[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Could you explain this a bit more? I was lead to believe that using God's name in an irreverent manner, or in a way that it used uselessly, means it was used in vain.

Or this example: I failed at learning to play the guitar, all of my efforts were in vain (wasted).

It's the practice of "unlawful" Theurgy, a.k.a. Sorcery. In more simplified terms, it's using the name(s) of "God" to control demons for selfish or destructive ends. It's nasty business.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Do we actually know God's name?

Which part?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

No. And pinning you down is pretty easy, as I've stomped on your pseudoChristianity without much difficulty here and elsewhere.

For your information, I'm not making up definitions of Christianity. If your beliefs match the Apostle's Creed, you're a Christian. If they don't, you aren't.

Then according to you I'm not Christian, since I don't subscribe to article nine.
Luckily, I don't live my life according to you.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I'm really not the one playing semantic games here. You're trying to argue that the foundations of something are not the same as what it's founded on. Sure, if we want to ignore the meanings of words we can say anything we want and have it be true, but there's not a whole lot of point in doing that.

You are trying to debate a side issue based on the fact I used the same base word in defining two different things. I'd say that's a semantic argument. You aren't arguing the larger point.

The only thing I'm arguing that the government can or should have the right to stop in this case is intrusion of religion into official government actions.

The Constitution and founders had no intention of limiting intrusion of personal religious expression anywhere. They did however want to make sure that the government took no role in regulating what brand of religious expression we could or could not take part in. While certain court justices later disagreed, it's hard to find evidence that the majority intended for anyone's rights to be abridged in that manner.

A high school graduation, strange as it seems, if it happens in a public school, is an official government ceremony.

As is the opening of Congress where religious expression is allowed. The Declaration of Independence is an official government document, where religious expression is set as a standard. You and the courts don't really have a solid basis based on the literal wording or intent of the founders in regards to our founding documents to make such a claim. The only way to (try) and do it is to quote a couple of notable founders who wanted to take limitations on expression farther than everyone else choose to make standard. That isn't really a credible argument, IMO.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

A high school graduation, strange as it seems, if it happens in a public school, is an official government ceremony.

As is the opening of Congress where religious expression is allowed.

There is a significant difference between these two "official ceremonies." Probably more than one in this context. Most important is that opening of a session of Congress is not a ceremony that is effectively mandatory for the participants. Graduates are required to attend to "graduate," and those who do not are often simply not allowed. Further, a high school graduation is an official school function, and SCOTUS has repeatedly opined that official school functions cannot impose any religious point of view, including the view that religion be recognized.

Having attended a number of high school graduations, I have seen many approaches to "no prayer" requirements. The most effective was where the valedictorian not only acknowledged that her faith helped pull her through her hardest times, but that the whole school was a community that worked best when it pulled together as a community and ignored differences in beliefs to focus on the community's internal similarities.

And I must again point out that Medina Valley's experience was a "poster child" moment for everyone else jumping into the fray to voice their own issues, preempting the students'. Our "dear governor," our (otherwise bright) Attorney General, people from other states, and a couple of mega-churches in the region all dog-piled on this issue. The valedictorian filed suit as if it were HER OWN FUNCTION-when in fact it was her whole class' graduation-because she wanted to "give thanks" as part of her speech, which the original order specifically allowed as long as she didn't lead a prayer... I think the circus nature of the final event was a major setback for everyone, because all it did was allow vocal groups with far-from-center views to bloviate, and people who really, really wanted to see their kid graduate but really, really didn't want to go to a prayer meeting lost out.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

There was no need to "rescind" or "change" that because, again, they serve completely different functions. The DOI was an assertion of grievances and call to action that refers to basic, universal rights in order to explain the decision to absolve from "all Allegiance to the British Crown." That's it.

It clearly states the government standard of where our rights come from as part of the formation of our country. The words of the Declaration and the agreement on what it meant is what CREATED THE COUNTRY. It does not have to be an actual part of the Constitution for it's standards and declarations to be implied in later policy. Unless of course they wanted to go back and strike that by voting in some new language that states where our rights actually come from. I don't need to "read more history" to be able to outline what is clear, and in writing.

There are lots of legal documents that have been created in order for our country to progress and move forward. To suggest that just because most are separate and some have different purposes, that those signed into official law should be ignored if they make changing the meaning of other laws harder, really doesn't make a lot of sense as far as credible arguments go. Either the founders believed and stated officially that our rights came from God or they didn't. If they didn't, they would not have all agreed to this, and signed the document which created the standard which all other standards followed. You can't argue that later down the road that they changed their minds unless you can find where they specifically changed the standard. There is no such documentation to show that.

If you continue to think that the Declaration of Independence is "U.S. government policy" as you stated later in this thread, you are being willfully ignorant

Your unsupportable opinion is noted.

The DOI is not policy.

It is the document that founded our country and declared the values by which we determined we should unite and create a new nation. If that doesn't define a primary policy and set the foundation for what efforts we made in expanding our national laws and standards in the future, I don't know what would. You have to start defining yourself and stating the rationale and standards for a new nation somewhere. I can't see as credible any argument that the DOI isn't where this starts. There would be no Constitution without first a DOI and the standards it lays out. Everything in the Constitution is dependent on the values and expressions given in our primary founding document, the DOI. This is a value that even Abe Lincoln used in explaining his support for emancipation.

The U.S. government did not exist when it was crafted...

This was essentially the document which created the new nation. We did however have a Congress and de facto government in place, even though some standards later changed via law.

...and very little thought had been given at all to what the USG might eventually look like.

But the founders did know what kind of nation they wished to live in, and what values would be important. They were in agreement and all signed. They all had been in this new world for some time and already had laws and standards on the books and a Congress while still subservient to "the crown." They later expanded on all of that with the Constitution and enumerated which rights could not be abridged by man, and what responsibilities the government held.

The Constitution makes as a part of law many of the philosophical positions that are in the Declaration, but its justification is the will of the people, not God.

In deciding policy and law. It make no further mention of where our rights are passed down from, and as such there can be no credible claim that they later decided that our unalienable rights where not granted by God. Abraham Lincoln among other notable wise leaders had gone on record as stating that the DOI is the document through which the Constitution and other laws should be interpreted. Don't just take my word for it. If you don't believe Honest Abe, I'm not sure who you'll believe!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Sorry, I don't understand your statement.

That the statement on praying in public is not to do as the heathens do in their self-aggrandizement as they've already received aggrandizement as their reward and that Jesus would have no problem identifying Him and giving Him thanks and praise... in public or in private.

But then that's probably because I'm Christian, not Judaic.

Then according to you I'm not Christian, since I don't subscribe to article nine also revere the OT.

Luckily, I don't live my life according to you.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

What ridiculous hair-splitting.

What amazing social ineptitude.

Actually, I think...

Noted.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

The Declaration of Independence does not establish a new government. It establishes the right of the People to determine how they are to be governed, and that it is only through the consent of the People that a government can be considered legitimate. It also establishes, quite clearly, that government is, and must be, a fluid thing changing as the demands and needs of the People change.

Upon issuance of the Declaration, the United States could be said to exist as political entity, however it did not yet really have a government, only the Continental Congress and the various colonial (now State) governments. In fact it took us two tries after that to even establish a functional national government, first with the Articles of Confederation, and then with the Constitution.

If the Declaration of Independence establishes anything about the nature of American government and of the intentions of the Founders it is that they specifically did not want a government that would stand as an unchanging bulwark of the past ignoring the developing and evolving needs of the People.

We the People, even then, includes atheists, agnostics, Unitarians, Jews, and many other non-Christians and non-standard Christians. Being among them, I do not consent to a Christian government nor even to a theistic government, only to a secular government (which does not mean it denies gods or religions, only that it exists in a separate sphere of influence from them in the lives of the People).

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

There is a significant difference between these two "official ceremonies." Probably more than one in this context. Most important is that opening of a session of Congress is not a ceremony that is effectively mandatory for the participants. Graduates are required to attend to "graduate"...

Since when? My best friend in High School did not attend. His diploma was sent to him.

Mandatory or not, there is no mandatory requirement that you participate in the expression in question.

...and those who do not are often simply not allowed. Further, a high school graduation is an official school function, and SCOTUS has repeatedly opined that official school functions cannot impose any religious point of view, including the view that religion be recognized.

The SCOTUS has opined on a lot of things, much of which is legislation, not interpretation and not actually Constitutional. The Constitution doesn't allow for any abridgment of personal expression. You could argue that if the Principle did it in his official capacity, that it would go into a gray area where it might not be Constitutional, but there really isn't a credible argument for abridging an individual's unalienable right to free expression of faith. The Constitution gives no exceptions.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

If the Declaration of Independence establishes anything about the nature of American government and of the intentions of the Founders it is that they specifically did not want a government that would stand as an unchanging bulwark of the past ignoring the developing and evolving needs of the People.

We have a nation. In order to help it run effectively, we need a government. A government that serves the purpose stated in the Declaration which is for us to be free and be able to enjoy the unalienable rights granted to us by God. When limitations must be presented in order for society and civilization to progress, then those limitations should be made based on representation of the people who will have to live with them. That's what the Declaration essentially expressed, and that is the standard by which all later attempts in organizing government started from.

We the People, even then, includes atheists, agnostics, Unitarians, Jews, and many other non-Christians and non-standard Christians. Being among them, I do not consent to a Christian government nor even to a theistic government, only to a secular government (which does not mean it denies gods or religions, only that it exists in a separate sphere of influence from them in the lives of the People).

While I disagree about whether our government had a foundation as "Christian" or not, I don't think that debate is relevant to the larger point and will no longer argue it. We don't have the right to just Christian religious expression, we have the unalienable right to ALL religious expression as that right was granted to us by God and can not be taken away by men. So says our founders. You even have the right to disagree with that standard if you are not a believer, if you choose - though that doesn't dissolve the standard as official.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

We have a nation. In order to help it run effectively, we need a government. A government that serves the purpose stated in the Declaration which is for us to be free and be able to enjoy the unalienable rights granted to us by God. When limitations must be presented in order for society and civilization to progress, then those limitations should be made based on representation of the people who will have to live with them. That's what the Declaration essentially expressed, and that is the standard by which all later attempts in organizing government started from.



While I disagree about whether our government had a foundation as "Christian" or not, I don't think that debate is relevant to the larger point and will no longer argue it. We don't have the right to just Christian religious expression, we have the unalienable right to ALL religious expression as that right was granted to us by God and can not be taken away by men. So says our founders. You even have the right to disagree with that standard if you are not a believer, if you choose - though that doesn't dissolve the standard as official.

But what you seem to be arguing is that we don't have the right or ability to do things in a way other than what the founders originally wanted. I think that position is clearly established as false in the Declaration: it is our right and our responsibility to change our government and the way it works as we see fit, even if that's in direct contradiction with the way the Founders would have wanted it. The desires of the Founders do not have the force of law, and are only useful as guidelines in trying to figure out what they meant when they did actually write the laws that they did. We don't have to agree with them, and we don't have to be bound by the limited vantage point afforded them by the times and places they lived. The only things we are actually bound by are the law, and even (especially?) our laws were designed in such a way that we can change them.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

We don't have the right to just Christian religious expression, we have the unalienable right to ALL religious expression as that right was granted to us by God and can not be taken away by men.

No.

Want to test? Invent a new religion which requires you to walk around naked and see how fast your religious expression disappears.

You don't really have any rights at all. You have the illusion of rights.

[Wiskedjak]

Personally, I don't see this as a religious issue. It shouldn't matter if the ceremony is a government ceremony or not, as long as the government isn't mandating the prayer.

It's an issue of expression. If people wish to pray at these ceremonies, they should have the right to do so, even if it might be annoying as hell and appear as self-aggrandizing religiosity. On the same hand, I also think government shouldn't prohibit people from expressing themselves at monuments (http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...c-its-illegal/). This (praying at school ceremonies) and that (dancing at monuments) are the same issue, in my opinion.

I wonder what would happen if a Pentecostal or Southern Baptist were to pray at a monument? Or, if some behaviors were banned from school ceremonies in order to "maintain decorum"?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Technically it is a euphemism and in that context is taking the Lord's name in vain (using God's name uselessly).

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

unless you consider *intent*, in which case "Gosh", "G-d" and "Gott" all count.

If that's the case, you're ****ed no matter what you do. And since god can see inside your heart, aren't you screwed for even thinking it, even if you don't say it?

That's why I think that kind of strictness is preposterous.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

What intolerance of others? All we're asking is to not be forced to participate in your religious whatever, especially in instances where it's expressly forbidden by law.

It is not intolerance of religion or Christianity to want to stop prayers from being a part of official government functions. Be exactly as religious as you want. Pray 24/7 if you want. But I should not be forced to participate any more than you should be forced to renounce your religion.

This is the major issue: involving religion in government is to us what including denunciations of God and Jesus in government would be to Christians. If there's no mention of religion at all, we can both be happy.

Your OPINION as to the existence of God makes whatever side you believe a religious belief. Atheists are expressing their religious beliefs as well. Why should their opinion be more valid than another? This should be obvious as nobody actually knows 'for sure' but states opinions as fact.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Leave it to Railroader to enshrine the ridiculous as a religious taboo.

That's right, intelligent and reasonable people never, ever make little grammatical errors, so when one is made it means the entire statement is without merit. Way to go for the low-hanging fruit instead of addressing my statement.

No. And pinning you down is pretty easy, as I've stomped on your pseudoChristianity without much difficulty here and elsewhere.

For your information, I'm not making up definitions of Christianity. If your beliefs match the Apostle's Creed, you're a Christian. If they don't, you aren't. That's why Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are classed as nonChristian by everyone except themselves, and most Unitarians and Universalists usually admit that they aren't Christians.
Actually, there's nothing strange here, since there are many Christians who take the entire NT seriously, whether they think it's reliable as a whole or not.
My Mom. I've tried to help her understand that when you strip away the non-authentic letters and the interpolations, we learn that the real Paul was a radical sexual egalitarian (theologically speaking) who thought the coming of Christ wiped away all arbitrary social inequalities. He acknowledged the existence of female leaders in the church, including deacons, prophets, and the female Apostle Junia. This belief in equality may not have begun with him, as he quotes an Aramaic hymn in Galatians, which goes:

The fact that this hymn was Aramaic, not Greek, indicates that it was older than Paul's ministry, and might even go back to Jesus himself. Thus, here is an excellent example that understanding the real Paul helps us understand the real Jesus.

Thank you for making us Christians seem rational.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It's the practice of "unlawful" Theurgy, a.k.a. Sorcery. In more simplified terms, it's using the name(s) of "God" to control demons for selfish or destructive ends. It's nasty business.

Do you have a book or website I could dig deeper into this? I'd like to know the cultural aspects of the commandment when Moses brought them down from the mountain.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

If that's the case, you're ****ed no matter what you do. And since god can see inside your heart, aren't you screwed for even thinking it, even if you don't say it?

That's why I think that kind of strictness is preposterous.

Well, I don't do it*, so it is not a problem.

*Use the Lord's name in vain.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Well, I don't do it*, so it is not a problem.

*Use the Lord's name in vain.

Hah, what's "it"? Say God, gosh, or even think it?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Your OPINION as to the existence of God makes whatever side you believe a religious belief. Atheists are expressing their religious beliefs as well. Why should their opinion be more valid than another? This should be obvious as nobody actually knows 'for sure' but states opinions as fact.

I'm not saying that any belief or opinion should be treated as more valid than any other, in fact I'm saying the exact opposite: that in order to treat them all the same none of them should be involved in government. I'm not suggesting that the government espouse an atheist worldview, I'm suggesting that it stay out of the matter entirely.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

If that's the case, you're ****ed no matter what you do. And since god can see inside your heart, aren't you screwed for even thinking it, even if you don't say it?

I don't even think it.
Now, I swear like a trooper when I get going, but I never even think about "oh God" or "oh gosh" or "OMG!" or "Jeepers Creepers". None of it enters my head, at all.

So in terms of strictness, it's like not being allowed to nail my genitals to a plank of wood - I have no intention of doing it in the first place, so being told that it's "against the rules" isn't a problem.

Your heart changes so that you don't even think it, and it starts becoming offensive to you when you hear/see others doing it.

I suspect that RR will tell you the same thing.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I don't even think it.
Now, I swear like a trooper when I get going, but I never even think about "oh God" or "oh gosh" or "OMG!" or "Jeepers Creepers". None of it enters my head, at all.

So in terms of strictness, it's like not being allowed to nail my genitals to a plank of wood - I have no intention of doing it in the first place, so being told that it's "against the rules" isn't a problem.

Your heart changes so that you don't even think it, and it starts becoming offensive to you when you hear/see others doing it.

I suspect that RR will tell you the same thing.

That of course, doesn't answer the actual question.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Thank you for making us Christians seem rational.

Oh, don't bother pointing out which standments are irrational and why - you might contribute to the conversation or something.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That of course, doesn't answer the actual question.

What was the question? I thought it was:

And since god can see inside your heart, aren't you screwed for even thinking it, even if you don't say it?

So, no you're not screwed, because you tend not to think it in the first place.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So, no you're not screwed, because you tend not to think it in the first place.

I think you're indirectly/unintentionally answering the question. I want to know if (your interpretation is) you're screwed just for thinking it. You statement seems to imply, yes, you are.

Edit: Are you under the impression the majority of Christians don't think it? (And for the sake of argument, we'll go by the generally accepted definition of Christian, not some personal interpretation that will narrow the field down to a meaningless subgroup)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I think you're indirectly/unintentionally answering the question. I want to know if (your interpretation is) you're screwed just for thinking it. You statement seems to imply, yes, you are.

I don't think anyone would be "screwed" if they honestly made a slip-up. If they continued without internally correcting themselves, then they'd perhaps be "screwed".
Plain answer: I don't know. I'm not God.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Edit: Are you under the impression the majority of Christians don't think it? (And for the sake of argument, we'll go by the generally accepted definition of Christian, not some personal interpretation that will narrow the field down to a meaningless subgroup)

I have no idea what the majority of "Christians" think.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I don't think anyone would be "screwed" if they honestly made a slip-up. If they continued without internally correcting themselves, they'd perhaps be "screwed".
Plain answer: I don't know. I'm not God.

I was looking at it like a reflex. Like cursing when a hammer gets dropped on your foot. But fair enough.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I have no idea what the majority of "Christians" think.

Haha, touché

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It is the document that founded our country and declared the values by which we determined we should unite and create a new nation. If that doesn't define a primary policy and set the foundation for what efforts we made in expanding our national laws and standards in the future, I don't know what would.

I don't claim to know much about either specific document but in literal terms, a declaration of independence is just that. It might contain reasons why one is declaring independence, but there you are.

A document defining the values and laws of a nation (or several nations or states) sounds to me exactly like the definition of the word constitution.

From the online legal dictionary:

The fundamental law, written or unwritten, that establishes the character of a government by defining the basic principles to which a society must conform; by describing the organization of the government and regulation, distribution, and limitations on the functions of different government departments; and by prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of its sovereign powers.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I was looking at it like a reflex. Like cursing when a hammer gets dropped on your foot. But fair enough.

I understand it's probably quite prevalent amongst teenage to mid-twenties girls who've been brought up to admire the magnificence of the valley girl lifestyle (and thus it would probably be an integral part of their speech patterns), but it simply doesn't happen in my head.

(I don't know anyone else who classes themselves as "Christian" who actually say the words either. Obviously, I don't know what they're thinking but I never hear a peep out of their mouths. Bearing in mind that it's more culturally embedded in your society than it is over here anyway - I've never heard anybody here say "gosh" or "goddam".)

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I understand it's probably quite prevalent amongst teenage to mid-twenties girls who've been brought up to admire the magnificence of the valley girl lifestyle (and thus it would probably be an integral part of their speech patterns), but it simply doesn't happen in my head.

I'm not contradicting or questioning that claim.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm not contradicting or questioning that claim.

No, I know. I'm just expanding a little and pointing out the cultural difference.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No, I know. I'm just expanding a little and pointing out the cultural difference.

The flip side being a agnostic like me uses "Jesus christ" as exclamation when it really makes zero sense to.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It clearly states the government standard of where our rights come from as part of the formation of our country.

It does not. It states a universal, human standard. It does not establish a "government standard." I'm beginning to think that you have not actually read the Declaration of Independence. The signatories of the DOI explicitly make their argument in the text based on their authority as men, not as government officials ("We hold these truths to be self-evident").

The words of the Declaration and the agreement on what it meant is what CREATED THE COUNTRY. It does not have to be an actual part of the Constitution for it's standards and declarations to be implied in later policy. Unless of course they wanted to go back and strike that by voting in some new language that states where our rights actually come from. I don't need to "read more history" to be able to outline what is clear, and in writing.

There are lots of legal documents that have been created in order for our country to progress and move forward. To suggest that just because most are separate and some have different purposes, that those signed into official law should be ignored if they make changing the meaning of other laws harder, really doesn't make a lot of sense as far as credible arguments go.

Again, the Declaration of Independence is not "law."

Either the founders believed and stated officially that our rights came from God or they didn't.

I'm sure that many, if not most, did. I'm not arguing that they changed their mind. I'm arguing that their personal belief in where universal human rights come from is irrelevant when deciding how to enforce non-universal rights decided on by men. After all, the drafters could have made the rights enshrined in the BoR even more expansive in order to adhere to the DOI's sweeping description of God-given rights (shoot, if I have the right to "Liberty," why does the government have the power to imprison me at all!??!?!) but they didn't (I wonder if God was pissed?). That's because whether our rights are God-given or not, the enforcement of them (the "government standard") is subject to the human condition and practical exigencies. The origin is irrelevant, which is why God doesn't appear in the Constitution.

It is the document that founded our country and declared the values by which we determined we should unite and create a new nation.If that doesn't define a primary policy and set the foundation for what efforts we made in expanding our national laws and standards in the future, I don't know what would. You have to start defining yourself and stating the rationale and standards for a new nation somewhere. I can't see as credible any argument that the DOI isn't where this starts.

Because if you actually read the DOI, it's all about why we are leaving Britain, not all about how we will create a new country. Please, I'm begging you, actually read the document you are talking about. No such grand union between all of the states was necessarily assumed at the time of the DOI, as the gradual movement toward centralized federalism, from the Continental Congress to the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution of the United States, shows. In fact, the DOI refers to the states' rights to be "to be Free and Independent States." At this point in history, "states" did not have the present U.S. connotation of federalized sub-states within a national state.

(The Constitution) make(s) no further mention of where our rights are passed down from, and as such there can be no credible claim that they later decided that our unalienable rights where not granted by God. Abraham Lincoln among other notable wise leaders had gone on record as stating that the DOI is the document through which the Constitution and other laws should be interpreted. Don't just take my word for it. If you don't believe Honest Abe, I'm not sure who you'll believe!

Your example proves my point. Lincoln referred to the DOI's universal human right of liberty in justifying the emancipation proclamation, but in doing so he was deviating from the views of the "founders." Whether or not liberty is a God-given right, as demonstrated in the original Constitution, they didn't think that was relevant for governance when it came to black people.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

But what you seem to be arguing is that we don't have the right or ability to do things in a way other than what the founders originally wanted.

We do, and our founders gave us mechanisms for that. For instance, they specifically laid out how to add amendments to the Constitution when we as a majority believed that there was either a flaw in their plan, or if new circumstances arose which they could not have foreseen. That isn't really the case with what we are talking about. They never intended for there to be mechanisms where a small minority changed some of the basic foundations they laid out because they thought they had a better idea. It just doesn't work that way.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No.

Want to test? Invent a new religion which requires you to walk around naked and see how fast your religious expression disappears.

You don't really have any rights at all. You have the illusion of rights.

I understand your point, but I don't think it can be fairly applied in this case.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

We do, and our founders gave us mechanisms for that. For instance, they specifically laid out how to add amendments to the Constitution when we as a majority believed that there was either a flaw in their plan, or if new circumstances arose which they could not have foreseen. That isn't really the case with what we are talking about. They never intended for there to be mechanisms where a small minority changed some of the basic foundations they laid out because they thought they had a better idea. It just doesn't work that way.

And no one's trying to do that... One of the other mechanisms they provided us was courts that are empowered to interpret what the law actually means. This is specifically because (as evidenced quite well by this conversation) we can't really know what the law was originally intended to mean, and we don't generally agree on what we think it probably meant. Hence we have courts that allow us to determine a working interpretation of the law(s), yet another way in which our system retains fluidity and adaptability. Our current working interpretation of the first amendment specifically prohibits the use of prayer in public school function (while allowing individual expression, of course).

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I understand your point, but I don't think it can be fairly applied in this case.

But it's relevant to this case, no?
If you can't walk down the high street naked as per your religious expression, then either your Constitution Manifesto is not being followed or it's null and void.
Whichever the case may be, this would also mean that your Constitution Manifesto is irrelevant to the incident in this thread, thus continuing to discuss its merits, limitations and intentions is pointless.

Since the first amendment is without limitations, it'd be easy to create any religion for any purpose (i.e. not paying taxes, driving at 200mph everywhere, gambling, taking fifteen wives) and have the laws which disallow you from following that "religious expression" be declared "unconstitutional".

Technically, until your country moves to a state of anarcho-capitalism you're not actually living under your Constitution Manifesto.
So what's the point in discussing to what extent the Constitution Manifesto applies to this particular event? It doesn't apply at all - it's a null and void document.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Our current working interpretation of the first amendment specifically prohibits the use of prayer in public school function (while allowing individual expression unless your religion undertakes any "expression" which is illegal, of course).

Fixinated.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Hah, what's "it"? Say God, gosh, or even think it?

Correct. I do not vainly (uselessly, as I understand it) use the name, or any reference to God, in vain. When say "God" I am either talking to him or about him.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I don't even think it.

...

Your heart changes so that you don't even think it, and it starts becoming offensive to you when you hear/see others doing it.

I suspect that RR will tell you the same thing.

Yup, this ^^^^^^.

[The Final Dakar]

We're already past that.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Fixinated.

Yes, yes, yes. The US is not perfect. I've yet to find a country that overall I'd rather live in though.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

But it's relevant to this case, no?
If you can't walk down the high street naked as per your religious expression, then either your Constitution Manifesto is not being followed or it's null and void.
Whichever the case may be, this would also mean that your Constitution Manifesto is irrelevant to the incident in this thread, thus continuing to discuss its merits, limitations and intentions is pointless.

It's the "yelling fire" scenario.

You also can't use illegal drugs as per your religious expression either.

It's based on the notion that it isn't the expression that is what is illegal or opposed, rather the behavior that goes along with it. In this case, we aren't talking about things by themselves which would be deemed illegal or offense. It's not illegal to pray in public. It isn't illegal to pray in front of others who don't share your beliefs. Absent behavior which would be illegal (or life threateningly dangerous), you can't abridge someone's first amendment rights.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

And no one's trying to do that... One of the other mechanisms they provided us was courts that are empowered to interpret what the law actually means.

Interpret the intent of the law, not invent a new meaning. Basically, the courts can't add anything that wasn't already there, and in this case, there's really no way a court can credibly say that our founders intended to obstruct individuals from expressing a belief in an entity they themselves have acknowledged officially, and which they wrote into the Constitution express restrictions against abridging. It seems pretty clear that they had no intention of stopping anyone from expressing their religious faith at any time, as long as it didn't constitute the government limiting what faith you could or couldn't participate in.

The problem is that the courts have consistently claimed interpretation when they actually unconstitutionally expanded the meaning of the law to make it what they wanted it to be.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You also can't use illegal drugs as per your religious expression either.

So, your Constitution Manifesto is null and void as far as the Rastafarians' sacrament goes.
What's to stop TPTB outlawing the vocalisation of prayers in public?

It's all bullshit, aint' it? Null and void.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You also can't use illegal drugs as per your religious expression either.

Peyote is legal for Native Americans to us in religious ceremonies.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

It does not. It states a universal, human standard. It does not establish a "government standard."

I'm pretty sure that when the government acknowledges and in fact re-inforces a standard as just that - the standard, that you really can't argue whether or not the government agrees with it or not just because it is not a standard they invented. By virtue of them pointing it out and using it as justification for their actions, you can't then argue that it isn't a standard that the government holds.

Does not compute...

I'm beginning to think that you have not actually read the Declaration of Independence.

I'm beginning to think that your stretching your argument so far and failing, that you're going to start to try to make this personal. Whoops...already there. Stop worrying about my apparent lack of knowledge and stick to debating the facts as they apply to this issue.

The signatories of the DOI explicitly make their argument in the text based on their authority as men, not as government officials ("We hold these truths to be self-evident").

The signatories were delegates of the people of the thirteen colonies. The Continental Congress was the representative government of the people at the time, and the document in question was ratified by Congress as official. It wasn't simply the opinions of a few men stating why they personally sought to act. It was the rationale why they and the PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY had a right to act, and did so in their decision to form this new union.

Again, this was a founding document of a nation, which stated why the people of this new nation were justified in acting. It was the belief of the Second Continental Congress (as per their adoption of the document as written), the representative government at the time of the creation of the United States, that God granted us our rights and that they could not be abridged by any government.

Again, the Declaration of Independence is not "law."

It is the document that defined the nation, and explained the standards to which the representative government agreed regarding how and why it was creating this new, independent nation.

I'm sure that many, if not most, did. I'm not arguing that they changed their mind. I'm arguing that their personal belief in where universal human rights come from is irrelevant when deciding how to enforce non-universal rights decided on by men.

Again, it wasn't the personal belief of one or a couple of men. It was a document adopted as official by Congress at the time, which was a representative of the people of this new, United States.

Your example proves my point. Lincoln referred to the DOI's universal human right of liberty in justifying the emancipation proclamation, but in doing so he was deviating from the views of the "founders."

He found conflicting views. How could men get unalienable rights from God and us be enslaving African men and women? Wasn't that the same thing essentially we fought against the British for? Lincoln went back to the ultimate founding document and the standards it espoused, and fought for the standard shown there to be reflected in our Constitution. We ended up amending the Constitution in order to ensure clarity in regards to the issue as was intended by our founders when important conflicting matters where found Constitutionally.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

We're already past that.

Yeah, my bad. I answered your post before reading the whole thread.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Interpret the intent of the law, not invent a new meaning. Basically, the courts can't add anything that wasn't already there, and in this case, there's really no way a court can credibly say that our founders intended to obstruct individuals from expressing a belief in an entity they themselves have acknowledged officially, and which they wrote into the Constitution express restrictions against abridging. It seems pretty clear that they had no intention of stopping anyone from expressing their religious faith at any time, as long as it didn't constitute the government limiting what faith you could or couldn't participate in.

The problem is that the courts have consistently claimed interpretation when they actually unconstitutionally expanded the meaning of the law to make it what they wanted it to be.

Just because you disagree with someone's interpretation doesn't empower you to simply declare it 'not an interpretation'... You get to argue over whether or not it's valid, but the Supreme Court ultimately gets to decide, barringva Constitutional amendment.

[ebuddy]

Some of the administrators in the assembly said to the teacher, “teacher, rebuke your students!”

“I tell you,” the teacher replied, “if they keep quiet, their books will cry out.”