Posted on 06/26/2002 4:03:14 PM PDT by vannrox
Pig manure.
They denied the federal government any and all power to interfere with issues and decisions about religion at the state and personal levels. The current federal antipathy toward religion is of 20th Century vintage.
It isn't enough to be able to "read" the Constitution. You must understand it as well.
True. This happened as a result of one of a series of 20th Century Supreme Court decisions that turned the original intent of the First Amendment on its head and created the current federal antipathy to religion.
In the beginning, it wasn't that way. Cunning atheists and civil libertarians have employed dishonest revisionist history to "make" it that way.
True. This happened as a result of one of a series of 20th Century Supreme Court decisions that turned the original intent of the First Amendment on its head and created the current federal antipathy to religion.
Actually, that one is in the Constitution itself-- any time it mentions swearing an oath (oath of office, sworn affidavit needed for a search warrant, etc.) it says "oath or affirmation." The "affirmation" option was put in for the benefit of religious dissenters who refused to "swear to God."
This is no better than the liberal's desire to impeach the SCOTUS for the 2000 election decisions.
It will be up to the SCOTUS to fix this mess, and I think they'll do it quite handily.
Again, whether you believe that it is right or not for a state to require that a witness demonstrate competency by declaring a belief in God is beside the point. What I am countering is the fraudulent revisionist history that asserts that the federal government had an antipathy for religion from the very beginning.
This thread is troubling to me because it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the doctrine of separation of powers, which by the way has equal if not greater constitutional credibility than the God-nexus alluded to by so many.
The judicial branch of government is not designed to bend to public opinion. The place for public redress in government is the executive and legislative branches. That is why we saw the photo-ops of Congress and Pres. Bush yesterday denouncing the decision and promising to "do something about it."
The Ninth Circuit in this case was the first court of judicial review after the case was dismissed at the district court (entry) level. Hardly the last word on the issue. As you pointed out, there will likely be an en banc review meaning that all of the justices of the 9th circuit will convene to re-hear the case. I imagine they'll correct the decision at that level, but if not, then surely at the SC level. However, even if the Supremes upheld the decision, then the Legislature would probably sieze on the opportunity to act, particularly in this fevered patriotic zeitgest.
This decision is no justification for an attempt to short-circuit our constitutional system of checks and balances even though it may not satisfy our popular need for immediate gratification. One of the reasons our constitution has worked so well for so long is due to its inherent procedural pause.
Then you apparently haven't taken my suggestion, and read the Declaration of Independence.
And they made damned sure to separate religion from the functions of government in the documents that established this nation...
Absolutely, totally, stark-staringly false.
In the first place, the First Amendment ESTABLISHMENT clause says NOTHING about "separating government from religion." It is about PROTECTING religious freedom, not circumscribing it.
They knew the perils of a government ESTABLISHMENT of religion--hence the term "establishment clause," has that never caused you to pause and ponder?--but throughout history our leaders have recognized and fully regarded the role that religion and faith play in public life.
BTW, how did the words "under God" get into the Pledge in the first place? By an act of CONGRESS, which was duly signed into law by the President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower.
At the time he signed the bill, Eisenhower said in a published statement: "In this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."
Now that was only about fifty years ago, thus bolstering my argument that your type have been (almost) successful in your attempt to rewrite history.
REPEATING HERE: OUR NATION'S LEADERS HAVE ALWAYS RECOGNIZED THE SPECIAL PLACE THAT RELIGION AND FAITH HAVE PLAYED IN THIS NATION'S PUBLIC LIFE.
Your arguments are simply based ridiculous lies and revisionist history.
That is a fundamental truth, and it is not fully appreciated by most people, including many conservatives here. A lot of frustration is frequently expressed that decades of liberalism weren't immediately repealed in January of 2001.
The Constitution has an enormous amount of checks and balances which prevent the Ship of State from making sharp turns. This is deliberate and it's beneficial, although it is often a source of consternation for those who want immediate change.
Found this article by a scholar on our Founding, thought you might be interested. The full article is here:
[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
...as to whether the Government has to go to extreme lengths to avoid anything with even a vague religious connotation.
It might be interesting to compare the definitions of "extreme" through the eyes of the SC and 9th.
I smell some judge confirmation WAR in the breeze.
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.