Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Maverick · 06-27-2002, 06:56 AM

Hi Guys!

I know there are many threads already on the pledge subject, but I am looking for help in a debate I am having on a local board. Here's the latest argument from a politically active Libertarian:

Quote:

Second, I can tell from your answer that you didn't read the proposed bill. The First Amendment says this, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."

"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW...." That's it!! This is the limit of what Congress can or should do, NOT make laws regarding the establishment of a STATE religion. Congress shall NOT make laws prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.

Congress has not established a religion nor is it contemplating establishing a religion. There is no law or Constitutional restriction that states that laws must be 'religion neutral' however. Many of the authors of the Constitution believed in God and realized that it is impossible to remove a person from his religion, nor did they wish to. They simply wished to prevent the imposition of a system of beliefs based on religion.

The reason America was unique was that our founding fathers believed that our rights came from "Nature's law and Nature's God," NOT from the King, NOT from the State Religious Institution--the State Church. They wished to remove themselves from any association with either.

The Courts are consistently, illegally 'making law' by their innaccurate INTERPRETATION of the Constitution abridging the free exercise of religion. They 'make law' by interpretating free speech and free exercise of religion as 'Congress making law.'

This is not the first time that the courts have abridged the Constitution by their "interpretations" of the meaning of the Constitution. They need to listen to Thomas Jefferson, one of the authors of the Constitution, when he stated "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

The bill proposed by Rep. Ron Paul is nothing more than an attempt to follow the advice of Abraham Lincoln. ?We the people are the rightful master of both Congress and the courts ? not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution?

By their ruling, the Courts pervert the Constitution.

-HBM

Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land, unto all the inhabitants thereof...

The bill he is refering to is <a href="http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/hr4922.htm" target="_blank">here</a>

Thanks in advance for any help countering this argument. This is not my normal area of expertise.

Maverick

[Fixed tag]

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Maverick ]

Bill Snedden · 06-27-2002, 07:28 AM

Well, for starters, how about pointing out that the premises of the argument offered in the bill have nothing whatever to do with its conclusions.

As an example, this excerpt from "findings", #4:

Quote:

Over the past five decades, rulings of the United States Supreme Court have served to infringe upon the rights of Americans to enjoy freedom of speech relating to religious matters. Such infringements include the outlawing of prayer in schools and of the display of the Ten Commandments in public places. These rulings have not reflected a neutrality toward religious denominations but a hostility toward religious thought. They have served to undermine the foundation of not only our moral code but our system of law and justice.

This is, if you will, the "heart" of the bill. It's nice rhetoric, but it's false.

Prayer has not been outlawed in public schools. Display of the Ten Commandments in public places has not been outlawed either. What has been "outlawed" is such acts when undertaken by the State.

I hear this same fallacious argument so often and I'm always amazed by it. Why are otherwise intelligent people apparently unable to understand the difference between statements made by the President, Senators, Governors, Judges, Schoolteachers, and other officers of the State and the State itself? The First Amendment does not and could not support the removal of religion from public discourse. To my knowledge, there have been no SC rulings that it does. All it does is prevent the State from getting involved in religion.

The language of this bill completely fails to recognize this absolutely crucial point. What this bill would abolish is, in fact, the actual intent of the Founding Fathers: that the State not get involved in religious matters. That right is reserved for the people. So, the people of the U.S. have the right to practice or not practice religion as they see fit, free from government encouragement or discouragement.

Unfortunately for your opponent's flawed interpretation, this does mean that laws must be neutral with respect to religion; they cannot favor religion over non-religion or vice-versa.

Interesting that he claims to be a Libertarian. It seems to me that beliefs such as his are absolutely against Libertarian ideals.

From the Libertarian party platform:

Quote:

We defend the rights of individuals to engage in (or abstain from) any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. In order to defend freedom, we advocate a strict separation of church and State. We oppose government actions that either aid or attack any religion.

Sounds to me like your "friend" is a religious-right-winger masquerading as a Libertarian.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Peregrine · 06-27-2002, 07:39 AM

first off the biggest error in his diatribe: Jefferson wrote the Constitution. That's news to me. It's easy being a constructionist when you still live in the society where the Constitution is written.

In reply take the stance of original intent (he won't argue) and take a look at Madison's writings on religious freedoms and separation. After all he did write the Establishment clause and his opinions are sort of critical to its understanding.

One incident is when Madison was in the House of Burgess (VA) he fought a law that required the State to pay the salaries for clergy. His basic position was that of separation of church and state.

Madison's life prior to creation of the 1st Amendment and his association with Jefferson are critical in the interpretation of the Establishment Clause. And if you do this you will see that separation of church and state is indeed part of the Establishment Clause.

Philosoft · 06-27-2002, 08:42 AM

Ask the Libertarian in question exactly how his religious freedom is being abridged? Does he have the right to have monotheism promoted by the state as a necessary part of an official pledge?

Toto · 06-27-2002, 09:24 AM

This is an attack on the pledge from a pantheist perspective - but I think it covers a lot of arguments. You may find some help there.

<a href="http://www.randomfilm.com/pledge" target="_blank">www.randomfilm.com/pledge</a>

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

06-27-2002, 07:39 AM	#3
Peregrine Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 385	first off the biggest error in his diatribe: Jefferson wrote the Constitution. That's news to me. It's easy being a constructionist when you still live in the society where the Constitution is written. In reply take the stance of original intent (he won't argue) and take a look at Madison's writings on religious freedoms and separation. After all he did write the Establishment clause and his opinions are sort of critical to its understanding. One incident is when Madison was in the House of Burgess (VA) he fought a law that required the State to pay the salaries for clergy. His basic position was that of separation of church and state. Madison's life prior to creation of the 1st Amendment and his association with Jefferson are critical in the interpretation of the Establishment Clause. And if you do this you will see that separation of church and state is indeed part of the Establishment Clause.

06-27-2002, 08:42 AM	#4
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	Ask the Libertarian in question exactly how his religious freedom is being abridged? Does he have the right to have monotheism promoted by the state as a necessary part of an official pledge?

06-27-2002, 09:24 AM	#5
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	This is an attack on the pledge from a pantheist perspective - but I think it covers a lot of arguments. You may find some help there. <a href="http://www.randomfilm.com/pledge" target="_blank">www.randomfilm.com/pledge</a>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.