Legislating Morality
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
“We have staked the future of all of our political institutions … upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
James Madison: 1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia
James Madison also said: “ We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”
George Washington said: “ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”
“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]
In the Torcaso case, the Supreme Court declared that Secular Humanism was a religion. In Edwards, the Court established one religion (Secular Humanism) above all others. If Jefferson were alive today - and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court – how do you think he would have voted in those two cases?
Torcaso: The first amendment prohibits the US congress from making a law establishing a state religion, but says nothing of the states. The fourteenth, however, makes the first applicable at the state level. The Torcaso case was right. Secular Humanism, as religion: Austin Cline, at atheism.about.com, has a good essay about this case. He states, however, that the declaration of secular humanism is in a dicta, which has no legal force. However, a review of the case: HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al. at caselaw.lp.findlaw.com remarks on the existance of dicta that the legal community typically takes as a statement of the law.
from atheism.about.com on the Torcaso case. "In a dictum footnote attached to this opinion, Justice Black wrote:"
"Among the religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others."
Edwards: Wikipedia: www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools whenever evolution was taught was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. At the same time, however, it held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."
How does "advancing a particular religion" establish a state religion? All Christian denominations believe in creation, Judaism believes in the Creation, Islam (as far as I know) supports Creation. Which of these religions is established as the state religion of the United States of America by the teaching of Creationism in Puble Schools of Louisiana? First amendment does not apply in this case.
Does this (unconstitutional, in my opinion) decision establish Secular Humanism as the state religion? No. It does not establish Secular Humanism as a state religion, but does force teachers and student to check their first amendment rights at the classroom door.
If the Constitution is a "living, breathing document", are we free to ignore original intent all together?
Liberals are fond of ignoring or interpreting original intent to suit their agendas. Liberals ignore citations from the founding fathers advancing Christianity, but jump all over an obscure quote, taken out of context, to support the separation of Church and state. They also believe that the meaning of the Constitution can change to meet societal and cultural changes. This can and will lead to judges being able to interpret the Document any way they want, if they feel that their interpretation would be best for society. In researching this question, I ran across a comparison of liberal interpretation of the Constitution to the liberal interpretation of the Bible, which formed in me the opinion that all talk of "Living, breathing documents" is treachery against the United States as the founding fathers envisioned it.
Would it be fair to say that the religion of Secular Humanism has the public school lectern as its pulpit?
Would it be fair to say that public schoolteachers are the missionaries of the religion of Secular Humanism?
Would it be fair to say that our children are the potential converts of the religion of Secular Humanism?
Would it be fair to say that the missionary budget of the religion of Secular Humanism is the U.S. tax code?
I'd say it's more a case of every ideology except Judeo-Christianity has its pulpit in the public schools today. Under the guise of teaching tolerance and understanding of other cultures, our own American cultures, based upon Judeo-Christian ideals, is made to look evil and intolerant.
Why do we pay only ten percent of our income to our churches, but over a fourth of our income to a government that advances Secular Humanism over all other religions?
The Governmental social programs are taking over functions and responsibilities that belong to the Church, in an attempt to play a Robin Hood like role in stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. How accurate is that 25% figure? Does it include hidden taxes, such as taxes levied on businesses that are passed on to the consumer?
Many people believe that Christianity is a bad religion responsible for many atrocities over the last few centuries. Why was the 20th Century the bloodiest in world history?
What part did atheism play in the increased bloodshed during the last century?
What part did communism play in the increased bloodshed during the last century?
Christianity is not responsible for the many atrocitties committed in its name over the last few centuries. Responsible are the individuals within the Church who abused their power. The 20th century was so bloody because of the loss of morals due to the secularisation of culture combined with the developement of improved weapons technology and more efficient methods of killing. There were periods of secular and pagan beliefs all through recorded history involving bloodshed in the name of genocide, power grabbing, or sacrificial ceremony. It wasn't until the 20th century that the technology existed for the massive bloodletting that occurred under Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and others.
In the Casey decision (1992), the Supreme Court stated that “…At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, and of the mystery of human life.” Is the Court implying that morality is individually chosen, rather than objective, while simultaneously defending its right to deprive an entire nation of voting on the issue of abortion?
In principle, yes. In making this decision, the Supreme Court has opened up the opportunity in the future to question all laws, based on the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaing, and of the mystery of human life. Theoretically, when one's concept of existance precludes private ownership of goods or property, is it not a violation of his liberty to deny him anything he feels he needs at one time or another? All of our basic rights are on the line with this decision.
stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States". American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
“We have staked the future of all of our political institutions … upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
James Madison: 1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia
James Madison also said: “ We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”
George Washington said: “ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”
“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]
In the Torcaso case, the Supreme Court declared that Secular Humanism was a religion. In Edwards, the Court established one religion (Secular Humanism) above all others. If Jefferson were alive today - and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court – how do you think he would have voted in those two cases?
Torcaso: The first amendment prohibits the US congress from making a law establishing a state religion, but says nothing of the states. The fourteenth, however, makes the first applicable at the state level. The Torcaso case was right. Secular Humanism, as religion: Austin Cline, at atheism.about.com, has a good essay about this case. He states, however, that the declaration of secular humanism is in a dicta, which has no legal force. However, a review of the case: HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al. at caselaw.lp.findlaw.com remarks on the existance of dicta that the legal community typically takes as a statement of the law.
from atheism.about.com on the Torcaso case. "In a dictum footnote attached to this opinion, Justice Black wrote:"
"Among the religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others."
Edwards: Wikipedia: www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools whenever evolution was taught was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. At the same time, however, it held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."
How does "advancing a particular religion" establish a state religion? All Christian denominations believe in creation, Judaism believes in the Creation, Islam (as far as I know) supports Creation. Which of these religions is established as the state religion of the United States of America by the teaching of Creationism in Puble Schools of Louisiana? First amendment does not apply in this case.
Does this (unconstitutional, in my opinion) decision establish Secular Humanism as the state religion? No. It does not establish Secular Humanism as a state religion, but does force teachers and student to check their first amendment rights at the classroom door.
If the Constitution is a "living, breathing document", are we free to ignore original intent all together?
Liberals are fond of ignoring or interpreting original intent to suit their agendas. Liberals ignore citations from the founding fathers advancing Christianity, but jump all over an obscure quote, taken out of context, to support the separation of Church and state. They also believe that the meaning of the Constitution can change to meet societal and cultural changes. This can and will lead to judges being able to interpret the Document any way they want, if they feel that their interpretation would be best for society. In researching this question, I ran across a comparison of liberal interpretation of the Constitution to the liberal interpretation of the Bible, which formed in me the opinion that all talk of "Living, breathing documents" is treachery against the United States as the founding fathers envisioned it.
Would it be fair to say that the religion of Secular Humanism has the public school lectern as its pulpit?
Would it be fair to say that public schoolteachers are the missionaries of the religion of Secular Humanism?
Would it be fair to say that our children are the potential converts of the religion of Secular Humanism?
Would it be fair to say that the missionary budget of the religion of Secular Humanism is the U.S. tax code?
I'd say it's more a case of every ideology except Judeo-Christianity has its pulpit in the public schools today. Under the guise of teaching tolerance and understanding of other cultures, our own American cultures, based upon Judeo-Christian ideals, is made to look evil and intolerant.
Why do we pay only ten percent of our income to our churches, but over a fourth of our income to a government that advances Secular Humanism over all other religions?
The Governmental social programs are taking over functions and responsibilities that belong to the Church, in an attempt to play a Robin Hood like role in stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. How accurate is that 25% figure? Does it include hidden taxes, such as taxes levied on businesses that are passed on to the consumer?
Many people believe that Christianity is a bad religion responsible for many atrocities over the last few centuries. Why was the 20th Century the bloodiest in world history?
What part did atheism play in the increased bloodshed during the last century?
What part did communism play in the increased bloodshed during the last century?
Christianity is not responsible for the many atrocitties committed in its name over the last few centuries. Responsible are the individuals within the Church who abused their power. The 20th century was so bloody because of the loss of morals due to the secularisation of culture combined with the developement of improved weapons technology and more efficient methods of killing. There were periods of secular and pagan beliefs all through recorded history involving bloodshed in the name of genocide, power grabbing, or sacrificial ceremony. It wasn't until the 20th century that the technology existed for the massive bloodletting that occurred under Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and others.
In the Casey decision (1992), the Supreme Court stated that “…At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, and of the mystery of human life.” Is the Court implying that morality is individually chosen, rather than objective, while simultaneously defending its right to deprive an entire nation of voting on the issue of abortion?
In principle, yes. In making this decision, the Supreme Court has opened up the opportunity in the future to question all laws, based on the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaing, and of the mystery of human life. Theoretically, when one's concept of existance precludes private ownership of goods or property, is it not a violation of his liberty to deny him anything he feels he needs at one time or another? All of our basic rights are on the line with this decision.
stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States". American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
posted by
Mainer in Exile | 4:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home