Atheists Holy Day

[Ion01 2]

Quote

You are fighting a battle that was lost in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison: "it's exclusively the province of the judiciary to say what the law is" (when it comes to the US Constitution...)

(Although I'm only a dabbler in religion and religious history, I'm a lawyer and - very early in my career - did work on First Amendment cases, so this part I know.)

Does the law not say what the law is?

[Butters 0]

Quote

When was that law established?

This can also be used to make the point that "interpretation" of the constitution and amendments or to try to "interpret" what they were trying to say with the amendments doesn't really work in that, assuming it was make law extremely early on near the time of our "fore fathers" one could say they didn't didn't think it conflicted with the first amendment and use that to "interpret" the amendment to make it looser. If nothing else I think we can be sure politics haven't really changed.

Once again, do some research regarding the Supreme Court ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[billvon 2,991]

>But really they are just days off that coincide with a "christian" (catholic) holy
>day so the goverment is not making you observe any of the customs of the
>catholics . . .

Christians, actually.

In the early 1800's mail was sorted and delivered seven days a week. This worked out well in most towns because:

1) the stagecoaches could run on a regular 7-day schedule
2) people could pick up their mail after church.

Around 1810, people started grumbling that the US was not respecting the Sabbath. One petition read: "Our government is a Christian government, a government formed and established by Christians and therefore, bound by the word of God, not at liberty to contravene His law, nor act irrespectively of the obligations we owe to Him." Some mail workers were harassed or excommunicatd by their churches for violating the Sabbath. The US government responded with a law that said that the US Mail moved letters 7 days a week, thus protecting its workers to some degree from such attacks.

In 1828, the General Union for the Promotion of the Christian Sabbath (GUPCS) started lobbying for a law to observe the Sabbath. General Richard M. Johnson opposed it, writing that Congressional action to stop Sunday mail was unconstitutional, as it would establish "the principle that the legislature was a proper tribunal to determine what are the laws of God. . . . The framers of the Constitution recognized the eternal principle that man's relation with God is above human legislation and his rights of conscience unalienable."

This reasoning stood for a long time. It was not until 1912 that a growing Christian coalition of ministers and postal clerks finally convinced Congress to close all post offices on Sunday.

[Ion01 2]

Very interesting.

[Ion01 2]

Quote

Quote

When was that law established?

This can also be used to make the point that "interpretation" of the constitution and amendments or to try to "interpret" what they were trying to say with the amendments doesn't really work in that, assuming it was make law extremely early on near the time of our "fore fathers" one could say they didn't didn't think it conflicted with the first amendment and use that to "interpret" the amendment to make it looser. If nothing else I think we can be sure politics haven't really changed.

Once again, do some research regarding the Supreme Court ...

I see nothing in the constitution about them "interpreting" laws. Once again, why is interpretation needed when the laws are in english?

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Once again, do some research regarding the Supreme Court ...

I see nothing in the constitution about them "interpreting" laws. Once again, why is interpretation needed when the laws are in english?

Really, nothing at all? What about Article Three of the United States Constitution or as cited earlier the case of Marbury verse Madison ...

PS: Interpretation is needed for the same reason interpretation is needed regarding every other text (including the Bible). Language is contextual ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Ion01 2]

What I see is it is the supreme courts (which is an appeals court) job to determine if a law has been broken and enforce the law and judgement which is the same for all courts. There is no interpretation involved in this nor is there any need to try to determine what the forefathers or anybody else intended when writing the law.

The only interpretation involving the bible should be when its interpreted from greek to english. There are problems in that the languages are so drastically different that there is very rarely word for word equalities between the two languages. However, the constitution was written in english not another language. It says what it says and I would say the same about the original greek writings of the bible. However, I can't say that about the english version because interpration was involve and there are slight differences in what is being portrayed due to the interpreters own opinions so I go to greek dictionarys to try to get the best and most accurate understanding. Its also important to not the new testament is conceptual based commands. Love your neighbor is a bit different than the commands of the old testament such as
"Speak to the people of Israel and say to them,(A) When any man has a discharge from his body,[a] his discharge is unclean. 3And this is the law of his uncleanness for a discharge: whether his body runs with his discharge, or his body is blocked up by his discharge, it is his uncleanness. 4Every bed on which the one with the discharge lies shall be unclean, and everything on which he sits shall be unclean. 5And anyone who touches his bed(B) shall wash his clothes and(C) bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening....."
No context is needed as you are told exactly what to do and what not to do. Our laws are the say. We are told exactly when we can kill and when can't. No interpretation is needed. It says what it says. If something is not covered then it doesn't say it then no one can be guilty of something that doesn't exist. If the law is needed then it is not the judges who make the laws but other branches of the goverment yet the courts have taken it upon themselves to "make laws" in a sence through "interpretation".

(“And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.”)

[Butters 0]

Quote

What I see is it is the supreme courts (which is an appeals court) job to determine if a law has been broken and enforce the law and judgement which is the same for all courts. There is no interpretation involved in this nor is there any need to try to determine what the forefathers or anybody else intended when writing the law.

It doesn't matter what you see ... read and remove your ignorance.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[jakee 1,490]

Quote

What I see is it is the supreme courts (which is an appeals court) job to determine if a law has been broken and enforce the law and judgement which is the same for all courts. There is no interpretation involved in this nor is there any need to try to determine what the forefathers or anybody else intended when writing the law.

Interpretation is needed because different people think certain phrases in the constitution mean different things. We saw it in our earlier conversation - you thought the 1st meant one thing, I thought it meant another, when I explained my interpretation you then seemed to agree with with me.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Ion01 2]

Quote

Quote

What I see is it is the supreme courts (which is an appeals court) job to determine if a law has been broken and enforce the law and judgement which is the same for all courts. There is no interpretation involved in this nor is there any need to try to determine what the forefathers or anybody else intended when writing the law.

It doesn't matter what you see ... read and remove your ignorance.

Dude...cool down. I did read it and found nothing indicating what you are talking about in the constitution. If I am wrong show me! Prove it! If you would prefer I get in your face about it and be dogmatic then fine! Its not there! Its not constitutional for the supreme court, despite what they have to say, to interpret the laws.
Well, that doesn't really help anybody does it?

Seriously, I don't know why I keep coming here expecting an educated and respectful debate! At least I got that out of a moderator and one other person (even though it took this person a bit to give me an explanation I needed) and guess what, I actually gained something from it and hopefully they did too. No one gains anything from these types of responses!

[Ion01 2]

Quote

Quote

What I see is it is the supreme courts (which is an appeals court) job to determine if a law has been broken and enforce the law and judgement which is the same for all courts. There is no interpretation involved in this nor is there any need to try to determine what the forefathers or anybody else intended when writing the law.

Interpretation is needed because different people think certain phrases in the constitution mean different things. We saw it in our earlier conversation - you thought the 1st meant one thing, I thought it meant another, when I explained my interpretation you then seemed to agree with with me.

I see what you are saying, however, we ultimately found that it was my understanding that was wrong and it was just that wrong...close but missing a small but important piece. As a result we find that there is only one meaning or correct explanation of the amendment or law. I just looked up the definition of interpret and it can mean to give or provide the meaning of whereas I was approaching the use of the word a bit differently. In that meaning that is exactly what they are supposed to do however they often go beyond what is said and try to determine what was "intended" when it was written.
The ammendment still says what it says and only has one correct meaning as do all the other laws and to attempt to stretch them or determine what was intended and as a result ignore what the laws actually say and such is not correct and that is what I am really talking about. Its like some have done in the past where they say that this country was founded on christianity so the intent of the first amendment is blah blah blah so what it really means is blah blah blah. Well, you can go the otherway to and say they were trying to get away from religious control so it really means seperation of church and state. Well, it means what it says and that doesn't included either of those "interpretations".

[Ion01 2]

Here would be the definition I was using:
render according to one's own understanding or sensitivity.
This seems to be what they often do with the laws, and what is not in the constitution, instead of giving or providing meaning.

[frequentfaller 0]

ion01 is a pretend character one of you smart mofos made up right? there is no way anyone thinks like this. I have fallen in the same arguement traps with him. splainin the shit outta somethin to him and then he'll just bible bable ya.

Born ok 1st time.

[JackC 0]

Quote

The ammendment still says what it says and only has one correct meaning as do all the other laws and to attempt to stretch them or determine what was intended and as a result ignore what the laws actually say and such is not correct and that is what I am really talking about.

As I see it the first clause of the first amendment says "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". It doesn't say "establishment of the Christian religion" or the "Islamic religion" or even "a religion", it simply says "religion". That must surely mean any and all religions since the wording specifically uses the catch-all designation of "religion".

So with that in mind, putting "In God We Trust" on bank notes constitutes a federally funded endorsement of God and since God is the defining feature of religion, including it is in violation of the first amendment. Similarly, "one nation, under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance also contitutes a federal endorsment of God and is also in violation of the first amendment.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

ion01 is a pretend character one of you smart mofos made up right? there is no way anyone thinks like this. I have fallen in the same arguement traps with him. splainin the shit outta somethin to him and then he'll just bible bable ya.

I see you have yet to meet Hairy Juan.

. . =(_8^(1)

[BDashe 0]

Quote

No re-direction needed. I certainly did not post this as fact, but to discuss the underlying truths of how dumb atheists are.

Anyone else find this comment oxymoronic and ignorant...?

edit: woops, just saw the post date...

So there I was...

Making friends and playing nice since 1983

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What I see is it is the supreme courts (which is an appeals court) job to determine if a law has been broken and enforce the law and judgement which is the same for all courts. There is no interpretation involved in this nor is there any need to try to determine what the forefathers or anybody else intended when writing the law.

It doesn't matter what you see ... read and remove your ignorance.

Dude...cool down. I did read it and found nothing indicating what you are talking about in the constitution. If I am wrong show me! Prove it! If you would prefer I get in your face about it and be dogmatic then fine! Its not there! Its not constitutional for the supreme court, despite what they have to say, to interpret the laws.
Well, that doesn't really help anybody does it?

I tried to help you but you obviously didn't read the information I gave you because it states exactly what I was talking about ... asking for information and then not reading that information doesn't really help anybody does it?

Quote

Seriously, I don't know why I keep coming here expecting an educated and respectful debate! At least I got that out of a moderator and one other person (even though it took this person a bit to give me an explanation I needed) and guess what, I actually gained something from it and hopefully they did too. No one gains anything from these types of responses!

You're the one who has shown the least amount of knowledge regarding the discussion. No one gains anything from your responses (and you gain nothing by not reading the information given to).

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

(though see Bart Ehrman's great book Misquoting Jesus http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060738170 for a great historical analysis of how the Bible developed).

My point is that not even all Christians believe the same things you do. Since different denominations and sects believe different things. Extrapolate that to the discussion about other faiths, atheists and non-theists, and I keep coming back to the argument that the separation of Church and State was a really, really, cool idea.

Thanks for the book recommendation and all the historical context. I appreciated it.

Curious: what do you think about the Treaty of Tripoli from President Washington's term (1796), that states:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion ..."

Now a treaty is not the same as the Constitution clearly. Curious historical footnote? Or reflection of the intentions of the Founding Fathers?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[DanG 1]

Quote

Curious: what do you think about the Treaty of Tripoli from President Washington's term (1796), that states:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion ..."
Now a treaty is not the same as the Constitution clearly. Curious historical footnote? Or reflection of the intentions of the Founding Fathers?

Actually I suspect you are quite well versed in Article VI of the Constitution, which states:

Quote

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;

The Treaty of Tripoli, therefore, is legally equivalent to the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land. I guess we weren't founded on Christian religion after all.

Did I ruin it? Sorry.

- Dan G

[Skwrl 56]

This is one of the interesting bits of US constitutional history... So basically, if you read the constitution, it sets forth the Legislative (Article I), Executive (Article II) and Judicial (Article III) branches. If you ask any school kid, they will talk about "checks and balances" in the Constitution (each branch has controls on the powers of the other branches). But what's interesting is that some of those powers aren't actually in the text of the Constitution. So, for example, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Judiciary can rule that a law is unconstitutional. In 1803 (in Marbury v. Madison), the Supreme Court basically took the position that it - and it alone - had the power to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. What evolved from that has been over 200 years of the Supreme Court trying to "interpret" the Constitution - because no, it's not always clear on its face what it means.

Basically, there are two schools of thought on how to interpret it. There are "original intent" folks: these are the people who make the argument that the Constitution means what the founding fathers would have said it mean if you asked them when they drafted it. The problem with that is that we, as a nation, have changed a lot since then (see, e.g., the Civil War - before that, we were a collection of states with similar interests, after that, people spoke of being "American" as opposed to being a "New Yorker" or a "Georgian"). I suppose strict constructionists would say that freedom of the press would be limited to the media that existed in the day, and that the right to bear arms is limited to flintlocks (but few of them are actually that consistent). Read Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas' writings if you want to see semi-consistent strict constructionist thinking.

Other people (most of the rest of the court, maybe not Chief Justice Roberts) take the position that the Constitution is a "living document" that can be adapted through interpretation to our modern society. (In other words, even though the founding forefathers would have been talking about printing presses, we can extrapolate that to freedom of speech on the internet). That's where you get ideas like a "Right to Privacy" (found nowhere in the Constitution, at least not expressly), and the idea that some of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to both the Federal AND state government (so, it's not just the Federal government that can't conduct unreasonable searches and seizures, the state governments can't either). The problem with this line of reasoning is "where do you draw the line"?

I'm done with this thread - work to do. Later, guys...

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Curious: what do you think about the Treaty of Tripoli from President Washington's term (1796), that states:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion ..."
Now a treaty is not the same as the Constitution clearly. Curious historical footnote? Or reflection of the intentions of the Founding Fathers?

Actually I suspect you are quite well versed in Article VI of the Constitution, which states:

Quote

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;

The Treaty of Tripoli, therefore, is legally equivalent to the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land. I guess we weren't founded on Christian religion after all.

Did I ruin it? Sorry.

No, it's deja vu all over again.

And again.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Best contact Obama and have him cancel the invocation at his inauguration, then...oh, and get hold of Pelosi and have her stop the invocations at the opening of congress each day, too...can't have that nasty ole religion creeping into government, you know.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Skwrl 56]

This shouldn't be surprising to anyone. Washington, although nominally an Episcopalian, was really more of a Deist. (Pro-tip: Deists aren't Christians.)

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[billvon 2,991]

>Best contact Obama and have him cancel the invocation at his inauguration, then...

Politicians can say whatever they like; that's in the First Amendment too. They just can't pass any laws to promulgate their religion.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Best contact Obama and have him cancel the invocation at his inauguration, then...oh, and get hold of Pelosi and have her stop the invocations at the opening of congress each day, too...can't have that nasty ole religion creeping into government, you know.

Nice job of totally missing the point.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.