Re: Government churches should be constitutionally rabid

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (ambrose searle) wrote:
>> >The ACLU believes that the point of the 2nd Amendment was to make sure
>> >that the states had some capacity to "alter or abolish" the central
>> >government. They are probably right about that. So, what do they do?
>> >Do they defend this "civil right."
>> 
>> It isn't a civil right.  It would be a state right.
>
>Then they refuse to read the text. "The right of the people... shall
>not be infringed."

People is a mass term, not an individual term.  "We the people" did
not mean that each individual in the country in 1787 ordained and
established the Constitution.  The word "people" occurs 5 times in the
Bill of Rights, and in all of the others, it seems quite clear that it
refers to the mass term.  The word "person" is used in Amendment 5 for
the individual right.

>> >They sure don't take the same approach they do to the 2nd amendment,
>> >where they say restrictions on the ownership of firearms is not a
>> >violation of civil rights, while restrictions on abortion are.
>> 
>> Since the USSC and the ACLU don't interpret the 2nd amendment as an
>> individual right to own firearms,
>
>How convenient.

USSC rulings are law, and rather difficult to overturn even if one is
sure that they are wrong, which is at best unclear.  On what basis
could the ACLU fight something that has been clearly ruled upon by the
USSC: the 2nd amendment is to be adjudicated in the context of a
well-regulated militia.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=307&invol=174

>What it proves is that they have a liberal agenda that prevents them
>from being champions of the Bill of Rights in an impartial and
>consistent manner.

Your opinion is noted.

>> whereas women's rights over their
>> bodies is very much an individual right, 
>
>Nowhere nearly as spelled as as directly as the 2nd amendment; the
>fourteenth was an amendment dealing directly with the conditions of
>ex-slaves,

That *may* have been the original purpose to some, but of others it
was designed to destroy the pretense of states rights that was so
abused by the South.  In any event, within a half dozen years the
Slaughterhouse cases showed that some people were interpreting the
14th far more broadly than applying to ex-slaves, and while
Slaughterhouse itself was decided against that viewpoint, within 2
dozen years the broad reading of the due process clause that allowed
the incorporation doctrine was established.

>and then interpreted to apply to the abortion question. The
>ACLU is clearly interested in re-writing the Bill of Rights to say
>whatever fits their agenda, not the other way around.

Since the BoR has not been rewritten, you are engaging in hyperbole.

>> Even if so, this does not means that they "act as if having an
>> abortion is every woman's duty".
>
>Do you know what hyperbole is?

What you often engage in, with considerable detriment to an
intelligent discussion.  I don't intend to guess when you are engaging
in hyperbole, and when you seriously hold an extremist viewpoint.  The
number of extremists who post on these newsgroups with complete
seriousness, sentiments that you might express as hyperbole, is
legion.  Your whole stance comes across as sufficiently extreme that I
see no basis to treat your writings as being any less obnoxious.

>> "Clear and present danger" is the standard that Holmes used.  While I
>> am no fan of pornography, I don't see that "speech" involving it meets
>> the "clear and present danger" test.
>
>I think that is highly debateable. Experts testify on both sides. Many
>believe that Ted Bundy was incited by porn.

"Many believe" does not seem like a sufficiently high standard to
broadly tromp on constitutional rights, especially given that the
pornography case I am assuming you refer to was argued against as
being too broad and not well-aimed at the sort of thing it presumably
is intended to regulate,

>> >Would you want to argue that the logic of the 1st amendment protects
>> >"fire in the moviehouse"?
>> 
>> I don't argue with USSC decisions, even if I don't like them.
>
>It's a damned good thing that not everyone has your passive attitude
>toward bad jurisprudence, else we'd still be under Dredd Scott and
>Plessy. Both of those were overturned only when citizens stood up and
>engaged in civil disobedience.

I prefer to use the Congress and if necessary the amendment process
when we want to overturn bad law, not such techniques as civil
disobedience.  If something I consider bad law cannot gain a
sufficient majority of Congress, the time is not ripe for civil
disobedience either.

>I guess that you atheist types believe that Man's law is the highest
>law,

I suspect that some atheist types would indeed so believe; others
would not, accepting that laws of nature are higher than any law that
Man could make.  In my case, I prefer the laws of God as interpreted
by one Jesus Christ.

>Civil disobedience is a glorious aspect of American history. I hope
>that you "must obey the law at any cost" types never become
>mainstream.

I place high value on civil disobedience, but consider it a last
resort - I never considered protesting the Vietnam war like many who
attended college with me - even though I did not especially support
the war.

I don't think it is particularly relevant to this discussion in any
event. 

>> >Again, they run counter to the founders, who wanted religious
>> >expression on the great seal, on currency, in courts, etc., and who
>> >allowed it in the Capitol building, in executive proclamations, in the
>> >Congress, and in the military.
>> 
>> I don't know that the Founders "wanted" these things. 
>
>In the case of the religious expressions on the Seal, it is a
>no-brainer... they voted for it.

There are a lot of things that people vote for, but don't especially
want.  TJ clearly was opposed to some of the changes made to the DofI,
but he still voted for it.

>> It is perfectly
>> likely, that like slavery, and state level establishments, some of
>> them would have been quite happy to have such things removed from the
>> powers of government,
>
>Some yes. The majority, obviously not.

Not so obviously. The need for substantial unanimity on the part of
the drafters of the DofI and later the Constitution meant that people
had to hold their noses and support compromises.

>> but it was not yet possible.
>
>You think they were coerced to accept Thomson's seal?? Huh?

"Coerced" by the need to reach accord, yes.

>> >> >They wouldn't act as if the founders who wrote the eighth amendment,
>> >> >who also regularly supported hangings, really meant that all citizens
>> >> >should be protected against capital punishment.
>> >> 
>> >> They don't say that the founders meant that.
>> >
>> >Precisely. Heck with the intent of the writers. We can make the
>> >Constitution say whatever we want.
>> 
>> The Constitution is a living document.
>
>Yes. It can and should be amended to adapt itself to the times and
>situations.

I agree.  But the words which are broad and vague may be interpreted
to suit the times as well.

>> >> Again, it doesn't matter what the founders meant at this point. 
>> >
>> >Never seems to for you and the ACLU, does it.
>> 
>> On the contrary, Founders intent is always a consideration.  It may
>> not be the decisive one.
>
>What criteria established when it does matter and when it doesn't?

Whatever the USSC decides.  It is given to them by the Constitution
the power and responsibility to do so.

> >We randomly select people to be executed?
>> 
>> Arbitrary doesn't mean random.
>
>Arbitrary means without consistency. Random means in no consistent
>pattern.

In law, arbitrary means on the basis of individual discretion as
opposed to by rule of law.  Individual discretion could be quite
consistent - the concept of a "hanging judge" is part of capital
punishment lore.  Such a judge may be quite consistent, but still
arbitrary. 

The fact that there is sufficient moral opposition to capital
punishment that juries have to weed out people who will not impose it
under any circumstances in order to even have it as a possibility,
alone is enough to make it seem arbitrary to me.  The actual history
of capital punishment in recent decades, where the people actually
executed for capital crimes is very small compared to the number
actually charged with such crimes, shows that it is being applied
arbitrarily.  The fact that sentences may take years to be carried
out, or that they may be stopped at the last second on the whim of the
governor makes them cruel.

I happen to favor capital punishment, but not the way the law exists
in modern times.

>They are quite synonymous.

No.

>> >It depends what kind of speech. The ACLU wishes to support the
>> >dissemination of Atheist literature in school systems,
>> 
>> such as?
>
>Any literature that proves that the universe haphazardly and
>arbitrarily came into being.

I don't know of any such literature, unless you consider the mass of
modern science to be inherently so.  In which case you are arguing
against science and not against the ACLU, and I say "good luck, but
you will lose".  The laws of nature don't cater to civil disobedience;
if you jump off a high cliff, the law of gravity WILL apply to you,
and you will have been naturally selected out of existence.

>>  It's hard to restrict it UNLESS it is religious, since the
>> constitution makes the exception against establishments of religion.
>> (There is no restrictions against establishments of commerce, or
>> political viewpoints, or anything else, except religion; hence we have
>> corporations, political parties that are partially funded by the
>> government and other such things.  But the line is clear in the 1st
>> amendment: NO RELIGION;
>
>which has been interpretted by the USSC to also mean "no areligion"

False.  It has NOT been interpreted to mean "no science" even though
science is areligious.  It has been interpreted to mean "no
ANTI-religion", and "areligion" is NOT "antireligion".

>> >The hypocrisy and the atheist agenda are blatant. They don't want free
>> >exercise of religion.
>> 
>> You can freely exercise religion all you want - in your private life.
>
>Wrong. The first amendment guarantees me the free exercise of
>religion,

No.  It guarantees that government shall not prohibit your free
exercise of religion.  It also has clearly been interpreted to allow
the government to regulate acts that might be religious in motive, but
which run afoul of secularly-purposed laws (Mormon polygamy case).

>and it doesn't say that I have to go hide in a cave to do it.

You don't.

>> >They want free exercise of Atheism only.
>> 
>> Atheism isn't a religion, but I see no evidence that the ACLU treats
>> atheism differently, given that you accept that silence on religion
>> (non-theism) is not atheism.
>
>To provide evidence that God doesn't exist is to provide a case for
>atheism. That happens all the time in the public schools.

There is no evidence that God doesn't exist, any more than there is
evidence that God does exist, thus no such thing could be provided. 

That is the nature of the supernatural - it is entirely immune to
argument from evidence.

lojbab
-- 
lojbab                                             [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 http://www.lojban.org