ManM

Just caught <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/nation/story/516894p-4102578c.html" target="_blank">this link</a> off of /. The relevant quote (emphasis mine):

So, what do you all think? Is it time to trash the establishment clause?

Ab_Normal

Nope.

ImGod

I'm sure if they changed "national security" to "alter boy's virginity" the results would have been different.

Toto

This does not involve the establishment clause. It involves what might be part of the free exercise clause. But I think the poll was worded badly. I don't see how mere surveillance of a church or mosque infringes on the exercise of religion, although it does raise some civil liberties concerns.

Look at it this way - should terrorists be allowed to recruit new members and plan terrorist actions with impunity just because they operate inside a mosque or a Christian church or other religious establishment? Most people would say no, and that is the situation (from real life) that this is intended to remedy. The first attack on the World Trade Center was planned by an imam. Christian fundamentalist pastors have been involved in the murder of abortion clinic workers. Should they be allowed to get away with their crimes because they think they are practicing their religion?

There are many instances where the "free exercise" of religion is compromised. You cannot practice polygamy, consume peyote, sacrifice a child, exchange sex for money, or do a number of other activities which are part of some religion somewhere.

4th Generation Atheist

Hmph. How much an individual supports or opposes this idea is probably more or less reflective of how much that individual perceives its "religion" to be in the minority, or at least how much the "religion" in question is supported by the current administration.

Bet if we had a liberal administration, in favor of gay rights, a woman's right to choose, and other RR bugaboos, fundies would support such a policy a lot less than they do now. As long as they can feel it'll mostly be Muslims, or atheists, or NeoPagans(TM), or Satanists under scrutiny, it's fine with them. The mainline churches will likely always be divided on this isssue, based on the various members' individual perceptions of how much "danger" they'd be in.

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: 4th Generation Atheist ]</p>

cartman

You can't? Man, am I in trouble!

ybnormal

That, I suggest, would be like agreeing to the xian argument that, ?god must exist because most people believe that ?god exists... I mean, if some 80% of us are xians, won't xians overwhelmingly be the ones polled? Is ManM in essence, not saying, that since xians favor this, it should now be the law? He may even be teasing the opposite, but still based on the same scary data.

In his sacbee.com article, all you see is one interpretation by one anonymous AP reporter, who is likely, as biased xian as the poll respondents themselves. Even the First Amendment Center, which commissioned the poll, fails to fully address the Who responded? in their own <a href="http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16836" target="_blank">Press Release</a>. It appears that the FAC is mostly focused on trends, and specifically, on the aftereffects of 9/11 in their annual First Amendment polling.

In other words, who are the [b]48 percent of respondents[b] who agreed to this monitoring, who also agreed to so many other scary opinions, that IMO are far more "relevant" than the above quote, in making this a Scary Poll indeed.

Link to the complete <a href="http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16840" target="_blank">
STATE of the FIRST AMENDMENT 2002</a> poll,
which is only available in PDF format at this time.

I always find it interesting when xians slip up like this, and call for increased monitoring of religious activity. They just don't get it! It always seems to boil down to their lack of understanding of the law, or more candidly, their lack of concern for the law, and the Constitution itself.

It is, IMO, just another shinning example of xians openly admitting that their beliefs, or ?god's law, supercede the Constitution, or man's law. Why else do they so strongly argue that the two, are one and the same?

4th Generation Atheist:
As long as they can feel it'll mostly be Muslims, or atheists, or NeoPagans(TM), or Satanists under scrutiny, it's fine with them.

That is where I'm coming from... that xians, in general, rarely see the obvious equality and fairness supposedly built into the Constitution... that xians clearly see themselves as above all that... which is why they are "supremacists"... and yes, I mean ALL xians (but that is for another time)... in other words, that our xians see the Constitution as some extension of their bible... as just more words to be manipulated, and changed if need be, to enforce their perceived supremacy.

This is the Why? behind their searching every personal letter our Founding Fathers ever wrote... searching for sound bytes of proof of an America, based solely on their own xian beliefs.

Toto:
The first attack on the World Trade Center was planned by an imam. Christian fundamentalist pastors have been involved in the murder of abortion clinic workers. Should they be allowed to get away with their crimes because they think they are practicing their religion?

I am suggesting that, like 4th states, xians generally will see this added monitoring as mostly targeting ONLY non-xians. And why should xians not expect that, what with GW and Ashcroft in charge of the monitoring, in this year of the poll, 2002?
With that in mind...

ImGod:
I'm sure if they changed "national security" to "alter boy's virginity" the results would have been different.

The "national security" term is the key in question #37. Why would American xians ever see themselves as a threat to our "national security"? I suggest that to the xians polled, that question clearly meant 4th's Muslims, or atheists, or NeoPagans(TM), or Satanists under scrutiny.

I see that hard core 42% to the exacting question, to be far more significant than the 48% response to the generic, religious groups in question #37. Only the 50% actually understand, or embrace the fairness concept behind our Constitution. And with only that thought in mind, shouldn't the 8% who "Don't know"(don't embrace) be considered more closely aligned with the 42%? If so, you've got a true 50/50 split with those who embrace the Constitution's fairness, and those who do not.

So, who is this 42%, who in essence, believe that the 1st Amendment should be suspended, now? What percentage of our population did it take to elect Bush? Who is this 42%, who for "national security interests", may ask Is it time to trash the establishment clause? What would be the purpose behind that? Who would be behind that?

Would they likely be the same folks who agree with GW's, "to criticize our 'War On Terror' is to criticize America"? That to criticize his administration during wartime, is to criticize America? That for some greater good, some other groups should be silenced? Isn't that, an all too similar-sounding reasoning?

Who thinks like this? Do these "fundies" you guys speak of, comprise a fully 42% of our population? Is the figure nearing 50%? (I'm with Buffman here, where in another thread, I think he wanted these ambiguous "fundies" to be identified.)

So far, the only thing on which I can agree with ManM, is this thread topic wording...

Scary Poll

Indeed! And yeah, I know... I ain't really got to the Who? was polled, yet...