beejay

OK, let me take a shot at it. There are a number of practices that could be seen as "regarding an establishment of religion". School prayer, vouchers to religious schools, busing for religious schools, "In God We Trust" on the money. Lots of things.

Somewhere along that line (if you could rank them), everyone draws the line. But we all have differenent places for the line. FTR has drawn the line far away from where we would or where the courts currently do.

And he admits that the courts currently disagree with him, but points out that none of this is cast in stone.

Now we can argue that he is drawing the line in the wrong place, but I'm not sure how we would convince him of that. If the Supreme Court had a different make-up, the line would be different. The Constitution didn't change, but their interpretation did.

I'm not sure if I'm helping here, but I don't think either side in this argument is "wrong", in the sense that you could prove their beliefs are false. I don't think FTR is arguing unfairly with us, even if we disagreee with his conclusions.

fromtheright

this kind of useless blather might fit in better with your particular abilities and goals.

KMA, Feather, I've got better things to do with my time than waste it with someone who can't/won't deal respectfully with his opponents. You guys may not have anything better to do than get in flame wars with Radorth, but I'll pass. Go waste someone else's time.

Does that mean the sentence in the FA no longer applies at all?

No, it just means it has been OBE.



beejay, thank you much for your response to Feather. You've put it well. I'm afraid you're probably right, that neither side will be convinced. For me it is more of an historical debate than a linguistic one, though obviously I have a linguistic/legal assumption built into my viewpoint.

Feather

:boohoo:

Who's wasting who's time here, FTR?

Beejay seems to think you aren't arguing unfairly, but I'd disagree. I think you're deliberately being evasive and slippery and that also you are playing the part of the "antagonised antagonist." That you quote this out of context is evidence of that enough for me.

You started out by assuming my statements were meant to ridicule when they were not and have carried it further. I'll drop it if you will, and offer the olive branch (though I don't feel I should have to, since I haven't ridiculed you personally). But I won't hold my breath, either. I've dealt with your kind of person before and it becomes quickly apparent where the line beyond which it is pointless to tread can be drawn. I think you're almost there, if you aren't already.

You might start by considering to offer something other than "Only those definitions used in the time period are valid because I say so." But then I've been trying to get past this the whole discussion. Otherwise just state in plain language that you either aren't willing to or can't rationally back your assertions. I'm going to have to assume this if you don't respond and or clarify, because that's exactly what your posts imply.

OBE? If you insist on using acronyms the least you could do is clarify them. KMA is easy enough to understand in the context of your noble-but-persecuted tone.

Feather

Oh it'd be absurd to deny that various degrees of "establishment" can be drawn--it's contained in the notion that the words are not static and associated with a single meaning.

What I am having difficulty with is how even the most restrictive definition of "establishment" (which I already cut-n-pasted from m-w.com, complete with its etymology indicating it came into usage in 1731) can be applied to this particular case.

The Judge is a "Civil Authority" figure. He has erected an artifact that depicts what is perhaps the second most important document to the Christian church on the grounds of the place where he exercises this authority. He has been granted this authority by the Law (his State's constitution and the resulting laws therein).

The above is fact. There is no "interpretation" involved.

If that doesn't satisfy this: "a church recognized by law as the official church of a nation or state and supported by civil authority" I honestly can't think of anything else, short of the Judge actually physically erecting a church and staffing it with clergy, that would qualify. It's possible to "interpret" it in this strict way, if one ignores that "church" doesn't apply only to physical buildings staffed with clergy but also to the embodiment of the faith itself.

The document--representative at the least--of the faith and therefore the "church" is being "recognized" in an official capacity and given "support" by civil authority (Judge Moore). This isn't debatable. These things actually happened--Moore actually did erect the thing, and it actually does represent the Christian religion.

The only room for argument here is whether the word "church" in the definition is synonymous with "religion" or not. And such a restriction also doesn't apply as the word "church" is defined on m-w.com.

Both sides have an opinion and there's nothing wrong with that. At this point I see no reason to believe FTR's is based on anything but desire and mental masturbation. I'd just like a straightforward answer out of him or, better I suppose, to just drop the whole thing.

fromtheright

Feather,

I'm going to have to assume this if you don't respond and or clarify, because that's exactly what your posts imply.

You don't have to assume, I've already said I'm through wasting my time with you, or wasting your time, whichever way you want it. You will obviously assume what you want to. There are a few of "your kind of person" on this forum, as well, the "Oh, he doesn't respond, therefore I'm right."

I'll remain satisfied that beejay gets it.

OBE: overcome by events

Toto

Keeping up with Judge Moore:

Ten Commandments judge suggests link between Sept. 11 and legal decisions

National Clergy Council runs a 10Commandments Project, including a drive to get a 10C stamp.

atheist_in_foxhole

Judge Moore is on C-Span right now! This guy is absolutely insane!

He's bashing abortion, evolution, gays ("sodomites"), and wants prayer back in school. How did a lunatic like this ever get elected chief justice?

RufusAtticus

You've never been to Alabama have you?

Their constitution states that if there is a budget shortfall the first thing cut is education funding.

Their last governor got elected to bring a lottery to the state to fund the underfunded school system, but then the people decided they didn't want it.

Only last year did AL finally require drivers to carry liability insurence.

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by atheist_in_foxhole
Judge Moore is on C-Span right now! This guy is absolutely insane!

C-SPAN finally has archived this broadcast at its America & the Courts page.

I haven't had a chance to watch much of it yet, but I'm sure it's appalling. Just listening to the guy introducing Moore is making me ill.