Why can't the school acknowledge it? They acknowledge Ramadan, & Hanukkah.
they do?
unless it's a history class and they are teaching about various historical holidays celebrated by various peoples, at which point it would be fine to teach christmas as well....but for the state, via the public schools, to officially celebrate one is over the line, be it ramadan, christmas or hanukkah.
leave the "official" holidays of the churches in the churches, where the Constitution protects it from the government.
the reason you don't want the public schools sanctioning religion is because you don't want the schools to be the "official" word on religion. To allow the state to become the "official" word on, say, Christianity and it's telling of the birth of Christ would be make illegitimate all other versions or lack thereof.
I will say, if they left all religion out of schools, I'd be fine with it, but that's not the case. They're hateful hypocrites and only ban Christianity.
I will say, if they left all religion out of schools, I'd be fine with it, but that's not the case. They're hateful hypocrites and only ban Christianity.
so, instead of trying to make sure it's not there, you want to make sure that Christianity gets more face time?
I think it was Jethro who provided a post sometime back about schools banning Christmas programs and celebrations because some students were "offended" by them.
Actually, "Spirituality" is the word, not "Religion",
What denomination is "Spirituality" part of?
:-)
and I say that because their are certain "Religions" that have a negative effect on Society as well, such as the "Aryan Nations" brand of religion, which I am sure Torpedo can explain... in detail.
Perfect example of what I'm talking about.
Who the hell are you to say what is right and wrong?
Religion is an important part of a person and society as a whole.
. . . implies that agnostics and atheists are lesser than the religious, if not an outright danger to society. It was precisely this attitude that the Constitutional prohibition against religious tests for public office was intended to combat.
I don't agree with the Liberal interpretation of "separation of church and state".
Do you agree with Jefferson's view of it? See above for his letter to the Danbury Baptists.
Perfect example of what I'm talking about. Who the hell are you to say what is right and wrong?
And who the hell is the state to decide which religions will have certain holy days acknowledged and which will not?
. . . implies that agnostics and atheists are lesser than the religious, if not an outright danger to society.
I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings or offend you somehow? That was not my intent.
In a sense, I consider both you mentioned to be religions as well, and include them along with the other religions I mentioned. By no means was my list exclusive.
It was precisely this attitude that the Constitutional prohibition against religious tests for public office was intended to combat.
Huh? What religious test did I offer?
Do you agree with Jefferson's view of it? See above for his letter to the Danbury Baptists.
No. Jefferson was a hateful bastard. But I do agree with the concept, in context of the time and circumstances that Jefferson lived and it was written. Mainly the fear of having a "Church of England" type institution here in the US.
And who the hell is the state to decide which religions will have certain holy days acknowledged and which will not?
I agree with you on this one, other than I it a good idea for business & government to close down on those holidays. It would be a big waste to keep them open because no one would show up.
Irrational and extreme left wingers do not understand that when the US Constitution was adopted the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. In fact it took about 150 years and a total misapplication of the 14th amendment to make that happen by an activist judiciary.
And that, cousin Jethro, is the intent of at least one Founding Father. Further study will allow you to learn that he was not unique in his beliefs.
I know what Thomas Jefferson thought on this subject and how it should be applied not only to the federal government but to HIS state as well. But if you were interested in knowing the facts you would learn that the bill of rights was not to be applied to the states. Some states had state sponsored churches and the constitution was never meant to have any impact on that. You left wing extremists deny this truth.
I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings or offend you somehow? That was not my intent.
No, you didn't hurt my feelings (thank you for condescending, though), but in every discussion of this subject the default seems to be that only those who practice a religion have First Amendment issues. Those who have chosen not to believe in invisible sky pixies are left out of the discussion.
Jefferson was a hateful bastard.
Thank you for sharing.
in context of the time and circumstances that Jefferson lived and it was written.
Jefferson the Republican was constantly under attack by the Federalists for his supposed atheism; I doubt that any candidate for national office could be elected today if he/she were a professed atheist. In my lifetime, JFK was attacked for his Roman Catholicism -- a Sunday School teacher told my class that Catholics were "so used to being dictated to by the Pope, they'll just naturally take to being dictated to by Stalin." I don't have to tell you, I'm sure, that being Jewish might be a political advantage in some parts of the country but a disadvantage in others.
We do have an established religion in this country; for lack of a better name, let's call it "Churchianity." As long as somone belongs to some sort of mainstream religion, they're OK, and that's the "religious test" informally applied to any candidate for office. Buddhist? Ba'hai? Wiccan? Zoroastrian? Hindu? Muslim? Fahgeddaboudit.
But if you were interested in knowing the facts you would learn that the bill of rights was not to be applied to the states.
The first application of the Bill of Rights to the states was in 1897. The horse is out of the barn, jethro; get used to it. Even though the "original intent" may have been that the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal government, the Fourteenth amendment clearly extended those rights to all persons residing in the United States. That is settled law. The Framers instituted the amendment process, remember; that clearly says that they felt government should be able to change with the times.
The "equal protection" at which you sneer was used by five justices of SCOTUS to appoint GW Bush to the Presidency; I think it was a hell of a stretch, myself, and it makes me very angry, but if the Fourteenth can be stretched that far in one direction, it's pretty elastic.
By the way, aside from disagreeing with you, what makes me a "left-wing extremist"? There are a hell of a lot of people to the left of me that I don't particularly care for. My political compass rating is about a -6, -6 (liberal/libertarian). What's yours?
Even though the "original intent" may have been that the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal government, the Fourteenth amendment clearly extended those rights to all persons residing in the United States.
It did not extend all of the bill of rights to the state. The federal courts do not go that far even today. They like to pick and choose what ever suits them. That just shows that none of the first 10 have ever been determined by the people to apply to the states.
That is settled law. No nothing is settled. That is why we have the fights in the Senate over Bush's judicial nominations.
The Framers instituted the amendment process, remember; that clearly says that they felt government should be able to change with the times.
Yes, but leftists fools seem to think that judical activism is the same as a consitutional amendment. It's not.
The "equal protection" at which you sneer was used by five justices of SCOTUS to appoint GW Bush to the Presidency; I don't sneer at the equal protection clause of the 14thamendment. If you take that into account with Article II Section 1 of the Constitution and with the federal statutes on presidential elections, the Court's decsion in Bush v. Gore was correct.
By the way, aside from disagreeing with you, what makes me a "left-wing extremist"? There are a hell of a lot of people to the left of me that I don't particularly care for. Do I care? No.My political compass rating is about a -6, -6 (liberal/libertarian). What's yours? I don't know what you are referring to.
True 'dat, most of the time. The Political Compassis an attempt to make sense of one's political attitudes in a more meaningful way than a simple left-right label. Take a few minutes to do the test -- it's quite interesting.
That's because you make little or no sense most of the time.
This from the man who wrote just today
That just shows that none of the first 10 have ever been determined by the people to apply to the states.
jethro, answer me one question -- if Bush v. Gore was such a well-reasoned, solidly founded decision, why did the majority specifically caution against using it as precedent?
"Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."
Robert Bork, in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, said that the " per curiam opinion joined by five justices does have major problems" and that it "endorsed a new and possibly damaging rationale."
Generally, the Rehnquist Court has been a major defender of the concept of state's rights, but in Bush v. Gore they took away from Florida's highest court their right and duty to interpret Florida's sometimes contradictory election laws, and didn't bat an eye. Then they said that their decision was a one-time, no-deposit-no-return ruling, and not a one of the five Justices in the majority had the guts to sign the thing. If that isn't ad hoc "judicial activism," I don't know what is.
<edit> I'd have guessed you at about a + 4.5 - 5 both ways -- but I had you in the right quadrant. And today I'm at about a -5.5 both ways; you may be closer to 0/0 than I, but is 0/0 the mainstream? I don't know.
jethro, answer me one question -- if Bush v. Gore was such a well-reasoned, solidly founded decision, why did the majority specifically caution against using it as precedent?
"Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."
Maybe because they don't want a lot of local elections controversies filed in federal court?
Robert Bork, in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, said that the " per curiam opinion joined by five justices does have major problems" and that it "endorsed a new and possibly damaging rationale."
Sorry I don't agree with Bork on this. The decision can be limited only to presdential elections and then only under very close elections. But it is clear that what was going on in Florida was not counting votes but the casting of votes which had to be stopped.
Generally, the Rehnquist Court has been a major defender of the concept of state's rights, but in Bush v. Gore they took away from Florida's highest court their right and duty to interpret Florida's sometimes contradictory election laws, and didn't bat an eye.
It was a federal election which specifically set forth that the state legislatures would determine how electors were selected. Federal statute also addressed the matter stating that the rules for selecting the electors for a particular election could not be changed after the election has been held. Finally, to allow the "counting" of votes that was occurring in Florida most certainly would have undermined the rule of one man one vote.
Then they said that their decision was a one-time, no-deposit-no-return ruling, and not a one of the five Justices in the majority had the guts to sign the thing. If that isn't ad hoc "judicial activism," I don't know what is.
It is clear then that you don't know. They follwed the Constitution and they followed federal statute in a federal case. We can hope it is a one time deal. I mean I hope there isn't such a close election again although there might be. But if it does I would hope that a STATE COURT would not attempt again to ignore the US Constitution and fundamental fairness in a presidential election. You probably get it but you are so far left you can't admit it.
<edit> I'd have guessed you at about a + 4.5 - 5 both ways -- but I had you in the right quadrant. And today I'm at about a -5.5 both ways;
The Florida legislature had expressed itself in a number of laws, jethro, some of which were contradictory. When laws contradict one another, the courts step in; that's their job. First the SCOTUS said that the SCOF hadn't defined recount rules clearly enough, and then when SCOF made clearer definition, SCOTUS said "Bad Court! No recount!" and made them stand in the corner while they appointed GW Bush as President.
Catch-22.
Two of the justices in the majority, Scalia and Thomas, had entanglements with the Bush campaign that should have caused them to recuse themselves.
The Florida legislature had expressed itself in a number of laws, jethro, some of which were contradictory. When laws contradict one another, the courts step in; that's their job. The Florida Supreme Court changed the election rules and that was a clear violation of the federal statute in a federal election. Their remedy was an affront to the standards of fair elections.
First the SCOTUS said that the SCOF hadn't defined recount rules clearly enough, and then when SCOF made clearer definition, SCOTUS said "Bad Court! No recount!" and made them stand in the corner while they appointed GW Bush as President. Bush was not appointed. If you cared about facts all but one "recount" showed Bush would have won anyway. As for it being a recount, it was not a recount at all. It was a revote by partisans looking at ballots and determining what THEY thought the ballot said. Voters that can't express themselves clearly must be disregarded because you don't know what they meant. The machines that counted the votes was the best method as they have no bias and those machines worked just fine. I know that as a left winger you don't like that, but that's the facts. And really that is the fundamental problem for our society, left wingers can't accept facts-and they have no sense of right and wrong.
The machines that counted the votes was the best method as they have no bias and those machines worked just fine.
If you put a dollar bill in a vending machine and it spits it back out at you, do you throw it away? The punch-card voting machines have an error rate of close to 4%, according to their manufacturers.
just what were those "entanglements?" Or are you referencing more lies?
Scalia's sons are lawyers; Eugene Scalia worked for the same firm as Ted Olsen, who twice represented GW Bush before the SCOTUS and is now Solicitor General of the US; John Scalia worked for a Florida firm that represented GW Bush. Justice Thomas's wife worked for the Heritage Foundation and was vetting job applicants for the Bush transition.
In addition, Justice O'Connor had publicly expressed a desire to retire under a Republican President, and also publicly expressed displeasure when Florida was called for Al Gore on the basis of exit polls.
By the way, Texas election law specifically allows the counting of dimpled-chad ballots in recounts, and George Walker Bush signed that into Texas law in 1977.
Excerpts from the Texas law:
among multiple requests for a recount of electronic voting system results, only one method may be used in the recount. A manual recount shall be conducted in preference to an electronic recountand an electronic recount using a corrected program shall be conducted in preference to an electronic recount using the same program as the original count. Â Â
a vote on a ballot on which a voter indicates a vote by punching a hole in the ballot may not be counted unless: (1) at least two corners of the chad are detached; (2) light is visible through the hole; (3) an indentation on the chad from the stylus or other object is present and indicates a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter to vote; or (4) the chad reflects by other means a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter to vote.
(e) Subsection (d) does not supersede any clearly ascertainable intent of the voter
but in every discussion of this subject the default seems to be that only those who practice a religion have First Amendment issues.
Like I said, in my mind choosing not to practice a religion, especially athiesism, is a religion of sorts. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I even believe it's recognized as such.
Those who have chosen not to believe in invisible sky pixies are left out of the discussion.
I see it as the opposite. Those who do believe in "Sky Pixies" are the ones left out, because we must maintain the "Separation of Church and State".
If you want to keep my religion or morals out of public schools, then the other side should keep theirs out as well. Enough of "My two Daddy's"crap, the environmental wacko shit being spoon fed to our kids. Teachers are there to teach our kids, not indoctrinate them.
I doubt that any candidate for national office could be elected today if he/she were a professed atheist.
I'd vote for an athiest, if he/she were the right person.
As long as somone belongs to some sort of mainstream religion, they're OK, and that's the "religious test" informally applied to any candidate for office. Buddhist? Ba'hai? Wiccan? Zoroastrian? Hindu? Muslim? Fahgeddaboudit.
I don't know if that's the case or not. In regards to my vote, I honestly don't care what religion you are. I care about fairness towards all religions. It may appear as if I want special treatment for Christians, but that's not the case. I just want fair and equal.
Gore was hand selected by Clinton, yet he couldn't take Arkansas. He couldn't even take his home state of Tennessee. For that matter, he couldn't even take his home county. He is from the south and if he had won just one of the southern states, we wouldn't be discussing Florida now.
Bush never signed any law pertaining to the counting of chads in Texas. Democrats including Al Gore and Dick Gephardt have openly spread this lie. The Texas law pertaining to the counting of chads was passed under Ann Richards in 1993 and it does not require all dimpled ballots to count as votes. Rather it prescribes a very precise statewide standard for the counting of chads meeting a uniform statewide guideline. This guideline prescribes that the intent of a voter must be "clearly discernible" to a degree of certitude in order to count. A common dimple cannot be established under any reasonable standard as a clearly intended vote.
As with many cases, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore answered more than one question with more than one count of the Justices. In answer to the question of the constitutionality of the non-existant standards during Florida's re-re-recounts, the Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Bush. In answer to the question of deadlines for conducting the count, the Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Bush. The 7-2 vote in particular was anything but partisan, considering that two traditionally leftist justices joined the court's two moderates and three conservatives.
§ 212.005. Multiple Recounts on Same Office or Measure
(a) The approval of a petition for a recount does not preclude the submission and approval of another petition on the same office or measure. A petition with respect to a particular office or measure may not be submitted after an initial recount or an expedited recount on the office or measure is completed.
(b) If more than one recount petition, application for a supplementary recount, or application for including remaining paper ballot precincts is submitted, the recount coordinator shall promptly inform each petitioner or applicant of the submission by the other person.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), if more than one petition or application is approved, the recount requested by each person shall be conducted at the same time.
(d) If different counting methods are chosen under Section 214.042(a) among multiple requests for a recount of electronic voting system results, only one method may be used in the recount. A manual recount shall be conducted in preference to an electronic recountand an electronic recount using a corrected program shall be conducted in preference to an electronic recount using the same program as the original count.
Like I said, in my mind choosing not to practice a religion, especially athiesism, is a religion of sorts. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I even believe it's recognized as such.
I will admit that certain atheists who can't stop talking about it are at least as annoying as the "have you accepted JEEsus as your personal savior" types; I refer to them as fundamentalist atheists, myself. There are associations of atheists, but to call atheism a religion stretches the definition beyond the breaking point.
religion, n.The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love, fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power, whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life; a system of faith and worship; a manifestation of piety; as, ethical religions; monotheistic religions; natural religion; revealed religion; the religion of the Jews; the religion of idol worshipers.
Not too much room in there for atheism, I'd say. Certainly, atheism is a philosophy, but there's no "superhuman and overruling power" who demands ritualized attention.
If you look up "atheism" at dictionary.com, you come up with these little gems:
Godlessness; immorality.
Atheism is a ferocious system, that leaves nothing above us to excite awe, nor around us to awaken tenderness. --R. Hall.
That's in the damn dictionary -- atheists are Bad People™. You think Christians are left out? You don't know what left out is. Tell someone you're an atheist and at least half the time you get an argument. Tell someone you're a Lutheran and "Oh, that's nice, I'm a Methodist." Churchianity is our state religion.
Teachers are there to teach our kids, not indoctrinate them.
Teachers are there to indoctrinate:
To instruct in the rudiments or principles of learning, or of a branch of learning; to imbue with learning; to instruct in, or imbue with, principles or doctrines; to teach
You just want to make sure that it's your doctrines that are taught. Nothing too far out of the mainstream, please, and if you teach them to be independent thinkers, they're harder than hell to control.
but to call atheism a religion stretches the definition beyond the breaking point.
Amazing, isn't it? Fold earlier tried to tell me that "There is no "Christian Religion", it is however, a belief in Christ. THAT, does not make it a "Religion", only a belief in the Deity of Christ." linkYet the belief that there is no god IS a religion.
And yes Texas has a set of standards in place to deal with such things as chads and multiple recounts. The difference in Florida, as you know, is that the courts were trying to extend the deadline, have no standards as to what counts as a vote and only wanted to recount a select few places that just happened to be heavy Gore areas.
As I understand it, the federal courts told Florida they could recount only if they had standards set and did so in all the counties. There was no way that they could accomplish this in time and so they chose not to.
That's in the damn dictionary -- atheists are Bad People™.
Really? I will admit, that's pretty sad.
You think Christians are left out?
Yes.
You don't know what left out is.
I don't, but my youngest son does.
Tell someone you're an atheist and at least half the time you get an argument.
I will try that sometime, when the opportunity presents itself.
Tell someone you're a Lutheran and "Oh, that's nice, I'm a Methodist." Churchianity is our state religion.
Yeah, I guess that does sound like MN to me.
you aren't left out..only asked to leave the pixies at home when making laws that affect the non-pixies among us.
Why do Christians have to leave their pixies at home? The minority, flaming homosexual, female, environmentalist, athiests don't have to leave their fairies at home.
Teachers are there to indoctrinate:
Maybe I should rephrase that to say, "They are not there to force their personal beliefs on children".
Is that better?
Even though I know you know what I meant.
You just want to make sure that it's your doctrines that are taught.
Damn straight I do. Who the fuck are you, or Mr./Mrs. Smith at the local school, to force their doctine on my or anyone elses children? He/She is there to teach children math & science. Not that homosexuality is ok, or that smoking dope is ok, or that the Bible has the answers for everything.... He/She should stick to what she supposedly knows.
Nothing too far out of the mainstream, please,
I think that should be left up to the parent. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want me pushing my beliefs on your child. Why shouldn't I expect the same?
and if you teach them to be independent thinkers, they're harder than hell to control.
Are you saying Christians are incapable of independent thought?
That they lack the ability to allow their children independent thought?
"Teach independent thought". Quite the oxymoron if you ask me.
Anyway, do you really believe someone that barely knows your child, knows better than you do? Especially if it's the likes of me?
Why do Christians have to leave their pixies at home? The minority, flaming homosexual, female, environmentalist, athiests don't have to leave their fairies at home.
absolutely they do.
I don't want anyone making laws for me based on Zeus either.
Are you saying Christians are incapable of independent thought?
Not at all. Sorry you took it that way, truly.
"Teach independent thought". Quite the oxymoron if you ask me.
Teach 'em how to think, not what to think, is what I meant.
"They are not there to force their personal beliefs on children".
Agreed. I took it that you were objecting to things that were part of the official curriculum, over which there is usually local control. I do believe that children should be taught critical thinking, and exposed to many points of view, but that's seldom done, unfortunately. The schools have 'em six hours a day, 180 days a year; their parents have them the other 18 hours a day, 185 or 186 days a year. If there are things you feel they should be taught, you have ample opportunity, no? After all, a considerable portion of that six hours is spent in teaching reading, writing and 'rithmetic.
Political compass puts me at a +2.4 / 0. I'm right on the axis between Authoritarian and Libertarian. Can't get much more middle of the road than that.
and who ever said that individuals can't acknowledge Christmas at school?
all we are talking about is the school itself acknowledging it as an institution of the state.
go ahead and explain it if it's such a big difference.
Are you saying a state Church or Religion is created by acknowledging Christmas?
actually, the slippery slope is the one that says that some state-sponsered Religion is okay...I don't think that's the liberal view though
How is that a slippery slope? That's hypocrisy, but not a slippery slope.
and who ever said that individuals can't acknowledge Christmas at school?
Teachers & administration.
all we are talking about is the school itself acknowledging it as an institution of the state.
Why can't the school acknowledge it? They acknowledge Ramadan, & Hanukkah.
they do?
unless it's a history class and they are teaching about various historical holidays celebrated by various peoples, at which point it would be fine to teach christmas as well....but for the state, via the public schools, to officially celebrate one is over the line, be it ramadan, christmas or hanukkah.
leave the "official" holidays of the churches in the churches, where the Constitution protects it from the government.
the reason you don't want the public schools sanctioning religion is because you don't want the schools to be the "official" word on religion. To allow the state to become the "official" word on, say, Christianity and it's telling of the birth of Christ would be make illegitimate all other versions or lack thereof.
can you provide a bit more context for this.
what exactly do they do to acknowledge it?
does everyone get a holiday?
are kids required to bring a candle for every day?
what "official" way do they acknowledge it?
Joe for Prez!
crabgrass 11/24/03 6:29pm
I've gone over this with you before.
I will say, if they left all religion out of schools, I'd be fine with it, but that's not the case. They're hateful hypocrites and only ban Christianity.
so, instead of trying to make sure it's not there, you want to make sure that Christianity gets more face time?
Religion is an important part of a person and society as a whole.
I see nothing wrong people sharing it more, instead of squelching it.
Like I said, I don't agree with the Liberal interpretation of "separation of church and state".
so, you want for your child to be forced to praise Satan in school?
I think it was Jethro who provided a post sometime back about schools banning Christmas programs and celebrations because some students were "offended" by them.
Is that your "face time"?
as long as your kid gets to sacrifice a goat in class, no problem
so, you want for your child to be forced to praise Satan in school?
No, but I don't want to stop a Satan worshipper from doing so.
BUT, if they are going to stop the Satan worshippers, they better also stop the Christians, and Jews, and the Hindus....
Actually, "Spirituality" is the word, not "Religion",
What denomination is "Spirituality" part of?
:-)
and I say that because their are certain "Religions" that have a negative effect on Society as well, such as the "Aryan Nations" brand of religion, which I am sure Torpedo can explain... in detail.
Perfect example of what I'm talking about.
Who the hell are you to say what is right and wrong?
A Citizen Of the United States.
You're oblivious.
You are an intolerant.
I am not.
I beg to differ, sir. Your statement above --
. . . implies that agnostics and atheists are lesser than the religious, if not an outright danger to society. It was precisely this attitude that the Constitutional prohibition against religious tests for public office was intended to combat.
Do you agree with Jefferson's view of it? See above for his letter to the Danbury Baptists.
And who the hell is the state to decide which religions will have certain holy days acknowledged and which will not?
. . . implies that agnostics and atheists are lesser than the religious, if not an outright danger to society.
I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings or offend you somehow? That was not my intent.
In a sense, I consider both you mentioned to be religions as well, and include them along with the other religions I mentioned. By no means was my list exclusive.
It was precisely this attitude that the Constitutional prohibition against religious tests for public office was intended to combat.
Huh? What religious test did I offer?
Do you agree with Jefferson's view of it? See above for his letter to the Danbury Baptists.
No. Jefferson was a hateful bastard. But I do agree with the concept, in context of the time and circumstances that Jefferson lived and it was written. Mainly the fear of having a "Church of England" type institution here in the US.
And who the hell is the state to decide which religions will have certain holy days acknowledged and which will not?
I agree with you on this one, other than I it a good idea for business & government to close down on those holidays. It would be a big waste to keep them open because no one would show up.
Irrational and extreme left wingers do not understand that when the US Constitution was adopted the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. In fact it took about 150 years and a total misapplication of the 14th amendment to make that happen by an activist judiciary.
fold: I am a free man, with thoughts and ideas about the political process, and a knowledge of the First Amendment, you mean?
He is a "free man" that parrots liberal ideas that he doesn't understand with no concept of the first amendment or its history.
implies that agnostics and atheists are lesser than the religious, if not an outright danger to society.
The truth hurts don't it.
And that, cousin Jethro, is the intent of at least one Founding Father. Further study will allow you to learn that he was not unique in his beliefs.
I know what Thomas Jefferson thought on this subject and how it should be applied not only to the federal government but to HIS state as well. But if you were interested in knowing the facts you would learn that the bill of rights was not to be applied to the states. Some states had state sponsored churches and the constitution was never meant to have any impact on that. You left wing extremists deny this truth.
No, you didn't hurt my feelings (thank you for condescending, though), but in every discussion of this subject the default seems to be that only those who practice a religion have First Amendment issues. Those who have chosen not to believe in invisible sky pixies are left out of the discussion.
Thank you for sharing.
Jefferson the Republican was constantly under attack by the Federalists for his supposed atheism; I doubt that any candidate for national office could be elected today if he/she were a professed atheist. In my lifetime, JFK was attacked for his Roman Catholicism -- a Sunday School teacher told my class that Catholics were "so used to being dictated to by the Pope, they'll just naturally take to being dictated to by Stalin." I don't have to tell you, I'm sure, that being Jewish might be a political advantage in some parts of the country but a disadvantage in others.
We do have an established religion in this country; for lack of a better name, let's call it "Churchianity." As long as somone belongs to some sort of mainstream religion, they're OK, and that's the "religious test" informally applied to any candidate for office. Buddhist? Ba'hai? Wiccan? Zoroastrian? Hindu? Muslim? Fahgeddaboudit.
The first application of the Bill of Rights to the states was in 1897. The horse is out of the barn, jethro; get used to it. Even though the "original intent" may have been that the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal government, the Fourteenth amendment clearly extended those rights to all persons residing in the United States. That is settled law. The Framers instituted the amendment process, remember; that clearly says that they felt government should be able to change with the times.
The "equal protection" at which you sneer was used by five justices of SCOTUS to appoint GW Bush to the Presidency; I think it was a hell of a stretch, myself, and it makes me very angry, but if the Fourteenth can be stretched that far in one direction, it's pretty elastic.
By the way, aside from disagreeing with you, what makes me a "left-wing extremist"? There are a hell of a lot of people to the left of me that I don't particularly care for. My political compass rating is about a -6, -6 (liberal/libertarian). What's yours?
Even though the "original intent" may have been that the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal government, the Fourteenth amendment clearly extended those rights to all persons residing in the United States.
It did not extend all of the bill of rights to the state. The federal courts do not go that far even today. They like to pick and choose what ever suits them. That just shows that none of the first 10 have ever been determined by the people to apply to the states.
That is settled law. No nothing is settled. That is why we have the fights in the Senate over Bush's judicial nominations.
The Framers instituted the amendment process, remember; that clearly says that they felt government should be able to change with the times.
Yes, but leftists fools seem to think that judical activism is the same as a consitutional amendment. It's not.
The "equal protection" at which you sneer was used by five justices of SCOTUS to appoint GW Bush to the Presidency; I don't sneer at the equal protection clause of the 14thamendment. If you take that into account with Article II Section 1 of the Constitution and with the federal statutes on presidential elections, the Court's decsion in Bush v. Gore was correct.
By the way, aside from disagreeing with you, what makes me a "left-wing extremist"? There are a hell of a lot of people to the left of me that I don't particularly care for. Do I care? No.My political compass rating is about a -6, -6 (liberal/libertarian). What's yours? I don't know what you are referring to.
True 'dat, most of the time. The Political Compassis an attempt to make sense of one's political attitudes in a more meaningful way than a simple left-right label. Take a few minutes to do the test -- it's quite interesting.
I don't know what you are referring to.
True 'dat, most of the time.
That's because you make little or no sense most of the time.
I did the test, pieter. My score was:
Based on the graph I am much closer to the mainstream than you appear to be.
This from the man who wrote just today
jethro, answer me one question -- if Bush v. Gore was such a well-reasoned, solidly founded decision, why did the majority specifically caution against using it as precedent?
Robert Bork, in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, said that the " per curiam opinion joined by five justices does have major problems" and that it "endorsed a new and possibly damaging rationale."
Generally, the Rehnquist Court has been a major defender of the concept of state's rights, but in Bush v. Gore they took away from Florida's highest court their right and duty to interpret Florida's sometimes contradictory election laws, and didn't bat an eye. Then they said that their decision was a one-time, no-deposit-no-return ruling, and not a one of the five Justices in the majority had the guts to sign the thing. If that isn't ad hoc "judicial activism," I don't know what is.
<edit> I'd have guessed you at about a + 4.5 - 5 both ways -- but I had you in the right quadrant. And today I'm at about a -5.5 both ways; you may be closer to 0/0 than I, but is 0/0 the mainstream? I don't know.
jethro, answer me one question -- if Bush v. Gore was such a well-reasoned, solidly founded decision, why did the majority specifically caution against using it as precedent?
Maybe because they don't want a lot of local elections controversies filed in federal court?
Robert Bork, in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, said that the " per curiam opinion joined by five justices does have major problems" and that it "endorsed a new and possibly damaging rationale."
Sorry I don't agree with Bork on this. The decision can be limited only to presdential elections and then only under very close elections. But it is clear that what was going on in Florida was not counting votes but the casting of votes which had to be stopped.
Generally, the Rehnquist Court has been a major defender of the concept of state's rights, but in Bush v. Gore they took away from Florida's highest court their right and duty to interpret Florida's sometimes contradictory election laws, and didn't bat an eye.
It was a federal election which specifically set forth that the state legislatures would determine how electors were selected. Federal statute also addressed the matter stating that the rules for selecting the electors for a particular election could not be changed after the election has been held. Finally, to allow the "counting" of votes that was occurring in Florida most certainly would have undermined the rule of one man one vote.
Then they said that their decision was a one-time, no-deposit-no-return ruling, and not a one of the five Justices in the majority had the guts to sign the thing. If that isn't ad hoc "judicial activism," I don't know what is.
It is clear then that you don't know. They follwed the Constitution and they followed federal statute in a federal case. We can hope it is a one time deal. I mean I hope there isn't such a close election again although there might be. But if it does I would hope that a STATE COURT would not attempt again to ignore the US Constitution and fundamental fairness in a presidential election. You probably get it but you are so far left you can't admit it.
<edit> I'd have guessed you at about a + 4.5 - 5 both ways -- but I had you in the right quadrant. And today I'm at about a -5.5 both ways;
Make no mistake, I don't go BOTH WAYS!!!!
The Florida legislature had expressed itself in a number of laws, jethro, some of which were contradictory. When laws contradict one another, the courts step in; that's their job. First the SCOTUS said that the SCOF hadn't defined recount rules clearly enough, and then when SCOF made clearer definition, SCOTUS said "Bad Court! No recount!" and made them stand in the corner while they appointed GW Bush as President.
Catch-22.
Two of the justices in the majority, Scalia and Thomas, had entanglements with the Bush campaign that should have caused them to recuse themselves.
The Florida legislature had expressed itself in a number of laws, jethro, some of which were contradictory. When laws contradict one another, the courts step in; that's their job. The Florida Supreme Court changed the election rules and that was a clear violation of the federal statute in a federal election. Their remedy was an affront to the standards of fair elections.
First the SCOTUS said that the SCOF hadn't defined recount rules clearly enough, and then when SCOF made clearer definition, SCOTUS said "Bad Court! No recount!" and made them stand in the corner while they appointed GW Bush as President. Bush was not appointed. If you cared about facts all but one "recount" showed Bush would have won anyway. As for it being a recount, it was not a recount at all. It was a revote by partisans looking at ballots and determining what THEY thought the ballot said. Voters that can't express themselves clearly must be disregarded because you don't know what they meant. The machines that counted the votes was the best method as they have no bias and those machines worked just fine. I know that as a left winger you don't like that, but that's the facts. And really that is the fundamental problem for our society, left wingers can't accept facts-and they have no sense of right and wrong.
Two of the justices in the majority, Scalia and Thomas, had entanglements with the Bush campaign that should have caused them to recuse themselves.
And just what were those "entanglements?" Or are you referencing more lies?
If you put a dollar bill in a vending machine and it spits it back out at you, do you throw it away? The punch-card voting machines have an error rate of close to 4%, according to their manufacturers.
Scalia's sons are lawyers; Eugene Scalia worked for the same firm as Ted Olsen, who twice represented GW Bush before the SCOTUS and is now Solicitor General of the US; John Scalia worked for a Florida firm that represented GW Bush. Justice Thomas's wife worked for the Heritage Foundation and was vetting job applicants for the Bush transition.
In addition, Justice O'Connor had publicly expressed a desire to retire under a Republican President, and also publicly expressed displeasure when Florida was called for Al Gore on the basis of exit polls.
By the way, Texas election law specifically allows the counting of dimpled-chad ballots in recounts, and George Walker Bush signed that into Texas law in 1977.
Excerpts from the Texas law:
but in every discussion of this subject the default seems to be that only those who practice a religion have First Amendment issues.
Like I said, in my mind choosing not to practice a religion, especially athiesism, is a religion of sorts. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I even believe it's recognized as such.
Those who have chosen not to believe in invisible sky pixies are left out of the discussion.
I see it as the opposite. Those who do believe in "Sky Pixies" are the ones left out, because we must maintain the "Separation of Church and State".
If you want to keep my religion or morals out of public schools, then the other side should keep theirs out as well. Enough of "My two Daddy's"crap, the environmental wacko shit being spoon fed to our kids. Teachers are there to teach our kids, not indoctrinate them.
I doubt that any candidate for national office could be elected today if he/she were a professed atheist.
I'd vote for an athiest, if he/she were the right person.
As long as somone belongs to some sort of mainstream religion, they're OK, and that's the "religious test" informally applied to any candidate for office. Buddhist? Ba'hai? Wiccan? Zoroastrian? Hindu? Muslim? Fahgeddaboudit.
I don't know if that's the case or not. In regards to my vote, I honestly don't care what religion you are. I care about fairness towards all religions. It may appear as if I want special treatment for Christians, but that's not the case. I just want fair and equal.
Gore was hand selected by Clinton, yet he couldn't take Arkansas. He couldn't even take his home state of Tennessee. For that matter, he couldn't even take his home county. He is from the south and if he had won just one of the southern states, we wouldn't be discussing Florida now.
Bush never signed any law pertaining to the counting of chads in Texas. Democrats including Al Gore and Dick Gephardt have openly spread this lie. The Texas law pertaining to the counting of chads was passed under Ann Richards in 1993 and it does not require all dimpled ballots to count as votes. Rather it prescribes a very precise statewide standard for the counting of chads meeting a uniform statewide guideline. This guideline prescribes that the intent of a voter must be "clearly discernible" to a degree of certitude in order to count. A common dimple cannot be established under any reasonable standard as a clearly intended vote.
As with many cases, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore answered more than one question with more than one count of the Justices. In answer to the question of the constitutionality of the non-existant standards during Florida's re-re-recounts, the Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Bush. In answer to the question of deadlines for conducting the count, the Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Bush. The 7-2 vote in particular was anything but partisan, considering that two traditionally leftist justices joined the court's two moderates and three conservatives.
The punch-card voting machines have an error rate of close to 4%, according to their manufacturers.
Which I understand is no worse than any other method.
Even if it were flawed, wouldn't it be flawed across the board?
In CA when the Davis camp & others were bitching about the voting machines. Weren't those the same damn voting machines that elected him into office?
My point being, Gore and his goons* would have been more than happy with those chads, if those chads had elected him.
* (Most notably Daley from Chicago, which is notorious for voter fraud).
My political compass rating is about a -6, -6 (liberal/libertarian). What's yours?
I don't recall my score, but I do recall that I scored to the Right of Jethro.
And to think Jethro used to call me a Liberal.
LOL!
Texas law on chads may be found here, and was amended in 1997 under George Bush.
I will admit that certain atheists who can't stop talking about it are at least as annoying as the "have you accepted JEEsus as your personal savior" types; I refer to them as fundamentalist atheists, myself. There are associations of atheists, but to call atheism a religion stretches the definition beyond the breaking point.
Not too much room in there for atheism, I'd say. Certainly, atheism is a philosophy, but there's no "superhuman and overruling power" who demands ritualized attention.
If you look up "atheism" at dictionary.com, you come up with these little gems:
That's in the damn dictionary -- atheists are Bad People™. You think Christians are left out? You don't know what left out is. Tell someone you're an atheist and at least half the time you get an argument. Tell someone you're a Lutheran and "Oh, that's nice, I'm a Methodist." Churchianity is our state religion.
Teachers are there to indoctrinate:
You just want to make sure that it's your doctrines that are taught. Nothing too far out of the mainstream, please, and if you teach them to be independent thinkers, they're harder than hell to control.
you aren't left out..only asked to leave the pixies at home when making laws that affect the non-pixies among us.
but to call atheism a religion stretches the definition beyond the breaking point.
Amazing, isn't it? Fold earlier tried to tell me that "There is no "Christian Religion", it is however, a belief in Christ. THAT, does not make it a "Religion", only a belief in the Deity of Christ." linkYet the belief that there is no god IS a religion.
And yes Texas has a set of standards in place to deal with such things as chads and multiple recounts. The difference in Florida, as you know, is that the courts were trying to extend the deadline, have no standards as to what counts as a vote and only wanted to recount a select few places that just happened to be heavy Gore areas.
As I understand it, the federal courts told Florida they could recount only if they had standards set and did so in all the counties. There was no way that they could accomplish this in time and so they chose not to.
That's in the damn dictionary -- atheists are Bad People™.
Really? I will admit, that's pretty sad.
You think Christians are left out?
Yes.
You don't know what left out is.
I don't, but my youngest son does.
Tell someone you're an atheist and at least half the time you get an argument.
I will try that sometime, when the opportunity presents itself.
Tell someone you're a Lutheran and "Oh, that's nice, I'm a Methodist." Churchianity is our state religion.
Yeah, I guess that does sound like MN to me.
you aren't left out..only asked to leave the pixies at home when making laws that affect the non-pixies among us.
Why do Christians have to leave their pixies at home? The minority, flaming homosexual, female, environmentalist, athiests don't have to leave their fairies at home.
Teachers are there to indoctrinate:
Maybe I should rephrase that to say, "They are not there to force their personal beliefs on children".
Is that better?
Even though I know you know what I meant.
You just want to make sure that it's your doctrines that are taught.
Damn straight I do. Who the fuck are you, or Mr./Mrs. Smith at the local school, to force their doctine on my or anyone elses children? He/She is there to teach children math & science. Not that homosexuality is ok, or that smoking dope is ok, or that the Bible has the answers for everything.... He/She should stick to what she supposedly knows.
Nothing too far out of the mainstream, please,
I think that should be left up to the parent. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want me pushing my beliefs on your child. Why shouldn't I expect the same?
and if you teach them to be independent thinkers, they're harder than hell to control.
Are you saying Christians are incapable of independent thought?
That they lack the ability to allow their children independent thought?
"Teach independent thought". Quite the oxymoron if you ask me.
Anyway, do you really believe someone that barely knows your child, knows better than you do? Especially if it's the likes of me?
absolutely they do.
I don't want anyone making laws for me based on Zeus either.
you are gonna get thrown out of the garden if you eat from that tree of knowledge
flaming homosexuals ... don't have to leave their fairies at home.
No, they take their "significant others" along with them.
Sorry, that joke was in bad taste but I couldn't resist.
Not at all. Sorry you took it that way, truly.
Teach 'em how to think, not what to think, is what I meant.
Agreed. I took it that you were objecting to things that were part of the official curriculum, over which there is usually local control. I do believe that children should be taught critical thinking, and exposed to many points of view, but that's seldom done, unfortunately. The schools have 'em six hours a day, 180 days a year; their parents have them the other 18 hours a day, 185 or 186 days a year. If there are things you feel they should be taught, you have ample opportunity, no? After all, a considerable portion of that six hours is spent in teaching reading, writing and 'rithmetic.
Political compass puts me at a +2.4 / 0. I'm right on the axis between Authoritarian and Libertarian. Can't get much more middle of the road than that.