrogant attempt to overturn what has been proven, time and again, to be an appropriate removal of religion from the realm of government. The constitution of the state of Alabama, which Moore swore an oath to, requires recognition of religion. Just as the state of Virginia's did when Thomas Jefferson swore his oath upon becoming governor. Jefferson didn't seem to have a problem with it. LunaticFringe wrote: I believe one of the founders stated that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the rights of individuals from an 'arrogant majority'. I would suggest that Moore's tantrum was precisely the sort of thing this statement had in mind. The Bill or Rights was never intended to protect individual liberties but to stipulate the relationship between the states and the newly formed federal government. The founder's were far more concerned about abuse of power on the part of the federal government than they were about the states the were from. The saw the states as having a much greater vested interest in protecting the rights of their citizens than the federal government did. Is your argument supported by many years of legal precedent? Yes it is. I do not deny that. But precendent or no, the greatest threats to our civil liberties is coming from the federal judiciary which no longer has any constintutional restrictions of any kind on its power. That should concern you far more than some bone headed Attorny General who will be replaced in some upcoming election.
I'll admit I'm as uncomfortable as you with the increasing power of the Federal government, but I would argue that the separation of church and state is more than an abuse of power by the judiciary. I did a quick search on the phrase 'arrogant majority', because I wasn't certain of the source. In the process, I came up with this. I'm pretty certain that Scott wasn't the first to use it, but I thought it interesting and relevant to the discussion. The US House of Representatives voted Thursday, June 4, 1998 to reject (224-203) an amendment to the Constitution that was designed to bring prayer back into public schools and other forms of public religious activities now deemed to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The amendment, HJR78, sponsored by Rep. Ernest Istook, R-OK stated that the government may not infringe on “people’s right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage or traditions on public property, including schools.” The amendment also opened the door for federal taxes funding of religious activities. The amendment was heavily opposed by religious groups from many different denominations and theological perspectives, including Catholics, Jews, Seventh-day Adventists, Presbyterians, and Muslims. It was the consensus of these groups that the amendment was unnecessary as the First Amendment already protected religious freedom adequately and prevented a majoritarium domination of minorities. “This amendment strips the individual of his or her rights to pick his or her own prayer or to practice his or her own religion without having to subject their beliefs to the manipulation and interference of an arrogant majority,” said Rep. Robert Scott, D-VA. ... The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of religion and forbids any “establishment” of religion by the government. Through the years the Supreme Court has wisely held that the government should maintain a “benevolent neutrality” toward religion, neither advancing nor hindering it.
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031113/ap_on_re_us/ten_commandments_25&cid=519[^] Moore is thrown off the court for placing himself above the law? No, Moore took a stand against judges who have placed them selves above the law. He was thrown off the court for having the audacity to stand up to a legal system which no longer recognizes any legal or constitutional restraint of any kind. It now has the power to do what ever it please and has perverted this nation into the very thing its founders were most fearful it would become. And there are those who a fearful of Bush and Ashcroft! God bless Judge Moore, I wish him the best. I also hope Ashcroft has his way with this nation - it deserves him.
Stan Shannon wrote: has perverted this nation into the very thing its founders were most fearful it would become I thought this was the fault of the liberal treehuggers :confused:
"Vierteile den, der sie Hure schimpft mit einem türkischen Säbel."
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygen -
The really amusing part is that for a couple of seconds, I thought you were talking favourably about Michael Moore[^]. Yawn. It's a tablet with some words on it. Who cares? If the guy is that wild about Christianity, he should have become a minister. I guess he's got some time on his hands now. Always a silver lining. Eco
Eco Jones wrote: It's a tablet with some words on it. Who cares? A tablet with "Fuck you. my wife didn't let me last night" right at the judges desk would likely make an impression... Point being the "It's just words who cares?" is very MTV Generation (if a bit long for their attention span), but utterly inappropriate.
"Vierteile den, der sie Hure schimpft mit einem türkischen Säbel."
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygen -
I think the laws should evolve, not the interpretation of them. Considering the legislative branch seems to be paralyzed when it comes to many issues, it's no surprise the way things have turned out... oh well... hindsight is 20/20. Although, I would say it is probably a good thing the process is slow. Take a look at the laws that have passed relatively quickly in recent days... DMCA, PATRIOT, etc. Which do you think is more important, the letter of the law or one judge's (or panel of judges) interpretation of it?
Brandon Haase wrote: Which do you think is more important, the letter of the law or one judge's (or panel of judges) interpretation of it? I sense a trick of semantics here, but... :) My response would be that by setting precedent, the decision (interpretation) of a judge, or panel of judges, effectively becomes the law of the land; ie, the new letter of the law. Neat dodge, huh? :)
-
Brandon Haase wrote: Which do you think is more important, the letter of the law or one judge's (or panel of judges) interpretation of it? I sense a trick of semantics here, but... :) My response would be that by setting precedent, the decision (interpretation) of a judge, or panel of judges, effectively becomes the law of the land; ie, the new letter of the law. Neat dodge, huh? :)
Ah, a suspicious one :-D No trick; I just wanted your opinion, and I agree with you. In today's society, the interpretation is everything. And I think this is A Bad Thing. The fact that the new "letter of the law" is based on some one else's interpretation that was likely based on another interpretation and so on... Scary stuff.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: The federal court has, for a good long while now, placed itself above that very clear legal sanction placed upon the federal government at its founding. I don't see it that way, and jurists in this country haven't seen it that way either. The separation of church and state is a basic principle of the law of the land. I don't see how you can possibly state that Moore's attempt to dominate the Alabama Court with his own personal religion is anything but an arrogant attempt to overturn what has been proven, time and again, to be an appropriate removal of religion from the realm of government. Stan Shannon wrote: The Bill of Rights was put in the Constitution specifically to weaken the federal government's power in regard to the state's not to strengthen it. I believe one of the founders stated that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the rights of individuals from an 'arrogant majority'. I would suggest that Moore's tantrum was precisely the sort of thing this statement had in mind.
LunaticFringe wrote: I believe one of the founders stated that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the rights of individuals from an 'arrogant majority'. I would suggest that Moore's tantrum was precisely the sort of thing this statement had in mind. Actually, from my point of view, the individual's (Moore) rights were swept aside and buried without proper examination to placate the desires of the majority who have become xenophobic towards anything that has a whiff of judaeo-christian values. In this time it seems the "arrogant majority" has won.