Tonight on Radio FreeRepublic
Unspun with AnnaZ
October 23rd, 2003 -- 10pmE/7pmP
"At least when right-wingers rant, there's a point!"
Posted on 10/23/2003 5:35:13 AM PDT by ForGod'sSake
S 1558 IS
To restore religious freedoms.
Mr. ALLARD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
To restore religious freedoms.
END
The bill has a total of 10 cosponsors; they are:
| Sen Brownback, Sam - 9/23/2003 [KS] | Sen Bunning, Jim - 10/20/2003 [KY] |
| Sen Burns, Conrad R. - 9/29/2003 [MT] | Sen Cochran, Thad - 9/30/2003 [MS] |
| Sen Craig, Larry E. - 10/21/2003 [ID] | Sen Enzi, Michael B. - 10/2/2003 [WY] |
| Sen Graham, Lindsey O. - 9/26/2003 [SC] | Sen Inhofe, Jim - 9/30/2003 [OK] |
| Sen Lott, Trent - 9/30/2003 [MS] | Sen Shelby, Richard C. - 9/25/2003 [AL] |
But they are different. Don't think that small differences and translations don't matter. It's funny that the only detailed story on that on the net is by an atheist. Most religious people wishing it would go away?
How can you violate the religious freedoms of a government entity? I really don't see how you can.
Roy Moore was acting in capacity as part of a government entity. As a quick test of my previous statement, could he have installed that monument had he not been chief justice? Obviously not. He was using the power provided to him as an agent of that government entity to do it.
Another reason: Any religion outside of mainstream Christianity is much more likely to run afoul of laws mostly made by Christians who don't consider their practices when making the laws. Therefore, in defending their religious rights, their cases tend to get to the courts.
U.S. Constitution: Article III, Section 2, Para. 2 reads:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned [a laundry list covering just about anything], the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.For the legally challenged, "original jurisdiction" means the Court is the first one to try a question of law or fact, while "appellate jurisdiction" means they review the appeals of decisions of the lower courts or jury trials.
Pretty clearly, this means that should a dispute over religion go to trial anywhere in the land, and the result is appealed enough, the case will eventually land with the Supreme Court under its constitutional mandate for appellate jurisdiction. The exception, of course, is cases where the Court has original jurisdiction, but the Court does't use it's original jurisdiction power very often.
Well, let's get on the same page here. In my little hamlet the city places a Nativity on the lawn of city hall every Christmas. Would you agree the city has that right? If you agree, and a court demands they remove it because the single resident of Arab descent was offended...
Roy Moore was acting in capacity as part of a government entity. As a quick test of my previous statement, could he have installed that monument had he not been chief justice? Obviously not. He was using the power provided to him as an agent of that government entity to do it.
It makes no difference to me in what capacity he placed the monument, or for that matter who placed it there. Many monuments are placed by volunteer/religious groups that are tax exempt. Does that somehow make them a government entity as well? Schools should not have any reference to Christmas, Easter, and the like? I don't know if your argument is bogus or maybe you didn't take it to its logical conclusion. Or have I missed something?
FGS
I see. So let's get documentation on every denomination/religion/sect known to mankind and create laws to fulfill their every doctrine. Great! Now I would only have to work 3 weeks out of the year. The rest would be celebrating some obscure religious sect's holiday. Better yet, assign each of them a Sabbath day, which would require only seven such sects, and we wouldn't have to work at all since every day would be someone's Sabbath. Wonderful! How do I get vacation pay?
FGS
Tonight on Radio FreeRepublic
Unspun with AnnaZ
October 23rd, 2003 -- 10pmE/7pmP
"At least when right-wingers rant, there's a point!"
People really need to allow for some fuzziness in this so we can all get along. A Muslim complaining about a little hut on a lawn during Christmas is just rediculous. People complaining about the exaltation of religion-specific religious laws in a court of law draws a bit more concern about the possibility of justice for those who do not follow those religious laws.
Seriously, the religious need to stop putting this stuff in our face, like forcing atheist kids to say "under God." They also need to start allowing other people to express themselves -- sometimes people can't get their own religion's stuff on the city hall lawn. In return, atheists and other non-Christians need to lighten up a bit and stop seeing persecution wherever they turn.
It's just getting stupid from both sides. While I think that the addition of "under god" was a stupid move done in a moment of nationalistic and religious fervor (other events of the time: commies under every bed, lots of lynchings, etc.), Newdow's suit was just a waste of effort and purposeful bringing about of divisiveness that this country didn't need.
Many monuments are placed by volunteer/religious groups that are tax exempt. Does that somehow make them a government entity as well?
Good point and I can't give you a blanket answer. This is such a touchy area we really need to go case-by-case.
You miss the point. For examle, the laws about Amish kids in public schools. Not being Amish, I'm sure (at least I hope) those well-meaning people making the law probably didn't even consider the possible effects on those outside of their religion. Where they went wrong was trying to defend their law while knowing they were violating the religious freedoms of others.
You sabbath day comments don't make sense. If an individual or a group wants a specific day off, let them arrange their employment so. The holiday question is an interesting one, and while many are religious, they have really sunken into the background, been assimilated as cultural. My atheist family actually celebrates Christmas; not the religious aspects, but the other good meanings of the holiday. Just think, if we were pagan we could celebrate Christmas, Easter and All Hallow's Eve and still be celebrating our own religion!
Anyway, the "in yer face" religion is a counter movement to the stripping away of religious liberties in America. I've been around 57 years and I've never seen anything like it. People of faith, God fearin' believers, are being backed into a corner and, speaking for myself, I don't appreciate it. Nor do I appreciate the groups that want to make America another third world country doing their worst.
The fuzziness you describe was SOP until the '63(?) ruling by the scotus regarding the O'Hare debacle. Things have been deteriorating ever since. Not the fault of believers, but apparently we're not inclined to give up without a fight either.
Just another note, this foolishness by the courts regarding religious freedoms is closely tied to the melting pot policy of years ago. The pot is no more. It's gone. And why? Because a group of policitians calling themselves Democrats found a gold mine in dividing and conquering. Homogeneity was no longer a goal because it didn't serve their purposes. Assimilating into the American dream was no longer chic, especially when air headed politicians, jurists, and the media began spewing their diversity sewage. I think you can likely see it for what it is, a stake being driven through the heart of our country.
FGS
I don't think so. Only when every single aspect of religious "diversity" is recognized by government, there will be no end to it.
You sabbath day comments don't make sense.
I thought it was a pretty good analogy myself, but then is was my creation. Maybe you missed the point?
FGS
FGS
Your hatred transcends your illogic.
Jesus told His believers that, just as the world hated him, so will the world hate those who follow him.
When you respond to my repeating Biblical truth by personally attacking me, you only serve to highlight my Faith in Christ and His teachings, at the same time as you paint yourself as belonging to another, given your refusal to accept His Word.
You can predict "what I mean" and try to demonize me by attributing your own wish list to my writings here, but ultimately your words can only define yourself. I do love you, and I do pray for you.
Jesus died for you.
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.