One more victory for the Christians and it sucks!!!

by Atilla 51 Replies latest social current

• 

  Atilla

  I'm not for throwing out all the traditions but sometimes traditions stand in the way of progress. The pledge the way it stands is probably going to fall just like gay marriage and everything else, it's inevitable. So, I guess you can hold onto your pledge and change it a little bit or have it completely removed.

  Just because Eisenhower never proclaimed to be a JW doesn't mean he was dramatically influenced by his parents, especially him mom who was an ardent JW until her death. Plus, I think the dubbies were even more crazy back then than they are now, they are just disallusioned now.
• 

  Double Edge

  Atilla... no disrespect intended, but I think you need to study a little more history, your arguments are very weak on historical facts.
• 

  Atilla

  I'm not really making arguments, just my opinions and how I view the world. I am pretty sure about the Eisenhower thing, if you were raised by a JW parent, then you are going to be influenced in some manner.
• 

  Euphemism

  ThiChi:

  Well, the issue is Religion and our Nation, not slavery

  Of course. My point was that just because the founders would have been shocked or outraged at some change does not mean that the change is wrong.

  Even though the issue of slavery is often raised as a discrediting charge against the Founding Fathers, the historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by, the Founding Fathers

  Well duh. No one's claiming that they were evil. I'm just saying that they were affected by the viewpoints and practices of their society; and therefore, their opinions can't be definitive guidance for us in a more progressive and pluralistic time.

  Here is part of the Courts Viewpoint

  Actually, that was from the opinion of Chief Justice Rehnquist, which the majority of the court did not join in.
• 

  Double Edge

  I'm not really making arguments, just my opinions and how I view the world.

  Oh....kayyyy....
• 

  Atilla

  I don't know why I get into these political religious discussions, like mental masturbation, no fun at all and it reminds of my dub days when I would argue with some hard core Protestant preacher, who lived next door to the church, for an hour for no reason at all. I guess boredom is to blame.
• 

  Crazy151drinker

  Why does it matter what Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin might have thought?

  Simple.

  Lets say Thomas Jefferson liked guns. Those who want the Constitution and the right given within to stay 'Classic' would argue that we should continue to enjoy our Rights of gun ownership as that is what our 'founding fathers' desired (and of course they know best).

  Those who hate guns would then argue for a 'living Constitution' that slightly changes from time to time to reflect the wants of the population. They would argue that Thomas Jefferson would hate guns if he knew the type of firearms we have today and the problems they cause.

  Basicly, all of this comes down to Constitutional Law. People bring various cases on issues such as guns, abortion, freedom of religion/speach, employment, gay rights...etc..etc.. to the Supreme Court and they rule on these issues using the Constitution. The Conservative members say "The 2nd Ammendment grants the rights to have guns." The Liberal say "The 2nd Ammendment grants 'Militias' to own guns not the general population." A HUGE # of issues are decided upon our interpritations of what the Founding Fathers indended when they wrote the Constitution.

  I hope that answers your question
• 

  seattleniceguy

  ThiChi:

  Who made this claim? Not I...........

  I misread your statement about "our fathers" to mean "the founding fathers." Apologies.

  The phrase "under God" in the Pledge seems, as a historical matter, to sum up the attitude of the Nation's leaders

  I don't think the question is whether American leaders, or even Americans in general, have generally believed in God. The question is whether it is appropriate for the state to have an opinion on a religious matter. In mandating that the pledge of allegiance be recited in schools, the state is using its position to create a state endorsement of a particular belief, which is is not constitutional. It would be equally unconstitutional (and absurd) for the pledge to contain words such as, "One world of life alone in the universe." Any citizen can privately believe anything he wants. The state cannot hold opinions on religious matters.

  FunkyDerek:Point taken. What Ben Franklin would have thought does not bear directly on the discussion, although it is interesting to try to understand what he meant as an author of the Constitution. As to discussions regarding the Constitution's meaning, they are definitely valid, since the Constitution is the basis for much of our law.

  SNG
• 

  funkyderek

  I hope that answers your question

  Well no, because your example is just another case of people arguing over what Thomas Jefferson would think if he was alive. My point is that it doesn't matter. Whether there should be a right to bear arms is completely independent of whether Thomas Jefferson might think so. It should be based on some principle of human rights and should be argued as a human rights issue. Similarly, it matters not a jot what the founding fathers thought about religion and government. The only relevant question is what is actually the right thing for the government to do. This need not coincide with what Jefferson, Franklin et al. thought was right or even what they would think was right if they were alive and faced with these new situations.
• 

  Crazy151drinker

  My point is that it doesn't matter

  Then you would fall under the 'living Constitution' group of supporters.

  The only relevant question is what is actually the right thing for the government to do.

  We decide this by deciding if current laws or practices conflict with the Constitution. (its a catch-22)

  It should be based on some principle of human rights and should be argued as a human rights issue.

  Using this principle all people who support racism etc should not have any right to do so as their views support the opression of basic human rights. However, the Constitution forbids this: All Citizens have basic rights that cannot be taken away. While I hate Neo-Nazi's, Muslim Extremists etc..etc.. they still have rights.

  This need not coincide with what Jefferson, Franklin et al. thought was right or even what they would think was right if they were alive and faced with these new situations.

  But it does! It is the basic legal consideration of intent. Its like making a decision on business contract- you need to know (or guess) the intent of both sides in order to make a sound decision.

  We do make changes from time to time (slavery, prohibition, womans right to vote, legal age of voting, etc..etc..) but is a VERY big deal to change the Constitution and is not easy to do.

  Similarly, it matters not a jot what the founding fathers thought about religion and government.

  Then our Government and our Rights would be Changing year after year after year. While the Constitution is in no ways perfect (what form of Government is) is does provide for a framework of Stability that allows Change at a VERY slow pace.