Enough said.
Posted on 12/23/2005 12:57:35 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator
I was responding to your remark that the decision was based on an earlier Supreme Court decision, which you seemed to think made it OK.
Are you a teenager? You seem to be acting like one.
You wrote: "Establishment of religion was, however, permitted at the state level, and several states such as Massachusetts had established churches. If you didn't like it you could go to Connecticut or Rhode Island, as many did."
Reply:
You are conflating established churches, with 'establishment of religion'. The Constitution does NOT say 'churches'. It says 'religion'. There are many millions of us Americans who have a religious outlook, but do not support any particular church.
And let me point out that the major decisions of the SCOTUS is that government is to be neutral, neither supporting churches nor being hostile.
Government is to be neutral. This neutral position is different from your view of either "being for us or against us". I disagree with your false dichotomy.
You wrote: "I was responding to your remark that the decision was based on an earlier Supreme Court decision, which you seemed to think made it OK.
Reply: I wrote
"I think your question is extremely revealing. If we have a nation of laws and judicial processes, then why is his 'theology' relevant? If we enjoy the benefits of advances in knowlege in science and engineering, then why is an individual's personal 'theology' relevant?
I notice that you have not attemopted a reply to the questions.
Very interesting.
You wrote: "Note, too, that the Constitution guarantees "freedom of religion," a right that activist judges have severely encroached upon."
Reply:
I do not see this. I do see that on every other street corner there are churches, with crosses, and they have congregations, and they flourish. They even pay for pastors and ministers (who are not contributors in the economic sense), and get tax exemption. So, it seems to me that churches are well-supported in our country and have more members than ever before.
There is nothing in the Constitution nor in common sense that allows religious groups to impose their views on everyone else. Is it your view that "freedom of religion" allows a prayer group in the middle of a freeway during rush hour? Freedom of religion cannot trump other basic freedoms.
There is plenty of freedom of personal spiritual belief. Public displays of religiosity and piety are something else.
Whatever something else is it is surely not unconstitutional.
It also means that school board members with an agenda won't be sneaking personal anti-science religious beliefs into science class under the pretext of charlatan pseudo science.
It is a necessity based on the "free exercise" clause, I would think. I can't give 10 dollars to worship God and have the state take 1 dollar. That means they have taken away 10% of my worship of God. I have not been free to worship 10 dollars worth of worship. They have, therefore, made a law that prevents me from freely worshipping God.
Religion is far more than attending meetings at prescribed hours. It includes a host of public activities.
You actually wrote: "That is why it is such an effective tool for marxist atheist and secular liberals, thats murky [sic] a separation of those two groups though."
Reply: I could never have made this up.
Yep “the whole Communist Humanist Secularist Evolutionist plot to fluoridate the water supply” and destroy our society’s morals.
Where in the Constitution does it say that?
His finding that ID grew out of fundamentalism, that it is a form of creationism, and that evolution is no contradiction to anyone's religious faith are all personal opinions. At least two of them can only be the judge's personal religious convictions, and the other is an erroneous historical opinion.
The author of this article sees far more clearly than this judge.
Don't be silly?
Should people hold a prayer group in the middle of a freeway? No.
Neither should Darwinists be allowed to teach the theory of evolution in the middle of a freeway.
Should people be allowed to hold a prayer group in the middle of a public park? Why not?
Enough said.
You wrote: "...get tax exemption... ...That means they have taken away 10% of my worship of God. I have not been free to worship 10 dollars worth of worship. They have, therefore, made a law that prevents me from freely worshipping God."
Reply: You seem to offer the odd view that your freely worshipping requires a tax deduction! I recall Jesus saying something similar about the Pharisees. A support to the state--in the case of tax exemptions, a hidden support that costs believers and non-believers. However you like to cast it, it is a hidden support of the state for all churches. $10 dollars worth of worship, as you put it.
Measuring worship in dollars is surely one of the strangest views I have ever read.
Not quite. You are expressing your opinion. That's not what judges do. The ruling is based entirely on the record. Every paragraph has references either to witness testimony, exhibits in evidence, or to cases that the court is following. If you ever get around to reading it -- here it is -- you'll understand that.
You posted: "Don't be silly? [sic]
Should people hold a prayer group in the middle of a freeway? No.
Neither should Darwinists be allowed to teach the theory of evolution in the middle of a freeway.
Should people be allowed to hold a prayer group in the middle of a public park? Why not?"
Reply:
Ah, there you have it. Freedom to pray in public is somewhat restricted. In a park or in school, there are no restrictions about personal prayer--and no Court ruling has ever prevented any student at any time from offering up a silent prayer before his history exam. Having a group is a different matter--and depends on the degree of impact on normal functionings of society. Silent, personal prayer is one thing--public displays are something else.
We agree, I think, that prayer, astrology, faith-healing, psychic 'abilities', palmistry, dowsing, crop circles, body meridians, laying on of hands, foot-ology, tarot cards, Nostradamus, feng shui, magnetic bracelets, astral projections, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, etc. etc. have no place in a science class.
I think we agree on this.
That's true in this particular case. In Virginia, until recently, the school boards were appointed by the county Boards of Supervisors. So "voting them out" wasn't really an option.
Also, it was happenstance that the election was so soon after the school board announced their ID policy. What if the parents and teachers had to wait 3-4 years? That's the entire high school experience for some kids! Surely they should be able to get some relief in the meantime.
IMO, it would have been better to sue in state court for fraud, and also to have the school board impeached for high crimes and removed by the Penn. Legislature. If they had been removed by impeachment, they would never be allowed to hold any office in the future.
You posted: "His finding that ID grew out of fundamentalism, that it is a form of creationism, and that evolution is no contradiction to anyone's religious faith are all personal opinions. At least two of them can only be the judge's personal religious convictions, and the other is an erroneous historical opinion. "
Reply:
If you actually read the decision of the Court, you will find that the word "fundamenatlism" does not appear there. So you put up a strawman. Shame on you.
The recorded transcripts in the testimony--which the judge accepted as valid--do show that the book "Of Pandas and Men" underwent a strange transformation between its 1988 edition and 1992 edition. Somehow--perhaps by intelligent design, or deviousness--everywhere the phrase "creation science" appeared in 1988 it was replaced with the phrase "intelligent design" in 1992.
I mean, it is almost like someone had a word processor and used the search and replace feature. I mean, in 121 instances. This is remarkable as a matter of chance probability, isn't it?
Devious to be sure. But not very intelligent, as it turns out.
As for Christianity, Jesus' final instructions: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you."
Does that sound limited to sermons in fancy buildings? (Hint: It doesn't.)
No one is granting me any tax exemption. To tax my worship would be to violate the free exercise of my religion. Why not just tax me for every 100 words I speak when in church....it would be the same thing -- an infringement on my free exercise of my faith. It is not possible for the state to take some of my worship money without taking that which has been dedicated to the worship of my God.
No government or tax entity is doing me any special favors by not taxing me....free worship is a right. And all rights are granted by the Creator, who has endowed me with certain unalienable rights.
Why shouldn't they just enter the church building and take every 10th candlestick or every 10th pew?
I'd think it was clear that if the government taxed YOU to support religion that you'd see the injustice in it. So why would it be right that they should tax MY OFFERING TO GOD to help support them?
(And wouldn't that put the government in the peculiar position of wanting to encourage YOU to go to church so they could get another piece of your money that you drop in the plate, the same way that they like to encourage business because they get a piece of that action. I can see it now: the "Government Leading Indicator of Church Offerings.")
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.