A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Maybe the difference is that putting "In God We Trust" on money is almost devoid of meaning at this point. Certainly, I doubt we would be doing it if not for tradition and/or the desire of religious people to get the government to endorse their views.

and this is different than a statute with 10 commandments, right?

(1) Huh?
(2) I have no ilk, though I have eaten elk, and it is tasty.
(3) Constitutional analysis is not and never will be a science.
(4) I find the idea that government derives its authority from God bordering on bizarre. It derives its authority from the consent of the governed and -- in our case -- the Constitution.

your crude attempt at insulting me implied that I disregard your global warming stuff since it was not verifiable. I merely point out that I just want you to question it. If there are gaps- okay, but you should acknowledge them. You cite global warming studies for the same reason Roy moore wants the 10 commandments to stay- no offense.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
and this is different than a statute with 10 commandments, right?

Yes. Though if that Dahila Lithwick piece establishes anything, it is that line-drawing is hard.

your crude attempt at insulting me implied that I disregard your global warming stuff since it was not verifiable.

I don't know what you inferred, but I didn't imply anything like that.

You cite global warming studies for the same reason Roy moore wants the 10 commandments to stay- no offense.

Moore wants the 10 commandments to stay because he's worried about climate change? Huh. That's a new one on me.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Moore wants the 10 commandments to stay because he's worried about climate change? Huh. That's a new one on me.

Hadn't thought of it that way- but yeah that is why he's worried ultimately.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Hadn't thought of it that way- but yeah that is why he's worried ultimately.

I don't follow your argument at all, but this was very funny.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
(4) I find the idea that government derives its authority from God bordering on bizarre. It derives its authority from the consent of the governed and -- in our case -- the Constitution.

I am also curious about the argument that the 10 Commandments are an important part of our legal heritage. Has this been traced, or do we just take this as a given?

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think I was referring more specifically to the view that government derives its authority from God. That's not necessarily Christian -- I think Islam takes the same view -- but there are other religions that see things differently.

Not to mention the significant minority of people who not only disagree that our government derives authority from a Judeo-Christian (-Islamic) God, or from any god, but that there is any god. Or that any such god should, through the authority of the state, wield authority over the rest of us.

I for one am generally not bothered by public religious demonstration, feeling that most of it is meaningless, traditional pageantry. However, I am (at least culturally) of the establishment religion. When trying to imagine how members of non-establishment religions (or non-religions) might feel at the government's apparent approval of other beliefs, I remember the Zaporozhian Cossacks' reply to Sultan Mahmoud IV's demand for their submission:



"Thou Turkish Devil!

Brother and companion to the accursed Devil, and Secretary to Lucifer himself, Greetings!

What the hell kind of noble knight art thou? Satan voids and thy army devours. Never wilt thou be fit to have the sons of Crist under thee. Thy army we fear not, and by land and by sea in our chaikas will we do battle against thee.

Thou scullion of Babylon, thou beerbrewer of Jerusalem, thou goat thief of Alexandria, thou swineherd of Egypt, both the Greater and the Lesser, thou Armenian pig and Tartar goat. Thou hangman of Kamyanets, thou evildoer of Podolia, thou grandson of the Devil himself, thou great silly oaf of all the world and of the netherworld and, before our God, a blockhead, a swine's snout, a mare's ass, and clown of Hades. May the Devil take thee!

That is what the Cossacks have to say to thee, thou basest born of runts! Unfit art thou to lord it over true Christians!

The date we know not, for no calender have we got. The moon is in the sky, the year is in a book, and the day is the same with us here as with ye over there -- and thou canst kiss us thou knowest where!"

BR(always liked that painting)C

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Hadn't thought of it that way- but yeah that is why he's worried ultimately.

OK, so in Moore's hands the Establishment Clause is vestigial, about as functional as the whale's hip bone. What does it mean to Scalia? I still don't understand.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Not to mention the significant minority of people who not only disagree that our government derives authority from a Judeo-Christian (-Islamic) God, or from any god, but that there is any god. Or that any such god should, through the authority of the state, wield authority over the rest of us.

I think there are several things in play here. I do not agree that government derives authority from God. On the contrary, it derives it's authority from the people. But I also believe it is indisputable that this country was founded on a belief of god, and that recognition of that fact by the government does not trigger Establishment Clause concerns. So "in god we trust" and "one country under god" raises no 1st amendment issues. These instances, however, are quite different from the ten commandments case, in that the latter is based on beliefs held by particular religions rather than a general belief in god.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think there are several things in play here. I do not agree that government derives authority from God. On the contrary, it derives it's authority from the people. But I also believe it is indisputable that this country was founded on a belief of god, and that recognition of that fact by the government does not trigger Establishment Clause concerns. So "in god we trust" and "one country under god" raises no 1st amendment issues. These instances, however, are quite different from the ten commandments case, in that the latter is based on beliefs held by particular religions rather than a general belief in god.

There is a difference between "founded on a belief of god" and "founded by people who believe."

And to the atheist, what difference does it make whether a particular questioned act is based upon a generic god rather that the specific?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by charlie the crocodile
You are fucking idiot. She was appointed by Clinton but she was a respected magistrate before that and well regarded on both sides of the aisle. There is no rationale that justifies or mitigates what happened here and your post is a shitstain effourt that implies that there is. The only right minded result here is that her families killers are caught, over 18 and executed and before that brutally gangraped in prison.

While I like anal gang-rape as much as the next guy, I think you've been had, Chuck.

S_A_M

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK, so in Moore's hands the Establishment Clause is vestigial, about as functional as the whale's hip bone. What does it mean to Scalia? I still don't understand.

For Scalia, I think it means that he doesn't want to end up in Limbo. I think. According to Dante.

aV

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
There is a difference between "founded on a belief of god" and "founded by people who believe."

What's the difference?

And to the atheist, what difference does it make whether a particular questioned act is based upon a generic god rather that the specific?

Because the 1st amendment prohibts the establishment of a religion, not the recognition of god.

ETA: Although the ten commandments have somewhat universal appeal, they are religious in nature because the stem from specific sects.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Although the ten commandments have somewhat universal appeal, they are religious in nature because the stem from specific sects.

And different sects have different views about what the ten commandments are.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Because the 1st amendment prohibts the establishment of a religion, not the recognition of god.

So could Alabama require everyone to register and pick a religion? - it can be any, as long as you pick one.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
So could Alabama require everyone to register and pick a religion? - it can be any, as long as you pick one.

It's like Antonin Scalia is on the board, speaking to us. Uncanny.