Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RomanNiucumir · 08-04-2002, 12:59 PM

Edited to replace cut and paste with URL, saving only an amount permitted by fair use:

<a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28168" target="_blank">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28168</a>

Quote:

Fact 1: The Declaration of Independence clearly states the premise of the Constitution: "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights."

Newdow replied that the Declaration was not the Constitution and that the Founders did not want any trace of God in the public discourse.

This, of course, is fallacious. The author of the Constitution, James Madison, joined with the first Congress to pass a law paying chaplains for the House and the Senate with public monies . So, not only did the boys want a guy to lead them in prayer -- they wanted guys like Newdow to pay for it.

I also explained to the good doctor that the Supreme Court would overturn this foolish decision by the Ninth because the issue had already been decided in 1983. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court ruled in Marsh vs. Chambers that the state of Nebraska could open its legislative session with a prayer paid for by public funds (that chaplain again).

Said Chief Justice Warren Burger: "The use of prayer is embedded in the nation's history and tradition ... the Establishment Clause (in the Constitution) does not always bar a state from regulating conduct simply because it harmonizes with religious concerns."

Newdow, no slouch in the research department, shot back that Marsh vs. Chambers had been overturned by the Supreme Court in the 1992 case of Lemon vs. Kurtzman. But that is not true. The Supremes simply decided to use other standards in deciding that imposed prayers during public graduation invocations, a completely different set of circumstances, were unconstitutional. They are still praying in Nebraska.

. . .

*****************

Something smells fishy about the 'facts' that he states, but I don't know exactly what. Anyone else know about this? I know the article is a month old, but I had to find the article *and* my password for my SecularWeb account.

[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Toto · 08-04-2002, 01:04 PM

For copyright reasons, please use this URL instead of cutting and pasting:

<a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28168" target="_blank">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28168</a>

Toto · 08-04-2002, 01:17 PM

We know that O'Reilly is full of it.

Quote:

Fact 1: The Declaration of Independence clearly states the premise of the Constitution: "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights."
Newdow replied that the Declaration was not the Constitution and that the Founders did not want any trace of God in the public discourse.

This, of course, is fallacious. The author of the Constitution, James Madison, joined with the first Congress to pass a law paying chaplains for the House and the Senate with public monies . So, not only did the boys want a guy to lead them in prayer -- they wanted guys like Newdow to pay for it.

O'Reilly is full of it here. The use of the term Creator does not imply Judeo-Christian values. And the funding of the Senate Chaplain is one of those compromises that were made between the overwhelmingly secular Constitution and common practice of the era.

But Newdow may be stretching things to say that the founders wanted no talk of God in the public discourse. Many of them mentioned God, but it was not necessarily the Christian God, and they did not legislate that God.

Quote:

I also explained to the good doctor that the Supreme Court would overturn this foolish decision by the Ninth because the issue had already been decided in 1983. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court ruled in Marsh vs. Chambers that the state of Nebraska could open its legislative session with a prayer paid for by public funds (that chaplain again).

Said Chief Justice Warren Burger: "The use of prayer is embedded in the nation's history and tradition ... the Establishment Clause (in the Constitution) does not always bar a state from regulating conduct simply because it harmonizes with religious concerns."

Newdow, no slouch in the research department, shot back that Marsh vs. Chambers had been overturned by the Supreme Court in the 1992 case of Lemon vs. Kurtzman. But that is not true. The Supremes simply decided to use other standards in deciding that imposed prayers during public graduation invocations, a completely different set of circumstances, were unconstitutional. They are still praying in Nebraska.

O'Reilly is probably right that Lemon did not overrule Marsh. But Marsh cannot serve as precedent for the Pledge case. It is quite one thing to have a ceremonial opening prayer in a legislative body, that to establish a pledge to be recited by school children that equates monotheism with patriotism.

Buffman · 08-04-2002, 01:26 PM

<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/detach.htm" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/detach.htm</a>

<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/chaptest.htm" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/chaptest.htm</a>

<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madlib.htm" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madlib.htm</a>

<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madvetos.htm" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madvetos.htm</a>

Bluenose · 08-04-2002, 01:38 PM

The Newdow case followed Lemon 1&2.

The school child distinction is crucial as the legislators are not required to be there at the same time and hear prayer, each and every day for 12 years of education .

Grumpy · 08-04-2002, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Fact 1: The Declaration of Independence clearly states the premise of the Constitution: "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights."

Funny. I thought the premise of the Constitution, as stated in the Declaration, is that "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

This is summarized in the Constitution's preamble: "We the people of the United States... do ordain and establish this Constitution."

Is this bogus "Christian Constitution" argument the legacy of teaching the Mayflower Compact as the founding document of American government? Because that is where you will find references to establishing a new society for the advancement of God.

d'naturalist · 08-05-2002, 12:42 AM

One of the many flaws in the argument regarding the mention of "their Creator" in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, is the ignoring of the fact that in the first paragraph the Founders invoked the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" as justification of their break with England. It is every bit as valid to claim "Nature" as the referenced "Creator" in paragraph two as it would be to claim Jehova, Allah, Zeus, Odin, Vishnu (is that the Hindu creator?), Gaia, or any other source.

To claim "God" as the referenced "Creator" exclusively is dishonest. To claim "God" as referenced is the Christian deity exclusively is wishful thinking at best and diabolic at worst.

[ August 05, 2002: Message edited by: d'naturalist ]</p>

capsaicin67 · 08-05-2002, 06:07 AM

I'm going to go with "diabolic"-----it just has a better ring to it.....

Jamie_L · 08-05-2002, 07:16 AM

Check out the OP in this thread. It indicates that Madison opposed chaplains in Congress on the basis of c/s separation, but went along with it because he was in charge of a young nation that had bigger things to worry about at the time.

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000510&p=" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000510&p=</a>

Jamie

[ August 05, 2002: Message edited by: Jamie_L ]</p>

Bluenose · 08-05-2002, 09:00 AM

" Grumpy:
Is this bogus "Christian Constitution" argument the legacy of teaching the Mayflower Compact as the founding document of American government? Because that is where you will find references to establishing a new society for the advancement of God."

Great point, never thought of it in that light before.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-04-2002, 01:04 PM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	For copyright reasons, please use this URL instead of cutting and pasting: <a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28168" target="_blank">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28168</a>

08-04-2002, 01:26 PM	#4
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/detach.htm" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/detach.htm</a> <a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/chaptest.htm" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/chaptest.htm</a> <a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madlib.htm" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madlib.htm</a> <a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madvetos.htm" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madvetos.htm</a>

08-04-2002, 01:38 PM	#5
Bluenose Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: small cold water flat Posts: 471	The Newdow case followed Lemon 1&2. The school child distinction is crucial as the legislators are not required to be there at the same time and hear prayer, each and every day for 12 years of education .

08-05-2002, 12:42 AM	#7
d'naturalist Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: USA Posts: 245	One of the many flaws in the argument regarding the mention of "their Creator" in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, is the ignoring of the fact that in the first paragraph the Founders invoked the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" as justification of their break with England. It is every bit as valid to claim "Nature" as the referenced "Creator" in paragraph two as it would be to claim Jehova, Allah, Zeus, Odin, Vishnu (is that the Hindu creator?), Gaia, or any other source. To claim "God" as the referenced "Creator" exclusively is dishonest. To claim "God" as referenced is the Christian deity exclusively is wishful thinking at best and diabolic at worst. [ August 05, 2002: Message edited by: d'naturalist ]</p>

08-05-2002, 06:07 AM	#8
capsaicin67 Contributor Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Gold coast plain, sea, scrubland, mountain range. Posts: 20,955	I'm going to go with "diabolic"-----it just has a better ring to it.....

08-05-2002, 07:16 AM	#9
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	Check out the OP in this thread. It indicates that Madison opposed chaplains in Congress on the basis of c/s separation, but went along with it because he was in charge of a young nation that had bigger things to worry about at the time. <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000510&p=" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000510&p=</a> Jamie [ August 05, 2002: Message edited by: Jamie_L ]</p>

08-05-2002, 09:00 AM	#10
Bluenose Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: small cold water flat Posts: 471	" Grumpy: Is this bogus "Christian Constitution" argument the legacy of teaching the Mayflower Compact as the founding document of American government? Because that is where you will find references to establishing a new society for the advancement of God." Great point, never thought of it in that light before.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.