one bb, indivisible

[brian]

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0915montini15.html

i found this article to be an interesting revisit of the pledge of allegiance debate, since it gives the history of the pledge and some perspective on where the wording came from.

if we are going to have separation of church and state, then we shouldn't be forcing nonchristians to say things about god they don't want to, in my opinion. i don't see how you could claim that kids should all say we are "under god" without also saying that christianity is in some ways our state religion. as things stand, its is unconstitutional. frankly i find the whole pledge things pretty spooky anyway. hearing a whole groups of kids reciting allegiance prose in united, drone-like voices gives me goosebumps, and not warm patriotic goosebumps. cold, pricky, 1984 goosebumps! conformism in general rubs me the wrong way. i'm blaming the cult i was raised in. 

brian

[outdeep]

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0915montini15.html

i found this article to be an interesting revisit of the pledge of allegiance debate, since it gives the history of the pledge and some perspective on where the wording came from.

if we are going to have separation of church and state, then we shouldn't be forcing nonchristians to say things about god they don't want to, in my opinion. i don't see how you could claim that kids should all say we are "under god" without also saying that christianity is in some ways our state religion. as things stand, its is unconstitutional. frankly i find the whole pledge things pretty spooky anyway. hearing a whole groups of kids reciting allegiance prose in united, drone-like voices gives me goosebumps, and not warm patriotic goosebumps. cold, pricky, 1984 goosebumps! conformism in general rubs me the wrong way. i'm blaming the cult i was raised in. 

brian

Having children recite a pledge in a local county school (with the opportunity to opt out) is not the federal government establishing a religion.  What the founding father's was concerned about was that we would not become like the England they left where there was a Church of England run by the royalty with little or no other alternative choice.  (If you read church history, you will see that until about 300-400 years ago each country pretty much had its own approved church that everyone was a part of.  It is only in the recent few hundred years that the idea of various flavors of churches co-existing in the same country gained acceptance).  The founding father's was not worried about kids reading the Bible or saying things with the word "God" in it.  They didn't want to see the Church of the United States with King George (the one in England, not ours) as the spiritual head.  This is the essence of the establishment clause:  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”

They were also concerned that the government didn't persecute those who chose alternative faiths.  This is why they also added:  [Congress shall make no law] “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  I feel Newdow is doing more to "prohibit the free exercise" of religious expression by forcing his atheism on the country than any religion being established by the federal government.

The term "separation of church and state" is a misleading and restrictive term that is often used to explain the first amendment, but I don't think it does a very good job because it never was the idea that the public square must be sanitized from all references to religion.  It is more the idea that government and the church must not be the same ruling body.

[frank]

It seems pretty clear:

The establishment clause means that people cannot be forced to say "under God."  It also, conversely and simultaneously means people cannot be prevented from saying it.

A halfway reasonable person, who might find themselves a judge, should conclude that conducting a flag salute before class is a perfectly fine thing to do, and that children who don't wish to say, "under God," should instead be silently happy that they live in a country that allows freedom.

frank

[Oscar]

Folks,

It is clear that Thomas Jefferson, the idea man behind the first amendment, did not see it as complete separation of church and state.

His scheme for the University of Virginia included grants of federal land for religious denominations to establish centers on the campus.

When he was president he made the chambers of the House, Senate, and Supreme Court available for churches to meet in on Sundays, and also ordered the US Army band to play at the services.  Washington D.C. was still being built, so they didn't have buildings yet.

The current understanding of the first amendment as complete separation is the result of a long process of modification of the meaning of the Constitution through lawyering and precedents.

Another area in which this process has taken place is in the definition of "free speech".  Before 1950 no one in his right mind would claim that a lap dance was free speech!   

The problem is that what is established by courts instead of legislation can be swept away by 5 votes of the Supreme Court any day of the week.  That is why the Left is so shrill right now concerning the court appointments.

If judges can turn the Constitution into a "living document", which means that the meaning is divorced from the words, we don't really have a constitution.

Just wait.  One of these days they will rule that the Constitution does not protect private ownership of firearms.

Keep your powder dry.

Thomas Maddux

[Elizabeth H]

Interesting that you would bring up the issue of firearms, Tom.

Call me a shrill liberal, but I'm more frightened by a country that repeals the assualt rifle ban than one that takes God out of the pledge of allegiance.

[outdeep]

Interesting that you would bring up the issue of firearms, Tom.

Call me a shrill liberal, but I'm more frightened by a country that repeals the assualt rifle ban than one that takes God out of the pledge of allegiance.

Actually, Elizabeth, you bring up a point that can illustrate what is being talked about here.  Let's supposed that we decided as a nation that the rational that the Founding Father's had to allow for citizens to own guns (and lets for the sake of argument drop the assalt rifle extreme and suppose we are talking about hunting rifles that you can buy at Wal-Mart) is no longer valid.  The correct way to deal with this is to acknowledge that the Constitution does give the right to bear arms and to then proceed with the process to amend the Constitution.  The wrong way is to find within the Constitution an inherit "right to safety" and thus deem gun-ownership unconstitutional.

This is what I find to be the crux of the issue.  If the legislature voted and decided that as a nation, we should allow gay marriages, I would accept the fact that our nation allows gay marriages.  I may not like it, but I would accept it.  What ticks me off is when a judge in Massachusetts "unearths" from John Adam's constitution the right to gay marriage and orders the legislature to make a law!

Further, if abortion came about through the proper legislature - folks debating the issue and voting, then I would at least feel that the laws were reflecting the will of the people.  I wouldn't like it, but I would at least acknowledge that it is the way the vote went fair and square and the special interest groups at least played the game as intended.  But abortion was thrust upon the populous by judges who "discovered" a right to privacy that was never in the minds of the writers of the Constitution.  They read into the Constitution a right that didn't exist.  It's like saying prostitution should be considered moral because the Bible says "For God so loved the world" and therefore everyone has a right to be loved.

When Roberts was questioned whether he would make decisions to "look out for the little guy", he answered brilliantly explaining that he would be in favor of the little guy or the big guy depending on whether or not the constitution favors one or the other.  This is the basic difference:  should the judge read into the text law that would help to correct injustice and problems that he perceives (activist judge) or is his job merely to uphold the written text until the text is changed through a legal means (strict constitutionalist judge)?

[Joe Sperling]

Speaking of abortion, a reporter asked President Bush: "What's your stand on Roe vs. Wade"?
The President looked thoughtfully for a moment and replied "I really don't care how the people
of New Orleans evacuate, just so they get out safely".

[Elizabeth H]

Yes, Dave, I agree with most of what you said. Note that I wasn't arguing the right to bear arms. I am perturbed with extremism on either side.

We need gun control just as we need abortion control. Joe Citizen shouldn't be able to go to Wal-Mart and purchase a semi-automatic assualt rifle just because it's his "right."In the same way, Jane Citizen shouldn't be able to chose partial-birth abortion because she's excercising her "right."

A good portion of Americans are against federal funding of abortion practices, and I think most reasonable people agree that military-grade weapons shouldn't be available to the general public.

I, too, heard that response from John Roberts. I agree. It's not about the Little Guy or the Big Guy, it's about the rule of law, precedent and the Constitutionality of the issue. In the end, it's very short-sighted to discount the importance of moderation, diplomacy & compromise.

[Oscar]

Elizabeth,

You said,

We need gun control just as we need abortion control. Joe Citizen shouldn't be able to go to Wal-Mart and purchase a semi-automatic assualt rifle just because it's his "right."In the same way, Jane Citizen shouldn't be able to chose partial-birth abortion because she's excercising her "right."

A good portion of Americans are against federal funding of abortion practices, and I think most reasonable people agree that military-grade weapons shouldn't be available to the general public.

1. Your argument commits what is known as a categorical fallacy.  Buying a gun and getting an abortion are not in the same class of purchases.  Millions of Americans have bought guns, used them in legal ways, and no one has been injured. Almost all gun injuries involve breaking an existing gun control law.  Exceptions would be self defense, and use by law enforcement officials.

Every time an abortion is purchased, (as a service), a child dies.

2. Regarding "military grade" semi-automatic assault weapons.  Real assault weapons have been outlawed in the US for about 70 years.  Real assault weapons have a switch which allows them to be fired in either semi-automatic mode or full automatic mode, like machine guns.  They cannot be sold in this country without obtaining special licenses, which in nearly impossible to do.

What the assault weapon ban prohibited was the sale of "look alike" civilian models.  The law was not repealed.  It was signed into law by Pres. Clinton containing a "sunset" clause, that said it would expire after a certain number of years.  It did.

Right after signing the bill Pres. Clinton signed an order allowing the importation of 4 billion dollars of surplus military arms from China.  You could buy the type of gun you are talking about for as cheap as $79.95!  SKS and AK47's were all over the place.  The new law allowed a time period before it took effect, so the Chinese made plenty of dough selling these things here.

People mainly wanted them because hunting ammunition is both much more expensive and much more powerful than the rounds these guns use.  The availability of cheap surplus ammunition was a big factor. Still is.  Plus some guys like to play soldiers.  I suppose its a testosterone thing. 

3. When you say that people "shouldn't" be able to buy military grade weapons, you need to say why they shouldn't.  The usual reasons given are: 1. They don't need them.  But then we don't "need" most of what we buy.  2. They can't be used for hunting.  The second amendment is about military grade weapons, not hunting. Plus they can be used for hunting.

4. Freedom is messy.  You might not like these things, and that is ok.  But a lot of folks do.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[Elizabeth H]

Tom,

It's really difficult to respond without being sarcastic. Categorical fallacy? Come on, loosen up a little!

It's odd to me that you can defend ownership of assault rifles and yet condemn abortion.

Abortion & gun ownership are both spoken about in terms of "rights." This was why I was comparing the two.

I happen to condemn both. Both cause death. Oh, no, you might say: Guns don't cause death, people do. Whatever. Let's not parse words, here. The U.S. has the highest rate of gun deaths in the top 36 richest countries of the world. Over 30,000 deaths per yr. Take away the guns (or at least, severely limit their availability to the masses) and you'd have a lot less gun violence. Period.

But instead you have people advocating semi-automatics for hunting? Yeah, I guess you could take your AK-47 out to the woods and mow down an entire HERD of deer!!

But is that really hunting or just plain dangerous stupidity?

[Joe Sperling]

Elizabeth---

I hear where you are coming from. But I do have to add that I would bet that a large
majority of gun deaths (and deaths for sure by car accidents) are associated with alcohol
use. So, we could take one step further back and say "Because alcohol is responsible for
inebriating people, and making them lose all common sense and inhibition, let's ban it from
all public use. This should severely cut down on car accidents, and reduce the number of
gun deaths by suicide and accidents from the result of consuming alcohol."

But you know what? Alcohol was actually banned in the United States, and an amendment
was added to the Constitution to put it's illegality into effect. What was the result? Al Capone,
and hundreds of other gangsters came upon the scene in full force to make tons of money
off of this "ban". Crime escalated, and hundreds of people were killed by bootleggers. What
seemed like a "good" thing turned into an open door for evil. Something that was done for
the "common good" by "do-gooders" turned into a very bad thing.

I know "do-gooders" have the common good in mind when they talk about banning guns, but
they are forgetting how history has a habit of repeating itself. Because, as much as people hate
that old coined phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" it really is true. Alcohol in itself
doesn't kill people--and the cars these drunken people get into don't kill  people, it's the people
themselves who are the killers. Far more people die in car accidents than by guns--are the cars
responsible for all of this? Or the drivers?   just my opinion.

--Joe

[Oscar]

Tom,

It's really difficult to respond without being sarcastic. Categorical fallacy? Come on, loosen up a little!

It's odd to me that you can defend ownership of assault rifles and yet condemn abortion.

Abortion & gun ownership are both spoken about in terms of "rights." This was why I was comparing the two.

I happen to condemn both. Both cause death. Oh, no, you might say: Guns don't cause death, people do. Whatever. Let's not parse words, here. The U.S. has the highest rate of gun deaths in the top 36 richest countries of the world. Over 30,000 deaths per yr. Take away the guns (or at least, severely limit their availability to the masses) and you'd have a lot less gun violence. Period.

But instead you have people advocating semi-automatics for hunting? Yeah, I guess you could take your AK-47 out to the woods and mow down an entire HERD of deer!!

But is that really hunting or just plain dangerous stupidity?

I condemn abortion because it is immoral.

Abortion is legal because activist judges found a right to abortion in the Constitution.  Even abortion supporting lawyers will usually admit that the legal reasoning is specious.

Gun ownership, of guns suitable for militia, (military) duty was protected in the US Constitution for two reasons:

1. Natural rights theory, which is the ancient idea that men have inherent rights from their creator to defend their lives, loved ones, and communities.
Although the clearest statement of this that most Americans are familiar with is found in the Declaration of Independence, the ideas go back all the way to the ancient Greeks and Romans.  Guns have been the practical means of that defense for the past 300 years or so.

Incidentally, natural rights theory is what people are talking about when they speak of a "right to life" for the unborn. 

2. Europe had just gone through a few centuries of the "divine right of kings."  The kings frequently exercised their "divine" rights by disarming the people, and they wished to prevent such tyrannies here.  So, they wrote gun ownership into the basic law of the nation.

The frequently heard blather that the 2nd Amendment is about state militias keeping guns is rendered absurd in the very wording of the text.  "...the right of the people to keep, (have in their houses), and bear, (carry) arms shall not be abridged."  The argument was never even made until early in the 20th century when wealthy do-gooders decided that the "masses" didn't need firearms. 

We have a lot of gun death here in the US, no doubt about it.  The liberal media constantly repeats this mantra so it has become a "fact" in many people's minds.  In reality, the vast majority of gun death is caused by gang warfare, which in turn has developed from two underlying problems:  1. The lack of effective enforcement of drug laws.  2. The "liberalizing" of law enforcement, so that it is very difficult to deal with criminals.

In Switzerland, assault rifle ownership is very high.  All Swiss men must spend something like 35 years in the army reserves.  BY LAW they must have a real, fully automatic assault rifle and ammunition in their homes!  Yet, gun deaths are extremely low.  Same in Israel, except that they sometimes have to use them against terrorists, so gun deaths are higher.  But not illegal gun deaths.

So, if the presence of assault rifles causes more gun deaths, how can this be the case?

BTW, how many of the robbery and rape victims in New Orleans wish they had had a gun handy?  I'll bet its near 100%.

BTW #2 many people just like to shoot.  Surplus military ammo is cheap.  Hence, a desire for guns that can shoot it.  Good hunting ammunition, is both far more powerful and far more expensive.  Something like $1.00 per round.

When I used to take my family to the mountains to shoot, we would frequently go through 4-500 rounds.  Mostly .22, but some larger stuff.
All my kids are good shots, especially Glory.  She could "walk" a block of wood with a handgun the first time she fired one.

Thomas Maddux

[brian]

The term "separation of church and state" is a misleading and restrictive term that is often used to explain the first amendment, but I don't think it does a very good job because it never was the idea that the public square must be sanitized from all references to religion.  It is more the idea that government and the church must not be the same ruling body.

then what do you guys think of something along these lines:

http://www.christiantoday.com/news/america/us.intelligent.design.court.battle.continues.with.disputed.expert.witness.testimony/449.htm

intelligent design doesn't sound as religious as Creationism, but the religious implications are the same. on the other hand there is a certain amount of faith in whatever kids are taught because most of them will just believe it anyway. personally, i would like to see a few different perspectives taught so kids learn whats out there and that even the adults don't have it all figured out. i suppose that would be shamelessly fostering skepticism, but considering the number of times i have been wrong when i was so sure i was right, or seen other people making the same mistake, its hard not to look at a healthy dose of skepticism as a good thing.

[Chuck Miller]

Aren’t all of these issues irrelevant for Christians who know that we are merely “strangers and exiles“ on this earth?  And should any Christian take an oath of office to uphold laws that are in violation to God’s laws? 

Chuck Miller

[al Hartman]

Aren’t all of these issues irrelevant for Christians who know that we are merely “strangers and exiles“ on this earth?  And should any Christian take an oath of office to uphold laws that are in violation to God’s laws? 

Well said, Chuck.  My thought is that if we, as citizen-residents of our respective communities, have the opportunity to vote on such issues, or for candidates whose offices will affect such matters, we should vote in favor of the inclusion in public school curriculums of any material that may give students a greater opportunity to learn the truth, both of Creation and of the true role that Christianity has played in human history.  But our faith and allegiance must always be fixed where our true citizenship is, in Christ alone, for He alone can and will deliver the faithful from the ignorant clutches of this present wicked world.

al