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] |
It's a Tao kind of thing. Instead of attacking the problem head on and creating more problems, bringing up more constitutional questions that we probably solve, we just make the problem disappear by eliminating the public school question altogether.
There are a multitude of laws prohibiting the public expression of Christianity. I would highly recommend the book "Persecution" by David Limbaugh.-Natural Law,137
Books of paranoia and conspiracy theory don't impress me. I didn't much care for the left's "Right Wing Conspiracy" books either.-antiRepublicrat,140
Highly inappropriate response. You are welcome not to read it. Trashing it without having read it is low. Besides, it is not a conspiracy theory book.
You have agreed in another sub-thread that restriction of religious exercise occurs in the USA. So, you may want to rethink some of your other responses that pooh-pooh the whole thing in the case of Christians.
There are very real social issues at stake. This is not all a big joke.
I heard him pimping it on the radio for half an hour. I have a good idea of what's in it. Still, I wouldn't mind a law reference. If you know one in your state go to www.state.[statecode].us and look up the laws. Go to www.thomas.loc.gov for federal.
Widely acknowledged by whom exactly?
Certainly not by anyone that understands the origins of Western Law.
We base our system of laws on English Common Law, a system of laws introduced into England by the Saxons on their settlement of England, which was about the middle of the fifth century, but Christianity was not introduced until the seventh century, thus we see a two hundred year gap between the adoption of the system of laws which led to the Magna Carta, which IS the widely accepted foundation of all Western Law, and the introduction of Christianity in England.
It would have been quite difficult to base the laws of a nation on Commandments that were two centuries away from being pronounced on their soil.
It was Natural Law not NutCrackerBoy who said There are a multitude of laws prohibiting the public expression of Christianity. I would highly recommend the book "Persecution" by David Limbaugh.
I misunderstood your previous response. Naturally, it is reasonable for you to ask Natural Law for a law reference. My examples of free exercise restrictions, on the other hand, were in the form of court orders enjoined upon the Hasidic community I mentioned and upon the Alabama Supreme Court.
Well, you're right, something needs to be done; I'm just not bright enough to figger out what. I'm not sure, but I think I could probably count on one hand the number of judges that have ever been impeached, let alone found guilty. I wish I knew why there hasn't been any movement in that direction. Baffles me, and anything we come up with as an excuse is, well just that, an excuse.
FWIW, Pubbies haven't been running things very long compared to the Dims, and like I've said before, it's taken a long time for them to create the mess we're in and it'll probably take a while to clean it up. But hey, that's just another excuse. Maybe, just maybe if the Pubbies rout the rats in '04, we'll see some significant changes. I guess the unprecedented rout in '02 wasn't enough to stiffen their backbones. Maybe they're still trying to get their sea legs?
FGS
You dispute the kind of foundational role asserted in the statement of Gargantua. Disingenuous word-parsing! No serious person disputes that the 10 commandments has some sort of foundational role. The question is whether displaying the 10 c's establishes a religion. It doesn't.
OK, you synopsized the ruling, and you agree with it. I concur, but only insofar as it was well-based in precedent, including the always-credulous approach to the "harm" done to some individuals by the rock.
SCOTUS doctrine doesn't recognize the harm the doctrine itself does. However, I must in a few words try to convince you of it (fat chance). Typically, when Christians describe this harm, they use certain phraseologies which trigger flat rejection in the typical civil libertarian. I will try a different tack.
Once upon a time, there was a country peopled mostly by Christians. There was no nationally established sect, and citizens of any persuasion of conscience had equal standing. There were no restrictions placed on privately or publicly honoring traditional religious observances.
You see, it is possible simultaneously to have a shared common religion, and still extend free exercise and equal rights to those who follow variations of it, different ones, or indeed no religion at all.
The founders of this country and the leaders to this day openly pray to their God to vouchsafe the keeping of the country. This praying hurts noone. At times, minorities - in this case religious minorities - do feel like outsiders. This is generally true everywhere all the time and no sane person would imagine that it can or should be prevented.
All cultures everywhere have customs, many if not most retain an explicitly religious overtone. In every culture everywhere, it is necessary for immigrants to assimilate somehow. In this country, millions have participated in Christian-based customs. Assimilation has gone well.
Schools and government offices are not sharply distinguished from private concerns in the nature of their observance of such customs. To do so would be very strange, since government is by and for the people, not some separate feared entity.
The laws of this country grew organically to support this whole state of affairs. After all, legislators are closest to the people.
When the high court wades in with an agenda to change the culture, in this case to remove all signs of religious observance from state properties, it drives a wedge between the people and their state offices and schools. And it makes them feel that the safety of the country has no longer been vouchsafed to their God.
It's you engaging in spin and parsing, his claim was absolute, it wasn't about some.
I will care if they start trying to indoctrinate my kids in school though -- you people have churches for that kind of stuff. It's the same with sex education, they're both better taught at home where the family can do it the way they want it done.
In Alabama, a government official was prevented from using his position of office to force endorsement of a specific religious code of law in a public place of law where the only laws that matter are the laws of the country and of the state -antiRepublicrat,116
Do you think the monument is intended to imply that a religious law trumps rights? If no, is it reasonable to assume it? Very basic civics directly contradicts the assumption.
Those who think yes, that implication is intended should take another look. The actions of men and the laws of men are thought of as being below the Creator. A government of men is judged by God. Still, we are here below and so all the workings of the law are bound by the secular law. There is absolutely no provision in our law for directly applying the ten commandments. It may be cited in a historical reference like any other meaningful document.
I will care if they start trying to indoctrinate my kids in school though -- you people have churches for that kind of stuff.
LOL, I myself am a skeptic. Since the age of 8, I haven't believed in God in the traditional sense.
Indoctrinate is a strong word. Allowing a prayer that noone be hurt at a football game is a far cry from indoctrination.
OK, whatever. In a certain context I didn't think his claim was all that far off base or unusual. I just didn't think it moved the debate forward for you to pick up on that.
I don't understand your statement.
How could the truth not move the debate forward?
There are references to earlier(5th century) contact with at least the Church of Rome:
The point being, there apparently wasn't the 200 year separation between written Anglo/Saxon law and their possible exposure to the Commandments.
A.D. 429. This year Bishop Palladius was sent from Pope Celesrinus to the Scots, that he might establish their faith.
A.D. 430. This year Patricius was sent from Pope Celestinus to preach baptism to the Scots.
((A.D. 430. This year Patrick was sent by Pope Celestine to preach baptism to the Scots.))
Following is the final paragraph in a fairly long piece that Luis and others might find instructive relating to early Anglo-Saxon/English law. Commonly called, uh, Common Law? Note the dates and the numerous references to "God's Law". It's obvious the early English were not only acquainted with God, but like our own founders, called upon His guidance when preparing "secular" law.
From The Avalon Project:
Canute, the king, greets his archbishops and his suffragan bishops, and Thurcyl the earl, and all his earls and all his people, twelfhynde and twyhynde, clerk and lay, in England, friendly; and I do you to wit that I will be kind lord and unfailing to God's rights and to right secular law. I took to my remembrance the writing and the word that archbishop Lyfing brought me from Rome from the pope, that I should everywhere maintain the glory of God and put down wrong, and work full peace by the might that God would give me. Now I shrank not from my cost whilst hostility was in hand among you; now I with God's help took away at my cost that of which men told me that it threatened us with more harm than well pleased us; and then went I myself into Denmark, with the men that went with me, from whence most harm came to you; and that have I with God's help taken precautions for that never henceforth should enmity come to you from thence whilst ye men rightly hold, and my life lasteth. Now I thank God Almighty for his help and mercy, that I have so allayed the great harms that threatened us, that we need expect Tom thence no harm, but to full peace and to deliverance if need be. Now I will that we all reverently thank God Almighty for the mercy that he has done for our help. Now I beseech my archbishops and all my suffragan bishops that they all be attentive about God's right, every one in his district which is committed to him; and also my ealdormen I command that they help the bishops to God's right and to my royal authority and to the behoof of all the people. If any be so bold, clerk or lay, Dane or English, as to go against God's law and against my royal authority, or against secular law, and be unwilling to make amends, and to alter according to my bishops' teaching, then I pray Thurcyl my earl, and also command him, that he bend that unrighteous one to right if he can; if he cannot, then will I with the strength of us both that he destroy him in the land or drive him out of the land, be he better, be he worse; and also I command all my reeves, by my friendship and by all that they own, and by their own life, that they everywhere hold my people rightly and judge right judgments by the shire bishops' witness, and do such mercy therein as the shire bishop thinks right, as a man may attain to; and if any harbour a thief, or neglect the pursuit, be he answerable to me as the thief should, unless he can clear himself towards me with full purgation. And I will that all people, clerk and lay, hold fast Edgar's law, which all men have chosen and sworn to at Oxford, for that all the bishops say that it right deeply offends God, that a man break oaths or pledges; and likewise they further teach us that we should with all might and main, alike seek, love, and worship the eternal merciful God, and eschew all unrighteousness; that is, slaying of kinsmen, and murder, and perjury, and witchcraft and enchantment, and adultery, and incest; and also we charge in the name of God Almighty, and of all his saints, that no man be so bold as to marry a hallowed nun or mynchen; and if any have done so, be he outlaw towards God, and excommunicated from all Christendom, and answerable to the king in all he has, unless he quickly alter and deeply make amends to God; and further still, we admonish that men keep Sunday's festival with all their might, and observe it from Saturday's noon to Monday's dawning; and no man be so bold that he either go to market or seek any court on that holy day; and all men, poor and rich, seek their church, and ask forgiveness for their sins, and keep earnestly every ordained fast, and earnestly honour the saints that the mass priests shall bid us, that we may altogether through the mercy of the everlasting God and the intercession of his saints come to the joy of the kingdom of heaven, and dwell with Him who liveth and reigneth for ever without end. Amen.
FGS
As you can see, it's not my assertion that we are discussing here.
I consider the source to be quite reliable.
CHARTER OF CANUTE.THE Charter affords a most important illustration of the policy of Canute with regard to his English subjects, and of the general spirit of his legislation after his rule was universally admitted. It probably belongs to the year 1020, in which the king returned from Denmark, as the earl Thurcyl, to whom it is addressed, was outlawed the following year. The laws of Edgar had been chosen by the Danes and English at Oxford in 1018. The document is published for the first time. (see also the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle : Eleventh Century; the years 1020-1022. Note added by the Avalon Project)
"Canute, the king, greets his archbishops and his suffragan bishops, and Thurcyl the earl, and all his earls and all his people, twelfhynde and twyhynde, clerk and lay, in England, friendly; and I do you to wit that I will be kind lord and unfailing to God's rights and to right secular law..."
Yeah well, at least I had the courtesy to extract what I felt were relevant points of an otherwise long piece. I waded through about half of it before realizing I could be chasing my tail. I have no intention of translating the Latin(?), nor following links til I can find the part you thought relevant. Tacky Luis.
FGS
Uh, clarifying what exactly?
FGS
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.