trebor

<<<You must be joking. The D.A. admitted to a shamanistic praying to "God" not reconciling "his conscience" to determine his course of action. The quote stands as an admission of this, none more are needed.>>> "Rosenthal has said that he was guided by his conscience. In responding to one of the dozens of e-mails and letters sent to his office by people commenting on the case, Rosenthal said the pro-death-penalty views of the conservative voters who helped elect him in November 2000 had nothing to do with his decision.
'I do all this after seeking wisdom from God,' Rosenthal wrote. 'My oath of office requires me to follow the law without considering public opinion.'"

<<<As a veteran violent crimes investigator with years of trial experience, I sincerely contest your assertion that I am a little naïve regarding the use of rational thought, facts and evidence in court by lawyers. In fact, I would lay claim that your own view is unsupported, cynical and more than likely formed from within the T.V. set.>>> I thought my use of the would clue you that I was exaggerating, but surely you do not claim that lawyers don't play to the jury. And if you've ever sat on a jury, you are well aware that some of them can't comprehend "rational thought, facts and evidence."

<<<The “God thing” should most definitely not be mentioned in court {we shall see} and should not have been mentioned at all in any forum by those directly involved in the trial process. That this happens, at times, does not make it the right thing to do in a court of law.>>> Now, I am willing to say the DA probably would have been better off to keep his mouth shut, but if invoking the name of God {Allah, etc., etc.} as a source of guidance and wisdom constitutes a c/s violation, I dare say no founder or forefather clearly understood separation of church and state {even the one who coined the phrase didn't mind invoking God, e.g., his Letter to the Danbury Baptists, The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom & the Declaration of Independence}.

<<<So, then, you will support the D.A.’s removal or sanction? Please be clear in your response.>>> I support exactly what I said I support in the other post - the people voting him out of office.

<<<My contention is that courts of law, and other tax supported forums should be fantasy-free zones.
Do you agree?>>> Whose version of fantasy, yours or mine?

<<<Then you are being disingenuous in true Christian form.>>&gt, Well, that's a polite way of calling me a liar. Thanks for being polite. see further comments below.

<<<Yahweh wants you to disregard other deities or else {first commandment} vs. We, the people, want you to be free to practice a regard for the deity of your choice or none at all with no entanglements or ramifications {first amendment}.>>> But that is not what you said in the first post. You said, "The First Amendment protects us from those who would rather see it as the First Commandment." How do some see it {The First Amendment} as the first commandment?? I see it {the First Amendment} as a guarantee of freedom to be religious or freedom to not be religious. Do you mean these people really want the biblical first commandment to be in the Bill of Rights instead of the First Amendment? You can go ahead and call me disingenuous again, or you can explain how your sentence means what you say it means - unless your sentence is a figure of speech or something. If so, I was not privy to it.

<<<Hello…is this thing on>>> Yes, is it?? Like "Just because you appear to share a membership in the cult of 'God' with the D.A." seeming to be the subject of the sentence below, in which case, I have absolutely no idea what that sentence means. But, according to your standards, I probably would be a member of "the cult of God". I would claim to be a Christian and a Baptist. Don't know of what "cult division" the DA is a member and don't really care.

<<<Refer back to the ouija board analogy, trebor. Just because you appear to share a membership in the cult of 'God' with the D.A. does not allow conformity with the letter of the law. Statutes should be kept secular for justice to prevail. Which particular gris-gris would offend your intelligence at a trial?>>> Is this discussion about what offends our intelligence or what constitutes a violation of church/state separation? Many things that offend my intelligence {or the lack thereof} do not constitute a c/s violation, in my opinion.

<<<We agree that good public servants should do what is best for the public. Consulting Miss Cleo’s tarot deck or praying to ‘God’{s, etc.} for legal advice should run counter to that.>>> If you show that he sought legal advice from "God", and followed it contrary to the law, I will agree that he is wrong on that count. But please don't just refer to the above quote from Washington Post above. I would like a little more of the man's own words, and not just a brief quote stuck in a newspaper article. I admit that I have not researched this beyond the quote that initially started this topic, so I don't know. In further explanation of the above, I will say that legally that it doesn't matter what God "said", it matters about the law and evidence. Admitting that does not prove somehow the DA's concept of "what God said" and what the law says are necessarily contradictory.

<<<There is a definite difference between disagreement over legal matters and the introduction of superstition into the realm of law.>>> refer above ^

<<<You make the stretch that those who maintain secular or rational sensibility are somehow in similar error. This has always seemed to me to be an attempt to create an enemy whereby cults can then claim some sort imaginary perpetual victimization of their dogma.>>> I said they have bias that affects their judgment. For example, a DA's presuppositions {from whatever source} about capital punishment might affect how he would think about trying a murder case. Should it - no, only the law should, regardless of how he felt about it. Does he have a right to a personal opinion about it? I think so. But the personal opinion should not override the law.

<<<My contention is that it should not occur and that is what most have contended in this very thread. It is not that those in power truly believe in the nonsense of ‘religion’, but that it holds superstitious sway over the minds of the masses and it can be thus manipulated to perpetuate their own personal greed.>>> Whether or not religion is nonsense, American people are free to believe it or reject it. What good is that freedom to believe {or not} if a person is not allowed to be affected by those beliefs {or lack of beliefs}?

<<<Thanks for your perspective, trebor, it shows me how much works still needs to be done for the secular cause.>>> Yes, you've got a hard row to hoe, so you'd better get chopping!

Finally, the fact that you don't believe in "God" {gods, tooth fairies, etc.} does not establish the facts of what is and is not church/state separation. Is choosing to invoke the name of "God" as a source of wisdom and inspiration a violation of c/s separation? If so, did Thomas Jefferson violate it in the very act in which he established it in Virginia??

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: trebor ]</p>

Panta Pei

Let's get right down to it!

"Rosenthal has said that he was guided by his conscience. In responding to one of the dozens of e-mails and letters sent to his office by people commenting on the case, Rosenthal said the pro-death-penalty views of the conservative voters who helped elect him in November 2000 had nothing to do with his decision.
'I do all this after seeking wisdom from God,' Rosenthal wrote. 'My oath of office requires me to follow the law without considering public opinion.'"

We are rehashing the same tired point. Unless you assert that the D.A.’s conscience is, in fact, “God” then there is a distinct difference between the two. The latter being a superstitious theistic concept generally accepted as an omnipotent ‘entity’. For those of this mindset, one who claims contact with said being may be seen as manipulating the dogmatically indoctrinated away from an honest evaluation of the facts and circumstances. This occurs on a regular basis throughout all levels of government. It is, in my view, unacceptable only within the governmental system and I merely speak out against it.

If ‘God’ gave him direction then the D.A. should present ‘God’ via subpoena to confirm this enlightenment. Otherwise, just refer to the case facts and standing legislation on the death penalty issue. How simple is that?!

"I thought my use of the would clue you that I was exaggerating, but surely you do not claim that lawyers don't play to the jury. And if you've ever sat on a jury, you are well aware that some of them can't even comprehend "rational thought, facts and evidence."

No, the use of the clued me into your fallacious assumption of my legal experience in an attempt to weakly promote the notion that you were superior to others of differing opinion and now you are attempting to reverse your error with further disingenuous claims (known here down south as ‘crawfishing’).

Now, armed with the understanding that I am a criminal investigator with absolutely no chance of ever sitting on a criminal jury, you make a further fallacious generalization regarding the behavior of jurors to somehow bolster your claim from entirely no statistic whatsoever. You don’t even claim to have direct jury experience yourself to back your opinion.

Have you ever been given jury instructions?

Test your own honesty, trebor, you will find it lacking.

"Now, I willing to say the DA probably would have been better off to keep his mouth shut, but if invoking the name of God {Allah, etc., etc.} as a source of guidance and wisdom constitutes a c/s violation, I dare say no founder or forefather clearly understood separation of church and state {even the one who coined the phrase didn't mind invoking God, e.g. his Letter to the Danbury Baptists & The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom}."

Jefferson was addressing a hoard of Baptists. He was enough of a survivalist to speak their language in order for his ideal to prevail.

Jefferson, in an open forum, made the following statements regarding his perception:

‘Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.’

I admire his bravery and empathize with his plight during this historical time.

The founders of this country did not exist in a vacuum. They were proponents of an ideal that would not be instantly gratified. For other examples of historic change based on this evolving document refer to slavery, voting, prohibition and woman’s suffrage among the classics.

The bottom line, once again, is that any supernatural absurdity should be kept far from a court of law and government if we expect to find progress as a civilization. We have come a long way these many years and I should hope that further progress is available without magic, gods, demons, elves and fairies. (no offense to all you LOTR fans!)

"I support exactly what I said I support in the other post - the people voting him out of office."

I asked if you would support the D.A.’s removal or sanction, not what the people should do.

You were evasive.

So, would you personally support the D.A.’s removal or sanction?

My preference would be a judiciary instruction to refrain from any further supernatural claims with sanction as a deterrent. Whatever his personal religious convictions are, he is still a skilled attorney and not yet an evangelist

"Whose version of fantasy, yours or mine?"

More evasion. And to think you expect to be taken seriously.

I have said it before and I say it again just for you trebor…reality is that which does not go away when you stop believing in it. I have suggested a removal of fantasy (deity, mythos and mysticism) from the courts, not a replacement with one I generate. What is so horribly wrong with presenting facts and circumstances and evidence?

"But that is not what you said in the first post. You said, "The First Amendment protects us from those who would rather see it as the First Commandment." How do some see it {The First Amendment} as the first commandment?? I see it {the First Amendment} as a guarantee of freedom to be religious or freedom to not be religious {to the extent neither violates the rights of others}."

Yes. The First Amendment protects us from those who would rather see it as the First Commandment.

Since you appear to be having trouble with that simple statement, let me walk you through it slowly…

Those desiring a theocratic Christian government (aka the religious fundamentalists) would support the Ten Commandments as a legal document (ala Judge Roy Moore) in direct contrast to the stated freedoms found in the Constitution and First Amendment.

"Is this discussion about what offends our intelligence or what constitutes a violation of church/state separation? Many things that offend my intelligence {or the lack thereof} do not constitute a c/s violation, in my opinion."

Though, I rather enjoy your fanciful Macarena on the issue regarding your level of superstitious acceptance, you should really try to be less transparent with your willingness to allow any type of supernaturalism into court.

Again, my only assertion is that for justice to prevail consideration should be given to facts and circumstances and not the fantasy realm of omnipotent deities and devils.

Present ‘God’ in court to support the death penalty or refrain from such silliness.

"If you show that he sought legal advice from "God", I will agree that he is wrong {legally} on that count. But please don't just refer to the above quote from Washington Post above. I would like a little more of the man's own words, and not just a brief quote stuck in a newspaper article. I admit that I have not researched this beyond the quote that initially started this topic, so I don't know."

Hey, the door is opened and that is what our discussion is about. If you now wish to doubt the veracity or authenticity of the quote speak now.

"I said they have bias that affects their judgment. For example, a DA's presuppositions about about capital punishment {from whatever source} might affect how he would think about trying a case involving murder. Should it - no, only the law should, regardless of how he felt about it. Does he have a right to a personal opinion about it? I think so."

Trebor, your ability to wander in circles is impressive. Every human has perception based on experience, this does not equate to bias. In my experience, only the case facts and current law should support the proceedings. Every human has a right to their personal opinion based on their experience.

None have said otherwise.

However, the D.A.’s careless comments regarding a case in action are now in the public forum. While not a critical error, it does beg for intellectual debate and judicial consideration. IMHO.

"Whether or not religion is nonsense, American people are free to believe it or reject it. What good is that freedom to believe {or not} if if a person is not allowed to be affected by those beliefs?"

I emphatically agree with you, trebor.

The issue is whether a representative of the State should engage in his or her particular brand of nonsense in a court of law and public forum where it is not only not necessary but is a distraction from an examination of evidence.

Faith, as you know trebor, has nothing at all to do with facts and circumstances, which is the very jurisdiction of court and governance.

So, there is the potential C/S conflict you try dismally to shun.

Watch and learn.

"Yes, you've got a hard row to hoe, so you'd better get chopping!"

It is what I live for and I cherish the good company...hey, wait a minute, I thought the christians were downtrodden!! BS revealed.

"Finally, the fact that you don't believe in "God" {gods, tooth fairies, etc.} does not establish the facts of what is church/state separation. Is choosing to invoke the name of "God" as a source of wisdom and inspiration a violation of c/s separation? If so, did Thomas Jefferson violate it in the very act in which he established it in Virginia??"

I have addressed this issue in this very post and you are obviously grasping at straws.

~ Steve

trebor

First, you should note that you must have copied my post before I edited it, so there may be a few corrections and additions there that you might want to look back over. But there are no substantial changes.
He did not say his conscience was "God", nor did I. He said he sought wisdom from "God". It does not say exactly for what he sought wisdom, but he also claims that he is required to follow the law. If you have no sense of humor, I am sorry. As far as the opinion, I stand by it. Lawyers do play to juries and juries often are fooled by it.
Unless you have been a criminal investigator "forever", you may have sat on a criminal jury; I had no way of knowing. In fact, I have no real way of knowing that you are a criminal investigator, but I believe you are if you say you are. You have given me no reason to doubt you and I believe people until they give me reason to not believe them. I have sat on criminal, civil, and grand juries.
He was only addressing a hoard of Baptists (whom, I might add, were on his side) in one of the three documents mentioned. You have not addressed the issue. This is especially relevant concerning The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom. It sounds a little like you admire in Jefferson that which you abhor in Rosenthal - Jefferson a survivalist and Rosenthal a shamanist.
In the state of Texas, the DA is an elected official. If the citizens find his "God comment" objectional, they can vote him out of office. That is what I originally said I support, and I stand by that. I don't think you'll find the defensive attorney complaining or the judge reviewing this case based on some comment the DA made about praying. I ran searches last night for Rosenthal and the Yates case, and cannot even find this comment referred to anywhere else. But if this was a calculated act to prejudice the jury, it should be subject to review. I could support the review, but cannot support sanction or removal without more evidence. As a investigator, you seem to need little evidence to "convict" Rosenthal.
You did not find my objecting to the presentation of facts and evidence anywhere in this topic.
Since you appear to be having trouble with a simple antecedent, perhaps we should go slowly. In the sentence as written, "The First Amendment" is the only possible antecedent of "it". You are saying they see the First Amendment as the First Commandment. But in your explanation, you are saying they want the First Commandmant instead of The First Amendment. But thanks for explaining it; your explanation makes sense, though I would still contend your sentence does not mean what you explained. I do not agree with those who want the First Commandment enforced as law in our country. I agree with the First Amendment as written, which guarantees those who want to follow the First Commandment may, and those who do not want to follow it are free to not follow it.
I rather enjoy your continued references to me, showing that you had rather focus on that than the subject. see comment above. ^ I began discussing this in the context of my understanding of the Washington Post quote. I cannot argue my point based on how you understand the quote. Facts are, we have no real context in which to place the sentence to be sure. If you find something one way or the other, we can discuss it. I found nothing more on it last night in my search.
You should note that I have not disagreed with you on every point of this. If you want to argue that this was calculated to prejudice the jury (and can prove it), I will agree with you and even agree that he should be sanctioned by the judge. But even that does not make it a church/state separation issue. It is a legal issue specifically relating to this trial.
see above ^ But, did you say potential?
No, you did not really address this issue, but merely tried to deflect it by referring only to Jefferson's Letter to Danbury Baptists. Perhaps you should try also concerning the Declaration of Independence and especially the The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom. So once again, is invoking the name of God {Allah, etc., etc.} as a source of guidance and wisdom in a document such as The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom a c/s separation violation?

[ February 22, 2002: Message edited by: trebor ]</p>

Vorkosigan

So once again, is invoking the name of God {Allah, etc., etc.} as a source of guidance and wisdom in a document such as The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom a c/s separation violation?

No, since the Constitution which mandates C/S separation did not exist at the time of either the Declaration of Independence or the Virginia Act.

Michael

trebor

This is a good point, and would perhaps end most discussion of this in relation to c/s separation if we viewed freedom of and from religion as only a law established by the U. S. Constitution and not also as a concept that is an inherent right of man.

Since you picked up on the way I unfortunately phrased it in the last quote, let me go back and refer to my original statement: The basic context of the original statement is whether the fathers even understood the concept, or if they understood it in the same way as those who would argue that Rosenthal violated separation of c/s. If Thomas Jefferson invoked the name of "God" is the very document he wrote towards its establishment in Virginia, did he clearly understand the concept of freedom of and from religion. And, if we just want to play with words, the phrase "separation of church and state" was evidently not coined until 1802 (14 years after the Constitution was ratified) and did not exist before then. The Constitution actually says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The Virginia Act is an example of a document written by a forefather (who was a leading contributor to freedom of and from religion in America). In it he invoked the name of "God". Was he wrong? Did Jefferson use "shamanism" by conjuring up the name of "God" to a superstitious people? I don't see how one can consistently maintain that Rosenthal used "shamanism" and Jefferson was just "trying to survive." If need be, I don't think it will be too hard to produce documents by fathers after 1788 in which they invoke the name of "God". If we cannot discuss this issue without producing that, I will post some. This looks like a deflection of the discussion rather than an answer to my question.

Beside the point, but some might be interested in the Virginia Act. I think it's in the library here. Here's a little of its flavor: If typed correctly that is the next to last paragraph in the act. I suspect most of those posting on this topic probably agree with this. I do. We may not be as far apart as some suspect, as far as the basic issue is concerned.

[ February 24, 2002: Message edited by: trebor ]</p>