tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post713469954510712430..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: Libs bemoan taking down a wall that doesn't existmregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-33782210416208778682014-04-05T17:16:10.855-04:002014-04-05T17:16:10.855-04:00Few, if any, rights are as absolute as you seem to...Few, if any, rights are as absolute as you seem to suppose. From the first, for instance, it has been recognized that freedom of speech is subject to reasonable time, manner, and place restrictions (note no mention of restricting content), so one can be restricted from screaming into a bullhorn on a residential street at 2:00 a.m., etc.<br /><br />Similarly, the government can enact and enforce generally applicable laws, e.g., contracts, torts, employment, discrimination, and the like, and enforce them with respect to everyone, including those who may voice religious objections. The Supreme Court held as early as 1878 that the law prohibiting polygamy could be enforced on everyone, including those who claimed their religion allowed or directed otherwise.Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-64600673603492379342014-04-05T17:08:38.556-04:002014-04-05T17:08:38.556-04:00To suppose that the state establishments at the ti...To suppose that the state establishments at the time of the founding "throws a real wrench" in the separation of church and state but reveals profound misunderstanding of its basis. While the First Amendment limited only the federal government, the Constitution was later amended to protect from infringement by states and their political subdivisions the privileges and immunities of citizenship, due process, and equal protection of the laws. The courts naturally have looked to the Bill of Rights for the important rights thus protected by the 14th Amendment and have ruled that it effectively extends the First Amendment’s guarantees vis a vis the federal government to the states and their subdivisions--hence the law does reach the city councils and public school teachers. While the founders drafted the First Amendment to constrain the federal government, they certainly understood that later amendments could extend the Bill of Rights' constraints to state and local governments.Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-48876198304206267072014-04-05T00:47:51.750-04:002014-04-05T00:47:51.750-04:00Wasn't it obvious? You can look it up in U.S....Wasn't it obvious? You can look it up in U.S. Supreme Court Reports, which is where you'll find the published decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. And yes, I am well aware that the Court can be wrong and can change its mind. My point, though, was to poke fun at the hyperbolic claim. As long as the Court says so, the constitutional separation of church and states "exists" as the law of the land.<br /><br />And don't doubt that I can and will "defend" the separation of church and state. It is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of "We the people" (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders' avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.<br /><br />That the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the text of the Constitution, as you note, assumes much importance, it seems, to some who once mistakenly supposed they were there and, upon learning of their error, fancy they’ve solved a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphorical phrase commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.<br /><br />To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation--in those very words--of the founders' intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). Indeed, he understood the original Constitution--without the First Amendment--to separate religion and government. He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”<br />Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-91516405440445895132014-04-04T10:31:48.182-04:002014-04-04T10:31:48.182-04:00JQ,
You're confusing absence of separation of...JQ,<br /><br />You're confusing absence of separation of church and state with having an established state church.<br /><br />Australia doesn't have separation of state and church. Anything is allowed. Publicly funded chaplains in public schools. Religious instruction in public schools. Nativity scenes in post offices. Prayers in parliament. Churches renting local government services to hold their services on Sunday (such as my local aquatic centre which I attend daily - although presumably the local government gets rent reducing my council rates).<br /><br />But Australia doesn't have an established state church. All churches are treated equally.<br /><br />If you think religious adherence in America is tepid, then in Australia it's frigid - less than 9% of the population are regular church goers. In America I gather that it's more than 50%.<br /><br />I don't understand what you mean in (3) - there seems to be a typo when you state that 'the church meddles in the affairs of my church'.<br /><br />I'd actually like Australia to have separation of church and state too - and accept the possibility that religious fervour might increase in Australia. Because it would mean that my taxes wouldn't be going to pay for chaplains in public schools.<br /><br />Otherwise, I don't have any opinions. I get along fine with my siblings who are active church goers. I have friends who are active Mormons (and when they offer to take me to temple on Sundays, I decline noting that I couldn't possibly eschew coffee - I tried once and it was the most miserable week of my life due to the caffeine withdrawal). I just like disagreeing with Egnor, because he's such an easy target.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-46738079122716667642014-04-04T04:54:47.720-04:002014-04-04T04:54:47.720-04:00Bachfiend, I wish you'd answer my question. I&...Bachfiend, I wish you'd answer my question. I've heard this line of reasoning before, usually from people who hate Christians, that I ought to thank my lucky stars for the separation of church and state because it protects me too. In other countries that have established churches, religious belief is tepid at best. <br /><br />There are three problem with this lines of reasoning: <br /><br />1. I don't want an established state church, of course, because that would be unconstitutional. <br />2. Religious belief in this country is already pretty tepid. <br />3. The separation of church and state has never protected me from anything. The church meddles in the affairs of my church at will, the schools tell my children that their parents are wrong to teach them key tenets of their faith, etc.<br /><br />But explain this to me: if ending this farcical piece of bad jurisprudence called the separation of church and state is going to lead a decline in religious fervor, why aren't you in favor of it? <br /><br />JQ Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-6406618143836105542014-04-04T03:29:07.111-04:002014-04-04T03:29:07.111-04:00Ben,
Prayer isn't a free speech issue. If it...Ben,<br /><br />Prayer isn't a free speech issue. If it was, anyone could stand up and invoke a prayer thanking Satan for the good things we have. Would you be happy with that?<br /><br />Anyway. Prayers in public aren't illegal. Prayers as part of publicly funded meetings and in publicly funded schools (if it's part of the official school activities not a private matter) are illegal.<br /><br />Personally, I don't like prayers as part of public meetings - if the meetings are secular and not religious- because they're a waste of time (then again, I've been to a lot of meetings which I've regarded to be largely a waste of time - including ones in which the speaker appears to be intent on inducing death by PowerPoint with extremely busy slides and insisting on reading aloud all the text on the slide which everyone has read in 10 seconds).<br /><br />Anyway - how did that short story you had me read go?bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-11244455859205687782014-04-04T03:24:06.657-04:002014-04-04T03:24:06.657-04:00I can see that even you won't defend the point...I can see that even you won't defend the point that the separation of church and state is actually in the Constitution. You know it isn't there. Why then do you say that the court has <i>declared--repeatedly, authoritatively, and emphatically--that the Constitution separates church and state.</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-46079361449999224842014-04-04T03:20:51.133-04:002014-04-04T03:20:51.133-04:00We can "look it up?" Where? Certainly no...We can "look it up?" Where? Certainly not in the Constitution, because it isn't there. <br /><br />When the court decides, for example, that the rights of Japanese-Americans can in fact be stripped away without due process of law, the court is wrong. <br /><br />So the court can be wrong. <br /><br />Do you see the circular logic to your argument? The court is always right. How do we know this? Because the court decided it in Marbury vs. Madison. Oh, and how do we know they were correct in that decision? Because the court is always right. <br /><br />BenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-56316090607179992742014-04-04T03:16:38.848-04:002014-04-04T03:16:38.848-04:00If I suggested that there should be a prayer to a ...<i>If I suggested that there should be a prayer to a godless Mother Nature (I wouldn't - it's a waste of time) at the start of civic meetings, would you object?</i><br /><br />How many times do we have to go down this rabbit trail, Bachfiend? We have answered this question a thousand times already. <br /><br />Here's my answer. I wouldn't like it at all but my not liking it wouldn't make it unconstitutional. If it were unconstitutional it would have to violate some part of the Constitution. I can't think of any relevant part. Do you understand? <br /><br />You seem to be implying that there is some kind of hypocrisy on the part of conservatives, that we would be up in arms of someone of another faith offered a prayer, and then suddenly we too would adopt the false doctrine of the separation of church and state. To a certain extent, I would be angry as heck because I have been told my whole life that religion has no place in the public sphere, that I'm somehow imposing on other people if I don't hide myself in shame. And then along comes some Wiccan or Buddhist and they can pray at public meetings. Why can't I? <br /><br />But it would still not be unconstitutional. <br /><br />BenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-37049527555234613452014-04-04T03:09:30.274-04:002014-04-04T03:09:30.274-04:00You think you're being generous with your stat...You think you're being generous with your statement that others still have the right to pray, though apparently not at a public meeting. Why not? Because others might not agree with it? That's what you said.<br /><br />So other people aren't allowed to say things Bachfiend doesn't agree with.<br /><br />Bachfiend fully supports your right to pray so long as you are hiding and no one can see or hear you.<br /><br />Read this country's Constitution. I know it's not your own but you sure seem to speak about it like you know something. It doesn't include a right never to hear other people pray. <br /><br />Your right not to pray is not being violated. <br /><br />Ben<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-77558383999286254182014-04-04T02:10:44.703-04:002014-04-04T02:10:44.703-04:00Yes, the constitutional separation of church and s...Yes, the constitutional separation of church and state "exists." You can look it up.<br /><br />I realize you assert that the constitutional separation of church and state "doesn't exist" only as hyperbole, but it bears noting nonetheless that that assertion is indeed false--just so we keep this discussion at least remotely grounded in reality, i.e., what exists.<br /><br />Under our constitutional system, "[i]t is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is." (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).) The law includes the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court (our highest court) has declared--repeatedly, authoritatively, and emphatically--that the Constitution separates church and state. So, it exists.<br /><br />I understand that you disagree with the Court. That is your right; have at it. You may well opine that the constitutional separation of church and state shouldn't exist, should never have existed, and should be terminated forthwith and forever forgotten. But do all that and huff and puff and hide your eyes as much as you might does not change the reality that the Supreme Court has established as a matter of law that the Constitution separates church and state. That separation--the law of the land--exists. Like I said, you can look it up. Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-36027931027126061662014-04-03T23:30:02.706-04:002014-04-03T23:30:02.706-04:00Egnor,
'Prayer' isn't 'free speec...Egnor,<br /><br />'Prayer' isn't 'free speech'. If you don't believe me, next Sunday in church, try standing up and disagreeing with the priest during his sermon, and see what happens.<br /><br />The priest doesn't have free speech (he can't alter dogma), you don't have free speech during the sermon or the prayers in church and prayers in civic meetings aren't free speech, because there will always be someone objecting to the form adopted.<br /><br />If I suggested that there should be a prayer to a godless Mother Nature (I wouldn't - it's a waste of time) at the start of civic meetings, would you object?bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-27521993592573729702014-04-03T22:13:45.356-04:002014-04-03T22:13:45.356-04:00Egnor,
'It shows'.
Yes, it does. Americ...Egnor,<br /><br />'It shows'.<br /><br />Yes, it does. America has a lot of peculiar ideas that the rest of the world does well to ignore. Separation of state and church isn't one of them though.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-1839673231296577462014-04-03T21:15:07.330-04:002014-04-03T21:15:07.330-04:00It shows. It shows. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-48116466747951077312014-04-03T21:02:12.046-04:002014-04-03T21:02:12.046-04:00Egnor,
Australia doesn't have civics class. ...Egnor,<br /><br />Australia doesn't have civics class. That's a peculiar American custom.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-55576077083389801992014-04-03T20:59:06.651-04:002014-04-03T20:59:06.651-04:00Egnor,
You've proved again, as you've adm...Egnor,<br /><br />You've proved again, as you've admitted in previous threads, that you have difficulties in reading comprehension.<br /><br />Read my comment again, or better still, get a 10 year old to explain it to you.<br /><br />When I was a pathologist, I was told that when I was writing reports for surgeons, I should compose them as though I was writing for a 12 year old (roughly 'Harry Potter' level).<br /><br />I now see I need to write at 9 year age level for you.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-23663828200468728012014-04-03T20:54:26.394-04:002014-04-03T20:54:26.394-04:00"You don't have the right to insist on pr..."You don't have the right to insist on prayers being said at civic meetings"<br /><br />Of course I do. And you have the right to insist that prayers not be said. The way we resolve this in a democracy is that I speak my view, you speak yours, and then we vote for school board members who we think will act in accordance with our view. <br /><br />You didn't do so well in civics class, did you bach?mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-74559712061303776622014-04-03T20:53:11.491-04:002014-04-03T20:53:11.491-04:00Ben,
So why doesn't Trish state what she thin...Ben,<br /><br />So why doesn't Trish state what she thinks?<br /><br />Anyhow. How did that short story you had me read do?bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-43591176109173653152014-04-03T20:51:13.344-04:002014-04-03T20:51:13.344-04:00bach:
I have no idea what you mean by your first ...bach:<br /><br />I have no idea what you mean by your first sentence. Have you been drinking?<br /><br />And your expression of your opinion is denying me my right to freedom of speech. Police!mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-90216207667487840312014-04-03T20:50:34.602-04:002014-04-03T20:50:34.602-04:00Silly old fart,
Your link regarding 'heat sin...Silly old fart,<br /><br />Your link regarding 'heat sinks' doesn't work. I'm not certain what you're referring to. <br /><br />You're pretty good at magically knowing where I got my knowledge of theology.<br /><br />And anyway - why do you persist in thinking that the retina doesn't compress visual stimuli before sending it to the brain? Which then creates the rich detail we perceive based on extrapolation and experience? Or that my explanation for auditory sensation is wrong (that the brain does the hard lifting work, not the cochlea)?<br /><br />The catholic catechism is that God is always present. It claims that prayer puts the person in the presence of God. Magic.<br /><br />I'm a capitalist, not a Bolshevik. I'll put my capital against your capital any day.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-57414170881860441122014-04-03T20:36:01.130-04:002014-04-03T20:36:01.130-04:00Egnor,
I have the right not to pray because I hav...Egnor,<br /><br />I have the right not to pray because I have the right not to go to church. You have the right to pray because you have the right to go to church.<br /><br />You don't have the right to insist on prayers being said at civic meetings. It's an infringement on the right of people who mightn't agree with prayer in wasting their time (that said - most meetings I've attended have been a major waste of time - a short prayer would have been of little matter).bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-68547942914876798632014-04-03T20:33:24.219-04:002014-04-03T20:33:24.219-04:00its still the great error os saying the sTATE is e...its still the great error os saying the sTATE is everything the sTATE pays for. They meant the great idea of State and church not bugging each other.<br />In these matters of prayer etc and schools its just a boundary that is bumped into.<br />The founders were not at war with Christianity, as the bad guys today, but were dealing with important issues of power and influence.<br />Banning prayer has nothing to do with thier great historic ideas. They would never allow a banning in such a very Protestant civilization back then.<br />Let the people be free. They can handle these things. No constitution should be involved. Its a scam of the bad guys.<br />By the way. Many states kept religious things long after the constitution was made. City councils are not the GREAT STATE OF THE UNION.<br />The bad guys should not be doing well in these matters.<br />However with a supreme court selected for ethnic/sex/liberal identity and ethnic/sex/conservative identity ANYTHING dumb and bad can be expected in these sad days of American judicial doings.<br />Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-7146221711244744932014-04-03T18:51:45.089-04:002014-04-03T18:51:45.089-04:00Ben: "We can't live in a society in which...Ben: "We can't live in a society in which people have a right to say things if other people are constantly claiming a right not to hear things. "<br /><br />Well-said. Perfectly said, in fact.Commissar Boggs, Ministry of Truthnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-16819892172695587342014-04-03T18:49:22.398-04:002014-04-03T18:49:22.398-04:00BTW, blabfest, for the record...
magic: "the...BTW, blabfest, for the record...<br /><br />magic: "the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature"<br /><br />You sort of got it right the first time, even though you were wrong. Don't make an idiot out of yourself again like you did with compression, trying to redefine the English language to cover up your errors. It has all the dignity of a cat in a litterbox.Commissar Boggs, Ministry of Truthnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-14099126651921545762014-04-03T18:46:48.709-04:002014-04-03T18:46:48.709-04:00I don't think that TRISH supports leading scho...I don't think that TRISH supports leading school children in prayer. I certainly don't and I can only name a few people who do. <br /><br />I can name a lot of people who mistakenly believe that schools are supposed to be God-free zones, where all religion, even if student-initiated, is illegal and intolerable. These people are control freaks and they ought to read their Constitutions every once and a while. <br /><br />BenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com