A bit of a Conundrum

[Gromnir]

short answer: is a tough road to slog to proclaim that intent o' the 1st amendment prohibits use of word "god" in various State supported activities simply 'cause the folks who ratified the Bill o'Rights opened their sessions with a prayer that mentioned God over and over and over... and the actions of the early Congress shows that nobody thoughts that 1st Amendment prohibited use of "god" word by State.

 

longer answer: meaning of first amendment free exercise clause and establishment clause is subject of some debate. Gromnir is a proponent o' using an original intent approach when trying to comes up with answers to Constitutional questions. sadly, nobody kept useful records of the debates regarding the Bill o' Rights, so we is left in dark concerning an actual intent of the framers. Madison kept notes, but they is not all that illuminating insofar as intent is concerned. however, we can looks at framer actions and we can also looks at the various drafts o' the First Amendment to see what alternatives were discarded.

 

also of note is fact that the first amendment clauses looks similar to the Virginia's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, which were penned by Thomas Jefferson... though Thomas Jefferson were not one o' the geeklings who were present to frame the Bill o' Rights. reason for scholars limping back to this Virginia Bill is two-fold:

 

1) James Madison were the first person to suggest a wording for the First Amendment Religious Clauses, and Madison were a supporter o' Jefferson's Bill.

 

2) In Everson v. Board of Education, when the Supreme Court finally got 'round to discussing establishment clause for serious, Hugo Black uses Wall o' Separation language, which were taken from a letter by Thomas Jefferson in which he rejected the notion o' the State setting aside a day for Religious Observance.

 

'course the problem with J. Hugo Black's interp is that Madison's wording were not adopted to become the language o' the First Amendment.

 

first draft: The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed. No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.

 

second draft: No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed,

 

third draft: Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.

 

fourth draft: Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.

 

fifth draft: Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

 

sixth draft: Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

 

seventh draft: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

 

please note the abandoning o' the "rights o' conscience" language.

 

*shrug*

 

the Virginia Bill, which were debated hotly and for which we do have records, had 2 effective portions:

 

1) we, the General Assembly of Virginia, do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

 

2) and though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.

 

yes, yes, all very nice... but the parts o' the Virgina Bill that may be most enlightening is the preamble portions, which sorta gives persons a notions o' the WHY behind the Bill... but is very long. google the Bill and you will not be spending your effort in vain.

 

main reason for adoption o

Edited March 21, 2007 by Gromnir

[Sand]

Gromnir, you never cease to amaze me. I may not always agree with your posts but they are always interesting.

[Guard Dog]

I am just saying that when a person is in a position of authority that effects millions of people, his or her own morality needs to take a back seat to and do what is right for the good of all people that you are governing over. Not everyone is a Christian. Not everyone is Jewish, or Islamic, or Buddhist either. Not everyone is Protestant or Catholic, or even Atheist. It is the duty of Congress, the President and his or her Administration, and the Judicial Branch to make and enforce laws and policies that need to fair and equal for all people that are governed, regardless if they are the minority or the majority.

You just cannot do that. All anyone can do is be the person they are. If you are a Christian you cannot stop being that for this one decision, then turn it on again for the next. Everyone in this country knew what kind of man GWB was. Most of those who voted, voted for him. It's no surprise he turned out to be exactly what he presented himself as. It's also no surprise those who did not vote for him don't like it. Clinton was the same way. Not one thing he did, good or bad came as a surprise to anyone who knew about him. What I pointed out before was dead on the money. Evey one is nothing more than the sum total of all of their experiences, education, preferences, and religion.

 

If you do not like the man, do not vote for him. If he violates the Constitution then he will be checked by the Supreme Court (or actually Congress will since making law is its job). But you cannot fault him for being who he is.

[Sand]

Guard Dog, that is just silly. I can easily make decisions contrary on my beliefs and morality if it would benefit others or myself in the long run. Its called being aware of oneself and be in full control of one's behavior. A person is not just the "sum total of all of their experiences, education, preferences, and religion" for if he or she truly is self aware one can rise above their experiences and be independent of them.

[Guard Dog]

Newdow were a 2002 Pledge case. 9th district court said that pledge were a violation o' First Amendment. goes to US Supreme, but Court does not decide case on merits, but rather they find that the 9th Circuit had no standing in first place.

Which was a major cop out IMHO. They decided that since Newdow was not the girls legal guardian he did not have standing to press a suit in her name, which vacated the 9ths decision. It is a battle that needs to be fought and I think the SCOTUS only delayed the inevitable. I'd like to see it decided one way or another. Sand and Calax, you guys realize you are in the minority nationally speaking. If the SCOTUS came down and ruled "God" to be unconstitutional there would be a backlash like this country has never seen. And that will spurr Congress into action. Heck, the day after the 9ths decision to remove the wording the entire assembled Senate met on the steps of the capitol to recite the pledge. Even the democrats who have somewhat hostile to religion for some time now

[Sand]

Maybe it is time that we have a social upheavel. Personally I think that those who do not want to live in such a religious influenced country should just bugger off to a state and remove ourselves from the federal government. I am just sick of hearing about God this and God that in regards to our government. I didn't vote for God, damn it.

[Guard Dog]

Heh, too bad Weiser Cain isn't here. He'd start doing his bit about Civil War II.

 

Seriously though, why has no open atheist ever made a run for president?

[Sand]

Probably admiting you are an Atheist is career ender in politics, I guess. Atheists are a funky bunch of people in my experience with them.

[Guard Dog]

Exactly, they would be dead meat in an election. That said, nobody is cramming God down your throat now. Bush did not (and can not) outlaw Stem Cell research. He simply said the government will not fund or participate in it. That does not stop private firms or even individuals from doing it. Actually I agree with him. Not because I think stem cell research is wrong or immoral, but because I believe the federal government has no business in participating in scientific research. Point that clause out to me!

[Enoch]

Probably admiting you are an Atheist is career ender in politics, I guess. Atheists are a funky bunch of people in my experience with them.

Surprised that you missed this story, which broke about a week ago. The first admitted non-theist in Congress!

 

 

@ Gromnir: Good fun, indeed.

[Calax]

My purpose in starting this thread was actually to get the amendment clarified. I thought that it would cause the Government to abstain from officially using a religious denomonational language in legislation, And currently GOD is universally considered Christian rather than just Deity.

[Gromnir]

My purpose in starting this thread was actually to get the amendment clarified. I thought that it would cause the Government to abstain from officially using a religious denomonational language in legislation, And currently GOD is universally considered Christian rather than just Deity.

 

you really don't understand how "the Government" works... even school kids know the basic separation o' powers stuff. also, you surely not thinks a thread on an obsidian message board would result in clarification by... whom?

 

you got clarification from Gromnir and others 'bout what is current situation regarding 1st Amendment establishment clause application to use of "god" by State. congratulations.

 

oh, and God is not universal accepted as christian, not by a long shot.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[taks]

not all, but nearly all have a god, or higher power under a different name.

 

taks

[Enoch]

not all, but nearly all have a god, or higher power under a different name.

 

taks

According to the Statistical Abstract of the United States, in 2001, more than 29 million Americans (over 7% of the adult population) identified themselves as having no religion (scroll down; 3rd link from bottom).

Edited March 21, 2007 by Enoch

[Sand]

Exactly, they would be dead meat in an election. That said, nobody is cramming God down your throat now. Bush did not (and can not) outlaw Stem Cell research. He simply said the government will not fund or participate in it. That does not stop private firms or even individuals from doing it. Actually I agree with him. Not because I think stem cell research is wrong or immoral, but because I believe the federal government has no business in participating in scientific research. Point that clause out to me!

If Bush's motivation for denial funds was the same as yours then I wouldn't have a problem with it but he is taking the "moral high ground" for his reasons not funding the research, and not because the government shouldn't be the affiars of privatized research. I am not just looking at the actions of our politicians, but the reasons and motivations behind their actions.

Edited March 21, 2007 by Sand

[Guard Dog]

If Bush's motivation for denial funds was the same as yours then I wouldn't have a problem with it but he is taking the "moral high ground" for his reasons not funding the research, and not because the government shouldn't be the affiars of privatized research. I am not just looking at the actions of our politicians, but the reasons and motivations behind their actions.

Gotcha. So what angers you is not what they do but how they think. On that note, what do you think of hate crime legislation? Do you think one murder is more heinous because it might be motivated by racism, homophobia or some such?

[Sand]

I thnk that motivation and intention is very much the cause of what we do as human beings. If the motivation is rob a place of money which a person is killed is a lesser crime than one actively hunting a certain type of person to kill. Certainly both deserve the death penalty in my ever so humble opinion, but what motivates act is more important than the act in of itself.

[Guard Dog]

I thnk that motivation and intention is very much the cause of what we do as human beings. If the motivation is rob a place of money which a person is killed is a lesser crime than one actively hunting a certain type of person to kill. Certainly both deserve the death penalty in my ever so humble opinion, but what motivates act is more important than the act in of itself.

You realize by saying that is is more important that someone is thinking correctly than if they are acting correctly, you are advocating a kind of "Thought Police". Sounds very Orwellian to me.

[Sand]

Maybe I am, but the thought and act are often tied together, and you cannot act without putting some level of thought in the action.

[Calax]

My purpose in starting this thread was actually to get the amendment clarified. I thought that it would cause the Government to abstain from officially using a religious denomonational language in legislation, And currently GOD is universally considered Christian rather than just Deity.

 

you really don't understand how "the Government" works... even school kids know the basic separation o' powers stuff. also, you surely not thinks a thread on an obsidian message board would result in clarification by... whom?

 

you got clarification from Gromnir and others 'bout what is current situation regarding 1st Amendment establishment clause application to use of "god" by State. congratulations.

 

oh, and God is not universal accepted as christian, not by a long shot.

 

HA! Good Fun!

I wanted the clause clairified... not the seperation of power. Admittedly the seperation is really unbalanced right now with the patriot act making the president into a tyrant with a leash. Also the justice department is SUPPOSED to be non political... we see how well that turned out.

 

Anyway, if you ask "what is god" to 10 people on the street 9 of them will probably say somthing along the lines of "well.. he's god, he made the universe and causes all the crap to happen according to the christians" You say allah and somthing similar pops out with Arabs instead of Christians. you say Buddha and you get "Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..."

then the person makes an excuse and runs off to research buddhist philosophy.

[Gromnir]

you got a funny notion 'bout how govt. works. anybody wanna tell calax which branch interprets laws? if Congress or Executive tries to clarify by anything short o' a new Amendment, then the Court will smote'em... 'less they is named andrew jackson.

 

...

 

the rest o' your post is just so much gibberish... for multiple reasons.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Sand]

I think it is high time we repeal the Patriot Act.