TakeYouToTasker Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 No, you are wrong, and I see why you are making it JUST about divine right. That opens the door for every other type of religious bigotry imaginable. As I stated, there were Established Religions at the state level. In your interpretation religion could invade every sector of public life...as long as it does not created a divine right monarchy. That's ridiculous. I'm not making it about that, the Constitution, it's historical context, and all associated bodies of work written by the founders do. Further, that fact that all state governments did away with official religions far prior to the adoption of the 14th speaks to the absurdity of your position. Our government, local or federal, should not be promoting any religion as part of it's function and service. To me a prayer in this context is inappropriate. If the members want to pray together, by all means, do it on your own time. The government cannot demand that you check your faith at the door. The government cannot prevent the exercise of your religion. The government cannot tell you when it is appropriate to pray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 I'm not making it about that, the Constitution, it's historical context, and all associated bodies of work written by the founders do. Further, that fact that all state governments did away with official religions far prior to the adoption of the 14th speaks to the absurdity of your position. The government cannot demand that you check your faith at the door. The government cannot prevent the exercise of your religion. The government cannot tell you when it is appropriate to pray. Representatives that cannot do their job in a non secular manner, do not have a place in a government that supposedly has a separation of church and state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Representatives that cannot do their job in a non secular manner, do not have a place in a government that supposedly has a separation of church and state. You'll note that the Constitution, carefully worded as it was, does not contain the phrase "speration of church and state". You'll also note, as I stated earlier in the thread: " Faith is central to the lives of the religious, and as such, their faith is carried with them into every endeavor. They don't put their faith aside when they enter the public square, and important decisions are being made, because faith is central to their morality. Don't like it? To bad, as the only way to remove the influence of religion on government is to forbid the religious from participating in government or voting. Go ahead and make that First Amendment argument. I'll wait." Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion,. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Much like religious texts, the Constitution, and other governing documents, will always be open to individual interpretation. Personally, I think religion should be set aside when governing, especially in a country as diverse as ours. I think it matches up with the intentions of our founding fathers, I think it's best for ensuring fair treatment of our citizens. I think allowing religion within the confines of governing leads to slippery slopes. That all being said, I'm not so offended about the prayers in the OP, that I'd make a big stink about it. I would likely vote for a measure to remove such prayers if it came up, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 (edited) Much like religious texts, the Constitution, and other governing documents, will always be open to individual interpretation. Personally, I think religion should be set aside when governing, especially in a country as diverse as ours. I think it matches up with the intentions of our founding fathers, I think it's best for ensuring fair treatment of our citizens. I think allowing religion within the confines of governing leads to slippery slopes. That all being said, I'm not so offended about the prayers in the OP, that I'd make a big stink about it. I would likely vote for a measure to remove such prayers if it came up, though. If you view the Consitution as a living document, then you're part of the cause of your own problem. There is no settled law, and the Document always has the ability to be interpreted in different way, undoing any and all precedent. Today, the Constitution is interpreted in a way that says that you're wrong, and likely will for decades to come. Think about that. And, again, government will never be secular so long as the religious are allowed to participate in government or to vote, as their faith defines their morality, and is central to their decision making. Edited May 6, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 I do see the Constitution as a living document. I'm not sure if "you're wrong" is much for debate. I could easily say the same right back to you. Rather, I'll settle on "agree to disagree". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 I do see the Constitution as a living document. I'm not sure if "you're wrong" is much for debate. I could easily say the same right back to you. Rather, I'll settle on "agree to disagree". If the Constitution is a living document, intended to be fluid in it's interpretation by the Court, then it's not "agree to disagree". The Court has spoken, and it says that "you're wrong". You've made it the final arbitor, and it has rendered judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Until xyz is challenged in court again, and a new judgment is made. It's how our government has worked (or not worked, depending on your view) for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 If the Constitution is a living document, intended to be fluid in it's interpretation by the Court, then it's not "agree to disagree". The Court has spoken, and it says that "you're wrong". You've made it the final arbitor, and it has rendered judgement. What are you talking about...."Living Document" - its a document that gets interpreted ALL the time - call it what you want. In this particular case - Scotus has overturned about 60 years of what is an acceptable "prayer" or "invocation" content in a public government hearing...it was all settled and seemed to work quite well....now they have not only opened the door to a much more LIBERAL interpretation of what is acceptable....they have also removed all checks and balances to what is OK...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Until xyz is challenged in court again, and a new judgment is made. It's how our government has worked (or not worked, depending on your view) for a long time. You support the process, so stop complaining about the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 You support the process, so stop complaining about the outcome. ...huh? Wait, because I support the process of our government, I'm no longer allowed to speak out against government decisions? That's kind of silly. I support the process. I don't always support the outcome. When I don't, I speak out (freedom of speech, yay!) and vote. Maybe in the future, I'll get an outcome that I support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 (edited) What are you talking about...."Living Document" - its a document that gets interpreted ALL the time - call it what you want. Yes. The modern liberal interpretation of the document as a living, fluid document. In this particular case - Scotus has overturned about 60 years of what is an acceptable "prayer" or "invocation" content in a public government hearing...it was all settled and seemed to work quite well.... Says you, clearly many felt that it didn't work "quite well". Further, there is no such thing as settled law, as you'll note that 60 years ago a Court overturned more than 160 years of what was acceptable. now they have not only opened the door to a much more LIBERAL interpretation of what is acceptable....they have also removed all checks and balances to what is OK...... That door was already wide open, and has been for as long as we've been adhereing to Living Document Theory. So, now that you've opened your eyes to the glaring problems with that philosophy, welcome to the party. ...huh? Wait, because I support the process of our government, I'm no longer allowed to speak out against government decisions? That's kind of silly. I support the process. I don't always support the outcome. When I don't, I speak out (freedom of speech, yay!) and vote. Maybe in the future, I'll get an outcome that I support. Because you support the Living Document Theory, you don't get to complain when it produces outcomes you disagree with, as that theory is designed to produce those outcomes, and eliminates the very idea of "settled law". Further, you don't vote for Supreme Court Justices. Edited May 6, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Because you support the Living Document Theory, you don't get to complain when it produces outcomes you disagree with, as that theory is designed to produce those outcomes, and eliminates the very idea of "settled law". Further, you don't vote for Supreme Court Justices. Yes I do get to "complain". It's part of the free/democratic process. I have a voice, and I can use it. And yes we do vote for Supreme Court Justices, just not directly. Vote a Democratic President in, they'll likely appoint a left leaning judge when given the opportunity. Vote a Republican President in, they'll likely appoint a right leaning judge. It's actually a very important part of Presidential politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 (edited) Yes I do get to "complain". It's part of the free/democratic process. I have a voice, and I can use it. And yes we do vote for Supreme Court Justices, just not directly. Vote a Democratic President in, they'll likely appoint a left leaning judge when given the opportunity. Vote a Republican President in, they'll likely appoint a right leaning judge. It's actually a very important part of Presidential politics. There is virtually no hope of a left leaning judge being appointed to the Court for the next 10 or so years on the low end unless Ginsberg retires before January 3, 2015. I also find it troubling that you believe the Constitution to be first an intrument of politics, rather than the High Law. Edited May 6, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 I don't understand how anyone can not see the Constitution as a living document. The fact that there are amendments tells me that it wasn't set in stone/perfect when written. But ignoring that, judges have and do interpret the text differently all the time. Why? Because much of the text is very general, possibly written to keep it flexible for changing times. Any society that doesn't have some sort of flexibility in law will crumble quite fast, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 (edited) I think a case could be made that my view is consistent with the intent behind the First Amendment - that the authority of the state should not be based on religious considerations. My preference is for a clean, distinct separation, but I recognize that's not supported by precedent, nor is it the only interpretation of the First Amendment. It sounded like you were going down a 14th amendment path which was more interesting than the 1st amendment bit. There would still be hurdles to winning the argument on that ground, but certainly stronger footing than the first. Maybe a blend of the two- 14th imposes 1st on state via selective incorporation (issues w/ applying it to municipality, but maybe) and then back to the 14th for the discrimination argument (equal protection). You might have something there. I don't understand how anyone can not see the Constitution as a living document. The fact that there are amendments tells me that it wasn't set in stone/perfect when written. But ignoring that, judges have and do interpret the text differently all the time. Why? Because much of the text is very general, possibly written to keep it flexible for changing times. Any society that doesn't have some sort of flexibility in law will crumble quite fast, imo. There's the amendment process and there's interpretation of ambiguous language. Then there's judicial activism where "interpretation" is used where the amendment process is proper but not politically convenient. Edited May 6, 2014 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 What's the difference between "interpretation" and "judicial activism"? And who makes that distinction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 What's the difference between "interpretation" and "judicial activism"? And who makes that distinction? Politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Much like religious texts, the Constitution, and other governing documents, will always be open to individual interpretation. Personally, I think religion should be set aside when governing, especially in a country as diverse as ours. I think it matches up with the intentions of our founding fathers, I think it's best for ensuring fair treatment of our citizens. I think allowing religion within the confines of governing leads to slippery slopes. That all being said, I'm not so offended about the prayers in the OP, that I'd make a big stink about it. I would likely vote for a measure to remove such prayers if it came up, though. Everyone is arguing the Constitution here. I'll argu against the point in bold above. In these cased religion is set aside when governing. The prayer happens BEFORE the meeting correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 What's the difference between "interpretation" and "judicial activism"? And who makes that distinction? It's the difference between everyone else and the Ninth Circus Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts